Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7040927" data-attributes="member: 996">To answer the original question: &nbsp;We don't need any /new/ (to D&amp;D) classes.&nbsp; Just covering classes from past editions should be quite sufficient.&nbsp; That means the Warlord, obviously, as the only full class to appear in a past-edition PH1 that is still excluded from 5e.&nbsp; Psionics has existed in some form or another in every past edition, including classes in 2e through 4e - just never quite the same classes, so the Mystic is certainly justified.&nbsp; Shamans (of one sort or another), Artificers, Swordmages, etc, etc... have graced D&amp;D in the past and could be reprised in one form or another.Then there's the wealth of 3.x PrCs.&nbsp; 5e could be revisiting old classes for a very long time before getting to any new ones.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7040927, member: 996"] To answer the original question: We don't need any /new/ (to D&D) classes. Just covering classes from past editions should be quite sufficient. That means the Warlord, obviously, as the only full class to appear in a past-edition PH1 that is still excluded from 5e. Psionics has existed in some form or another in every past edition, including classes in 2e through 4e - just never quite the same classes, so the Mystic is certainly justified. Shamans (of one sort or another), Artificers, Swordmages, etc, etc... have graced D&D in the past and could be reprised in one form or another. Then there's the wealth of 3.x PrCs. 5e could be revisiting old classes for a very long time before getting to any new ones. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification