Well, here we come to the final part of my 2024PHB subclass prediction series - something that I... to be fair, have done before. But my approach here has been a somewhat new one, focusing on trying to narrow down the core archetypes within the broader tropes of the classes.
To reiterate one last time, 5th Edition's design intent is that the base classes cover every fantasy hero archetype you can think of (the Artificer being the only concept in the last 9 years that has warranted a fully new class, after failed attempts to get it to work as a Wizard subclass). The hope is that these class ideas cover as much ground as possible, and that narrower identities can be covered by subclasses. Rather than having a separate Paladin and Avenger, as they did in 4th Edition (I believe) instead the Avenger is simply an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, and the "paladin classic" is Oath of Devotion. Both on a flavor and a mechanical level, the subclasses play inside that broad class space but carve out their own identities within it.
Like the Mages, we have not yet seen the direction that they want to take the Warrior classes (Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks) in the 2024PHB, but as before, I'm going to, for the purposes of this series of posts, assume a conservative approach.
That means that, even though I've been speculating on the possibility that Fighters might all get maneuvers like the Battle Master does, I'm going to assume instead that we'll see them more or less stick to the basic form they have now.
One thing of note is that we have heard a bit about Weapon Mastery as a new feature that will be a major part of the Warrior wheelhouse. According to Comicbook.com, the masteries will grant certain weapon types additional properties, but only if you have the class feature that unlocks it. Examples include "graze," (which I believe was seen with the Greatsword,) which allows you to deal reduced damage to the target when you miss rather than none at all.
Fighters in particular appear to be getting a lot of ways to make use of Weapon Mastery, but I believe all three Warrior classes will get some version of the feature.
This is all well and good, and could potentially make for more engaging combat gameplay for weapon-focused classes, but I don't think it ultimately changes the parameters of this series of posts, which is focused more on what subclasses could make it into the 2024PHB.
And importantly, I'm not making any real assumptions built around the mechanics of those subclasses, expecting that they will be revised or even heavily redesigned to match current design philosophies.
Because the PHB is meant to present the basic options for these classes, what we want to try to narrow in on is what four subclasses give us the most classic and prevalent versions sub-archetypes within each of these class archetypes. The weird, idiosyncratic subclasses can find publication in later sourcebooks, but here we want to zero in on the most obvious, standard versions. Wild Magic Barbarian is a fun idea, but it's a pretty "off-label" version of the Barbarian.
Speaking of which, let's kick it off with our big beefy friends.
Barbarian:
The Barbarian's inspiration in fantasy is pretty obvious, with Conan the Barbarian, and particularly the 1980s Arnold Schwartzenegger incarnation of the character. The Barbarian distinguishes itself from the Fighter in a few ways (notably, though, I think that the World of Warcraft Warrior more or less gets Fighters from its Arms and Protection specializations and Barbarians from its Fury specialization). On a superficial level, the Barbarian doesn't typically wear armor (they can wear medium armor, but most don't to make full use of their bonuses from being unarmored,) and their focus on damage reduction rather than avoidance makes it easier for them to be front-line tanks without even using a shield.
On a flavor level, the Barbarian is often tied to a more primal environment, usually affiliated with natural and wild spaces, and many subclasses include a spiritual element. Spiritual or no, Barbarians are emotional warriors - their central mechanic is Rage, which I think can be easily re-skinned by players to encompass all manner of emotions (I like the idea of thinking of it as glee and revelry - just having a freaking blast, maybe pumping Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now").
Now, there's a whole post to be written about the characterization of Barbarians and their spiritual practices (while I don't think it's racialized the way that, for instance, the Monk is, given that the common points of inspiration for Barbarians are just as European and white as the inspirations for Clerics and Fighters and such, there's definitely some latent judgment - even the use of "Barbarian" - built in it that would take a much longer and different post to unpack) but we'll just leave that to the side and engage with this as a fantasy trope and give it the benefit of the doubt.
Like a surprising number of classes in the 2014PHB, Barbarians only get two subclasses, the Berserker and the Totem Warrior. The Berserker, on a flavor level, easily lives in that "standard choice" space like many other subclasses, though perhaps so much so that it can be a little hard to imagine in what way non-Berserker Barbarians aren't also, you know, Berserkers.
I have almost zero doubt that Berserkers will be reprinted and revised. This is the Barbarian Classic, who will focus on being a wrecking ball swinging into their foes - the class that takes a look at the massive monster the party is facing down and, in their mind, decides that appearances aside, they're actually bigger and stronger.
The Totem Warrior, then, plays much more into the spiritual side of things. While the Berserker could be just as home in a dense city as they are on some far-flung battlefield, the Totem Warrior has a closer tie to the natural world, given their affiliation with animal spirits. Again, I think that this is an easy slam dunk or a reprint/revision (the only problem is the massive power of the Bear Totem at level 3, making it too easy to ignore other subclasses - but this isn't a discussion about mechanics).
Where, then, do we go to explore other design space? The Barbarian's identity is built around being reckless and unstoppable. The Berserker zeros in on that emotional rage to accomplish that, while the Totem Warrior channels the spirits of various wild animals, embodying the aspects that let them fight on beyond normal human(oid) capabilities.
This actually gives us a great avenue to explore the Barbarian - what is the source of their power, the source of their rage?
And I think that this gives us a very easy option for the third subclass, because what's a force that has (in many cases in a very destructive manner) motivated people throughout history to fight and push themselves to extremes? Religious faith. And we've got a (popular and good) subclass for that: The Zealot. The Zealot is motivated to fight by their faith, but they also call upon their unwavering faith as a source of strength and power.
So, what, then, is another source of power for a Barbarian's rage? I'll confess here that the answer is not totally obvious.
See, I'm tempted to look to the Storm Herald. Storms are kind of a perfect metaphor for Rage and emotional tumult - anger and strong emotions can feel chaotic and unpredictable like a storm. This also has the benefit of tying the Barbarian into the more Primal, Druidic world, but in a way that feels distinct from the Totem Warrior (again, as a good reference point, I like to point to the distinction in World of Warcraft between Druids and Shamans - Totem Warrior is closer to the Druidic worldview, while Storm Herald is closer to Shamans - both use "nature magic," but very different flavors thereof).
The other option I'd look at is the Ancestral Guardian. Once again, this is a spiritual-based Barbarian subclass, where you draw strength from your ancestors or predecessors (in the Ravnica campaign I run, our Selesnyan Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is connected not only to direct ancestors, but to the adopted family of the Selesnya Conclave in general, and even broader, the spirits of any who hold the same values he does when he visits other planes).
I think this could also very easily be an option (it doesn't hurt that it's also probably a bit more mechanically appealing than Storm Herald,) but I might argue that it's a little close to the Totem Warrior - not enough to rule it out entirely, but I think the Storm Herald distinguishes itself more clearly. (Indeed, while writing about it, I almost feel like Ancestral Guardian would make for a good Paladin subclass.)
In the interest of showing off as broad a design space as possible, we'll stick with the Storm Herald (and assume that the new design will better balance it with other subclasses).
Barbarian subclass predictions: Berserker, Totem Warrior, Zealot, Storm Herald
Fighters:
First off, to reiterate, I'm going to write this on the assumption that we're not going to see the Battle Master expanded out to basically be all fighters. Especially given the teases about Weapon Mastery as the unifying Warrior mechanic, I think it's unlikely we'll see maneuvers made a class-wide feature, even if WotC and players find it very satisfying. In the interest of being conservative and trying to look at these classes the way I think they're most likely to play out, I'm going to assume that the Battle Master will remain unique in this way.
I know in my Expert class post I suggested that the Swashbuckler was arguably the default fantasy hero, but I think you could make another argument for Fighters. Fighters are weird, because in a lot of ways, they're the non-fantasy fantasy heroes. On a basic level, they are "the class that uses weapons and armor to fight their foes," which describes practically every person who has ever fought anyone in the real world. Unlike Barbarians and Monks, Fighters aren't even bound to focusing on melee attacks, heavy armor, and strength as a focus, as a Fighter can be just as effective with a ranged weapon and high dexterity. Indeed, I might argue that Legolas from the Lord of the Rings is more of a Fighter than a Ranger (Aragorn's 100% a Ranger, even called that in the story) despite his weapon of choice being a bow. Indeed, if you look at the Fellowship of the Ring, you could describe a lot of the characters as Fighters - Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and possibly Sam (though the Hobbits in that are all barely noncombatants, at least until Sam carves his way through Cirith Ungol, which is likely more because he's carrying the One Ring with him and thus projecting this terrifying aura and not because he's actually suddenly a master orc-slayer - fear and charm effects are very important in the Lord of the Rings).
