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

[Scribe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Aldarc]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

From the same post that you quote:

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

We will see.

 

[Xamnam]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.