# So other Classes for the PHB are dead and gone yes?



## Scribe (Dec 4, 2022)

We had a thread here some time back, well many, about the Classes we would want in a new edition. Is that dream dead now with the "Class Groups"?

From the current UA we get Wizards current outlook.

Experts - Rogue, Bard, Ranger
Mages - Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priests - Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Warriors - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk

And Artificer WOULD be an Expert, but is specifically noted as being in either Eberron, or Tasha's.

Warlord? Gish? Psionic? Is it time to just give up the dream on this, and hope they come in a supplemental product?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 4, 2022)

I don't think anyone expected anything other than these 12 to be in the next PHB, did they?


----------



## Scribe (Dec 4, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I don't think anyone expected anything other than these 12 to be in the next PHB, did they?




I mean, expect vs hope, I guess. I was hoping we would see the three I listed, as I think they can fit into the framework of the existing classes without stepping on toes.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 4, 2022)

I think the idea of classes beyond the familiar 12 _in the PHB_ is dead, yeah. That said, I don’t think that means we won’t get a post-2024 revision of the Artificer or psion class or what have you in later supplements. Though, probably not a psion, I think the ship has sailed on that being a full class.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 4, 2022)




----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I mean, expect vs hope, I guess. I was hoping we would see the three I listed, as I think they can fit into the framework of the existing classes without stepping on toes.



It wasn't exactly a conversation that involved WotC, so, yeah. It wasn't going to be anything but pipe dreams.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 4, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I don't think anyone expected anything other than these 12 to be in the next PHB, did they?



This is what the PHB2 will be for- released in 2026ish


----------



## Amrûnril (Dec 4, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I don't think anyone expected anything other than these 12 to be in the next PHB, did they?



The Articficer is the only full class thats been added since 2014. It's distinctive in terms of both mechanics and flavor (more so, I'd argue than a number of the PHB classes) and it expresses a flexible enough concept to work in a broad range of settings and support plenty of subclasses. I don't know it _was_ seriously considered for inclusion in the next PHB, but it absolutely _should_ have been.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 4, 2022)

Scribe said:


> Warlord? Gish? Psionic? Is it time to just give up the dream on this, and hope they come in a supplemental product?



Those seem more setting specific and this PHB is supposed to be an update of the current one, so I don't see new classes being offered. That would seem to contradict their stated intent.

I don't think it was ever realistic to think those would be PHB classes, but I could totally see them in a particular setting, like Planescape for Gish.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 4, 2022)

I dont know that any of them should be setting specific, I guess is my issue, but if the ship has sailed, such is life.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 4, 2022)

I dont know about setting specific: a Warlord or Gish seem more generic than having a full class write-up for every flavor of spellcasting. 

Its like if they made a full class for every type of martial weapons!
Or give me a different class for a character with sick weapon skills from birth that is somehow different than one who learn it at a school and another one who was taken by a mysterious traveling weapon master.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 4, 2022)

Scribe said:


> And Artificer WOULD be an Expert, but is specifically noted as being in either Eberron, or Tasha's.
> 
> Warlord? Gish? Psionic? Is it time to just give up the dream on this, and hope they come in a supplemental product?



The only plausible addition to the PHB was the Artificer. I think it'll be in a very early supplement. The Warlord - with luck they will do better with warlord fighter options this time.

Psionic's going into sorcerer again. And Gish they've decided shouldn't be just one single class but options in several because there's no one vision of them.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 5, 2022)

There will only be the 12 classes from the 2014 PHB in the 2024 PHB.
But I think WOTC will do more classes like the Artificer, Warlord, Shaman, and Psion, in new seting books and options books.

I think they have enough data *by now* that mechainc heavy player and DM options are big sellers.

If there aren't an addition class for each class group by 2034, I would be shocked.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 5, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> If there aren't an addition class for each class group by 2034...


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 5, 2022)

I still think eventually Artificers are going to get the D&D One treatment in the playtest, they keep getting referred to too often not to be, and it causes mechanical issues if they aren't.

 It's going to be weird if the One D&D book keeps referring to previous books. The playtest doesn't have to care about that yet.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 5, 2022)

Scribe said:


> We had a thread here some time back, well many, about the Classes we would want in a new edition. Is that dream dead now with the "Class Groups"?
> 
> From the current UA we get Wizards current outlook.
> 
> ...



