By Mike Mearls
Mike talks about Player’s Handbook classes and options in this week’s Legends & Lore.
Talk about this article here.
I definitely get the impression from this article that they are already planning additional sub classes. I'm curious what products those will appear in.
I like the way the classes and subclasses shaped up!
Barbarian [Path]: Berserker and Totem Warrior
Bard [College]: Lore and Valor
Cleric [Domain]: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, and War
Druid [Circle]: Land and Moon
Fighter [Archtype]: Champion, Battle Master, and Eldritch Knight
Monk [Tradition]: Open Hand, Shadow, and Four Elements
Paladin [Oath]: Devotion, Ancients, and Vengeance
Ranger [Archtype]: Hunter and Beastmaster
Rogue [Archtype]: Thief, Assassin, and Arcane Trickster
Sorcerer [Origin]: Draconic Bloodline and Wild Mage
Warlock [Patron]: Archfey, Fiend, and Great Old One
Wizard [School]: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation
Really excited to see eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and something like shadow dancer in the PH.
Erifnogard wrote:
I would like to see a DMG advising DMs on how to build custom subclasses. I am looking forward to checking these out, tho.
Definitely a lot of room for growth and expansion, but off to a good start. I really thought the Warden would move from the Paladin to the Ranger, but it looks like it ain't.
Huh. Warlord's dead, at least at launch. This is as much as official confirmation.
Enough to be excited about there, though, that I have a hard time being upset. The list is good.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
It feels weird that some classes have only two sub-classes. It almost makes me worry that they're going to break out a whole slew of class splats.
A few more thoughts...
I wanted a purely martial Ranger. Looks like I didn't get it. But it's probably pretty easy to create a subclass that does what I want.
I wanted a true gish. But, between the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Trickster, I can probably get what I want.
I wanted more Sorcerer options at launch. I think three subclasses, like the Paladin, would paint a fuller portrait of the Sorcerer.
My guess is that the Wizard subclasses will be a little bland. I want something closer to the Cleric domains, which make each subclasses fundamentally different from the others.
That said, I'm pretty happy overall. I think the subclass structure, combined with elements such as the Fighter's style or the Warlock's book/blade/whatever, allows a ton of customization. The Cleric, Druid, Monk, and Paladin subclasses really bring those classes to life.
The more I look at 5E, the more I realize just how smartly constructed it is. The basic building blocks are really, really strong. And in those areas where I disagree with the results of the playtest, modifications are easy.
Also, I wanted a Warlord. Hopefully, Battle Master + Background + Feats makes this an easy solve.
I'm pretty disappointed that there is no universalist wizard, Death domain, or more than two sorcerer options in the PHB. It is just the first book, though. I hope they release hundreds of subclasses, for every class!
The battlemaster is supposed to be the warlord-style subclass.
Ashrym wrote:
As the respresentive of the Ranger Lobby
Where is the Horizon Walker (focus on travel and adaptation?
Where is the Seeker (focus on magic primal arrow magic)?
Where is the Tracker (focus on detection and tracking)?
Gonna have a conversation with Mr. Mearls.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
According to the leaked alpha playtest, warlord has indeed been folded into the fighter's "battlemaster" subclass.
(or so I've heard, as I would never do something as amoral as downloading that and reading it through many sleepless nights 
)
Everything looks preety good, although I am surprised at the absence of the storm sorcerer, as that is specificaly described in fluff intro of the sorcerer class description, posted a few days ago.
I really like this list of classes/subclasses. I actually hope they dont bring out any more.... From past experience too much powercreep, overlapping of niches, inadvertant broken combos, etc. There is so much to choose from already, must be more than 20 different subclasses.
Doubtless the DMG will provide tinkering rules to tweak a particular subclass more in a certain direction, if you desire.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Maneuver fighter starts with 3 superiority dice per short rest. That isn't going to doing anything close to the warlord who can grant actions at-will.
MechaPilot wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
So we get a monk that is inspired by benders.... But not one inspired by Ryu and Ken?
Where is the Way of the Dragon?
This game is called Dungeons and Dragons after all.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
40 subclasses? It's too many. I want fewer! 
Assuming the average campaign has 8 PC's (allowing for churn), and assuming no overlap, I would have to play through 5 campaigns to experience them all in play. FIve campaigns before November, when the DMG comes out with guidelines for creating custom subclasses and that 40 becomes infinite? It's too much. A guy has to eat and sleep sometimes.
Warlord = battlemaster fighter + valor bard + a feat or two.
Orzel wrote:
2097 wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Youngy wrote:
Lord_Kyrion wrote:
It's a good start, although I'm disappointed that acrobat and storm sorcerer did not make it in as those are two I wanted to use. It's nice that some more evil class options are going to end up in the DMG. There is clearly a lot of potential here. Since I only need a level 3 acrobat I should be able to houserule one from the playtest I suppose. I'm going to have to houserule my blackflame/shadow magic warlock in any event, so in for a penny...
Well, at least there's a lot of room to expand all the classes except the wizard.
Plaguescarred wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Most subclasses appear to be very strong archetypes in their own right. This leads me to two questions.
1. Do the Wizard schools express archetypes, or just build options?
2. Does it make more sense to refer to the subclass rather than the main class. i.e. Is an Eldritch Knight a martial charachter? Should their actions reflect a mastery of magic, with enhanced long jumps, healing, and power, or are supposed to be acting just like a champion but they know a few spells as well, more like a multiclass character. I feel like the Champion and the Eldritch knight aren't really sharing the same class as much as they are sharing the same base mechanics. Though I'm not sure if that is true about other subclass archetypes.
Daganev wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
pukunui wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Daganev wrote:
Daganev wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Daganev wrote:
The only thing the Martial Ranger is missing is an animal companion.
I like that the Cthulhu Mythos is represented by the Great Old One patron for warlocks. Sounds really interesting and otherwordly.
Daganev wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Kravell wrote:
I really don't grasp the complaints about all martial rangers.
Just like the paladin and their smites, the ranger has a class ability that uses spell slots to power it - Hunter Marks. These really don't play like spells, and they give you a significant jump in power when you do use them. Just consider them to be "uses per day equal to the sum of numbers on this chart."
All in all, I am still sad at how many subclasses the wizard and cleric get, and so few for everyone else. The only comparison is warlock, and only if you consider book, blade, and chain to be part of the subclass counting, which I don't. I know that they're only focusing on core book stuff at the moment, the styles that have appeared in other core books. And, yes, wizards could be all school specialists in the core books, and a lot of domains in core books, though these were vastly different in the past.
But still! Nearly 40% of core book subclasses are being held within 17% of the classes. That feels lopsided!
frothsof wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Orzel wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Daganev wrote:
Daganev wrote:
Of course they want to be able to sell more books. D&D has already gone out of business once, after all.
I think this is a pretty good range for the core PHB. Plus it sounds like there will be a bunch of anti-hero subclasses in the DMG (which seems odd to me, but whatever).
Awesometastic!
For everyone asking, "What about this and that?", just wait. The DMG is going to have tools to build custom subclasses, right? And I am sure we will see more official subclasses in the future.
MonsterEnvy wrote:
Maybe multiclass the ranger into a fighter or barbarian before you get the spells? They claim that most new subclasses will come out in campaign setting material. Will they hold true to that, hard to say. Sad that a full warlord subclass didnt make it into the book, Im guessing we will see alot of edition warring debates caused by the battlemaster. The warlord seemed too me to be the favorite class of the 4th edition group, but Im not shocked considering how mearls and crawford acted like clowns when anyone asked them about the warlord. Anytime mearls uses buisness speech instead of trying to make stupid jokes, you should be wary. Nice to see the arcane trickster, although Im curious to see how if he can mix sneakattack with spells.Wish the would have added a brutalscounderal rogue considering that they cant use strength for sneakattacks anymore, mybe I will house rule that until they add that subclass considering its nueters alot of archtypes.
It is a bit of a shame that some classes only have a couple of options, but I can understand that some classes lend themselves to having more branches than others, specifically spellcasters. I'd rather see fewer quality class options that more watered-down ones like 4e had to some extent; So I'm quite happy with this.
I'm sure there will be a character options supplement within a 18-24 months. Probably a psionics book as well, if not the same product.
A lot riding on the BattleMaster.
From the fighter L&L (link).
Maneuvers allow you to expend a superiority die to take a special action, granting benefits like the following:
- Grant a bonus attack to an ally in place of one of your own attacks
- Disarm an enemy
- Grant an ally advantage on an attack roll against a target
- Make a counterattack as a reaction
- Sweep your weapon through an area, damaging several foes with one attack
- Parry an attack
- Force an enemy to move
- Allow an ally to move
A warlord-style fighter can take Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally to serve as an effective combat leader.
So all the warlord manuvers are there, (assuming rally is a heal) the only question is how many can you get.
That said, i don't have much hope for the lazylord.
Sadly, the wild mage is still the only other Sorcerer option. I really would have liked another bloodline for the sorcerer.
The abundance of sub-classes comes as a big relief to me. My biggest reservation about 5E was the front-loading of skill trainings, and having to choose between ability increases and feats was that it would make it harder to develop a character into something unique; to make the play session feel like something developed by the player.
Also: ELDRITCH KNIGHT ELDRITCH KNIGHT ELDRITCH KNIGHT!!
Now I just hope it has melee/ranged versatility, as Arcane Archer now seems to be absent from the list of feats we saw last week.
Looking forward to the shadow monk, assassins, and the bard.
UYtrdennis wrote:
So, the Death Domain is in the DMG, but the Necromancy Arcane Tradition is in the PHB.
I am most intrigued about the Ancients Oath/Warden/Green Knight, and Shadow Monk (Ninja/Shadow Dancer).
The wizard gets a whole bunch of possible schools, and the cleric has domains, but it isn't so bad for the classes with 'only' two or three subclasses.
Barbarian Totem Warriors get to choose what sort of animal(s) they get their power from.
Druids of the land get an additional choice in what sort of land they are focused on. If they didn't have the Circle of the Moon their subclasses may have been Forest, Desert, Ocean, Tundra, Subterrainian, Urban ...
Monks of the Elements may be able to focus on their elements.
My guess is that the Ranger Hunter gets to specialize in the types of creatures they hunt. It would fit with the favored enemy mechanic we saw before.
And on top of that there are backgrounds, feats and multiclassing options. If the Assassin Rogue, or Shadow Monk aren't enough of a ninja for you you can splash a bit of the other class.
Cerius wrote:
At first I though the DMG was going to be the major release that was going to make or break 5e for me. This article is a little disappointing seeing so few martial subclasses and the fact that the additional subclasses turn them into casters. The maneuver sections is going to have to be pretty beefy section.
I am hoping that the features like the knight had during the playtest where it got a 1d4 to charisma checks makes it in as a maneuver. I really liked that version because it had a maneuver that was for the interaction pillar.
Marandahir wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
But the issue is that it seems like while Drow subrace of Elf, and Necromancer subclass of Wizard, will be in the PHB, the Death Domain Cleric is going to join the Blackguard in the DMG. That's the issue people are harping on: it seems pidgeon-holing, saying that there are enough good Drow and good Necromancers to make the PHB, but not enough good Clerics of Death Gods to do so (there are actually MORE Clerics of reasonable Death Gods than there are of evil ones).
Marandahir wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Acrilos wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Speaking of Pathfinder, I would also steal the idea of "evil" death spells being in the Death Domain and "good/neutral" death spells being in the Repose Domain.
I suspect the Death domain is partially in the DMG not because it's innately evil but because to a new player or an immature player it may be seen as evil. It's kind of an "advanced options" domain. While the DM and/or player may be able to treat it as more than just the evil adventuer movie bad guy trope there's no guarantee and unlike the domains in the PHB it's the most easily abused and misunderstood. This means the DMG is a good place for it since most players will only have the PHB so unless the DM introduces it as an option they're not likely to even ask about it.
Considering some of the apparent merging of various domains I could see the gods of death not having the Death domain unless they're evil, and instead primarily be tied to Life. I suspect Death has also absorbed Evil and possibly Destruction (though I could see that in Tempest as well).
