Zesty Mordant's page

Relevant in bold.

Sharding

Price +2 bonus; Aura moderate conjuration; CL 10th

DESCRIPTION

Restriction: This ability can be placed only on melee or thrown weapons.

The wielder of a sharding weapon can make a special ranged attack with the weapon in place of any melee attack. To do this, the wielder goes through the motion of throwing the weapon without releasing it. The weapon splits off a duplicate of itself that flies as if thrown by the wielder at the intended target. The duplicate gains a range increment of 10 feet for this purpose, but uses the same proficiency and otherwise functions the same as the original weapon. The duplicate vanishes after hitting or missing its target.

Deflection

School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 7; Subdomain defense 7

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a piece of rubber dipped in glue)

EFFECT

Range personal
Targets you
Duration 1 round/level

DESCRIPTION

You surround yourself in a whirling barrier of force that sends any attack that misses you hurling back toward its source.

This applies to any melee or ranged attack directed against you so long as it uses an attack roll to determine whether or not it strikes you. If an attack misses you, the attacker must make a second attack roll against its own Armor Class, using all of the applicable modifiers of the original attack and if it hits, the attacker takes the attack’s damage and suffers all the other consequences of getting struck with that attack. You cannot deflect attacks that miss you for any reason besides a failed attack roll (such as concealment). Similarly, you cannot deflect attacks that actually do strike you but simply fail to do any harm.

Had a disagreement at the table yesterday on how a ‘Sharding Weapon’ would interact with the spell ‘Deflection’.

My take is that you follow the order of operations;

-With a Sharding Weapon, the attacker selects a target and throws a shard at the target.
-The attacker then rolls a d20 to see if it’s a hit or a miss.
-On a hit the shard deals damage to the target and then disappears.
-On a miss the shard disappears before the target’s ‘Deflection’ spell can activate to be turned against attacker.

Their take is;

-The attacker selects a target and throws a shard at the target.
-The attacker then rolls a d20 to see if it’s a hit or a miss.
-On a hit the shard deals damage to the target and then disappears.
-On a miss, the shard arrives at (or near) the target, then Deflection activates and overrides the weapons ability to disappear and forces it to re-target the attacker, forcing the attacker to then make an attack roll against himself.
-Roll d20.
-On a hit the shard deals damage to the attacker and then disappears.
-On a miss the shard arrives at (or near) the attacker and then disappears.

So, which do you fine denizens of the Paizo ‘rules questions’ board think is correct?

I was wondering if there was any kind of update on this project or when we might expect the kickstarter to get going.

Last I read this was targeted as being on the schedule for winter 2017/2018 and here we are at the end of winter 2017/2018 and not a peep.

Really want this product Jason, looking forward to some sort of update on it.

Most of my questions about Warrior Spirit were answered in this awesome thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2urzb?Armed-Bravery-or-Warrior-Spirit#1

However, rather than necro that thread I'll ask here, where it say "his maximum bonus" what bonus is it referring to? I'm assuming it means the Weapon Training Bonus 'maximized', but is that with or without the +1 added to it? Or am I completely off base and it's a different bonus?

Warrior Spirit (Su) The fighter can forge a spiritual bond with a weapon that belongs to the associated weapon group, allowing him to unlock the weapon’s potential. Each day, he designates one such weapon and gains a number of points of spiritual energy equal to 1 + his weapon training bonus. While wielding this weapon, he can spend 1 point of spiritual energy to grant the weapon an enhancement bonus equal to his weapon training bonus. Enhancement bonuses gained by this advanced weapon training option stack with those of the weapon, to a maximum of +5. The fighter can also imbue the weapon with any one weapon special ability with an equivalent enhancement bonus less than or equal to his maximum bonus by reducing the granted enhancement bonus by the amount of the equivalent enhancement bonus. The item must have an enhancement bonus of at least +1 (from the item itself or from warrior spirit) to gain a weapon special ability. In either case, these bonuses last for 1 minute.

