Revised Dungeon Master's Guide Cover Online!!

[Chun-tzu]

Oh no, some new prestige classes!

Compared to the tons of PrC out, that's nothing. Even the extra bit of campaign info won't be enough to justify buying a new 30$/40€ book IMO.

There's actually a major difference between prestige classes in the DMG and in other sources. Prestige classes from the DMG get built upon, in other sources. Splatbooks and setting books can and will make references to prestige classes from the DMG, and add new spells and other options. For example, the Assassin gets new spells in Song & Silence, Magic of Faerun, and so on.
In other words, there is going to be support for prestige classes in the DMG.

Other prestige classes pretty much never get built upon. The Bladesinger's spell list never gets expanded. The Geomancer never gets new drifts. And worse, most d20 prestige classes never even see any errata.

Those differences may not mean much to you, but I definitely consider them significant.

Edit - I'm not saying that's enough reason to buy the book if you don't want to. As has already been said, you can get anything important from the SRD. But I'm saying there's a big difference between DMG PrCs and other PrCs.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Cool--I like it.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I like the cover, but I did not pre order it, only the PHB.

 

[Pants]

Very nice.
I like it

 

[orbitalfreak]

I like the R-DMG cover, and the R-PH cover as well, though I preferred the older covers (am I the only one?). The R-DMG is missing one thing, though: I would like it a lot more if it had large hinges on the left-hand side, something to emphasize the "book" look of it. 4.5/5.

 

[Agnostic Paladin]

I like this revised cover. I didn't like any of the original covers, and I think that the revised PH cover is worse than the original. Now if they make a truly cool MM cover, it'll just reinforce my opinion that the DM is coolest by virtue of having the coolest looking books.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I like it. Isn't that 'nuff? I don't like the new PHB cover though.

 

[Oni]

It feels junky and cheap to me, like a childs toy. Of the tome covers the orginal DMG was my favorite, because of it's simplicity, it wasn't gaudy and the lock was a visually interesting way of saying DM's only. Personally I wish they'd ditch the tome look altogether and use a nice cover illustration, though I could settle for something more subtle and understated like the FR books.

 

[Quickbeam]

My first impulse is to say that they (PHB and DMG) both look a little gaudy and too busy for my taste. But then it occurs to me how boring and blah the current covers are.

I'll withhold judgement until I can really see them in true color.

 

[Mercule]

I like both of the new covers compared to the old ones, but I agree that this one is better than the PH.

Can't wait to see the Monster Manual.

More or less my thoughts. The 3.5 PH wasn't much better/worse than the 3.0 cover, but the 3.5 DMG is really sweet looking.

The MM was the least attractive of the 3.0 books, IMHO. I'll be interested to see what they do with it.