Serriously when? 2012?
I waited for open grave, full of hope that since Bruce R. Cordell was writing it it would be like the old days with libris mortis...
and again I am let down... not surprising really. but the point is when? when will wizards finaly do what should have been done at release and let my minions go? Release the Necromancer, the summoner, the monk, the psion, and a DMG thats more then just a paperwieght/toiletpaper
as much as I hate to say it my buddies and I will go back to 3.5 or 2nd ed.
4th ed has good mechanics, but wizards really should have waited till had all of the core classes finished before rushing the book to shelfs, the phb itself feels grosly incompleat.
You'll only find new classes in Players Handbooks, or campaign player guides. Since WotC knows players like the necromancer, and they like the necromancer, I predict it will be in PHB3 - maybe even alongside the monk and psion.
The DMG is toilet paper? I must protest. Vehemently.
PHB II - 4 primal, 2 divine, 2 arcane
PHB III & IV - Between the two, 4 Psionic, 4 Ki, 4 Elemental, and 4 Shadow.
Most likely they will folow the same pattern, 4-2-2, 4-2-2.
Depending on what the 2010 and 2011 campaign settings are, we may see all four shadow in 2010, or just two. Given the demand for Psionics, Monks, and Necromancers (confirmed many times as shadow), we can PROBABLY expect PHB III to be 4 psionic classes, Monk and 1 more Ki class, and Necromancer and one more shadow class.
I've yet to see much clamor for Elemental classes, simply because I think most of us can't really figure out how Elemental classes will differ from Arcane or Primal classes.
Only time will tell.
Also, I'm floored by the number of people who seem to have gone A YEAR AND A HALF without understanding what WotC said at GenCon '07, I.E. that they would publish a new PHB, DMG, and MM EVERY YEAR for the life of 4e.
Come on!
The DMG is toilet paper? I must protest. Vehemently.
Seconded.
4e's DMG is by far the best DMG ever written. It beats 3e's and 3.5's DMGs to piles of smoldering ashes.
Also, you shouldn't complain about them taking too long to release all the classes. C'mon, how many years you had to wait since the beginnig of 3e for the release of a psion class? Or a necromancer class, for that matter? (I'm not counting the wizard specialization, for that isn't really a 'class'; the first real, non-prestige, necromantic class released in 3.5 was the True Necromancer, and that was waaaaay after the beggining of the edition). You couldn't possibly expect them to release on the first PHB all classes that people claimed.
Anyway, my bet is that PHBIII will have 4 psionic, 2 shadow (one of them being the Necro, and probably they'll save the Illusionist for later... They need some 'classic class' for the PHBIV) and 2 Ki (one of them being the Monk, can't figure out any other Ki classes though).
Anyway, my bet is that PHBIII will have 4 psionic, 2 shadow (one of them being the Necro, and probably they'll save the Illusionist for later... They need some 'classic class' for the PHBIV) and 2 Ki (one of them being the Monk, can't figure out any other Ki classes though).
Me too, though I have a feeling the Illusionist will be a Shadow Controller (in the PHB III). As for Ki, I could see the Soulknife or Sohei (defender).
And let's hope Dark Sun premieres next year to tie in with the Psionic classes!
Me too, though I have a feeling the Illusionist will be a Shadow Controller (in the PHB III). As for Ki, I could see the Soulknife or Sohei (defender).
And let's hope Dark Sun premieres next year to tie in with the Psionic classes!
Uh. Isn't the SoulKnife a Psi...no was that a Mind Blade. What was that class called?
And Seconded!
I know that if PHB3 was 4 Psionic, 2 Ki, 2 Shadow I'd be happy. :D
It would also have the 3 classes that are most sought after. As such I expect we'll get either the Monk or the Necromancer in PHB3. We might get neither and instead just get psionics into 4th ed along with 4 classes no-one has been desperate for. But I doubt it.
It beats 3e's and 3.5's DMGs to piles of smoldering ashes.
The third edition ones were so bad that they had to get errata almost immediately and then required one part of it to be rewritten in total one year later?
(I am of course speaking of skill challenges).
Uh. Isn't the SoulKnife a Psi...no was that a Mind Blade. What was that class called?
And Seconded!
It previously has been psionic, but some people(myself included) belive that the concept of the soulknife would work better in 4ed as a ki class.
