I wonder how I didn't notice this before...

[Wiseblood]

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that they plan for the D&DN Player's Handbook to incorporate every class and race that has ever been in a PHB1. So there will be warlocks and dragonborn, but also gnomes and assassins.

That is my understanding as well. To me, it begs the question, how much with this tome weigh?

 

[Falling Icicle]

That is my understanding as well. To me, it begs the question, how much with this tome weigh?

Pre-4e, each race and class only took up 2-4 pages. The same was true of races in 4e; the only reason classes took up so much space in that edition was because they included an entirely unique power list with each class. Assuming that they don't do that this time, they could fit every race and class that has ever been in a PHB without taking up that much space.

Also, in pre-4e books, what always took by far the most space were all of the spells. If they consolidate alot of the redundant spells (like silent image and minor image, obscuring mist and fog cloud, etc.) they could cut down on the size of the spell chapter quite a bit without really taking anything away.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I believe your wish of 'inclusiveness' may well be granted and all this 'nerdrage' may be for naught.

They have stated they aim to put in every race and class that has been in an original Players Handbook from any edition. (Not inc PHB2, 3, etc).

 

[Dausuul]

That is my understanding as well. To me, it begs the question, how much with this tome weigh?

It sounds like a big undertaking, but it isn't. Take 3E. To the list of classes, add assassin, warlock, and warlord. To the list of races, add dragonborn, tiefling, and eladrin (the latter probably going by the name "high elf"). You're done.

Anyway, PHB page count doesn't come from class and race writeups. It comes from spell lists. There have been indications that they plan to radically scale back the number of spells in D&DN, and compensate by allowing spells to scale by slot level; so instead of having silent image, minor image, major image, programmed image, and permanent image, you could just have a create illusion spell that gets more powerful depending on whether you prepare it in a 1st-level or a 6th-level slot.

 

[OmegaMan950]

Really, what struck me (and I'm only realizing this now, so please bear with me if other people have already made this observation) is that the 4th edition PHB1 seemed woefully incomplete as a player's handbook. No monks, barbarians, assassins, druids, bards, gnomes, half-orcs... you can get away with a basic or starter D&D game absent those things, but not the freaking Player's Handbook. And yes, I was aware even then that these things were promised shortly to follow in future PHBs, and that "everything was core in 4e". But here's the thing: that shouldn't ever have to be the case. It can't be. The fact will always remain, the Player's Handbook is a core rulebook that you need to play the game; the PHB2 is a splat that you really don't, no matter how the marketeers label the cover. It's the nature of the beast that the first player's handbook will have lots of essential rules in it, and any future add-ons simply won't.

When I first got the 2nd edition PHB ( I was gaming as a kid on RC and a bit of 1st ed.) and had a quick look through it I thought to myself "where are the half-orcs? Where are the monks, the mystics, and the assassins? Cavaliers are right out? Why are bards and paladins no longer advanced classes? THIS WILL NOT STAND! NOT TODAY, NOT ON MY WATCH! T-S-RRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!"

We survived, demons and devils were now baatezu and tanar'i, Happy Hunting Grounds was now Beastland, gods walked the land in Faerun, psionics were no longer these wierd grafted on things, and a whole heap of other changes went through, but all in all, we survived.

And then we gamed. And we were happy. I think Planescape did it for me

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think no matter what, there will always be nerdrage.

This nerd is currently raging at you, but does not really know why.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The thing that's always struck me as odd... and I freely admit it must just be something in my own creative make-up that this have never bothered me once... is the idea of long-time D&D players finding the lack of ecology in the 4E Monster Manual to be a problem and a mistake.

Obviously it is... because I'm always reading folks talk about how it has rendered the MMs dry and boring and uninspiring... but I always end up just sitting here genuinely unable to grasp or empathize with that feeling. It's weird. I feel like I'm missing something obvious. Because my thought on the matter has always been "I've read ecologies for all these monsters in every single prior edition of the game and pretty much know them by rote... so why do I need it it all reprinted again in the new edition book?" I genuinely just can't feel the loss. To me... monster ecologies fall into the same category as the "How to DM" section of the DMG... something that's probably good to have... but as a long-time player, not something that I have a genuine need to ever really see again, because I just flash back to all the previous times I've read them.

Let me reiterate... I am in no way saying that other long-time players are wrong in wanting monster ecologies. I think they definitely have a place in the books, especially good for newer players. It's instead just me being honest by saying that I find it extremely weird that I am so different in my emotional connection to that stuff that I cannot help but look and just admit that I don't feel it and just don't get it. And it makes me feel like I'm lacking something in that I should feel the loss.

 

[The Red King]

That is my understanding as well. To me, it begs the question, how much with this tome weigh?

Actually it makes me askwhat it will cost.

When I first got the 2nd edition PHB ( I was gaming as a kid on RC and a bit of 1st ed.) and had a quick look through it I thought to myself "where are the half-orcs? Where are the monks, the mystics, and the assassins? Cavaliers are right out? Why are bards and paladins no longer advanced classes? THIS WILL NOT STAND! NOT TODAY, NOT ON MY WATCH! T-S-RRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!"

We survived, demons and devils were now baatezu and tanar'i, Happy Hunting Grounds was now Beastland, gods walked the land in Faerun, psionics were no longer these wierd grafted on things, and a whole heap of other changes went through, but all in all, we survived.

And then we gamed. And we were happy. I think Planescape did it for me

Planescape was fun.

 

[Lexeme]

To me... monster ecologies fall into the same category as the "How to DM" section of the DMG... something that's probably good to have... but as a long-time player, not something that I have a genuine need to ever really see again, because I just flash back to all the previous times I've read them.

Two differences:
1) The "How to DM" section is usually a dry read covering pretty basic, "crunchy" stuff. While not crunch in the truest sense, it definitely doesn't evoke a great feeling of fantasy - just some tips on how to run a game using the mechanics of the system. In contrast, the monster manual fluff is ideally a concise but entertaining description of a fantastical monster - how and why it does what it does. Few people pick up D&D because they read the "How to DM" section, but I've seen numerous (anecdotal, I know) accounts of folks who pick up the early MM and crave to learn more.

2) I would consider myself pretty well versed in D&D, but I'd wager there are monsters in any MM for which I don't know or just don't remember what they're all about. Not every monster is an owlbear, a troll, or a rust monster. I believe the fluff changes slightly for some monsters between editions, too.


If you were simply referring to the rule lines like "Ecology: plains," then ignore the above. I, for one, really enjoyed reading almost any monster manual before the 4e ones.

 

[The Red King]

Two differences:
1) The "How to DM" section is usually a dry read covering pretty basic, "crunchy" stuff. While not crunch in the truest sense, it definitely doesn't evoke a great feeling of fantasy - just some tips on how to run a game using the mechanics of the system. In contrast, the monster manual fluff is ideally a concise but entertaining description of a fantastical monster - how and why it does what it does. Few people pick up D&D because they read the "How to DM" section, but I've seen numerous (anecdotal, I know) accounts of folks who pick up the early MM and crave to learn more.

2) I would consider myself pretty well versed in D&D, but I'd wager there are monsters in any MM for which I don't know or just don't remember what they're all about. Not every monster is an owlbear, a troll, or a rust monster. I believe the fluff changes slightly for some monsters between editions, too.


If you were simply referring to the rule lines like "Ecology: plains," then ignore the above. I, for one, really enjoyed reading almost any monster manual before the 4e ones.

I agree. I have re-read the Monster Manuals and other Creature Catalogs over and over looking for the right creature, or trying to make sure that each monster is different.

If they all act the same, but just have different physical descriptions the game becomes stale.