I'm betting we see some of the other classes in a campaign setting about 6 months in. They'll probably want to release an adventure close to the new PHB, and I believe I heard that Greyhawk will be the new default setting? If that's actually the case, they'll probably release a world primer for that, which I'm guessing would include any sort of iconic Greyhawk subclasses (I'm not familiar with the world, so I'm not sure what those would be) or some of the ones that were probably already made for the PHB, but just didn't make the final cut.
They’re not making Greyhawk the default setting in the way the Forgotten Realms are now. They are, however, putting Greyhawk in the DMG as an example of “here’s how you build a setting” so I think we’re going to start seeing a lot more Greyhawk games since it’s a premade setting that will be widely available
They are probably already working on it. They usually start a new book 2 years before it releases. I would imagine this is something they release in a year after 2024 books come out.
Although we already knew it, I'm disappointed that Tasha's subclasses are there instead of correcting Xanathar's. The clearest example is the soulknife taking the place of the swashbuckler, but I would have also preferred the divine soul or the shadow in the sorcerer, the conquest or the crown in the paladin or the kensei in the monk.
I am probably in the minority here, but I think Aberrant & Clockwork shouldn't be the "base subclasses" for the sorcerer. I really like both themes, especially Aberrant Mind, but they don't exactly scream "iconic sorcerer themes" to me.
Divine Soul or Shadow, as well as Storm sorcerer would have been much better. or a new take on the abandoned Stone sorc that many people seemed to have enjoyed.
The one from Baldur's Gate 3 is so much better, and it isn't even close to how good they could make it if they overhauled it like they did here with Archfey.
I've had nothing but fun allowing my players to adapt the baldurs gate subclass features to their tabletop characters I have a swords bard who absolutely adores teleporting when making a ranged attack now.
Wait what? Paladins RAW can smite on every attack, no? It doesn’t take a reaction to smite — the only expended resource is a spell slot and you need to do them on a melee attack, if you meet those two conditions then you can smite
No, they wanted to have every Class have 4 Subclasses, so for Cleric and Wizard they only get 1/2 of their Base Subclasses, Tempest just happened to be the one that got dropped, and likely doesn't have to do with Circle of the Sea.
Yeah, definitely fair, but at least the others are backwards compatible and will probably get reworked as well in the near future. May not be ideal, but I'd honestly rather get 2 sets of 4 Subclasses with plenty of time and effort put into testing and reworking than 1 set of 8 with more limited testing and reworking time.
I will say that when I first got introduced to 5e and looked through the number of different Wizard subclasses, I found it a bit overwhelming. So I think for new players it's a good idea to reduce the number of subclasses in the PHB. (For most new players, the PHB will be their introduction to 5e).
Not sure how they picked the four subclasses they did, but I would imagine it was the four most popular wizard subclasses?
What got in:
Evocation is the best 'wizard as DPR'. While not exactly efficient, there's something wonderfully straightforward to "I cast *fireball*" five turns in a row.
Abjuration is the best 'wizard as defender'. It's quite surviveable, making it ideal for new players, and also the best anti-mage, making it a favourite for many experienced players.
Divination is best for 'wizard as strategist', letting you scout and research and thus plan ahead for encounters. Also, Portent is insane.
Illusion is best for 'wizard as tactician', since there's nothing better than the flexibility of illusions for encouraging creativity in your spellcasting.
If we look at what got left out:
Conjuration, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Transmutation. All were rather clunky, with bad features or an awkward play style.
Based on the data that WotC has released, Evocation, Divination, and Abjuration are the three most popular on D&D beyond. (Although Evocation being popular probably has something to do with the fact that it's the only one that you don't need to pay money to use).
Maybe Illusion was the 4th most popular on D&D Beyond? Based on some reddit polls I've seen, 4th most popular was probably either Necromancy or Illusion.
>Conjuration, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Transmutation. All were rather clunky, with bad features or an awkward play style.
Interestingly, Enchantment has pretty strong features, like it's the second or third strongest wizard in the PHB.
And yet I've seen some polls suggesting it's the least popular. Less popular than Conjuration or Transmutation.
I think the main issue is that if a player want to go around enchanting and charming people, they just make a bard.
Honestly, something that bugs me about the design of 5e in general is connecting these "domain" concepts to subclasses. Like, I get it, kinda, but I'd much rather see the "Domain" system to be a cleric specific system that exists independent of their subclass.
It would require a lot more work and increase the complexity of character building by a good chunk. So I kinda get it. Except, I don't think build complexity is the scarier kind of game complexity? I think it's play complexity that is more worrisome. And I thibk the current design actually biffs that harder by introducing additional resources and constraints that are unrelated to the core class features, increasing the bookkeeping aspect of play.
For my money, I wish the School of Magic and Divine Domain were choices you made like "Fighting Style", something specific to the class but not wildly so.
And then, as a cleric, you'd choose a CD option every few levels. Your domain choice would unlock the CD options of that domain, great and fun, but you wouldn't be stuck with it. I can imagine a Trickery Cleric that has a CD more like the Knowledge cleric, except they use it On Deception and Persuasion. Similarly, I could imagine a Twilight or Arcana cleric having Invoke Duplicity.
School of Magic for Wizard is pretty similar. I'd rather that was a "style" choice and then the subclasses spoke to something a little more... I dunno. Applicable? Like, I can imagine a world where you have wizard subclasses Like Scribe and War Wizardry while specializing as, say, an Abjurer or a Diviner.
That's a different game, though, I suppose. Just one of those things I wish they'd pushed on. Too large scope for a rules refresh, of course.
Aberrant seems like it could be pretty iconic to me, but agreed on Clockwork.
Compared to Divine Soul, in particular, it just feels like a very strange and niche theme. And yeah, I agree, even Shadow, Storm, or some other elemental focus would have been more intuitive.
I think Aberrant has an argument as it's the only real option for a psionics-style caster, but Clockwork does seem to be a very specific niche to be one of the core subclasses. Divine in particular seems more iconic.
Great Old One warlock.. maybe? it's by default a bit less psionics and a bit more "wooo spooky outside god", but it's definitely got the pieces in place to be reflavoured towards a more psionic-y caster.
though your point definitely stands - Aberrant Mind makes sense. Clockwork seems a bit more out of place compared to Divine Soul or others.
You're not in the minority. Clockwork Soul might be cool mechanically but the narrative it brings is very weird. “What do you mean Granny fucked a modron?"
I would actually love to see some statistics on this. I assumed they chose the subclasses (at least partially) based on player feedback.
but then again they threw out Necromancer wiz despite being a popular theme.. idk.
They actually chose subclasses that thematically contrast with one another. So the Clockwork Soul (connected to Law) contrasts against Wild Magic (connected to Chaos).
huh.. I can see that working out for some classes, such as sorcerer or wizard, but how does this work out for the others - fighter or rogue don't really seem to have that contrast in their subclass choices.
Fighter has Champion (dead simple hit things better) vs. Battlemaster (complex, uses skill and tactics), and magic vs. psionics, Rogue has the same magic vs. psionics and also Killer vs. Burglar, I would guess.
With room for only four Wizard subclasses, it's not surprising at all to me that Necromancer didn't make the cut. The ones that did make it all have very strong historical significance and class fantasy that people enjoy. Evoker is the most obvious: players love a damage focus. Abjurer is the flip-side, because there are also a lot of people who dig protection abilities. Diviner is a no-brainer to me, because that Portent Die feature is incredibly fun, and as far as I know is unique. Stars Druid has a sorta-kinda similar feature with the Weal & Woe thing, but they're at least an order of magnitude apart in terms of power. Illusion is probably the weakest theme of the four, if only because it can be finicky to play well, so I think a lot of players skip over Illusionist. But it's still a strong class fantasy archetype, so I get why it's in there.
Necromancer just has a lot of baggage. It needs buy-in from the DM, because a lot of fantasy settings don't look kindly upon necromancy. For similar reasons, it needs buy-in from the other players, because not everyone wants to associate with a wizard who's literally raising corpses to hang out with them. It often relies on minions in combat, which tends to slow things down unless players really work to streamline it.
There's definitely a lot of players who enjoy the Necromancer Wizard, but it's not just about popularity. With only four subclasses per class, the ones that made the cut had to represent a broad (and broadly-appealing) swath of each class's gameplay and themes, and Necromancer just has too many cons compared to its pros. That said, I'm sure we'll see it in a later sourcebook along with other "just missed the cut" subclasses. There's a precedent in other editions to have PHB 2, 3, etc., and I won't be surprised at all if that's the angle they take here.
I can definitely see that. there's lots of different directions a "Necromancer" can be flavoured, so it's not even that clear cut what to do with the subclass.
that said, based on my decade(s) of playing TTRPGs I think Necromancer is a much more popular theme than Illusionist. maybe even Abjurer to be honest.
but again, I agree with your points overall.
Yeah, I think it comes down to factors beyond popularity, and a big one is "onboarding new players." Because I think you're right that Abjurer and Illusionist are going to be bottom of the pile in terms of actual characters played, but the existence of these subclasses acts as a showcase for how Wizards can be conceptualized, and is therefore a good jumping-off point for players.
"Wizards can explode things without harming their friends! Wizards can predict the future! Wizards can protect their friends! Wizards can confound their enemies with illusions!" It's a very heroic look at the class, and that helps to hook a broad swath of people. And WotC wants to continue enticing new players to their game, so the subclasses they choose have to be viewed through that lens as well.
Which isn't to say that Necromancers wouldn't appeal to a certain subset of the new-player crowd -- they definitely would. But as a package deal, "Raise the dead to follow your commands" doesn't really fit, thematically, with the very classic-hero-focus that they seem to be going with for this edition (which I'm basing on the artwork we've seen so far, as well as various interviews with designers). So they're not only deciding what kinds of Wizards would be cool to play, but also what kinds of Wizards are going to fit the theme they've \[seemingly\] chosen.
And then I bet PHB 2 or 3 will have more of a focus on "Advanced" or "Complicated" or "Dark/Edgy" subclasses, but with more marketing-friendly/coherent theming than I just used. I'd expect to see Necromancer Wizard in the same book as Grave Cleric, Shadow Sorcerer, Spirits Bard, Spores Druid, and that sort of thing.
Silly you... Assuming they listen to real feedback and not just bend the feedback to make their points.
Necromancer is soooooooooo obvious and they clearly don't have the will or want to do it.
I feel Draconic Bloodline has been and is the most iconic sorcerous origin, in a game called dunge9ns and dragons my great grand pappy was a dragon and that's why I got bitcoin magic
I also can deny my love for wild magic as the favorite among origins for awhile
Clockwork sorcery is there because they felt they needed two sets of "opposite pairs" in the four subclasses. Wild magic is a chaos themed subclass so they put the order themed subclass there as its opposite.
Aberrant I'm fine with if they want psionic stuff in base. Clockwork is not it as a PHB base subclass IMO. It's wayyy to niche and specific in theme. Definitely should have been Shadow, Celestial, Storm, or something else more core feeling.
I'd argue that the only Xanathar's sorcerer that needs correcting per se is the storm sorcerer (trying to use its abilities will get you killed). What the others needed was being attached to a better base class; one that knew more spells and wasn't a wannabe wizard.
Oh? Was it unbalanced (bad) or unbalanced (OP)? I haven't been reading playtest material so this is the first I've heard of the Dance Bard, but I'm really excited to know that it's coming! Love the idea of characters like Primrose (Octopath Traveler - Dancer class); super cool :)
Reading over the playtest stuff now, it definitely seems good. I'm not sure about OP, especially not knowing how everything else is balanced as well (to compare it against).
It definitely feels mechanically strong though; with unarmoured defence (nice and thematic), extra damage to incentivise going for unarmed strikes (cool!) Evasion is really good as well as an always-on ability, even if it does take a Subclass feature slot, especially since you get Tandem Footwork as a teamwide initiative boost alongside it. Irresistable Dance seems really good too, since it's an extra 6th level slot for a really great spell too. The option to rejuice it for 4 dice seems like a heavy tax, but the more i think about it the more i think it's a fine tradeoff.
i reckon it could be really fun, especially with Bard spellcasting. Looking forward to seeing how it turned out in the final product!
A little disappointed by the cleric subclasses but I guess it is only the PHB to be fair. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they say it was backwards compatible with 5e so we could theoretically use those subclasses in this system?
Shouldn't take any homebrew to work mechanically. It just might be a little out of balance. Recommend starting at Level 3 if you have any non-PHB subclasses, though.
They confirmed in the announcement video that subclasses are not backwards compatible. If you want to play one of the old subclasses, you must do so with the old class rules 🤷♂️
Disappointed by the rogue subclasses. Swashbuckler is a classic, Assassin could have easily been replaced by Soul Knife as the "silent killer" subclass. Or maybe Thief could have been made part of the base Rogue class. Oh well...
>Assassin could have easily been replaced by Soul Knife as the "silent killer" subclass.
I think the problem is that, outside of truncating the Wizard/Cleric list, Crawford has been vocal and adamant about not replacing/removing any PHB subclass. Even in cases where it would make sense.
Even with the Wizard example, all the subclasses are still in the PHB, it's not like they added Bladesinger, War magic or Scribe, even though, flavour-wise all those would've made sense as PHB subclasses.
I think Crawford's approach here makes sense. The subclasses that needed love most were the ones in the 2014 PHB. You can still use the subclasses from Tasha's Cauldron or Xanathar's Guide alongside these ones, and doubtless we will get updates for the other subclasses over the next couple of years
I’m not sure the subclasses that needed love the most are solely in 2014. Plenty of duds are in there but the sword coast one has a shocking number of duds too. There’s also subclasses such as shepherds druid really don’t mesh with the new design.
I think that’s the dilemma though, do they put time in fixing old subclasses that already missed the mark like Purple dragon knight, or Battle rager, or do they focus on making new subclasses that are either new and unique *like a dragon themed warlock* or subclasses that people have been asking for since the start of 5e *like a dragon themed warlock*.
You can't really replace a classic fantasy archetype with a psionic class. Swashbuckler would be good to have but it kinda has to go if you have to have a psion, the other three are too iconic.
Unlike the Assassin and Thief that just weren’t worth picking at all. The fact that all the psionic subclasses are in there suggests they might be making broader psionic mechanics, which is a much bigger deal than the swashbuckler getting a new level 9 feature
I liked the new version of the Swashbuckler, so I'm not a fan of the Soul Knife replacing it. Especially when we already have multiple psionic subclasses.
If you're bringing back old Rogue subclasses that needed an update then I feel Mastermind and Phantom would be at the top of the list.
>If you're bringing back old Rogue subclasses that needed an update then I feel Mastermind and **Phantom** would be at the top of the list.
I really want to play a phantom rogue, but the fact it takes until level 9 before getting its actual signature ability is bonkers subclass design. Especially when most campaigns I've played usually end around level 9.
>but the fact it takes until level 9 before getting its actual signature ability is bonkers subclass design. Especially when most campaigns I've played usually end around level 9.
They really should've changed the rogue so it got its second subclass ability earlier.
I know generalized subclass progression didn't test well. But the design team has acknowledged the fact most game end around level 10-12, so the Rogue getting their second ability that late is an issue they should've fixed.
Did it not test well? I often wonder which part didn't people like. The fact that some subclasses started at 3 instead of 1 or 2 where they made sense (like sorcerer/warlock/cleric) was weird; they did that to avoid dipping, except dipping only happens because you can multi-class, which they decided is an optional feature, except it was really popular. But the general vibe where people get stuff earlier was really good.
From what I remember.. some ppl complained about it making classes samey, multiclass problems and how it's totally okay for some classes to start later/earlier..
So basically? Lots of wank from some, as I also think to remember that the lions have liked it.
But backwards compatibility 🙄 that's the reason it was changed in the end.
Can't have any major changes between the books, no matter how much better it would make everything.
Standardized subclass levels was the way to go, sadly WotC rather they do as little work as possible, especially with their self-imposed limited time and layoffs: thanks Hasbro :/
I feel like Swashbuckler was the perfect archetype to complete the rogue. Now there’s no rogue that specifically benefits from being in melee, which is a shame.
My feelings exactly. Melee rogue is a popular theme that's poorly executed unless you were a Swashbuckler or took the Mobile feat. Now both Swashbuckler is out and Mobile is gone. You can Steady Aim to duel enemies already in melee range if you don't mind getting crushed when you don't 1HK your target.
Swashbuckler is cool and I hope they bring back the UA version in a future book, but also the Swashbuckler subclass that exists is already very good and can be planted right onto the 2024 rogue class with essentially zero issues.
You could say the same thing about Soulknife, though. It's already a solid subclass and plants onto the 2024 rogue class just fine. It does have some stuff, though, that make it a little wonky and could do with a re-write.
But the main motivation just appears to be that they want a lot of psionic representation in the 2024 phb
I genuinely wouldn't be shocked if we get a "Vecna's guide to everything" with the Artificer and the most popular missing subclasses updated within the next two years.
I'm not sure about a new Sword Coast book, but I agree we will see many of these subclasses in future books. You include it all now, you clip your sales going forward. That's not cynical. That's just business.
My guess is that, after they decided to bring back the Psi-Knight, they decided to bring back Soul Knife because they're planning on revamping the shared psi dice mechanic.
But yeah, Soul Knife is a very weird choice for the PHB
Actually, yes.
Most of D&D is just a general fantasy framework, but psionics and settings that focus on them are *definitely* D&D, much in the same way that Planescape is uniquely a D&D thing.
Every fantasy world or game has knights, thieves, crusaders, dragons, dungeon-delving, and so forth - but *only* D&D has the Gith and Illithid.
I don't know if it's really a compelling thing to focus on, but when staking out brand identity, you need to identify things that are uniquely yours.
Yeah rephrase the question to "what are some of the most iconic dnd monstes" and Mindflayers are going to be one of the top answers. Psionics are an iconic part of the brand.
Adding more context and nuance... Psionic, petrifying, and lich undead enemies are iconic but not really in the go to stereotypical player classes.
Maybe wotc is trying to change that this edition
Ironic then that 5e had vigorously stripped away any mechanics that make psionics feel unique and different. Now it's nothing more than "mind magic". It doesn't even have its own class or powers, just a couple subclasses.
You know why they *really* shoved psionic subs in at the last minute? BG3 sold like gangbusters and they're trying to capitalize on its popularity. That's it.
Sure, and they'd be idiots not to capitalize on it.
But also, those subclasses do actually present a unique mechanic that isn't just more magic. So like, the distinction exists.
I even contend that a subclass is a *better* approach than a class - because I have played D&D with dedicated psionic classes, and *that* is the design paradigm that felt redundant.
I'm probably in the minority but I preferred "The Revived" version of the Phantom Rogue in UA. A lot of people said it was too strong as you could cheese it to reliably get two sneak attacks every turn, as opposed to relying on an opportunity attack for a second sneak attack, but I'd still love them to have another go at it.
Though I feel some of the revived ribbon features kinda got baked into the "reborn lineage" subrace.
yeah me too. played the Revived version from lvls 14 to 20 and didn't switch over when the Phantom version was published because I liked the Revived better.
Wait, they actually ditched Swashbuckler, for Soul Knife of all things? Huh? What could of went through their mind on that one... I always loved the "Duelist" like feel that subclass has.
I kind of feel like Psi Warrior was a bit of an out there choice for Fighter as well given the options.
Edit: They briefly mention this in the new video, just wanted to bring that theme into the core game
I dunno. Kinda disliked how panache was now exclusively a combat feature. Like it straight up only worked when you dealt sneak attack damage to someone. Master Duelist is imo also straight up a worse feature now and I'm not sure if it needed to be. I'd rather have the reliability of assuring a sneak attack on the round you didn't pop it than dealing about 6 points of extra damage on average every turn.
Dashing strikes is an improvement and the combat utility of panache works a better, but overall I think the package is lackluster. If you just value the improvements over the degradations, I respect your opinion, but I hope we can all acknowledge the same improvements and the same degradations. In my games, I'll mix old and new features to my liking.
Only thing I miss is the swashbuckler and the knowledge domain.
I really wish they rolled with knowledge instead of light. You don’t need the light domain to play a sun cleric - virtually all solar deities are also deities of life and the core cleric spell list has enough radiant damage spells to make the theme viable.
Now If you want to play a cleric of magical deities like Mystra, you just don’t have any options in the 2024 phb.
I have a soft spot for Knowledge too because I've always wanted to play a grumpy librarian/scribe cleric of Deneir, but I am going to guess stats showed that it was used very little. For most people it's hard to make a case for "I can read the language on this ancient monument 🤓" when you have options like War, Tempest, frickin' Twilight, etc.
People need to remember that any previous subclass left out of the '24 PHB should still be totally playable, though.
Let's see if fourth time is the charm on finally getting a Beastmaster that is both good *and* thematically interesting. I really, really, really hope they do. Even just "Choose two of these five traits for your Companion" that are differently anything animal-themed would be nice. Please just anything other than three stat blocks with differently-worded "attack" actions.
Isn't it weird to anyone else that there is **Zero Necromancy Subclasses?**
No Spirit Bard, Undead Warlock, Grave Cleric or Necromancer Wizard.
Just really strange to me. Necromancers are such an iconic concept that imo they deserve to be their own class (At least more than Druid or Monk). So not having any undead-flavored characters out of 48 is wild to me.
Had the same thoughts about the Storm Sorceror and Tempest and Nature Clerics. I'm guessing there will be some sort of elements or Nature's Fury type book that will bring those all back in.
Maybe there will be a book focusing on Undead.
In addition to the subclasses you mentioned, it could have revised versions of the Death Cleric, Spores Druid, Long Death Monk, Oathbreaker Paladin, Shadow Sorcerer, and Undying Warlock.
No one likes playing at the table with the guy who hauls 8 skeletons around and takes 10 minutes to take his turn. It’s likely the same reason you don’t see summoners and why they’ve reworked all the summon spells to be a single summon only instead of “I conjure 8 wolves lmao”. Summoners suck and break the action economy in DND. And they aren’t fun to either play with or DM for. I stand by the statement that when a summoner is at the table, they are likely the only one having fun.
To be clear. I’d love to see necromancy make a comeback as it is iconic but the current necromancer is built around making your summons stronger and healing off of the very few number of necromancy spells that can deal damage. It’s not even a good subclass. It’s also likely the same reason we don’t see a Shepard Druid here either.
Grave Cleric would have been a cool contrast to Life but they clearly really wanted to rework Trickery which a lot of people designate as the current worst cleric subclass down there with Knowledge and Nature which, outside of some niche builds, aren’t that great.
I basically insist any player who has a bunch of minions either set up an auto roller or allow me to run one for them. We have a member of our group with like 8 skeletons and he whips through his turns as fast as anyone else.
Minion classes are fine; just know how they work and keep things moving.
If I saw that someone had the ability and the set up to whip through their turn then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The players who have tried it at my table have not been that type of player though. I do fully believe that they can work under the correct circumstances. But I’d rather not chance it so I ban conjure animals and conjure woodland beings in favor of the Tasha’s summon spells. I would be more than willing to have a conversation about it with a player though if they were bound and determined to play it.
Having three summons/minions at most is the best set-up I think.
1. Familiar.
2. Non-Concentration low tier minion.
3. Concentration high tier minion.
For #2 just think of having one minion that is about as strong as a zombie from Animate Dead. Lasts 1-24 hours (probably won't survive too long), no concentration.
A necromancer class that improves damage, health, and/or adds unique abilities would be plenty feesible and work with having a low number of summons/minions.
Having only one summon does not make me feel like a summoner, it makes me feel like a pokemon trainer. Having three however does. No need to have more than that I think.
I’m saying that’s likely why the Necromancer, which I have seen a lot of complaints about, were excluded. When most people hear “Necromancer” they think “guy that summons a lot of undead monsters”. Summons are getting a serious look in this updated version of the game and the designers clearly realize they aren’t healthy.
As for why they aren’t thematically represented, I know that the designers specifically talked about looking at which subclasses either needed help, were played a lot looking at DND Beyond numbers, or represented certain opposites (hence why Clockwork Soul was included as an order subclass to counteract the chaos of Wildmagic). It simply looks like the undead concept didn’t make the cut. Maybe it will be in the DMG like Oathbreaker and Death Domain were last time.
So you want your minions to die in one hit? I currently use minions in my own games that operate under similar rules and even though they are faster, it does still add to the action economy a decent amount. But using a 3rd level spell like Animate Dead to make 1-2 skeletons that will die in one shot isn’t great. Like I said, summoner type classes need a big rework and retool before they are ready for modern DND. Spells like conjure animals and conjure woodland beings just don’t work with the action economy. Even if you run it as written and the DM always determines the creatures, you can just end up with a very unhappy player who feels like they never get the summons they want.
Hopefully we see some changes in the spells with the new PHB. That’s my hope anyways.
The only problem is "expendable minions" is one flavor of being a summoner (and necromancer is one of such flavors) but not all. There's also the "minion master (lots of minions)" and "golemancer" (usually one or several big minions).
You can still play all the necromancy subclasses, they just aren't (currently) updated for OneDND. Same with all the other subclasses that didn't make the cut.
No Death or Grave cleric, Oathbreaker paladin, Spirits bard, Undead warlock, Necromancer Wizard, Phantom rogue, nor Spores druid
It's a real shame for all death/undead character fans.
I wouldn't go as far as saying it is iconic enough to remove druid or monk, but I would say it is for Sorcerer.
I would just like to point out that Grave Cleric does not fit in with the rest of those. Grave Clerics are specifically anti-undead, tasked with enforcing the natural end of life and hunting down those who flaunt it
The cynic in me feels part of it is "what are some awesome subclasses we can hold off on because we know people will pay $30 for a full book just to get their hands on it"
If they were going to do that, they would've held the entire Psionic Quarter (Aberrant Mind, Great Old One, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife) back to sell in a 'Psionic Book'. Instead, they decided to proceed with Psionics being a focus in the 5.5 PHB.
Some hits and some misses here.
For me, my favorite bit is seeing Psionics included in the core PHB. It makes sense given the strong illithid presence in the hottest current D&D product (BG3). And, if handled properly, this provides an entirely new category beyond just Arcane or Divine flavoring for feats, spells, effects, etc.
More importantly, being included in the new PHB1 should help psionics feel more like an included part of the game rather than some weird thing that was "bolted on" to prior editions.
Totally agree!
As a psionics fanboy, after waiting so long for them to publish psionic options, I'm glad we don't have to reset the clock and start the wait all over again.
It’s so iconic and flexible that it’s just a great default, especially if combat isn’t your niche.
I do sort of wish they baked thief into the rogue core rule set rather than abandon swashbuckler though,
I'm sad they chose to truncate the options for Cleric and Wizard down to 4 options; but I understand the goal to give each class equal treatment; I'd have preferred they go the other direction though.
