2024 PHB "Subclass Quartets"

[Psyren]

In the UA 8 video, Crawford talked about how "subclass quartets", or thematic dual pairings/clusters of subclasses representing "different corners of class identity," are driving their decision-making about which ones get included in the new core book. I found the concept pretty interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what all of them might be.

The examples he gave were:


Evoker (offense) vs Abjurer (defense)
Illusionist (lies/deception) vs Diviner (truth/exposure)
Clockwork Magic (Order) vs Wild Magic (Chaos)


Some of the others seem fairly obvious (e.g. Druid has Land vs Sea / Moon vs Stars, Bard has Lore vs Valor) but others elude me (Draconic vs Aberrant? ...Dance vs Glamour?) So I wanted to see what everyone thought the other pairs/quartets represent, and what this might tell us about the subclass likely to replace the now defunct Brawler Fighter.



Here's his exact words for those who don't want to watch/rewatch the UA video:

"Often when we've been deciding what the quartet of subclasses be for each class, we're looking for subclasses that essentially represent different 'corners' of class' identity. The quarters have succeeded at that at varying degrees... the Abjurer is a fantastic counterpoint to the Evoker, where we have the offensive wizard represented iconically by the Evoker, and we have the Abjurer being the ultimate defender among our mage-like classes. And then the Illusionist and the Diviner are also a pair of opposites, because the Illusionist is showing how you can use magic to beguile and deceive and misdirect, while the Diviner is showing how you can use magic to illuminate and clarify. At some point in a future video, we should go through and talk about all the quartets, because our subclass decisions have often been chasing this notion. I've seen people asking about the presence of Clockwork Sorcery in the new Player's Handbook; we chose Clockwork not only because it's highly rated, but because Clockwork Sorcery is the opposite of Wild Magic; one is the magic of Chaos and the other is the magic of Order.

The new PHB is going to be explicit about these quartets; as we guide you in subclass selection, we're going to point out this sort of 'archetypal' space each subclass occupies, because that's not always obvious, especially if you're not familiar with the game and you just see the names - and we wanted to make sure that when we talk about the subclass options in a particular class, that there's a clear set of aesthetic and mechanical hooks."
...
"An example of a class where the hooks tend to be more mechanical than aesthetic is the Fighter, where the quartet in the Fighter is actually about four very different ways of play. That can be for a future video where we delve into the subclass quartets of every class in the 2024 PHB."

[Monster Manuel]

I really liked the balance and flavor element when I saw what they were doing with the Land/Sea Moon/Stars druid subclasses. It felt right for the Druid, and was a nice little bit of cosmological symmetry. So, overall, I kind of like the concept of the subclass quartets.

That said, I don't love that it's being shoehorned into classes where the structure doesn't work as elegantly as it does for the druid. Truth/Lies Protection/Destruction for the Wizard works well, but how do the other schools of magic balance out? Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body)? Then Necromancy (stasis)/Conjuration (movement)? It doesn't make nearly as much sense. Is this part of the reason why we're only getting the four wizard subclases in the core book? I like the symmetry of the quartets, but not so much that it's worth losing the Conjurer or Necromancer in core.

Or, like with the Brawler, which feels like a bit of a filler subclass, that's just there to fill out the ranks to 4, and doesn't really balance with the Champion, Battle Master and EK in any meaningful way. Magic/non-magic, complex/basic? I don't get the theme there.

I guess, long story short, I like it where it works, but where it doesn't it feels forced,

[Oramac]

Or, like with the Brawler, which feels like a bit of a filler subclass, that's just there to fill out the ranks to 4, and doesn't really balance with the Champion, Battle Master and EK in any meaningful way. Magic/non-magic, complex/basic? I don't get the theme there.

I guess, long story short, I like it where it works, but where it doesn't it feels forced,

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[GooeyChewie]

I think with Fighter, one of the pairs is Champion/Eldritch Knight. Pure martial versus magic-infused. The other pairing would have been Battle Master/Brawler, as strategic warrior versus “hit it with the rock!”.

With Brawler out, I wouldn’t mind seeing something more like the Brute that was in one of the previous UAs. That would make it strategic warrior versus “I hit harder.”

Edit: All that said, I’m still in the camp of thinking all Fighters should have maneuvers. I think it would be easier to make the quartet that way, since different Maneuvers could help differentiate them.

[Psyren]

Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body)?

I actually like this one :smallbiggrin: Good callout!



Then Necromancy (stasis)/Conjuration (movement)?

Hmm.... Living minions/Dead minions maybe? Or Use What's Here vs. Use What's There?


I like the symmetry of the quartets, but not so much that it's worth losing the Conjurer or Necromancer in core.

In fairness, the moment they confirmed 4 subclasses per class, something had to get cut from core for both Wizard and Cleric, the two classes with more than that. Necro made the most sense to remove to me, it took a while for them to show up in 4e also IIRC.


Or, like with the Brawler, which feels like a bit of a filler subclass, that's just there to fill out the ranks to 4, and doesn't really balance with the Champion, Battle Master and EK in any meaningful way. Magic/non-magic, complex/basic? I don't get the theme there.

I guess, long story short, I like it where it works, but where it doesn't it feels forced,

I do agree on Fighter, I never got Brawler/EK/Champion/BM.

Champion/BM I could see as general prowess vs special techniques. But I can't place EK and Brawler for the life of me. If they replace Brawler with Arcane Archer I could see magic melee vs magic ranged, or if they replace it with Psi Warrior I could see arcane vs psionic.


