Alarox's page

Pax Morbis wrote:

Twenty buttons really isn't that many to have to be able to press. That is on the low side for the majority of games these days. My old World of Warcraft character easily had over forty action slots filled, and I was on the conservative side for an arena player.

It isn't that much to ask that you occasionally have to press down your pinky to hit a modifier key.

It's 20+ the movement keys and targets. We're talking about 30 actually. What you are describing is exactly why i hated WoW and SwtoR. I prefer paired down and more interactive like DDO or GW2. I was hoping PFO copmbat would revolve more around the 6 second decisions than managing 36 abilities.

I noticed you referenced GW2. The system seems like an expanded version of their system IMO. However, either of us could be right. I'll explain:

At one time in PFO we have 12 potentially actively used skills, then 8 more situational ones. 6 of the first 12 are tied to a daily resource pool. Guild Wars 2 had 10 (plus other skills depending on the profession obviously) skills, but they seemed mostly spammable with short cooldowns besides the elite skill or occasional utility. (I recognize you understand all of this, just putting it out there for comparison and emphasis).

If most of the 20 skills are like those spammable ones in Guild Wars 2... then I agree with your point of view. It shouldn't be spammy and the system will be flawed in that respect. However...

It may be more of wishful thinking, but here's how I imagine the skills on a scale from spammy to situational to long-cooldown:
6 (12) weapons skills are spammy
6 (12) implements are somewhere in between spammy and situational
2 items will range from situational to long-cooldown
2 utilities will be situational
2 situationals will range from situational to long-cooldown
2 boot/glove will range from situational to long-cooldown

Conversely Guild Wars 2 was:
5 (10) weapon skills are spammy
1 healing skill was spammy
3 utilities ranged from spammy to long-cooldown (mostly just situational)
1 elite skill was situational to long-cooldown
X profession specific abilities that ranged from spammy to long-cooldown

So, at least to me, this system sounds like Guild Wars 2 except with more situational abilities to mimic a tabletop character and give you the tools to survive in a sandbox MMO.

Then there was the Elementalist and the Engineer which are exceptions. An Elementalist had 25+ abilities, and my Engineer had about 20+ as well (except no real limitations between switching so it was pretty hectic). I don't think PFO would be as spammy as those could be.

In any case, I don't think we'll actually know how it will turn out until the game is further developed. It would be nice to get some developer responses on this particular topic for clarification though.

So I have two weapons (sets of specific combat skills), two implements (sets of specific utility/combat skills), two designated utility skills, two situational emergency abilities, a boot and glove action, and two item slots. I. Am. Excited.

What I love about this kind of system is how the player has freedom to customize and experiment far more than a traditional MMO would allow, while simultaneously allowing the developers to create interesting and balanced abilities. Instead of trying to balance based on a number of individual abilities, you have them all grouped with other specific abilities (like weapons) or in a specific category that all builds will have (situationals).

So for example...

Weapons: Sword/Shield + Bow
Implements: Trophy Charm (so I can hold my own Sword/Shield) + Aristocrat's Warhorn (so I can drop to a support role with a Bow if need be)
Situational: Maybe one for dodging so I can avoid AoEs, and another for temporarily tanking damage to support allies or survive long enough to get to safety
Boot and Glove: Maybe a boot ability to increase my speed (to pair with the prior situational or maybe to quickly drop from Sword/Shield offensive backwards to Bow supportive) and a glove to quickly heal myself or an ally to keep us in the fight
Items: A potion of cure wounds to keep me going, and maybe a wondrous item that temporarily stuns a target to combo with other abilities

Theorycrafting should be lots of fun if such a system is to be implemented, as should PvP.

Things I would like to see/wouldn't mind seeing:

1.) Anything purely cosmetic/flavor
2.) Anything convenience related that doesn't give any real in-game advantage
3.) Exclusive content that is not essential to the game

#1: Lots of people like it, nobody has a problem with it. I could be willing to buy, but usually I MUCH prefer anything I can get in-game as it feels much more rewarding to wear what I've earned, even if visually inferior.
#2: Mostly things that people would situationally think "that would be useful" and buy on impulse for convenience. The only times they're bad for a game is if they are truly significant items or if the game is eventually designed around being a hassle to where these are almost required. There may be times when I would consider buying.
#3: Example would be a hand crafted dungeon with unique looking loot or titles/achievements associated. I would probably pay for these if they were high enough on quality, weren't a rip-off, and weren't deducting from maintaining/improving the core game

Things I wouldn't like to see:

1.) Anything that gives a noticeable in-game advantage or is a necessity for enjoying the game, or takes away from the core game

----------

However, if I'm paying a 15$ subscription I'll expect all of #3.

