it could be a necromantic class that draws upon shadow power source. but it could also be a class that uses more similar powers to the current assassin. maybe they've been building a defender roled class that is highly mobile such as the swordmage.
necromancer, meh. but i won't argue that it couldn't nor shouldn't happen. its is a major archetype that still has limited exposure through the current classes. I guess that WotC could look toward that archetype to build upon.
Usually, the support comes in powers, feats, or items. Since the powers ones usually are a mix of ones for various classes, I don't see that, since they'd only give powers for the Assassin and might as well call it a Class Acts in that case. Same thing for feats.
Probably Shadow items.
It's probably going to be about incorporating Shadow elements into other classes. So, adding some Shadow to your Barbarian or Runepriest.
This. There are already Shadow PPs for Swordmage (Umbriri) and another one I can't remember. Expect more of those.
Kaius Dantus. Built like a monster.
Could show that they don't intend on a specific necromancer class.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Who knows what classes lurk in the minds of WOTC?
The Shadow.
Hmm they just released an article with an NPC necromancer.
Kaius Dantus. Built like a monster.
Could show that they don't intend on a specific necromancer class.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Seems just like an undead healer instead of the undead-raising minion-hoarding that I want..
Seems just like an undead healer instead of the undead-raising minion-hoarding that I want..
Obviously since you're NOT going to get a Minion-hoarding Necromancer anyway. It would screw up the action economy.
Seems just like an undead healer instead of the undead-raising minion-hoarding that I want..
Obviously since you're NOT going to get a Minion-hoarding Necromancer anyway. It would screw up the action economy.
Actually, No it won't.
Now for him.. maybe.
However the Assassin has the ability to have not one, not two, but a total of 4 things out in play at a time (Not including himself.)
Things that can do 5 damage every turn if someone is next to them, and attack when they are susstained. They can all move at the same time, and only one has to be maintained. When it is, they get to attack.
Seems just like an undead healer instead of the undead-raising minion-hoarding that I want..
Obviously since you're NOT going to get a Minion-hoarding Necromancer anyway. It would screw up the action economy.
Actually, No it won't.
Now for him.. maybe.
However the Assassin has the ability to have not one, not two, but a total of 4 things out in play at a time (Not including himself.)
Things that can do 5 damage every turn if someone is next to them, and attack when they are susstained. They can all move at the same time, and only one has to be maintained. When it is, they get to attack.
Sacrificing your own actions to use the undead summons... I can see that.
Wtf? If we are going to have to redesign existing powers, the next thing we will have to do is make up paragon paths and related powers. Not to mention feats and equipment. Then finally we will have to come up with epic destinies and powers. That's not our job - THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO. For 30 years the game ran a certain way, and all of a sudden with the influx of all these stupid MMO video games you cave and give in turn our beloved game into world of warcraft.
thanks Wizards....oh should i say Blizzard
Well, the design goals for 4e is to replicate MMO closer than previous D&D's playstyle. don't forget. It is a well known fact that it wants to rope in MMO players. If they didn't have this intention, then 4e would look different.
I just realized Wizards rhymes with Blizzard.
Well, the design goals for 4e is to replicate MMO closer than previous D&D's playstyle. don't forget. It is a well known fact that it wants to rope in MMO players. If they didn't have this intention, then 4e would look different.
I've yet to see any quote or contextual admission from Wizard about this.
That 4e was gonna be "videogamish" was an accusation thrown by dissatisfied fans, not an openly admitted agenda, to my knowledge.
Start with conclusion. Find criteria to meet said conclusion. It only has a more video-gamey feel to it because in most modern video games you don't have only a basic weapon attack. There are different abilities and such that would give the player something more to do than just spam auto-attack. Why this is considered a bad thing is beyond me though. Maybe it stems from the lack of RPing rules present in the DMG/PHB. I thought Wizard had addressed this with a new book. I saw it on the site at the beginning of April but can't find it anymore. 
Edit: My question is why was WOTC supposed to release the necromancer class for the OP? Did he have a private agreement with them?? What makes his most wanted class more special than other folks who might have a class they wanted to see?
I've yet to see any quote or contextual admission from Wizard about this.
That 4e was gonna be "videogamish" was an accusation thrown by dissatisfied fans, not an openly admitted agenda, to my knowledge.
A developer did state at one point that they wanted to emulate an element from MMOs, specifically that they wanted to give 4th edition the same kind of ease of use that a high quality MMO has. Nowhere near what areola is implying, but they did try and capture something from MMOs.
