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

[Marandahir]

You make a compelling argument, but worth noting that some will already need revision to work optimally with the 1D&D Expert structures, and I imagine more will in the other categories as well. Certainly provides an excuse for moving some into core. It's possible they may hold off on those options for a non-core update book post 2024, though.

Absolutely; I expect the gorgeous special edition white box Rules Expansion I bought this year (despite having the special covers of XGtE and TCoE) will be obsolete in 2025 when they publish errata and republish the books in a brand new gift set.

 

[Parmandur]

Keep in mind that we don't know yet if four subclass slots at 3, 6, 10, and 14 will be standard across all four class groups. We only know that it's the case for Experts.

Likewise, 48 / 12 = 4 doesn't mean four subclasses per class. They could achieve the same total number of subclasses simply by keeping the current spread, and giving one more each to seven of the classes.

Crawford basically said the bew Sybclass progression was an across the board thing in the videos.

 

[Marandahir]

Crawford basically said the bew Sybclass progression was an across the board thing in the videos.

Not just basically. He outright said that was the intention.

I wonder if they want to see if they can do something akin to the Strixhaven UA subclasses in the future, where the fundamental argument against it was the lack of parity between classes.

 

[Parmandur]

You make a compelling argument, but worth noting that some will already need revision to work optimally with the 1D&D Expert structures, and I imagine more will in the other categories as well. Certainly provides an excuse for moving some into core. It's possible they may hold off on those options for a non-core update book post 2024, though.

Not really: looking over the Rogue, Ranger, and Bar Subclasses...theybshould still all work fine. Particularly once they refine the numbers in playtest. 2014 Subclasses will remain viable for the new base Classes.

 

[JEB]

Crawford basically said the bew Sybclass progression was an across the board thing in the videos.

If the progression for Experts is intended to be universal, that means clerics won't get their subclass until level 3 now, and both they and fighters lose a subclass slot, which would both impact 5E subclass compatibility. (As is, 5E bard/ranger/rogue subclasses have a dead level compared to their 1D&D counterparts.) Universal standards may indeed be the intention, but I wouldn't be sure of anything until we see the packets.

I wonder if they want to see if they can do something akin to the Strixhaven UA subclasses in the future, where the fundamental argument against it was the lack of parity between classes.

Would certainly like to see them try again! Though I'm not sure they'd have any more luck this time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm very much in the camp that things should be symmetric and simplified where it adds benefit and not where it doesn't.

I therefore think that there should be two separate subclass progressions - one that goes 1, 6, 10, 14 and the other that goes 3, 6, 10, 14. The difference is whether the subclass represents something irrevocable and that is required to enter the class in the first place and that you'd basically need a quest to change (e.g. warlock patrons) or whether the subclass represents specialisation within the class (e.g. rogue subclasses). But I see no real reason different classes shouldn't all get subclass features at 6, 10, and 14 (and possibly 18 or 19); I just don't see any thematic advantage in varying the subclass levels here.

 

[Parmandur]

If the progression for Experts is intended to be universal, that means clerics won't get their subclass until level 3 now, and both they and fighters lose a subclass slot, which would both impact 5E subclass compatibility. (As is, 5E bard/ranger/rogue subclasses have a dead level compared to their 1D&D counterparts.) Universal standards may indeed be the intention, but I wouldn't be sure of anything until we see the packets.


Would certainly like to see them try again! Though I'm not sure they'd have any more luck this time.

Yes, they are certainly a work in progress: but that was what Crawford said, so look for Clerics and Sorcerer to get their Subclass at 3 now, and we will see further guidance on how to adapt 5E Subclasses to 2024 Classes in the future, I'm sure.

 

[Haplo781]

I'm pretty sure one of the videos said it's 4 per class. And I'm guessing they'll try to go with broad archetypes that lean into one aspect of the class, leaving "expands the class in a new direction" for splatbooks.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Even more astonishing is the amount of quality assurance labor the D&D community is willing to do for free!

The D&D community has been doing quality assurance work for free for 50 years. At least we are not paying for early access.

 

[JEB]

I therefore think that there should be two separate subclass progressions - one that goes 1, 6, 10, 14 and the other that goes 3, 6, 10, 14. The difference is whether the subclass represents something irrevocable and that is required to enter the class in the first place and that you'd basically need a quest to change (e.g. warlock patrons) or whether the subclass represents specialisation within the class (e.g. rogue subclasses).

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.