Alarox wrote:

No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.

When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.

There's a whole lot of sanctioned PvP in PFO that isn't consensual. When some company declares a feud against your company, that's sanctioned. You can fight, run, or log off, but it's going to happen even if you don't agree to it. Same with settlements and war. Same with raiding.

Yeah, "sanctioned" doesn't mean you've agreed to it. It means the game systems have determined there won't be any Reputation or Alignment hits for it.

Oh, in which case nevermind. I don't follow the forums regularly enough to know the exact meaning of the lingo used. It certainly confused me while typing it up, but sometimes the only way to learn is to fail once...

IGNORE EVERYTHING IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS BY ME

I do not necessarily think griefer and equals negative gameplay as defined by GW. There are obviously other non-universal connotations.

I have to admit I have no idea what a griefer is...nor what griefing is. If I cannot give an example of one by description of observable actions only, I do not think it is quantifiable and ambiguous...therefore I will not use the term, even for my own use.

Hence this:

Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".

I'm using the word because reputation is more specifically tied to PvP, and loss of it is tied to the act of griefing, however it may be described. In general I'm using this word in place of that longer and more specific phrase for efficiency and convenience.

Nihimon wrote:

A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?

I think that they will suffer ill effects from choosing to be low rep. People might insist that it won't be an impediment, but until the game starts we don't know that for a fact.

When Dancey points approvingly to the example of an EVE character needing to spend one full month to go the equivalent of -7500 rep to +(?) rep, I tend to think that (a) recovering rep will take a while and (b) there will be reasons - read game mechanisms - that make it worthwhile to not stay low rep.

If I recall correctly, a certain reputation level is a requirement for entry into factions and settlements (should they choose to enforce such a rule). In addition, if someone is going to make a deal/contract with you and you have a low reputation they will deem you untrustworthy and choose someone else. These are the downsides.

Achievements (in this sense) only add to a game by making you believe you're accomplishing something when there is nothing else you would feel proud of accomplishing. Really no point in adding them to a sandbox game like this one where you set your own goals, and they come naturally from interacting with the world and other players.

Themepark MMOs lack almost anything besides, well, themepark content, so this is supplemented by giving you more "things to do" via achievements. There I can see it is justified since an achievement is essentially more themepark content.

The only other use of achievements I've seen has been as a way to gauge what you've accomplished and mark your progress through a story. In Pathfinder Online, just have an in-game journal that automatically records certain events. Or let the player freely write in one.

Knight Magenta wrote:

Another amusing consequence of this faq: If I am concentrating on a spell, and I fire my my gun three times, I can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Then the world explodes.

The FAQ doesn't say something like this is verboten. The FAQ states that if the GM feels doing this is unreasonable, the GM is free to disallow it. Chances are, your GM isn't going to think this is unreasonable.

It really seems like people are (incorrectly) reading the FAQ to be "You can only ever take three free actions ever and if you consider doing more than that you're an evil, cheesy, cheeser-gamer". It doesn't say that. It says free actions can be limited, then provides some guidelines that the PDT generally thinks are applicable. Nothing more than that.

You SHOULD do the REASONABLE thing, right? In every scenario you can ever think of, in this game, in your daily life, from the moment you are born to the moment you die, you SHOULD do the REASONABLE things, right?

If so, then this FAQ is saying you probably SHOULD limit gunslingers to 3 reloads per round. Oh, you don't have to, but we, the developers, the people who make the rules, we think it is REASONABLE to do so.

Remember! You don't have to. You don't have to do the REASONABLE thing. You don't even have to read this! Hell, you don't even have to breathe! It's just the REASONABLE thing to do....

See the point? There's a difference between saying "it's up to your discretion" and "it's up to your discretion, but the reasonable thing to do is X". They are two completely different things.