Uh. Isn't the SoulKnife a Psi...no was that a Mind Blade. What was that class called?
Yeah, it was Psionic, but it was called Soulknife, and now that Ki is the power of the soul, it could be a pretty decent Ki class.
We might get neither and instead just get psionics into 4th ed along with 4 classes no-one has been desperate for.
I did read of the Empath as a psionic leader class from some WotC person.
The DMG is toilet paper? I must protest. Vehemently.
Thirded.
Also, the 4th DMG is one of the best RPG products I have ever bought.
The third edition ones were so bad that they had to get errata almost immediately and then required one part of it to be rewritten in total one year later?
(I am of course speaking of skill challenges).
Maybe it's just me, but I never liked the way they treated DMG as a ''Build-your-own-world-after-ours'' module. Probably that's because I never had any problems creating scenarios or story arcs, but, IMO, the DMG was supposed to elucidate on the rules. Things like traps, building encounters, actions the rules don't cover, all of these are a must. I never felt like the 3.5 DMG did enough of this. And, putting aside the Skill Challenge fiasco, 4e's guide is much more complete in this aspect than the previous ones.
Oh, and why in Raven Queen's name they decided to include magic itens on the DMG instead of the PHB is a question that will haunt each one of my dreams.
The third edition ones were so bad that they had to get errata almost immediately and then required one part of it to be rewritten in total one year later?
(I am of course speaking of skill challenges).
Skill challenges are a completely new system - and a very cool one I might add. A little tweaking to get them right is worth it. Third edition the DMG was mainly just a depositary of information that should have gone in the PHB with little actual material that helped the DM with her job.
Oh, and why in Raven Queen's name they decided to include magic itens on the DMG instead of the PHB is a question that will haunt each one of my dreams.
Well, I guess it's because in previous editions creating a magic item wasn't neither easy nor cheap...thus the vast majority of magic items the PC came by were handed out by the DM ( and the PCs usually didn't have a clue what the item did until someone could identify it, something that wasn't as easy as in 3.x-4e).
When 3e came, a lot changed...but I'm not sure the designers realized how cheap magic items became as soon as the PCs could create them themselves ( I suppose they just overstimated the value of the XP cost ).
Again, it's just a guess, so I may well be wrong
- Monk (ki striker): Popularly desired class. Source and role have all but already been confirmed.
- Samurai (ki defender): Not just because it's Asian. I won't list my reasoning here. Any one who cares can check this ancient thread.
- Psion (psionic controller): Popularly desired class. Should focus on telepathic (psychic damage) and telekinetic (force damage) attacks.
- Psi-blade (psionic striker): Renamed from soulknife to remove confusion with Ki power source and to make the shape of the weapon ambiguous/customizable. Those who want this as a Ki class make a good point, however I prefer it here. Plus the class has always reminded me of Psylocke from X-men.
- Dark Knight (shadow defender): Not actual name, but rather a concept. Evil paladins are okay, but I'd like to see something that can claim such a tilter without being evil. I envision them somewhat as a pseudo-hybrid of mostly paladin with a splash rogue, much like the old Blackguard prestige class. I've seen people suggest hexblade for this slot, and while I feel that has merit, I also feel hexbalde is better suited in both theme and name as melee variant of the warlock.
- Illusionist (shadow controller): Popularly desired class.
- Necromancer (shadow leader): Popularly desired class. Once upon a time (1st edition) all healing effects were considered necromantic. Also, "summoning" and commanding undead minions seems leadery enough.
- Ninja (shadow striker): Hate them or love them, everybody recognizes them. Rogues make fair enough mundane ninja, but I'd like to see a nice mystical ninja.
Cheers,
Kyle
Uh. Isn't the SoulKnife a Psi...no was that a Mind Blade. What was that class called?
And Seconded!
Soulknife was the class name.
The third edition ones were so bad that they had to get errata almost immediately and then required one part of it to be rewritten in total one year later?
(I am of course speaking of skill challenges).
as opposed to, what? the entire edition being rewritten?
(I am, of course, referring to 3.5's existance.)
Psi-blade (psionic striker): Renamed from soulknife to remove confusion with Ki power source and to make the shape of the weapon ambiguous/customizable. Those who want this as a Ki class make a good point, however I prefer it here. Plus the class has always reminded me of Psylocke from X-men.
The only reasons I can think of as to why the Soulblade should remain a Psionic class in 4E are Sacred Cow justifications, especially in light of the fact the mechanics/flavour of Incarnum fits the ideology of a Soulblade's weapon much better than Psionics ever did, and for the fact that Incarnum fits neatly within the (assumed) portfolio of the 4E Ki Power Source.
Were I to hazard a guess as to what Power Source/Role the 4E Soulblade would fill - I would have to say Ki Striker - although on second thoughts, Ki Defender may be a better pick - especially if the 4E Soulblade kills (and robs) the Sohei while stealing some of the Incarnate's thunder (some sticky aura's perhaps).
The last thing we need is for them to make the Soulblade little more than a reflavoured Rogue, Ranger, or Barbarian..... but from what I have seen, the Dev's are doing an excellent job of creating tactical (and flavourful) distinction between the various classes.
Just look at the (tactical) differences between the Ranger, Warlock, and Sorcerer if you don't believe me.
In response to the OP however - It is widely believed that the Shadow Power Source (and the Necromancer) will almost definately make their debut in the PHB 3.
Were I to hazard a guess as to what Psionic/Shadow/Ki classes may be in the PHB3 (and future sourcebooks) I would say there is ample justification for the following (in no particular order):
Psionics: Empath (Leader), Psychic Warrior (Defender), Psion (Controller, after killing/absorbing the Wilder and perhaps the Egoist).
Shadow: Necromancer (Leader), Illusionist (Controller), Hexblade (Defender, to distinguish itself from a melee-Warlock), Shadow Dancer (Striker)
Ki: Monk (Striker), Soulblade (Defender), Incarnate (Leader/Controller, with an array of offensive/defensive aura's).
I would also expect a Ki-Blaster build for the Monk would drive sales for the "Ki Power" sourcebook (while saving the need for a separate class).
But here you have people threatening to go back an edition if they don't get their favorite class soon! Crazy!
Anyway...
I wouldn't hold my breath for the Necromancer, Monk and Psi power source in the same book. You guys have to think about Marketing.
Monks (ki) have a fan base.
Necromancers (shadow) have a fan base.
Psi has a fan base, although it doesn't seem has big has monk and necro's...
Nobody give a flying **** about Elemental.
Remember that pretty much every D&D player and even most new players who aren't that familiar with the genre know what a 'necromancer' or a 'monk' is... but a boat load of people have no idea what Soul Knife, an Egoist or a Wu-Jen is. Nor does saying the name suddenly bring a clear concept of what the class is supposed to be... marketing value? zero.
So having 4ki/2shadow/2psi that include the Necromancer in PHB3 might be a fan's wetdream... it also means the next book is going to be 4elemental/2shadow/2psi and it probably won't sell very well due to much less hype and a lack of easily recognisable classes.
I think it's much more likely we'll get phb3 has 4ki/2psion/2elemental and phb4 has 4shadow/2psion/2elemtnal (or vice versa) because they'll try and put the less desirable class from a marketing point of view in a bundle with class a lot of people of want (Monk, Necro, etc).
I think it's much more likely we'll get phb3 has 4ki/2psion/2elemental and phb4 has 4shadow/2psion/2elemtnal (or vice versa) because they'll try and put the less desirable class from a marketing point of view in a bundle with class a lot of people of want (Monk, Necro, etc).
Possibly. Though from the other perspective there is a not insubstantial amount of the fanbase that are "chomping at the bit" to get their hands on one or more of monk, psion, necromancer, and illusionist. These fans are already agitated over having to wait till PHB3. Make any of them wait for PHB4 and one might find that those who had been clamoring for the release have moved on and no longer care. Conversely, if PHB3 finishes rounding out most of the old classes people want back then there will be satisfaction all around. Interest in PHB4 can then be built on hyping the concept "all new and never seen before", especially with Elemental power source being a giant wild card in a lot of peoples minds. By the forth year of 4E that might be exactly what people want anyway.
Most of these people still haven't forgiven Wizards for the release of 3.5, and still believe (to this day) that 3.5 was motivated solely by corporate greed.
As it is, players are incredibly disatisfied with the way in which (popular) classes have been split over no-less than 3 PHBs - only feeding the "money-grab" mentality rampant amongst the player base.
