PHBII has Half-Orcs and Goliaths

[Rechan]

All new classes will appear in either a PH or a PG, after which they'll be expanded upon in a splatbook.

Not necessarily.

The Rouse said on these boards that the articles on DDI would be put in a compilation once a year, and sold. I recall, but may be wrong, that we would not see reprinting from DDI in other books.

There's been suggestions we probably will receive a class via DDI, and that if we do, it'd go into the compilation, not the PHBs.

If this is the case, then I would put money that the Bard will come to us via DDI, not PHBII.

After all, the only thing that the preview above mentions is "Sorcerer, Druid and Barbarian" - not Bard.

 

[Rechan]

MARTIAL
Fighter, Warlord, Ranger, Rogue
ARCANE
Wizard, Warlock, Bard, Sorcerer
DIVINE
Cleric, Paladin, *NEW*, *NEW*
PRIMAL
Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, *NEW*

I would like to make an observation.

Martial:
Rogue, Ranger
Arcane:
Wizard, Sorcerer.

We have two power sources with two classes that fill the same role. Yes, the Sorcerer's role hasn't been released. But it'll either be controller or striker, and if it's striker, then we have the Warlock and Sorcerer who are Arcane strikers.

So there is a distinct possibility that we will get some Power Sources that do not get all four roles filled. The Designers have spoken out against "Filling needless Symmetry".

The I very well may be "Illusionist" (has it been announced if Illusionist is officially in the Shadow power source?).

 

[The_Fan]

No, but the classes covered by Arcane Power have been announced, and the Illusionist isn't one of them. Unless it's Primal or Divine, it's not in PHBII.

 

[The_Fan]

double post

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I've always speculated that 'I' stands for 'Inquisitor', because what else that starts with I sounds like a divine striker? There's no classes in that book that start with 'H' so it's not 'Holy Slayer' or 'Hashishin'.

'T' probably stands for Theurge a Divine Controller, that's something everyone guessed. And maybe this time around they'll get the term Theurge right, since last time Theurge was wrongly used for an arcane prestige class, when it's definitely something divine.

'W' that's one which I really don't know what it might stand for, though it's probably a Primal Controller. 'W' could stand for 'Witch', 'Wu Jen' or even 'Warden'.

 

[Rechan]

The issues of naming doesn't take in the possibility WotC might pull a name out of their butt.

See: Warblade, Swordsage, Warlord, Binder, Truenamer, Duskblade, Dragon Shaman, Beguiler, Spellthief, Hexblade...

For all we know, W could be WarSpeller and I could be Incanter.

 

[The_Fan]

I've always speculated that 'I' stands for 'Inquisitor', because what else that starts with I sounds like a divine striker? There's no classes in that book that start with 'H' so it's not 'Holy Slayer' or 'Hashishin'.

'T' probably stands for Theurge a Divine Controller, that's something everyone guessed. And maybe this time around they'll get the term Theurge right, since last time Theurge was wrongly used for an arcane prestige class, when it's definitely something divine.

'W' that's one which I really don't know what it might stand for, though it's probably a Primal Controller. 'W' could stand for 'Witch', 'Wu Jen' or even 'Warden'.

You either read my mind or one of my posts. I've also been touting Witch and Inquisitor. It's the two that make the most sense to me.

 

[drothgery]

So there is a distinct possibility that we will get some Power Sources that do not get all four roles filled. The Designers have spoken out against "Filling needless Symmetry".

I wouldn't be too shocked if Arcane is the only power source that does get all roles filled (at least by WotC); it's certainly the only one that has had classes for every role in print (the Swordmage preview for LFR covers defender; the Artificer preview in Dragon covers Leader). Divine probably will, but it's easy to see everything else being 'incomplete' in the eyes of those who like to fill out the grid.

 

[racoffin]

Honestly, giving the 4e haters these spell specialties will have no effect. Or giving them gnomes, half-orcs, monks, bards, druids, etc. They will still find something to rant about, usually in regards to 4e doesn't equal 3e (thankfully). The 4e haters aren't going to be buying the 4e books, so letting their complaints drive design decisions seems completely nonsensical. I'd much rather see WotC push the limits of the game and give us new material than rehash and convert old stuff. Hopefully the various X Power books will do this, and the PHBs after PHB II will really allow 4e to shine.

I think you may be wrong with regards to this. For some of the so-called 4E Haters, it may only take one little thing to bring them over to your side, be it a race, class, set of spells, whatever. If their favorite class or race or whatever is in a PHB instead of their being told to cobble it together from the MM or house rule it, that may be all it takes to convince them to play a game of 4E. From there, the game can sell itself. That, in and of itself, is a good thing, no?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Honestly, giving the 4e haters these spell specialties will have no effect. Or giving them gnomes, half-orcs, monks, bards, druids, etc. They will still find something to rant about, usually in regards to 4e doesn't equal 3e (thankfully). The 4e haters aren't going to be buying the 4e books, so letting their complaints drive design decisions seems completely nonsensical. I'd much rather see WotC push the limits of the game and give us new material than rehash and convert old stuff. Hopefully the various X Power books will do this, and the PHBs after PHB II will really allow 4e to shine.

It isn't about getting the "4e haters" though. It's about trying to keep the core group still there and wrangling in the folks that are still on the fence. And for those people on the fence, "You have better options to play all your old favorites" sound better then "Hey, look at this random new class you don't give two craps about"