It's not even really about us, the people on this forum. It's not about the people who have been playing for a while and have a grasp on most of the rules. It's about the new guys coming in and learning the rules for the first time, going to the FAQ when they need clarification, and seeing the DEVELOPERS saying that "a REASONABLE thing to do is X". The new guy is thinking to himself: "What the hell do I know? These guys are the ones writing the rules and I don't want to screw up, I had better listen to what they say since they're actually telling me what the REASONABLE thing to do is."

The developers believe that it is reasonable to limit gunslingers to three reloads. They believe it is reasonable that talking should limit unrelated free actions. They believe it is reasonable to limit a given PC to 5 overall free actions. They believe that it is reasonable that repeated free actions should actually decrease the number of free actions you get (instead of focusing on one thing increasing efficiency, it lowers it?).

THAT is the problem with the FAQ. Not that they outright made a change to the rules. Instead they changed what amounts to "RAI". Yes, it is still up to DM discretion. But when push comes to shove, you go check the rules as written and rules as intended. Rules as written? Unlimited free actions at DM's discretion. Rules as intended as of this FAQ? Unlimited free actions at DM's discretion, but 5 is the reasonable limit, gunslingers should reasonably get 3 reloads max, and it is reasonable to make talking inhibit unrelated free actions.

If she's smart and cares about learning how to play, then let her play whatever she wants to since she'll be interested enough to learn. Just lay them out in categories or with brief descriptions and let her ask questions until she figures out which one.

Don't let the pendulum swing the whole way back. Paizo isn't incompetent or perfect. Brown nosing is just as bad as treating every small incident as a catastrophe. Not saying you're wrong, but pretty much every forum run by an organization I've ever seen does the same thing. With every incident involving backlash, there is an immediate swing in the opposite direction. Neither of which is entirely objective.

It is GOOD to have disagreement and backlash over things, and it is good to have people to defend paizo. The most reasonable decisions are usually somewhere in the middle, so its good to have both.

My favorite one:

We were looking for the helm to an ancient set of magical armor (for overarching story purposes) and found it sitting at the centerpiece to a large and popular museum. We needed that helm, so we went to the front desk asking to meet with the curator of the museum. We (Myself the CG Summoner, a NG Human Rogue, and a NG Catfolk Ninja) proceeded to enter his office at the arranged time to negotiate for the helm. It wasn't going very well. While the ninja and rogue continued to
reason with him, my chaoticness kicked in and sent the entire dungeon spirialing into something even the GM didn't anticipate.

I moved out of the office and shuffled into the crowd that surrounded the helm, which itself was surrounded by a few guards. I summoned my monster eidolon and panic ensued. In the chaos I threw my (returning) earthbreaker and shattered the glass case and attempted to use Mage Hand. It didn't work. The guards rushed at my eidolon but he was already at the helm. When he tried to grab it, a weakened form of the Binding spell activated and trapped him in magic constraints. I immediately desummoned him and ran out of the museum and out of the city.

Afterward when we were all at the airship (Did I mention we had an airship? We had an airship.) and the Ninja and Rogue were pissed, I had another great idea to make up for the first. Let's tie me up and bring me to the curator as if my "friends" turning me in for being a chaotic moron and them playing the "lawful good" guys. We roughed me up good, wrapped me in a few "bloodied" bandages, "bound" my arms, and took me back to the museum.

Once in the curator's office we were unable to begin our plan before they sent someone to inform the authorities of my capture. We had to act quick, so with readied actions we bullrushed him into the wall, knocked him unconscious, and tied him up with the bandages I was previously wearing. The Ninja used his Hat of Disguise to play the role of the curator as he toured the rogue as repayment for my capture. He (the ninja in disguise as the curator) told the secretary that the ninja had stayed behind to make sure I couldn't escape.

They proceeded to approach the Helm which was now under close guard. He tried (mostly convincingly) to get access to the helm in a private room. As it turns out, the "real" helm was kept underground and the curator was the only one with the key.

Meanwhile, the authorities arrived and tried to enter the curator's office office to arrest me. I grabbed the curator and jumped through the window into the streets below. My summoner is now a wanted man being chased by the militia who is carrying an unconscious hostage as he runs down the streets playing it cool by screaming "this man needs a doctor!". (He was tied up with my "bloodied" bandages.)

The rogue and ninja then went back to his office to get the key he "forgot in his other coat". When they returned the summoner and the curator are gone, the window is broken, but by chance the key was still in his office. They quickly returned to the guards and asked them to guard the door while they descended below to the storage room. Once down there, they found themselves in a large room with rows and rows of stacked shelves full of artifacts. To make matters worse, there were numerous traps spread around that made it impossible to navigate for anyone who didn't know their location. Impossible for anyone but a Ninja and Rogue.

They climbed the nearest shelves and began to long jump from one shelf to another, barely avoiding the fall into hidden traps. They reached the back wall where a large statue stood, donning the Helm of our quest.

The Ninja jumps onto it and the DM says "roll initiative". The "statue" then proceeded to grab the ninja and slam him into the wall, into another 15 foot fall which he somehow landed. Seven lives left. They took turns full-round sneak attacking him until he collapsed. The Rogue then put the helm into his Bag of Holding.

Meanwhile, I was sneaking from alley to alley trying to get out of the city and to the airship. I was making good progress until one of the authorities approached me. I somehow passed the bluff check and the soldier quickly rushed the curator to the hospital.

The rogue and ninja then headed back passed all the traps and up the stairs into the main hall. They were in the clear until they reached the main lobby. Outside the doors stood over a dozen militia and one very angry looking curator. They bolted towards the curator's office and had no choice but jump right out the window. Luckily for them, I passed my intelligence check and I was waiting up above piloting the airship, and had dropped ropes off the sides in preperation. They somehow passed their checks to grab the ropes and we, quite literally, flew off into the sunset.

And that was supposed to be a quick 30 minute session where we go in, use diplomacy, and get the helm.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its really your charge, because despite how the rules can be read you're the important one the horse is just a means of transportation.

Agreed. It's like saying a weapon is the attacker, not the person, because it is the weapon that makes contact with the target.

The rules don't care about who is subjectively important. What about if the mount is the important one? Then is it suddenly their charge and not the rider's charge?

Moreover, why is your mount considered charging when you DON'T have reach, but is suddenly no longer charging when you DO have reach?

A charge is a charge.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."

You're both charging.

AC: 31 (10 Armor, 8 Nat, 3 Dex)
CMB: +21 (+29 if grappling)
CMD: 34

Feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Grapple
Greater Grapple
Power Attack
TBD

Evolutions:
Claws x2
Large
Grab (Claws)
Rake
Mount
Flight
Energy Attacks
Pounce
Natural Armor x2
*Skilled (Aspect)

Attacks:
Strength: 28 (+9)
BAB: +11
Size: -1

Bite +19 (1d8+9) 4 Claws +19 (2d6+9)

Except, the actual damage with Energy Attacks, Grab, Rake, and Power Attack is:
Bite +16 (1d8+1d6+9+6) 4 Claws +16 (2d6+9+6) 8 Rakes (2d6+9+6)

For a combined total of 1d8+25d6+195. Average: 287

The Eidolon will generally be flying and using the Charge action with Ride by Attack. Basically swooping down, full attack, repeat.

The Summoner will be using Evolution Surge to make sure Energy Attacks won't be resisted by changing between Cold/Fire/Electricity/Acid

If the party encounters a Large/Huge creature then I'll cast Enlarge Person and have the Eidolon grapple it continuously

-----------

The Summoner will be using a lance with Spirited Charge, Power Attack, and high strength when more damage is needed, or just casting and using Ride checks in place of the Eidolon's saves or AC.

The Summoner's Ride will be +28 (14 ranks, 1 dex, 5 enhancement, 8 Skilled), so that's pretty much a guaranteed save and, on average, +10 to the Eidolon's AC for two hits per round.

Thoughts? I really don't know how this matches up at lv 14 but it seems pretty good. I'm concerned it might be too strong and overshadow the other players (Oracle, Ninja, Rogue).

Mounted Combat/Trick Riding
Indomitable Mount
Ride-By Attack

blahpers wrote:

Odraude wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Please?

Clearly the goal of the FAQ was not to rewrite full attack combat rules for every ranged attack option.

