OneDnD 48 Subclasses: 4 per Class


log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Cleric, in light of the new playtest:

Divine Order allows any cleric to choose between a frontline option, a knowledge option, and spell option.
I think this will eliminate the War Domain and the Knowledge domain.

So what would the four be? Light and Life seem certain. Of the PHB options, Trickery, Tempest, and Nature remain.

Of those, I suspect they would drop Nature (letting it fall to Druids), But what I'd really like? Would be if they brought in Order (with its tie to enchantment spells) and Twilight (as a counterpoint to Life).
That’s a good point.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I would give someone else's first born for Champion to not make the cut in favor of something like Echo Knight or something entirely new.
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.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
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.
My fear is that 'damage output' will continue to be the only scoring rubric.

Also that the 'simple fighter' will once again create a design ceiling for what the class can do.
 

Clint_L

Hero
4 seems way too low,
unless they somehow reduce schools(s) wizards and cleric domains.
Keep in mind that OneD&D doesn't invalidate the other 5e sourcebooks, so unless they are one of the ones chosen for updating in the new PHB you can still roll a Mercy Monk, Echo Knight, Gloomstalker Ranger, etc. using the relevant source book. You can also just use the ones from the 2014 PHB if you prefer. We aren't losing subclasses.
 

dave2008

Legend
Jeremy Crawford revealed in a recent video on playtest feedback that there will be 48 subclasses in the 1D&D PHB: 4 per class. 😈

It's time to speculate.

ETA: This thread may get more traction if I began speculating so people could come tell me how I was wrong. ;)
FYI, they mentioned the 48 subclasses way back at the start of the playtest. The first or 2nd video.
 




Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Keep in mind that OneD&D doesn't invalidate the other 5e sourcebooks, so unless they are one of the ones chosen for updating in the new PHB you can still roll a Mercy Monk, Echo Knight, Gloomstalker Ranger, etc. using the relevant source book. You can also just use the ones from the 2014 PHB if you prefer. We aren't losing subclasses.
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.
 

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

Hero
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

Adventurer
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

Hero
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

Hero
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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

Adventurer
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.
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top