Its worth noting that subclasses are not necessarily about delivering options, they are often about cutting options off. The more sub-classes a class has, the more the designers though that the class is over-powered if allowed to buy everything and started forcing you to only take a sub-sect of them.
I really hope that the Eldritch Knight bucks the trend of previous editions attempts and enables the creation of a decent fighter-mage.
Also I wonder if there is any way the hunter ranger will have a quarry ability. I am sure there will be some form of favoured enemy but I really liked the quarry ability in 4e as way of modelling focusing upon a single enemy.
I actually made a pretty high level eldritch knight level 10 or so, we played a bit and I didn't really notice being any worse than any other character.../shrug. The worst thing was picking the spells because they aren't listed by type only level, that was really really annoying.
Is there a way to play a noble politico, in the manner that we see quite frequently in Game of Thrones for example (Littlefinger, Cersei, Daenerys, etc)?
I was kinda thinking of a Rogue with a noble background - but there not really an archetype to fit.
On a related note, is there any intention to add to the Class list in the DMG (or beyond)? Including things like NPC Classes (Aristocrat, Expert, etc). Personally, I hope they don’t go down this route too much, but rather expand on the in-Class archetypes. Like others, I feel there should be a lot more archetypes for Rogues and Fighters in particular.
It's not a horrible class or anything, but it's just a Fighter with a bit of magic bolted on, not a true "hybrid" or "fusion of sword and spell". I expect we will see such a class eventually, but they'll probably need to be their own base class.
My one sad thought: a diplomatic, fast-talking merchant rogue subclass. Who remembers Silk, from the Belgariad? To me, Silk is the quintessential rogue, thoigh I rarely see his character expressed mechanically...
You cannot be a generalist (non-specialist) wizard?
For those unhappy with the quantity of sub-classes, I have a feeling that this is not the end of sub-classes - and in fact, this is one area where WotC may go a bit splat-crazy. We're going to sub-classes all over the place, in setting books, supplements, even adventures. They're also probably really easy to house rule, and I imagine the DMG will offer guidelines.
Silk is unforgettable. But I think he could be made with the Thief sub-class, maybe Assassin but I see more Thief.
I could be mistaken, but aren't sub-classes optional? A generalist wizard would be without a sub-class, perhaps?
I wouldn't worry too much about additional options. I'd be very surprised if "new subclasses" didn't become one of this edition's primary expansions, as PrCs/paragon paths and feats were in the two prior. In fact, given the optional nature of feats, and the fact that they have to be both a lot more impressive and carefully balanced now, I wouldn't be too shocked if, with the possible exception of new spells, new subclasses were the primary player-focused mechanical goody in 5e books (Wizards or third party) moving forward.
I don't know, Warlock seems close to this. They get at-will spell-like effects, a few of the earth-shaking spells (usable a few times per short rest), with Blade pact they can get proficiency in any weapon, they can get a 2nd attack per turn from Invocation, they have d8 hitdie, with fiend patron you get temphp for killing stuff... Seems like it's the best combination for a good while.
I'm interested in seeing if one could make a worthwhile low-Cha Warlock (by picking up spells that don't require saves or to-hit rolls). And of course, stuff like Darkness and picking the invocation that allows you to see in even magical darkness, combos well together.