I think with Fighter, one of the pairs is Champion/Eldritch Knight. Pure martial versus magic-infused. The other pairing would have been Battle Master/Brawler, as strategic warrior versus “hit it with the rock!”.

With Brawler out, I wouldn’t mind seeing something more like the Brute that was in one of the previous UAs. That would make it strategic warrior versus “I hit harder.”

Edit: All that said, I’m still in the camp of thinking all Fighters should have maneuvers. I think it would be easier to make the quartet that way, since different Maneuvers could help differentiate them.

Well, in a manner of speaking - all Fighters do have maneuvers, thanks to Superior Technique + Martial Adept with their bonus ASIs (and bonus fighting style in Champion's case.) Unlike other martials, Fighters can get them without giving up any of their normal ASIs.

Do you have a link to the Brute?

[GooeyChewie]

Well, in a manner of speaking - all Fighters do have maneuvers, thanks to Superior Technique + Martial Adept with their bonus ASIs (and bonus fighting style in Champion's case.) Unlike other martials, Fighters can get them without giving up any of their normal ASIs.
All fighters can get access to some maneuvers. But I meant something more akin to Rogue’s Cunning Strike or Bard’s Bardic Inspiration, where all members of the class would have access to basic ones and subclasses could add their own thematically appropriate ones.

WotC has already said it isn’t happening and gave their reasons, so I’m not going to try to argue why they should add it at this point. But I do think it would have made the “quartet” concept a lot easier to apply to Fighter.


Do you have a link to the Brute?


Here you go:

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/fighter:brute-ua

This version obviously didn’t have the support to make it into a book, so if they do bring it back I would except they’d make some adjustments.

[JLandan]

I really liked the balance and flavor element when I saw what they were doing with the Land/Sea Moon/Stars druid subclasses. It felt right for the Druid, and was a nice little bit of cosmological symmetry. So, overall, I kind of like the concept of the subclass quartets.

That said, I don't love that it's being shoehorned into classes where the structure doesn't work as elegantly as it does for the druid. Truth/Lies Protection/Destruction for the Wizard works well, but how do the other schools of magic balance out? Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body)? Then Necromancy (stasis)/Conjuration (movement)? It doesn't make nearly as much sense. Is this part of the reason why we're only getting the four wizard subclases in the core book? I like the symmetry of the quartets, but not so much that it's worth losing the Conjurer or Necromancer in core.

Or, like with the Brawler, which feels like a bit of a filler subclass, that's just there to fill out the ranks to 4, and doesn't really balance with the Champion, Battle Master and EK in any meaningful way. Magic/non-magic, complex/basic? I don't get the theme there.

I guess, long story short, I like it where it works, but where it doesn't it feels forced,

Instead of Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body), I would go Enchantment (mental)/Transmutation (physical). The reason being that some transmutation spells work on objects or materials, not just bodies.

[DracoKnight]

I do agree on Fighter, I never got Brawler/EK/Champion/BM.

Champion/BM I could see as general prowess vs special techniques. But I can't place EK and Brawler for the life of me. If they replace Brawler with Arcane Archer I could see magic melee vs magic ranged, or if they replace it with Psi Warrior I could see arcane vs psionic.

How I saw it:

Brawler vs Battle Master (Street-learned vs Classically Trained)

Champion vs Eldritch Knight (Mundane vs Magic)

We're losing Brawler, and I hope we get Psi Warrior. So I would see that dynamic as:

Battle Master vs Champion (complex vs simple*)

Eldritch Knight vs Psi Warrior (Magic vs Psionics, like you said)

*they said some would be mechanical niches, vs thematic ones. Battle Master and Champion are serviceably opposites in that regard.

[Schwann145]

I feel like folks are reading far too much into what amounts to not much more than a throw-away line.
This feels more like a justification for pruning half the subclasses away from Wizard/Cleric/etc than it does a core design philosophy for all classes.

[Psyren]

Some more:

Ranger

Hunter (lone wolf) vs Beastmaster (pack)
Fey Wanderer (Feywild) vs Gloomstalker (Shadowfell)
Cleric

Light (light/direct) vs Trickery (dark/subterfuge)
Life (healing) vs War (combat)
Barbarian

Wildheart (animals) vs World Tree (plants)
Berserker (inner power) vs Zealot (divine power)


Here you go:

http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/fighter:brute-ua

This version obviously didn’t have the support to make it into a book, so if they do bring it back I would except they’d make some adjustments.

Thanks!

Reading it, I can kinda see why they didn't go ahead with it... it doesn't seem all that different from Champion.


Instead of Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body), I would go Enchantment (mental)/Transmutation (physical). The reason being that some transmutation spells work on objects or materials, not just bodies.

Yeah either one works for me.

[Arkhios]

At this point I'm beginning to feel I might have to admit the new book isn't going to be 5.0 edition.

That said, I'm kinda torn. On one hand this seems interesting, as Psyren put it, but on the other, I keep asking myself, why?

That aside, my guess for the Draconic vs Aberrant dichotomy or confrontation is that Dragons represent a mortal, though nigh immortal, being that is bordering purity and perfection, while aberrations are more like pure chaos and corruption devoid of, in most cases, uniform shape.

[Hurrashane]

I wonder if the draconic/aberrant sorc thing is a like body/mind one. Draconic sorc has a bunch of physical changes, you're tougher, with scales, gaining resistance, and wings. And Aberrant is your mind changing... Though I guess aberrant also has some body changes, so that may not fit as well as I thought.