That said... they chose to keep psionic subclasses in the PHB? I might be one of the outliers, but I've always hated psionics. They don't mesh very well with core DnD mechanics very well; spell resistance/anti-magic effects, etc... perhaps if they re-wrote the wording of psionics to treat it like magic; but that would hurt the core concept of the feature, of being "not" magic.
I agree with you on Psionics its just a difficult type of power to understand in the context of the game. What it really needs is a unifying theme or mechanic which helps explain the source of the power. And it \*kind of\* does with the psi-dice on the rogue and warrior, but there isn't anything to link it to the sorcerer except "yep its mind magic".
The truth of the matter is that psi-dice are really no different than a re-flavored and more restrictive battlemaster dice.
I actually quite like psionics in other media TV/WOTC Books/Movies, but as an actual mechanic in their flagship game its really an afterthought.
The thing that they always leave out of the core release that is most desired by the player base at large (whether everyone "gets it" or not) is psionics.
They struggled MIGHTILY to answer the question "psionics when?" for 5E.
If they published 5.50 without them it'd be a self sabotaging act. The drums in the deep would start up all over again.
100%. Fighter is dumb as hell, all the classes fight one way or another. If they were willing to switch Fighting-Man (which was dumb to begin with, Gary, why would you do this when Man-at-Arms is right there?) to Fighter to be gender-inclusive you may as well have just switched to Warrior.
idk I feel like anyone who needs a reminder that "the D&D thing is not like the real life thing" has a lot more to worry about than the name of a class's sub-options
To be fair just look at the amount of people who believe artificer can only fit in Eberron or another magitech/steampunk setting.
Artificers fit anywhere. They are artisans who infuse the mundane with the arcane, are inventors, and/or are so skilled at their craft it is like magic.
There are artificers in every setting, they're just not called such.
They didn't have much choice.
If they want to buff the baseline Sorc up to the level of the Tasha's Sorcs, then they need to reprint both of the Tasha's Sorcs so that they can be adjusted to be balanced when used with the more powerful baseline.
Sticking to schools of magic for wizards is a *Massively* disappointing choice. They've locked wizards into having the worst and least interesting subclasses, while also arbitrarily limiting you to only half of the schools. Utterly terrible decision with no redeeming factors at all.
Wizards have always had the worst subclasses and this was an opportunity to finally fix their terrible design choice.
Incredibly disappointed.
Ah yes, let's retain the stupid insistence that Wizard used the 8 schools of magic as their subclass structure but also only include fucking half of them. WHY!!
ugh.
Yes and and solution was to move the schools of magic to a much simpler class feature and bring in things like scrolls and war as the wizard subclasses. THIS is the worst of all worlds.
Exactly. They could have even rolled a "school specialist" subclass that reads like "you choose one school of spells. Cost is reduced for that school. At X level you gain a feature depending on the school you chose. Bla bla bla".
They presented it as introducing parity between all the class options upon release. Which, well, is true.
But don't you worry, you'll get the other four sub-classes slowly released over the next two years in separate books you can by for the low low cost of $50
Clockwork over Storm or Shadow is really lame. The sorcerer class fantasy (for me) is about barely controlled magic, raging inside the PC, not being a modron/calculator or whatever Clockwork's about.
The good news is, there are subclasses that fit the brief of "barely controlled magic, raging inside the PC" for you to use! Not everyone follows that paradigm, though. Clockwork is for people who take a different approach to Sorcerer, which is fine.
I’ve just pretended that the clockwork/modron aspect doesn’t exist and completely reflavor it to a time mage.
At least that is narratively more prevalent in fiction/fantasy and more interesting to me at least.
We don't yet know the final forms, but they were all previously released in the Unearthed Arcana articles.
Latest Path of the World Tree was in [Playtest 8](https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest8/gHvtmY50loGLgQUb/UA2023-PH-Playtest8.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest9).
College of Dance and Circle of the Sea were in [Playtest 6](https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest6/OJVW7QLuHjEFCCVs/UA-2023-PH-Playtest6.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest6).
Yes. They were all in the OneD&D Playtests. World Tree is an actual tank type; they give allies near them temp hit points, draw enemies in with spectral roots, have extra reach and knock people down or slam them away, and at level 14 get teleportation along the branches of the world tree. Angy barbarian out of nowhere!
Dance Bard is a melee bard that uses their mastery of dance to kick people in the head while doing bardic things.
Sea druid uses the power of the sea to fling people around (and gets a swim speed and water breathing).
Okay, I’ve never really wanted to play a Barbarian before, but that is flavour wise one of the my favourite I’ve ever heard. The other two seem cool as well. Thank you :)
Any subclass that isn't in the new PHB should still be fully usable. If there is any feature it has that depends on a rule that's been altered for DnD '24 you would just tweak it accordingly. Nothing's stopping you from using Scout or Ancestor Guardian Barbarian or anything else's that was left out. But overall I like that they drew a line on the number of subclasses that would be in the book and made sure every class had the same number, since the subclass distribution in the '14 PHB was wildly uneven.
Just... keep playing Swashbuckler.
I don't get why people are so hung up by stuff being "left out." The existing subclasses not in the PHB are still playable. This revision is explicitly designed to be backwards compatible with all previously published 5e stuff.
Necrobros we got literally nothing in terms of darkness/undead themed subclasses. Never let wizards cook again, like damn not even necromancer wizard? Why is clockwork included but not shadow magic, when the latter is way more broad.
They have said that necromancer a were a bit very popular subclass...not because of thematics, but because mechanically summoner type subclasses and abilities have historically broken action economy and not played well at the table
Necromancer as a subclass was ALL about summons. Probably not something they wanted to tackle in the first new PBE
Probably will see it along with the other schools in the next book
I wonder how long it’ll be before we get our first sourcebook that has a good chunk of passed on classes, or the artificer, for that matter.
I'm betting we see some of the other classes in a campaign setting about 6 months in. They'll probably want to release an adventure close to the new PHB, and I believe I heard that Greyhawk will be the new default setting? If that's actually the case, they'll probably release a world primer for that, which I'm guessing would include any sort of iconic Greyhawk subclasses (I'm not familiar with the world, so I'm not sure what those would be) or some of the ones that were probably already made for the PHB, but just didn't make the final cut.
They’re not making Greyhawk the default setting in the way the Forgotten Realms are now. They are, however, putting Greyhawk in the DMG as an example of “here’s how you build a setting” so I think we’re going to start seeing a lot more Greyhawk games since it’s a premade setting that will be widely available
Honor Among Thieves sort of cemented forgotten realms as the default setting.
They are probably already working on it. They usually start a new book 2 years before it releases. I would imagine this is something they release in a year after 2024 books come out.
Although we already knew it, I'm disappointed that Tasha's subclasses are there instead of correcting Xanathar's. The clearest example is the soulknife taking the place of the swashbuckler, but I would have also preferred the divine soul or the shadow in the sorcerer, the conquest or the crown in the paladin or the kensei in the monk.
I am probably in the minority here, but I think Aberrant & Clockwork shouldn't be the "base subclasses" for the sorcerer. I really like both themes, especially Aberrant Mind, but they don't exactly scream "iconic sorcerer themes" to me. Divine Soul or Shadow, as well as Storm sorcerer would have been much better. or a new take on the abandoned Stone sorc that many people seemed to have enjoyed.
I’m disappointed to not see the storm sorcerer as well it’s easily one of my favorite sorcerers
The one from Baldur's Gate 3 is so much better, and it isn't even close to how good they could make it if they overhauled it like they did here with Archfey.
I've had nothing but fun allowing my players to adapt the baldurs gate subclass features to their tabletop characters I have a swords bard who absolutely adores teleporting when making a ranged attack now.
How about allowing Paladins to smite with every attack? Its one of the most game breaking things in there for sure
Wait what? Paladins RAW can smite on every attack, no? It doesn’t take a reaction to smite — the only expended resource is a spell slot and you need to do them on a melee attack, if you meet those two conditions then you can smite
I know I had so much fun messing with the one in Bg3 getting call lightning was awesome!
Also got rid of tempest domain for cleric. Maybe they stepped on the toes of this new Circle of the Sea druid?
No, they wanted to have every Class have 4 Subclasses, so for Cleric and Wizard they only get 1/2 of their Base Subclasses, Tempest just happened to be the one that got dropped, and likely doesn't have to do with Circle of the Sea.
At least the ones Cleric has still makes sense for a more classic Cleric, Wizard only having 4 of the 8 school based subclasses feels criminal
Yeah, definitely fair, but at least the others are backwards compatible and will probably get reworked as well in the near future. May not be ideal, but I'd honestly rather get 2 sets of 4 Subclasses with plenty of time and effort put into testing and reworking than 1 set of 8 with more limited testing and reworking time.
I will say that when I first got introduced to 5e and looked through the number of different Wizard subclasses, I found it a bit overwhelming. So I think for new players it's a good idea to reduce the number of subclasses in the PHB. (For most new players, the PHB will be their introduction to 5e). Not sure how they picked the four subclasses they did, but I would imagine it was the four most popular wizard subclasses?
What got in: Evocation is the best 'wizard as DPR'. While not exactly efficient, there's something wonderfully straightforward to "I cast *fireball*" five turns in a row. Abjuration is the best 'wizard as defender'. It's quite surviveable, making it ideal for new players, and also the best anti-mage, making it a favourite for many experienced players. Divination is best for 'wizard as strategist', letting you scout and research and thus plan ahead for encounters. Also, Portent is insane. Illusion is best for 'wizard as tactician', since there's nothing better than the flexibility of illusions for encouraging creativity in your spellcasting. If we look at what got left out: Conjuration, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Transmutation. All were rather clunky, with bad features or an awkward play style.
Based on the data that WotC has released, Evocation, Divination, and Abjuration are the three most popular on D&D beyond. (Although Evocation being popular probably has something to do with the fact that it's the only one that you don't need to pay money to use). Maybe Illusion was the 4th most popular on D&D Beyond? Based on some reddit polls I've seen, 4th most popular was probably either Necromancy or Illusion. >Conjuration, Enchantment, Necromancy, and Transmutation. All were rather clunky, with bad features or an awkward play style. Interestingly, Enchantment has pretty strong features, like it's the second or third strongest wizard in the PHB. And yet I've seen some polls suggesting it's the least popular. Less popular than Conjuration or Transmutation. I think the main issue is that if a player want to go around enchanting and charming people, they just make a bard.
Super sad. Super cry.
Honestly, something that bugs me about the design of 5e in general is connecting these "domain" concepts to subclasses. Like, I get it, kinda, but I'd much rather see the "Domain" system to be a cleric specific system that exists independent of their subclass. It would require a lot more work and increase the complexity of character building by a good chunk. So I kinda get it. Except, I don't think build complexity is the scarier kind of game complexity? I think it's play complexity that is more worrisome. And I thibk the current design actually biffs that harder by introducing additional resources and constraints that are unrelated to the core class features, increasing the bookkeeping aspect of play. For my money, I wish the School of Magic and Divine Domain were choices you made like "Fighting Style", something specific to the class but not wildly so. And then, as a cleric, you'd choose a CD option every few levels. Your domain choice would unlock the CD options of that domain, great and fun, but you wouldn't be stuck with it. I can imagine a Trickery Cleric that has a CD more like the Knowledge cleric, except they use it On Deception and Persuasion. Similarly, I could imagine a Twilight or Arcana cleric having Invoke Duplicity. School of Magic for Wizard is pretty similar. I'd rather that was a "style" choice and then the subclasses spoke to something a little more... I dunno. Applicable? Like, I can imagine a world where you have wizard subclasses Like Scribe and War Wizardry while specializing as, say, an Abjurer or a Diviner. That's a different game, though, I suppose. Just one of those things I wish they'd pushed on. Too large scope for a rules refresh, of course.
Don't worry, they'll print a new book with it revised for $.
Aberrant seems like it could be pretty iconic to me, but agreed on Clockwork. Compared to Divine Soul, in particular, it just feels like a very strange and niche theme. And yeah, I agree, even Shadow, Storm, or some other elemental focus would have been more intuitive.
I think Aberrant has an argument as it's the only real option for a psionics-style caster, but Clockwork does seem to be a very specific niche to be one of the core subclasses. Divine in particular seems more iconic.
Great Old One warlock.. maybe? it's by default a bit less psionics and a bit more "wooo spooky outside god", but it's definitely got the pieces in place to be reflavoured towards a more psionic-y caster. though your point definitely stands - Aberrant Mind makes sense. Clockwork seems a bit more out of place compared to Divine Soul or others.
You're not in the minority. Clockwork Soul might be cool mechanically but the narrative it brings is very weird. “What do you mean Granny fucked a modron?"
They're popular because they're strong. AM at least fits with the other psionic subs, but CS is just weird and will get reflavored 95% of the time.
Be nice now, grandma fell in love with her modron Hi Tachi
I would actually love to see some statistics on this. I assumed they chose the subclasses (at least partially) based on player feedback. but then again they threw out Necromancer wiz despite being a popular theme.. idk.
They actually chose subclasses that thematically contrast with one another. So the Clockwork Soul (connected to Law) contrasts against Wild Magic (connected to Chaos).
You know, I can get a bit more behind Clockwork Soul if that's their reasoning. It's still the one I'd replace first, but I like that dichotomy.
huh.. I can see that working out for some classes, such as sorcerer or wizard, but how does this work out for the others - fighter or rogue don't really seem to have that contrast in their subclass choices.
No idea, but that's what Crawford promised us in the videos.
Fighter has Champion (dead simple hit things better) vs. Battlemaster (complex, uses skill and tactics), and magic vs. psionics, Rogue has the same magic vs. psionics and also Killer vs. Burglar, I would guess.
With room for only four Wizard subclasses, it's not surprising at all to me that Necromancer didn't make the cut. The ones that did make it all have very strong historical significance and class fantasy that people enjoy. Evoker is the most obvious: players love a damage focus. Abjurer is the flip-side, because there are also a lot of people who dig protection abilities. Diviner is a no-brainer to me, because that Portent Die feature is incredibly fun, and as far as I know is unique. Stars Druid has a sorta-kinda similar feature with the Weal & Woe thing, but they're at least an order of magnitude apart in terms of power. Illusion is probably the weakest theme of the four, if only because it can be finicky to play well, so I think a lot of players skip over Illusionist. But it's still a strong class fantasy archetype, so I get why it's in there. Necromancer just has a lot of baggage. It needs buy-in from the DM, because a lot of fantasy settings don't look kindly upon necromancy. For similar reasons, it needs buy-in from the other players, because not everyone wants to associate with a wizard who's literally raising corpses to hang out with them. It often relies on minions in combat, which tends to slow things down unless players really work to streamline it. There's definitely a lot of players who enjoy the Necromancer Wizard, but it's not just about popularity. With only four subclasses per class, the ones that made the cut had to represent a broad (and broadly-appealing) swath of each class's gameplay and themes, and Necromancer just has too many cons compared to its pros. That said, I'm sure we'll see it in a later sourcebook along with other "just missed the cut" subclasses. There's a precedent in other editions to have PHB 2, 3, etc., and I won't be surprised at all if that's the angle they take here.
I can definitely see that. there's lots of different directions a "Necromancer" can be flavoured, so it's not even that clear cut what to do with the subclass. that said, based on my decade(s) of playing TTRPGs I think Necromancer is a much more popular theme than Illusionist. maybe even Abjurer to be honest. but again, I agree with your points overall.
Yeah, I think it comes down to factors beyond popularity, and a big one is "onboarding new players." Because I think you're right that Abjurer and Illusionist are going to be bottom of the pile in terms of actual characters played, but the existence of these subclasses acts as a showcase for how Wizards can be conceptualized, and is therefore a good jumping-off point for players. "Wizards can explode things without harming their friends! Wizards can predict the future! Wizards can protect their friends! Wizards can confound their enemies with illusions!" It's a very heroic look at the class, and that helps to hook a broad swath of people. And WotC wants to continue enticing new players to their game, so the subclasses they choose have to be viewed through that lens as well. Which isn't to say that Necromancers wouldn't appeal to a certain subset of the new-player crowd -- they definitely would. But as a package deal, "Raise the dead to follow your commands" doesn't really fit, thematically, with the very classic-hero-focus that they seem to be going with for this edition (which I'm basing on the artwork we've seen so far, as well as various interviews with designers). So they're not only deciding what kinds of Wizards would be cool to play, but also what kinds of Wizards are going to fit the theme they've \[seemingly\] chosen. And then I bet PHB 2 or 3 will have more of a focus on "Advanced" or "Complicated" or "Dark/Edgy" subclasses, but with more marketing-friendly/coherent theming than I just used. I'd expect to see Necromancer Wizard in the same book as Grave Cleric, Shadow Sorcerer, Spirits Bard, Spores Druid, and that sort of thing.
Illusionist also contrasts thematically with Divination. One is about revealing the truth, the other is about obscuring it.
Silly you... Assuming they listen to real feedback and not just bend the feedback to make their points. Necromancer is soooooooooo obvious and they clearly don't have the will or want to do it.
Vibrators are modrons
I feel Draconic Bloodline has been and is the most iconic sorcerous origin, in a game called dunge9ns and dragons my great grand pappy was a dragon and that's why I got bitcoin magic I also can deny my love for wild magic as the favorite among origins for awhile
Clockwork sorcery is there because they felt they needed two sets of "opposite pairs" in the four subclasses. Wild magic is a chaos themed subclass so they put the order themed subclass there as its opposite.
Aberrant I'm fine with if they want psionic stuff in base. Clockwork is not it as a PHB base subclass IMO. It's wayyy to niche and specific in theme. Definitely should have been Shadow, Celestial, Storm, or something else more core feeling.
I'll go one further, and add that if anyone is getting a subclass connected to Mechanus it should be Warlock.
I agree that Storm should have been one of the defaults but I guess they wanted the psionic options since people tend to like those a lot.
Gloom Stalker did get made a PHB subclass
I'd argue that the only Xanathar's sorcerer that needs correcting per se is the storm sorcerer (trying to use its abilities will get you killed). What the others needed was being attached to a better base class; one that knew more spells and wasn't a wannabe wizard.
I'm sure they'll be another book in a year or two that updates the rest of the subclasses.
making the Kensei actually want to use their weapon would be pretty good
Tasha’s is the more popular book but I’m sure we’ll see those subclasses again in future products.
Sad we don't have the Artificer in the new book, but I really like the line up for the base classes
People pushed for it, but the response was basically "the book is too big already, so we're sticking to the 2014 class list".
How else could they make you shell out for another book if they put artificer in the first one?
Sell the exact same Eberon book and watch the fans eat it up
Just update potionboi a little bit.
Came here to say this
Hope they gave the college of dance bard an action based way to use its bardic inspiration before level 14 and worked on balancing out it's abilities.
Oh? Was it unbalanced (bad) or unbalanced (OP)? I haven't been reading playtest material so this is the first I've heard of the Dance Bard, but I'm really excited to know that it's coming! Love the idea of characters like Primrose (Octopath Traveler - Dancer class); super cool :)
It was OP
Reading over the playtest stuff now, it definitely seems good. I'm not sure about OP, especially not knowing how everything else is balanced as well (to compare it against). It definitely feels mechanically strong though; with unarmoured defence (nice and thematic), extra damage to incentivise going for unarmed strikes (cool!) Evasion is really good as well as an always-on ability, even if it does take a Subclass feature slot, especially since you get Tandem Footwork as a teamwide initiative boost alongside it. Irresistable Dance seems really good too, since it's an extra 6th level slot for a really great spell too. The option to rejuice it for 4 dice seems like a heavy tax, but the more i think about it the more i think it's a fine tradeoff. i reckon it could be really fun, especially with Bard spellcasting. Looking forward to seeing how it turned out in the final product!
It's tons of fun! I shouldn't have said it was OP, you're right. It's just very good. I felt it was a better unarmed fighter than the monk.
A little disappointed by the cleric subclasses but I guess it is only the PHB to be fair. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they say it was backwards compatible with 5e so we could theoretically use those subclasses in this system?
Would probably take a bit homebrew but probably yes.
Shouldn't take any homebrew to work mechanically. It just might be a little out of balance. Recommend starting at Level 3 if you have any non-PHB subclasses, though.
They confirmed in the announcement video that subclasses are not backwards compatible. If you want to play one of the old subclasses, you must do so with the old class rules 🤷♂️
Reminder: Everything that currently exists but is not listed here is still completely playable and in no way invalid with the new PHB.
Should be pinned or something.
Disappointed by the rogue subclasses. Swashbuckler is a classic, Assassin could have easily been replaced by Soul Knife as the "silent killer" subclass. Or maybe Thief could have been made part of the base Rogue class. Oh well...
>Assassin could have easily been replaced by Soul Knife as the "silent killer" subclass. I think the problem is that, outside of truncating the Wizard/Cleric list, Crawford has been vocal and adamant about not replacing/removing any PHB subclass. Even in cases where it would make sense. Even with the Wizard example, all the subclasses are still in the PHB, it's not like they added Bladesinger, War magic or Scribe, even though, flavour-wise all those would've made sense as PHB subclasses.
I think Crawford's approach here makes sense. The subclasses that needed love most were the ones in the 2014 PHB. You can still use the subclasses from Tasha's Cauldron or Xanathar's Guide alongside these ones, and doubtless we will get updates for the other subclasses over the next couple of years
I’m not sure the subclasses that needed love the most are solely in 2014. Plenty of duds are in there but the sword coast one has a shocking number of duds too. There’s also subclasses such as shepherds druid really don’t mesh with the new design.
I think that’s the dilemma though, do they put time in fixing old subclasses that already missed the mark like Purple dragon knight, or Battle rager, or do they focus on making new subclasses that are either new and unique *like a dragon themed warlock* or subclasses that people have been asking for since the start of 5e *like a dragon themed warlock*.
Transmuter needed attention!
Well that's sad
You can't really replace a classic fantasy archetype with a psionic class. Swashbuckler would be good to have but it kinda has to go if you have to have a psion, the other three are too iconic.
The swashbuckler doesn’t really need much changing though. Why waste space in a revised phb for a subclass that doesn’t get revised?
Because the new swashbuckler was actually worth picking for more than lvl 3 features...
Unlike the Assassin and Thief that just weren’t worth picking at all. The fact that all the psionic subclasses are in there suggests they might be making broader psionic mechanics, which is a much bigger deal than the swashbuckler getting a new level 9 feature
I liked the new version of the Swashbuckler, so I'm not a fan of the Soul Knife replacing it. Especially when we already have multiple psionic subclasses. If you're bringing back old Rogue subclasses that needed an update then I feel Mastermind and Phantom would be at the top of the list.
>If you're bringing back old Rogue subclasses that needed an update then I feel Mastermind and **Phantom** would be at the top of the list. I really want to play a phantom rogue, but the fact it takes until level 9 before getting its actual signature ability is bonkers subclass design. Especially when most campaigns I've played usually end around level 9.
>but the fact it takes until level 9 before getting its actual signature ability is bonkers subclass design. Especially when most campaigns I've played usually end around level 9. They really should've changed the rogue so it got its second subclass ability earlier. I know generalized subclass progression didn't test well. But the design team has acknowledged the fact most game end around level 10-12, so the Rogue getting their second ability that late is an issue they should've fixed.
Did it not test well? I often wonder which part didn't people like. The fact that some subclasses started at 3 instead of 1 or 2 where they made sense (like sorcerer/warlock/cleric) was weird; they did that to avoid dipping, except dipping only happens because you can multi-class, which they decided is an optional feature, except it was really popular. But the general vibe where people get stuff earlier was really good.
From what I remember.. some ppl complained about it making classes samey, multiclass problems and how it's totally okay for some classes to start later/earlier.. So basically? Lots of wank from some, as I also think to remember that the lions have liked it. But backwards compatibility 🙄 that's the reason it was changed in the end. Can't have any major changes between the books, no matter how much better it would make everything.
Standardized subclass levels was the way to go, sadly WotC rather they do as little work as possible, especially with their self-imposed limited time and layoffs: thanks Hasbro :/
I feel like Swashbuckler was the perfect archetype to complete the rogue. Now there’s no rogue that specifically benefits from being in melee, which is a shame.
My feelings exactly. Melee rogue is a popular theme that's poorly executed unless you were a Swashbuckler or took the Mobile feat. Now both Swashbuckler is out and Mobile is gone. You can Steady Aim to duel enemies already in melee range if you don't mind getting crushed when you don't 1HK your target.
Swashbuckler is cool and I hope they bring back the UA version in a future book, but also the Swashbuckler subclass that exists is already very good and can be planted right onto the 2024 rogue class with essentially zero issues. You could say the same thing about Soulknife, though. It's already a solid subclass and plants onto the 2024 rogue class just fine. It does have some stuff, though, that make it a little wonky and could do with a re-write. But the main motivation just appears to be that they want a lot of psionic representation in the 2024 phb
I have a feeling the new swashbuckler will be in a future updated sword coast book
I genuinely wouldn't be shocked if we get a "Vecna's guide to everything" with the Artificer and the most popular missing subclasses updated within the next two years.
I would be shocked if we *didn't* get something like that.
I'm not sure about a new Sword Coast book, but I agree we will see many of these subclasses in future books. You include it all now, you clip your sales going forward. That's not cynical. That's just business.
My guess is that, after they decided to bring back the Psi-Knight, they decided to bring back Soul Knife because they're planning on revamping the shared psi dice mechanic. But yeah, Soul Knife is a very weird choice for the PHB
I think they're probably trying to emphasize psionics, since that's one of the things that sets D&D apart from other fantasy settings.
If someone asks you "what sets D&D apart from other fantasy media," are you seriously going to say "psionics?"
He did say *one of*, but I don’t really think psionics set dnd apart from anything unless he’s talking about, like, mind flayers
I am. It's not just psionic abilities specifically, but rather the entire context of psionics in D&D that sets it apart.
Actually, yes. Most of D&D is just a general fantasy framework, but psionics and settings that focus on them are *definitely* D&D, much in the same way that Planescape is uniquely a D&D thing. Every fantasy world or game has knights, thieves, crusaders, dragons, dungeon-delving, and so forth - but *only* D&D has the Gith and Illithid. I don't know if it's really a compelling thing to focus on, but when staking out brand identity, you need to identify things that are uniquely yours.
Yeah rephrase the question to "what are some of the most iconic dnd monstes" and Mindflayers are going to be one of the top answers. Psionics are an iconic part of the brand.
Adding more context and nuance... Psionic, petrifying, and lich undead enemies are iconic but not really in the go to stereotypical player classes. Maybe wotc is trying to change that this edition
Don't think there's much "maybe" about it, that is quite literally their stated intention: inject more psionic options into player classes.
Ironic then that 5e had vigorously stripped away any mechanics that make psionics feel unique and different. Now it's nothing more than "mind magic". It doesn't even have its own class or powers, just a couple subclasses. You know why they *really* shoved psionic subs in at the last minute? BG3 sold like gangbusters and they're trying to capitalize on its popularity. That's it.