Geez, there are half a dozen threads already with hundreds of posts all about how the new FAQ totally breaks the game.

That was not the intent and it should be clear to everyone that was not the intent.

Considering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.

Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?

*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*

I was going to throw a whole flurry of tomatoes at you, but I could only draw three of them from my Basket o' Rotten Fruit per round. :P

Actually, you just used your free action to speak out of turn so you should only have two tomatoes.

These rules are contradictory in the sense that, for RAI to work, RAW would have to allow exceptions. The problem is that the functionality of the rules changes the moment you're mounted.

Why? Because the rules are affecting three different "things" at the same time. You, your mount, and the thing that is created when you and your mount are together.

The Charge in question belongs to all three "things" which creates the conflict. The easiest way to solve this problem is to break down the charge into the three "things".

You:
You have to move up to the closest space you can attack. This being one space away. For you, this IS the end of your charge, therefore you get the bonus and penalty from the charge.

Mount:
It has to move up to the closest space it can attack. Your charge is over, its charge is still going. It ends up adjacent to the enemy and can attack if able.

Two-Headed Monster:
This thing needs to move up to the closes space it can attack. It has TWO requirements for it (here arises the conflict). First, it needs to end up one space away. That half of it can then get its attack since that half of it is at the end of the charge. Next, the other half of it still needs to move to finish the charge. To complete the charge, this half needs to move up adjacent to the foe. Once that charge is complete, the Two-Headed monster's is complete.

-----------

That's how I look at it. The rules affect you, your mount, and the thing created from your fusion separately. If you "pause" one space away and attack, and your mount stops and attacks adjacently, then the requirements for the charge of all three entities are fulfilled.

The main problem is how the rules treat you as, "You" and as "The combination of you and your mount" and sometimes just "your mount".

So whose charge is it really?

"If your mount charges, you also take..."

"When you are mounted and use the charge action..."

So we're both charging, but he is, but I am. So then why is he exempt from the rules of charging? But he takes the penalties too, but he doesn't get to attack? But then isn't he breaking the rules of the charge?

Hence, treat yourself as two entities as one with two sets of requirements.

The only question I still have is, can you end a charge early? If not, then you actually have to get adjacent to your foe at the end of the charge because your mount needs to complete his.

If this is the case I think the wording of FAQ is extremely poorly written. The FAQ appears to me to target free actions across the board, from speech to firearms. I see nothing in the FAQ that would lead me to believe other ammunition using devices or other attack patterns using repetitive free actions (like thrown weapons) would not be included.

I find this to be an terrible suggestion to how Pathfinder should be played. And if a GM told me he was enforcing this FAQ any where near as written I would decline to play any ranged martial character.

I despise the double barrel gun mechanic and weapon cords but I find this FAQ a disaster in the making even if it is an attempt to fix items I perceive as problems with the game.

I wouldn't play any character with a GM like that. And that's the main problem of the FAQ.

If the intent is to say "GMs have the power to limit free actions when the players abuse them" then you just say it. You don't suggest a ruling that is obviously counter intuitive and unreasonable ON A FAQ. let alone the very act of suggesting it.

Is there anyone here who believes the example given in the FAQ is a reasonable ruling for a GM to make? If not, then why would you be okay with it being on a FAQ where new players will look for clarification on something they don't understand?

Suggesting an unreasonable ruling that, if accepted by a GM, completely destroys certain classes is not a good idea. On a FAQ it is even worse. Frequently Asked Questions. In other words, people who don't understand, who want to understand, come here to absorb the information so they can understand. And if you give examples or suggestions that are faulty, you spread them.

That is why the FAQ is screwed up. Nobody is saying GM's shouldn't be the final arbitrator on free action spamming. Nobody is saying reminding GM's is a bad idea. But just because you want to do something, it doesn't justify everything else you do in the process. In this case, suggesting a horrible ruling on a FAQ where inexperienced players go.

I look forward to the day when we'll hate all the idiots that get elected, not just half of them.

It's pretty obvious he is CN at the very least.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that alignments are absolute. An Evil character will NEVER do anything good with good intentions, nor will a Good character ever do anything evil with evil intentions.

