2005 January-April Wizards products

[reanjr]

2) d20 Modern Release is 2005:
d20 Past (James Wyatt) 3/2005

Am I the only person thinking What The Hell?

Use the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana, and it seems that D&D would be D20 Past.

Maybe a slight angle difference, but I don't see this as even remotely necessary.

 

[reanjr]

Anathema
(n.) A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority, and accompanied by excommunication. Hence: Denunciation of anything as accursed.
(n.) An imprecation; a curse; a malediction.
(n.) Any person or thing anathematized, or cursed by ecclesiastical authority.


I'd say we're looking at a book of Demons and Devils.

You could be right, but it seems that it would be something more obvious if it were Fiends. Anathema is a very encompassing word in the English language and can be used to mean many different things. It is very commonly used to mean something like "actively opposed."

Using the word Anathema is not very clear (maybe it's a regional usage of the word I am familiar with, I could be wrong), while Libris Mortis and Draconomicon are pretty self-explanatory.

 

[reanjr]

It was ironical, but not too much... of course I couldn't really wish that a book was not published! Only that I have the feeling this book was very unnecessary (in the sense that every class could have been covered just by CWarrior, CDivine and CArcane) and as such I am afraid it is going to contain crappy bits, and perhaps be much worse than the infamous Song & Silence.

While it may be true that you can find many things in those books that apply to Rogues/Bards, it's harder to go the other way than it is with most classes. Fighter, Barbarians, Paladins, Monks, and Rangers all seem to distinctly fit Complete Warrior; Clerics, Druids, Paladins distinctly fit Complete Divine; and Sorcerers and Wizards fit in Complete Arcane. Rogues and Bards don't really fit any of those.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

You could be right, but it seems that it would be something more obvious if it were Fiends. Anathema is a very encompassing word in the English language and can be used to mean many different things. It is very commonly used to mean something like "actively opposed."

Using the word Anathema is not very clear (maybe it's a regional usage of the word I am familiar with, I could be wrong), while Libris Mortis and Draconomicon are pretty self-explanatory.

I thought the same thing, which is why I decided to check the actual definition. I always kind of understood it to mean something like you suggest.

Checking my thesaurus and about 5 or six online sites for a definition of the word, however, leads me to the above definition (mostly) or similar definitions, all having something to do with anti-religion- either occult related, or simply accursed. Which leads me to believe demons and devils.

As for why choose such a... well... indefinite word like Anathema, maybe it is because they wanted to encompass both demons and devils (thus not selecting one or the other) or else maybe they are using the sort of "vernacular" definition that we were both originally thinking of. They did get "Libris Mortis" wrong, after all.

 

[FireLance]

I don't know, but aren't aberrations quite a loose category to get a book like this?

My first idea was that it could be a book about fiends, because just like dragons and undead they are a popular group, broad enough to easily generate new creatures but also a cohesive group.

It is easy to conceive the same sort of material that is in Draconomicon and presumably Libris Mortis: guidelines about playing a fiend PC, prestige classes for fiends and for normal characters who fight against fiends or who want to become close to them, magic items related to fiends, lots of flavor text about the phisiology and ecology of fiends (although obviously totally unearthly).

Could you do the same for aberrations? Sure, but it'd be more difficult IMO not to turn the book into simply a collection of monsters entries...

Well, if you're the type to suspect a big WotC conspiracy to promote Eberron, a book on Aberrations is not so far-fetched. You see, Aberrations are thematically linked in Eberron because they were all created by this group of extra-planar flesh-shaping evil fiends known as the Daelkyr.

Plus, note the similarity between E-berr-on and A-berr-ati-on. Coincidence?

 

[Li Shenron]

While it may be true that you can find many things in those books that apply to Rogues/Bards, it's harder to go the other way than it is with most classes. Fighter, Barbarians, Paladins, Monks, and Rangers all seem to distinctly fit Complete Warrior; Clerics, Druids, Paladins distinctly fit Complete Divine; and Sorcerers and Wizards fit in Complete Arcane. Rogues and Bards don't really fit any of those.

But the Complete series started off so well with the idea that they were not exactly classbooks, but instead "complete" books about one large activity in the game: combat, divine magic, arcane magic. The first book did well (although I didn't like it for other reasons) in treating combat options for everyone despite the class, the second books already shifted into the old classbook style by being much more for clerics than anyone else...

If you consider the starting idea behind the line, "adventuring" may mean everything action beside fighting and magic, which could include exploration, survival, stealth, knowledge, character interaction, equipping, travel... let's see if they really put together a book with something useful for everyone and not just Rogue and Bard oriented stuff, which is what I am afraid it will be.

Incidentally, if you want to "cover" the class abilities (for purposes of crunchy bits), what is left of Rogue and Bard which could not be covered in the first 3 books? I can only think of bardic music - which fits better in a book about arcane stuff than a book about adventuring - and skills, which I doubt there could be crunchy bits enough left to fill a couple of pages...

 

[Li Shenron]

Am I the only person thinking What The Hell?

Use the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana, and it seems that D&D would be D20 Past.

Maybe a slight angle difference, but I don't see this as even remotely necessary.

I don't know what is inside d20 Future, but I suppose that d20 Past addresses several chosen historical ages and provides character material, equipment, organizations taken from each...

For example it could have a medieval (non-magical) generic setting, a renaissance setting, a colonial setting, a WWII setting... That could be pretty intersting in fact, as long as it is done with care and competence!

 

[reanjr]

Plus, note the similarity between E-berr-on and A-berr-ati-on. Coincidence?

I THINK NOT!!!

Normally I would avoid such a pointless post, but it had to be said

 

[NiTessine]

Indeed it is.

Mayhap they're doing an Eberron Adventure Path?

I think their success may determine if Wizards does adventures again - though truthfully, I doubt they'll get back into the adventure business fulltime unless they are very successful.

Cheers!

It's just a three-part series, not an entire adventure path, according to the very last paragraph in Shadows of the Last War.

 

[Shemeska]

If Codex Anathema is a 3.5 version of sorts of 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends' I've got a curious mix of concern and jubilation about it. The 2e FoE book was one of the best books ever written for DnD IMHO, and given the level of quality I saw in the 3e Draconomicon I think they could seriously pull off something of the same level.

Of course, it'd likely remove or ignore most of the flavor from that previous book, given the track record on such things. But I might be wrong, I can't honestly say. If it's to the same level as Draconomicon I'll be wrong. If Libris Mortis is to the same quality level it'll be a good sign, time shall tell.

Or it might be an Abberation book.