D&D (2024) WotC Fireside Chat: Revised 2024 Player’s Handbook

In this video about the upcoming revised Player’s Handnook, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins reveal a few new tidbits.

• The books are near final and almost ready to go to print
• Psionic subclasses such as the Soulknife and Psi Warrior will appear in the core books
• Named spells have art depicting their creators.
• There are new species in the PHB.

​

 

[Aldarc]

I argue there is no such thing, and never will be. No option will appease the whole psionics fandom, because as long as it falls short of being perfect for them, they have every reason to fight for making it so.

The only way to get psionics is to actually publish something, despite it not achieving 70%+ approval. Because as long as what you've made is pretty good, then the psi-fandom is no longer given the option of the hypothetical perfect. They must give the thing they've gotten an actual shake. Some will learn to like it; others will never change. But you'll only even potentially be able to clear that 70%+ hurdle once you've laid down the law and said, "No, this IS how psionics will be in 5e."

Unless and until that happens, you'll always be able to find 31%+ of psi-fans willing and ready to tear down whatever was proposed, because it isn't their specific vision of psionics.

One of my biggest issues with psionics in 5e has been with how WotC has excluded a lot of middle-ground for psionics. It did two iterations of the Mystic, with the last one being too much of everything, and then scrapped that whole project. Then it released psionic subclasses for regular classes. But that still leaves a LOT of design space between the Mystic and the partial psionic subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

That seems emblematic of the issue.

Many (most?) psionics fans can look at what WotC has tried and say "that ain't it," but 10 years on, no one in the fan community has come up with a version that many or most psionics fans can agree is a much better choice.

I do hope that someone manages it, though, for all the fans still hoping for a psion/mystic class. Silly X-shaped helmet not necessarily included.

Because everyone is trying to make one psion for every thing whereas the mystic playtest explicitly proved you need to make at LEAST 3 different psionic classes at once.

 

[DEFCON 1]

More accurately

Old subclasses would need updates. Updates that any smart DM could make until waiting for the official one.

The community demanded the official updates of the most popular subclasses in lieu of new subclasses.

All hail Backwards compatibility!

Yeah, just like any smart DM could make their own subclasses too.

And we know this because there are hundreds of subclasses up and down the DMs Guild. So it doesn't matter whether the 5E24 subclasses are updated ones or completely new ones... players can get what they want.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Jeez, psionics? Really? I and everyone I game with must be in the minority, with no interest in this. Especially when they started with crystals and ectoplasm stuff.

 

[KYRON45]

The 2024 designers wanted to add much more, but the player feedback prevented them.

The fan base seems unready for meaningful change at this time.

At least, psionic is finally officially core.

"Democracy is the worst!! Except for all of the alternatives."....Some old timey guy said this.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Yeah, just like any smart DM could make their own subclasses too.

And we know this because there are hundreds of subclasses up and down the DMs Guild. So it doesn't matter whether the 5E24 subclasses are updated ones or completely new ones... players can get what they want.

Making subclasses is easier said than done. It takes some pretty decent knowledge of game design to create something which fits with 5e and is balanced.

Pretty much 99% of homebrew subclasses I see are either wildly unbalanced, ignore 5e design conventions, or use language which doesn't fit with official 5e. Usually all of the above.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, just like any smart DM could make their own subclasses too.

And we know this because there are hundreds of subclasses up and down the DMs Guild. So it doesn't matter whether the 5E24 subclasses are updated ones or completely new ones... players can get what they want.

Creatimg a new subclass is harder than converting a 2014 subclass to 2024 rules.

It's 200 times better for WOTC to create and playtest a new subclass that 1 million fans will see than Joe Schmoe to design a barely playtedted version of that subclass that only 1,000 fans might see

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah, just like any smart DM could make their own subclasses too.

And we know this because there are hundreds of subclasses up and down the DMs Guild. So it doesn't matter whether the 5E24 subclasses are updated ones or completely new ones... players can get what they want.

The difference is that players need to be able to find what they're looking for on the DMs Guild to begin with (or even know that that's where they should be looking in the first place), as well as have a table/GM that allows for third-party content to be used.

 

[Remathilis]

More accurately

Old subclasses would need updates. Updates that any smart DM could make until waiting for the official one.

The community demanded the official updates of the most popular subclasses in lieu of new subclasses.

All hail Backwards compatibility!

The problem is always that DMs ascribe a level of officalneas to the PHB that they don't to supplemental books, hence the desire to get the best or most important subs enshrined into the PHB.

 

[Reynard]

It's true that characters don't see the DCs. But subject matter experts know their subject, and experienced professionals have a well honed sense for the tasks that come up regularly in their line of work. So if an adventurer looks at a door they can probably estimate how hard it would be to kick it down, and if they look at a locked chest they should have an idea what it would take to bust it open.

And questions of verisimilitude and immersion aside, the players can darn well see DCs. They see the DCs for all sorts of things, and it's a good thing they can because the game mechanics like DC numbers are how they understand information about the game world. The DM can spout purple prose, but that's incredibly subjective and often highly unclear. It's like the local guide warning adventurers that "None who venture into the Tomb of Ivranix return alive!" and the players not knowing if that means "It's 10 CR above you and this is a sandbox, it's on you if you TPK" or "But of course you'll be the first because you're the heroes, please go inside because it's full of fresh loot and I didn't prepare anything else this week".

Hiding basic game mechanics like "How hard is it to kick down the door?" from player view is one of those old Gygaxian moves I don't endorse in any way. Some traditions need to die.

It is difficult to make an informed decision in a game where procedure matters a great deal, but you know nothing of the procedures involved. Knowing the procedures means you do not have to guess about whether your efforts are even worthwhile in the first place. Even if the actual adjudication differs from that listed procedure, it is something, rather than nothing. Moreover, there's value purely in having the context of knowing an offered way to do something. It allows contrast, maybe even a position to critique or respond to DM choices, as opposed to simply being a passive receiver.

We actually had a pretty extensive thread about this recently, and the argument boils down to people having different opinions of how transparent mechanics should be to players, including things like DCs for proposed actions. I'm generally in the camp that the players discover those difficulties by trying it. The only certain information they possess is how good their character is at a thing.

This is off topic, though, so I think we should re-open that discussion in another thread.