As such, if Wizards fails to make good on its promise to release the Monk, Necromancer, Illusionist and Psionic Class(es) by the time the PHB3 is released, the mounting disgust that players have with Wizards will reach an all time high, and will likely result in the death of 4th Edition due to a mass exodus from the game.
This is doubly important when you consider the fact that a large percentage of their remaining player base (those who have not already abandoned them in favor of pathfinder, or other RPG products), is angry at, disappointed, or dis-satisfied with Wizards for one reason or another (myself included).
If Wizards cares about retaining their player-base (and market share), they would make certain that these classes make it into the PHB3, or else they may as well kiss 4th edition goodbye, as the patience of their remaining player-base is tenuous (and short-lived) at best.
In fact (to my knowledge), I am the only regular at my local hobby store who is interested in (and has purchased) any 4th edition products... This despite the fact that my LHS has no less than 20 hard-core DnD fans, who have each spent hundreds (if not thousands) of $$$ on 3.X products over the last 6-8 years - and while I have the largest collection (having spent no less than $4000 on 3.X products), there are many in my group who own 10+ books each.
It's funny and goes to show that you can't judge tastes... I personally have no interest for the necromancer (which strikes me as a rather juvenile concept for a player class), the monk (Never been a fan of punching dragons) or psions (They're great in Sci-fi setting, but in fantasy? Not so much) ... and like most people, the Elemental Source is making me scratch my head.
But here you have people threatening to go back an edition if they don't get their favorite class soon! Crazy!
Anyway...
I wouldn't hold my breath for the Necromancer, Monk and Psi power source in the same book. You guys have to think about Marketing.
Monks (ki) have a fan base.
Necromancers (shadow) have a fan base.
Psi has a fan base, although it doesn't seem has big has monk and necro's...
Nobody give a flying **** about Elemental.
Remember that pretty much every D&D player and even most new players who aren't that familiar with the genre know what a 'necromancer' or a 'monk' is... but a boat load of people have no idea what Soul Knife, an Egoist or a Wu-Jen is. Nor does saying the name suddenly bring a clear concept of what the class is supposed to be... marketing value? zero.
So having 4ki/2shadow/2psi that include the Necromancer in PHB3 might be a fan's wetdream... it also means the next book is going to be 4elemental/2shadow/2psi and it probably won't sell very well due to much less hype and a lack of easily recognisable classes.
I think it's much more likely we'll get phb3 has 4ki/2psion/2elemental and phb4 has 4shadow/2psion/2elemtnal (or vice versa) because they'll try and put the less desirable class from a marketing point of view in a bundle with class a lot of people of want (Monk, Necro, etc).
Is 2/2/2/2 twice out of the question????? Due to Popularity/Complaints that's probably how I'd do it.
As such, if Wizards fails to make good on its promise to release the Monk, Necromancer, Illusionist and Psionic Class(es) by the time the PHB3 is released, the mounting disgust that players have with Wizards will reach an all time high, and will likely result in the death of 4th Edition due to a mass exodus from the game.
I don't think it would be nearly that bad. While wizards would likely lose a few more players due to such a move, it seems highly unlikely that it would be the death of 4E. Most of the people who would quit over such details probably already have and 4E has most likely has and continues to pull new fans into the hobby. All that said, it would probably still be a bad move to wait longer than PHB3 to make these fan favorites available
Is 2/2/2/2 twice out of the question????? Due to Popularity/Complaints that's probably how I'd do it.
2/2/2/2 would seem very unlikely, as it wouldn't provide enough classes for any one source to make a new power book plausible for 2010. Also WotC needs to save something to draw in the crowds for PHB3, and Finlay answering the question "just what the heck is the elemental power source about?" seems as good a draw as any.
A third party publisher, Zodiac, put out a Necromancer supplement not two weeks ago. It's called Secrets of Necromancy, and it includes a Necromancer class, as well as some new races, paragon paths, rituals, magic items, NPCs, and monsters that are appropriate for campaigns including Necromancers and undead. It's largely a DM's supplement, but the base class included might be appropriate for your needs if you go over it with your DM. Some of the powers would really only be viable in a campaign that focuses on undead. It cost three bucks if I remember correctly.
If only someone else had mentioned that earlier in the thread ;)
as opposed to, what? the entire edition being rewritten?
(I am, of course, referring to 3.5's existance.)
3.5 came into existence because of how bad the DMG was?
Is 2/2/2/2 twice out of the question????? Due to Popularity/Complaints that's probably how I'd do it.
2/2/2/2 also doesn't really help marketing wise.
If you give the monk, necro and whatever is the 'poster child' for psi in one book, you still end up with relatively unknown classes to fill the next one.
2/2/2/2 would seem very unlikely, as it wouldn't provide enough classes for any one source to make a new power book plausible for 2010. Also WotC needs to save something to draw in the crowds for PHB3, and Finlay answering the question "just what the heck is the elemental power source about?" seems as good a draw as any.
100% agree with this.
Also, I fully support making Ninja a shadow striker, rather than, for example, Ki.
While 2/2/2/2 would be okay, WotC is pretty invested in the idea of putting out Powersource specific books after all four classes for a source are available. Or, more to the point, they don't want to release partial builds for classes that haven't gotten their full release yet, which is why Artificer won't be in Arcane Powers.
So, If they did 2/2/2/2, they'd be leaving a gap in the book run from the time Primal powers comes out until summer of 2011.
Necromancer (shadow leader): Popularly desired class. Once upon a time (1st edition) all healing effects were considered necromantic. Also, "summoning" and commanding undead minions seems leadery enough.
Maybe, maybe not.
Healing isn't the only thing Leaders do. The Leader role is about enhancing your allies; providing healing, temporary hit points, attack and defense boosts, strategic movement, openings for extra attacks, and so forth. All of which does not seem to fit the necromancer concept.
While there have been some vampiric effects, Necromantic spells have previously focused mainly on debilitating enemies through fatigue, cold, necrotic curses, and such like effects. That seems to fall under the role of Controller to me.
Even summoned undead have control properties; blocking or forcing enemy movement, flanking, and so on. Though there has been talk of a Warlord build with troops which could, I guess, be used to assist other PC in a more leader like manner.
I like the idea of 4Shadow/2Psi/2Elemental and then 4Ki/2Psi/2Elemental (or you can split Shadow in two and put 4 psi in the first one instead) so we can finally learn what the Elemental source's gimmick is gonna be!
Given player expectations, I think that the reverse is beter from a marketing perspective (4 Psi/2 Ki/2 Elemental).
With that being said, I believe that releasing 4 Shadow/2 Ki/2 Elemental in the PH3 is it would create dynamic interest for the PH3 while simultaneously creating a strong interest in the PH4.
IMO, 2 fresh, new (and eagerly anticipated) classes (aka: Necromancer & Illusionist) plus 1 or 2 rehashed favorites (Monk and possibly Soulknife/Incarnate) is infinately more appealing than 3-4 rehashed favorites (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Monk) and 4-5 new classes to which little interest has been shown to date (Empath).
This is of course, assuming that players will not jump ship if the PH3 doesnt include Shadow, Psi, and Ki.
I know one thing for certain. If the PH3 contains 4 Elemental classes, I expect a lot of disgruntled players, irregardless of how super happy awesome those classes happen to be.
Only twist I can see is if they decide to release Martial Power 2 in 2010.
3.5 came into existence because of how bad the DMG was?
No, but the DMG, PHB, and MMI were all re-edited/written and then rereleased.
At least the errata was free.
I had to pay anotherr $30/book to replace my 3.0 core books.
While there have been some vampiric effects, Necromantic spells have previously focused mainly on debilitating enemies through fatigue, cold, necrotic curses, and such like effects. That seems to fall under the role of Controller to me.
You make some good points. Maybe I'm just stretching the idea of necromancer to keep it and illusionist from both being controllers. However, I do feel that my leader necromancer concept would be very controller-like, probably the more controller-like than any other leader, but still mostly a leader.
While can agree that summoning/conjuration is mostly a controller gimmick, classes like the cleric and the shaman show that it can be a leader option as well.
There's also nothing to say what the necromancer's roll will be. In 3e, necromancy was associated with:
1) single target debilitate/kill spells
2) life drain & temporary hit points
3) touch attacks
4) area debuff/damage
5) creation/control of undead
Number one translates best to the striker role. Number two would best fit the defender, since generally only the necromancer could gain the benefit from these spells, but could be expanded to fit the leader role fairly easily. Number three fits a melee character of any role, though probably best fits a defender or striker. Number four is pure controller territory.
