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.

 

[SteveC]

The Hexblade is a very popular subclass, but it's also controversial. I'm not surprised that we're not going to see it in the new edition. I suppose there might have been people talking about how they liked it if removing it was brought up for open discussion. But now that it's apparently going away, we'll just hear about how it was a bad class.

As someone playing one, I think it's a perfectly cromulent subclass and I'm enjoying playing it. Does my Hexblade dominate play or is it just better than other options? Nope, definitely not Obviously that's my opinion, but as someone who actually plays one in a fairly typical game, I'd say I at least have an informed opinion and think it definitely deserves to still be around.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's been a minute since 3E, but my PC was a single class fighter. There were significant differences in effectiveness of builds, but that applied to all classes.

But I'm not going to argue about old editions. I will say that in my experience single class fighters could be just as effective as everyone else.

Either your memory is rusty or you played with poor minmaxers. But never mind that - we're getting away from the point. The point is: the caster-martial disparity was a huge gulf in 3E, but it is eminently manageable in 5E. In fact, in my opinion this is one of the chief improvements 5E has accomplished over 3E, together with not forcing the DM to build NPCs as PCs.

 

[CapnZapp]

3. This is for ranged combat also, when you make a ranged attack, all melee attack vs. you have advantage until the start of your next turn.

Reminds me of when I counted the number of obstacles to ranged combat WotC removed from 5E vs 3E.

I can't seem to find that post but I believe it was eleven things. Something like this was only one of those things.

People that entered the hobby with 5th Edition don't know how easy their archers have it...

 

[Horwath]

Reminds me of when I counted the number of obstacles to ranged combat WotC removed from 5E vs 3E.

I can't seem to find that post but I believe it was eleven things. Something like this was only one of those things.

People that entered the hobby with 5th Edition don't know how easy their archers have it...

actually, in 3E you didn't have AC penalty for using ranged weapons, outside not having a shield ofc.

but you could get that with Improved buckled defense feat.

 

[Oofta]

Either your memory is rusty or you played with poor minmaxers. But never mind that - we're getting away from the point. The point is: the caster-martial disparity was a huge gulf in 3E, but it is eminently manageable in 5E. In fact, in my opinion this is one of the chief improvements 5E has accomplished over 3E, together with not forcing the DM to build NPCs as PCs.

In my experience fighters were better at low levels then for a while they roughly balanced out. At around level 14 or 15 (the highest I ever played), everyone could just as well have been carrying the baggage for the caster because an optimized cleric or wizard dominated play. Before that, the disparity was pretty huge between people who had effective builds and those that did not.

 

[Belen]

give warlord, axe the bard!

Nope. If Warlord was that popular and they have the data, then they would have included it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope. If Warlord was that popular and they have the data, then they would have included it.

Presumably 2/3’s of people could absolutely love the Warlord and it still wouldn’t make the cut. Not that I think 2/3’s do but it not being there isn’t necessarily evidence of lack of popularity.

 

[Undrave]

give warlord, axe the bard!

That would still give us 13 classes. Maybe the Psion can be 14th?

 

[Belen]

Presumably 2/3’s of people could absolutely love the Warlord and it still wouldn’t make the cut. Not that I think 2/3’s do but it not being there isn’t necessarily evidence of lack of popularity.

Bards are popular.

If Warlords or Artificers were really popular, then we’d see more of them and WOTC would do more content for them.

 

[SteveC]

If Warlords or Artificers were really popular, then we’d see more of them and WOTC would do more content for them.

This is simply not true. Warlords were one of the most popular 4E classes and are still popular today. The decision was made to not introduce any new classes. We do have the Artificer but I don't think anyone was expecting it to make it into the PHB. The number of classes for the PHB seems to be pretty much locked at this point. It's certainly possible for a class to be popular with fans and not make the list for inclusion in the PHB.