Warhammer Online also didn't/doesn't (whatever) allow swimming of any type. I didn't realize that other games included this limitation as well.

Eric, looking at the Lamia Matriarch mini made me wonder if all Pathfinder Battles mini's are going to be Rated 'G' (i.e. no nudity). I ask because with a mini like the Lamia I would almost expect that the breast would be bare or creatively covered with locks of hair in lieu of a bikini top.

It's not a big thing, I was just curious.

I just hope they are all rares and the rarity levels are more differentiated than with Heroes and Monsters.

Agreed.

I'd like to see PC mini's (even the iconics) moved to rare and have other monsters fill in the more common ranks. I have more uncommon "Human Rogue's, Human Ranger's, Elf Wizard's, Half-Elf Cleric's, Dwarf Fighter's, Human Druid's, and Gnome Fighter's" than I want or could ever use and they're completely un-tradable because everyone else has the same problem. Meanwhile, it would have been great to get more than one common Lizardfolk Champion out of a case.

I think I would prefer a white haired Seoni.

Edit: Which would be closer to Wayne's art.

Can anyone tell me what this game Zesty used a screenshot from is:
http://i.imgur.com/cjcSr.jpg?

The Witcher 2: Electric Boogaloo

Rangers and Druids both have animal companions in the tabletop game, so that's something I think we'd look to have eventually in the online game too. Mechanically I have no idea how it gets implemented, or what you could have as a companion.

What about Necromancers?

They would probably look amazing.

If you're willing to send me advance copies, I'd do the mods and I'd be willing to drive up and show you what they looked like in person. =P

http://i.imgur.com/cjcSr.jpg

...jus sayin... that would be awesome....

I can't help but wonder what the Scanderig and Wraith mini's would look like if you drilled up through the base and inserted a high intensity LED.

Any other suggestions?

Two words: Vegemite!

I've brought WizKids attention to the case-cracking thread here, but I honestly don't expect major collation changes between the sets to kick in this rapidly.

Where is that?

I would say I about 95% agree with Ryan here, on why it should not be done....

I see your 95% and raise you 100%.

Ryan, I didn't think you be able to do it but you changed my mind completely.

Archmage_Artus wrote:

Somewhat related - could we have nonlethal duels in "safe" zones to settle disputes?

Highly unlikely.

Why is that?

It doesn't seem "Technically" unobtainable being that most MMO's have Dueling systems. It would be a good RP tool and it would also allow players to train and test their mettle vs their allies before venturing into the wild. Personally, I'd love to see a non-lethal combat system put in place for things like bar brawls as well.

LOL! Newbs! PWN'D!

You will almost certainly be able to train skills on more than one character per account. Doing so almost certainly will not be free.

How do you reconcile that with the F2P accounts?

Okay, I’d like some clarification on this Capstone idea. I’m going to present 4 scenarios as I understand them and hopefully Ryan will respond and let me/us know which are correct.

“Butters”, Butters has severe ADD but LOVES the Pathfinder setting and buys PFO day 1. Butters creates a character and takes a single level of Fighter but then Butters ADD kicks and then switches to the Paladin skill tree in which he then takes a single level in before switching to the Cleric skill tree and takes a single level in it. Over the next 7.5 years Butters switches sporadically between these three classes sometimes taking a few level in one before switching to one of the others and inevitably ending up with 20 levels in each of the three classes listed at the end of this period.
Game time spent: 7.5 years. End Levels: Level 20 Fighter, Level 20 Paladin, Level 20 Cleric. Total Capstones: 0.

“Stan” creates a character and takes a single level of Fighter, he then switches to the Paladin skill tree where he takes a single level in before then switching to Cleric in which he then takes 20 levels in and gains his first Capstone. Then Stan goes back and starts to take skill points in Fighter again and after a little over 5 years of playing PFO makes it to level 20 in Fighter but does not get a Capstone for the Fighter class. Eric then returns to the Paladin skill tree and after a little under 2.5 years reaches level 20 but does not gain in a Capstone for the Palidin class.
Game time spent: 7.5 years. End Levels: Level 20 Fighter, Level 20 Paladin, Level 20 Cleric. Total Capstones: 1.

“Eric” creates a character and takes a single level of Fighter, he then switches to the Paladin skill tree in which he takes 20 levels in and gets his first Capstone. Then Eric goes back and starts to take skill points in Fighter again and after 5 years of playing PFO makes it to level 20 in Fighter but does not get a Capstone for the Fighter class. Eric then starts down the Cleric skill tree and after another 2.5 years reaches level 20 and gain a Capstone for the Cleric class.
Game time spent: 7.5 years. End Levels: Level 20 Fighter, Level 20 Paladin, Level 20 Cleric. Total Capstones: 2.

“Kyle” creates a character and starts with the Fighter skill tree, and after 2.5 years Kyle makes it to level 20 and gets his first Capstone. He then starts down the Paladin skill tree, and after 2.5 years Kyle makes it to level 20 and gets his second Capstone. Finally takes the Paladin skill tree, and after 2.5 years Kyle makes it to level 20 and gets his third Capstone.
Game time spent: 7.5 years. End Levels: Level 20 Fighter, Level 20 Paladin, Level 20 Cleric. Total Capstones: 3.

Ryan, are the above scenarios correct? Which of the four imaginary people are “multi-classing” and which are not?

Zesty Mordant wrote:

cannabination wrote:

Zesty Mordant wrote:

So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

If no one can kick over your sand castle, why build it?

...to express ones creativity? In the context of PFO, I don't believe I would ever build something intentionally so some else could destroy it. That might be the inevitable consequences of building something, like the tide sweeping away a sand castle, but the reason for building something in PFO would be to, more than likely, protect other things.

"If there are no threats to your sand castle, where is the achievement or fun in making it?"

Originally, I was speaking in the context of people build things in Second Life. I'm not an expert on Second Life, I played it for a month to see what the "big deal' was. In second life from what I observed, people built things to express themselves creatively or to earn in game money that could be turned into real world money or to create small role play pocket worlds where like minded people could engage in non-combat RP, some of it on the pervy side.

Zesty Mordant wrote:

So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

If no one can kick over your sand castle, why build it?

...to express ones creativity? In the context of PFO, I don't believe I would ever build something intentionally so some else could destroy it. That might be the inevitable consequences of building something, like the tide sweeping away a sand castle, but the reason for building something in PFO would be to, more than likely, protect other things.

no idea is bad of itself.

Jagga, Scott is being literal-est rather than taking a second to try to decipher your intent. Clearly there are bad ideas, sticking your hand in a garbage disposal while it's running, for example, is a bad idea. I think most of us got your intent, it's just an easy way for Scott to derail the conversation.

Zesty Mordant wrote:

And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.

Really, it's the only true sandbox MMO in my opinion.

Second Life cannot really hold true to being much of a sandbox without any combat. Part of the allure of a true sandbox is that the sandcastles rise and fall via player actions and interactions. Kicking another persons sandcastle over is as much a part of a functional sandbox as all of the intricacies that go into building a sandcastle.

So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.

Really, it's the only true sandbox MMO in my opinion.

I would say varying degree of Riding/Animal Handle...horse would require both too, if you intended to care for your horse.

Agreed and that was what I was trying to imply, however poorly.

If you are taking someone else's horse and you do not intend to care for it, Riding is probably sufficient.

My thought there was to add a bit of a time sink by requiring the animal to be retrained. That way players might want to think about a bit before they gank someone for their mount.

In fact, High level Riding may branch into Riding/Flying...with Flying in turn branching into each of the respective possible flying mounts.

Agreed.

