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

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.

 

[Azzy]

Anyone else getting strong Girl Genius vibes from clockwork Sorcery?

It's been a hot minute since I read that. Did they ever conclude the story?

 

[Marandahir]

Just remember, it's the most horrible affront imaginable to make non-spellcasters actually good and strong while not using any magic. But making the vast majority of the game be spellcasters or spellcaster-lite? Totally cool, best decision ever, shut up and take our money.

So then what is your definition of making Martials actually good?
I imagine porting Martial Practices over from 4e would do wonders?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just remember, it's the most horrible affront imaginable to make non-spellcasters actually good and strong while not using any magic. But making the vast majority of the game be spellcasters or spellcaster-lite? Totally cool, best decision ever, shut up and take our money.

One of many things I love about Level Up is that they expanded the cast of non magic classes to four (or six): fighter, marshal, ranger, and rogue (with adept and berserker being borderline). That's of course assuming you don't pick a magical subclass.

 

[Marandahir]

One of many things I love about Level Up is that they expanded the cast of non magic classes to four (or six): fighter, marshal, ranger, and rogue (with adept and berserker being borderline). That's of course assuming you don't pick a magical subclass.

You see, I like magic baked into the ranger. I don't see where a non-magical ranger isn't just a Fighter or Rogue (Scout). Similarly, I feel like the main issue with lack of Warlord/Marshal is that Battle Master maneuver resources are limited in the base game (wish they were bringing over Superior Technique, but Tasha's isn't poofed from the game just because it wasn't). I think you CAN make a good class from the ground up emulating these 4e class chassises, but narratively I feel like I can already accomplish that fiction with the game as written, and a lot of people want simplicity with their Fighters as an option, too. Hence why Level Up is called what it is – it's supposed to be Morrus' advanced rules options.

 

[Remathilis]

Just remember, it's the most horrible affront imaginable to make non-spellcasters actually good and strong while not using any magic. But making the vast majority of the game be spellcasters or spellcaster-lite? Totally cool, best decision ever, shut up and take our money.

They didn't go far enough. Every class should be magical or supernatural. Nonmagical warriors should be NPCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You see, I like magic baked into the ranger. I don't see where a non-magical ranger isn't just a Fighter or Rogue (Scout). Similarly, I feel like the main issue with lack of Warlord/Marshal is that Battle Master maneuver resources are limited in the base game (wish they were bringing over Superior Technique, but Tasha's isn't poofed from the game just because it wasn't). I think you CAN make a good class from the ground up emulating these 4e class chassises, but narratively I feel like I can already accomplish that fiction with the game as written, and a lot of people want simplicity with their Fighters as an option, too. Hence why Level Up is called what it is – it's supposed to be Morrus' advanced rules options.

If you really want to play a champion fighter in my Level Up game, be my guest. We play Tuesday nights on Discord.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They didn't go far enough. Every class should be magical or supernatural. Nonmagical warriors should be NPCs.

...Yeah. and my opinions would never fly!

 

[Vaalingrade]

They didn't go far enough. Every class should be magical or supernatural. Nonmagical warriors should be NPCs.

You jest, but that's clearly what some people are driving toward--if they don't already think they're supernatural for... ~checks notes!~ being fictional.... existing in fantasy... doing the least thing a real world human can't.... or can; lots of 'doing things normal humans totally can, but I don't know they can'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So then what is your definition of making Martials actually good?

The edition that must not be named.

I imagine porting Martial Practices over from 4e would do wonders?

Not really. I was never particularly impressed with them. I mean, they're not the worst thing, certainly, but they're nothing to write home about.

What would make a difference? Well, having an actual Warlord-style class would help, allowing for an actually complex non-casters. Fixing the Champion so that it isn't starting 10m behind the starting line relative to other Fighters would help a lot too. Making it so you don't have to choose between having useful non-combat features and having useful combat features would also be really nice; I haven't seen the details, but back in (IIRC) PT7, the new skill thing Fighters could get would require them to sacrifice their combat benefits to get a decent but not stellar non-combat benefit, which is just...no.

You see, I like magic baked into the ranger.

Whereas I do not. At all. I strenuously dislike the idea that Rangers (and Paladins) access the supernatural in exactly the same way that Wizards, Clerics, and Bards do. The only class that would even remotely justify such a thing (and even then, I doubt I'd like it) would be swordmage, and 5e doesn't have a swordmage.

You jest

Are you sure?

 

[ECMO3]

Well, having an actual Warlord-style class would help, allowing for an actually complex non-casters.

I kind of think a Bard subclass would be a better Warlord than a new non-caster class would be.

Assuming they continue with the consistent imbalance between the casters and non-casters a Bard would certainly be more effective than a non-caster Warlord class would be. As such, if we had a non-caster Warlord class, I think the same people that currently complain about the fighter would also complain about the Warlord.