Now, obviously there are other martial classes in 5E (one problem I have with Starfinder is that of the seven core classes, only the Soldier gets to use heavy armor or anything other than basic melee weapons or small arms as a viable option without building for it with feats and the like). And the Fighter, frankly, is sort of defined more by what it isn't than what it is. The Paladin is the martial class with divine magic and holy conviction empowering it. The Ranger is the martial class with primal magic and wilderness expertise. The Fighter is the person who put all their training and practice and conditioning in just getting really good with their weapons.
But while that could feel limiting, in practice it might actually be freeing - the simplicity of the Fighter's overall vibe means that it actually lives in an enormous design space, and that's reflected as well, at least in its current design, by giving you the most opportunities for feats of any class.
Really, I think the only guardrails one needs to bear in mind when designing Fighter subclasses is when you start to butt up against the territory of other classes, particularly those martial or martial-adjacent ones.
However, there's another limitation that I'd place on the design that can be a little tricky to pull off. The Fighter is one of only a few classes (the Rogue and Ranger being the others) that can more or less be just as happy as a melee class as it is a ranged class. And while I think there's a slight bias toward melee, there have also been subclasses that push you into one role or the other, while there are other subclasses that are agnostic in this regard.
Among the 2014PHB subclasses, all three are capable of playing in either space, though there is a slight skew toward melee for Battle Masters, as there are some maneuvers that only work with melee attacks, and at least with the publication of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and the printing of the cantrips Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, Eldritch Knights seem to have a lot of synergies if they stick to melee.
But neither subclass forces you to do so in the way that, for example, the Arcane Archer really forces you to go with a ranged Dex build. And I think that it would be good to maintain that with the 2024PHB.
The Champion Fighter is probably the default subclass for it. Now, the Champion is sort of famously (or infamously) the simplest subclass in D&D. It's not that it isn't good - the ability to crit on 19s and later 18s makes for more frequent fun moments, and a Fighter has enough opportunities for feats that they can build in a lot of other powerful functionality (it also helps that a Champion isn't going to need much more than to boost their primary stat to 20, and maybe just ensure they have decent Con, and then can spend their other feats on stuff like Great Weapon Master and the like). The Champion feels like it nails down the absolute center of the Fighter design space. Is it boring? Almost certainly. But it's also maybe the best option to help a player who is brand new to RPGs wrap their head around the basics of the game and still feel like they're a powerful and contributing member of the team.
The Battle Master, though, I think nails the idea of the Fighter as the trained soldier, its maneuvers embodying a tactical capability and thoughtfulness on the battlefield that distinguishes itself from a Barbarian's reckless rage. There is no question that this one's going to be reprinted, as it's known to be a subclass that WotC feels they got a slam dunk with, and which is very popular with players.
The third 2014PHB subclass is the Eldritch Knight. As I've mentioned many times on this blog, I could have sworn that when I was first learning about the idea of RPG character classes, that the idea of a "battlemage" was one of the standard options, and that what it entailed was a character who had the armor and heavy weapons of a knight combined with the arcane magic of a wizard. Now, that term seems to more frequently refer in media to basically "a wizard who fights in battles," but the way I had always conceived of it, it was far more like the Eldritch Knight (I might have thought of it as skewed slightly more toward the magic end of things, like being a half-caster instead of a third-caster). Indeed, the first game I ever played a Paladin in, Quest for Glory V (which was sort of a hybrid of inventory-puzzle adventure game with light RPG elements) I chose it basically because it looked like the closest thing to a Battlemage, and it took me some time to realize the more religious/divine nature of Paladins as compared to this totally-common RPG class I'd conceived of in my head.
The point is, though, that while it's a little overshadowed by the Battle Master, the Eldritch Knight is also a popular, effective subclass. And it carves out its own identity. Even if I can't seem to find a lot of fantasy media that showcases characters who fit the Eldritch Knight feel (especially if we're categorizing Jedi as more Paladins than EKs,) evidently in my mind, they represent a classic fantasy archetype nonetheless. So they're in.
That means that we only need to figure out one more subclass to add to the 2024PHB. What angle, though, do we approach this from?
Our existing subclasses give us the athletic weapon master, the thoughtful tactician, and the combat mage. Given that the Fighter is not generally a magic class, we don't have the various flavors of magic as the best axis to explore along.
Of the later Fighter subclasses to come out in 5E, I think the one I've usually seen the most excitement about is the Rune Knight. In the Wildemount campaign where I play my Triton Wizard, we have a Rune Knight who makes excellent use of his capabilities (the Cloud Rune is utterly insane - any time a creature crits one of us, it's more likely going to be hitting one of its allies instead).