It may be not what you want, but I would not be surprised if warlord and swordsmage make it into the PHB as subclasses


----------



## Scribe (Dec 5, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> It may be not what you want, but I would not be surprised if warlord and swordsmage make it into the PHB as subclasses




Yeah, I dont know if that would be ideal to me.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 5, 2022)

Scribe said:


>



If WOTC intends to have past adventure and setting books backwards compatible, them they will run out of mechanical material quickly.
They can't print a new FR or Theros book with nothing in it but lore. That won't sell.
This is ESPECIALLY true if them offer update guides for the subclasses of 5e subclasses. WOTC is kinda running on fumes for exciting ideas for subclasses. TCOE had reprints.

It would be easier to write a XGTE/TCOE type book with 1 new subclasses for 16-17 classes than 2 new subclasses for 12-13 classes. 

The 2024 PHB likely will just have the 12 2014 PHB classes. 
Artificer will likely come in a new Ebberon book.
Swordmage/Gish might come in a new FR book.
Psion will likely come in a new Dark Sun book.
Warlord and/or Shaman might come in a new options book.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 5, 2022)

Again, I remind folks that this is not a new edition. All of the existing sourcebooks are still in effect when the updated PHB comes out. It's still 5e. You can just keep playing your artificer from Tashas', so I don't think they necessarily see an updated artificer as a priority, since Tasha's just came out.

You can also just keep playing all the other subclasses that are currently in the game. And you can play them using the 2014 PHB or the 2024 one. Dealer's choice. My Mercy monk will still be a thing, other or not that it is one of the sub-classes that gets an update in the PHB or not (it probably won't, since it is already pretty up to date having just come out last year).

One D&D is not a new edition. It is just the name they are giving to D&D going forward, so that they can update as needed without making everything currently in print obsolete.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 5, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> You can also just keep playing all the other subclasses that are currently in the game. And you can play them using the 2014 PHB or the 2024 one. Dealer's choice.



You've made claims like this, before, and I think there just isn't the evidence to support it. You may be right, but nothing in the playtests so far suggests this is true.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 5, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> You've made claims like this, before, and I think there just isn't the evidence to support it. You may be right, but nothing in the playtests so far suggests this is true.




I mean if I lose my Oath of Conquest....someone's going to be upset.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 5, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Again, I remind folks that this is not a new edition. All of the existing sourcebooks are still in effect when the updated PHB comes out. It's still 5e. You can just keep playing your artificer from Tashas', so I don't think they necessarily see an updated artificer as a priority, since Tasha's just came out.




With the purchase of DNDB, I think an updated artificer wont be a priority but will be release by 2026. 

If OneD&D isn't a new edition, then the conversion document for the old subclass will come out early. And therefore there will be a lot of more pressure to print new classes.


----------



## GDGD (Dec 5, 2022)

I feel like it's well-established that psionics is a subclass, not a class. So maybe we will see psionics in the PHB but as a subclass, or a handful of subclasses. Psion and soulknife maybe, as subclasses of wizard and rogue.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 5, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> You've made claims like this, before, and I think there just isn't the evidence to support it. You may be right, but nothing in the playtests so far suggests this is true.



Other than the fact that WotC have said, repeatedly, that this is not a new edition, that everything is being designed to be backwards compatible with all of 5e, and every single test packet includes the instruction that all 5e material not specifically mentioned in the test packet is considered RAW? What more do you want? Seriously, what would convince you? Jeremy Crawford personally coming to your house to explain, since him doing so in a video clearly is not getting the job done?


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 5, 2022)

GDGD said:


> I feel like it's well-established that psionics is a subclass, not a class. So maybe we will see psionics in the PHB but as a subclass, or a handful of subclasses. Psion and soulknife maybe, as subclasses of wizard and rogue.



That isn't true. Not even for 5e. What is established in 5e is that psionics is magic an can be a subclaass.

However due to unified spell lists, it is actually more likely more likely to see a psion class than a wizard psionic suclass in a future book as wizard will already have all Arcane spells.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 5, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Other than the fact that WotC have said, repeatedly, that this is not a new edition, that everything is being designed to be backwards compatible with all of 5e, and every single test packet includes the instruction that all 5e material not specifically mentioned in the test packet is considered RAW? What more do you want? Seriously, what would convince you? Jeremy Crawford personally coming to your house to explain, since him doing so in a video clearly is not getting the job done?



It's got nothing to do with what I want. But, as you know, the old subclasses don't all intersect with the new class structures, and vice versa.

Will you still be able to play old characters? Sure.
Will you still be able to use old subclasses with 2014 PHB classes? Sure.

Will you still be able to use old subclasses with the new PHB when it comes? I don't know, but given the playtest materials, the answer is no. Will you be able to adapt them? Sure. Work something out with your DM? Sure. Play them out the box? What we've been given says no. 

I outlined what I assume "backwards compatible" means here. As I said there, I will be happy to be shown to be mistaken.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 5, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I don't think anyone expected anything other than these 12 to be in the next PHB, did they?




Personally I expect the Warlord to make a return as a core class!


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 5, 2022)

Not having a single arcane half caster in the next edition is depressing.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 5, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The 2024 PHB likely will just have the 12 2014 PHB classes.
> Artificer will likely come in a new Ebberon book.
> Swordmage/Gish might come in a new FR book.
> Psion will likely come in a new Dark Sun book.
> Warlord and/or Shaman might come in a new options book.



If you want a setting to sell a hypothetical Warlord class, may I recommend to you the Nentir Vale / Points of Light setting?


----------



## Horwath (Dec 13, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Not having a single arcane half caster in the next edition is depressing.



so true.

Artificer should make the cut in next PHB or Duskblade as half caster.

A barbarian subclass with 1/3rd druid casting should also be in PHB.
or better yet 1/3 casters slightly improved to 2/5th casters so they get new spells every 5 levels instead of every 6 levels.
New spell levels at 3rd/6th/11th and 16th level. 4th level spell still the cap.

Also bards, druids, warlocks and sorcerers could be knocked down to 2/3rd casters and leave Cleric and Wizard as only full casters.
Add class features to compensate for lack of spells.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2022)

Horwath said:


> so true.
> 
> Artificer should make the cut in next PHB or Duskblade as half caster.
> 
> ...




Rather not.
Instead of 1/3 caster and 2/3 caster, I'd rather have full caster -2 and
1/2 caster - 2.
So a bard at level 5 would be as powerful as a half caster or a caster of 3rd level. An eldritch knight of level 5 would be as powerful as a paladin of level 3.

This would still allow bards to go to 18th level caster and eldritch knight go up to 8th level caster.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 13, 2022)

look I am sad that psionics in 1phb is not possible but I take great effort to not get my hopes up anymore.
I knew it would not happen and hoping for it like hoping for anything is a waste of time.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 13, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I mean if I lose my Oath of Conquest....someone's going to be upset.



It's enough to drive a man to Oath of Vengeance.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 13, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Other than the fact that WotC have said, repeatedly, that this is not a new edition, that everything is being designed to be backwards compatible with all of 5e, and every single test packet includes the instruction that all 5e material not specifically mentioned in the test packet is considered RAW? What more do you want? Seriously, what would convince you? Jeremy Crawford personally coming to your house to explain, since him doing so in a video clearly is not getting the job done?



It's a new edition despite what WotC claims.  Their claims that it isn't is just a marketing ploy.  It doesn't bother me that they're coming out with a new edition, but I find their claims that it isn't to be preposterous on the face of it.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 13, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Will you still be able to use old subclasses with the new PHB when it comes? I don't know, but given the playtest materials, the answer is no.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 13, 2022)

From the same post that you quote:


Kobold Stew said:


> As I said there, I will be happy to be shown to be mistaken.




We will see.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 13, 2022)

I just wanted it to be clear for everyone else that the playtest material does explicitly say they'll address the issue you say the playtest materials doesn't address.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 13, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> look I am sad that psionics in 1phb is not possible but I take great effort to not get my hopes up anymore.
> I knew it would not happen and hoping for it like hoping for anything is a waste of time.




I can think of four realistic ways that they might implement psionics. 

a. a bonus set of abilities to a small number of characters (as in AD&D). 
b. a class, with subclasses that allow you to specialize in different niches (this was presented in UA in 2015 and 2016 as the Mystic)
c. psionic subclasses for a select number of existing classes (this was presented in UA in 2019 and 2020, and then implemented in Tasha's).  
d. feats
(Currently, 5e uses both c. and d.)

a. is fundamentally imbalancing, and won't happen. 
b. was met with strong negative reaction, and abandoned. I think that's a shame, since it is the model that is most robust, providing a psionic chassis and allowing a wide range of expressions. It allows for a class to have spellpoints, which many like, and can give a distinct experience of play.
c. allows each existing class (eventually) to have a subclass, and -- if Tasha's is backward compatible as many hope -- it's already "official". The fact that you are raising the question, though, suggests this is not meeting your desires.
d. tasha's also introduced some psionic feats. These weren't playtested, so far as I rmeember, but they're clean, and even though it leads to a blended approach, they are powerful feats, and so have been met with approval.

It appears (to me, without access to the data) that the fanbase is pretty well split between b and c. Neither option is going to meet with wide approval, but the response when they playtested c. was less negative than b. (There is also a substantial group who have their own private implementations, but

All that's to say, many want psionics, but there has not been a strong rallying around any specific implemntation. They went with the least unpopular, and it offers clear rom for growth (as other classes also get subclasses that are in some sense psionic), and they also offered a few psionic feats to get more buy-in.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 13, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I can think of four realistic ways that they might implement psionics.
> 
> a. a bonus set of abilities to a small number of characters (as in AD&D).
> b. a class, with subclasses that allow you to specialize in different niches (this was presented in UA in 2015 and 2016 as the Mystic)
> ...



look some dabbler subclasses help, and some feats help but I want the whole thing like imagine no arcane caster just feats and dabblers.
mystic was the only class I ever truly loved, this likely reflects negatively on me as a person.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 13, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> look some dabbler subclasses help, and some feats help but I want the whole thing like imagine no arcane caster just feats and dabblers.
> mystic was the only class I ever truly loved, this likely reflects negatively on me as a person.




As I said in the post you quote, that's my preferred implementation too. But we were in the minority.


----------



## mellored (Dec 13, 2022)

Artificer was mentioned in one of the videos.  Forget what they said about it.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 13, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> WOTC is kinda running on fumes for exciting ideas for subclasses. TCOE had reprints.



More like they're not trying very hard >.>


----------



## Undrave (Dec 13, 2022)

I feel like they could at least float the idea of new classes, this *is* a playtest after all.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 13, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I feel like they could at least float the idea of new classes, this *is* a playtest after all.




Yes. It really annoys me that we had the Mystic UA, but...nothing.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 13, 2022)

Scribe said:


> Yes. It really annoys me that we had the Mystic UA, but...nothing.



And the Mystic UA was just a misguided mess. it was WAY too big. I don't think a class play test needs to be more than 1 or 2 subclass.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 13, 2022)

Undrave said:


> More like they're not trying very hard >.>



given how many sub-classes they will keep needing to make to sell for money I am surprised they do not just have an idea department combing the old texts, every culture and fantasy works just for ideas to put together so they have sufficient options to little down into the good ones.

I am technically qualified to have an opinion on asset development. 


Scribe said:


> Yes. It really annoys me that we had the Mystic UA, but...nothing.



we had some dabbler classes but that does not fill the niche.


Undrave said:


> And the Mystic UA was just a misguided mess. it was WAY too big. I don't think a class play test needs to be more than 1 or 2 subclass.



it was the mass of two classes at the smallest and needed to be more clear in goals.

remind me, to ask my therapist to try to convince me to write a script for a video on the topic as I am more articulate over voice than text.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 13, 2022)

Undrave said:


> More like they're not trying very hard >.>



No, it's fumes. It really feels more that they don't want to dig too hard into nostalgia in order to not seem basic. But most of their new concepts that aren't remakes or conversions barely scratch the crazy edge of the creativity sphere. This is due to most of the team being "new age" traditionalists and they mostly have the ideas they dream about already.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 14, 2022)

I don't know if the Mystic died on the vine specifically because it was too big and with too many subclasses.  Rather, I think it was because what that playtest packet was really about was testing a whole new mechanical system that wasn't spellcasting.  So all the "subclasses" were there to exemplify and show the different ways this new system could be used... and had it been incorporated... many of them might very well have become their own classes within this Psionics system, rather than just one Class with a half-dozen subclasses.  The same way spellcasting has a whole bunch of different classes that use the Spells system.

But I think what ended up being the issue was that enough people just said in their survey responses that they didn't want a whole new mechanical system _on the whole_.  The system was just too separate from what the game already had but which accomplished the same function.  The idea of having a Spells system _*and*_ a Disciplines system-- both of which had characters doing the same exact things in-game except the players had to use different mechanics to do so... was just not embraced.  After all... if a PC is going to get stronger via Psionics with a game result that matches a PC getting stronger via magic... why do we need two separate mechanics systems to accomplish it?

And I think once WotC realized more people didn't want a whole new game system introduced into D&D... the Mystic went away.  And in the years since then the argument has always been whether or not its worth making a Psion class that uses Spells, since those that hate that idea REALLY hate that idea.  And as a result, it's probably just better to not bother with a Psion class at all.  If most people don't care and might not buy/use psionics rules anyway... and the small contingent who would care, and who would absolutely HATE what you'd be selling... better off just not bothering and instead let a 3PP on DMs Guild bite the bullet and produce a Psionics system with one or more Classes for it.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 14, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I don't know if the Mystic died on the vine specifically because it was too big and with too many subclasses.  Rather, I think it was because what that playtest packet was really about was testing a whole new mechanical system that wasn't spellcasting.  So all the "subclasses" were there to exemplify and show the different ways this new system could be used... and had it been incorporated... many of them might very well have become their own classes within this Psionics system, rather than just one Class with a half-dozen subclasses.  The same way spellcasting has a whole bunch of different classes that use the Spells system.
> 
> But I think what ended up being the issue was that enough people just said in their survey responses that they didn't want a whole new mechanical system _on the whole_.  The system was just too separate from what the game already had but which accomplished the same function.  The idea of having a Spells system _*and*_ a Disciplines system-- both of which had characters doing the same exact things in-game except the players had to use different mechanics to do so... was just not embraced.  After all... if a PC is going to get stronger via Psionics with a game result that matches a PC getting stronger via magic... why do we need two separate mechanics systems to accomplish it?
> 
> And I think once WotC realized more people didn't want a whole new game system introduced into D&D... the Mystic went away.  And in the years since then the argument has always been whether or not its worth making a Psion class that uses Spells, since those that hate that idea REALLY hate that idea.  And as a result, it's probably just better to not bother with a Psion class at all.  If most people don't care and might not buy/use psionics rules anyway... and the small contingent who would care, and who would absolutely HATE what you'd be selling... better off just not bothering and instead let a 3PP on DMs Guild bite the bullet and produce a Psionics system with one or more Classes for it.



that is depressing.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 14, 2022)

Why not just multi class Fighter with Bard?







Bagpuss said:


> Personally I expect the Warlord to make a return as a core class!


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 14, 2022)

MichaelSomething said:


> Why not just multi class Fighter with Bard?



Because it doesn't do what the Warlord did, and it also what it does do does it mainly through magic. Also it is multiclassing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 14, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> that is depressing.



This is why you have 3rd Party Products.  So you don't HAVE to be depressed.

What I find depressing is all the people who only think products produced by WotC are worth using, and rather than finding / using / enjoying a full psionic system for these past 5 years that someone has put a goodly amount of time into designing and playtesting... those people have not used psionics at all and have instead spent that time all po'd and complaining that WotC hasn't given them what they wanted.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 15, 2022)

mellored said:


> Artificer was mentioned in one of the videos.  Forget what they said about it.



I think they basically said that it was up to date enough that it doesn't need to be added to the PHB.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 15, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> This is due to most of the team being "new age" traditionalists and they mostly have the ideas they dream about already.



Savage.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 15, 2022)

I hate psionics in D&D both in terms of flavour (too 70s soft sci-fi/pseudo-science) and execution (why do we need another system of magic just called by another name?). But mostly I hate them because they were _the worst_ in AD&D, where they were just an insanely overpowered bonus that a few characters got because of a lucky dice roll, instantly making them twice as good as any other character in the party.

And that said, I wouldn't mind them in 5e, because not everything has to be things I like and clearly some folks, like the OP, really want them. Not in the updated PHB because they are so different from the fantasy archetypes that are the heart of the D&D brand, but in a source book for a specialized setting. Spelljammer would have been perfect, with its sci-fi vibe, but you could make a case for Planescape, which is coming out next year.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 15, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I hate psionics in D&D both in terms of flavour (too 70s soft sci-fi/pseudo-science) and execution (why do we need another system of magic just called by another name?). But mostly I hate them because they were _the worst_ in AD&D, where they were just an insanely overpowered bonus that a few characters got because of a lucky dice roll, instantly making them twice as good as any other character in the party.
> 
> And that said, I wouldn't mind them in 5e, because not everything has to be things I like and clearly some folks, like the OP, really want them. Not in the updated PHB because they are so different from the fantasy archetypes that are the heart of the D&D brand, but in a source book for a specialized setting. Spelljammer would have been perfect, with its sci-fi vibe, but you could make a case for Planescape, which is coming out next year.



I really like the flavor of psionics, and want them included in our games, but I really respect your reasoning here.

(well maybe except holding a grudge since AD&D, 44 years ago....I kid I kid....  )


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 15, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> If WOTC intends to have past adventure and setting books backwards compatible, them they will run out of mechanical material quickly.
> They can't print a new FR or Theros book with nothing in it but lore. That won't sell.
> This is ESPECIALLY true if them offer update guides for the subclasses of 5e subclasses. WOTC is kinda running on fumes for exciting ideas for subclasses. TCOE had reprints.
> 
> ...



Creating a series of update guides rather runs against their "this isn't a new edition" narrative.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Creating a series of update guides rather runs against their "this isn't a new edition" narrative.



It's a patch for D&D version 5.3.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 15, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> I really like the flavor of psionics, and want them included in our games, but I really respect your reasoning here.
> 
> (well maybe except holding a grudge since AD&D, 44 years ago....I kid I kid....  )



No, you're right. It's totally unreasonable, but you know how it goes - formative years and all that. It's the same reason I am still unreasonably irritated by the old D&D cartoon: by the time it came out my friends and I were super judgmental teenagers who looked down our noses its "kiddie" version of D&D. I am definitely in the wrong, but that's emotions for ya.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 15, 2022)

I just want to see real classes in the new D&D. Like, understandable classes that don't pigeonhole people and force them into neat stereotypes. That's why I just want the following four classes in the next D&D:

Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Human
Every day we stray further from Gygax's holy light...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 15, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> I just want to see real classes in the new D&D. Like, understandable classes that don't pigeonhole people and force them into neat stereotypes. That's why I just want the following four classes in the next D&D:
> 
> Dwarf
> Elf
> ...



You'd be better off just going back to playing B/X and thus getting what you want then.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2022)

I more or less expect by 2030


Warriors
Barbarian- PHB
Monk- PHB
Fighter -PHB
Warlord - Nentir Vale book or some Options book

Experts
Artificer- Eberron Book
Bard- PHB
Ranger- PHB
Rogue- PHB

Priests
Cleric -PHB
Druid -PHB
Paladin -PHB
Shaman - some Options Book

Mages
Swordmage -Forgotten Realms Book
Sorcerer -PHB
Warlorck --PHB
Wizard --PHB

After 2030 if OD&D even attempted to be backwards compatable, it will be soooo thin on ideas, *the class bloat will start.*


----------



## Scribe (Dec 16, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> After 2030 if OD&D even attempted to be backwards compatable, it will be soooo thin on ideas, *the class bloat will start.*




I do wonder about this. If the goal (stated) is met, and we are already getting another Options book, the Giants, and Planescape.

I really have to wonder what else they can provide after the "not a reset" that I will care about at all.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 16, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> I just want to see real classes in the new D&D. Like, understandable classes that don't pigeonhole people and force them into neat stereotypes. That's why I just want the following four classes in the next D&D:
> 
> Dwarf
> Elf
> ...



Technically,  Gygax not have race as class. Race as class started with Holmes' Basic D&D


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 16, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I do wonder about this. If the goal (stated) is met, and we are already getting another Options book, the Giants, and Planescape.
> 
> I really have to wonder what else they can provide after the "not a reset" that I will care about at all.




The Giants Option book is half an options book because it will likely have less than a dozen feats, no new races, 2-3 subclasses, and under 50 monsters.
That's half a "true" options product.

Hence my point. The design team are traditionalists.. 95% the traditional D&D stuff are already printed in 5e. They are at the edge of their imagination. There's almost nothing left that they want that they can make.

How can you go 5 more years when you are at the edge? You only have 3 options.

Reprint stuff you've already sold
Search for and recreate popular stuff you personally don't care about
Breaksome of the rules you put on yourself and create new classes, freaky races, and non-spellslot subsystems


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 16, 2022)

The thing I would remind the OP is that you don't need the Psion (or whatever) to be in the new PHB for it to be in OneD&D. All of the current books are in OneD&D...and so are all the books being released in 2023. Including Planescape. Which could well include that class. So you have a decent shot of getting to play a psionic-based character even before the new PHB comes out.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 16, 2022)

Greg K said:


> Technically,  Gygax not have race as class. Race as class started with Holmes' Basic D&D



Sure. In OD&D, if you wanted to be a dwarf, you just wrote "Dwarf" on your sheet for your fighter, cleric, or wizard! That's the best way to do it, all flavor, no bloat.


----------