[GooeyChewie]

At this point I'm beginning to feel I might have to admit the new book isn't going to be 5.0 edition.
They won't. Even in the most recent video, they spent a significant portion of the time talking about how it's still 5E. They even clipped that part and published it as a separate video. WotC is dead set on 2024 D&D/6E/One D&D/5.5/5.1/whatever you want to call it being 5E.

[P. G. Macer]

I think I have the answer for the Draconic vs. Aberrant conundrum. It’s just entirely lore, not mechanics. In Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons, there’s the following passage:


The religions of numerous worlds teach that Humanoids are creatures of a dual nature—part material and part spiritual, made of the essence of both the Material Plane and the otherworldly Outer Planes. But dragons, at least in the view of “Elegy for the First World,” are wholly material, dwelling in the Material Plane and embodying its essential nature.


If my hypothesis is correct, then the Draconic Sorcerer represents the material and the (relatively) grounded and mundane. The Aberrant Mind, by contrast, represents the Far Realm, about as far from the Material Plane as one can get.

[Psyren]

They won't. Even in the most recent video, they spent a significant portion of the time talking about how it's still 5E. They even clipped that part and published it as a separate video. WotC is dead set on 2024 D&D/6E/One D&D/5.5/5.1/whatever you want to call it being 5E.

Yeah, that refrain isn't changing, at this point it is what it is and people should decide whether its a dealbreaker for them or not and act accordingly.


I think I have the answer for the Draconic vs. Aberrant conundrum. It’s just entirely lore, not mechanics. In Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons, there’s the following passage:


The religions of numerous worlds teach that Humanoids are creatures of a dual nature—part material and part spiritual, made of the essence of both the Material Plane and the otherworldly Outer Planes. But dragons, at least in the view of “Elegy for the First World,” are wholly material, dwelling in the Material Plane and embodying its essential nature.


If my hypothesis is correct, then the Draconic Sorcerer represents the material and the (relatively) grounded and mundane. The Aberrant Mind, by contrast, represents the Far Realm, about as far from the Material Plane as one can get.

Yeah I can buy that. I'd like it if they played up the dragons vs. aberrations thing a bit more in the lore though, it seems like the Githyanki are the only place I really see it explored in earnest, and it doesn't seem to be a beef the dragons themselves instigated.

[Monster Manuel]

Instead of Enchantment (mind)/Transmutation (body), I would go Enchantment (mental)/Transmutation (physical). The reason being that some transmutation spells work on objects or materials, not just bodies.

Yeah, that's better. I was just spitballing some examples where a balance pairing may not be as clear-cut, to back up the position that this whole approach is cool where it works, but can be off-putting where it doesn't. But I do like your take on this pairing better.

One way to think about it is that there's no real mechanical effect here, it's just interesting fluff, and given that we're here thinking about it and coming up with novel examples of subclass theme grouping, I guess it's working?

I'm just salty about cutting out half of the wizard schools, and a good number of clerical domains. It feels incomplete without them; If I want to be able to make a Necromancer wizard, or a cleric of a nature god, I won't be able to in the new core books. And, sure, the argument might be that these books are fully backwards-compatible with the 2014 versions, and you could just use those subclasses as-written, but that doesn't make their absence from the core books any less bothersome. And if the argument is "we did it because we like the aesthetics of having four subclasses for all classes across the board", that's my reservation. If they did it because "we haven't figured out what we're doing with Minionmancy, yet, so we're going to put out a separate book that covers the Conjuration and Necromancy subclasses later", I'd understand that, but don't hide it behind the idea of subclass quartet balancing.

I'm excited to see the new and expanded art they're putting in the books, but maybe some of that page space would have been better served by filling in some of these gaps, is all I'm saying.

[Psyren]

I'm just salty about cutting out half of the wizard schools, and a good number of clerical domains. It feels incomplete without them; If I want to be able to make a Necromancer wizard, or a cleric of a nature god, I won't be able to in the new core books. And, sure, the argument might be that these books are fully backwards-compatible with the 2014 versions, and you could just use those subclasses as-written, but that doesn't make their absence from the core books any less bothersome. And if the argument is "we did it because we like the aesthetics of having four subclasses for all classes across the board", that's my reservation. If they did it because "we haven't figured out what we're doing with Minionmancy, yet, so we're going to put out a separate book that covers the Conjuration and Necromancy subclasses later", I'd understand that, but don't hide it behind the idea of subclass quartet balancing.

I don't think it has anything to do with "we haven't figured out what we're doing with Minionmancy yet." Conjuration for example has nothing at all to do with minionmancy until the subclass capstone, and even that is just a straightforward durability buff.

Rather, I simply think they wanted more subclasses for the other 10 classes in the PHB and something had to give. They couldn't justify 7-8 for Cleric and Wizard in core while the others only got 4, and they sure as hell couldn't justify 7-8 for everyone across the board, so instead Wizard and Cleric had to make concessions. I think that's entirely reasonable, even if two of my favorites (Enchanter and Tempest) got put on the shelf as a result.

[Arkhios]

They won't. Even in the most recent video, they spent a significant portion of the time talking about how it's still 5E. They even clipped that part and published it as a separate video. WotC is dead set on 2024 D&D/6E/One D&D/5.5/5.1/whatever you want to call it being 5E.
FWIW, I would prefer they won't change their minds on this. Technically the game appears to be same as before, only as if looked through a pair of slightly different lenses. It's just that it's beginning to look weird, kind of "skewed", even from my point of view.