Now, the only downside here is that I don't think the Rune Knight really fits the same kind of "classic archetype" as other existing subclasses. The Samurai, for instance, is iconic, and I think you could argue the same for the Cavalier.
But the Cavalier focuses on mounted combat, which is a system that I think is pretty underutilized in most D&D campaigns. The Samurai has in microcosm some of the cultural issues that the Monk also has to deal with - I certainly don't think the right thing to do is scrub out any mention of non-European traditions from the game for fear of cultural appropriation, but the truth is that the actual Samurai could probably be represented by plenty of other existing Fighter subclasses, which forces the Samurai subclass to zero in on a kind of vague impression that mostly western designers have of this Japanese tradition for its mechanical definitions.
Normally, I'd say that focusing on some specific element of lore might be too narrow for the PHB options, which I think should represent the broadest categories of class sub-tropes. But Giants are, I think, meant to be nearly as ubiquitous as dragons (which is why we're getting a giant-themed sourcebook later this year). Much like the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer, I think we could make an exception here. Giants show up in practically every real-world mythology, and while the focus on Runes does point more specifically to the Norse variety, I think this might work as an option.
So, while I can't say I'm super confident, I think I'll put that as my fourth Fighter subclass prediction.
Fighter subclass predictions: Champion, Battle Master, Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight.
Monk:
At the D&D Creator summit this week, apparently they talked about the problems with the Monk in general - a little from the mechanical side of things, and a little on the lore side of things. Mechanically, they basically recognize that the Monk should be putting out more damage (and, I hope, getting a d10 hit die and perhaps slightly higher AC, or otherwise some form of damage mitigation).
But flavor-wise, the Monk is in a weird place as the only class whose cultural inspirations are pointedly non-Western. As a white guy, I won't claim to understand all the nuances and difficulties in addressing this. One change they mentioned is that Ki Points will be renamed Spirit Points. These mean, roughly, the same thing, but the use of an English word is, I imagine, an attempt to avoid exoticism when it comes to the class.
Monks, of course, exist in Western traditions (specifically Christian, and primarily Catholic, ones) but as far as I know, Franciscan friars are not known for being elite martial artists. Instead, the Monk is meant to evoke Martial arts traditions of East Asia, such as Kung Fu, and its association with Monks is likely tied to Buddhist traditions such as those out of the Shaolin Temple in China.
To be a Monk (or Nun, which in Christian tradition is simply the female equivalent term) means living an unusual life that is typically characterized by extreme discipline and structure. The Monk as a fantasy hero is thus generally characterized as someone who has unequaled discipline and training of both body and spirit.
Indeed, you could say that, on a philosophical level, the main distinction between a Monk and a Fighter is that the Monk requires a holistic approach to discipline and training, while a Fighter sees their practice as being more limited and focused on the physical side of things.
Furthermore, generally what makes the Monk come off as awesome in fantasy and related genres is that they contain all of their strength and power within their body, eschewing the need for armor or weapons because my harmonizing and conditioning their body, mind, and spirit, they can perform extraordinary feats.
Obviously, from a mechanical perspective, this means that they don't wear armor and generally wield either simple weapons like a quarterstaff or no weapons at all, but can (or at least should be able to) keep pace with people swinging around giant magical swords and buttoned into a walking fortress of armor.
Monks get three subclasses in the 2014PHB.
The Open Hand Monk is the clear "default" option, which really just reinforces the idea of your being a powerful hand-to-hand combatant. I don't really see a need to reconceptualize this one. I don't know what impact Weapon Mastery will have on the class (especially as a class that's typically comfortable setting aside weapons entirely,) but this seems to embody you standard martial artist.
Shadow plays up the Monk's darker side. I think you might interpret this as the "Ninja subclass," though I think Ninjas might actually fit better in the Rogue class category. Still, this subclass makes use of the Monk's focus on dexterity to create a class that uses its grace and speed to take a less direct approach. The magical aspects of the subclass also tie into the spiritual side of the Monk, which of course in a fantasy setting can manifest in actual magical effects.
Now, the Four Elements subclass has a very obvious and very specific cultural inspiration, which is Avatar: The Last Airbender. It's an excellent show (it took me a few episodes to get into it, as it's still definitely aimed at a young audience, but once you're able to put aside any feelings of embarrassment over watching a kid's show, it actually winds up being very, very good). But I guess the question remains whether it works in general for a broad subclass trope. And... you know, I think it actually does. The Four Elements Monk really only suffered from being a little underpowered - eating up your Ki points to get magical effects that aren't really powerful enough to justify themselves. But I respected the attempt to try something very different than, say, the simple "partial spellcaster" identities of the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. Perhaps all it needs is a tune-up.
