That’s valid, but considering 99% of the comments are people hating the name instead of providing input on the game mechanics it’s annoying 

The only subclasses worth playtesting here are the Monk and the Oathbreaker.
All the other ones are basically unchanged.

Warrior of Intoxication is a stupid name.

Maybe they'll come up with a "Warrior of Incontinence" next...

Monk class name is stupid. 

Agreed. "The Way of" sounds much better.

Quote from bthec18 >>

That’s valid, but considering 99% of the comments are people hating the name instead of providing input on the game mechanics it’s annoying 

 We will once the feedback survey opens. This is just the comment section of the release notes. 

Can we please get rid of the damage your friends aspect of the storm herald fire storm aura? Why is this even considered? Completely unfun and a silly restriction to keep.

Can't wait for the dunk-fest on these subclasses when the feedback opens. Missed the mark on all 5 if you ask me. 

If we start from the premise that these subclasses were universwaily unpopular and seldom picked, then it stands to reason that bringing them into the 2024 edition would require them to be reworked. But for the most part, these subclasses have hada only minor tweaks done which don't sufficiently address the issues players had with them. Where there are more substantial changes, theres almost always an equal and opposite "two steps back" change somewhere else in the subclass, making the whole effort seem futile. 

Spiritual Guardian:
- gets to apply its effects to each attack.... but it has to choose between each effect rather than being able to apply both
- it gets an extra attack on rolling an 18+ ... which is less likely to happen than simply using its spirit shield feature, the previous tirgger for its 14th level ability
- No one gives AF about a free 4th level situational spell at level 10 (or for that matter, a 2nd level spell that any caster can cast as a ritual anyway)

Storm Herald:
- Too little power too late. 6th level feature should be moved up to 3rd, 10th level feature should be moved to 6th, 14th to 10th and figure out a cooler capstone for the class like flight, cones of cold and firestorms.

Cavalier:
- STILL not enough focus on mounted combat (not even the find steed spell!)
- If the archetype for mounted knights is to use lances, pikes and halberds (reach weapons) then why does the cavalier's features require an enemy to be within 5ft and not "within melee reach"?
- Capstone identical to previous edition, still unlikely to come up.

Drunken Master (No i will not call it "Warrior of Intoxication")
- No poison resistance or resistance to the posion condition is such a wildly missed opportunity for a ribbon feature
- Well done on actually giving it a full feature at level 6 instead of just the crappy ribbob like before.
- Mystic Brew doesnt specify how much of it you produce per long rst (i.e. how many pints are in the bottle or cask?).
- Nothing says "drunken master" quite like nursing a pint for 1 minute. Someone please take the WotC staff on a pub crawl so they can see how quickly the average drinker can down a pint.
- Drunken Frenzy is still almost unusable since you're almost never going to have 6 enemies surrounding you and RAW you cannot use your movement in the middle of a bonus action. (and even if you did it's doubtful you'd be able to make good use of it)
- Jackie Chan, this ain't!

Oathbreaker
- The one standout. Good upgrades, made more workable, doesn't endanger your own party by buffing enemy fiends and undead.
- Why does an Oathbreaker have tenents to follow if their whoel vibe is... not following tenents?

So 1 out of 5. 

Thats-a crappy UA WotC!

WotC fam - just make it drunken master again please. That is the without a doubt a bad name change.

Love everything else.

TWF never worked with Longswords. You needed to take the Dual Wielder Feat. 

"Former, redesign, former former, new approach..." :disappointment: 

If you're gonna re-release some oldass terrible subclasses, at least make them better. Oathbreaker is the only subclass you treated properly here.

Which they didn't do, at all, unfortunately.

Quote from RecordiconKnok >>

Quote from InterruptingOctopus >>

I've never understood what necromancy had to do with punishment in oathbreaker paladin.
If we're gonna have a necromancer paladin why aren't they called "oath of undying"?

An oathbreaker's abilities in my opinion would have a lot more narrative potential if it was more a class that gets more power as it takes a beating. "repenting" for their transgression by taking "punishment". Perhaps even "absorbing" party member's damage depending on aura.

 I think the idea is that when a Paladin breaks their oath, their divine power is corrupted into an unholy facsimile of itself, and necromancy and the undead are generally depicted as unholy in D&D. It’s why Clerics, who are holy people, have Turn Undead.

 See that could make sense sure but... oath of domination exists. At the risk of making a loaded statement, that sounds very corrupt and evil. Idk i'd rather have necromancer paladins be flavored as "oath of unrest" and a "punishment" for breaking oaths being "oath of atonement". 

Quote from DarthVedia >>

TWF never worked with Longswords. You needed to take the Dual Wielder Feat. 

 Its a common mistake to make.
Not that it even matters anymore since you can no longer do that regardless of which feat you take.
That change I still haven't forgiven and am pretty much just avoiding playing 2024 altogether, that and the fact that my swordbard hexblade combo still hasnt been implemented yet.

The new Drunken Master and Oathbreaker are exciting. That being said, this is a pretty weird UA. The subclasses have barely changed from the original. You could have even sent a survey to ask for our opinions on the original subclasses. 

What happened to the drunken master…. It was a style of fighting not magic potions

Hi! I feel like the features for the new spirit guardian subclass are a little weak. The stacking effects of the spiritual protectors are pretty cool but the extra 1d6 damage option should scale up as you level up, at level 10 an extra d6 doesn’t do much. Speaking of level 10 I also feel like two low level spells that you can only use once a day is little underwhelming, especially because augury is very situational. I think a better option would be the commune or divination spell, something that would be used often enough to be useful. And finally the level 14 feature is just a chance to hit a third time? Like I get barbarians are supposed to be all about giving out damage but this feels kinda slapdash. Maybe give them some kind of ranged ability, like sending out your spirits to do damage or distract from afar, give them more control abilities that martial classes usually don’t get.

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

 This is going to be a very long comment, but before I start, I'd like to say that I have no intention of angering or offending you, JarieSuisen, nor do I want to pick a fight with you. I just want to lay out my opinion of the Oathbreaker and my counterarguments in support of it, because I think it's pretty cool.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

Seriously, this is no "oathbreaker", it's just a typical Evil-aligned paladin. Just call it Dark Paladin, which would be SO much better fitting.

The very concept of an oathbreaker "oath" is counter to the concept of the Paladin. If anything, the subclass features should be "You gain nothing. You must forge a new oath to serve under." and literally nothing else. It would not delete you being a Paladin, but would nerf you until you took on a new actual oath. It would also be one of the only ways to change subclasses by normal mechanics.

You're actually not wrong about the Oathbreaker being an evil Paladin or counter to the concept of the Paladin. Judging by it's fluff, I'd say its meant to be 5e's take on the Antipaladin of previous editions. Antipaladins (also known as Blackguards) are former Paladins who've fallen from grace and turned to evil, gaining corrupted versions of their former powers in the process. In order to become an Antipaladin in earlier editions, you had to start with a certain number of Paladin levels, which you would slowly replace your with Antipaladin levels as you leveled up; this was a way of mechanically representing this fall from grace and turn to evil. If I had to guess, I'd argue this is the primary reason why the Oathbreaker is called the Oathbreaker, with some other reasons being a need for naming cohesion among the Paladin's subclasses and the fact that since the 5e Paladin is defined by its oath, a 5e Antipaladin would need to be defined by the lack or loss of one.

That said, I think the Oathbreaker shouldn't have tenets. That makes it feel too much like an actual oath, rather the remains of a broken one.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

Except, that only sounds like a reason to break one's oath. "Wait, if I just kill that kid I suddenly get cool new powers like raising the dead to serve me? Dude, it's murder time! I thought my oath actually mattered!" You lose no core abilities of being a paladin, you just swap them for some cool edgy powers.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

I genuinely hate the idea of a Paladin that falls being somehow painted as them doing something noble.

 The Oathbreaker's fluff paints a Paladin breaking their oath as an evil act with selfish motivations, such as "corruption, pride, or thirst for power." The noble thing it refers to is a Paladin who's broken their oath using the Oathbreaker's powers to "achieve a great and noble deed to atone for their past evils." If you think that the Oathbreaker's powers sound like a reason to break one's oath, well, I'm sure that some Paladins broke their oath precisely because they found its powers appealing.

The fluff also seems to imply that only evil Paladins can become Oathbreakers, but I'd consider that aspect to be open to interpretation. However, I also think it's worth noting that there is some official precedent for a Paladin to have a genuinely noble reason for breaking their oath. Baldur's Gate III has an NPC called the Oathbreaker Knight, an Undead spirit who appears to Paladin PCs that have broken their oath with the goal of guiding them through rejecting or embracing their new powers. In life, he was a Paladin who served a brutal and tyrannical nobleman, committing all sorts of violent acts in his name, only to snap and slay his master when he could no longer stomach his cruelty, breaking his oath in the process.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

This subclass existing puts in a bright light one of the biggest problems in class design: it is supremely rigid and there are no proper mechanics to support a change.

 I kind of agree with you on this one, but this is mainly because I think it would be cool if the Oathbreaker subclass allowed you to alter how Lay on Hands and Divine Smite work. For example, Lay on Hands could be modified to allow you to deal Necrotic damage to a creature and heal yourself, while Divine Smite could be altered to deal Necrotic damage and deal an extra 1d8 damage to anything other than Fiends and Undead.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

If anything, the subclass features should be "You gain nothing. You must forge a new oath to serve under." and literally nothing else. It would not delete you being a Paladin, but would nerf you until you took on a new actual oath. It would also be one of the only ways to change subclasses by normal mechanics.

The Oathbreaker is most likely going to appear in an XTGE/TCOE-esque rules expansion, meaning that using it at all will be entirely optional and you can easily houserule it out of existence. Even the subclass itself kind of acknowledges this, since its fluff's section about a Paladin PC breaking their oath and becoming an Oathbreaker begins with the phrase "At the DM's Discretion." The 2014 DMG (where the 5e Oathbreaker first appeared) also specified that, after redeeming themselves for whatever broke their oath, Oathbreakers can swear a new oath or re-swear their old one, with the caveat that the next time they broke their oath would be permanent.

TL;DR: The Oathbreaker is meant to be an evil Paladin and counter to the concept of the Paladin, because it is 5e's Antipaladin.