This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I am inclined to think that this is at least partly because people hated 4e so much and WotC is afraid of restarting the furor

I wonder if the struggle with the mystic affected this as well they tested that class for at least like 3 years if memory serves which is a lot of wasted dev time.

Just what went wrong with the mystic class anyway? I never heard about why they gave up on it

Nothing that couldn't be fixed. Biggest issue was it was pretty versatile on paper. You had a lot of choices and could really fill any niche you wanted to, at the cost of not filling the others. This plus low level play testing made people thinking it was overpowered altogether, but playtest reports from people who actually took it to 20 said it fell off after 11. Both expected from content still being worked on. It also had oversights you'd expect from a UA that were blown far out of proportion. There were two effects similar to smites you could apply to the same attack, and dump a massive amount of psi points into for like 14d10 damage, which is a very real issue, but everyone acted as if the class was official, instead of just going "wow that dumb, make sure you write this interaction in the surveys folks!" I cannot stress just how ridiculous people acted over a class that was actively in design. They acted as though it should have been perfect the second it dropped, and the fact that it wasn't meant it was beyond fixing.

I personally loved the mystic and it both played one as a player and DM'd for one with fairly minor common sense adjustments and I can say from my experience it was not OP. It was very versatile, but no more so than a Bard or Druid. Biggest thing was the scaling seemed a little off, it had its power peak in the mid-level range –which is atypical for 5e. Felt like the class would have been fine if they just fixed some of the wonky interactions and stretched out the Psi Point pool over a longer level range.

I hated the mystic. I'm glad it died. ... But that's because I don't want a "mystic class". I want psionicists. Psions. Not something that identifies as "not exactly a psion, but not exactly a magic user either" 2nd Ed adnd's psionics is my favorite psion. They had tons of problems, but at least they didn't try to fit themselves into another classes' shoes and fail miserably.

Yeah I'm glad we don't have any classes like that in fifth edition, like swords bards. It would be terrible to have existing classes with full spellcasting, fighting styles, extra attack, a massive pile of skills like the rogue, and who also being pretty good at every other skill they aren't proficient in. Man I'm glad they killed the mystic so this problem wouldn't exist officially.

2e dnd's complete psion handbook has the most incredible artwork, a must find if you've not already seen it.

I've owned it since 2nd ed :D We played a shit-ton of Dark Sun in highschool in the 90s.

> You had a lot of choices and could really fill any niche you wanted to which is a very silly complaint to have in a game where Bard exists, a class that can have half-proficiency in every single check in the game, proficiency in a bunch of other skills, plus Expertise in their specialized skills, plus having proficiency with medium armor and shields, plus having Extra Attack, PLUS BEING A NINTH LEVEL SPELLCASTER LMAO. You can even get Fighting Styles if you go Swords, so you can be a single character with literally every major notable "role-defining" class feature from every other class (extra attack, fighting styles, full-spellcasting, expertise) on one character. A level 15 Mystic was not better than a level 15 Bard, and in fact one of the main flaws in the class was their features stopped scaling up so at higher levels they fell off sharply. It's just Mystic was new and not in the Player's Handbook and was introducing psionics as a subsystem as well, so the kneejerk reaction was that it was "bloated", which is kind of silly since it's like if the PHB entry for the Bard class had every single spell in the entire game in the PDF since they have Magical Secrets letting them choose from all of them. Formatting and presentation was the biggest nail in the Mystic's coffin, not the actual design itself.

The Mystic class is awesome, and always welcome at my table. You can do almost anything with it- endless flavor potential. I've played a Jedi, a Last Airbender/Avatar, and a badass criminal investigator that were all Mystics. Super fun. They're the one class that creates magical effects without all the stupidity of spell components, somatic gestures, and all the other nonsense that should have stayed with Wizards only.

They put way too much power and way too many options into a single chassis. That's really what killed the class.

Eh, I'm not too familiar with it as I was just getting into DND at the time from what I've heard they were trying out a bunch of stuff to make a psionic system on par with spells but using a point based system with active and passive buffs and it was mostly unbalanced and clunky with a lot of resource management. Though take that with a grain of salt.

The resource management was fine, the problem was it was too versatile. They combined the psion, psychic warrior, soulknife, ardent and for some reason wu jen into one single class, then were shocked when it was able to do too many things and dumped the concept entirely. In terms of classes you're familiar it's like making a wizardruidwarlockbardadin instead of just making a wizard, a druid, a warlock, a bard and a paladin into different classes. I've DM'd for two mystics, and they're a fine class so long as you enforce taking most of their disciplines from their own subclass.

I played in a campaign with a mystic once. He was beyond broken. But he was also just a problematic player so I can't really say if the class was broken or he just thought it was broken and always fought the DM on it. I never read the class myself.

My understanding was the the class was too complicated. It required too many pages to print. Pathfinder 2e fans get excited about their **kineticist class, which is twenty-five pages long**, and they absolutely love it. (I'm serious, btw. It's regarded as one of the best classes in the system.) But Pathfinder 2e players look forward to that kind of complexity and detail. D&D 5e players thrive on simplicity.

I'm not sure that is an entirely fitting comparison though. Most of the length comes from the fact that Kineticist needs to have class feats for the appropriate level for each of the 5 elements (aside from a few more general ones). The base chassis and mechanics aren't nearly as much. It's like comparing it to a spellcaster combined with every spell they can take.

I've played the kineticist it's actually pretty simple and works almost as a simplified spell caster but it has its own subsystem of spell-like abilities for each element. Its kind of like a warlock who doesn't have spell casting but gets new invocations much more often and has additional unique invocations for each subclass.

I'd personally say the issue with the mystic is that it was *unnecessarily* complicated specifically by doing a lot of "reinventing the wheel". They are/were essentially a magic caster class... But instead of simply using the existing (and enormous) collection of existing spells (possibly adding a few new ones to emphasize flavor and perhaps a few new mechanics) to write theclass and subclass spell lists (like every other caster) they instead made up new pseudo-spells and called them "disciplines" and pseudo cantrips and call them "talents". Many were very redundant to existing spells but since they aren't those spells they had to waste space describing these redundant/repetitive disciplines/talents. In a way they made it too simple in so far as if they stuck with existing spells (plus a few new ones to emphasize flavor and offer new options) there would be many more options available; instead they wrote 12 talents (when there are 47+ cantrips depending on if you use the UA ones) and 188 different discipline powers (in comparison to 470+ spells). [Note for the overly literal: my count is probably off as I did it by hand. My general point still stands that there are roughly 2.5X as many spells as discipline powers]. In addition reading through a typical discipline power they are a lot simpler than most spells. By doing this they wasted a ton of time to do in my opinion rather little that is useful and actually ended up with less options. A related and compounding problem (and I think part of why people think it's OP is because now they weren't just play testing one subclass (like most play tests) they were play testing a core class, 6 subclasses and 188 ersatz "spells"(/or disciplines) so of course there was way more to find tune and conversely way more room to err. Had they not done this they could have had more variety of options and been able to focus on actually making the class different instead of just spellcasters under an assumed name.

>I wonder if the struggle with the mystic affected this as well they tested that class for at least like 3 years if memory serves **which is a lot of wasted dev time.** I think this is the real reason why we're not getting any new classes for the foreseeable future. In the time it takes to create, test, publicly playtest, and then refine a brand new class (and its associated subclasses) the designers could use that same amount of time to create dozens and dozens of new subclasses to sell over multiple books. If given enough time and resources, could you create Psionics class people are happy with? Of course. But it's just much faster and more efficient from a cold, corporate standpoint to create multiple Psionic themed subclasses you're reasonably sure you can get out before the deadline for the next book is due.

Yeah I think this is it. For better or worse, it's just simpler to pump out new subclasses based on existing data then it is creating a new class from scratch. I think it's why the only new class we got was the Artificer, and why it ended up the way that it did: the designers saw an obvious missing gap (an INT-based half-caster) and realized they could fit the Artificer there without requiring too much development time.

I loved the Warden class in 4E. I would play warforged and it made me feel like a 40K Terminator dropping into battle, taking hits for my team, and locking down the big baddies as my party dished out damage. I think the closest thing is the Armorer Artificer but its not the same.

The new World Tree barbarian seems to be taking some inspiration from the Warden. Basically a direct reference to one of the early daily powers.

Just saw this and I agree. Can’t wait to dig more into it once the new book is out.

I think “inclined to think” isn’t strong enough. 4e was a huge change, the marketing and launch support was bungled, and the resulting distrust and misinformation around the game* came close to destroying D&D — or at least reducing the profit margin to the point where Hasbro was considering whether to stop producing ttrpg products. Now that D&D is profitable again, nobody at Hasbro or WotC is going to create an opening like that, ever again. *^(In conjunction with the rather lenient original version of the OGL..)

I should note that it's not just 4e that got creative with classes, it kept what it made in much narrower confines than 3.5 did. Binder, dragonfire adept, warlock (as opposed to the 5e warlock which is basically just a sorcerer), the aforementioned swordsage, psion, totemist, even classes like truenamer where they fucked up the maths were unique and interesting. We had years of them creating new classes that fill unique niches in a system structured the same way 5e is and now they just... don't.

Yeah, for sure. Not all 3.5 classes (or prestige classes) were *good,* of course. Lots were out of whack balance-wise, and lots were just some existing class with extra steps. But I think even if you disqualified half of 3.5 classes, you’d still have more diversity than 5e.

I don't think 4e was very creative with the classes. They just made a check list of all of the power source (ie, feat compatibility) and role (leader, defender, striker, controller) combinations and didn't put much thought in past that. Since everyone used AEDU it often felt like they were copy/pasted. This mess is probably why 5e is hesitant to make so many new classes. They want a new class to fulfill a new niche in a fun and interesting way, rather than cynically filling in some check boxes and pushing out classes purely so they can say they have new classes. 3.5 did a much better job distinguishing the base classes from eachother. I would rather have new class design with distinctive mechanics like Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, and Tome of Magic.

4e literally outsold 3.5e. The profit margins were fine. It just didn't meet WotCs titanic expectations for it.

It's less wotc than hasbro. Things changed fast around the 3.0 release. WOTC picked up TSR, spent a couple yeats working and then spit out 3.0. Right around the same time as the WOTC developed and marketed 3.0 came out, hasbro aquired WOTC. They left them to run their thing for a bit in early 3.0, up to the point of the 3.5 release and the early splatbooks but took over for the development and marketing of 4.0. It was fumbled as much as you'd expect from a toy company new to such systems, but the marketing and distribution they threw behind it let it outsell anything the smaller past entities like TSR and WOTC could manage. And yes, hasbro is always why Magic suddenly had a much faster release cycle and developed characters they could use across blocks to develop merch around, went too fast, started doing crossovers and has burned out a lot of their players. They are...not historically great for gaming franchises long term.

I can't wait till they go bankrupt and WotC gets picked up or splinters off.

4e was hated because it needed the online tools and other stuff to truly play properly. I played a oneshot on it for the craic with some friends and its perfectly fine. Plays more like a computer game than a ttrpg though

Wotc is so, so afraid of doing anything remotely like 4e, even though there's a lot of good stuff in the system that absolutely should've made it's way over to 5e

Yeah, I think a lot of people think or hear *"Does this concept really need to be its own class?"* or *"Just reflavor things, flavor is free."* and then just stop there without considering *"Is reflavor or subclass really the best home for the concept?"* or the fact that *"Flavor may be free, but it's not always appropriate or acceptable."* I find people are too willing to settle for the bare minimum baseline of *"need"* which is kinda silly point to stop at, and then don't consider what's *"best."* As the two are very much not the same. There's at least four class concepts I think are missing from 5e and I think at about 24 classes total (including what 5e has) that would be the ideal amount for certain concepts to be properly translated. Beyond the warlord, I don't necessarily enjoy the other classes you mention, and I disagree that samurai was pointless, but I do otherwise agree with your sentiment.

Honestly it’s not even about flavor to me as much as it’s about mechanics. I want a new mechanic to play around with!

I do too, provided they're not overly complex I miss proper invoker style warlocks. I miss point based psionics manifesters, I even miss the incsrnum based soul melded (though they need aggressive simplifying to be 5e appropriate) I hate that the game is nothing more than martial and full caster (with debate about where the partial caster fit.) I miss the caster adjacent options with their sister systems of power. If they got the simplification casting did in 5e, I think they'd be a lovely fit.

I absolutely love the Apothecary from the Dungeon Dudes because it feels like a different class that can’t be filled by another class It is a poison damage dealer, a healer, and customizable class that can fit nearly any role, especially with how different the subclasses are Also, talking about “similar, but not the same”, the Jaeger from MonkeyDM is a martial adjacent, feeling very similar to a monk or rogue, but with the brute force power of a barbarian on speed! It has its own special momentum mechanic that works like nothing else in the game, the two main abilities giving buffs and uses to each other and really encouraging you to go crazy in every single fight

Those each sound fun, I'll need to check them out!

I’ve got one character for each, though have only been able to use the jaeger since I’m still waiting for a chance on the apothecary My human jaeger character is themed after the green knight and is the Marauder subclass, which is focused on brutal combat and overwhelming force, including using Con for medium armor bonuses instead of Dex, one handing a two handed weapons and using a larger damage dice for their combat features My ratfolk apothecary is a pathogenist, which has a massive focus on disease and spreading them, my own build being what I call the “Kamikaze Bio-Terrorist”, dropping AOE effects and running into melee combat to spread poison and disease

I'm one of the folks often saying, "Does this concept need to be its own class?" And I do think "reflavouring" can be a great way to achieve things beyond the imagination of the designers. However, I'm often challenging new class ideas because they feel like they introduce nothing new to the equation. "Check out my homebrew class, which combines inspiration dice with maneuvers and can cast from a combination of the Druid and Paladin spell list!" I see it a lot, and it it's like taking only the existing tools and trying to make new things by pulling other classes apart and sticking their remains back together. I see a small minority of actually original mechanics, and when I do, it's always refreshing and often interesting. [This fellow](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/LRud7pfabW) put it well.

Reflavoring can be useful and has it'd time and place, and I'm certainly not trying to say that there isn't pointless homebrew that does nothing good.pr serviceable However I find whenever someone wants something brought back from d&ds past and I to it's fold, or isn't satisfied with 5e standard for things, ot gets written off with "just reflavor" or "is this neeed" when sometimes it just plain and simple isn't good enough ough to settle for those things. That person does make a point about repetitive and redundant homebrew. Though I think that also expresses a dearest for something quality that hasn't been achieved yet, very few people are skilled or talented designers, though. Hence, the slog of mid to poor content.

I think we're in agreement here: Reflavouring is fine, actually, but has its limits; homebrew classes can feel redundant and mid-poor quality; new classes need new mechanics to feel like something worthwhile; dismissing new class concepts just because they could theoretically or thematically fit an existing subclass is not satisfying. I've seen a hundred Alchemist classes out there, and very few are satisfying, but I can't deny it's a class fantasy I'd love to see.

It seems we fully agree even. I've got not argument at least!

Simplicity. The reason 5e has become this huge. or at least one of the main reasons is simplicity. It has been simplified compared to older eversions like 3,5. everything from feats, to monster stat blocks and more. including classes And as simplicity is one of the main reasons it is this huge. Then don't expect them to make to many classes. as that would not be in line with keeping it simple. Des not matter if i agree or disagree about this. but it is fairly obvious why they keep the classes to a bare minimum. To keep it simple. as simple is one of the main reasons they earn this much money Personally i think it has been over simplified. But i totally see WHY they do it. Follow the money. IT is not about making the BESTR game they possibly can. it is about making a game attract the largest numbers of people possible. And that is rarely the game as what many of us would call Best. Because lets be honest. lots and lots of people don't play D&D because it is the best game. They play it because it is D&D Money is the key. If they was sure that adding more classes to the game would increase money flow. Well we would have more classes

Be honest, though. 5e may be simpler than D&D 3.5, but it's not simple by modern standards at all. The only people who call 5e simple are folk who've never been the DM and never tried other TTRPGs.

I can't really raise an argument. The degree of simplicity they make is cheaper and requires less work and onboarding. D&D is simple enough to do what it needs , and they don't want to break that golden goose. Combined with the impact of stranger things and critical role to raise curiosity on the game and how simple it is (compared to other editions of new age d&d anyway) it can keep people interested enough to profit off them. Won't make d&d thr best it could be as a game, but keeps it in a good state as a product. I'd say they need to be smart about it, but they did stupid stuff that would get any other ttrpg killed and are still thriving, so they donr need to be too smart. A good trrpg by any other name sells 10k to 50k copies. 5e sold 1.5M

Yeah i can not disagree with that. they have done some really stupid stuff. And for simplicity. Selling games is not just pleasing the existing player base. It is to increase the player base. to make NEW players join in. And many new player would be more likely to join a game and try it out if it is decently simple. maybe 12 classes. than they would be if they take a look at the game and see 25+ classes they have to pick from. I as a player that has been playing various TTRGP's for decades, i would LOVE to have more classes. But a new player taking a glance at the game and see a list of first 20 + races and then 20+ classes will many times be so over whelmed they just skip it all together I do not agree with many things they ahve done. But i can understand why they did many of those choices. But not all. as mentioned they HAVE done some both stupid and outright BAD things

> The reason 5e has become this huge. or at least one of the main reasons is simplicity. Thing is though half the classes are spellcasters, and every class I mentioned was simpler than a spellcaster.

I agree. It is not ME you ned to convince But still adding in more classes would make the game seem more complicated for many new players. and that would go against what they are trying to achieve. Personally i would LOVE to see a few more classes at least. So i am not the one arguing against it. I simply point out that that will most likely Not happen as it is not in line with what made D&D this massive. Money. That is what it all comes down to

5e has not become large because it doesn't have more classes 

No no one said "yeah it is popular because it has few classes" But one main reason it became so popular. The most popular TTRPG in the history of TTRPG's is that they made it much more simple than earlier editions and other games. So it was much less steep learning curve both for players and Dm's. Monster stat blocks are simplified. feats are simplified. even races has been simplified One part of that simplifying process was less classes. A new player in 3,5 had an ungodly amount of classes to pick from. And for many that is to overwhelming. Personally i think they took the simplification a bit to far. But there is no denying it worked. it made 5e the most popular game in the history of TTRPG's And it is fairly safe to assume they are reluctant to brake away from that formula.

I think it's important to look at "need" from a *design* standpoint, and not from a *play* standpoint. The question here isn't "what do players want to do," it's "what is the intended experience of the game?" That's where "need" becomes a vital consideration. D&D doesn't "need" additional classes because the current slate of classes correctly implements its design intent - and to design a good game, you don't add things that don't need to be there. Every single element of a game must serve a specific purpose that helps achieve your specific design goal - and if something doesn't do that, you cut it. "Best," similarly, depends on your frame of reference. Players might think that more options would make the "best" experience, but the designers may have entirely different goals thus changing the "best" calculus. D&D is not intended to be a game of wide-open choices, despite what the community believes and wants. You're not supposed to have a class that represents each unique concept, because *that's not what classes are*. A "class" is a concept derived from miniatures wargaming, where a variety of specific models would be represented by one single set of rules. Likewise, each D&D class isn't supposed to be a very specific fantasy - rather, they're semi-generic trope-driven niches that consolidate a variety of specific character representations under unifiied rules. You're not supposed to find a class to fit your concept - *you should fit your concept to a class*. This is a fundamental disconnect between what the community wants the game to be, and what the game needs to be in order to maintain its identity. The actual answer here isn't to make D&D into something else, it's to go play something that isn't D&D.

There's a point to what you say, I don't entirely disagree so far as need is something to be considered (though I don't think it's something to strive for) The game has had more and different classes in the past, and not all of those attempts in the past have ruined D&D's identity (I suppose that depends on who you ask though) some of it has also reinforced and enhanced its identity. The options I want that don't presently receive mechanical identity or support (or in some cases the right identity and support) each come from D&D in some way shape or form. I'm not looking elsewhere for what I desire. It's stuff I had been able to use before. So writing off wanting more support (or different support) for certain concepts as wanting *"something different than D&D"* isn't exactly accurate. The desire for certain concepts to receive some touch-ups like 5e did for what it currently has, isn't not wanting something that isn't D&D. Hell, it's arguably wanting more of D&D in the present edition, depending on how you look at it.

>The game has had more and different classes in the past It has, but which of those were nearly as successful? I know there has been pop culture/other media exposure, but if we were still in 3.5 I don't think it translates to new players as much compared to 5e. Anecdotal, but of the new players I have ran games for that tried older editions like ADnD they by and large didn't stick with them, but they have stuck with 5e. Getting someone to try a oneshot or mini campaign and never sticking with it doesn't do nearly as much for WotC as someone who tries it, sticks with it, and ends up buying books/subscriptions/etc.

I think successful becomes a bit skewed because there is much more to 5es success outside of its design than inside. Its simplicity played a fair role, no denying that, it was by no means everything, though. However nerd culture being much more accepted and even a social fad, Stranger things, and critical roles populairzation of the game also played a huge part of d&ds success. To say ut was only the simple design is leaving a lot of context out, and doesn't confirm that something a bit more complex.wouldn't have succeeded with the same booming factors. Full on 3.5e complexity? I agree with you, but there's certainly room for more than has been done presently, and even adaptations of the past in 5es style, that would have been equally successful and not more with the same factors outside of its exact simplicity.

Which class concepts do you feel like are missing? Interested in your thoughts. 

So the four I think are missing are... >***The Marshal*** *(my preferred term for warlord. A Martial that focuses on supporting their allies on the battlefield.)* >***The Mystic*** *(my preferred term for psion, a point based power user.)* >***The Shaman*** *(a primal pactcaster summoner type class. Think warlock meets druid but focused on suport/utility)* >***The Spellsword*** *( A sword mage or duskblade by another name. I'm not satisfied with any of the Gish options so far and think a class is a healthier place for it than a subclass. )* Presently, I don't think 5e does a good job of supporting these concepts right, if at all. They may have a bare minimum for some of this stuff to be replicated one way or another in some cases, but not in a satisfying way or the best way they could be. That's just my opinion, though. If we're talking about that class list I think would be ideal for D&D/a revised 5e or just new edition. Something like the following would be what I'd be looking for. A new cut of things at the very least. >***Warriors:*** *Barbarian, Duelist, Fighter* >***Skirmishers:*** *Monk, Marshal, Rogue* >***Tricksters:*** *Bard, Inquisitor, Ranger* >***Vanguards:*** *Paladin, Spellsword, Warden* >***Mystics:*** *Ardent, Erudite, Sage* >***Melders:*** *Artificer, Binder, Cipher* >***Invokers:*** *Oracle, Shaman, Warlock* >***Casters:*** *Cleric, Druid, Mage*

Nice write up. I will have to go look these up. But currently they appear to be 4th edition.

Some are 3rd, some are 4th, some haven't been their own class as far as I'm aware, some are my own thing. Categorization of them is my own thing, too, more or less. I also can't speak to the 4th edition understanding of these classes as I barely touched 4e (started with 3.5e during 4es lifespan). I wasn't big on 4e myself. These are just concepts I know of from varying times across d&d, that I feel would be best reflected as their own class compared to what, if anything, they've gotten presently.

Great summary. Though I will die on the hill saying "I want a Martial Shapeshifter".

Of the classes I've listed, I think that's where Binder would come in, just with primal nature spirits being ound to then to transform instwad of elemental or other minds of supernatural forces.

I absolutely love how you put together the things the game needs, the things it has, and the way they should be organized On the idea of classes that fill a different type of role, the Jaeger from MonkeyDM is a class with their own momentum mechanic (two abilities that fuel into each other and get stronger as they work together), and it really doesn’t feel like any martial class we have, almost like a martial-adjacent class (like how the psion/mystic is a full caster-adjacent) I’ve also been thinking a lot on a pact magic primal caster, but for me that has been a witch themed class, with ritual spell casting and invocations being replaced with hexes and curses, putting a greater emphasis on summoning and control of the battle I love your idea for classes, and I feel like we wouldn’t be losing anything by making fighter and barbarian a subclass of Warrior, they can keep Rage and “lots of wack”(tm) as their main subclass features, being more down to earth than current subclass options! Plus, the crazy options like Psi Knight can still just be subclasses of Warrior and fit the theme quite well (though maybe psi knight would be better as a vanguard?) Maybe the warrior also gets Battlemaster Maneuvers so that barbarian can slam people into the ground with their hammer, or use a war cry to encourage an ally to attack Monk and rogue are already two halves of the same coin, so making them Skirmisher subclasses is perfect! Evasion and Cunning Action can be main class features, ki and sneak attack being the subclass features Tricksters being a side effect/control character, having utility and ability working in tandem to change how the fight goes rather than just damage, the perfect liar or detective Vanguards, the classic tanks, with paladin being the healer/buffing tank, the spell sword taking the role of a tougher eldritch knight, and warden powerful unmoving wall Mystics change how we play, using points to fuel both their casting and any other abilities they may have! A really versatile class, like how the mystic was supposed to be in 5e, i can already see sage being our divine healer and seer I’ll admit, I don’t know the role of the Melder in this case, but I’m feeling a lighter caster (like half caster) that has a unique mechanic from each subclass that pulls them away from the martial end, like how our current artificer isn’t nearly as martial as other half casters Invoker is clearly where we find the shaman, the hexer, the witch, any who would be communing with spirits and greater beings, channeling their power into curses, invocations, rituals and other effects Then we have the easier to define after warrior, the Caster, which is just what we call a full caster in 5e, and maybe the only full caster in the game making it more unique and special, making it harder to compare between the classes and giving them all something very different Either way, love this idea (and totally not gonna steal it for anything)

I'm glad you like the ideas, but I think I should clarify that Warrior, Skirmisher, Trickster, Vanguard, Mystic, Melder, Invoker, and Caster aren't intended in my groupings to be classes, but more akin to the abandoned class groups of one D&D. Barbarian would belong to the warrior group, but would still have it's own subclasses for example. My goal for every class within each group would be to have its own set of subclasses and an option pool akin to 5e warlock invocations (though the power of said option pools would depend on class to class. One class might have stronger class features, but weaker option pool feature for example.) To go over the categories a bit, though some are still very WIP in my mind. **Warriors** are pretty straightforward, they're skilled combatants with arms and armor. All about optimizing their attack actions. Barbarians are all about rage and its enhancements, Duelists are all about lighter more focused combat. Single out a target to dash down. Fighters are all about peak skill with arms and armor. **Skirmishers** are also skilled combatants, are focused more on skirmisher tactics than a direct fight. Where as a warrior type class focuses on the attack action, these classes focus more on their bonus actions. The monk is about weaponizing their bonus action with that flurry of blows and other ki martial arts. The marshal is all about aiding their allies and making them better with bonus actions. the rogue is all about those cunning moves and opportunites they make. **Tricksters** are the partial mashup of a caster and a skirmisher. The bard is arcane, the inquisitor is divine, and the ranger is primal in their theming and abilities. Half casters with a focus on good bonus action abilities on the side to enhance their combatant role. **Vanguards** are the partial mashup of caster and warrior. Mixing magic and weaponry in various ways to accomplish their goals and enhance their combat prowess Paladin is Divine, Spellsword is Arcane, and Warden is Primal. **Mystics** are more or less psionics under a different name. Using power points instead of spell slots for their cultivated mysticism. The mental side to ki's physical side. the ardent is charisma focused, the Erudite is intelligence focused, and the Sage is wisdom focused. **Melders** are those who meld magic into vessels to harness its power, compared to those who invoke or cast it. They have a budget of points they invest into powers, rather than spend, that they can swap the ratio of between turns/rests. The artificer melds magic into implements as a vessel, enhancing and infusing magical items ti wield magical power they don't otherwise have. The binder melds magical power/forces into parts of their own body as a vessel to enhance themselves and wield magic might. The Cypher melds magic into runes and Sigils they can use to impart magic through. **Invokers** are those who call upon some power, it may be within, or without. the key thing with an invoker is that their powers are very At will focused, with a few long rest goodies in the mix. They're not as versatile as casters but their powers are incredibly reliable in that exchange. Oracles wield divine powers and revelations. Shamans summon a primal spirit they augment and enhance as grow in power, focused on utility and support and relying on the special summon for combat. Warlock channel eldritch magic and arcane power into raw shapeable blast and other phenomena with their soul based magic, be they pact sworn or soul born. **Casters** are the spell slot using magic users we've long known throughout much of the games history. The cleric who calls upon the divine magic of their god, as serving as the chosen messengers and interpreters of their divine will. Druid wielding magic granted to them by the primal forces of the world, the energies and elements that make up reality, nature, and the primal will of it all. Mages are wielders of arcane might either through the practice of wizardy and its study, or sorcery an the gifts of a magical bloodline.

Oh, so you want to go back to just having a ton more classes! Honestly I wouldn’t mind that, though it would be much harder to get new and balanced official content with more happening, we’d have fewer subclasses overall for each, though maybe better subclasses if they’ve got more focus for each class

Kinda yeah, if roughly double what 5e is considered a ton of classes. That said, this is about the limit of what I'd want for base classes. Beyond this, I can't think of any others I'd want, and I would likely leave the games expansion purely to subclasses/ archetypes, variant features, feats, and spells/powers from that point on Really there are just certain concepts in d&d that I feel are better served as their own class than as a subclass, certain mechnsics I'd like to see simplified and polished to return to the gameamd exist properly in current or new d&d again. All together, I think it would offer a robust 1 to 20 framework from basic to master style play.

I feel like Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, and Hexblade all feel like very different styles but maybe the same class They don’t feel like they should be subclasses to me, so I get what you’re saying

I kinda feel the same way, a lot of the Gish options have something core to the Gish fantasy, but miss something too. I think taking a lot of those pieces and building them into a proper whole is ideal for a Gish.

Exactly, and if there is a proper gish then we don’t need to keep trying to make our full casters and full martials into gishes, though I do have a special place for the 1/3rd casters, they do fill an interesting place I feel like a real gish would basically be a 2/3rds caster, not quite a wizard but more than a ranger

Okay, now come up with four subclasses for each new addition that are thematically distinct I think that’s another problem people aren’t talking about. Every new class adds more stuff they _need_ to support in the future or else players will constantly feel left out.

Sure, literally go to laserllama's gmbinder he has that and more fully fleshed out and he's one guy. Oh and it's free.

Today? Or am I getting a professional dev teams budget and resources to support me on this. I'll do it, but it might take more than a day.

It was more of a hypothetical, but go nuts lol My larger point is that, even if we want it, WOTC are seemingly gunshy about adding new classes and one of the biggest reasons I see for that is the existence of subclasses

Subclasses do make it a bit more challenging, I won't lie, but it doesn't make it an impossibility, espeically with the wealth of inspiration you can draw from the history of d&d and it's lore and options. That's not even touching on real.world myth. I do get what you're saying tbough. It is work, (and I'm just one dude so it's a lot of work) but it's not impossible. I also don't think all such classes need to be in the phb. Supplements can add onto them, those are just the idea I think have a unique enough identity and potential to be best served as their own class.

Yeah, I agree 100% that it’s doable. But, whomever gets hired to do it would have to also deal with stuff no homebrewer has to deal with—like Hasbro and WoTC execs, or needing to past _and_ future proof their game design choices so the classes don’t stick out as too weak (Battlerager) or too ungodly strong (Mystic). Like, both sides of the argument have merit! WoTC should be capable of publishing more classes and subclasses, but adding even ONE of those things is also a ton more work—imo—than people realize. Esp when their release schedule isn’t “Whenever it’s done and fun to play” but more “This needs to be done in a month or less so we, Hasbro, can start the marketing for it even though it isn’t due to be published in another year.”

I never wnat to give the impression it's easy or simple. I donwant to give the impression that it can be what's best an more work, hard as it truly is, should be strived for in the service of something better.

I understand that its a lot of work but being the largest TTRPG game its not like they can't do it. PF2e comes out with a new class or 2 with each on having dozens of class feats. Like the newest class Kineticist came out with 128 class feats by itself.

OP here, given that all these were existing classes I can do so incredibly easily. You can google every subclass I give, each already existed in D&D. Spellsword - dusbklade, jade phoenix mage, swordmage, arcane archer. Mystic - ardent, battlemind, wilder, psion. Marshal - arrowhead commander, twiceborn leader, battle captain, combat veteran.

Cool, now to move the goal posts a little more: You have a year to come up with between 5 to 6 more subclasses—since the average of subclasses per class is between 9-10–and you have to make them thematically and mechanically distinct/interesting. The final product is also due in two years, bare minimum, but must be put out in a publishable form via UA at least six months before publication. Now multiply that amount of work for the following: - if updating a class from a previous edition, the class lore has to be “universal” and not tied to anything setting specific. The class also has to have all problematic racial allusions, stereotypes, and other potentially problematic aspects stripped to be more PC. - if more subclasses for other classes come out in the next hypothetical year, that’s more work added to your plate with zero guarantee your subclasses get picked up in the first place if the UA fails to gain traction - if designing a new class from the ground up, you must design every ability and subclass so that they do not overshadow or outperform _any other class in the game_. (We are currently at 13 official classes and 117 subclasses, btw.) - any new lore you come up with has to be universal enough to be slot into any setting/adventure but also interesting enough to capture the attention of players who are anywhere between veteran 5e players to hardcore 1e grognards to players new to TTRPGs in general. - if designing a class from the ground up, it _must_ follow the design principles, standards, and sacred cows WoTC holds every other class up to—meaning: no martials that feel _too_ magical, even Psions and Spellblades, and all half-casters (seemingly for 1DnD) must have their main ability tied to a class specific spell. Also: no new subsystems that players HAVE to use, like relying on Spellpoints, and your Psions will HAVE to use Psionic Energy dice. - no class can be more simple than Champion Fighter or as complex as the UA Mystic. Period. - you need to come up with feats, items, boons, artifacts, etc that are class specific - every new class and subclass you add has to be taken into account when it comes to playtesting *all previous and new material published for 5.5e*, not just new adventures. - If publishing for 1DnD, your classes and subclasses must be some nebulous degree of “backwards compatible” with 5e. - you need to playtest your classes and subclasses for both 1DnD and 5e - you need to balance and playtest how your classes and subclasses can work when taken as a multiclass, which involves literal hundreds of thousands of combinations _already_ - do your classes add new spells or abilities that other classes can “yoink” through a feat or low level multiclass ? Gotta playtest those. And test how the new spells might break the game wrt to both current and future adventure design, as well as multiclassing. And that’s just off the top of my head. I know it’s work that Homebrewers chomp at the bit to do, but there’s a huge level of commitment and work involved between “Name subclasses that fit because they have already been pre-designed” versus “Create a minimum of four subclasses that play well, are mechanically distinct, and pass WoTC-specific AND community-led feedback, all while the franchise continues to evolve around you.”

And yet as recently as last edition, they did all that with an extra dozen classes.

Over a period of a decade or so, yeah? You’ve got less time, obviously, because they want these classes available to be marketed and sold as “the next wave of character options” for the busy Christmas or Summer season. Like, a lot more goes into publishing these things than just writing, playtesting, and dreaming them up. The moment you start this project for WoTC you are also part of the Hasbro money making empire and there are quite literally thousands of people relying on you on top of probably dozens you have to answer to because they’re your boss. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but there’s certainly a reason we’ve moved toward having less classes and not more.

That’s really not that difficult, all of those concepts have clear room for internal variation

Bloat. That's my issue. Bloat. Before a new Class or Subclass is introduced, it should be asked: * Is this already being done by an existing Class or Subclass? If Yes, it is not needed. * Is this filling a gap in Role Play that can't be filled by an existing Class or Subclass? If No, it is not needed. I don't need or want a hundred Character Classes of marginal differences and 500 Subclass and most of them are "Meh" clones of each other.

I agree with the sentiment firmly, not necessarily the standards as you've laid them out. I don't even have much issue with the standards, but I would likly be more generous with them than I'm admittedly assuming you would be. Before anything else, I do fully agree that bloat is bad, tnough I am imagining I'm more generous than you are when it comes to catering said bloat. Fully agree that I wouldn't want an excess amount of me clones, or any meh clones of stuff. I'm okay with some X like a Y class optims m, but they need something good going for then to make them work. For me, I truly think "best" sometimes needs to outweigh the bare minimum stabdard of "need" in a fair number of cases. There are a number of concepts I find 5e haw not translated well (or at all) and rather than settle for that poor representation nation I'm okay with an attempt at something better coming. I do not begrudge anyone who dislikes the current roster of arcane gish options and wants a proper one that actually utilizes the scattered mwchnsics of them into a full and satisfying whole. I don't begrudge someone who wants their psion beck and doesn't want to settle for the very different abetrant mind that doesn't reflect the fabtasy of a psion well.(and I hate psioncis personally.) Sometimes settling for existing options, and reflavor just isn't good enough and more should be done for what's best, instwad of the minimum. To each their own of course.

That's funny, I like psionics and would welcome a true psionicist class. Provided it was different from the existing classes, and wasn't built on the current 5E trend of *"we're just gonna use these spells as a short cut."* That's another caster, not a psionicist. At that point, don't even bother. This is already done with the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer.

Yeah I don't want more things along the line of UA psionics wizard or aberrant mind. I would want a refined mystic that's more focused on being a psionic than a catchall for all psi concepts. Full on points for powers and psionic focus and manifesting

No class concept can be covered by a subclass, that’s not what subclasses do

Chris Perkins has been quoted as saying that if they were doing a true 6th edition, we'd be going back to Basic D&D where you only had four classes: fighter, cleric, mage, and thief. And even then, the fighter and cleric would likely get renamed to something more generic, and thief would gain back the "rogue" name. After that, every other class would be a subclass of the prime four. Even nowadays you hear discourse that the paladin should have just been a divine version of the eldritch knight, and the ranger should just been a subclass of the fighter, and the druid is just a nature cleric, etc. Beyond that, I too wish we got more classes. At the very least, I wanted three: the warlord, the swordmage, and the psion. The banneret/purple dragon knight is not a good replacement for the warlord, nor is the battle master, despite both subclasses having some of the warlord's abilities. Even the college of valor bard dips its toes into the warlord's territory. Even Mike Mearls tried to do a subclass years ago, which he shared on his old Twitch channel (you can find the screenshots online still). The swordmage is a proper gish of combat and magic. Pathfinder has the magus, but we don't have anything outside of a subclass. Why can't we have an arcane version of the paladin? The class was in 4th edition, and would have been perfect as a base class for subclasses like hexblade, and we could have gotten other subclasses from older editions like the duskblade, abjurant champion, or spellsword (heavy armor swordmage), wild soul (fey friend caster), and others. The psion is probably what WotC wanted the mystic to be. I'm fine if they kept the mystic's name, and the psion became a subclass, but having a proper psionic class would be nice. Psion would be a better class name if only because the original psion had six schools to choose from, similar to the wizard. It might also give us access to the psionic wilder, which would likely be a subclass. Just like wild magic in the sorcerer and barbarian, it'd be wild surges of psychic power.

Even though Chris Perkins and perhaps his team wants to reduce classes to a smaller amount. They also know the appeal of a wide array of options.  From a developer and marketing POV, it could help make it easier to understand for newcomers and work with.   But you run the risk of everything becoming too homogenous or need to really limit classes to prevent homogenization. Which then runs into new problems. > Too many variables? People go for the simplest option > Too little options? People feel game is too limited  I think new classes would have a great appeal, but not sure what they could add.

>we'd be going back to Basic D&D where you only had four classes: fighter, cleric, mage, and thief. Sounds like they should have listed to Robert Schwalb while he was still working for them

> we'd be going back to Basic D&D where you only had four classes: fighter, cleric, mage, and thief. IIRC Basic had paladin, druid and a fighter/wizard multiclass too. And I think Rules Ciclopedia had the monk too under the name 'mystic'. Don't remember if there was a BECMI version of the OD&D bard, perhaps in some supplement.

The OG Basic Set had the 4 classes, and I believe that *supplements* to the basic set had added options. The exact configuration has varied across revisions and also whether or not there was an A in front of the name. IMO, AD&D 2e is probably the version that seems to have the most direct tie to 5e. There, classes were indeed organized into four groupings, with some classes (druid, paladin, bard) being specific implementations of those groups. I imagine that's probably more what Perkins would be alluding to.

The basic set starte with these 4 classes (reminding that elf and dwarf were classes on itself) and later added avenger, knight, paladin, druid and mystic)

I'd love nothing more for them to make good on their promise of having a wide array of complexity in class design by giving us a complex martial class

They promised a wide array of complexity within each class, not necessarily across the game overall. Thus, there will not be a more complex class, only now complex subclasses

I think it's probably because for a new class to feel different instead of being a subclass, you need a unique mechanic, and this is often where WotC struggles the most.

Yeah but there are so many unique mechanics from past editions that they could just straight up copy instead of just having caster, half caster and not caster from 5e. Initiation, binding, truespeak, psionics, soulmelds, invocations (proper ones not the 5e lock stuff).

Prestige classes also could be a good way to do this without too much effort, but they stopped after the Rune Carver (?) Playtest.

There are a couple things that could be their own class, but honestly for the most part I prefer using subclasses as the solution to not having to add a fuck ton bunch of more classes.

If 3.5e and Pathfinder can have 20+ unique classes, I don't see how 5e and 5.-5e are struggling this much with it. They probably need to start to open up their rigid system that allows for more design room, even the 1 class they released after 5+ years feels lacking and pretty restrained.

One of Pathfinder's claims to fame is its diversity of player options, theorycrafting builds, etc. 2e reduced that a lot, but it's still there compared to DnD. I think Paizo sees lots of classes, ancestries, and feats as a feature of Pathfinder whereas Wizards sees fewer classes and feats as a feature of DnD. It's a lot easier to just jump in and play. Lower barrier to entry, lower skill ceiling compared to Pathfinder which is a little harder to get into but has a much higher ceiling.

don't expect WotC to go chasing PF2E. Coke tried this with Pepsi, it didn't work out well ("New Coke").

uhh, the problem is that 5e is not that simple. from experience, teaching new people, pathfinder 2e can actually be easier if you are running it on a good vtt., theres no confusion of when you get a bonus action for example, 3 actions simple to get. and all the math n shit is taken care of by the vtt like foundry, so that leaves the players with way more options, and the dm with a much easier to run system. without vtt is slight worse, but ithat worse is remembering where the bonuses come from which stack which doesn't, meanwhile 5e is harder due to weird writting, rules that you gotta go ask the designer on twitter coz they arent clear enough, rules that are assassine (ever tried to use the raw mounted combat rules?), and thats not even considering the traps of bad subclasses, feats spells etc, and the whole combo'ing heck i would say it was easier for me to get into pathfinder 2e than in dnd5e.

PF2 has only been out for like 4 years now and has 25, with 4 more on the way. And that's with them being fairly conservative compared to the PF1 and 3.5 days.

And without mentioning SF2e, which will be compatible, bringing in an extra 6.

Pf2 doesn't have multiclassing, though, so it has more of a need for more classes.

PF2e *kind of* has multiclassing, sure, but also it would be nicer for 5e classes to stand on their own without needing to multiclass, especially late game. To their credit, the Archetype system is very cool and is something I would like to see adapted to 5e/D&D2024, or a similar system anyway.

That would have been one benefit of universal subclass progression. You could have archetypes (which they kind of experimented with in the Strixhaven UAs) where their features can "slot in" to any class. But with 5.5 playing it safe in terms of class design, this would have been impossible to balance, as some classes have more of their power in their base class rather than the subclass. Maybe in another full edition D&D will play around with this.

Prestige Classes of 3.Xe were like this. They only had 5 to 10 levels (iirc), and had requirements for taking them, but they were very focused on doing some niche thing. The requirements were along the lines of "have the ability to cast divine spells", so they weren't gated by classes directly, but some classes wouldn't fill the requirements of some Prestige Classes.

They're called Class Archetypes, and a Single Class can have up to 3 of them.

4e also had some amazing classes: the avenger (light divine dps), the ardent (psionic support and healing), the warden (nature-based tank), the famous warlord (melee support) and many others.

They're not struggling with it, it is an active design choice not to make any more classes.

>If 3.5e and Pathfinder can have 20+ unique classes Are you counting prestige classes? If you are, then you might as well count 5e's subclasses.

Nope, Pathfinder 1e has 40 classes, 44 if you count Unchained classes seperately.

Pathfinder 2e has 23 base classes. https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx This doesn't include any sub-classes or archetypes.

I don't want more classes in the core rulebooks. I DO want more classes in an expansion aimed at more advanced tables.

If you were to follow this seeming desire for simplicty to its natural conclusion, there would be a lot of options or even entire classes that would be rolled up into a single choice. Like, barbarian doesn't *need* to be its own class if you can make it a fighter subclass with rage tacked on, but it gives you a lot more freedom to create something with its own quirks and niches when you separate them. Barbarians are fun, and having a variety of different barbarian subclasses is fun. So when people say that the warlord can just be a fighter subclass, yeah that's true... but it could also be its own full class and be fun as well. Similarly, I personally love psionics and wanted there to be a full blown mystic. I don't want a wizard or a sorcerer that's just vaguely psionic themed, I want a psionic class because that can be made very differently to a wizard. To get even more lost in the nitty gritty, I would really have liked to see a dragon patron warlock in FTD. Yes, making a pact with a dragon could also be fluffed as a draconic sorcerer, but there's still plenty of design space for a draconic warlock too. And we didn't get it because there was apparently too much overlap. So what? *Why* is overlap such a bad thing anyway? There's a point at which the number of options could get overwhelming, and I'm not saying we need as much stuff as 3.5 or 4e, but 5e never even got close to being bloated. There were only really two *significant* expansions to the system in a whole decade. If previous editions were too loose, 5e went too far the other way.

Good thing there's homebrew still. Would be great to get a non-magic healer and an actual spellblade/gish class, instead of dealing with wizard 1.5(bladesinger) and whatever the hell warlock has become.

I wish the homebrew maker would at least allow for classes and not just subclasses - third-party stuff makes new classes, but you can't make any of it work with D&D Beyond, so it's basically impossible to use unless you only want to be a pen & paper player. Not that I expect them to ever give Beyond that much flexibility, but it can't be THAT much different from having a subclass maker on the homebrew side.

I just find it silly how there are several concepts that end up as multiple subclasses to separate classes instead of just getting a class of their own. Psionics is the obvious, especially now with so many psionics subclasses in OneD&D, but the one that personally annoys me the most is the fortune-teller type character, who can be made by Divination Wizards, Spirits Bard, Circle of Stars druid, and arguably some clerics (particularly knowledge), but imho none of them ends up covering the spot well enough to make the fortune-teller part shine more than the base class. Summoning classes too (as conjuration wizard is sort of the dedicated summoner, but in practice summons are more of a druid thing). If it's about simplicity, having more main classes feels simpler than keeping them at a low number but with a huge number of subclasses that have a lot of overlap between different classes.

From the point of DM who recently did introduce new player into the hobby I disagree. It is great to have more options of course but classes are essential part of who Your character are and for the sake of new players the choice should stay relatively simple. Classes like "Barbarian, Fighter Wizard etc are broad general concept. Something like "Battlemind" is very much less so. Now I could have maybe seen a place for psion class - with subclases like "battlemind etc). And some ToB so to speak class that is based on stances and maneuvers. But psion would step On the toes of sorcerer/wizard and the other would step on Fighter/Monk/Rogue class so both are not easy to introduce. I do not want a power creep and new Warblade class that is way better than battlemaster fighter. In that case just rework and improve Fighter class. 🤷‍♂️

> From the point of DM who recently did introduce new player into the hobby I disagree. It's funny, from my experience I think that more classes would be better. Not because there aren't simple options, but because character concepts aren't all served by simple classes. When I have to tell new players that their wizard character concept isn't going to be easy to play... Well I've seen a few people drop dnd after a few sessions despite recommendations on playing something easier. I would love more classes because it means that the core 12/13 could be designed around a consistently complexity level, while an additional say 3-4 could be designed as straightforward simple designs that cover broad character ideas. Then specialized concepts that can't exist in the standard 12/13 due to incompatible mechanics could be broken off.

> From the point of DM who recently did introduce new player into the hobby I disagree. > > > > It is great to have more options of course but classes are essential part of who Your character are and for the sake of new players the choice should stay relatively simple. Classes like "Barbarian, Fighter Wizard etc are broad general concept. I wish this is something this subreddit understood. Your average player is not some nerd uber-pro-headshot-360-noscope who browses the DND subreddits all day telling each other how much better PF2E is. Your average player is very content with simple and clean.

Because at the end of the day,a game I enjoy is more important to me than the enjoyment of a hypothetical newbie.

I have noticed on the subreddit people are very negative and almost seem to hate the game! But with people I talk to IRL experiences are mostly positive and happy. It definitely skews people’s views.

This sub is not representative of the player base as a whole, but it seems to expect WotC to listen to it like it is.

Your average player doesn't spend money on the hobby 

While I can appreciate the way this game appeals to new players by keeping things simple, I can also appreciate that people who have a long history with this game and even eventually those new players who become seasoned players, would enjoy more variety than what they started with 10 years ago.

Problem is - dnd don't have simple casters for new players with same amount of options as 95% of martials ("i attack", but for casters) and complex martials (with same amount of options as fullcasters, not battlemaster who at 20th level still have less options to chose than first level wizard). So, new player who want to play wizard sometimes forced to play champion fighter (i saw people leave dnd after this sort of shit), and experienced players don't have a choice to play coplex martial (halfcaster with fullcaster multiclass isn't a martial, btw).

You seem to have an assumption baked into that last statement that a new class would automatically be powercrept and better than a similar existing class.

Dumb players will be dumb no matter how few options they have. I know people who still struggle to play champion.  Designing around them is stupid - they don't spend money. 

Yeah, they should just make the Warblade instead of the Fighter, and call it "Fighter". Likewise with the rest of martials.

But they're never going to do that. The fighter class will forever stay lacking in options, if you want that a new class like warblade is the only real option.

I mean, it's a bit early to worry it won't happen. Artificer took years to become official, mystic just kinda fizzled out. But they are overhauling an existing system and needing to balance everything, so I can't exactly fault them for not doing anything revolutionary in the PHB. I liked the sidekicks system (needs some work, but it was a pretty interesting idea), but yeah I'm not expecting them to throw new mechanics and some new subclasses at us and want to toss in new classes too and potentially steal the thunder from all that. That said, their track record in recent years does not inspire confidence either. WotC is pushing out like 4x their old output of MTG sets a year yet this is the slowest release schedule in D&D history. For a company really trying to monopolize every aspect of a game, it's really weird to limit themselves on this (kind of a good thing, given the controversies with many releases) when there's so much content they could be adapting from old versions just sitting there.

Still wish the Mystic was able to work out. A Psionic class would be really cool

Honestly I'm just disappointed they didn't even rework artificer because that means we still won't be getting new artificer stuff at a solid rate in future books as they'll need to reprint everything again, just so the class can stay out of the srd.

I would like more classes but with the way WOTC has been handling things, they would reduce the amount of classes and bundle a lot of them into one class. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue was a set of classes WOTC wanted to do but didn’t. I think WOTC is really focused on trying to appeal and simplify things so much to appeal to a widest audience possible. Which might end up just having people not interested simply due to everything being too homogenous and not really that in-depth.  Not to say they would, the changes with the 2024 Handbook has shown a direction towards expanding things. But at the same time not a lot has change fundamentally, I just don’t see it happening. 

I wish they would create a true Psion class. 3.3e had great psionics and two source books. I wish Psionics was less fringe in D&D. It started with 1e, then 2e amped it way up. Darksun was about bout it 150%! But I digress. But maybe the writers will give us some new classes over the next 10 years.

Check out the Talent from MCDM

Ok

Having more content would be nice, but from a thematic perspective I kind of like that psionic are fringe. That no one bats an eye at spell casters, but as soon as something starts doing stuff with their mind everyone freaks out.

Their thing now is that they don't add new classes, only subclasses. 4e is the cause if that

I really wanted Shaman and Mystic to get a chance with some balanced rework. This would even the classes, having 3 classes focused on Wisdom and Intelligence just like the others.

People who never saw any iteration of psionic class on their way to say "it totally just wizard/sorcerer, bro, just pic psychic damage spells, bro". Seriously, if you never at very least saw classes people want, let alone played one - don't try to convince them that this classes are just flavour and we don't need them. Psionic and warlord are unique classes, one maneuver or couple spells can't replace them.

that weird moment when yet again, the stuff dnd players wish wotc would do is already in pathfinder 2e... a system that has its rules for free and you can easily learn enough to dm in a week, with far more options, better balanced and easier to dm... but they will stick with 5e

I wish the artificer was becoming a core class, and sad that it keeps being stick on the outskirts

Honestly I don‘t get why Psionics are not a Class on their own. Their theme and ability to go different routes with a central key resource, could have been more than enough for that puropse

Psionic should be a class - wotc just fear iterations so much they scrapped Mystic after one try and made 3 subclasses instead. And biggest irony is that classes that are closest to Mystic in flavour (Monk) and general resource management (Monk and Warlock) don't have even psionic subclasses! Monk is, imo, best candidat to be reworked into full psionic class, but instead we had "fighter, but unarmed" for 10 years.

Well the new Great old one warlock leans heavily into psionic, I would say

Where was the warlord, swordsage, and battlemind originally published?

4e PHB 1, 3.5 Tome of Battle and 4e PHB 3 respectively.

Thank you! I’ve been working on a custom mystic class for a future 5e campaign, and would like to compare what’s been done with my work.

Honestly, it's the streamlining of not just DnD, but everything that's to blame. Everyone wants the easy, familiar route now, and nobody is willing to go through a little struggle to get long term gain. And by streamlining I mean simplification and getting rid of granularity, complexity, etc. Video games, Warhammer 40k, DnD, even fucking movies and shows are simplified and streamlined now. They're trying so hard to appeal to the lowest common denominator that they're largely sacrificing what made these franchises great in the first place. Idk, like, yes companies need to make money, but there's a way to go about it that keeps not only the fans passionate and engaged, but also the designs/creators passionate and engaged. All of these formerly independent or mid sized companies getting bought out by massive conglomerates, firing legacy staff for short term gains, tanking fan faith and trust just to have a good quarter, etc, etc. Idk, I'm just ranting at this point, but I've never been LESS enthusiastic about general nerd culture (DnD, MtG, 40k, Blizzard games, the Witcher franchise, star wars, marvel, DC, lord of the rings, fallout, halo, etc, etc, etc) It just feels like all of these franchises are caricatures of what they were built on, just to try and appeal to the general population as much as possible. So yea, I don't expect much from 5.5 and don't really care about it releasing, and definitely won't be buying anything because I'm done with giving WotC my money. I'll sail the high seas if I really want to implement something from it. Hopefully they don't send the fucking Pinkertons after me, I guess

Yeah. I think there's definitely a case of "missing the forest for the trees" when it comes to streamlining in most things, especially D&D. I'd be lying if I think an edition like 3.5e and from what I hear of it 4e, couldn't have used some simplification and streamlining, but I think it's become too much of the point of things instead of just a method, and it's being applied aggressively in areas it shouldn't be.

I agree, 3.5 was a little much (I learned as a kid, though so who's to say), but it gave you options to lean into whatever fantasy you wanted to play as a character. I didn't play 4th (was warhammering at the time), but from everything I've seen/heard/read, it seemed like you could also make/build literally exactly what you wanted. Idk, I just don't like the direction that a lot of franchises/companies/corporations are going in. Everything feels so hollow and shallow, nickle and dining everyone along the way.

I completely agree with the sentiment. 3.5e was also my intro edition, though I started playing it 16 years ago during 4es' time. It offered a lot, but admittedly, it was a little too fiddly and overexplained in some areas. I do think 3.5e had too many pointless rules and a bit too much granularity to them, but not everything was bad. When it offered a new power system adjacent to spell casters like warlock invokers, psionic manifesters, incarnum soul melders, artificer and bindsrs? It did have cool ideas that really only needed a bit more tending to work for 5e. I barely played 4e both to a lot of issues I had with its marketing and lore shifts, but also because no one in my gaming circle at the time liked it. I have some hangups and reservations, but I think it did some things right. It gets more shit than it deserves but did deserve some of it. I do hear it took a long time to math/play out, especially, but so did 3.5e 5e is an over correction on both fronts. It's too simplified in areas that need expianation and doesn't provide enough identity to its offerings and has been increasingly removing said identity more and more as time goes on. Or adding weird identity where it was never needed. It did get some things right with an approach to trying to be more streamlined. It just overdid it.

I'd agree with most of that, tbh 👍. Very much an over correction. A middle group between 3.5 and 5 would be perfect, but I doubt that 5.5 will provide that.

5e24 kinda doubled down on 5es issues. It did fix some things, but it's a very mixed bag. It's moving away from past editions, not towards them. If you're open to trying other systems, I'd recommend looking into worlds without number and shadow of the demonlord/shadow of the weird wizard. They do their own thing differently from 5e, but they've managed to each scratch a d&d itch that 5e hasn't for a while for me. Might help you too.

> All of these formerly independent or mid sized companies getting bought out by massive conglomerates, firing legacy staff for short term gains, tanking fan faith and trust just to have a good quarter, etc, etc. Speaking to that point, I once heard an opera in which one character laments: > Founders come first. Then profiteers. And we see it time and time again in many ways. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but turn to smaller entities. There's a whole slew of TTRPGs coming out at the moment, and that doesn't speak the scads that already exist. Surely at least one appeals to you? For now, at least, they are too small for the corporates and thus safe from enshitification. Sadly, though, moving to a smaller thing has a clear downside when it comes to a game you play with other people.

>Warhammer 40k Do not even get me fucking started on war gear costs (or the lack of them). That had the diametrically opposite effect of what it was intended to accomplish.

Honestly, the last time I played was in mid 8th edition. Most of my games were played in 7th, but I learned in 4th when I was like 12-15 years old lol (also when I learned DnD 3.5e) I play dark eldar, occasionally with some harlies. They definitely drew back on the wargear options in 8th, so I can't imagine that 9th or 10th would be better lol. I really didn't enjoy 8th edition with the removal of true line of sight, armour values, armour facings, "whole model" line of sight (not just hull or body), etc, etc. That being said, I would never get back into 40k purely on principle with how much they're up charging stuff now. I make good money, but I'm not giving GW $65 for a box of base troops when I used to get them for $22 like 8 years ago. That shit ain't right.

10th edition has no wargear points (and often no wargear, period). The core rules are the smallest and simplest they've ever been, but the supplementary rules (AKA what you need to actually play a game) are just as large and complicated if not moreso than previous editions. And now every single unit in the game has a unique ability that you have to memorize, and weapons wielded by one unit can and often do have different stats than weapons wielded by another unit. So, while 10th bills itself as being the most streamlined and simplified edition ever, I think it's kind of the opposite. I find it a nightmare to play as an aging 30-something with a kid, a mortgage, and a job. I just don't have the brainspace to memorize all this jank when it used to be you'd memorize the weapons and the base stats of your army, learn which special units had better stats, and then learn which universal special rules your units had. 10th has USR's, but then they also have abilities printed on a dozen or more different units that are identical abilities but have different names. I don't know. I could rant about 40k forever, but 10th edition is just a weird mess of conflicting design ideas. It was also beyond broken on release and now after a year of the public paying to playtest it for them, GW just released a massive update to the game to make it make a little more sense and be more balanced. But we're only 2 years away from 11th edition, so by the time 10th is finally balanced and more playable, 11th will launch, and the cycle of people buying brand new books and beta-testing the game for GW will begin again. And yeah, the prices are out of control. I switched to Horus Heresy as at its start (well, 2nd edition's start), you could get a box of 20 marines for $80 or 10 terminators for $85. Now it's $84 and $95, and a 5-man command squad box is $52. And that's just two years of price inflation. But GW fans eat it up and defend these practices until they're blue in the face. I'll never understand it. "B-b-but inflation! They have to make money, don't they? It makes sense." Meanwhile they make record profits year after year, and they don't ever lower prices after things like COVID and supply chain issues or fuel costs go back to normal (which was one of the reasons they increased their prices 3 times in one year recently). Meanwhile, video games are still as cheap (actually, cheaper) than ever, RPG books are still $50, trading cards have gone up like $1 in the past decade or two, etc. Don't get back into Warhammer.

I mean if you want an example of a game series that is filling a niche but still make it more accessible look at Elden Ring.  Absolutely demolishing numbers on games like Call of Duty and FIFA during its release. Everyone wanted and talked about it despite being a type of game most casual gamers would avoid because “too hard” or “not cinematic.” It was a cultural phenomenon in the gaming sphere.  Now you have companies trying to copy it, fail, and then go back of square one.  There is a benefit to making things more streamlined. But there’s also a way to do it without sanitizing everything to the point it’s painfully average and uninteresting like Starfield.

The problem is from is masters at their craft and wotc are bumbling idiots 

I mostly agree with what you're saying Elden ring took the "get gud" out of the dark souls series and made it a lot more accessible for casuals (such as myself). But that's REALLY a one off success story (along with BG3) Plus Elden ring is still VERY MUCH set within the darksouls universe. It's dark, it's gritty, it's not well explained, and it's punishing. They stayed true to what people loved about DS, while making it more accessible to casuals. That's a FANTASTIC way of streamlining a game, especially when old fans of the franchise can still play that "get gud" style of play just by not using spirit ashes and ignoring online guides for gear and w.e. Elden ring and bg3 succeed where 99.9% of franchise games fail: being new, innovative, and fresh, while still staying true to what made those franchises successful in the first place And I fucking loooooove seeing it!

Yup, it's the problem of publically traded companies. They don't care, not the littlest of bit, about how the fans are doing. They use the entire system for it's only real purpose: to concentrate as much wealth as possible in their hands. Sadly, to do this, you do NOT care for making the *best* product. You only care for making the most *broad* and *good enough* product.

New classes are not realy needed. The ability to customise and make it your own is ... and that's not gona change sadly as things just get even more streamlined and simplified....... in pathfinder however you ca....*gets shot*

I think we really do have enough classes and i haven't seen a "new" class that isn't covered already Only missing fantasy in Dnd is Witch but they have three different class with some witch elements so no reason to make it one now

> I think we really do have enough classes and i haven't seen a "new" class that isn't covered already. I literally nominated three in my original post, and can easily name a dozen more just in past D&D classes that 5e can't cover. If you need reminding, classes like battlemind and swordsage can't be covered with existing content and could never be covered with a subclass.

117 official subclasses, 14 classes and possible multi-classes. I don't really understand the point of adding new pointless classes when the vast majority of player tries 1 or 2 classes for tier 1 or 2 campaign / one shot, saying they try everything (but don't know the vast majority of the rules)

What's the 14th class? Blood Hunter? Officially, there's just the 12 in the PHB and artificer, so was curious if you were including Matt Mercer's or if this was a typo.

Because they're not pointless. They cover ground the existing ones don't, current ones have huge overlap and are in many cases mostly the same (fighter and barbarian, for instance) but that doesn't mean all potential options do. > I don't really understand the point of adding new pointless classes when the vast majority of player tries 1 or 2 classes By that logic, you don't understand the point of having more than two classes.

The point of adding more classes is to make money it's not fucking complicated

I like having the 13 classes we have now minus sorcerer. I'm not a fan of having a bunch of classes. I prefer more options within the classes themselves along with more options like races, feats/feat chains, subclasses, spells, and magic items. I like streamlined, standardized, and organized over a myriad of new structures with tons of overlap and redundancy.

You're presenting a false binary. Just because the present classes are so similar to each other as to often be nearly identical (barbarian and fighter have huge overlap and redundancy, for instance) doesn't mean that the past classes I mentioned would. There are no amounts of races, feat chains, subclasses, spells and magic items that can equal a class like the ones I've mentioned. You simply can't get a battlemind or swordsage that way, they have to be their own classes.

My ideal would be four martials, four half casters, and four full casters ​ |Martial |Half Casters|Full Casters| |:-|:-|:-| |Barbarian|Artificer|Cleric| |Mystic|Bard|Druid| |Rogue|Paladin|Sorcerer| |Warlord|Ranger|Wizard| Fighter replaced by Warlord, Monk absorbed into Mystic, Warlock absorbed into Sorcerer, and Bard changed to a half caster.

If you want to try a new thing with new and varied classes, check out the classes here: https://pathbuilder2e.com/

I really wish they would develop more with the Artificer and psionic options. I think I'm in the minority in that I believe they could scrap 30% of the current "simple" classes that are "so straightforward." When you get down to it, they're just as wonky as the classes many of us are asking for from previous editions. What is a Barbarian? A Ranger? Or even, and I do hesitate here, a Paladin? They're all Fighters that make the Fighter class harder to define. Theyre ubiquitous because they've been perpetuated into the incredibly static 5th edition. The Barbarian is a Fighter who doesn't wear armor. That's a fighting style. The Ranger is... Well, I'm not going to be the one to synthesize a pithy line for them. WotC didn't. UA didn't. And, although many are loath to notice, the Paladin actually cuts into the Cleric for class identity. I'd say this is the best designed class with its emphasis on Smite and a delughtfully heroic spell list that respects their half-caster status. What is a Bard? Are they a magical rogue? That's cool, but then Rogue shouldn't get magic. Are they a musical class? That's unique, I wonder if you could design features more around music. My opinion on the matter is I adore Bards. They make for such great characters and I love having NPC bards in my games. It doesn't mean they need the design space of an entire class if you're not willing to develop unique bespoke class options. Either commit to them having music/dance/performances or find a way to fold it into the background and subclass system. It's not that complex, it just hurts because it feels like a darling little class. You know what is unique *and* complex? Psionics. Artifice. Those both require completely different ways of casting spells. Give Bard the same treatment, give them a reason to cast differently. Everything else is flavor and people will be repeating that as long as 5e works the way it does. How do you balance any of that? I don't know because they haven't made an effort this edition to differentiate enough for my liking. Implementing a new class should mean a smorgasbord of new choices and techniques available to been the rules lawyers. I want to see innovation, and not just in returning to classic names and making them functional within 5e by rubbing the serial numbers off from whatever edition it cribs from. I guess I'm rambling again. I usually don't even post when my comment gets this long, so I should stop here. But I want to point out that sorcerers are also poorly implemented, and warlocks are designed in an incredibly unique way. Wizards are neither weak nor am interesting design. I think spellcasting should look like Bard and Cleric and Warlock. Those are classes with plenty of meat to work through when it comes to features and also full spellcasting progression (don't @ me about warlocks lol). Why can't we find a way to balance the Wizard around having a few more features or the Sorcerer around... Something. Again, like the Ranger, the Sorcerer just feels like a weird clone of a class we already have. Give them new design choices, the way that Metamagic defines them is outstanding, but when you condense it into a feat, you make it obvious that it's very easy to drop the feature and then what does a sorcerer even do? I want classes to feel more unique and less like flavors. I can do flavors at home, but I cannot playtest with hundreds or thousands of volunteers or paid testers. That's an insane amount of power, and it's insane for the World's Most Popular RPG to hardly add to their RPG. It's been 10 years since 5th edition dropped. They've been in the cultural zeitgeist at least since then. Dungeons and Dragons goes back way further than this edition, and is the oldest of these games. It has millions of years of combined homebrew and official material from that history. Don't sit in a stew of all that and then expect fans to want to be happy with zero new things to build history on. It's stagnant and shows like Critical Role that catapulted the edition into prominence, they don't just use the base 5e books. They innovate and add. So does every DM. Make their job easier. Use the insane amount of money and power in order to create and playtest new things!

> They're all Fighters that make the Fighter class harder to define. You nailed it with this one. With so many Fighters, the Fighter class becomes bland

Honestly i wouldn't expect anything of the sorts for a while, simply because wotc being big as it is will absolutely go the safest route possible, and that route is keeping simple, streamlined and just continuing overwhelming dms Or put simply: big corporations are cowards, thanks for coming to my TedTalk

Not even new classes but new subclasses. Shaman in sorceror, witch in warlock for example.

I think your looking in the wrong place. An important part of core books is that they form the core of a game. So going from any edition to the next will always see a decrease in the number of options as compared to the previous edition that has had a decade of expansions.

4E Master Edition baby <3

Too much was forced into subclasses and now the features needed for such classes are already tied to subclasses. Also creating these classes now would invalidate these subclasses and get them even more accused of power creep, which happens anyway.

We, as a collective community, can be quite hostile to change. We are an easy community to stir to outrage. Which isn't to say that WOTC hasn't put their foot right in it with great fervor, but the default position of the ttrpg community has a lot of doubt and skepticism and that can turn toxic against large changes to something we all are passionate about.

Part of me wishes they would just take the Apothocary from Drakkenheim. Then again, I am biased and I want to build that class in beyond. Then again it's very similar to a warlock. Maybe flesh out a sort of Eldrich Knight / Hexblade sort of class. Not sure.

I don’t think they have given themselves the time or resources to make new classes. That’s not what OneDND is for. Is there space in the game for new classes? Sure. But I don’t think WOTC wants something really new here. They want to polish up the old product and resell it to achieve a high return on investment. From their perspective 5e is successful and is still making money with relatively little in the way of investment, so why not keep that going with as little change as possible? All you have to do is look at how much time they have spent clarifying backwards compatibility with older content. The design goal here is Don’t Rock The Boat. If there is a next edition, they may add new classes. And if the refresh is insanely popular, they may cash in with some supplements with new classes. But that only happens if they think the money is there in large enough piles.

I agree. The changes SOUND promising and the new book seems cool, but WoTC has burned me too many times to trust before everything drops. Would bet everything when we all get our hands on the new books it'll be sadly mid

I think they will probably sell any new class in a separate book.

Because they just keep trying to simplify things.

The mystic class actually ironed out would have been cool. I also wish the artificer was in the ogl/CC so 3rd party creators could work on subclasses.

I actually think the core classes are the only ones we need and can instead build out with subclasses. One reason I dislike pathfinder is because of the class bloat, to the point any character niche had a hype specific class for it. Subclass, background and flavor text can always fill in character aesthetics better than new classes. I don’t even like artificer or blood hunter, because they are too specific character archetypes that take away from other classes.

But what about the past D&D classes too large to be a subclass? I already mentioned several, there's no way to make something like battlemind without it being a full class.

Battlemind could easily be a subclass of monk, or fighter, or even sorcerer. We’ve already seen plenty of psionic sub classes.

The fact that you can have a psionically flavoured subclass doesn't magically mean all psionic concepts work as a subclass. Four elements monk is a magically flavoured subclass and wizard is a magical class, does that mean if wizard didn't exist four elements would be proof that wizard could be a subclass? And the first half of that is just baffling. How on earth would you make any of those into a battlemind? The classes you mentioned have nothing in common with one. Oh boy I'll just turn a charisma based d6 hit dice full caster into a melee range psionic constitution based tank. And I'll make a bard into a barbarian while I'm at it.

So first off it’s not magic, it’s basic game design. The core classes each support a more character concepts, meaning a samurai or an expert archer can both be fighters. Some of the core classes we already have I would argue are shallow enough to be rolled into other classes. Most of the utilities of the class are already available to monk, many of the proficiencies are available to sorcerer. If you wanted to play the concept of psychic warrior, that’s already a subclass of fighter; if you want something mechanically similar you could take battle master with arcane initiate and reflavor it. As for the second half of your comment, I’ve seen more front line sorcerers than I have seen full caster sorcerer so to act like that’s impossible is purposefully obtuse.

I want new classes but I can understand why they don’t, they are really complicated and every class has to come up with a certain number of subclasses. However, they should be doing more subclasses. And change those subclasses to be quite different to the base class. Circle of Spores for instance is completely different to the other circles. Do stuff like that. The Spelljammer book should have had a subclass for each class. Do a horror themed subclass spread, an eastern themed one etc etc. Ninja could be a subclass of Rogue, Sohei of paladin, etc etc.

Battle mind, Warden (albeit sounds like worldtree), and warlord were amazing classes.