Vale

I wouldn’t label things they changed compared to 5e rules as necessarily broken, unless the way they say it’s implemented doesn’t actually match what’s happening.

I picked half elf as race initially because I was used to the +2 +1 +1 spread they get, which isn’t the case in the game, or hypnotic pattern, which only lasts 2 turns instead of 10. Is the game broken? No, it’s just me assuming stuff will be 1 to 1 to the 5e rules. And it goes both ways, took me a bit to realize they don’t follow the spellcasting rules to a t, and you can cast leveled spells with both your action and your bonus action.

Got any links to support these claims? I’d be interested to know more for when people bring up the same argument as the person you’re replying to.

XCOM meets Diablo is a decent enough way of putting it, as long as you don’t expect the mechanics to be 1:1. Since you brought up positioning, there’s no grid for movement, or flanking, for example. Battles are turn-based, like XCOM, but it’s not split in player turn and AI turn, instead, each individual character/npc gets its own turn, with the order decided based on dice rolls and whatever modifiers are applicable.

It looks to me like you’re talking about something else compared to the person you’re replying to.

To my eyes, he’s arguing in favor of the technology as a concept, while you’re arguing against specific products (let’s say midjourney, for the sake of the discussion). If midjourney proved beyond any doubt that their model was trained on a data set that they had rights to (by buying them from artists, or the images already being copyright free, doesn’t matter), would you still be against it?

Similarly, you said you’re against your work being used for commercial purposes, but would you be ok with me training a model on your work, and then using AI to generate images in your style that I use as, for example, character art for my DnD games that I will pay with friends? (making an assumption here, don’t know what kind of artist you are)