D&D (2024) 48 subclasses in the 2024 PHB: What are they?

[Parmandur]

Occurs to me that if class groups all get the same subclass progression, and they keep a level 1 slot for cleric theming in the Priest category, and the Priest category also includes druids and paladins, that would mean 1D&D druids and paladins also get their subclass starting at level 1. In the latter case, that would make a lot more sense than what we have now.

It seems more likely that all 3 get their start delayed to Level 3, and match what we just saw for Experts. Crawford said they are standardizing Subclass progression.. and that means across the board.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am not convinced that all grouping will have the same subclass progression some cognisance of the existing subclass has to be taken.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't think wizards need one for every class, so I hope they don't do that.

 

[Parmandur]

I am not convinced that all grouping will have the same subclass progression some cognisance of the existing subclass has to be taken.

They already basically broke that with Experts, and they will probably provide a "Here's how to adjust Subclass levels for older options" after they nail down the rules some more.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am pretty sure they will test revisions for all 41 2014 Subclasses, and see one more each for Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, or Sorcerer.

That's "only" 46!

 

[Parmandur]

That's "only" 46!

Room for some variation! I'm just laying out the minimum expecatog what I think will get covered.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If the progression for Experts is intended to be universal, that means clerics won't get their subclass until level 3 now.

That would work if the subclasses are separated from Domain choice. Which would be cool, IMO. It's like how Pact and Patron are different choices for the Warlock.

and both they and fighters lose a subclass slot, which would both impact 5E subclass compatibility.

Yeah, I think we're gonna see revised version of all the 5E subclasses so that "compatibility" is going to mean, "You can play a 5e character or a 50e character at the same table, but you can't mix-n-match".

Do we need an Eldritch Knight and a Bladesinger? Does a 2/3 - 1/3 balance both ways add enough to take up two subclass "slots?"

Yes, I think we do. They make for interesting options and are very much not the same thing as each other.

Not ludicrous numbers of options, but eight paths within the single subclass.

Another approach (I saw someone suggest something like somewhere around here, but I can't find again to give credit) is to use the most popular specialist archetypes and give them specialty more than one school (and skip the not as popular ones).

Evoker (Abjuration, Evocation, Transmutation)
Necromancer (Conjuration, Necromancy)
Illusionist (Divination, Illusion, Enchantment)

Or whatever makes more sense than those examples (I'm no Wizard expert).

 

[Lycurgon]

I suspect they will be standardising Subclasses across Class Groups rather than across the board. The Expert Group all have their subclasses start at 3rd like they do now. If they standardise per Group I suspect Warrior Subclasses will start at 3rd and progress like Expert, but the other groups would not.

Warlocks and Sorcerers get theirs at 1st and their concepts really need that. How can you be a Warlock without a Patron? How can you be a Sorcerer without a source for your power? So I suspect that Wizards will get their subclass at first to match them.
Clerics need their subclass at 1st too. There shouldn't be Priests that haven't chosen a God yet. So I also expect Druids and Paladins to get their Subclasses at 1st too. For Paladins I think it makes more sense to make their defining Oath at first rather than later. For Druid they don't need to be at 1st but I do think they need to be at or before the level that they get Wildshape because a lot of the Subclasses are about how they modify how they use that power. So 1st works better for them than 3rd.

The benefit to this is they can make subclasses that work across Class Groups. A skill master class for all Expert Classes. An Arcane Scholar available for all Mage Classes.
But I don't really see them doing subclasses that fit all of the Classes, it would be too broad a scope. So I don't see a good benefit to standardise across the board, it doesn't serve the story of the classes or add anything useful except game symmetry.

I also think if they try to have all classes gain their subclasses at 3rd level, it will get a huge amount of negative feedback that they will change it to by group anyway. Some class concepts need to have their source of power defined at the beginning of their career.

 

[Haplo781]

Barbarian: Ancestral Guardian, Beast, Berserker, Totem Warrior

Bard: Creation, Eloquence, Lore, Valor

Cleric: Death, Light, Tempest, War

Druid: Dreams, Moon, Shepherd, Wildfire

Fighter: Battle Master, Cavalier, Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight

Monk: Shadow, 4E, Kensai, Sun Soul

Paladin: Devotion, Glory, Ancients, Vengeance

Ranger: Beast Master, Fey Wanderer, Gloom Stalker, Hunter

Rogue: Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler, Thief

Sorcerer: Dragon, Shadow, Storm, Wild

Warlock: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, Undead

Wizard: Bladesinger, Scribes, Specialist, War

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I think we're gonna see revised version of all the 5E subclasses so that "compatibility" is going to mean, "You can play a 5e character or a 50e character at the same table, but you can't mix-n-match".

But on the contrary, we have two packets now where they go out of their way to ensure old options still function (old Races still work, and old Bard, Ranger and Rogue Subclasses, too). I suspect this will only get stringer over time, as they want to keep selling the older books. If they get that to work, that means that basically every 5E books is still filled with usable game material for OneD&D.