Yeah, that refrain isn't changing, at this point it is what it is and people should decide whether its a dealbreaker for them or not and act accordingly.

To be entirely honest, I don't mind the changes in general. What I feel is strange, is that they are/were planning to drop so many subclasses from PHB that were there before. I truly wonder "Why?"

Still, it's probably not a dealbreaker. Just odd.

[Oramac]

They won't. Even in the most recent video, they spent a significant portion of the time talking about how it's still 5E. They even clipped that part and published it as a separate video. WotC is dead set on 2024 D&D/6E/One D&D/5.5/5.1/whatever you want to call it being 5E.

While I don't agree with WOTC on this, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. I feel it's a bit disingenuous on their part to insist it's still good ole 5e rather than 5.5 or something, but whatever.


What I feel is strange, is that they are/were planning to drop so many subclasses from PHB that were there before. I truly wonder "Why?"

Were I to bet, cost. Especially with all the new art they're (supposedly) spending money on, the cost-per-page of each book is probably relatively high, and they've already raised prices once. Even a company like Hasbro knows they can't raise prices twice in such a short period of time without losing a truckload of sales.

[animewatcha]

Open-hand Monk (overall buffed) vs Shadow Monk (Overall Nerfed?)

[Psyren]

To be entirely honest, I don't mind the changes in general. What I feel is strange, is that they are/were planning to drop so many subclasses from PHB that were there before. I truly wonder "Why?"

4 subclasses per class already puts them at 48. 4 more for just Wizard and Cleric wouldn't just be unfair to the others - it would put them at 56 subclasses in core. Don't you think that's a bit much?

[Arkhios]

4 subclasses per class already puts them at 48. 4 more for just Wizard and Cleric wouldn't just be unfair to the others - it would put them at 56 subclasses in core. Don't you think that's a bit much?

No! :smallbiggrin:

[Rukelnikov]

While I don't agree with WOTC on this, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. I feel it's a bit disingenuous on their part to insist it's still good ole 5e rather than 5.5 or something, but whatever.

I'm regularly surprised by how different people's points of view on this are. I stopped caring much about 2024 new core rulebooks when I realized it's still 5e, and talking with a friend about the recent video we were like "at least they aren't pretending like it's a new edition anymore" :P

[Theodoxus]

I'm regularly surprised by how different people's points of view on this are. I stopped caring much about 2024 new core rulebooks when I realized it's still 5e, and talking with a friend about the recent video we were like "at least they aren't pretending like it's a new edition anymore" :P

True, but it'd be nice if they officially adopted some kind of 'upgrade' stance. 5.x something... 3rd Ed had 3.5; 4th Ed had Essentials... 5th Ed needs something to differentiate this update from the 2014 version, they are different enough for that.

[Rukelnikov]

True, but it'd be nice if they officially adopted some kind of 'upgrade' stance. 5.x something... 3rd Ed had 3.5; 4th Ed had Essentials... 5th Ed needs something to differentiate this update from the 2014 version, they are different enough for that.

I agree, but maybe since they opened with "new edition" now they are remiss to call it "upgrade of current edition".

[Psyren]

Technically what they opened with was "no more editions" rather than "new edition." Which isn't entirely compatible with continuing the current one, to be fair.


No! :smallbiggrin:

I mean, fair enough, I always want more subclasses, but past 4 dozen in one book I'm willing to wait :smalltongue:

[Theodoxus]

I mean, fair enough, I always want more subclasses, but past 4 dozen in one book I'm willing to wait :smalltongue:


Especially if there's little to no change in the subclasses, so you could use the 2014+ subclasses with no issues until they officially update them.

[Arkhios]

Especially if there's little to no change in the subclasses, so you could use the 2014+ subclasses with no issues until they officially update them.

I mean, I get that even D&D is a business, and they want money for their efforts, but still, it kinda feels "wrong" that they do want to make more money by producing more books to cover the rest of them.
It's almost like they're doing it only for the "more money for the big bosses", not for the game's betterment.

I dunno, maybe I'm just weird, or something.

[Psyren]

It's almost like they're doing it only for the "more money for the big bosses", not for the game's betterment.

It's not one or the other though?

It's easy to say that WotC should, out of the goodness of their hearts, carve out time to improve and errata all the underpowered subclass options (like Berserker Barbarian, Great Old One Warlock, Assassin Rogue and Trickery Cleric), and overhaul all the rules, and commission all-new art for it all etc. But by tying those various improvements to a new book release, now they have an Expected Value and estimated ROI to shoot for, and correspondingly, a budget. That allows all the designers working there to dedicate their precious time to the project, and give us more dramatic improvements than they could get by trying to tweak things from the side of their desks; the likely result of that being an overall better game and more revenue. We can in fact get both.

[ZRN]

I don't think it has anything to do with "we haven't figured out what we're doing with Minionmancy yet." Conjuration for example has nothing at all to do with minionmancy until the subclass capstone, and even that is just a straightforward durability buff.

Rather, I simply think they wanted more subclasses for the other 10 classes in the PHB and something had to give. They couldn't justify 7-8 for Cleric and Wizard in core while the others only got 4, and they sure as hell couldn't justify 7-8 for everyone across the board, so instead Wizard and Cleric had to make concessions. I think that's entirely reasonable, even if two of my favorites (Enchanter and Tempest) got put on the shelf as a result.

Page count is probably an issue, especially since they're supposedly including art of each subclass this time around. But I think there's at least somewhat of a design argument for keeping everyone at 4: if you include all 8 schools for wizards it feels like that's the full roster, and later subclass entries feel gimmicky or tacked-on. (Notice how there's been between zero and one impactful wizard subclasses post-PHB.) And conversely, classes like druid felt "complete" with just a couple subclass options in the PHB: you're a wild shape druid or a spells druid, and anything else seems unnecessary.

Having 4 options for these, and for everything else, makes it clearer that these options aren't definitive and there should always be room for new options.

[Arkhios]

It's not one or the other though?

It's easy to say that WotC should, out of the goodness of their hearts, carve out time to improve and errata all the underpowered subclass options (like Berserker Barbarian, Great Old One Warlock, Assassin Rogue and Trickery Cleric), and overhaul all the rules, and commission all-new art for it all etc. But by tying those various improvements to a new book release, now they have an Expected Value and estimated ROI to shoot for, and correspondingly, a budget. That allows all the designers working there to dedicate their precious time to the project, and give us more dramatic improvements than they could get by trying to tweak things from the side of their desks; the likely result of that being an overall better game and more revenue. We can in fact get both.

I mean, I get all that. Maybe I'm just a bit oldfashioned or sentimental for not "actually wanting" another book that's in fact going to be "replacing" the PHB that I already own (even if I'm not forced to buy it). Yet again, I'm a sucker for new content, so I'm a nail between hammer and anvil...

[Theodoxus]

I mean, I get all that. Maybe I'm just a bit oldfashioned or sentimental for not "actually wanting" another book that's in fact going to be "replacing" the PHB that I already own (if if I'm not forced to buy it). Yet again, I'm a sucker for new content, so I'm a nail between hammer and anvil...

The only upside I see, if I want to go the 5E Upgrade route, is I could just jump on D&DBeyond and grab the new material digitally. I've bought nearly all the hardbound 5E books, so I don't want to double dip for the electronic version too... but I think I'd go full electronic and not get the hardbound version this time.

Yes, that means if the modern world ends, I won't be able to play... but I still have my 5E (and 4E, and some 3E, and PF) hardcopies to fall back on, to while away the time we're not out hunting for meat and berries... I can cope.

[Psyren]

The only upside I see, if I want to go the 5E Upgrade route, is I could just jump on D&DBeyond and grab the new material digitally. I've bought nearly all the hardbound 5E books, so I don't want to double dip for the electronic version too... but I think I'd go full electronic and not get the hardbound version this time.

Yes, that means if the modern world ends, I won't be able to play... but I still have my 5E (and 4E, and some 3E, and PF) hardcopies to fall back on, to while away the time we're not out hunting for meat and berries... I can cope.

For modern releases they've been releasing discounted digital/physical bundles - the only downside is you have to buy from them directly instead of your FLGS.


And conversely, classes like druid felt "complete" with just a couple subclass options in the PHB: you're a wild shape druid or a spells druid, and anything else seems unnecessary.

Having 4 options for these, and for everything else, makes it clearer that these options aren't definitive and there should always be room for new options.

I agree, this way makes the design space pop a bit more clearly.


(Notice how there's been between zero and one impactful wizard subclasses post-PHB.)

Eh? Literally all of them have been impactful save perhaps Graviturgy.

Bladesinger: ...'nuff said
Scribes: Comes up in literally every thread about "I want to be a {mono-element}-caster!"
Chronurgist: Comes up in every thread about "I want to double my concentration!"
War: Comes up in every thread about "I want to be as Int-SAD as possible!"

[Arkhios]

The only upside I see, if I want to go the 5E Upgrade route, is I could just jump on D&DBeyond and grab the new material digitally. I've bought nearly all the hardbound 5E books, so I don't want to double dip for the electronic version too... but I think I'd go full electronic and not get the hardbound version this time.

Yes, that means if the modern world ends, I won't be able to play... but I still have my 5E (and 4E, and some 3E, and PF) hardcopies to fall back on, to while away the time we're not out hunting for meat and berries... I can cope.

Sure, I have 10+ physical books for 5th edition and around the same amount of physical books for PF1E (the better edition, if I may say so), and a close friend of mine has pretty much all the books for 3.5, and another close friend an impressive, though incomplete, collection of 4th edition books.

So yeah, I could cope, too.

That's besides the point, however. As much as I do actually want to see, and, quite possibly, buy the new book, I can't help but feel somewhat bitter that its slated contents won't include all the former-but-updated options + some new things on top, such as the weapon mastery rules. At least, this is how I understood their initial pitch for the new book, and now it seems they've backed away from it. Sure, they might have a good reason for it (namely, budget and time), but still, it feels like I've been mislead. Gaslighted, even. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[DracoKnight]

Yeah I can buy that. I'd like it if they played up the dragons vs. aberrations thing a bit more in the lore though, it seems like the Githyanki are the only place I really see it explored in earnest, and it doesn't seem to be a beef the dragons themselves instigated.

If you want more expansion on it, the take on gem dragons in Fizban’s has them beefing with aberrations pretty regularly, and certain species of gem dragon (I wanna say Amethyst, Crystal, and Sapphire?) actively hunt them!

[Psyren]

If you want more expansion on it, the take on gem dragons in Fizban’s has them beefing with aberrations pretty regularly, and certain species of gem dragon (I wanna say Amethyst, Crystal, and Sapphire?) actively hunt them!

I'd be totally down for said beef if Draconic Bloodline had the gem options. But I'll take what I can get...


https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/16dnx0s/2024_phb_subclasses_and_themes/


This was on Reddit a couple months back and probably offers a pretty good explanation. Treantmonk also called this post out in a video a month or so ago...

I apologize because I meant to comment on this earlier. Yes, I saw the Treantmonk video where he gave this guy a shoutout, but hadn't got around to reading the reddit thread - thanks for linking it!

With that said, while I obviously agree with him on the pattern itself (hence the thread), I don't agree with all the pairs he's called out here. Specifically:

Fighter: I think BM and Champion are the opposing pair here, though what will replace Brawler opposite EK is still up in the air.
Barbarian: I prefer the Internal vs External divide for Berserker and Zealot.
Rogue: Thief is nearly as magical as AT, certainly more magical than most Rogue subclasses, so I'm not sure I buy that one either.
Monk: I think Mercy and Open Hand are the opposites here, as both of them are focused on unarmed combat in different ways. That would make Shadow more subterfuge to 4 Elements more direct approach.

I do actually agree with him on Paladin and Bard, which were the two I was most iffy on.

[DracoKnight]

I'd be totally down for said beef if Draconic Bloodline had the gem options. But I'll take what I can get...

That was one of my big pieces of feedback in the surveys: now that they’ve introduced the Gem Dragons into 5e, the Draconic Sorc needs to include the Gem Dragon bloodlines if they want to actually sell us on this being an expansion/update of 5e. It keeps continuity.

The other thing was just: Draconic and Wild Magic need to gain bonus spell lists, or Aberrant and Clockwork need to lose them. If half have lists and the other half don’t, there’s 2 clear winners in terms of optimization.

[Psyren]

That was one of my big pieces of feedback in the surveys: now that they’ve introduced the Gem Dragons into 5e, the Draconic Sorc needs to include the Gem Dragon bloodlines if they want to actually sell us on this being an expansion/update of 5e. It keeps continuity.

The other thing was just: Draconic and Wild Magic need to gain bonus spell lists, or Aberrant and Clockwork need to lose them. If half have lists and the other half don’t, there’s 2 clear winners in terms of optimization.

Yeah agreed. With 7 more spells known plus 1st level feats and racial spells, I think sorcerers are all in good shape without bonus spells at all (but I wouldn't say no to all of the subclasses getting them either, as long as it's even/consistent.)

[arnin77]

I don’t get this strategy at all. It feels like they are trying to make something different instead of making something better.

Healing word and cure wounds are Evocation spells.

I’d rather see archetypes for wizards and clerics instead of “your school/domain type is your arch type”

Instead of a war cleric because they worship the war domain - why not make a “Crusader”… why can’t the God of light have a zealous Warrior? Or the god of death?

[Psyren]

Instead of a war cleric because they worship the war domain - why not make a “Crusader”… why can’t the God of light have a zealous Warrior? Or the god of death?

Most gods do grant multiple domains though. For example, if I wanted a god that granted both Death and War, Hextor would likely fit the bill there. Similarly, for Light and War, Sul would fit, or Surtr (since 5e Light = Fire.) The domain represents the cleric's area of focus, not the god's; a given faith can have clerics of multiple domains working together.

[arnin77]

Most gods do grant multiple domains though. For example, if I wanted a god that granted both Death and War, Hextor would likely fit the bill there. Similarly, for Light and War, Sul would fit, or Surtr (since 5e Light = Fire.) The domain represents the cleric's area of focus, not the god's; a given faith can have clerics of multiple domains working together.

I guess my point is that it seems like the domain determines the archetype instead of like Crusader or Priest - like Bladesinger isn’t dependant on a school but has a distinct style that is different from the rest.

In your example those gods are still war gods they just have more than one domain… I mean like why can’t a war cleric/crusader worship a nature god? Maybe they can but it just seems like they made archetypes for the classes but cleric and wizard is just dependant on the domain and school.

But I think I’m off on a tangent from your OP regardless…

[Rukelnikov]

I guess my point is that it seems like the domain determines the archetype instead of like Crusader or Priest - like Bladesinger isn’t dependant on a school but has a distinct style that is different from the rest.

In your example those gods are still war gods they just have more than one domain… I mean like why can’t a war cleric/crusader worship a nature god? Maybe they can but it just seems like they made archetypes for the classes but cleric and wizard is just dependant on the domain and school.

But I think I’m off on a tangent from your OP regardless…

Because clerics are representatives of their gods, a war domain cleric gets those powers because they worship war. You can be a paladin and worship any god you want, or a barbarian or anything really.

[arnin77]

Because clerics are representatives of their gods, a war domain cleric gets those powers because they worship war. You can be a paladin and worship any god you want, or a barbarian or anything really.

Ok but my point is still why can’t you have a cleric that is a Crusader or Priest or like - an actual archtype of a cleric as a subclass like all the other classes.

Plus a war cleric worships a war god not war itself. You don’t pray to the battle for victory in the battle.

[Theodoxus]

I'm toying with the idea of having a monotheistic world, and each of the domains work closer to denominations. They all follow 'the one true god', they just emphasize different aspects.

TBH though, I hadn't thought of moving away from schools/domains (mostly because my world is balanced around 12, and I have 12 domains and 12 schools...) but the idea of 4 subclasses of Cleric that aren't domain reliant, but rather 'what you do' is quite intriguing.

I'm also a huge fan of symmetry (d4,d6,d8,d10; armorless, light, medium, heavy). So, I could see Cleric subclasses that were the epitome of armor proficiency.

Priest: unarmored, using a monk's unarmored AC, gains something akin to Arcane Recovery. Bonus spells probably a choice of two from a larger pool (maybe every current domain). Focused on spell casting over martial combat.

