References to Barbarian playtest vanished?

[jelmore]

I could have sworn that I saw that the Barbarian class from Player's Handbook 2 was going to be previewed in this month's Dragon, but it's not there anymore.

Am I imagining things, or did they pull references to a Barbarian playtest?

ETA: I'm not crazy, at least one other site saw the same thing I did:

4E Barbarian in 2009, Playtest This Month, Predictions : :

 

[The Little Raven]

The Barbarian cover (and preview) were originally in the ToC for Dragon #367, but the next day, they changed it to be a FR-focused issue with a drow article in place of the Barbarian article, and a new cover featuring drow.

They had Roll vs Role: Trolls listed, even though it was in #366, and have since removed it (though it hasn't been replaced by a new article).

 

[fissionessence]

Now Buehler is 'previewing' that the Barbarian will be in October's Dragon . . . without any mention of the fact that it was previously in this month's and got 'secretly' pulled out.

How sneaky do they really think they are?

~

 

[The Little Raven]

How sneaky do they really think they are?

Is that +2 tin-foil hat you're wearing?

Y'know, not everything is some deceptive conspiracy... sometimes people just make mistakes (like post a ToC that isn't correct or finalized), and then they fix them.

 

[El Mahdi]

Is that a +2 tin-foil hat you're wearing?

What level item is that?

 

[The_Fan]

Reminds me of the vanishing tome during the 4e previews.

 

[fissionessence]

Y'know, not everything is some deceptive conspiracy... sometimes people just make mistakes (like post a ToC that isn't correct or finalized), and then they fix them.

Actually, there had been several GenCon previews and other spoilers that announced the Barbarian preview would be this month. Then the ToC came up and confirmed it, and then one by one they: 1) removed the entry from the table of contents; 2) changed the 'cover' picture so it wasn't a barbarian anymore; 3) changed the issue description so that it no longer mentioned the barbarian.

They did all of this without any kind of official announcement that things had changed or a reason as to why.

I really wouldn't mind if the barbarian weren't ready, but I feel that if it wasn't ready, they never should have announced it for this month's issue. Once anyone announces anything, IMO, they should be expected to follow through on it; if they don't have the ability or intention to follow through, then they should never announce it. (This is my opinion on everything, btw, not just Wizards or D&D-related stuff.)

~

 

[La Bete]

Once anyone announces anything, IMO, they should be expected to follow through on it; if they don't have the ability or intention to follow through, then they should never announce it. (This is my opinion on everything, btw, not just Wizards or D&D-related stuff.)

~

I suspect you encounter a great deal of disappointment then.

 

[radferth]

Obviously, WotC can handle this however they like, but just doing it quietly with no announcement seems weird. Especially give how much some were looking forward to it. Perhaps I shouldn't single out Wizards for this behavior, as the total unwillingness to admit mistakes just seems to be the current zeitgeist.

 

[frankthedm]

Don't they start charging next month? Perfect business sense.