Kicking a puppy and then giving a homeless man a gold piece doesn't mean you're still good. That's you trying to delude yourself into thinking you're a good person.

You need to explain this about alignments to your player (as nicely as possible):

They are objective and absolute. Choosing G/E or L/C is not just leaning one way. It is you representing that alignment and fully rejecting the opposing alignment. If you are neutral, then you don't dedicate yourself to that philosophy. If you are not neutral, then you are required to act accordingly to your alignment to the best of your abilities, otherwise your alignment needs to change.

"Problem is, we've been playing P&P games for years... we used to have regular games of VTM, and one of my players would run the campaign. His opinion is, he used to have to deal with trouble players so now it's my turn to deal with them. That's not how I see it, nor was I ever a trouble player. I actually enjoy plotlines and roleplaying -- I am the antithesis of a power gamer or a troublemaker PC. "

Sounds more like a people problem. If the people you're playing with simply don't care, then you really can't do anything about it.

Although since you're friends with them and you used to play with them (and you have the one guy who actually cares) you must have some reason to be friends with them. In which case, it's probably lack of understanding.

The guys who were late, are they the kind of people who are usually late? Do they know what it takes to be DM and prepare everything and host?

If they were treating your meeting as just another meeting like "normal" then their actions aren't necessarily saying they don't appreciate what you're doing unless they actually know what you're doing. If they do know and don't care, then they're jerks.

Although, that one guy just sounds like a jerk regardless and I have no idea why you're playing with him unless you can't find a fourth person. "People used to be jerks to me, so it is my right to be a jerk to you".... yeah, okay. Even a child could tell you that's bull.

------------

I say give it one more try and play it cool. If the problem persists then replace the jerks.

Enjoying the defeat of evil? Not evil.
Enjoying the thrill of combat and victory? Not evil.
Enjoying the act of killing because it is killing? Evil.

As said if a racial bonus is contextual to area it could also be a x1 use per day for limited duration? Again that would help limit it's effect but atst be useful? If the effect is that you get more dwarfs in mountain settlements and elves in wooded hex settlements, not a bad result?

You have to be careful. Giving too large a bonus in a particular area is functionally the same as giving too large a negative in another. Pushing a character in a certain direction is limiting no matter how you do it. That's why I think bonuses should be useful just before the point at which they would cause more Dwarf players to be in the mountains or more Elves to be in the forest (for non-RP reasons).

Of course, min-max players will always take a 5% bonus in a particular area and try to make a 5% net increase off of it, but they are the exceptions. I don't think bonuses should make the average player think "I'm a Dwarf, these abilities REALLY want me to play in the mountains. I like the forests but meh, I also like efficiency".

I think racial traits and abilities should exist, but they should be situational enough so that you don't feel obligated or tempted to pick that race just for said bonus. However, I think in their intended situation they should feel like they have an effect.

If I were a Dwarf, I should feel like I have a slight edge due to:

Defensive Training: Dwarves gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.

So maybe +15% chance to dodge against giants? +20%? A flat increase to damage resistance?

Darkvision: Dwarves can see perfectly in the dark up to 60 feet.

Increased perception in areas of low-light vision/smaller penalties to perception in areas of low-light vision?

Hardy: Dwarves gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison

An ability that lasts 10 seconds and reduces poison damage by 20% for the duration?

All of these wouldn't be things that would make you feel as though you need to play as a Dwarf, nor would they feel overpowered in a PvP battle, but they would make you feel like being a Dwarf is more than just a difference in your character model. Your adventuring party is attacked by giants in a deep cave, and their weapons are poisoned. It's a good day to be a Dwarf.

------------

I do think that they shouldn't be preset though. Not all of X race are the same and each race can be diverse. Just like in the tabletop, I think you should have some choice over which traits/feats/abilities you receive because of your race.

There are many aspects of a sandbox being listed, but all of those aspects have to stem from a fundamental definition.

A sandbox game is one where the majority of content is created by the players using the systems put in place by the developers.

(content created by the players as in, the experiences you get from the game are generated by your own actions, or in the case of a multiplayer game, player interactions)

Every sandbox follows that definition, and a real sandbox follows the same principles. If you can think of a sandbox that doesn't, I'll have to rethink this.