I would not inflict any arbitrary limits on the populations of specific animals or animal ownership. They can see during their slow roll-out how a big a problem it becomes. It maybe the case that they add teleports for the sake of convenience and no one bothers to put enough points in ride to warrant special mount allowances. Likewise, if someone wanted to spend all their time caring for mounts/pets...I have no qualms with them...

I meant more specifically for the exotics which should be in the neighborhood of 10-20% of active accounts dependent on the variety of exotics available.

Would this be a good rough summary of what we've discussed here and what we would find to be acceptable? Feel free to add anything I missed.

-Riding and Animal Handling at skill cap for exotic mounts.
-Finite amount of mounts or exotic mount available in the world. Perhaps based on a percentage of the active accounts and in the case of exotics limited one per account?
-Mounts cannot be de-spawned.
-Mounts Killable but will be re-spawned in the wild over time.
-Mounts Stealable through killing owner, new owner must retrain the mount to ride it.
-Mounts have scalable upkeep vs. its rarity.
-Flying mounts can’t stay in the air indefinitely.

Or kill the owner and retrain your NEW griffin.

Zesty Mordant wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.

As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).

Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.

Of course, it takes no more resources to have a dog in game as it does a griffon; they are both entities in the system. So, there actually only has to be limit to the number of entities on a server, something that would need to be the case anyways...and that could be upgraded as needed once they start making the money (more/better servers could be bought).

But, I agree with your point.

Well, the other problem you'd encounter with that is if there were only 1000 griffins on the server and all of them have riders and you can't find one out in the wild. How do I get a griffin to ride?

KitNyx wrote:

Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.

As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).

Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.

Actually, I guess it would be fine if there were less as long as they were repopulated over time.

Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.

As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).

Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.

Exactly, this is why I argued mounts should not be despawnable...and they must be fed or they leave/die. Feeding a dragon would be expensive. Balance.

The problem with Mounts not being despawnable is that they then become great grief items and they also then tax the server.

GunnerX169 wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

@lungdisc, Your opinions are valued, please keep sharing them. We are all trying to make this endeavor turn out better, some people are just more...certain in their opinions about what will work and not than others. Even if they do not agree with you, just remember there is probably a huge silent majority here reading...that may very well agree with everything you say.

Actually, I'm pretty sure most of what we're seeing is the vocal minority pushing for their sort of wild and crazy views.

This may be true, but we are vocal due to being underserved.

A fair point, but I think the danger in that is that the vocal minority, lacking experience with the things they haven't been served, has things that they think they want without having any clue as to whether they actually want those things and all of the consequences thereof.

First off Scott, let's not forget that you're a vocal minority here as well. That being said, this vocal minority is proposing ideas that they think would bring something to an MMORPG, not necessarily PFO. If the Dev's think it's an interesting idea they may spend some time implementing it into the alpha build where it will be test, adjusted and either approved or rejected. The only way we find out if things work or don't is by trying and testing them. You often come off as "if it's tried and tested" in other MMO's it = good. If it hasn't been in an MMO or you no longer find (like vision limiting night/darkness) in an MMO since the introduction of WoW it = bad.

YOu make it such a time/effort sink that not many will do...but people can if they decide.

Then it becomes the prefect griefer build.

Zesty Mordant wrote:

Do the complication that would arise with Open PvP concern you?

The idea of open PvP concerns me to begin with.

Right, me too. You do know it might add an additional layer of crapiness to Open PvP? I hate to use WoW as an example here but it's not uncommon for a lvl 80 player to swoop down from on high, dismount, one shot a player that's much lower level and mount up and take to the skies again.

Jagga Spikes wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Jagga Spikes wrote:

i'd rather sacrifice flying mounts only for fixed routes and/or special occasions, than let everyone have one.

I'd rather have cool things than not have cool things. Let everyone who puts in the requisite effort (whatever that may be) have the cool things.

when everyone has cool things, do they still stay cool?

Yes.

Do the complication that would arise with Open PvP concern you?

Who cares how rare they're "supposed" to be.

Not sure where I was unclear on this but: I DO.

This is an MMO - if we wanted to make a "realistic" game, you'd be running into bakers and stablehands more often than professional adventurers.

Okay Scott, you've sold me! Let's make it a realistic MMO!

i'd rather sacrifice flying mounts only for fixed routes and/or special occasions, than let everyone have one.

I'd rather sacrifice the cheesy flying taxi service for teleportation at higher levels. Similar to the way it was done Everquest, to certain arcane site or druid circles via wizard or druid spell. No NPC fast travel please!

Define super rare. Just because only one nation on Golarion has a troupe of hippogriff riders doesn't mean no one else ever does it. There's rules to train and raise griffons and hippogriffs for riding...

Grind up your handle animal skill and ride skills and go for it.

It's more than just about having the skills to ride and train an exotic mount. How rare are griffons and hippogriffs in Golaron? Would you just go to Ye Ol' Griffinmart and shell out 1000pp or would you have to capture one yourself? How difficult would that be to do solo? How often would they spawn? How long before exotic becomes common place?

This is going to be a skill based game. Everyone will have the chance to grind the same skills as everyone else.

Likely, there will be two main archtypes in PFO, Crafters and Adventures, with Adventures making up the bulk of the populace. Crafters wont likely have the need, and therefore the desire, level up their "ride exotic mounts" skill sets. Adventures would have to to remain competitive in a PvP environment and therefore that skill set would become mandatory to anyone that couldn't obtain flying through other means, like spells, potions, etc.

...and also what Onishi said.

Sorry, it's hippogriffs, and Korvosa.

What point would there be to classify it's rarity on a global scale?

How closely do you want PFO to reflect the Pathfinder setting? I'd like it to be as close as reasonable personally.

So do we want to classify that as very rare, super rare or ultra rare?

So no Golarion griffon riders, then.

I don't see this happening.

How rare are griffon riders in Golarion?

I hope we can avoid adding flying mounts entirely.

It's almost January... do we have a release date yet?

FACT: Casual gamers are typically older than traditional computer gamers,[2] and more often female,[3] with over 74% of casual gamers being female.(source)

I don't know about you guys but I don't want to play games with a bunch of girls! ....oh wait....

I'd argue that there actually are right and wrong ways to play WoW. The WoW play experience is actually fairly structured. Because of the limitations the leveling process places on your ability to experience certain areas at certain points in your "career," there actually end up being a fairly finite set of paths you can take to progress in the game. Similarly, most quests have very straightforward approaches. Towards the end-game, things do open up a bit, and the world certainly can be seen as more of a sandbox at that point.

Right, I could also argue that there actually is right and wrong ways to play GTA. The GTA play experience is actually fairly structured. Because of the limitations of the advancement process places on your ability to experience certain areas at certain points in your "career", (as a thug) there actually end up being a fairly finite set of paths you can take to progress in the game. Similarly, most quests have very straightforward approaches. Towards the end of the game, things do open up a bit, and the world certainly can be seen as more of a sandbox at that point.

And yet it's considered a sandbox game, even making some top 10 lists. Note that being unable to complete the mission did not prevent you from interacting with the game world. You simply couldn't unlock further mission content. Nothing stopped you from driving around and doing whatever.

It's also important that you be able to approach those objectives from a variety of angles, in a variety of orders, or even ignore those objectives entirely and still find a compelling game world to interact with. And the examples that I mentioned do just that.

In the example I was siting, I could only approach the mission from a single angle (like most, if not all GTA mission), or in a variety orders, and while I suppose yes I could ignore the mission entirely it wouldn't have left a very compelling game world to interact with (It was fairly early in the game). I can only drive around a very limited area of San Andres running over granny's and b!%&# slapping ho's for so long.

In contrast, with WoW if I couldn't complete a quest I could A. Get others in the game to help. B. Work on leveling up so I could complete it myself. C. Drop the quest and move to other quests or do a number of other things.

