Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Napftor" data-source="post: 1574309" data-attributes="member: 617">To be fair, I think Joe was only throwing out the opinions of him and his group, not making generalizations about all consumers.  It's understandable that one group thought the updates weren't up to par.  I will disagree with his reasons concerning art and layout though.  I mean, why do these constitute a poor update if the rules are what matter?  But then we're getting into a whole other can of worms about "art books" vs. "rule books" selling better.I can't speak to the BoHM revision, but I thought the BoEM revision was great.  First, I personally love hardcovers so that is a big plus.  And while I already owned the 3.0 versions, I needed to buy the 3.5 revision for two simple reasons--convenience and "updated" material.  As a writer, I knew I would be using BoEM material for a current project and the revision not only made everything conveniently available in one book but it also brought it over to the newest version of the rules.  As you said, Monte, there isn't terribly much difference between 3.0 and 3.5 BoEM material, but the consumers often disagree, the regular posts about perceived incompatibility being evidence of that.  By having the revised BoEM in the section 15 instead of the original volumes, it may just generate a few more sales (assumung that consumers even look at the section 15--a whole other discussion).As to the d20 glut, I'll just sit and watch the fascinating discussions go by.  I just wanted to interject that one man's perceived poor revision is another man's shiny boon.</blockquote>

Verification