Barbarian missing from Dragon ToC?

[Rechan]

What the hell?

 

[Jack99]

It's called a ninja-tease!

 

[The Little Raven]

And they still list the Roll vs Role for Trolls as being in 367, when it's already in 366.

 

[Shroomy]

They also removed the Eberron backdrop article and added an article on non-evil drow (probably to take advantage of the FRPG release). My guess is that the changes were motivated by four things:

1. The issue was judged to be too long.
2. There was a significant revision to the Barbarian class that necessitated a delay.
3. WoTC wants to synergize with a product release.
4. They're going to start charging next month and the Barbarian playtest article would be a great incentive for people to buy into the subscription.

Personally, I think its a combination of several of these factors.

 

[Vendark]

Or it could just be a mistake. They still talk about the barbarian being in the issue in the promo blurb, so I don't think its deletion can be considered confirmed just yet.

 

[Shroomy]

Or it could just be a mistake. They still talk about the barbarian being in the issue in the promo blurb, so I don't think its deletion can be considered confirmed just yet.

That's definitely a possibility, though they did make other changes to the ToC, though its continued presence in the blurb could also be a mistake.

 

[Zulithe]

Personally, unless it is an error, I think the most likely answer is they are holding it back for the first "subscriber only" issue. I don't really blame them.

 

[WhatGravitas]

That's definitely a possibility, though they did make other changes to the ToC, though its continued presence in the blurb could also be a mistake.

And its apparent appearance in the cover?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Shroomy]

And its apparent appearance in the cover?

Cheers, LT.

Blurbs are next to free, cover art is not.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I hope they didn't push it back. That would make the baby Jesus cry...