Why there won't be a "Player's Handbook II"

Players Handbook: The Grouptesting Strikes Back!
 

Comments

jhhoffmann

Villager
Except that it is a book, not a video game. Says so right in the title.

Anytime I see a Book II, I know I should read Book I first.
 

ChapolimX

Explorer
"Player's Guide to the Multiverse"
"Adventurers of the Multiverse"
Anyway, i hope the mechanical expansion brings support for other settings characters. I also expect to see some sort of Red Wizards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sir Brennen

Villager
I'd think just adding the word "Volume" would clarify if it's a new version or an additional book - "Player's Handbook Volume II" seems pretty clear to me
 

sandvirm

Villager
Actually, it'd make a lot of sense. It could collect refined/playtested versions of material from UA, and simultaneously call back to the original UA from the 80s, that was much like a PH2 in some of its content.
I think whatever we get will contain a large amount of material previously released through UA articles. I just don't think that book will be titled Unearthed Arcana. With the exception of the three core rulebooks, Mike Mearls does not want to retread books from previous editions. The large mechanical expansion will probably have one major focus, in this case player options, with other bits added in like SCAG and VGtM before it. Just a wild guess, but maybe it will also have several new monsters that are especially useful or typical as pets or as the product of summoning spells.
 

thalmin

Adventurer
*gathers romulan mind probe* now this will only hurt if you resist, tell the rest of us what you heard and saw at the panel. Was there any references to future products, insights into current design decisions, insights into the 5e realms, was "Labyrinth" discussed at?
As has already been reported elsewhere:
  • Unearthed Arcana going temporarily weekly, doing a class a week
  • Pendleton Ward consulting on the next adventure path
  • the next adventure path starts out more sandbox-style, but ends up more focused
  • the Volo's Guide monstrous races are Adventurers League legal.

They spent a fair amount of time talking about Volo's Guide, how they chose the monsters.
Everybody involved got several (I think 3) votes to choose monsters, 1 veto, and 1 auto-include choice. While everyone there, including Chris Lindsey (who sat in the back and was not officially part of this panel) announced his choice to auto-include, I did not record and don't remember who to credit or blame for any of the monsters.
 

TrippyHippy

Adventurer
The first book of this type for AD&D was Unearthed Arcana.

However, for me, I hope we don't have too much of this sort of thing. I don't want rule bloat - and I'd like to see new Classes and so on, only in the context of new Campaign books.
 

bmfrosty

Explorer
*gathers romulan mind probe* now this will only hurt if you resist, tell the rest of us what you heard and saw at the panel. Was there any references to future products, insights into current design decisions, insights into the 5e realms, was "Labyrinth" discussed at?

Dungeonology talks about Greyhawk, Planescape, the tomb of Horrors, and Acererack. I think that heavily hints about what Labrynth will be.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
I would like to see "Unearthed Arcana." Though I agree we won't get that, since that's the monthly articles.

I am thrilled they won't be doing PHB II. I just hate that. You need exactly ONE Player's Handbook to play the game. Other volumes of options or rules or anything else, whether it is for players or Dungeonmasters should be called something besides PHB "2", DMG "2". It's just lame.

How about just calling it what it is?..."Player Options Guide[Journal/Manual/Notebook/whatever...even HANDbook, as long as "Options" in is the title]"
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with titling it 'Unearthed Arcana'
If the goal is for the titles not to be confusing, there are a lot of potential confusions when using that title.

Imagine, if you will, someone saying "Hey, can I play this class from Unearthed Arcana in our upcoming campaign?" A person could answer with any of the following confusions:

"That's an AD&D 1e book" (and even saying "No, the newer one" doesn't complete solve that because...)
"That's a 3.5e book"
"Those web articles with unfinished material?"
"You mean that other game Monte Cook made after leaving WotC?" ("No, that's Arcana Unearthed, it's totally different.")

Better to pick a title with less such sources of confusion.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top