Inquisitor: Light armor, simple weapons, but emphasis on the mace; basically the 'Bladesinger' of the Clerics. Channel Divinity closer to the Paladin version; a 1 minute boon that melds Paladin and Bladesinger bonuses on a divine frame.

Cleric: Medium armor, a hodge-podge of bonus spells and abilities taken from Arcane, Death, Forge, Life, Light, Knowledge, and Peace domains. Probably a choice of 1 from a drop down menu, but can mix and match as desired.

Crusader: Heavy armor, martial weapons, no bonus spells, but better Channel Divinity options. Extra attack at 6th; combination of death, tempest, and war domain abilities.

[Psyren]

I guess my point is that it seems like the domain determines the archetype instead of like Crusader or Priest - like Bladesinger isn’t dependant on a school but has a distinct style that is different from the rest.

In your example those gods are still war gods they just have more than one domain… I mean like why can’t a war cleric/crusader worship a nature god? Maybe they can but it just seems like they made archetypes for the classes but cleric and wizard is just dependant on the domain and school.

But I think I’m off on a tangent from your OP regardless…

I do get what you're saying; honestly, I could go either way (i.e. cleric subclasses as domains, vs cleric subclasses as broad archetypes that you can layer domains on top of, similar to warlock pact boons.)

But even with them having gone this route of domain = subclass, I think there's more customization within those parameters than you seem to; you can use things like Divine Order, the level 1 feat, and nearly every 4th-level feat being a half-feat now to really customize your cleric down that Knight Templar vs. Cloistered Priest spectrum anyway, and all of that is single-class; I haven't even brought up 5e having some of the best implementation of multiclassing in the game's long history*. And because of that, I don't think we really need asubclass-as-opposing-archetype separate from domain, anymore. If you want a Life cleric who is more casty at one table and a Life cleric who is more bashy at another, you can do that in 5e.

*which isn't to say 5e multiclassing is perfect, just that it has significant advantages over prior editions

[paladinn]

This is starting to remind me of the whole "role" issue from 4e. Every class had to fit into a grid with power source on one side and "role" on the other. I think they actually invented classes just to fill in the grid (Invoker, anyone?). I was amazed to learn that Rangers were supposed to be martial controllers.

They're not harping on roles anymore; but they are leaning into the "pairs" thing it seems. Why, I don't know.

[Theodoxus]

Roles have been around for decades... while it would be nice to have a 'modern' update that didn't reference them, I don't see that happening anytime soon - they're far too convenient short hand for that.

That said, I think something like human driven table top RPGs (even VTT) can certainly stretch away from a role narrative, simply because a human DM can handle 4 "tanks" or "healers" or "strikers" just fine, where in an AI environment (think dungeon crawling in an MMORPG) such a party would just get wiped out without much trouble.

Me personally, as noted above, I like grids. Though not necessarily around roles. HD (d4, d6, d8, d10); Armor (Unarmored, light, medium, heavy); Weapons (simple/martial ranged/melee); magic (none, 1/3, 1/2, full); Class Skills (1, 2, 4, 8 [I have 60 skills in my system, so 8 starting really isn't a lot])...

I'm toying with an idea of backgrounds granting all the mathematics of your character, and class provides the mechanics.

So, you have 12 points to spend. There are four columns and four rows:

Cost
HD/Damage
Armor
Magic
Skills


0
d4
Unarmored
None
1


2
d6
Light
1/3
2


4
d8
Medium
1/2
4


6
d10
Heavy
Full
8



You could pick a typical fighter: d10 and heavy armor; a typical priest: d6, medium, full; a rogue with 8 skills, d8, and light armor...

The HD/Damage is both your HP and how much damage you do with weapons or spells. So, a Wizard might pick d10 and Full, and all their spells would deal xd10. While a heavy armor wearing full caster would deal xd4 with their spells. (Obviously there would need some rebalancing of spells if I were going to use the 5E spell lists).

There are also feats that would allow for an increase in the column, so a Cleric might start with d8, Heavy and 1/3 casting, but might take a feat that boosts their casting to 1/2, and later to full.

I'm aiming for more of a rules light 'build a bear' concept here.

[Psyren]

This is starting to remind me of the whole "role" issue from 4e. Every class had to fit into a grid with power source on one side and "role" on the other. I think they actually invented classes just to fill in the grid (Invoker, anyone?). I was amazed to learn that Rangers were supposed to be martial controllers.

I can kind of see that - rangers set traps and traps = control. But ultimately rangers are about hunting and killing, so at most controller should have been their secondary role after being strikers.


They're not harping on roles anymore; but they are leaning into the "pairs" thing it seems. Why, I don't know.

Presumably it ties into the multiverse angle they're going for as D&D's default setting, but the details aren't clear yet.



So, you have 12 points to spend. There are four columns and four rows:

Cost
HD/Damage
Armor
Magic
Skills


0
d4
Unarmored
None
1


2
d6
Light
1/3
2


4
d8
Medium
1/2
4


6
d10
Heavy
Full
8



You could pick a typical fighter: d10 and heavy armor; a typical priest: d6, medium, full; a rogue with 8 skills, d8, and light armor...

The HD/Damage is both your HP and how much damage you do with weapons or spells. So, a Wizard might pick d10 and Full, and all their spells would deal xd10. While a heavy armor wearing full caster would deal xd4 with their spells. (Obviously there would need some rebalancing of spells if I were going to use the 5E spell lists).