In comparison I'd say that WoW is more "sandboxy" then GTA under the wikipedia definition.

"The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

A game offering multiple approaches to objectives, and multiple orders in which those objectives can be tackled, and perhaps even the ability to define your own objectives is a sandbox game. The stronger these elements are within the game, the more of a sandbox it is.

GTA 4 is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle and - aside from a main story - the ability to choose the order in which they are tackled. You are also free to interact with the world in an unstructured way (by which I mean outside of the mission or activity framework).

Skyrim is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with a lot of objectives to tackle, all of which are at your leisure and optional, beyond the opening hour or so. You are also free to define your own objectives, because interacting with the game world does not require that you take part in any kind of structured play framework. You certainly can explore the world through the various available quests, but you can also just start walking and exploring whatever you happen to come across.

Is this clear? I think the definition I shared above, along with the two examples I've given, are shared by the gaming community at-large.

Given the above definition, doesn't WoW qualify as a sandbox game? There is no right way to play WoW and users can certainly play it creatively and entertain themselves while doing so.

GTA certainly has sandbox elements but other wise it's a mostly linear game. The last one I played was San Andres, I actually quit playing that one because I was having difficulty completing a mission and eventually got tired of driving my car for 5 minutes to the area where the mission started to try again. There was no way around the mission and I couldn't progress in the game any further until I completed it. Not a hallmark of a sandbox game if you ask me.

To me, Minecraft epitomizes the term "sandbox" at its basest elements.

KitNyx wrote:

Ah, but see...you have not seen the requests for something that requires us to think more? Obviously there are some who feel that is fun.

So you're telling me that you like challenge, because challenge is fun?

So challenge because you like challenge?

So challenge for the sake of challenge?

Do you see where this is going?

You can find it fun. That's great. It's still challenge for its own sake.

You need to balance your level of challenge, because past a certain point it's no longer fun. Where that point is varies from individual to individual. But I think that there are plenty of ways to inject challenge into the game that also make it enjoyable to a wide range of people, rather than making it frustrating to a wide range of people.

There you go painting things in extremes again, nobody said anything about not waiting their "challenge" balanced. No one is looking to have a game than is un-fun for the majority players.

Hi Scott,

Somewhere in the posts above you submitted this link and that link. Would you kindly extract from those links what you feel defines a "Sandbox" game or more specifically a "Sandbox" MMORPG? Feel free to expand upon definition with your own words to help clarify.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

-Zesty

Scott Betts wrote:

...and darkness doesn't have to be pitch black but it's more beneficial to Scott's argument if he uses extremes.

Where did I say that darkness had to be pitch black? Or that a 1-hour-long nighttime was acceptable? Perhaps it's more beneficial to your argument if you paint me as using extremes when I don't?

I don't believe you used those words, but if you're going to pretend that you don't paint things in extremes you don't have to look farther than this post that I'm replying to see that you do.

Even if nighttime is only 1 hour long, if adventuring at night sucks then logging on at the beginning of that hour will suck for a lot of people. There is no good to be had here.

Or two of your posts above that one I'm quoting.

So you either develop a day/night system with no meaningful choice, or you develop a day/night system with nothing but bad choices.

Is there really only two ways to develop a day/night cycle, is there no middle ground?

In the "The Dark of Night" thread, I suggested that we move from the WoW version of night/darkness to a more EQ version. It took three pages of arguing with with you to concede that darkness in EQ wasn't that dark.

Unless you're remembering very different from what I remember, darkness wasn't very dark in Everquest. You could still see just fine.

Yet here we are a few weeks later and you're still trying to portray the idea of a darker than WoW day/night cycle as nothing but bad.

I've stated before that in EQ I played a human monk, the level darkness at night in EQ never stopped me from going anywhere I wanted go, it may have made me more cautious but never did it stop me. Is having to be a little more cautious so inconvenient of an idea to you?