I'd point out that everything you whine about coming from MMOs actually came from DnD first, and that Blizzard is the one doing the copying, and that even then 4e no more resembles an MMO than an MMO resembles an FPS. But that would require speaking to a rational person.
4e no more resembles an MMO? Ha!
Let's break down the system shall we?
The 4 character roles in 4th edition are:
Defender -
Defenders have the highest defenses in the game and good close-up offense. They are the party’s front-line combatants; wherever they’re standing, that’s where the action is. Defenders have abilities and powers that make it difficult for enemies to move past them or to ignore them in battle. Defenders have the ability of marking which is in the MMO world known as grabbing agro. This is the tank.
Striker -
Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack. This is ranged and melee DPS.
Controller -
Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the same time. They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes. This is CC.
Leader -
Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in an adventuring group. Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on. This is the healer.
So, arguing the point stating that D&D doesn't "resemble" an MMO is actually the irrational thought here. Have a nice day.
Hai, I'm new here. I hjear D&D$e is liek world of dumbcraft and doesnt have key classes like necromancers and lords (ie dumed down) can someone plz confirm thx.
Start with conclusion. Find criteria to meet said conclusion. It only has a more video-gamey feel to it because in most modern video games you don't have only a basic weapon attack. There are different abilities and such that would give the player something more to do than just spam auto-attack. Why this is considered a bad thing is beyond me though. Maybe it stems from the lack of RPing rules present in the DMG/PHB. I thought Wizard had addressed this with a new book. I saw it on the site at the beginning of April but can't find it anymore.
Edit: My question is why was WOTC supposed to release the necromancer class for the OP? Did he have a private agreement with them?? What makes his most wanted class more special than other folks who might have a class they wanted to see?
For the original posting in Dragon 386 for the Power Play Shadow article it was stated "Assassins aren’t the only ones who can tap the power of shadow". This would imply that the Shadow article would have content OTHER than about the assassin. I merely was extemely hoping that Wotc would finally release a class that a lot of people are waiting for almost 2 years now. Instead, we got an article that gives 4 powers and a background - half of which were for the assassin.
At no time did Wotc and I have any kind of private agreement. If we did I highly doubt Wotc would actually stick to it anyways. They are notorious for saying one thing and doing something different. The virtual game table to be released at launch is just one example of this.
So, arguing the point stating that D&D doesn't "resemble" an MMO is actually the irrational thought here. Have a nice day.
4e is the easiest to introduce MMO players to the world of tabletop gaming due to the familiarity, compared to other tabletop rpgs. This alone proves 4e resembling MMOs. Anyone wants to refute?
In fact I use 4e solely as a "PR" tool to rope in my WoW friends, and the main selling point is that you can play WoWish games on the table while socializing face to face.
On topic, I can't wait for the shadow classes!!!
I just got my PHB3 and excited with the new ones but already I am looking forward to PHB4.
4e no more resembles an MMO? Ha!
Let's break down the system shall we?
Defender- Fighter
Striker- Thief
Controller- Mage
Leader- Cleric
Bringing back the 1st edition feel, Mmhmm.
Remember, kiddos, correlation is not causation. Just because something looks like something else does not mean that are related. There is a major difference, therefore, between saying "This totally looks like this" and "This was created in the image of this". It is quite possible for two things to achieve the same results without any association, or, as is more likely, that the thing people think was the origin might actually be the offshoot (ie, that MMOs get a lot of their mechanics from older computer games, which got a lot of their inspiration from tabletop games, ergo the tank/nuker/healer concept comes from the fighter/mage/cleric dynamic, not the other way around).
True, D&D had roles since the beginning (I always try to convince the party that they needed a cleric), but perhaps it isn't what makes it like an MMO as people say. Will people say that a retro-clone looks like WoW? Disregarding all the class/race that any fantasy rpg has of course.
Why only 4e gets the 4e=MMO? Heck, even the Dragon Age rpg doesn't get called an MMO and we even have people complaining it looks nothing like the video game.
I get this position on the tease of the shadow article. My question was what caused you to wait 2 years for a necromancer? I also get the issue of the gaming table and other tools that WOTC hasn't delivered on. Thing is, those were advertised and after 2 years still haven't come to fruition. The necromancer class wasn't.
So, arguing the point stating that D&D doesn't "resemble" an MMO is actually the irrational thought here. Have a nice day.
You should probably learn about the history of DnD, and what it looked like long before your hated MMOs appeared, before you go shooting off your mouth like the standard cluess 4e basher.
Now, there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of 4e, and plenty of valid reasons for someone to hate it. Claiming it's just like an MMO is not one of them.
I get this position on the tease of the shadow article. My question was what caused you to wait 2 years for a necromancer? I also get the issue of the gaming table and other tools that WOTC hasn't delivered on. Thing is, those were advertised and after 2 years still haven't come to fruition. The necromancer class wasn't.
What makes me wait 2 years for a necromancer? Simple, it's what I like the best to play since 2nd edition.
So, arguing the point stating that D&D doesn't "resemble" an MMO is actually the irrational thought here. Have a nice day.
You should probably learn about the history of DnD, and what it looked like long before your hated MMOs appeared, before you go shooting off your mouth like the standard cluess 4e basher.
Now, there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made of 4e, and plenty of valid reasons for someone to hate it. Claiming it's just like an MMO is not one of them.
Perhaps it is you that should not assume on the amount of knowledge someone has on a subject. I have been playing D&D since 1979 when I received my first red box. I have played D&D faithfully at least twice a week since then.
And is still don't like MMOs for a number of reasons including that in order to do well its based not on the story arc but on how much items you can accumulate (gold, gear) etc.. One quote comes to mind that a friend always tells me that gear does not equal skill. This is not the formula for a role playing game but for a real time strategy.
Perhaps it is you that should not assume on the amount of knowledge someone has on a subject. I have been playing D&D since 1979 when I received my first red box. I have played D&D faithfully at least twice a week since then.
If that's true, then you should realize that the 4 roles have existed since Red Box days, and do not come from MMOs like you're complaining about.
And is still don't like MMOs for a number of reasons including that in order to do well its based not on the story arc but on how much items you can accumulate (gold, gear) etc.. One quote comes to mind that a friend always tells me that gear does not equal skill. This is not the formula for a role playing game but for a real time strategy.
Er ... yes? DnD is based off of a war game, as someone who's been playing since 1979 should be well aware of. Wargames have more in common with RTS games than MMOs, which share very little with RTS games.
And is still don't like MMOs for a number of reasons including that in order to do well its based not on the story arc but on how much items you can accumulate (gold, gear) etc.. One quote comes to mind that a friend always tells me that gear does not equal skill. This is not the formula for a role playing game but for a real time strategy.
You know, thanks to the Boons and Blessings system, it is entirely possible to run 4th edition games with character power that IS varied upon storyline, with quests and missions providing different "gear" boons that change how the party behaves and how powerful they are based on their position in the story. Fascinating, is it not?
What makes me wait 2 years for a necromancer? Simple, it's what I like the best to play since 2nd edition.
So should i be angry that there is still no blackguard?? Or a ninja class?? And you are angry that an article in a dragon magazine does not contain any info about a new class that theoretically could use the power source that the article is about??
I know it's not 100% but a warlock is close to a necromancer. Just without all the undead summons. I mean, most of the pet/summon style classes from previous editions are pretty different in how that works in 4e. Perhaps they feel that the warlock is what they want out of the necromancer class when you take away the undead minions.
Much like the online gaming table, I wouldn't hold my breath for a PH with Shadow Power. Were likely to see 5th edition before either materializes.
There is a strong possibility they have just scrapped the idea of continueing to use the shadow power source. They scrapped the Ki power source and wedged monk into Psionic (doesn't really fit with how they designed psionics). I suspect the fact that they released the Assassin as they did (in the mag and a DDI exclusive) to prevent needing to develop the rest of the power source.
Much like the online gaming table, I wouldn't hold my breath for a PH with Shadow Power. Were likely to see 5th edition before either materializes.
Oh come on. Don't you want to see new shadow classes? Or have the PHB3 classes disappointed you that you now have lack of faith?
Monk just doesnt fit in the psionics power set (either in form or function). Now that aspect aside, I think the monk is really well designed. I think he is a great class and it is obvious they designed him with the Ki power set not the psionics power set. It appears they cecided not to do a psionic striker and just wedged the monk in there instead. A Mind Blade sort of class would have done wonders for the power source.
I think that overall PH# would have been a better book if there had been a psionic striker and monk as Ki instead of the Seeker. That class stinks worse than sweaty gym socks.
Now back on topic. The fact that they just gave up on designing a striker for psionics and stuck the monkl in there with psionics instead of Ki means they are folding on some of the class development. The fact that the Assassin came out in such a poor fashion (delivery, not class design) lends further creedance to this belief. Since that class is supposed to be 'exclusive' that means it can not be in a PH4 (or 5). That would leave the power source short a striker, unless they made a 5th class for Shadow power. But I don't thinkt hey will. They gave up on Ki power and wedged the monk in instead of designing a Psionic striker.
So let's look at the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise):
- Ki Power source scrapped. Monk was the epitomy of this and hes now psionic.
- No actual Psionic Striker
- Assassin came out in a poor delivery system preventing it's release in a PH unless they go back on their word.
- Shadow power is the power source that seems to be one of the most popular to hope for on the forums and there isnt even a hint of a PH4 on the horizon. Weve been able to see the release schedule for the rest of the year since last year.
- Illusionist has been done as a Wizard build. (Many had thought it would be a Shadow Power class)
All in all I would stop hoping for a necro, illusionist, or blackguard ect. It's been 2 years now there isnt even a hint of them even being made much less a whole power source being developed. It may have been on the drawing board at one time, but it apeears to have been scrapped along with Ki and Elemental.
I would like nothing more than for this to be wrong and there to be a Shadow Power source. It was the source I was most looking forward to when they first announced all the power sources. I was dissapointed when the only new one was Primal in PH2 and Psionic was the only new one in PH3. I find it rediculous they keep hitting us ove rthe head with Divine. The Rune priest is one of those niche classes that is essetially already been done just with different flavor yet there is no Shadow, Elemental or Ki in a PH. And the Seeker was just wasted pages.
Wow there are a lot of things I need to point out here. Let's see in no particular order:
-we have only known what the remainder of this year's books were since Febuary not last year
-WotC has stated that they internally proved that both Shadow and Elemental work as power sources and therefore will not go the way of the Ki power source
-Weapon powers were done by martial, that didn't stop arcane, divine, primal, and psioncs from having weapon powers. An illusionist build for the wizard does not preclude the possibility of there being illusion builds for other classes and power sources.
I can't really say that your theory has too much weight all things considered.
-=Edit: Okay I found the post about Elemental and Shadow(took way more effort than I wanted to spend to find it). This was made by Mike Mearls shortly after it was revealed that Ki was dead, so in summary neither Shadow nor Elemental are dead. Link =-
Assassin was likley placed in a poor delivery. I wouldn't mind if they went back on their word to include it in a PHB that gives room for more shadow classes. although I'm not a fan of a necromancer, I wouldn't balk if such were delivered using shadow power source. but i would hope that it truly is distinct from a necromantic wizard build. right now, it wouldn't be terribly hard to work out some custom material and refluffed material to create a necromancer wizard if a DM is willing to help a player to find their fave character concept. each Lich has been placed as a PP for wizard. IMO WotC doesn't hope to slide that all into a dark place, but wants to make sure it isn't executed poorly.
illusionist could fit several other classes. I'd like to see more illusionist bard powers and illusionist sorcerer powers brought out in the magazine and in Arcane Power 2. i'd be happy to see more charm, enchant, illusion, psychic, force all included as staples of arcane spells. right now, there are some really great options that support those, but i'd be happy to see more.
after Essentials line of products is released and either brings in lots of new players or shows that the player saturation point is approaching (i.e. Essentials doesn't sell very well at all), then we may likely see additional PHB series and MM series and any remaining DMG series core books get attention again. We may get more attention to settings and possibly better emphasis on the magazines.
it might not be fair to speculate, but it is also not very fair to say that WotC has betrayed someone for not bringing out a classic archetype which they haven't previously promised is at the bleeding edge of development. this isn't similar to the VTT which was touted since before the launch of 4e. There hasn't been any major announcements that these (sometimes considered dark) classes would be given space in the magazines nor in the published books.
oh and since you felt the Seeker was wasted pages, I feel that the Runepriest is a terrible thing to wedge into Divine instead of developing a Runic power source. though, not a waste of pages. i can see that as a useful and worthwhile line of classes to build. i simply wish that it had been given a new power source just as monk should have been Ki.
There is a strong possibility they have just scrapped the idea of continueing to use the shadow power source. They scrapped the Ki power source and wedged monk into Psionic (doesn't really fit with how they designed psionics). I suspect the fact that they released the Assassin as they did (in the mag and a DDI exclusive) to prevent needing to develop the rest of the power source.
You have even less proof for "there will be no shadow power source", then "there will be a shadow power source". Even if the points are something like 3 against shadow, 4 points for shadow.
