D&D (2024) All 48 Player’s Handbook 2024 Subclasses

subclasses.jpeg


The new Player's Handbook contains 12 character classes, each with 4 subclasses, making 48 in total.
  • Barbarian: Path of the... Berserker, Wild Heart, World Tree, Zealot.
  • Bard: College of... Dance, Gamour, Lore, Valor.
  • Cleric: Life, Light, Trickery, War domains.
  • Druid: Circle of the... Land, Moon, Sea, Stars.
  • Fighter: Battle Master, Champion, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior.
  • Monk: Warrior of... Mercy, Shadow, The Elements, The Open Hand.
  • Paladin: Oath of... Devotion, Glory, The Ancients, Vengeance.
  • Ranger: Beast Master, Fey Wanderer, Gloom Stalker, Hunter.
  • Rogue: Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Soulknife, Thief.
  • Sorcerer: Aberrant Sorcery, Clockwork Sorcery, Draconic Sorcery, Wild Magic.
  • Warlock: Archfey Patron, Celestial Patron, Fiend Patron, Great Old One Patron.
  • Wizard: Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, Illusionist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad



I really like that summary page. Excellent idea, and our first example of what they mean when they say that the books are reorganized for ease of use.

Oh, that and the whole concept that you pick your Class first. Because of course you do!
 
Last edited:


That's the thing about Wizards... I think there are actually like three different "types" of categorization that could have subclasses designed for them.

There's the "job" types... your Scribe, your Bladesinger, your Warmage. Has nothing to do with the types of spells they cast, but what they do with the magic they have available.

There's the "thematic" types... your Chronomage, your Pyrokineticist, your Force Mage The Wizards that specialize in one energy or type of spell to accomplish all different types of actions but which use a singular theme for how the magic looks.

Then there's the "style" types... which are your Spells Schools. These Wizards all focus on a singular style of magic where all the spells do a similar thing as part of the school, just at differing power levels and targets.

The game has made subclasses for all these three different types of categories. The question then becomes whether or not-- since the "style" type has a finite number of Schools that doesn't change-- it is important to fill out that one type before focusing or presenting ideas for the others. Some of us players who have Lawful/Ordered brains kind of appreciate/need for all eight schools to be filled out, because it just feels wrong otherwise. That's why I know I actually appreciated seeing all 8 subclasses in the 5E14 book because it just felt right. And while the 5E24 book will only have four of them... to me that isn't so bad because we still have the 5E14 ones available to bring forward as needed.

The one funny part though, is that in truth I think one of the eight classic Spell Schools really isn't like the others and actually shouldn't be one. One of the eight to my mind actually falls under the "thematic" type-- the Necromancer. The spells for the other seven all do the same sort of thing per group-- Divination spells gather information. Abjuration blocks and protects. Evocation blasts energy. Conjuration brings things into existence. Enchantment controls the mind. Illusion deceives the mind. Transmutation changes things from one thing to another. But the Necromancy spells do all of these different things whilst merely laying on a flavor or theming of "death". It doesn't matter what the spell does... if it has a death or undeath flavor to the spell it becomes Necromancy. Which is really why it should be considered one of the "thematic" types.

After all... a pyrokineticist's fire spells can protect the caster via fire shields (abjuration), can blast creatures (evocation), can create animals, objects and walls out of fire (conjuration) and so forth. While the Necromancer can influence your mind to cause fear (enchantment), can animate dead bodies (transmutation), can shoot negative energy (evocation), can gather information by speaking with the dead (divination), can protect themself with a necromatic facsimile of life as a health shield (abjuration) etc. etc. So long as the flavor of the spell is death or undeath, the magic can do anything at all. Which is thematic rather than stylistic. But that's just me. :)

This framework could actually work well as the basis for a 2 or 3 subclass system similar to the 2014 Warlock's patron/boon system, if the Wizard didn't have so much power built into the base class/spell list. I'd be happy limiting some of the baseline Wizard's power and versatility to specific subclasses, but that would probably be too large a departure from tradition for a significant part of the playerbase.
 

I like to read your rants. So please don't stop. Gives me a lot insight into different view points.
I wanted to like the joke, because it seemed like some appreciation of the discussins with you. But I refrain from it now.

If everybody on the forum agreed with me, it would be boring and I didn't mean my comment as an insult. We all play for different reasons and get different things out of the game.
 

I have to admit a viscerally negative reaction to the term "psionic magic," but I know that is just because have long embraced the idea that psionics is not magic, not because it is some inherent definition. But I probably won't be allowing any psionic classes/subclasses in games in my current setting anyway.
 

Well, at least Blade bards still exist in 5e 2014. I may be sticking with 2014.
You can use the new bard with and the old subclass, with official guidance in the PHB. I also don't see anything in Sword that would cause a problem.

Though they are still pretty similar. Both get weapons, medium armor, extra attack, and can spend inspiration dice to get a weapon boost. So i suggest at least looking at the new Valor option.
 

I feel like Shepperd would have been a popular druid to put in the PHB compared to the Sea one.
I like it, but I hope additional classes for the cleric and the wizard are released soon. Both are so attached to the concepts of domains and schools of magic that it's weird creating a cleric of Mystra, for example, and having to fit it in some of these four domains.
This is why the Cleric should have used a system similar to the Warlock, so you could build blasty Cleric and Fighty Cleric and Healing Cleric from the same domains. That way you wouldn’t need a specific War, Light and Life domains to get similar benefits and could have some more generic ones like Nature that could stand-in for a bunch of stuff like storms, sea, seasons, etc.

And speaking of Wizard…
Honestly, we could get away from spell schools specializations for wizards.
Yes! The school specialist should be a single 'Academic Wizard' subclass. I would like to see that, then you could bring in the Implement Specialist from 4e as another subclass, then put in the Bladesinger (so we can have the blade cantrips in the PHB) or Warmage, and finally have a Rogue-ish subclass ('Lorehunter' is my pick for the name) who's specialty is tomb raiding to find spells and magical artefact. Instead of basing the Wizard on the Magic they prefer, base it on their relationship with Magic and what goals they pursue.

Not a bad selection.
Clockwork sorcerer to counterbalance the aberrant sorcerer is a good choice.
Celestial warlock is a bit odd from a worldbuilding perspective. Why would celestial powers create a warlock instead of a cleric or paladin?
I feel like Genie would have been a more popular pick but I guess Celestial works for people who like Divine magic but not the burden of the Cleric's spell list?
Did they get rid of the Blade Bard or is that Valor?

Overall, Bard subclasses look bad.
Wasn't Blade just a second shot at the Valor bard anyway? They probably merged them.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top