There are also feats that would allow for an increase in the column, so a Cleric might start with d8, Heavy and 1/3 casting, but might take a feat that boosts their casting to 1/2, and later to full.

I'm aiming for more of a rules light 'build a bear' concept here.

Man, when you lay it out like this you can really see how Monk got shafted :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

4e rangers were absolutely strikers. Not only does it flat out say that in the class description, they were notorious for being one of the best at it outside of esoteric builds.

[Goobahfish]

I think this line of thinking appeals to a particular kind of mind. The main problem I see is that when creating a class or subclass, it really relies on both a thematic and a mechanical element that synergistically create something interesting and new.

However, realistically, this is just not going to happen consistently. Really, it is something that starts with Cleric at one end. That is, specific modern religion-inspired clerics at one end. Hint-hint good/bad dichotomies. So, you have the good/evil, law/chaos, nature/artifice and those binary spectra can create a lot of classes and their anti-class. Like the blackguard of old.

Then you have Druid. With a subclass that was already a series of subclasses (i.e., Land) to begin with. Snow is the opposite of desert? Forest... is the opposite of... desert? Wait... snow and volcano druids. Swamps... and bah.

Bards... ?

Clerics/Paladins are the easiest.
Then other spellcasters.
Then martials.

Instead, I found it easier to work out what my mechanical bases are (i.e., spellcasting, rage, etc) and ask myself, is this a thematic spectra or is it a group of flavours. For the spectra classes, I think this 4 class thing works well. For some niche versions, perhaps (like unarmed vs armed to the teeth fighter). But in general, I prefer things like... Swarm Druids. Can I make an insect-inspired druid? Well yeah. Ok... what is an anti-insect druid? Like... bug spray druid? Animals? Plants? It is just a nonsense framework to work with.


...Me personally, as noted above, I like grids. ...

Yep, been there some time in 3.5 era. This style of thinking is actually really helpful when it fleshes out those 'missing classes'. I'm thinking mostly of 3.PF Inquisitor which was the 'skill-cleric' which was an obvious hole (and remains one to this day in 5e). The issue is, that for each 'combo' you really need a mechanical distinction on top of the role (i.e., Sneak Attack for rogues, Rage for Barbarians) and sadly, there is often not enough design space for properly unique class-worthy mechanics.

And yes. I agree with Psyren, this line of thinking really demonstrates why the Monk is such a basketcase class.

[Amechra]

I honestly think they screwed up by making Domains the Cleric's subclasses and the Schools the Wizard's subclasses. Yeah, sure, they're iconic for both of the classes and would need to be incorporated somehow... but there had to be a better way of handling it.

I could honestly see an alternate timeline where the eight schools were tossed into a single subclass Land-Druid-style, and then the Wizard got, I dunno, Bladesinger as their second core subclass.


Roles have been around for decades...

The irony is that the "roles" that everyone hates so much are just... look, they've been with the game since literally the point where everyone decided that the Fighter/Thief/Wizard/Cleric quartet was the iconic D&D party back in, what, the 80s? 4e and onward are literally just the people making the game acknowledging that that's the party most people want and giving them more options.

If they feel video-game-y to you... where do you think the video games got it from?,

[DracoKnight]

I honestly think they screwed up by making Domains the Cleric's subclasses

Hard agree, especially after seeing how Pathfinder 2e handles Domains.

There, the Cleric subclasses are their Doctrines, Cloistered or War Priest (Cloistered is your Robe & Staff FF White Mage, War Priest is your classic D&D Crusader Cleric), and then you take feats to gain your Deity's Domain(s).

[Theodoxus]

Hard agree, especially after seeing how Pathfinder 2e handles Domains.

There, the Cleric subclasses are their Doctrines, Cloistered or War Priest (Cloistered is your Robe & Staff FF White Mage, War Priest is your classic D&D Crusader Cleric), and then you take feats to gain your Deity's Domain(s).

That's interesting... I'll have to scroll back over to PF2.

What I'm currently toying with is Vows for Clerics. Making Cleric (I'm renaming it Sanctified for the moment) have no armor proficiencies, and only simple weapons. Then each subclass gains proficiencies in each as appropriate.

Vows modify the class further.

So, Priests are Sanctified that have no armor proficiency, nor additional weapon proficiency. They're basically the Wizards of the divine. But they get Wis modifier to AC, and spell slot recovery akin to Arcane Recovery. Then they can take Vows that further augment their capabilities. One such vow is the Vow of Poverty, that adds Proficiency Bonus to AC (on top of Wis, not replacing it). A second is the Vow of Hospitality that essentially supercharges a Priest into a healing powerhouse at the expense of only dealing non-lethal damage with attacks and spells. Another is the Vow of Divine Apotheosis, which changes the Priest into a Monk, albeit using spell slots (that can no longer be used for spells, to act as Ki instead). Part of the power of that vow is it removes the ability to cast spells at all. Channel Divinity and other aspects still work, however.

Other vows are Vow of the Oathbound, that grants Crusaders and Inquisitors Paladin oaths with all the rights and privileges inherit. Vow of Inquisition is basically the opposite of Hospitality, and helps root out heretics. The Vow of the Crusades that turns the Crusader into a half caster, but provides Paladin style smites.

Vows require sacrifice and a taboo; failing either ends the benefit until a proper atonement is made (depending on the Vow). Outside of Monks and Inquisitors, vows aren't required, and Clerics (the medium armor subclass) tend to not take vows, as they prefer to be the least confined of the subclasses. It's been an interesting side project, making the cleric class a lot more modular than the Domains currently provide.