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.

 

[TwoSix]

Different people like different things.

For sure. That's generally why I post to advocate for what I like, since people can't assume it, as we all like different things.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It is, but I'm not bothered by that as I can be quite reasonable. Where I usually take umbrage is when some people take the "it's just magic" argument to then conclude that psionics aren't necessary for D&D (because wizard or whatever) or that there shouldn't be a psion. If there is room for the sorcerer, bard, and warlock, then I think that there is room for a psion.

I have never been a fan of psionics but it never bothered me in version of D&D where they were in and yes broadly speaking you are correct.
There did appear (in previous psionic UA's) to be lot of division on how psionics should be done and it is interesting to me that they were added at this point. There was no recent UA that I am aware of.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Rants are fine as long as they are not spammed on every thread or derail another conversation, however, short statements of negation or preference do nothing to add to the conversation. One would be better off starting a poll on the topic and making a conversation about the topic.

Everyone is free to voice their opinion.
I take it over people ranting without evidence or worse, evidence they made up.

 

[Aldarc]

I have never been a fan of psionics but it never bothered me in version of D&D where they were in and yes broadly speaking you are correct.
There did appear (in previous psionic UA's) to be lot of division on how psionics should be done and it is interesting to me that they were added at this point. There was no recent UA that I am aware of.

I agree that there is division on psionics. It was something different. But from 3.5e onwards, psionics have effectively been magic. Things like Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, and Detect Magic could all be used on Psionics. That continued in 4e, where psionics was just another type of magic.

I don't mind that at all, as I play psychics and psionics in other games where there is no division between magic and psionics; however, I would prefer a more thematically tight psion that didn't have the wizard or sorcerer's spell list also included as baggage. I think that psions, psychics, or whatever you call the archetype are fun to play. I've played them in Blue Rose, True20, Fantasy AGE (and the updated Blue Rose AGE), Numenera/Cypher, Stars/Worlds Without Number, etc. I haven't played one yet in Dragonbane, but that's on my list.

 

[steeldragons]

'Parantly I posted in the wrong commenty place...

Sooo....hmm... it looks like Fighter and Rogue have two of four non-magic subclasses. Barbarian and Monk (arguably) would have 1 of 4 (Berserker & Open Hand). Ranger, still, is reading as magic-use is part of the archetype...

So...of 48 possible subclasses, the designers thought 1/8th of the game, 6 out of 48, should be classes/characters that don't rely on magic to get things done.

hmph.

I mean, hey, look, I am a "high fantasy lots of magical stuff going on in the game world" kinda guy. Spellcasters are my go to characters in almost every possible instance for the last 40+ years of playing.

But 1/8th of the character options? 6 out of 48? Seems drastically out of balance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But 1/8th of the character options? 6 out of 48? Seems drastically out of balance.

It's definitely a bit weird given people often act like D&D is some sort of semi-realistic RPG that's very easy to run "non-magically". I think that might have been arguably true, long ago, but it definitely isn't even slightly true of 5E.

I rather wish they'd gone the Earthdawn route, where all classes "use magic", just in very different ways. ED was really the first attempt to solve all of D&D's problems, and honestly, it had great solutions, better than 3/4/5E, to like, most of them. If only its system hadn't a clunky '90s mess (why they couldn't have used, say, a system based on Shadowrun 2E's general approach, with more detail for stuff like melee combat, I don't know).

 

[Undrave]

But 1/8th of the character options? 6 out of 48? Seems drastically out of balance.

Agreed.

 

[Aldarc]

'Parantly I posted in the wrong commenty place...

Sooo....hmm... it looks like Fighter and Rogue have two of four non-magic subclasses. Barbarian and Monk (arguably) would have 1 of 4 (Berserker & Open Hand). Ranger, still, is reading as magic-use is part of the archetype...

So...of 48 possible subclasses, the designers thought 1/8th of the game, 6 out of 48, should be classes/characters that don't rely on magic to get things done.

hmph.

I mean, hey, look, I am a "high fantasy lots of magical stuff going on in the game world" kinda guy. Spellcasters are my go to characters in almost every possible instance for the last 40+ years of playing.

But 1/8th of the character options? 6 out of 48? Seems drastically out of balance.

Welcome to 5e D&D, where the solution to the complaints that everyone felt like a spellcaster in 4e was to actually make nearly everyone a spellcaster or a mage.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

A Celestial Warlock patron can be many types of celestials, including certain Arch-Celestials or even something like a Fallen Celestial that plots to regain their position in the Upper Planes.

 

[Staffan]

I'm slightly surprised there hasn't been an attempt to bring Magic's color-coded casting into D&D.

I'm not saying that I would want that (and I don't.) However, with the previous efforts to cross promote, I had thought there may be an attempt.

Part of it is that I think it would be really, really hard to incorporate into D&D. Another part is that in-setting, you don't generally have things like a "red mage". That's a thing you, as the player, can be, but it's generally not something exhibited by the creatures on the cards. Instead you have things like Goblin Arsonist or Hellfire Immolator or Leafkin Avenger – all creatures that do one particular magic thing, but not the laundry list of magical abilities a D&D caster typically has.