D&D 4E 4E PHB II & DMG II 1 year after release (and a new one every year after that)

[Glyfair]

. . . no.

The "You Craft The Creature" project produced a creature which was code-named "Baker" - like all of the other monsters in development around the same time.

It ended up weird - an aberration which uses fey minions - but it was cut from Monster Manual V anyway!

Ah. I wasn't following that very closely.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm thinking about this some more and I am now convinced that the traditional splatbooks will either disappear or be published as compilations of D&Di (Dragon Online) stuff.

I agree, i can also see this happening. What was traditionally a "small" softcover splatbook in 3rd edition will have that kind of material relegated purely to online status.

I'm actually pretty excited about seeing a PH2, DMG2, MM2 every year if they can consistently provide quality, usable material.

 

[Matt Black]

I suppose each new PHB will have a code to unlock the new races, classes and feats for your DDI characters. And perhaps a subtle power creep to make sure players feel like they need to upgrade to each expansion.

 

[jasin]

I'm leaning more and more towards the belief that it won't be a neat 3 x 4 grid, and that the rogue, ranger, and barbarian will all be strikers.

I certainly hope so: the weirdness of the table at the top of the page shows why pushing for a neat grid would be a bad idea. "The barbarian is a martial... controller, I guess? Because there's nothing else left?"

The roles vs. power source grid might be a useful way to look at things from a design standpoint, but the fantasy archetypes and concepts people want to play aren't built with the grid in mind, so IMO it would be wrong to shoehorn them into a specific slot just because it's the one that's still empty. It'd be better to just look at what the concept does, and the put it in the appropriate category. The labels should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

It's like alignment, really.

 

[Andor]

Any guesses as to what the Monk (presumably to be included in the PHB 2 since they mentioned that all the missing classes will be released later) will end up being?

Martial? Divine? Striker? Controller? Meat puppet?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Any guesses as to what the Monk (presumably to be included in the PHB 2 since they mentioned that all the missing classes will be released later) will end up being?

Martial? Divine? Striker? Controller? Meat puppet?

Still misplaced in a non-oriental setting?

 

[fuindordm]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Here's my take on things:

Arcane Controller: Wizard
Arcane Defender: (not filled, since arcane magic is supposed to be less peaceful)
Arcane Leader: Bard (Optional)
Arcane Striker: Sorcerer

Divine Controller: Druid (Definitely--druids=terrain)
Divine Defender: Paladin
Divine Leader: Cleric
Divine Striker: (not filled, since divine magic is supposed to be more peaceful.)

Martial Controller: (not fillled, it's hard to reach multiple targets without magic)
Martial Defender: Fighter
Martial Leader: Warlord
Martial Striker: Ranger
Martial ??: Rogue

You could make a case for the ranger as a divine striker, except that their spells aren't really of the striking variety. I would also vastly prefer a non-spellcasting ranger.

Personally, I would add an 'expert' role for those characters who are supposed to be superb generalists.

Arcane Expert: Artificer or Illusionist
Divine Expert: Binder
Martial Expert: Rogue

And finally, it would be great to have a core class that was Martial/Arcane with reduced but still potent spellcasting.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The rogue and the ranger are the only Strikers which we know for sure belong to that role. The sorcerer as an arcane Striker is conjecture only.

 

[TwoSix]

Need? No. Want? Yes.

I mean, lookit: people bought the Expanded Psionics Handbook because they wanted psionics in their game.

The first Fourth Edition Player's Handbook is subtitled "Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes", and we have good indications that the second Player's Handbook will include psionics.

The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that they'll use the Player's Handbook series to introduce alternative sources of power and, presumably, alternatives to the existing core classes and races - sort of a mix of "capsystem" books like the Expanded Psionics Handbook and "splatbooks" like the Complete and Races series.

So you'll buy a single book with, say, psionics, incarnum, and pact magic, labelled Player's Handbook II, rather than the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Magic.

In fact, Tome of Magic itself - presenting three different sources of magic - is probably a good example of how the Player's Handbook sequels will manifest themselves.

I think that's exactly what they'll do. Also, just because they are core doesn't mean we need every book to play. We're assuming from the business model of 3e that the PHB I, MM I, and DMG I are "the core", and everything else will be the "also-core". But, just maybe, they're all equally core, and you can run a perfectly good game with just the PHBII, MMII, and DMGII. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Eberron 4e works on that very assumption, with gnomes, changelings, kalashtar, etc, as the new races in the PHBII.

 

[Imaro]

My thoughts are that this will be great for those "in the know" about D&D. However I an also see this model having the potential to be a very confusing barrier for new gamers trying to get into D&D late in the game.