D&D 5E Hypothetical Revised PHB: What Subclasses Makes the Cut?

[Stalker0]

I'm seeing a lot of love for the storm sorceror so I decided to retake a look as I've never thought it was particularly good.

And giving it a new look.... nope, still don't see it. None of its abilities seem particularly good to me, why the love?

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, but that would open up a lot of space for the other classes to get more stuff. I mean 8 subclasses + 40 or so exclusive spells nobody takes anyway...

The 8 subclasses were really ridiculous. All of them have that 'you can add spell of School X faster and for cheaper'... Why wasn't that a CORE class feature if all subclasses in the PHB were gonna have it anyway?! Heck, being able to pick say Diviner but have Enchantment as your cheaper school would have at least give rise to some interesting builds I bet. Plus, they've been having TONS of trouble building new Wizard class since then because they decided that 'types of magic' was their only basis instead of, I dunno "Why they learned Magic" or "how they apply what they learned" or "Where did they learn?" like other classes. Instead of using the spell classification, how about inventing ACTUAL schools with academic tradition that don't link back to an archaic design that is half-meta and half-narrative (some spells are grouped together because of the in-game effect they had while others are grouped because of the kind of in-unniverse effect they bring about).

And more of those exclusive spells should have been rituals...

 

[Undrave]

I'm seeing a lot of love for the storm sorceror so I decided to retake a look as I've never thought it was particularly good.

And giving it a new look.... nope, still don't see it. None of its abilities seem particularly good to me, why the love?

I picked it because it felt more 'generic' but I have no idea if its good or not

 

[MoonSong]

I picked it because it felt more 'generic' but I have no idea if its good or not

It is a flavor thing, and a mechanucal thing. Dragon sorcerer has too strong of a flavor and is a mess all over the place. It isn't clear if it is a blaster, a gish, or even a generic sorcerer. Storm is the first subclass that has coherence and unity in design. It isn't necessarily good in a power gaming sense, but it is better than anything in the phb. When it comes to power, we needed to wait for shadow and divine soul.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

These are good suggestions for the X+1 approach. Only things I'd change would be:

1) Ditch Assassin for Mastermind. Assassin is just such a mean trap, I've see two players pick it and be dissatisfied with it IRL alone - online I've seen far more of that. If you want "Killer Rogue" Swashbuckler is better in every way. Assassin is just a lie of a name. He should be called like "Disguise-murder-failure" or something. I'd say "Hitman Codename: D&D" but he's nowhere NEAR competent enough (at any level) to model Hitman Codename 47's Hitman. Literally a bunch of other Rogue subtypes would do better 47s.

2) Totally personal but I'd drop Fey Wanderer for Beeeeeeesmaster aka Swarm Ranger. Realistically though there's no way they'd give Rangers less archetypes than Fighters or Paladins, so I'd keep your layout but add "Oh god the bees!".

3) Ditch Cavalier just because it's so badly designed and fails to achieve any of the things a person who selects as class named "Cavalier" wants, instead achieving the things a class called something like "Shieldmaster" or "Protector" might offer. I'd take Samurai and rename it to "Knight" or something instead.

1) I agree the Assassin is not great mechanically. That said, I think there is a player base who wants an assassin option, and it's easier to just have an assassin for them. If I can't do a revision on it though, I'd replace it with Mastermind or Inquisitive.

2) I felt that Swarmkeeper wasn't distinct enough from Beastmaster, in that they both have animal buddies. Plus, I like Fey Wanderer more.

3) Might be misnamed, but I think there is a "tank" niche that Cavalier offers that Samurai can't. While I like the subclass, it didn't feel distinct enough from Battlemaster in how it would play, at least to me.

Of course, all this is just my opinion, and I'm not so full of myself that I expect everyone to agree with me!

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Just steal slots from the Wizard, they don't need that many Evoker, Abjurer and Transmuter can just be taken up by the War Magic subclass, the Enchanter can be replaced by the Glamour Bard and the Necromancer would need better spells and a redo anyway. That leaves you with Illusionist and Diviner, add War Magic, Scribe and Blade Singer so you're down from 8 to 5, that's 3 more slots for the classes with only 2 subclasses in the PHB.

Maybe we should all get together and remake it in a + thread.

If I could, I probably wouldn't be opposed to something similar. I'd probably go War Magic, Scribe, Bladesinger, Some sort of Enchanter/Illusionist mashup(Beguiler!) and Necromancer if I was doing a bigger rework. Maybe Diviner too, it's got some cool mechanics.

 

[Minigiant]

Ifyou revised the PHB, you hve to add new subclasses.

I'd go with 4 per class

1. Alchemist
   1. Artillerist
   2. Battle Smith
   3. Potionmaster
   4. Grenadier
2. Barbarian
   1. Berserker
   2. Thane
   3. Totem Warrior
   4. Zealot
3. Bard
   1. Eloquence
   2. Lore
   3. Sword
   4. Whisper
4. Cleric
   1. Life
   2. Light
   3. Protection
   4. War
5. Druid
   1. Sun
   2. Land
   3. Moon
   4. Stars
6. Fighter
   1. Champion
   2. Battlemaster
   3. Rune Knight
   4. Weapon Master
7. Monk
   1. Astral Self
   2. Closed Fist
   3. Four Elements
   4. Open Hand
8. Paladin
   1. Ancients
   2. Conquest
   3. Devotion
   4. Vengeance
9. Ranger
   1. Falconer
   2. Houndmaster
      
   3. Hunter
   4. Horizon Walker
10. Rogue
    1. Mastermind
    2. Scoundrel
    3. Swashbuckler
    4. Thief
11. Sorcerer
    1. Arcana
    2. Dragon
    3. Shadow
    4. Storm
12. Warlock
    1. Fey
    2. Fiend
    3. Genie
    4. Hexblade
13. Wizard
    1. Bladesinging
    2. Scribe
    3. War Magic
    4. Witch Doctor

Bold are new subclass. Italics are modified ones.

 

[ph0rk]

The deviates from the OP, but it is sort of a question; the available archetypes aren’t all of similar power, so are we selecting from them as-is, or can they be fixed? I can see a better assassin included, but maybe not as it currently stands.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'd prefer if they just included all of them. No I don't actually like all of them, no I don't think it would be good at all for new players, no it wouldn't help sales of books in general if people could get more things in one place, and no it couldn't be at the same price point as other books (unless it was just a dedicated player class/subclass option book). But having another chance to tweak a large number of the subclasses after years of play experience would be good and 5e has reached the point where having a consolidated class option book would simplify life for those of us carrying physical books to games.

 

[Undrave]

The deviates from the OP, but it is sort of a question; the available archetypes aren’t all of similar power, so are we selecting from them as-is, or can they be fixed? I can see a better assassin included, but maybe not as it currently stands.

I feel like if they wanted to just replace underperforming subclasses they would just make new ones with a slightly different name?