So, where do we go next?
As usual, let's sum up what we've got so far. We have our master of the physical, we have our stealthy night-stalker, and we have our element-channeling magic monk.
The options here, I think, could go in a lot of different directions. First off, if we're looking for cultural touchstones, the Drunken Master Monk is tons of fun and calls out specifically to the works of Jackie Chan - as compared to Open Hand's Bruce Lee (or, really, most other martial arts stars like Jet Li, Donnie Yen, etc.) The Kensei, then, moves into a more mechanical space - Monks are masters of unarmed combat, but they don't have to only fight with their bare fists. The Kensei is based on a Japanese concept (and again, there's a bit of the old Western gaffe of conflating Chinese and Japanese traditions, which... I don't have much intelligent to say about other than to notice it) that sees someone apply this kind of mastery and discipline to the use of a weapon (I believe Kensei might translate to "sword saint," implying an almost divine mastery of their weapon). I do think that there's a little overlap here with the concept of a Fighter in general, but then again, if we allow the Valor Bard and Swashbuckler Rogue to approach the same trope space from different angles, perhaps it's fine for Kensei to sit near the border of the Fighter's design space.
Lastly, though, I think we can look to the most spiritual and heady of the Monk subclasses, the Astral Self. If the Monk is a Warrior who puts a priority on mental and spiritual discipline in addition to physical discipline, the Astral Self Monk is kind of the logical endpoint of that identity.
To be clear, the actual subclass doesn't totally work, because you can't use any subclass features without spending Ki (or soon Spirit) points, which are kind of a precious resource for Monks. But the concept - of a Monk who goes so far as to transcend their physical form to fight as their mental/spiritual body, feels really awesome on a flavor level.
And I think that the Astral Self and the Open Hand kind of work as the bookends of the physical/spiritual axis for the Monk.
Now, Kensei and Drunken Master are both options I could imagine seeing in the PHB. And don't get me wrong, I love the Mercy Monk (I haven't played it, but I suspect it could be my favorite subclass) and I think the Sun Soul's ability to basically do Hadokens makes it potentially very appealing.
But, on the other hand, what if we did see a swap-out of one of the PHB options?
I mean, people love ATLA, but I think the Four Elements Monk never really took off. I've been very conservative in these posts, and I think in every case, I've kept the 2014 subclasses. But this could be the exception.
And given that, I think we can return to an idea of balancing the representation in Monk subclasses, similarly to how we thought of Bards as going with two melee options and two back-line support casters (which is somewhat in line with the four existing Artificer subclasses, two of which are weapon-attack-based and two of which are just spell-based). And in the case of Monks, I think we've got to look at the divide as the physical versus the spiritual axis.
Open Hand of course sits on the physical side. Shadow, I think, then sits on the spiritual side. Now, I love the Drunken Master, but I think we get to push off in a new direction with the Kensei, which draws a much clearer path away from the Open Hand while still being a physical-focused subclass (though I think we'd likely see a change to its name). Then, to give us another spiritually-focused subclass, we'd go with (a hopefully heavily redesigned) Astral Self.
Monk subclass predictions: Open Hand, Shadow, "Kensei," Astral Self.
Phew, and that covers it. I've had a lot of fun going in deep on the philosophy of subclasses and trying to simultaneously distill the essence of each class while then finding the wiggle room within those class concepts to figure out four subclasses.
I suspect it will be a while before we get any confirmation about what subclasses are making the cut. And I'm not claiming to speak with any authority. I'm certain I will get at least some of this wrong, and there's also a good chance that my approach has been too conservative - I think I only accounted for two brand-new subclasses in this whole series, but if they're doing one, they're probably doing more than two.
It also remains to be seen whether WotC will share some of my attitudes and approaches. I'm very much of the opinion that mechanics in a game like this should follow the lore, and it simply behooves the designers to come up with mechanics that honor that lore while also being balanced and powerful enough that no one feels compelled to take a mechanical option that doesn't really fit with their character concept (*cough* Hexblade *cough*).
This is all speculation, and so I want to make clear that I don't want to set up any expectations. This is more for me to feel cool if it turns out I get anything right, and lets me imagine my ideal direction for the game.
The Survey for the Druid & Paladin UA ends on April 10th, so I'm hoping that we'll get the next, gigantic playtest packet relatively soon, but I also think that they announced that there was no date locked down for it at the recent Creator Summit, so I won't hold my breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment