One of the tidbits mentioned in the Expert Classes interview between Todd Kenreck and Jeremy Crawford is that the new PHB will have 48 subclasses included.
With 12 classes, that gives us an average of four subclasses per class. But we should also bear in mind that some classes came with a lot more than that in the 2014 PHB.
Let's do a count. In the 2014, original 5th Edition PHB, we had:
Barbarians 2: Berserker and Totem Warrior
Bards 2: Lore and Valor
Clerics 7: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, War
Druids 2: Land, Moon
Fighters 3: Battle Master, Champion, Eldritch Knight
Monks 3: Four Elements, Open Hand, Shadow
Paladins 3: Ancients, Devotion, Vengeance
Rangers 2: Beast Master, Hunter
Rogues 3: Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Thief
Sorcerers 2: Draconic Bloodline, Wild Magic
Warlocks 3: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One
Wizards 8: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, Transmutation
Total Subclasses: 40
So, that means we're looking at 8 new subclasses. Granted, it's not obvious that these subclasses are going to be brand-new. They could easily reprint some of the options from Xanathar's or Tasha's, especially the popular ones.
We're also likely to see some changes to the subclasses to go along with class changes.
As we can see, the 2014 PHB favored Clerics and Wizards pretty heavily - arguably to an absurd degree. With Wizards, I think they were sort of bound to the concept when they made a subclass for each school of magic. For Clerics, I don't know that the class necessarily needed so many subclasses, but the divine domains were also useful for world-building. If you're making a homebrew setting with its own gods, you'll want to ensure there's at least one deity for each domain. (You might notice that I didn't include the Death Cleric or Oathbreaker Paladin - because these aren't in the Player's Handbook, I'm not considering them part of this group).
Let's make the conservative assumption that every subclass in the 2014 PHB is going to be included. Thus, we have 8 additional subclasses to apply. We'll also make the assumption that they'll use existing subclasses from supplementary materials to include (something I think is less of a guarantee, but possible.)
I think the obvious thing here would be first to grant a third subclass to any class that currently only has two in the PHB. That means one for Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Rangers, and Sorcerers. That leaves just three additional subclasses to put in there.
Even though there are certainly some Cleric and Wizard subclasses I could easily see them adding, I think the options are already quite broad for these classes, so I'd assume other classes will get them.
Let's start by picking a subclass for each of the two-subclass classes.
Barbarians: While I think I might favor the Zealot here, in my play experience, I've seen more players drawn to the Ancestral Guardian. Not only does this play into the Barbarian's notion of being tied to the primordial, inherited past, it also works quite well as a "tank" option that can help protect allies, which emphasizes a major strength of the class.
Bards: There are a number of good options here. Glamour Bards fit a pretty classic Bard archetype, really emphasizing the idea of the Bard as a performer. I'd also be a little tempted to replace Valor with Swords. I also think the Eloquence Bard is really great. But I do think returning to the Glamour Bard, this subclass gives us the true Rock Star Bard, allowing Lore to be the knowledge-sponge and for Valor to be the swashbuckler.
Druids: First off, I expect Circle of the Land to be seriously re-worked, as I really don't see many people being drawn to that one. While I really like the recent Circle of Stars and Circle of Wildfire, I think that the Circle of Shepherds from Xanathar's really emphasizes a Druidic archetype that you don't get much from really any other subclass - the one who really calls upon the natural world. Shepherds is also a pretty good healer, which would be a nice strength to emphasize.
Rangers: Ok, well. Is it that it's flavorfully another classic archetype, or just that it's really powerful? I'm talking about the Gloomstalker here. Another option I'd push for would be the Monster Slayer, which I personally think is a really cool subclass at least on a conceptual level - it plays into that Witcher/Van Helsing/Solomon Kane archetype.
Sorcerer: While I'm hoping Sorcerer subclasses will all get the expanded spell concept that the Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind got, I think the obvious choice here is Storm Sorcery. Storm Sorcery is fairly iconic, and also feels like a good option for "pure magic" in a way that is not quite as unpredictable as Wild Magic.
So, that leaves three subclasses left to apply. And with a third subclass for those five classes, we can now put anyone other than Clerics or Wizards up to 4 subclasses.
Hexblade: Let's mention this off the bat. I actually think Hexblades are a problematic subclass, because they are just so, so much better at pulling off the Bladelock than any other Warlock subclass that it retroactively made the Pact of the Blade feel like it should only work for them. Now, if we roll the "Charisma for attacks and damage" and possibly the "Medium Armor and Shields" into Pact of the Blade, we then have the problem where it feels like there's very little reason to play a Hexblade Warlock. Still, it's obviously very popular, so depending on how much they're willing to change, I could see this making the cut.
Swashbuckler: The Swashbuckler is one of those subclasses that I think really embodies a truly classic archetype, and makes it almost surprising that it didn't exist in the PHB. I think this one's a bit of a no-brainer.
Kensei: Now, this one I'm not super confident about. I think the Kensei does manage to really carve out a clear niche for itself, being the "weapon monk," but I don't know how popular it is. Still, I think it could potentially be a strong hook to get people interested in the monk, especially if they're not really into the unarmed combat aspect of it.
We're obviously a long way from knowing whether any of these predictions will come true. But we should know a little more tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment