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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6073053" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I was not impressed with most of the video. A couple times I wanted to stop and make notes, to go point by point, but decided against it, as I was already about 25 minutes in. It's stuff like "the new skill system helps with nuance, as it's not tied to a particular ability score", while the deep focus on ability scores in general eliminates nuance. That bugs me. Or, "naming conventions are important.... [Later on] For example, there's a new condition called 'Charmed', which is not necessarily magical"... but you named it after a well-known magical spell that does exactly that? I'm not sure what to call it (Manipulated?), but I don't think that's a good idea, as it stands. Also, my bet on the new class is "Eldritch Knight" or the like - a warrior/arcana hybrid that isn't a Swordmage, Duskblade, etc.Overall, I still enjoyed the video. Especially the end. I feel Mike's pain about his friends and football... I'm not super into it, but my friends know nothing. It's fun watching designers explain stuff, and compare their reasoning to my own. They seemed relaxed, excited, and rightly dismissive of certain stuff (like math fixes). I'm glad they did it, even if I'm overall more pessimistic than I was before. Then again, there's a long way to go, and I'm interested in a complicated game, so we'll see what the game looks like once we add a lot of modules to it.If any of those guys take a look at this thread (/wave at Trevor), thanks for doing that. Hopefully there's another one. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification