Joe M. wrote:
Proposal: min/maxer Thunderdome. In real-time when the playtest is first released.
Yes? No? Personally, I also tend to shy new players away from the magus and the summoner and to a lesser extent, the druid, because there's simply so much more to those classes than a sorcerer or fighter or cleric. I don't outright restrict them, but I warn them there is more to them than other classes. It's the same way when someone says, "I want to play a mage." I point them towards sorcerer instead of wizard, simply because of how easy it is to pick up and learn.
If you've seen the mythic rules, I think that's a good example of how Paizo still has plenty up its sleeve. They are the rules for the characters literally slowly becoming demigods, but there's few numerical bonuses and whatnot - it's almost all stuff that's full of flavor and unique abilities.
Marc Radle wrote:
I spent 20 minutes Googling stuff to get it right. I knew if I heard it I'd know what it was.
Panache is definitely correct.
Jason did announce the Arcanist at DragonCon. It was summed up upthread correctly: a mage with a spellbook that can change his spell slots every day, at the cost of spells per day. Someone asked if it was Int or Cha - Jason wasn't sure yet.
The swashbuckler will have something like grit, but I think he said it was called pizzazz. It started with a "p."
He did explain that each class will have their own Spellstrike. Some sort of blend of the abilities of the two base classes that hasn't been seen elsewhere in core Pathfinder.
He also said that this book is more for experienced players. There's enough classes out there with simple and straightforward mechanics, so Paizo is "taking off the kid gloves," as Jason said, and really going for some cool abilities, if more complicated. I believe I'll be following his advice and keeping it restricted from new players, at least until they get down the base game.
It was also noted that there will be at least one archetype and feats for every class to date, both of which may be aimed at introducing some of the new mechanics to the older classes. There will be multiple archetypes and feats for the new classes.
I'm in the process of setting up to GM a campaign, and I've spoken with a few of my players, and we've decided to run an E6 campaign. Now, I've already created the story and the setting, and it's fit to E6, but as far as actual implementation, I've got no prior experience on this part. I've been reading about E6 for a few days now, but it can't hurt to ask.
I've been here. Do these feats look about right to you guys? Is there another place? Maybe a guide to E6? What can I expect? Any advice at all?
The very idea of a crit-based character should let your player know that he won't be shining every moment. You don't run full crit to be super effective all the time, you run full crit when you want to really shine during that quarter of play when it works.
EDIT: And to actually answer your question, I would not allow it in my games.
To the OP: Usually feats and the like require odd points in stats, specifically for the reason you specified. They have been made useful, but it's much less apparent than all of the bonuses that come with getting that next even ability point.
I personally dislike either resorting to magic items or waiting until 8th level to receive a bonus to a main stat if I start with even, or waiting from after 4th until 12th if I start with an odd.
I'm also not a big fan of the Big Six play style, but I almost always end up in it, because it's pretty hard to deny that it's the strongest way to play the game.
Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
Agreed this would be way to complicated. your best bet is to find a nice magical trinket that boosts your odd stat by one thus benefiting by the odd stat and remember when you are con drained by 1 that 15 con is stopping you from loosing hit points
There isn't an item that increases any ability score by one. Even if there were, it wouldn't do anything per Pathfinder rules. That situation and the one you described about losing con are defined in their own respective places on this page.
Ability Score Bonuses wrote:
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Ability Score Damage wrote:
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score.
Basically, a +1 doesn't do anything. It's not until it becomes a +2 that any effect is had.
The reasoning for this is that if a magic spell or poison or whatever is meant to take a certain toll on character. If the math is done straight, in the way you described, then roughly half of the population of the world wouldn't be affected in the same way as the other half when referring to an odd bonus or penalty. By only applying a change after every two bonus points or two penalty points, everyone sees the same change after the effect is applied.
I like this thread, I think it offers a lot more than most threads, but sometimes when I read about balance on these forums, all I can picture is a bunch of mathematicians solving equations on a chalkboard and dumping the variables that end up lower.
Who cares what the numbers say about balance? You have a person - a person, who is alive and free thinking and intelligent - who spends his time trying to come up with ways for you guys to have fun together. If you end up with a higher to-hit than you really ought to at that level, he can just change the encounters appropriately. If you end up with a crappy to-hit, he can do the same thing.
