D&D 5E Hypothetical Revised PHB: What Subclasses Makes the Cut?

[Ruin Explorer]

If I could redesign the archetypes, I'd mix Crown and Devotion as some kind of holy warlord, mix Glory and Vengeance as some kind of ''challenger, one-on-one, Beowulf'' type and mix Ancient and Watcher as the protector against the unnatural.

Yes this is excellent!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People aren't particularly good at following the rules or caveats of the OP, but maybe I wasn't clear, in which case the blame lays entirely on me.


The premise is that in a revised PHB classes get at most X* + 1 number of their subclasses and what those subclasses are can be reshuffled from all the available subclasses in the PHB + Tasha's + Volo's + etc.

* X = their current number of subclasses in the PHB

So, yes, all subclasses could remain if desired.

Aldarc with no insult, when people don't follow an OP it's because the OP is overly prescriptive and makes no sense to what would actually happen in the broad scenario presented and/or mismatches the title in a serious way. The idea that we have to stick to X+1 is obviously a bit silly and doesn't really support the concept you're trying to get working. It's extremely unlikely Wizards and Clerics will once again see a much much higher number of archetypes than everyone else in a revised PHB, even if it's still 5E. More space will be made for classes who have fewer archetypes.

 

[Undrave]

What I think would be a good thing is dropping all the subclasses you can get for free on DnD Beyond. You don't need them in the book if you can just print them out from the website.

Barbarian: Drop Berserker, add Ancestral Guardian
Bard: Drop Lore and bring in Glamour
Cleric: Drop Life for Order
Druid: Drop Land for Shepherd?
Champion: Drop Champion for Samurai
Monk: Drop Open Hand for Kensei
Paladin: Drop Devotion... I guess invent a new one? Man, the Paladin options suck!
Ranger: Drop Hunter replaced by Monster Slayer I guess
Rogue: Thief for Mastermind is the best bet I'd say
Sorcerer: I guess we gotta drop Dragon Magic so make it Storm Magic
Warlock: Drop The Fiend for The Genie or The Celestial
Wizard: Drop School of Evocation for War Magic I guess?

I would also add the Artificer to the PHB and add some spells, like the SCAG cantrips, Toll the Dead and some Storm themed powers. Would also include all of Tasha's improvement to the Ranger, the new Fighting Styles and Battlemaster maneuvers.

And, ideally, I would also replace the following:
Trickery Domain for Twilight Domain
Eldtrich Knight for Rune Knight
Way of the Four Elements for the Sun Soul or Astral Self
Replace Assassin with Swashbuckler
Replace Wild Magic for Divine Soul
Drop the Great Old One for Fathomless
And I would cut out two more Wizards for Bladesinger and to have room for the Ranger's Horizon Walker

I think that would give us a more interesting load out of classes.

 

[Aldarc]

Aldarc with no insult, when people don't follow an OP it's because the OP is overly prescriptive and makes no sense to what would actually happen in the broad scenario presented and/or mismatches the title in a serious way. The idea that we have to stick to X+1 is obviously a bit silly and doesn't really support the concept you're trying to get working. It's extremely unlikely Wizards and Clerics will once again see a much much higher number of archetypes than everyone else in a revised PHB, even if it's still 5E. More space will be made for classes who have fewer archetypes.

When people say "with no insult," it generally precedes an insulting or condescending remark. Why then would your comment be any different in that regard?

"X + 1 max" is prescriptive, but that's because there is limited space in a PHB and not every desired subclass can be accommodated therein. So this puts an admittedly artificial limit on that to force decisions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When people say "with no insult," it generally precedes an insulting or condescending remark. Why then would your comment be any different in that regard?

????

If you want to take explanations as insults, I can't really help you there mate.

"X + 1 max" is prescriptive, but that's because there is limited space in a PHB and not every desired subclass can be accommodated therein. So this puts an admittedly artificial limit on that to force decisions.

It creates an irrational maintenance of a status quo that would never be maintained if there was a reason to revise the PHB. Seriously. If WotC felt the PHB needed to be revised so badly that they were willing to do it before a new edition or half edition, they would not be just keeping stuff like the number of Wizard/Cleric subclasses intact.

A more useful/plausible decision-forcer would be to maintain the same total number of subclasses or something.

 

[Aldarc]

Whatever. Make this infernal thread whatever other scenario you want it to be about then.

 

[Stalker0]

The premise is that in a revised PHB classes get at most X* + 1 number of their subclasses and what those subclasses are can be reshuffled from all the available subclasses in the PHB + Tasha's + Volo's + etc.

* X = their current number of subclasses in the PHB

So, yes, all subclasses could remain if desired.

These statements contradict themselves. Almost every class has recieved at least 2 or more subclasses from the various splats. Therefore, its not possible to follow X +1 and allow all subclasses to remain.

But the X + 1 seems clear enough, so I will use that.

Bard
Creation - A really cool concept
Eloquence - To me, the only thing really going for this is the penalty to saves, which is solid...but not enough to build a subclass around.
Glamour - The top of the ones I'm dropping. Its seriously cool, but I can only have 3.
Lore - The ultimate in flexible spellcasters, there are so many combos you can do with this, it single handedly sold the bard to my party.
Spirits - Neat but overly complicated for what it is imo. I'd keep it if I could, but only 3!
Swords - Ultimately can only keep 1 "battle" bard, and I think this fits the "selfish bard" theme best, who just want to use their powers on themselves to look like a badass.
Valor - Sorry valor, there can be only 1.
Whispers - Who doesn't want to play a faceless man? Its super cool, but for only 3 subclasses I will stick with more traditional bard concepts, and this ones a bit more out there.

 

[Stalker0]

It creates an irrational maintenance of a status quo that would never be maintained if there was a reason to revise the PHB.

Then why are you in this thread if you don't agree with the premise?

I'm a big believer that the OP sets the tone of the thread. They are telling you the concept up for debate. If you don't like the concept, don't debate it... or start your own thread with a different take on the premise if you wish.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As long as Champion is cast into the fires that created it, undoing all the damage it did to the game, I'll be happy in terms of classes.

 

[Aldarc]

These statements contradict themselves. Almost every class has recieved at least 2 or more subclasses from the various splats. Therefore, its not possible to follow X +1 and allow all subclasses to remain.

I may not be explaining myself well-enough, as I don't think that these statements contradict, so I will try again using an example.

Example: Sorcerer

The Sorcerer currently has two subclasses in the PHB: i.e., Draconic and Wild. So 2 + 1 = 3 total subclasses in a revised PHB. There are currently 7 sorcerer subclasses total among the presently available books: i.e., Draconic, Wild, Storm, Shadow, Clockwork, Aberrant, and Divine Soul. In the hypothetical revised PHB, you can take any of those 7 subclasses and select them for the three available subclass slots for the Sorcerer in a revised PHB. Or you could decide that two is plenty.

But the X + 1 seems clear enough, so I will use that.

Bard
Creation - A really cool concept
Eloquence - To me, the only thing really going for this is the penalty to saves, which is solid...but not enough to build a subclass around.
Glamour - The top of the ones I'm dropping. Its seriously cool, but I can only have 3.
Lore - The ultimate in flexible spellcasters, there are so many combos you can do with this, it single handedly sold the bard to my party.
Spirits - Neat but overly complicated for what it is imo. I'd keep it if I could, but only 3!
Swords - Ultimately can only keep 1 "battle" bard, and I think this fits the "selfish bard" theme best, who just want to use their powers on themselves to look like a badass.
Valor - Sorry valor, there can be only 1.
Whispers - Who doesn't want to play a faceless man? Its super cool, but for only 3 subclasses I will stick with more traditional bard concepts, and this ones a bit more out there.

Much like this.