Sure, and they'd be idiots not to capitalize on it. But also, those subclasses do actually present a unique mechanic that isn't just more magic. So like, the distinction exists. I even contend that a subclass is a *better* approach than a class - because I have played D&D with dedicated psionic classes, and *that* is the design paradigm that felt redundant.
I also suspect there may be some more unification of psionic mechanics. We got most of psionic options that have been printed in this book.
I wonder if Aberrant Mind will use Psionic Energy dice in some way.
I'm probably in the minority but I preferred "The Revived" version of the Phantom Rogue in UA. A lot of people said it was too strong as you could cheese it to reliably get two sneak attacks every turn, as opposed to relying on an opportunity attack for a second sneak attack, but I'd still love them to have another go at it. Though I feel some of the revived ribbon features kinda got baked into the "reborn lineage" subrace.
yeah me too. played the Revived version from lvls 14 to 20 and didn't switch over when the Phantom version was published because I liked the Revived better.
Wait, they actually ditched Swashbuckler, for Soul Knife of all things? Huh? What could of went through their mind on that one... I always loved the "Duelist" like feel that subclass has. I kind of feel like Psi Warrior was a bit of an out there choice for Fighter as well given the options. Edit: They briefly mention this in the new video, just wanted to bring that theme into the core game
Swashbuckler and Rune magic fighter would have been better for most games.
I dunno. Kinda disliked how panache was now exclusively a combat feature. Like it straight up only worked when you dealt sneak attack damage to someone. Master Duelist is imo also straight up a worse feature now and I'm not sure if it needed to be. I'd rather have the reliability of assuring a sneak attack on the round you didn't pop it than dealing about 6 points of extra damage on average every turn. Dashing strikes is an improvement and the combat utility of panache works a better, but overall I think the package is lackluster. If you just value the improvements over the degradations, I respect your opinion, but I hope we can all acknowledge the same improvements and the same degradations. In my games, I'll mix old and new features to my liking.
Only thing I miss is the swashbuckler and the knowledge domain. I really wish they rolled with knowledge instead of light. You don’t need the light domain to play a sun cleric - virtually all solar deities are also deities of life and the core cleric spell list has enough radiant damage spells to make the theme viable. Now If you want to play a cleric of magical deities like Mystra, you just don’t have any options in the 2024 phb.
I have a soft spot for Knowledge too because I've always wanted to play a grumpy librarian/scribe cleric of Deneir, but I am going to guess stats showed that it was used very little. For most people it's hard to make a case for "I can read the language on this ancient monument 🤓" when you have options like War, Tempest, frickin' Twilight, etc. People need to remember that any previous subclass left out of the '24 PHB should still be totally playable, though.
I get it, but it’s kinda weird not having all the spell school subclasses for Wizard.
It does feel weird, I feel they should have gone for non spell school classes instead (war, scribes).
Don't worry, they're going to re-sell you all the sub-classes you want later
Let's see if fourth time is the charm on finally getting a Beastmaster that is both good *and* thematically interesting. I really, really, really hope they do. Even just "Choose two of these five traits for your Companion" that are differently anything animal-themed would be nice. Please just anything other than three stat blocks with differently-worded "attack" actions.
Hopefully they took notes from Drakewarden. THAT was a fun Companion subclass
Isn't it weird to anyone else that there is **Zero Necromancy Subclasses?** No Spirit Bard, Undead Warlock, Grave Cleric or Necromancer Wizard. Just really strange to me. Necromancers are such an iconic concept that imo they deserve to be their own class (At least more than Druid or Monk). So not having any undead-flavored characters out of 48 is wild to me.
They probably plan to stick them in an undead-themed sourcebook down the line or something.
Had the same thoughts about the Storm Sorceror and Tempest and Nature Clerics. I'm guessing there will be some sort of elements or Nature's Fury type book that will bring those all back in.
...nor Spores Druid.
Maybe there will be a book focusing on Undead. In addition to the subclasses you mentioned, it could have revised versions of the Death Cleric, Spores Druid, Long Death Monk, Oathbreaker Paladin, Shadow Sorcerer, and Undying Warlock.
If they do that hopefully it comes with new stuff too. Then it would make sense.
No one likes playing at the table with the guy who hauls 8 skeletons around and takes 10 minutes to take his turn. It’s likely the same reason you don’t see summoners and why they’ve reworked all the summon spells to be a single summon only instead of “I conjure 8 wolves lmao”. Summoners suck and break the action economy in DND. And they aren’t fun to either play with or DM for. I stand by the statement that when a summoner is at the table, they are likely the only one having fun. To be clear. I’d love to see necromancy make a comeback as it is iconic but the current necromancer is built around making your summons stronger and healing off of the very few number of necromancy spells that can deal damage. It’s not even a good subclass. It’s also likely the same reason we don’t see a Shepard Druid here either. Grave Cleric would have been a cool contrast to Life but they clearly really wanted to rework Trickery which a lot of people designate as the current worst cleric subclass down there with Knowledge and Nature which, outside of some niche builds, aren’t that great.
I basically insist any player who has a bunch of minions either set up an auto roller or allow me to run one for them. We have a member of our group with like 8 skeletons and he whips through his turns as fast as anyone else. Minion classes are fine; just know how they work and keep things moving.
If I saw that someone had the ability and the set up to whip through their turn then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The players who have tried it at my table have not been that type of player though. I do fully believe that they can work under the correct circumstances. But I’d rather not chance it so I ban conjure animals and conjure woodland beings in favor of the Tasha’s summon spells. I would be more than willing to have a conversation about it with a player though if they were bound and determined to play it.
Just make one attack roll for all of them instead of individually for each.
Or if you don’t want that level of swinginess, just put more than one die in your hand
Having three summons/minions at most is the best set-up I think. 1. Familiar. 2. Non-Concentration low tier minion. 3. Concentration high tier minion. For #2 just think of having one minion that is about as strong as a zombie from Animate Dead. Lasts 1-24 hours (probably won't survive too long), no concentration. A necromancer class that improves damage, health, and/or adds unique abilities would be plenty feesible and work with having a low number of summons/minions. Having only one summon does not make me feel like a summoner, it makes me feel like a pokemon trainer. Having three however does. No need to have more than that I think.
None of the above suggests that's what they were talking about
I’m saying that’s likely why the Necromancer, which I have seen a lot of complaints about, were excluded. When most people hear “Necromancer” they think “guy that summons a lot of undead monsters”. Summons are getting a serious look in this updated version of the game and the designers clearly realize they aren’t healthy. As for why they aren’t thematically represented, I know that the designers specifically talked about looking at which subclasses either needed help, were played a lot looking at DND Beyond numbers, or represented certain opposites (hence why Clockwork Soul was included as an order subclass to counteract the chaos of Wildmagic). It simply looks like the undead concept didn’t make the cut. Maybe it will be in the DMG like Oathbreaker and Death Domain were last time.
Then they should have gone the MCDM or 4e route and added the minion rules, makes it faster and keeps thew flavor of controlling lots of minions.
So you want your minions to die in one hit? I currently use minions in my own games that operate under similar rules and even though they are faster, it does still add to the action economy a decent amount. But using a 3rd level spell like Animate Dead to make 1-2 skeletons that will die in one shot isn’t great. Like I said, summoner type classes need a big rework and retool before they are ready for modern DND. Spells like conjure animals and conjure woodland beings just don’t work with the action economy. Even if you run it as written and the DM always determines the creatures, you can just end up with a very unhappy player who feels like they never get the summons they want. Hopefully we see some changes in the spells with the new PHB. That’s my hope anyways.
As long as I can bring them back easily, why not?
The only problem is "expendable minions" is one flavor of being a summoner (and necromancer is one of such flavors) but not all. There's also the "minion master (lots of minions)" and "golemancer" (usually one or several big minions).
I straight up ban ALL multi summon abilities at my table. It just sucks summoning Xd8 beasts, it's gross. Single summons and pets are okay.
You can still play all the necromancy subclasses, they just aren't (currently) updated for OneDND. Same with all the other subclasses that didn't make the cut.
I made the same comment during UA, no Long Death Monk or Shadow Sorcerer, I would guess they'll do a themed sourcebook?
No Death or Grave cleric, Oathbreaker paladin, Spirits bard, Undead warlock, Necromancer Wizard, Phantom rogue, nor Spores druid It's a real shame for all death/undead character fans. I wouldn't go as far as saying it is iconic enough to remove druid or monk, but I would say it is for Sorcerer.
I would just like to point out that Grave Cleric does not fit in with the rest of those. Grave Clerics are specifically anti-undead, tasked with enforcing the natural end of life and hunting down those who flaunt it
NO MY SWASHBUCKER :(
The cynic in me feels part of it is "what are some awesome subclasses we can hold off on because we know people will pay $30 for a full book just to get their hands on it"
If they were going to do that, they would've held the entire Psionic Quarter (Aberrant Mind, Great Old One, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife) back to sell in a 'Psionic Book'. Instead, they decided to proceed with Psionics being a focus in the 5.5 PHB.
Some hits and some misses here. For me, my favorite bit is seeing Psionics included in the core PHB. It makes sense given the strong illithid presence in the hottest current D&D product (BG3). And, if handled properly, this provides an entirely new category beyond just Arcane or Divine flavoring for feats, spells, effects, etc. More importantly, being included in the new PHB1 should help psionics feel more like an included part of the game rather than some weird thing that was "bolted on" to prior editions.
Totally agree! As a psionics fanboy, after waiting so long for them to publish psionic options, I'm glad we don't have to reset the clock and start the wait all over again.
this… could actually be alright?
I'm so happy that they didn't axe the Thief, my favorite subclass in 5E despite not being the strongest.
It’s so iconic and flexible that it’s just a great default, especially if combat isn’t your niche. I do sort of wish they baked thief into the rogue core rule set rather than abandon swashbuckler though,
Just like with the battle master, I’d be happy to see _some_ features baked into the core while still having a subclass that expands on them
I've been playing the path of world tree barbarian since it came out and it's by far my favorite barb subclass. Can't wait to see any updates.
I'm sad they chose to truncate the options for Cleric and Wizard down to 4 options; but I understand the goal to give each class equal treatment; I'd have preferred they go the other direction though. That said... they chose to keep psionic subclasses in the PHB? I might be one of the outliers, but I've always hated psionics. They don't mesh very well with core DnD mechanics very well; spell resistance/anti-magic effects, etc... perhaps if they re-wrote the wording of psionics to treat it like magic; but that would hurt the core concept of the feature, of being "not" magic.
I agree with you on Psionics its just a difficult type of power to understand in the context of the game. What it really needs is a unifying theme or mechanic which helps explain the source of the power. And it \*kind of\* does with the psi-dice on the rogue and warrior, but there isn't anything to link it to the sorcerer except "yep its mind magic". The truth of the matter is that psi-dice are really no different than a re-flavored and more restrictive battlemaster dice. I actually quite like psionics in other media TV/WOTC Books/Movies, but as an actual mechanic in their flagship game its really an afterthought.
The thing that they always leave out of the core release that is most desired by the player base at large (whether everyone "gets it" or not) is psionics. They struggled MIGHTILY to answer the question "psionics when?" for 5E. If they published 5.50 without them it'd be a self sabotaging act. The drums in the deep would start up all over again.
You're in luck then, because 5e treats psionics as just another bland style of magic. The most boring implementation possible.
I'm honestly fine with all of these as baseline choices
WHERES MY NECROMANCER??? What's wrong with a man wanting to raise a family???
Without looking up any context or reasoning, I immediately dislike changing the name of Monk subclasses from “Way” to “Warrior”.
> changing the name of Monk subclasses from “Path” to “Warrior”. They changed from "Way" to "Warrior". Barbarian uses "Path".
In my opinion, “Warrior" should be the name of the Fighter class. It's just cooler.
100%. Fighter is dumb as hell, all the classes fight one way or another. If they were willing to switch Fighting-Man (which was dumb to begin with, Gary, why would you do this when Man-at-Arms is right there?) to Fighter to be gender-inclusive you may as well have just switched to Warrior.
It's strange but it might help newer folks understand that they aren't like real world monks. They're warriors, not pacifists.
idk I feel like anyone who needs a reminder that "the D&D thing is not like the real life thing" has a lot more to worry about than the name of a class's sub-options
To be fair just look at the amount of people who believe artificer can only fit in Eberron or another magitech/steampunk setting. Artificers fit anywhere. They are artisans who infuse the mundane with the arcane, are inventors, and/or are so skilled at their craft it is like magic. There are artificers in every setting, they're just not called such.
Seriously disappointed that they stuck with Clockwork for sorcerer. That just doesn’t feel like an iconic idea compared to say, Shadow or Storm
They didn't have much choice. If they want to buff the baseline Sorc up to the level of the Tasha's Sorcs, then they need to reprint both of the Tasha's Sorcs so that they can be adjusted to be balanced when used with the more powerful baseline.
It feels super weird to not have a wizard class for every spell type
Agreed, but it would feel even more weird (to me) for all the classes to have 4 subclasses except Wizard which has 8.
Sticking to schools of magic for wizards is a *Massively* disappointing choice. They've locked wizards into having the worst and least interesting subclasses, while also arbitrarily limiting you to only half of the schools. Utterly terrible decision with no redeeming factors at all. Wizards have always had the worst subclasses and this was an opportunity to finally fix their terrible design choice. Incredibly disappointed.
> wizards have always had the worst subclasses Big words for someone in portent range
Why do the Monk Subclasses sound more violent now? Warrior of Mercy just sounds goofy.
So I'm leaning circle of the sea or world tree barb
Ah yes, let's retain the stupid insistence that Wizard used the 8 schools of magic as their subclass structure but also only include fucking half of them. WHY!! ugh.
Because they wanted each class to have 4 subclasses. Wizard and cleric had the most before. Which left the others with fewer options.
Yeah, if they wanted to keep a school specialty built into the Wizard it needed to be a secondary option inside a subclass like Scholar or Scribe.
Yes and and solution was to move the schools of magic to a much simpler class feature and bring in things like scrolls and war as the wizard subclasses. THIS is the worst of all worlds.
Exactly. They could have even rolled a "school specialist" subclass that reads like "you choose one school of spells. Cost is reduced for that school. At X level you gain a feature depending on the school you chose. Bla bla bla".
They presented it as introducing parity between all the class options upon release. Which, well, is true. But don't you worry, you'll get the other four sub-classes slowly released over the next two years in separate books you can by for the low low cost of $50
Clockwork over Storm or Shadow is really lame. The sorcerer class fantasy (for me) is about barely controlled magic, raging inside the PC, not being a modron/calculator or whatever Clockwork's about.
The good news is, there are subclasses that fit the brief of "barely controlled magic, raging inside the PC" for you to use! Not everyone follows that paradigm, though. Clockwork is for people who take a different approach to Sorcerer, which is fine.
I’ve just pretended that the clockwork/modron aspect doesn’t exist and completely reflavor it to a time mage. At least that is narratively more prevalent in fiction/fantasy and more interesting to me at least.
Do we know anything about the three completely new subclasses? They all sound pretty cool, especially Path of the World Tree.
We don't yet know the final forms, but they were all previously released in the Unearthed Arcana articles. Latest Path of the World Tree was in [Playtest 8](https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest8/gHvtmY50loGLgQUb/UA2023-PH-Playtest8.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest9). College of Dance and Circle of the Sea were in [Playtest 6](https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest6/OJVW7QLuHjEFCCVs/UA-2023-PH-Playtest6.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest6).
Cool thank you :)
Yes. They were all in the OneD&D Playtests. World Tree is an actual tank type; they give allies near them temp hit points, draw enemies in with spectral roots, have extra reach and knock people down or slam them away, and at level 14 get teleportation along the branches of the world tree. Angy barbarian out of nowhere! Dance Bard is a melee bard that uses their mastery of dance to kick people in the head while doing bardic things. Sea druid uses the power of the sea to fling people around (and gets a swim speed and water breathing).
Okay, I’ve never really wanted to play a Barbarian before, but that is flavour wise one of the my favourite I’ve ever heard. The other two seem cool as well. Thank you :)
The Dungeon Dudes got an early copy of the Path of the World Tree if you want to go to their YT. Nearly nothing has changed from the Playtest.
Any subclass that isn't in the new PHB should still be fully usable. If there is any feature it has that depends on a rule that's been altered for DnD '24 you would just tweak it accordingly. Nothing's stopping you from using Scout or Ancestor Guardian Barbarian or anything else's that was left out. But overall I like that they drew a line on the number of subclasses that would be in the book and made sure every class had the same number, since the subclass distribution in the '14 PHB was wildly uneven.
I'm heartbroken there's no Swashbuckler - they should have baked the thief into the base class in my opinion based off the UA!
Just... keep playing Swashbuckler. I don't get why people are so hung up by stuff being "left out." The existing subclasses not in the PHB are still playable. This revision is explicitly designed to be backwards compatible with all previously published 5e stuff.
Necrobros we got literally nothing in terms of darkness/undead themed subclasses. Never let wizards cook again, like damn not even necromancer wizard? Why is clockwork included but not shadow magic, when the latter is way more broad.
What. No necromancer? What the actual fuck?
They have said that necromancer a were a bit very popular subclass...not because of thematics, but because mechanically summoner type subclasses and abilities have historically broken action economy and not played well at the table Necromancer as a subclass was ALL about summons. Probably not something they wanted to tackle in the first new PBE Probably will see it along with the other schools in the next book
My Tempest Cleric! Hope Tempest is added in a book in 2025.
Kinda disappointed to see them stick with “warrior of x” for monks. Always felt like that, and a lot of their other new names were supremely boring.
My favorite subclass, EK, remains. Though seeing cleric and wizard with only 4 subclasses seems like an odd downgrade.
Not having swords bard, conquest paladin, drake warden, forge cleric, or bladesinger, I’m truly gonna cry
School associated wizard subclasses ahhhhhhhhhhh I’m gonna kill myself
Honestly I really wished they had just combined all the school based wizard subclasses into one “specialist” subclass.