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

Players Handbook: The Grouptesting Strikes Back!

 

[Toriel]

Return of the Revenge of the Son of the Player's Handbook or PH4 for short

 

[pkt77242]

Return of the Revenge of the Son of the Player's Handbook or PH4 for short

We can just call the "PH4" Bloat City

 

[Shasarak]

Sounds like they need to run a focus group to find a title less confusing then Player's Handbook 2.

 

[Zarithar]

Unearthed Arcana? Oh wait...

 

[Juomari Veren]

Player's Handbook 2: Player's Handbook-ier

 

[Yunru]

Handbook 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

[Queer Venger]

Absolutely nothing wrong with titling it 'Unearthed Arcana'

;-)

 

[steeldragons]

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]"

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Player's hadnbook Beta?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.