Your points related to why there isn't and stuff about Assassin as DDI exclusive and Ki being scrapped in relation to Shadow, are purely speculative as much as the speculation on what the Shadow classes might be. Yes I know it's the first time there will be classes they haven't even said a thing about since 4e started, and that they're focusing everything on the essentials series, keeping a preview black out.
Though they haven't even announced there will be a PHB4, they've said something as vague as "there will be new power source on the horizon in 2011".
Okay I found the post about Elemental and Shadow(took way more effort than I wanted to spend to find it). This was made by Mike Mearls shortly after it was revealed that Ki was dead, so in summary neither Shadow nor Elemental are dead. Link =-
I have to say, I find that post very encouraging. Thank you for sharing that Ranadiel. It deffinatly shows intent, which is great. Now we just have to keep our fingers crossed that the marketing monkeys don't get a hair up their butts and axe it. I am much more hopeful now, but I still wont hold my breathe. Knowing that even with the intention to develope those two power sources it may not come to pass. Sometimes the powers that be axe good ideas for profit reasons and the designers don't really get a say in it. I think that may be the reason we are seeing this DnD for Dummies line of books coming out. The marketing and sales people want more customers and they are often the ones who dictate what developement teams do with their time.
Ranadiel, while I agree in concept with your points about weapon powers not being only in the martial power source, and the idea that an Illusionist Wizard build does not preclude a Shaodw powered Illusionist class, I think it makes it less likely. I do think that the idea of Illusionist builds in other classes is a possibility, particularly for the Bard as pointed out by DanTracker. However, the more builds of it that are present the less inclined I am to see it become it's own class. Kind of an oversaturation thing.
Someone once tried to make the arguement that it would happen simplty becuase Illusionist was a class in 1st edition. What they are forgetting or perhaps were not aware of is that it was a very narrow, underpowered, sub-class. It wasn't really repeated again. I find it unlikely that such a narrow idea would be a class all on it's own anyhow. That makes me really wonder what all they will do with the Shadow power source when and if they release it in full form like the other powers. Perhaps some day we will get a book with Shadow and Elemental and there will only be 2 to 3 classes for each (we'll probably get another Divine class or two and another Primal in that book as well).
DanTracker, as to one of your points. I'm not saying they have breached some contract with us. I would like to point out page 54 of the PHB. The bottem text block labeled POWER SOURCES. The last section of that text block is labeled Other Power Sources. I wont type out what exactly is written but the list is elemental, ki, primal, psionic, and shadow. That's in the PHB. I'll certainly be curious to see if future printings have that info removed.
As for the Online Tabletop, that is big disappointment. I have friends spread all over the country and most of them have totally skipped out on buying 4th edition simply becuase Wizards failed to deliver on one of their big selling points. The project probably become too expensive from a profit point of view to finish. Such is life.
I would love to see all these great things come to pass. I am however skeptical. I dont honestly expect them but I'll be pleasently surprised if any or all of them do get released. Isuspect we will see a great deal more of thier efforts going into the Essentials lines instead. If marketing believes it will bring in new customers thats where the dev teams will be told to work. Unfortunatly I think this is a case of marketing not being in touch with the hobby. People who want to play DnD probably dont want to buy a whole second line of books that are dumbed down for non-gamers. Non-gamers are unlikely to get into this hobby without being lead in by a friend. If a new person gets involved they probably have a friend or two who can show them the ropes. Only someone with too much money and no idea what to do with it is going to want to buy the newbie books and then all the real books. The line just doesn't make much sense to me. I certainly wouldnt let my friends go down the wrong path, I'd just say no you just need these books and we will teach you how to play. But I digress.
Interesting discussion. I look forward to hearing more thoughts on when, if, how, or why people think the Shadow Power Source (or Elemental) will come to be.
You have even less proof for "there will be no shadow power source", then "there will be a shadow power source". Even if the points are something like 3 against shadow, 4 points for shadow.
Though they haven't even announced there will be a PHB4, they've said something as vague as "there will be new power source on the horizon in 2011".
Responding to Kobold Avenger here as it seems we posted at the same time.
In reguards to my 3 against and your 4 for, I am curious as to what those 4 points are. Could you elaborate?
While yse, it is very true, my points are all speculation, that what I am doing, speculating. Based partially off past experiences with games publishing, both as a consumer and developer, and partially off recent events and such. Believe me, I would prefer to be wrong, I just don't think I am at this point.
As to you last line that I have in the quote there, could you provide a source for that? I am not saying I doubt you, just that I would like to read more.
