D&D (2024) Thematic 4 corners of the PHB subclasses

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, and both Fey and Goo are mind-altering.

Maybe ...

WARLOCK
• Fiend / Celestial
• Fey (personal) / Goo (impersonal)

Again, I don’t think it’s paired opposites, it’s a range of planar influences.
• Celestial: upper planes
• Fiend: lower planes
• Fey: material mirror planes
• GOO: Far Realm

If they could have added a fifth I imagine it would have been Genie for the inner planes.

 

[Yaarel]

RANGER
• Hunter (animal killer) / Beast Master (animal companion)
• Gloom (shadowfell) / Fey Wanderer? (feywild)

Again, I don’t think it’s paired opposites, it’s a range of planar influences.
• Celestial: upper planes
• Fiend: lower planes
• Fey: material mirror planes
• GOO: Far Realm

If they could have added a fifth I imagine it would have been Genie for the inner planes.

Maybe. Yet the example that Crawford gave was paired opposites:

WIZARD
• Evoker (offense) / Abjuror (defense)
• Diviner (truth) / Illusionist (deception)

 

[Charlaquin]

RANGER
• Hunter (animal killer) / Beast Master (animal companion)
• Gloom (shadowfell) / Fey Wanderer? (feywild)


Maybe. Yet the example that Crawford gave was paired opposites:

WIZARD
• Evocation (offense) / Abjuror (defense)
• Divination (truth) / Illusionist (deception)

Yes, that one example was of paired opposites. A datapoint of one does not establish a pattern. He also described them as quartets that define the corners of a class’s conceptual or gameplay space, not as pairs of opposing concepts. Pairs of opposing concepts is only one possibility of how to define the “corners” of a class, but it’s far from the only way.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, that one example was of paired opposites. A datapoint of one does not establish a pattern. He also described them as quartets that define the corners of a class’s conceptual or gameplay space, not as pairs of opposing concepts. Pairs of opposing concepts is only one possibility of how to define the “corners” of a class, but it’s far from the only way.

I think you are right that it can be gameplay rather than thematic, yet even then I suspect paired opposites.

Crawford said he would go over the quartets, so we will eventually hear what the designers have in mind.

 

[Yaarel]

SORCERER
• Wild / Clockwork
• Draconic (body) / Aberrant (mind)

 

[Yaarel]

Does anyone know what the fourth Ranger subclass is?

 

[Parmandur]

Druid seem obvious:

Land, Sea, Moon, and Stars. Maybe we'll get a Sun Druid eventually?

 

[Yaarel]

Druid seem obvious:

Land, Sea, Moon, and Stars. Maybe we'll get a Sun Druid eventually?

While Moon/Stars pairs well, the contrast seems more about: animal body / starry body.

I characterize this as beastly/angelic. But this "angel" isnt Celestial. Maybe ...

DRUID
• Moon (temporal) / Stars (eternal)
• Land / Sea

 

[Parmandur]

While Moon/Stars pairs well, the contrast seems more about: animal body / starry body.

I characterize this as beastly/angelic. But this "angel" isnt Celestial. Maybe ...

DRUID
• Moon (temporal) / Stars (eternal)
• Land / Sea

Crawford was explict that the quadrants are not all necessarily even thematic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Crawford was explict that the quadrants are not all necessarily even thematic.

And really nothing about what he said suggests that they’re all dualities. Like, some of them obviously are, but others are such a stretch to make fit that model, I think it’s clear they aren’t all intended that way.