The most significant factor, number five, doesn't translate to any one role. Minions and pets could fit any role, depending on what those pets are doing. Check out the beast master ranger for how a pet could work for a striker. Check out the Shaman in the PHBII for how a pet class could work as a leader. The Wizard is getting a summoner variant in Arcane Power, to show how a controller pet class would work. We don't have any examples of defender pet classes, but it's not hard to imagine.
Altogether, there's really nothing to say one way or the other for what class the necromancer will be. Any could work. I wonder if it's not too much to hope that there might be more then one necromancer themed class, covering a variety of roles.
Maybe a controller necromancer with area damage and debuff powers, minoring in defender with the help of his corporeal undead beater pet and temporary undead minions?
Maybe a striker necromancer using debilitating single target touch attacks, minoring in leader with the help of a ghostly pet with life draining attacks and the ability to transfer life so drained to nearby allies?
There are a lot of ways the designers could go with this, and I look forward to seeing what they eventually publish.
In the mean time, you've got 3rd party material, as already mentioned, and you'll soon have the shaman and the summoner wizard, both of which could be pretty easily re-fluffed to provide 'while you wait' stats for a leader or controller necromancer.
I, over the past 5 years have litteraly purched thousands of dollars worth of murchendice from Wizards, and I feel as a consumer I am intitaled to a little bit of quality first off.
Second, I spoke with the lead writters for the 4e core books at gencon last year (2008) and expressed to them my disdain for the fact that thay have failed to put summoner and esspecaily Necromancer (A DnD CLASSIC AND ICONIC CLASS, and yeah I consider 3.5's specilized wizard as a necro, thats what it was) and the four of them Assured me after signing my 4e books that I would see necromancers in april's phb2. So, being lied to by the author's tends to ... I dont know... irritate me on the subject even more then the fact that they cut some of the most popular classes from the core books.
The players handbook is incompleat without the conjurer/summoner, the barbarian, the necromancer, the druid, the monk, and even the bard.
Putting them out in UPCOMING EXPANSIONS is lame and realy only and excuse to milk us for more money as there is at least Two to three people in every gaming group who usualy plays one of these classes, Its becoming 3.5 all over again. *Sigh*
Even more insulting was the act of cutting gnomes from the phb and replacing them with tieflings. I have 12 hours of dialog to argue this point with. And putting them in the phb2 is not a bandaid, it's not cool.
esspecaily Necromancer (A DnD CLASSIC AND ICONIC CLASS
Not at all, the Necromancer was not in Basic or 1st Ed, maybe in a 2nd Ed splatbook?
Plans for books change. Doesn't mean anybody lied to you. Necromancer is a popular, but hardly core and iconic PC class. Iconic villain? Sure, and you'll find plenty in the DMG and MM for running them as such. That's why Open Grave was so early.
Now, I'm not saying they can't be PCs, or that they shouldn't be, but they're not iconic as such. You want iconic? D&D Iconic PC consists of, and only of, the following:
Fighter
Mage
Cleric
Thief
and
Human
Dwarf
Elf
halfling
Originally the non-human races were basically more classes, but in one form or another all of the above was always there, and everything else was a variant or supplement. That is all that's been there in every core book from the beginning. All of those are in 4e. Everything else - absolutely everything - is tack on extras and glorified variants.
All awesome stuff, all worth getting into print, but none of it so essential that D&D isn't D&D without it. I'm sorry.
D&D 4e rules are focused on encounters, and try for some semblance of balance. Pets in general horribly complicate both balance and the encounter format. In 3e a wizardly necromancer with the leadership feat could have over a thousand hit dice of undead servants by level 12. Unless the entire campaign revolves around large scale battles and army movements, this character has essentially derailed the game.
Even fewer pets still pose special problems of eating an unfair amount of time at the gaming table. It's not fair or fun when one character gets twice as many turns as the other characters because he has an animal companion.
These are special concerns well outside of the core fighter/cleric/thief/mage/human/elf/dwarf/halfling set up, and it is both appropriate and good for the game that they got seperated out for special attention after the essential bits were properly worked out. minions in 3e were a nightmare for practical gameplay. The minions we've seen so far in 4e (beast master companion, wizard summons, shaman spirits) aren't.