Yes I know it's the first time there will be classes they haven't even said a thing about since 4e started, and that they're focusing everything on the essentials series, keeping a preview black out.
Previews black out? O.o We normally don't get the spring catalogue from WotC until around August. They sometimes mention a couple of the spring catalogue products a couple of months ahead during cons, but I don't think we have actually reached con season just yet. Having no info about next years products at this point is pretty normal. Last year around this time we did have the monk playtest, but I don't think a lack of a single playtest article qualifies as a "preview black out."
[snip]That's in the PHB. I'll certainly be curious to see if future printings have that info removed.
[snip]Only someone with too much money and no idea what to do with it is going to want to buy the newbie books and then all the real books. The line just doesn't make much sense to me. I certainly wouldnt let my friends go down the wrong path, I'd just say no you just need these books and we will teach you how to play. But I digress.
Interesting discussion. I look forward to hearing more thoughts on when, if, how, or why people think the Shadow Power Source (or Elemental) will come to be.
that is a big problem point i see in the Essentials line as well. I wouldn't want someone that is uncertain of their personal buy-in interest spending money on the books. I'd have them borrow mine and then i'd let them use my lappy to create a character in CB. and i'd expect that all the essentials material is present in CB over time anyhow. the entire line lacks coherent reason. they will be republishing elements that exist but in a smaller format and for lower price point? what happens next?
Honestly the emphasis should shift toward the CB, adventure tools, and online magazines. The CB is probably the lowest cost entry points. It merely lacks a box which can be placed in stores.
*it would be very strange if future printings of PHB lost that particular sidebar about the 'future' power sources. i'd probably never know because i don't read books i've already got when i drop in to a book store....but hey, it would be disturbing.
i too lament the marketing ploys and how much it causes the devs to digress from major breakthroughs. Monk showed promise as a Ki power source icon. Runepriest shows promise as a Runic power source icon. Psionic could have waited for the striker to be published in a later book; arcane had to wait a book to gain Bard (and looks to other books for Swordmage and Artificer). There simply isn't much reason that Monk couldn't have represented Ki until another book brought out additional Ki classes; Runepriest could have been an intro until another book brought along additional Runic classes. that same book could have given an appetizer of Elemental and the psionic striker. and, that would have made up a good PHB4 with a good number of classes to fill the pages.
but probably the marketing and financial departments balked the idea of teasers like that...who knows. i don't, but it gets to me. it makes me think.
i too lament the marketing ploys and how much it causes the devs to digress from major breakthroughs. Monk showed promise as a Ki power source icon. Runepriest shows promise as a Runic power source icon. Psionic could have waited for the striker to be published in a later book; arcane had to wait a book to gain Bard (and looks to other books for Swordmage and Artificer). There simply isn't much reason that Monk couldn't have represented Ki until another book brought out additional Ki classes; Runepriest could have been an intro until another book brought along additional Runic classes. that same book could have given an appetizer of Elemental and the psionic striker. and, that would have made up a good PHB4 with a good number of classes to fill the pages.
but probably the marketing and financial departments balked the idea of teasers like that...who knows. i don't, but it gets to me. it makes me think.
Wha? O.o Have I entered the twilight zone or something? I swear this thread is just getting weirder. Anyways, where the heck did you get the idea that the decision to not have the monk as a Ki class was a marketing ploy? The developers stated themselves the reasons why Ki was killed off. The reasons amounted to the decision that the Full Disciple mechanic was not enough to build a power source around and the realization that they were designing the Ki power source as the Azn power source. Neither of those are marketing ploys.
that is a big problem point i see in the Essentials line as well. I wouldn't want someone that is uncertain of their personal buy-in interest spending money on the books. I'd have them borrow mine and then i'd let them use my lappy to create a character in CB. and i'd expect that all the essentials material is present in CB over time anyhow. the entire line lacks coherent reason. they will be republishing elements that exist but in a smaller format and for lower price point? what happens next?
Actually I am wondering about a newbie who buys all 10 or just the redbox+2 player books. What will he do next? Is he expected to buy PHB3 to get psionic classes? He won't buy PHB1 definitely. He already has the druid and half-orc, so might or might not get PHB2. And the new DM, he won't buy MM1 due to the Monster Vault, but might buy MM2. Seems their shelf will be a bit dis-uniform with mixture of small paperbacks and hardbacks.
Or, will the new 2011 books have a different format to merge both the hardback and paperback's style?