But, a'course, a lot of this thread isn't about numbers. It's about class redundancy and narrative power, issues that are much harder to solve than a simple tweak here or there to a stat block.
I've played more wizards than anything else, and I love not having to worry about keeping Knock prepared or on a scroll because we don't have a rogue. I love knowing I can stop preparing a Summon Monster spell or two every day because the new armor the fighter just got is the bee's knees, and he's going to take hits that much better. If my fellow party member can cover something one of my spells do, then I can get another spell to cover something we couldn't have without him. -He- is the one adding versatility to the group, not me! His presence and skill set are the very conditions I require to bring the new component to the group, so without him, there is no new component.
This is not a competitive game. This is a team game. The party works together. My toolkit is also my party's toolkit. Just as if we were to find a locked door, the party would look at the rogue to pick it, I have no problems with the party looking at the wizard to change the story's direction with a spell. Remember, though, the party is a subset of the full team. The full team includes the GM. If the GM doesn't want the wizard bending time and space and circumventing a plot point, the party should respect that. I don't get upset because my thing is swinging a sword, but my buddy's is altering reality, I get happy that I have two things I can rely on.
For PFS: This sort of thing can only be okay if you speak with your fellow players first. It's official play, meaning the characters are recorded and tracked. If you end up getting one of them killed because your character can't pull his own weight, you've cheated them out of time and effort spent on their character. If you let everyone know you've chosen a route that is full of flavor but light on power and inform them that you'll need to lean on them, and they agree, then have at it. However, it's unfair to suddenly bring it on them out of the blue. If they don't want to play with it, I'd start working on another concept you can get just as attached to, one with a bit more to bring to the table combat wise.
For a home game: Go for it, man. I mean, yeah, let your friends know what you're doing, but if that's what you want to play, then do it. And if no one enjoys playing with you, do a one-on-one thing with your GM. My buddy and I did that, and he played a merchant. It was an entirely different sort of game, with very little combat, but it was heavy on roleplay, which sounds like something you'd like.
I would think if they cared about balance related to two weapon fighting something would be done about two weapon fighting.
Apples and oranges, MrSin.
The rules for standard TWF - that is, a character with exactly two hands that wields one weapon in each hand - are spelled out very clearly. I do not believe there is any debate on how it works, and yes, if you ask the average forum goer, I do not believe there is any debate that it is sub par.
The developers were answering a specific FAQ where the rules were not clear enough to explain the intent (noted by the fact that it was asked enough to become a FAQ in the first place). It was neither the time nor the place to address the weaknesses of standard TWF, and such a fix should be in a very visible and highly noted place, definitely more than FAQ and probably more than errata. I'm thinking PF 2.0. Or maybe 1.5.
Personally, I'm not worried about them fixing it, at least not until a new edition of Pathfinder comes out. The most appealing aspect of this game to me is that anything can happen and everything I know can change and I can do whatever I want. The fact that THF comes out on top of TWF means nothing to me. I have a living, breathing, thinking person sitting across the table who wants to make sure I have fun, the math on the paper be damned.
Balance? You know I see all sorts of ideas on why these rulings are made. A ruling for balance would be errata, a ruling for something that's a clarification is a FAQs(frequently asked question. Hey you asked a lot, here's your answer!) A FAQs should Never! change the rules of a game. Rules also shouldn't restrict things arbitrarily, that's something I can do on my own.
Oh, I agree. And I think this could have been handled better by the design team, in reference to the channel and the transparency (they haven't really given a whole lot of rationale except that it's for balance - though it's hard to blame them for using it, because so many people are hating on them on how they use the FAQ system). That being said, just because the channel used is not the official, primary one for balance changes doesn't make the issue any less about balance or the ruling any less official. And I don't think the ruling was about arbitrarily restricting things - as I said before, I think it was about the developers deciding it was overpowered.
I do wonder why it's easier for a four armed creature to attack with two Longswords, each in one hand, than it is to attack with the exact same two Longswords, but each held with two hands.
The same reason why PCs can only sell items at half cost: because sometimes the fluff and in-game logic must be trumped by rules in order to maintain balance.
The developers have decided that it's overpowered, so they have said that it's not allowed. The same developers constantly encourage house rules so that you can enjoy the game the way you want to.
Whether or not it is actually overpowered is a moot point. The developers are the ones who decide what the canon rules are based on their view of the game, their experiences, and their math. That's what the canon rules are and always will be. If you disagree, use their other suggestion and house rule.
What sort of campaign are you gearing up for?
Are you doing a wilderness and exploration theme? Track encumbrance. Is it entirely or almost entirely urban? Don't worry about it. Is it low magic, where the party will be lucky if they ever get their hands on a Bag of Holding? Track it. Do you expect the party to have a base of operations, to which they constantly return to prepare for the next day's work? Forget it.
It can add an interesting factor to the game, or it can just drag you down. It's very rarely both. If it does one, use it. If not, don't.
Another thing to keep in mind, in addition to what has already been mentioned, is action economy. One enemy, even one that has been literally built to fight the party, has the disadvantage of only having 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 swift action a round. It's easier to bring a threat to the table with multiple enemies.
I would be careful, though, because it sounds like - and forgive me for being so blunt - that you don't have a good grasp on the strength of your party. This is a very important skill to master as a GM, and until you do, it's very possible that encounters will be too easy or too hard. Some players enjoy those sorts of encounters, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be the invincible heroes or enjoying a tough challenge, but regardless, you need to be able to quantify the party's strength so that you can provide the correct level of power in each encounter that you and your players want.
It sounds like they have a solid system mastery. Through some tougher CRs at them. Spend some time reading the stat blocks and think about good strats, just like you did here. Come to the boards if you want. Once you know the sweet spot where they're challenged but not overwhelmed, try to ride it as long as it lasts. If you do this, though, then toss out the experience system. Level them up when the campaign calls for it. Just because they have system mastery, which is an intangible skill that makes for much stronger characters, and are taking things down often that are way stronger than the system expects, they shouldn't fly through the levels.
I played a Wizard 3/Psion 3/Cerebremancer 3 in 3.5e. It was fun - I grabbed what blasting I needed from Psion and had a lot of utility from Wizard. The way boosting works with psionics, you can keep stuff relevant for a bit longer.
It was weaker than straight wizard or even psion would have been, plenty of spell slots and power points, a single needed stat, and lots of spells and powers for options let me always have a plan.
dreiko 21 wrote:
Yeah, I'm the same type of GM. I prefer to run sandbox campaigns with a loosely structured plot, but when it comes to the few times I really need something specific to happen, I can almost always count on my players to screw with my plans.
You could pay them with a fake payment. Copper that's been made to look like gold, gold that disappears after an hour, magic items that lose their magical properties after a day, etc. etc. It'll change a bit of the direction for the campaign, but maybe the patron and his associates set into plan whatever X is used for, so the party doesn't have much choice.
There is always bringing in an third party that knows what X is but is opposed to the patron's group.
Maybe the patron is upfront with the group and explain what X is and why he needs it, hoping to be able to rely on their good hearts.
Maybe X turns out to be an intelligent item and tries to take over a party member and leaves the estate?
I'm running out of ideas. Any of these sound plausible for your campaign?
I personally don't like the idea of a random theft. It seems contrived to me.
"Yeah, so, the day after you secure X at your father's, an opposing noble family happens to raids your family's estate and steals it."
And in the end, you have the underlying issue still sitting there: they don't feel like the reward originally offered is enough for their troubles.
I would work off the patron's side.
Maybe whoever was supposed to steal it breaks into the patron's place and doesn't find X, but he does find a journal or notes or whatever that details that the party won't turn it over without a higher reward. This thief may then try to track down the party, or he may meet with them and offer a higher reward, or he may take the patron captive and ransom him to the party for X.
Also consider the alignment of your player's characters. It doesn't sound like they are Lawful, as they broke the terms of an agreement. They may or may not be Good, either, if the patron is a good person, and they're willing to go back on their promise to him. If the party is mostly Chaotic, Neutral, and/or Evil, then maybe the patron is willing to be as understanding as he may otherwise have been.
Careful, Katz. A lot of people on this forum think that they can look at the statblock of the Tarrasque and say, "Do this, this, and this, and he dies."
If you look at just the numbers, they're right. If you look at what the Tarrasque -is- and consider what it's supposed to be, then as a GM, you should never let it happen so easily. It always comes back, it never dies. That's the point. Hurting it enough for it to go back and sleep is the best people can hope for.
If you decide to build a campaign around it, which I hope you would if your players ever encounter it, then it wouldn't be bad to have a specific way to kill it (or maybe just seal it away), but make sure that you dictate those terms, not a player looking at numbers.
So in the example given by the OP, you can see through it without an issue.
What if you cast an illusion and then were somehow forgot that you did? Maybe you're in a maze, and you have no idea if the wall you're looking at is true, maybe some spell wiped your memory, whatever you like. Would you know it's false because magic just works that way, or would you have to make a saving throw?
For reference: Loremaster (d20pfsrd.com)
Relevant part to question:
At 1st level and every two levels higher than 1st (3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), the loremaster chooses one secret from Table: Loremaster Secrets. His level plus Intelligence modifier determines which secrets he can choose. He can't choose the same secret twice.
There are secrets for with requirements for each number 1-10.
My question is what level is being referenced in the Secret description, the one telling you which ones you can choose? Is it the Loremaster level or the character level?
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for it to be the character level, because the entry requirements include 7 ranks in any two Knowledge skills, which restricts you to entering it no earlier than 8th level. That would mean you have 8 + Int at the time of getting the first secret, and as it is directed towards Int-based spellcasters, it's basically a moot point. If it is character level, then there might as well be no requirement period.
Loremaster level makes more sense to me, but I think any time a level aside from character level is referenced, it's usually noted as such.
The Tarrasque really does not live up to it's hype. It is very possible for single level 13 charaters to defeat it if they go about it smart (I think there was a guide to that somewhere). After it's brought down to 0 all you have to do is keep carving it up and start selling Tarrasque burgers. I think someone made a home brew world where a cities' entire economy was based on the Tarrasque selling it's meat, scale claws and blood.
The stat block for the Tarrasque does not live up to its hype, I'll agree, but the point of the creature is that is just doesn't die. It keeps coming back. It's impossible to put together a stat block for a creature that is supposed to be beatable but not able to be entirely destroyed or sealed. It's the GM's job to make sure that the legend stays true. That's the whole idea.
Fire resistance is the most common resistance in the game, so fireball is weighed appropriately at 3rd level with that in mind. Whether or not changing the damage type to cold warrants a spell level increase is a matter of opinion, really. I personally wouldn't bother, it's not that big of a deal.
Dropping the components almost certainly would. I'd probably use the metamagic feats as a guideline for how much of an increase in level should be applied. Not sure if it'd be direct guideline or not, but a completely component-less spell would be a minimum of 2 levels higher for me.
Best idea, talk to your GM.
The majority of the players want to play and almost always ask with down faces why we aren't playing when I announce we aren't. If none of them cared, I have no problem simply not playing, because I plenty to keep myself busy, but I don't want to brush off those that want to. I just have a gap that would have occurred regardless, so I'm hoping to try to remedy the situation before we would otherwise meet again.
I've thought about the modules, but the thing is, since there's virtually no experienced players, getting the group to move forward has been slow. If they pick up on what they should do, they do very time-wasting stuff to prepare for it, and if they miss the clues, they think they've figured it out, so they prepare for wrong stuff in the same manner anyway.
Part of it might be on me, but I've GM'd for others without that issue, so I believe it's more based on their experience.
I have a game that I started up relatively recently. It was a challenge to approach it, as only one of the five players had played Pathfinder before - and his experience wasn't much by any means (he didn't even know a feat like Weapon Finesse existed) - and only one other person had ever done tabletop stuff, but they're all my friends, and they're all geeky, so I thought it'd be fun. And it was. Was.
We haven't met for a long time, about a month or so, and we won't be able to meet for another couple of weeks because of plans already set. Why we don't meet changes from week to week, but it's usually that there's always one or more people who have decided to not show for one reason or another. The guy giving me the most problems in terms of showing up - as in, has not shown up, ignoring calls and texts - is vital the current story (he's the only dwarf in the party, and they were brought into their first dwarven mountain where they were only welcomed because of him), so it's hard to proceed without him.
At this point, I'm kind of thinking of just scraping this campaign, and coming up with something that fits better to a group that can't be relied on to show in full. This would be a more "gamist" campaign, less story focused, I think, but my other players are getting tired of not being able to play. My thoughts at this moment are some sort of military or guild or otherwise organized structure of people where missions, named whatever is appropriate, occur roughly once a week in real life, so whoever shows can go and I can just modify the numbers on the fly to fit the relative strength of the party. This idea isn't new, I don't believe, but I've never done anything like it.
Has anyone ever tried anything like this? Would it work, are there problems that arise? If not, do you have a possible solution to my situation?
I appreciate any and all advice.
Don't jump down my throat if you disagree, as this is just a passing thought, but what if instead of requiring alignment for those all of those self-set flags, the choice that flag is what direction your alignment drifts? So choosing Outlaw makes you drift towards Chaotic, Champion drifts you towards Good, etc.
I also think alignment drift should only happen if you're logging in OR logged out but also still training.
That is too many +1's, Alku Leon. I don't think we're allowed to do that.
I think that's a great topic for a blog, Mbando.
I don't want to sound like Captain Hindsight, but I've been seeing this most recent blog coming: everything that has been said has given me (and most people, based on the state of these forums) the idea that Lawful Good will be the "highest" alignment, the one that gets the most stuff, and I knew it wouldn't be handed out. You'd have to seriously restrict your options and carefully weigh choices and make decisions based on keeping your alignment. I figured once GW went into some details on the mechanics, people would freak.
I'm not saying I like what they're doing. I'm not saying I don't. Personally, I think there is far, far too much information unavailable - not that it is missing or omitted but actually still abstract at this point in the design process - for me to make judgment calls on any of the systems we've heard about.
What I will say is that if the average PFO fan who posts on these forums is correct on their assumptions about what we do know, there will be two alignments for most roleplay heavy players - the one the game has dictated their character has from the character's actions, and the one that the player sees his character having, based on the concept and most likely previous interpretations of the LvC/GvE system. The two alignments may or may not match up. That'll be a case-by-case thing.
@Vendis, Ryan was talking about killing "characters". Wights aren't characters in this context.
I understand the context. What I'm saying is that I think it's an accurate interpretation of a paladin to chase down evil, even if it is the form of a character.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Paladins are specifically given a way to find evil and a way to crush it. They're better are fighting these creatures with evil literally permeating their essence, sure, but they're still great at fighting all kinds of evil, including characters.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I disagree with this. I think a paladin can be played this way brilliantly. But to refer to my earlier metaphor, I think a paladin should be able to be a sword or a shield or both, if that player wants him to.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I reposted Ryan's completely non-official, just-from-a-random-person's-perspective response, because I want to respond to this thread about it, and not just get my response lost in the other, much larger thread.
Overall, I agree with your post, Ryan, but this part gets me:
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
I think it's perfectly fine for a paladin to seek out evil, leaving the confines of his or her settlement, leaving others to defend it, and vanquish the evil he or she finds.
Are wights who haunt ancient barrows more evil than a human who spends his every waking moment trying to kill innocents? There's a reason Lux Luthor was a bigger bad guy than Solomon Grundy - Luthor has motivation, a passion for being bad. He plans and plots and schemes. Solomon Grundy wanders around and tries kill people he finds. Definitely a menace, but is it fair or accurate to say that one is worthy of being a paladin's foe while the other isn't?
I don't know about bounties and paladins specifically. I'm just referring to the idea that paladins should be a shield instead of a sword. I say they can be one or the other or even both.
I was surprised when the pets were on the list. I had assumed they would be developed right alongside the archetypes that can use them, I had no idea they would be integrated at a different time.
Mounts and fast travel will be much more useful once there's a lot of player settlements with the fast travel upgrades (or at least in a position to purchase and build the upgrade). I don't particularly see a terrible amount of use until that happens, based on what GW has described it as, so I think getting pets ready first just makes more logical sense.
Arcane casters, in general, in my worlds us Draconic for verbal components. This is usually because I've inserted lore to recognize dragons as the source for most of the arcane magic in the world. That doesn't change the check required to know what spell is being cast.
Divine spells are usually in native tongues; a dwarf cleric will speak in Dwarven as he casts a spell, for example. Again, no change to the check required to know the spell.
I have toyed with the idea of giving maybe a +1 or +2 to the Spellcraft if they know the language it's being cast in but never implemented it.
As for command words, I usually gloss over that, same as Buri. I think it could add flavor and fun - if you've read the Eragon books, then you get all excited when you see him say brisingr, because you know someone's about to get messed up - but truth to be told, I feel like this would just fall to the wayside, as most mechanics that can have a lot of flavor built in do if they're used often.
I played in a game that had a 3.5e dragon shaman/barbarian goliath who basically was the older brother to our party's cleric, a female aasimar. The cleric started the campaign very quiet and "nice": she didn't even carry a weapon, only a shield. But any time any baddie was able to hit her, which was a feat in itself since we had a group of like 8 people, the goliath's player would describe the scene from his character's perception (stuff like "As I pull back my greataxe out of the chest cavity of the orc in front of me, blood splattering my already fouled bare arms, I hear the cry of pain from Jule. Spinning around towards the sound, I see the pair of orcs bearing down on her, and my face immediately becomes crimson with fury.") and end with a "I rage." This was got shorter and shorter until finally his response was only ever "I rage." And even that would disappear at times. We only ever played these characters until 4th level, to give you an idea of how long it lasted.
I feel like the command words would be the same. The best use would probably be for particularly dramatic events, but even that could get old.
But hey, not everyone is the same, some people might really get a kick out of it! Give it a shot, see how it goes. I'm just letting you know how a similar situation was for me.
That's very true, but that's only one aspect of getting the game ready for Early Enrollment.
In a common alpha testing phase, it's possible to log in and have a bunch of options greyed out because they could possibly crash the game. Better programming techniques can reduce this chance, but it's almost impossible to eliminate it.
Large scale programs like MMOs are a tangled mess of code, and even with the best designers - and personally, I think GW has a pretty sweet group so far - you will have unforeseen, unavoidable bugs that will need to be worked out. The advantage of using Unity is that in addition to a lot of the base code being written, probably 95-99% of it will be bug-free.
Plus, there's the fact that graphics are better on Unity than they were on the engine GW was looking at previously (BigWorld), though the server side stuff is worse; GW has some veritable experts when it comes to server stuff.
MUDs are MMOs. I'm not sure why you think a MUD isn't a "real MMO."
Graphics are not what define an MMO, it's all about how the game is meant to be played.
I've played MUDs that were PvP based, PvE based, party based, solo based, kingdom based, guild based, and/or story based, in worlds from anime to fantasy to science fiction to modern, with some having as few as 10 players and others having hundreds. MUDs are just as much of the essence of what a MMO is as EVE or WoW or UO or anything else is.
Fulcrum, the Tech Demo that was created with the first Kickstarter was good enough to attain the funding they needed to make the game. This Kickstarter is being used as a way of speeding of development, while making the game better at the same time.
Honestly, I am not even worried about it. I think the Kickstarter will make it. And in the (what I see as unlikely) event it doesn't, we're talking about Lisa freaking Stevens. She's a pro at this stuff; she'll have a contingency plan and then some. I want in the Early Enrollment just as bad as the next guy, but if this Kickstarter doesn't work out, there'll be other chances for us to get in.
Given the nature of what GW has said about negotiations and contracts and whatnot on their middleware, I would probably bet they are definitely using the $1500 version, maybe even bundled with a bunch of assets in Unity's developer store. I'm not sure if they would be able to purchase one version as a company or need to purchase a copy for each developer, but regardless, that cost would be lower than if they instead paid salaries long enough to generate those tools from scratch.
OpinionOrSatire, if you just do NOT want to PvP and refuse to partake in any activity that even might lead to it, it will be possible, but a large portion of the game will be inaccessible. You'll end up sitting in the NPC settlements where new players start and never leaving. There's not a terrible amount of information on what will be available in these settlements, but you can assume that you won't progress very far in anything without being able to get mid and high level training, and you might not see your friends that much, unless they come visit you.
There will be plenty of options to minimize the risk but not entirely eliminate it. If you join the game once there are player settlements, you can find one that doesn't allow it and nest there as a non-adventurer. There is the chance (and possibly inevitability) that the settlement might be attacked by opposing player factions, but aside from that, you should be much, much safer.
A Ninja, if you haven't yourself, then read over the blogs about PvP and how it'll work. Then either show them to him or explain them in simple terms. Also push that it's a sandbox MMO, instead of a theme-park MMO, as that's pretty essential for someone to shake off the "I don't like MMOs" feeling.
It is open world PvP, yes, but it won't be like any other game with open world PvP.
Your friend is entitled to his opinion, but you should try to make sure it's as educated as it can be.
@Vendis I wouldn't call Unity Open source it is more free to try (ie to get all the features you have to pay for the license.
I misspoke, both here and on the Kickstarter's comment page. I know it isn't open source, I have no idea why I wrote that. Probably the excitement in it being done in an engine I'm familiar with and the possibilities that might include.