D&D (2024) 48 Subclasses: 4 per Class

[bedir than]

I expect we'll see the three most popular from 5e (excepting Clerics and Wizards) plus one that helps them tell more unique stories (psionics, social)

war wizard subclass.

For Wizard I expect the Scholar/Scribes (schools), War Wizard porting from its current version, Bladesinger, and something new.

 

[Branduil]

I think it’s pretty much a sure thing that there will be a “simple fighter” subclass, and it might be called Champion. But I expect it will be revised from the 2014 PHB Champion, which just fails to keep up in damage output, even under ideal conditions.

I don't understand why Fighter has to be the one with the "Noob subclass," as opposed to Barbarian, where it would seem to make much more sense. Barbarian is even the first class alphabetically, perfect place to put the easiest subclass.

 

[Lojaan]

I don't understand why Fighter has to be the one with the "Noob subclass," as opposed to Barbarian, where it would seem to make much more sense. Barbarian is even the first class alphabetically, perfect place to put the easiest subclass.

I think because Fighter was traditionally the most basic class (there was no barbarian back in the day) but I get you.

From memory, I think originally barbarian was a more advanced fighter because it had rage and fighters didn't have anything.

 

[Clint_L]

If the approach to classes we have seen in the playtests is representative, and I suspect it is, this is not straightforwardly true.

a 5e cleric sublcass does not integrate with the new cleric, for example -- the old sourcebooks will still be "valid" for characters made with the old PHB, but they won't integrate without at least some discussion at the table and DM approval, with the new versions.

That's true of every sourcebook. For the last campaign I actually got to play in, I asked if I could do a Mercy monk, and the DM was cool with it, though not very familiar with the subclass.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't understand why Fighter has to be the one with the "Noob subclass," as opposed to Barbarian, where it would seem to make much more sense. Barbarian is even the first class alphabetically, perfect place to put the easiest subclass.

Berserkers are pretty basic.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand why Fighter has to be the one with the "Noob subclass," as opposed to Barbarian, where it would seem to make much more sense. Barbarian is even the first class alphabetically, perfect place to put the easiest subclass.

There’s enough people who want it. I mean, heck, the Champion is the most popular Fighter subclass despite being pretty underpowered. While it bores me, there are definitely a lot of folks out there who just want to spam basic attacks and not worry about managing spells or rages or whatever other mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think because Fighter was traditionally the most basic class (there was no barbarian back in the day) but I get you.

From memory, I think originally barbarian was a more advanced fighter because it had rage and fighters didn't have anything.

The original Barbarian didn’t have rage. It had restrictions against using magic items, but got some ranger-like skills and at higher levels could bypass immunities to nonmagical attacks. Rage, if I’m not mistaken, was added in 3e.

 

[Lycurgon]

That's true of every sourcebook. For the last campaign I actually got to play in, I asked if I could do a Mercy monk, and the DM was cool with it, though not very familiar with the subclass.

That is not even vaguely the same thing. Asking if you can play a subclass and the DM saying yes is very different from trying to use the old subclasses with the new cleric class.

Trying to integrate cleric subclass from a previous book into the new Cleric class would take work. The first level features have to be moved to 3rd level. Does the subclass still give you armour and weapon proficiencies when the new cleric subclasses have had that option moved into another class feature? (If you keep the subclass proficiencies then you get the benefit of the Protector level 2 option and get to pick one of the other 2 options at level 2.)
At what level do you get the level 2 Subclass feature? The old subclasses have there features at 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 17th (although 8th has been replaced with a class feature that is pretty much equivalent so can be safely ignored). The new cleric subclasses get their features at 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th. So how does that fit together now? Is the 17th level power still balanced if you move it to 14th level?
Since the new subclasses don't give 1st level spells, should the old subclasses keep them or drop them and just get those from 3rd?

To make this work it takes quite a bit of changing things around and deciding how it will work. It is not even vaguely like asking if you can play a Mercy Monk.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

4 seems way too low,
unless they somehow reduce schools(s) wizards and cleric domains.

Sees like too many to me. 4 classes, 4 subclass, 16 total seems good to me

 

[DEFCON 1]

I recall that but not the whole 4 per class aspect of it.

I believe that was part of it, or maybe I just speculated it was 4 per class back when it was announced previously.

I think the first video of this new set that just came out (or at least one of them) had Jeremy say specifically and confirm that the 48 subclasses would be 4 subclasses per class.