The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[The Ubbergeek]

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is I recall a lot of people who really liked the idea, but didn't feel it was done real well or fit 3X all that well. My experience in 3X was that it was wildly overpowered. However, I still thought the concept was great.

I think the acceptance of the approach for 4E will be somewhere greater than the usage of Bo9S in 3X. Regardless of what that usage may have been.

It was stronger than Fighter stuff as base.. But no more than any spellcaster CoDzilla or Wizard, really.

Sucess and popularity are not necessarly the same, also...

 

[BryonD]

So, they didn't base 4e on Nine Swords. Rather, the mechanics for Nine Swords were reverse engineered from early stage 4e development. Just like, no doubt, that the mechanics (including force powers) in SWSE were probably influenced by the state of 4e development at that point.

Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Just because I happen to think the round pegs didn't fit the square 3X holes well enough, doesn't mean my ultimately negative opinion of Bo9S reflects a lack of eagerness to try it in 4E.

 

[glass]

Edit: I just realized what one of the "anime influences" is that I don't like. I don't like styles/maneuvers with animal names. White Raven, Feral Tiger (or whatever it was), Golden Wyvern, Lightning Panther, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, that sort of stuff.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is Anime now?


glass.

 

[BryonD]

It was stronger than Fighter stuff as base.. But no more than any spellcaster CoDzilla or Wizard, really.

That wasn't my personal experience. I found it to be nearly the best of both worlds in one package. Not quite the full punch of a mage, but more than enough staying power to make the mage cry foul.

Anyway, no need to redo that debate here. I found it highly broken. Please just note my single comment and move along.

Sucess and popularity are not necessarly the same, also...

shrug

Not necessarily uncorrelated either.

 

[glass]

I was reluctant to buy Bo9S. I heard a lot of positive buzz about it at conventions, but I wasn't looking for an alternate system to graft onto the rules. Furthermore, I kept hearing about how it gave fighters spells. I think even WotC may have made this statement at one time or another. Is it on the back of the book? I'm at work now and don't have my books with me.

IDNHMBIFOM either, but I don't remember anything about spells but the chapter that described the manoeuvres is called 'Blade Magic' (inaccurately IMO).


glass.

 

[TerraDave]

JohnSnow, you definately cracked the nut on this one. (But I read that damn R&C, why didn't I make the link?). Scott "Le" Rouse also noted that Bo9S was a "play-test" of 4th ed.

And the difference matters. They have every incentive to say Bo9S was good&popular, given how much they had invested in 4th ed up to that point, and how much that approach--every one gets powers--is (still) central to the new edition.

But, in their defence, they have also said that they made a lot of changes since.

So it will be Bo9S, but funner, faster, and easier to play.

(Ok, last part not in their def.)

 

[Seule]

I find that Bo9S is a hard sell to people who play 3.5, simply because it changes so much about the basic class balance assumptions. It is indeed not a perfect fit for 3.5 games (or 3.0) although it's not bad, it works best if all martial types use it, as do all NPC martial types. It really is designed to replace a good chunk of the rules.
This makes it hard to integrate for most people.
What I find is that most people who actually spend the time to read and understand it come out with some combination of "I like it", "I like the mechanics but not the flavour", "Cool idea but not well implemented", or "Gimme now".
This speaks well to taking the same basic idea and integrating it directly into the next edition, with tweaks based on the playtesting that's happened.
For the record I play a Warblade (up to 5th level now) in a campaign alongside a Spirit Shaman, a Swashbuckler, an Ardent, and a Scout. Because my character's class somewhat overpowers the swashbuckler and the scout (who is an archer), I focus on the White Raven maneuvers, to make everyone else better. So far it's working pretty well, and is a great deal of fun for me, picking maneuvers and using them both.

--Seule

 

[dmccoy1693]

I really, really don't believe WotC would base the whole entire powers system for 4e on a poorly received book. I just can't believe they would be that foolish.

You obviously have never worked for the government. You wouldn't believe the kind of foolish things people do. (Even educated people. That's why us contractors are there, to actually get stuff done in government.)

 

[bgaesop]

"I like the mechanics but not the flavour"

This sums it up pretty well for me, though I'm not certain how much I like the mechanics given that I stopped reading the book because the flavour grated on me so much. I absolutely loathe the idea of fighters being "melee spellcasters" and since no one I knew owned the book I saw no reason to give it more than a cursory glance in the store.

 

[Seule]

This sums it up pretty well for me, though I'm not certain how much I like the mechanics given that I stopped reading the book because the flavour grated on me so much. I absolutely loathe the idea of fighters being "melee spellcasters" and since no one I knew owned the book I saw no reason to give it more than a cursory glance in the store.

Cut Swordsages and the Swordsage-only maneuvers from the book, and you have a wonderful melee fighter and paladin replacement, that scale well against spellcasters and are fun to play at all levels. You also don't have melee spellcasting, other than some Crusader powers that allow healing and the like. What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".

--Seule