Of course it's still up to the DM to decide in their own campaign world if death gods are viewed as evil or not (whether the actual diety is evil doesn't have to match the mortal races' perception of the diety). A subterranean culture with vulnerability to sunlight may see a sun god as "evil" even if the diety is actually good aligned, and any fire-worshipping culture is likely to view a water/sea god as evil, even if the diety themselves isn't. This is one of the reasons I don't care for strict alignments and was glad that 4e (and now apparently 5e as well for the most part) have been alignment neutral in mechanics.
I always felt alignment should have been a guide for the character's personality not a mechanic to be manipulated, and while I liked the basic idea of Dragonlance's sliding alignment scale to change alignment based on actions but still felt that it ended up putting too much focus on alignment as a mechanic instead of a roleplaying aid. Good people do bad things and Evil people do good things. Alignment should only shift when they consistently behave like a different alignment so that the stat reflects the roleplay, not the other way around.
tallric_kruush wrote:
What I would do for a Raven Queen, Kelemvor, Wee-Jas, Nephthys, etc -type Death-Domain (Repose Domain? This was in the Deities & Demigods supplement for early 3e, and was meant to be for Death Deities who were different from Nerull, as a sort of "FIX" since Wee-Jas got screwed in the 3.X PHB. I still feel like this should be the Death Domain, while the Undeath Domain or the Destruction Domain can be the evil-ly one). Note how it uses Necromancy school spells, but doesn't specifically deal with making undead or evily acts like vampiric touch or animate dead. It's more about destroying undead and protecting the living, and granting rest to the dead, or allowing the fallen to fight another day.
Cleric Lv – Spell Level – Domain Spells
Lv1 – 1st – wrathful smite, divine favour
Lv3 – 2nd – gentle repose, branding smite
Lv5 – 3rd – feign death, speak with dead
Lv7 – 4th – death ward, banishment OR else, Aura of Life (hard to choose, all three are very thematic)
Lv9 – 5th – raise dead, reincarnate
Now, honestly, I don't know what to give them for a Channel Divinity, since Turn Undead > Destroy Undead is already a part of the Core Cleric class, and having another Undead-beating Channel Divinity would be superfluous. Maybe a CD that helps you locate undead or acts of necromancy being used?
Novacat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Novacat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Novacat wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
rethgryn wrote:
Well, the Battle Master will (unless there's been a huge change since that document) be able to use a maneuver that sacrifices an attack to allow another character to attack as a reaction.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Looking at the so-called "Alpha" Battle Master, I can see a few ways to potentially houserule it into a form my group and I would better like.
Houserules will wait until after we have seen, played and come to grasp the balance of the game; but I can definitely see potential to adjust the class to better suit our preferences.
Novacat wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Oh, sorry. Misread the terminology. Perhaps he meant Opportunity Attacks?
Lawolf wrote:
Istbor wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
The thing is… what I trust the alpha leak for are CONCEPTS. When you say, "don't trust the Alpha leak," it's like saying, all of it is suspect. When really, a lot of it is probably in the final version, it's just that it's not a "working" version of the game. Just hints at what is to come.
Novacat wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
mellored wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
800 changes / 21601 *elements = 3.7%.
*800 i'm taking from the above posters, i didn't count.
*Elements that have "a" in them. The compendium wouldn't let me do a blank search.
It also doesn't include basic rules.
So it's probably closer to 3.5%.
mellored wrote:
I wish for a open door for a supernatural assasin in the future, maybe with a special game mechanic, like the mysteries used by the shadowmancer from 3.5 Tome of Magic.
The idea of variant classes isn´t like subclasses. The subclasses are extra free pack of class features, but the variant classes is more exclusive, you get a special pack of class features but you must reject some previous class features from standard class.. and the marketing ought to present variant classes with the same "illusion" or wish like the stardard classes.
Are possible variant classes to be especially used for any modules?
Yeah some of those 800 changes were significant. One of them was an entire rewrite of how stealth worked which had a major impact on how the rogue class worked. This was needed because of a nasty combination allowed a rogue to take out Orcus without risking being hit ever. Even though the overall level of changes to stealth weren't drastic they closed up some very unabalanced rogue behavior. A change doesn't need to be "large' (text-wise) to be "large" in how it affects gameplay. The magic missile changes someone mentions were another example, they gave the wizard back an auto-hit at-will spell so they did more consistent damage, but at a lower potential per hit.