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

[Victim]

Controller is still a terrible name for a debuff character class (while leader is pretty obviously a buffs class). Battlefield "control" could as easily be buffs. Dare I mention an MMORPG? City of Heroes has a better split where buff/debuff is the same class while the other three are equivalent to Defender, Melee Striker, and Ranged Striker.

Funny that you mentioned CoH. I was thinking that WotC's roles seemed very similar to that game's.

Defender = Leader
Controller = Controller
Scrapper = melee striker
Blaster = ranged striker
Tanker = defender

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yep. Other people have suggested the same thing, and I think it's a fantastic idea. (It's why I fully expect to see gnomes and psionics come out just in time for Eberron 4E.) I'd love to see WotC carry this on to future settings, both revised classics and brand new ones.

It'd be a good model for bringing back the monk, too. Stick Oriental Adventures content into the three "core" books of the year, even if there's not an actual setting book released for it, although I imagine there would be plenty of people happy to see a Kara-Tur book or something comparable.

I know I'd be happy for an Arabian Adventures year with the Sha'ir, more genies and elementals (MM1 doesn't need more than efreet and djinn, IMO) and so on, although I suspect that's unlikely, or only going to happen when 5E is about to be announced.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

Have we gotten confirmation of Druids being in the first PHB? I'm still liking the idea of them no longer being divine casters (especially since divine has been explicitly defined as "power from the gods" in 4th edition), but their power type being "nature" instead. Guys like shamans and geomancers could be nature powered as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Funny that you mentioned CoH. I was thinking that WotC's roles seemed very similar to that game's.

Defender = Leader
Controller = Controller
Scrapper = melee striker
Blaster = ranged striker
Tanker = defender

And CoH, for reasons that have never been clear for a superhero RPG, lifted those archetypes directly from EQ1 classes:

Defender = Cleric
Controller = Enchanter
Scrapper = Rogue
Blaster = Wizard
Tanker = Warrior

And, of course, EQ1 started off as a particularly quirky D&D homebrew (the god of healing is an alien who's parked his UFO over one of the human cities), so it seems only natural to re-recycle all of this back into D&D.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

And CoH, for reasons that have never been clear for a superhero RPG,

Because those are some tried and tested archetypes that are successful in MMO gameplay?

 

[Li Shenron]

I would like the idea if it replaced splatbooks entirely, but I think it just ain't going to happen.

I bought the five 3.0 classbooks (S&F, T&B, DotF, MotW, S&S) and I consider them together as a PHBII in fact!
Since I am a DM and also a player that likes to try different characters, having those 5 books bundled in 1 book would have been a great purchase. It also would increase the quality of the content, if the material is published as a whole, rather than publishing first all the wizard's stuff then the cleric's stuff ecc... (which also has the extra downside that rogue players always have to wait longer than everyone else...).

So if it was for me, I'd actually enjoy if D&D was published as a series of PHBX, DMGX, MMX, plus settings, adventures and thematic books (like BoVD, and the "deluxe monster books"), and get rid of class-specific and race-specific books. But it ain't going to happen since those are usually the best-selling books.

 

[Glyfair]

I would like the idea if it replaced splatbooks entirely, but I think it just ain't going to happen.

We pretty much already know that, since the "leaked" list of early 4E products has a few splatbooks in it (or at least books that sound like they are splatbooks).

 

[borc killer]

I think I'm understanding this now. The mark one books will be followed by the Forgotten Realms campaign setting book as a showcase for those rules. The next year the mark two books will come out, which will include let's say gnomes and psionics, and the Eberron campaign setting book will be the showcase for those rules. Then you would basically have a yearly rules addendum and featured setting. If thats the plan, it's pretty damn clever. That would probably mean that I'd be waiting a year to make the switch over, but that's no big deal.

I think you are dead on. I was at the seminar were they talked about it and I think you have it exactly right.

One other thing I recall about that meeting that I have not seen on the boards yet is that they used the word ‘core’ to describe all PHs, DMGs, and MMs. I am not 100% sure that was intentional but I came away with that. Anyone else that was in the room come away with that as well? I don’t really trust myself enough to say that was what they meant…

 

[Glyfair]

One other thing I recall about that meeting that I have not seen on the boards yet is that they used the word ‘core’ to describe all PHs, DMGs, and MMs.

It's mentioned in the middle of the first page of this thread, and has been discussed (yes, I know it's a LONG thread ).

Listening to a few of the interviews and other things, I think that "core" might have a new definition (alongside the ones we have now) after 4E releases. I recall a reference to something being "core" because it would be tied to D&D Insider. So, it depends on what definition they meant for "core."

 

[Khairn]

Listening to a few of the interviews and other things, I think that "core" might have a new definition (alongside the ones we have now) after 4E releases. I recall a reference to something being "core" because it would be tied to D&D Insider. So, it depends on what definition they meant for "core."

Pure opinion here.

I really believe that there are a lot more definitions that have been changed than we are aware of and that WotC is comfortable with sharing at this moment.

A case in point is the term "core". Up until 4E, core books referred to the 3 basic books that encompassed all the relevant rules of the game. Does everyone remember the 3E claim, that all you'll need to play the game is 3 books? So everyone bought the "core" books and then picked out the optional books that fit their gaming needs.

Well that seems to be a thing of the past. For now we have "core" books that will be released each year. By not being promoted as "optional" and instead being "core" they take on the mantle of a necessity, rather than the optional source and setting books of the past. Stormwrack was an optional book in 3.5, but by splitting the same material across 3 new "core" books they become a necessity in 4E. Why? Because they're core.

WotC is trying to bring about an entire paradign shift with 4E. It will be very interesting to take a look back in a couple of years and see what new definitions we accepted and what we rejected.