An open world game =/= sandbox. An open world game can be a themepark or a sandbox. TES Skyrim is a themepark to its core, but also has an open world. Minecraft is a sandbox to its core, but also has an open world. However, when you play minecraft you make your own fun; when you play Skyrim you experience the content the developers intended for you to see.

Think about what a real sandbox is. You're sitting there surrounded by sand and you have a couple of tools (bucket/shovel/etc.) to make stuff with. The ways to enjoy the sandbox are there, but you yourself have to create that "content".

Compare that to what a real themepark is. Once you step foot in the park, almost every piece of "content" you experience was specifically designed by someone else. Every ride was meant to be enjoyed the way you experienced it. The layout of the park was specifically designed by someone else to be experienced in a way that you did.

In one go you could visit every part of that themepark. The only potential variations would be the order in which you experience the attractions. I think this is the point where a themepark game with an open world is confused with a sandbox game. Being able to experience content in any order is not a sandbox, it's still a themepark. A superior themepark for sure, but the experiences are still predetermined when you being playing.

A sandbox on the other hand: no matter how many times you play in a sandbox, you'll always have something new to do if you choose to do it, with infinite variations based on what you decide to do.

------------

Also: PvP by it's very nature is a sandbox activity since the content is derived from player interaction. A developer can limit that aspect substantially though. Compare Call of Duty to Planetside 2 for example. Or compare World of Warcraft to Dark Age of Camelot. The difference is in how limited the players' tools for interacting are.

------------

Regarding themeparks with options. They give the sandbox feel, but they're not sandboxes. There may be 4 paths to choose from, but if you play the game 4 times you will experience all of them. The 5th time it will feel just as much of a themepark as any other themepark. Molding a story to your choices is great, but it's fundamentally different than creating a genuine story unique from what the developers intended by design.

I'm already boggling at the thought of training up some ranger skills, building skills, trading skills, harvesting skills and more! I think working out what I want my char to be doing mostly and most effectively, some sort of time pie-chart will be the key to finding the play-style needle in the skills haystack!!

Judging by how EVE and other similar games used this type of system, it shouldn't be too hard.

I assume it'll be fairly quick and easy to get your basic skills down for any role you can imagine, but after that there will be more time and resource consuming paths. So it shouldn't be like trying to find a needle in a haystack, more like reading a neatly organized encyclopedia and trying to figure out which section you want to read.

Until you get to combat that is...

If you can take whatever you want from a Rogue, a Fighter, a Cleric, and a Wizard, the only constraints being experience (and therefore time), you'll probably have to dabble in everything to fight the things you want. For a Paladin you might want to equally invest in Fighter, Cleric, and Paladin skills equally.

I'm a fan of the GW2 style. It's twitchy but it's a "slow twitch" and discourages constant circle strafe.

An improvement on that system could be the mixture of 5 Foot Step and Flanking. Tell me what you think of those suggestions.

It would essentially be a gradual battle of positioning with, what you could call, a slow twitch where you take advantage of the situation. That plus the other movement skills they plan to implement.

No twitch-based combat, please.

Nothing against you, but that's a bit of a straw man since that's not what I'm advocating. It's probably just my fault for not being concise.

Define twitch based? If you mean how an FPS is played, then that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about being able to avoid enemy attacks by movement, and having movement as a primary way to engage in combat.

Conceptually its the same as the micromanagement aspect of combat. You see someone using an ability that is strong so you activate a defensive ability or you use an interrupt. You try to refresh your buffs or keep a certain debuff on the enemy. You activate buffs to your damage before you use a strong hit. Things like that.

In the tabletop game, you usually try to use positioning and movement when possible. In most engaging combat systems the same principle is applied.

If an enemy charges up an attack, you don't simply stand there and accept your fate; you activate a block and prepare to counterattack or you get out of the way.

Imagine a tab targeting system, but you can do MORE than just activate abilities to react to opponents. That's what I'm talking about.

This video inspired me to finally make an account and post.

Looks great, and I mean really great. For such an early build, having such smooth animations is a great sign. The overall design is exactly what I hoped this game would look like when I first read up about it.

Truly looks like a whole different world, like I expect a sandbox MMO to look like. I'm impressed.