If you can't wait, then don't. Play something else. If you don't want to spend the money, then don't. Play something else. No hard feelings, no problems. But don't pretend WotC had some sort of moral obligation to gram all of 3e's years of content into a single book, which would inevitably result in a terrible product. And don't pretend you're the almighty arbiter of what is and isn't essential to D&D. You are one player, and you have your tastes and preferences. I'm sure you can find something for you in the 4e PHB (unless your tastes really are so narrow that the only character you're willing to play is a gnome necromancer). Your preferences are no more special then those of the players who liked tieflings and warlocks, or those who just wanted to see something new and different right from the get-go, and were pleased to see dragonborn and the warlord.
Maybe the Illusionit could be a Striker instead? Focusing on charm and fear effect and manipultating one enemy at a time. Plenty of 'CHA vs Will, Hit: That target makes a basic melee attack against a creature of your choice' and similar powers?
Thats stretching things a bit far. Of the two, the Necromancer would be far more likely to "become" a striker (sub leader/controller) than the Illusionist, once you consider how many single-target effects are attributed to the existing "necromancer" archetype.
Personally, I would like to see the following two Necromancer Builds:
Master of the Undead: Powers focus on the creation/control of undead with most powers using the Summoning, Fear, Charm, and/or Necrotic keywords....
This build should also include a handful of multi-target Area powers which deal Necrotic Damage (while healing undead), and/or status ailments (see below).
Life Sapper: Powers focus primarily on single-target effects which inflict a variety of status conditions (Shaken, Panicked, Slowed, Weakened, etc), necrotic/cold/psychic damage, ongoing (necrotic) damage, and/or have a vampiric effect.
Most of the powers in this build would have the Fear, Necrotic, Cold, Psychic, and Healing keywords.
I would also like to see this build have a small selection of Aura Effect powers which affect all enemies within the aura's range (Close 3 sounds about right); eg. Necrotic Aura (Necrotic damage), Vampiric Aura (Necrotic Damage + Healing), Fear Aura (Shaken/Panicked), Slow/Weakening Aura (Slow/Weaken) etc.
I would just want to make certain that the Necromancer distinguishes itself from the Warlock, and doesnt steal any of its thunder.... but assuming the dev's pull that off, I believe the above two builds would make for a very interesting Striker/Leader class.
Now, I'm not saying they can't be PCs, or that they shouldn't be, but they're not iconic as such. You want iconic? D&D Iconic PC consists of, and only of, the following:
Fighter
Wizard
Priest
Thief
and
Human
Dwarf
Elf
Slight correction. The original classes from ODnD were Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric, Elf (Fighter/Mage), Dwarf (Variant Fighter), and halfling (Fighter/Thief). I agree with your point however.
Of all the classes, the Thief leveled the quickest; the elf leveled the slowest; while the cleric couldnt cast spells until 2nd level.
Slight correction. The original classes from ODnD were Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric, Elf (Fighter/Mage), Dwarf (Variant Fighter), and halfling (Fighter/Thief). I agree with your point however.
Actually, wasn't it Fighting Man?
Also, you shouldn't complain about them taking too long to release all the classes. C'mon, how many years you had to wait since the beginnig of 3e for the release of a psion class? Or a necromancer class, for that matter? (I'm not counting the wizard specialization, for that isn't really a 'class'; the first real, non-prestige, necromantic class released in 3.5 was the True Necromancer, and that was waaaaay after the beggining of the edition). You couldn't possibly expect them to release on the first PHB all classes that people claimed.
Pretty sure the True Necromancer was a prestige class. *checks Libris Mortis* Yup.
I presume you mean the Dread Necromancer, which ties with the Warlock as my favourite class in 3.5.
Anyway, I look forward to having 4e Necromancers someday. It's just not D&D to me unless I have a necromancer around.
Dread Necromancer was my favorite 3.5 class as well, and is near about the only class I play when I find myself in a 3.5 game. I would gladly join a 3e game, even if I prefer 4e in general, just to play that class again.
I'm looking forward to the Shaman and the Summoning Wizard for more hints at what the 4e necro might eventually look like.