Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 7003734" data-attributes="member: 98255">I didn't realize that the doc was so short. I read it, and have a few points of feedback.The first thing that jumped off the page for me was the use of D16 for some damage rolls. It's an odd die type that I've never seen before, so I don't think it will see much, if any, use. I expect most people will sub in a pair of D8s, which is fine, but it seems a needless complication.The second thing is that, while clearly evocative of 4e's style, and without having anything further than the 2-page PDF to go on, a lot of the content sounds like a 'renaming of things' to do an end-run around the legalities of straight up copying 4e. That's fine, but may end up legally problematic, but IKD, because IANAL. Other things in that vein seem to read like, &quot;it's like this other game, but with added levels of granularity.&quot; Which, again, can be fine, and I would like to someday see the whole thing to judge in context, but could also turn out to add needless complexity to an otherwise elegant design.I don't want this to sound overly negative; far from it, I hope that you will view my criticism as constructive. I haven't read any of the &quot;meat&quot; - and this teaser doc made me want to, so mission accomplished in that regard.I also like the idea of pushing more expanded use of the condition track. It was under-utilized in the framework of 4e and it sounds like you have good ideas to leverage it. The promise of Modularity is also hugely appealing to me. My tastes will vary campaign to campaign, and modular rules would also allow the game to be adaptable to a larger audience, in theory. This is the great downfall of 5e; its complete failure to meet this target.Aesthetically, the document looks really nice; easy to read as well as stylish. Much better than the typical &quot;black serif font on white page&quot; that you usually see with self-published material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 7003734, member: 98255"] I didn't realize that the doc was so short. I read it, and have a few points of feedback. The first thing that jumped off the page for me was the use of D16 for some damage rolls. It's an odd die type that I've never seen before, so I don't think it will see much, if any, use. I expect most people will sub in a pair of D8s, which is fine, but it seems a needless complication. The second thing is that, while clearly evocative of 4e's style, and without having anything further than the 2-page PDF to go on, a lot of the content sounds like a 'renaming of things' to do an end-run around the legalities of straight up copying 4e. That's fine, but may end up legally problematic, but IKD, because IANAL. Other things in that vein seem to read like, "it's like this other game, but with added levels of granularity." Which, again, can be fine, and I would like to someday see the whole thing to judge in context, but could also turn out to add needless complexity to an otherwise elegant design. I don't want this to sound overly negative; far from it, I hope that you will view my criticism as constructive. I haven't read any of the "meat" - and this teaser doc made me want to, so mission accomplished in that regard. I also like the idea of pushing more expanded use of the condition track. It was under-utilized in the framework of 4e and it sounds like you have good ideas to leverage it. The promise of Modularity is also hugely appealing to me. My tastes will vary campaign to campaign, and modular rules would also allow the game to be adaptable to a larger audience, in theory. This is the great downfall of 5e; its complete failure to meet this target. Aesthetically, the document looks really nice; easy to read as well as stylish. Much better than the typical "black serif font on white page" that you usually see with self-published material. [/QUOTE]

Verification