Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 3973756" data-attributes="member: 18490">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> I bought the book after the 4e announcement to read a significant preview of 4e. I was surprised that the martial powers in the book (for the most part) resembled maneuvers, rather than spells. After building a few characters with the book, I fell in love. [Please don't tell my wife&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />&nbsp; - okay, she already knows.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> ]No one else in my group has bought the book (AFAIK), because we are waiting for the 4e to come out and aren't buying 3e rulebooks anymore. Nonetheless, our one copy is seeing quite a bit of use in the time remaining.IMO, this was an example of bad marketing. All the positive comments I'd heard (and there were quite a few at the FLGS and conventions) couldn't overcome the fighters have spells line that I'd heard. Sometimes I think that is the problem with the marketing of the upcoming edition. The designers, or someone posting scoops (like the first poster about R&amp;C), will make a statement that isn't supported by actual preview materials, but that misleading statement will get stuck in the ENWorld noosphere and provide a major sticking point for those who react negatively to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kennew142, post: 3973756, member: 18490"] 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 [I]spells[/I]. 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. :( I bought the book after the 4e announcement to read a [I]significant preview[/I] of 4e. I was surprised that the martial powers in the book (for the most part) resembled maneuvers, rather than spells. After building a few characters with the book, I fell in love. [Please don't tell my wife :uhoh: - okay, she already knows. :heh: ] No one else in my group has bought the book (AFAIK), because we are waiting for the 4e to come out and aren't buying 3e rulebooks anymore. Nonetheless, our one copy is seeing quite a bit of use in the time remaining. IMO, this was an example of bad marketing. All the positive comments I'd heard (and there were quite a few at the FLGS and conventions) couldn't overcome the [I]fighters have spells [/I] line that I'd heard. Sometimes I think that is the problem with the marketing of the upcoming edition. The designers, or someone posting scoops (like the first poster about R&C), will make a statement that isn't supported by actual preview materials, but that misleading statement will get stuck in the ENWorld noosphere and provide a major sticking point for those who react negatively to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification