I watched this video when I saw it on Google+ (with the sound down, however). I am somewhat amazed at how completely different our painting styles are, and I'm sure if you find 10 miniature figure painters you'll find 8-9 different ways of doing the same thing.
I guess I learned something after all!
I have a question, though. Since my sound was off, you may have said but I missed it, but how did you base the minis? Thanks!
Had I known this, I would NOT have made my PFS character use a battleaxe, nor taken the Weapon Focus: Battleaxe feat. It is basically punishing players for choosing flavor over crunch, for taking an axe instead of a sword because it "looks more like something a viking would carry".
Now, at least for organized play, any metal headed-wooden hafted weapon is out of the gate a sub-optimal weapon choice, for ANY special material, and their use will drop like a stone. Less diversity, blech.
I built a ton of cardstock buildings and used a modular pre-painted river, some bridges, several flip-mats, cardstock streets, walls and gate, modular wargaming hills, etc etc and built a 1"=10' (-ish) model of the town, just the main streets and the major buildings. It took up several folding tables, but we rented a cabin for the weekend for this anyway. Almost all of the party converged on the main gate/cathedral, and were out of position for the main attack. The wizard tried to teleport them closer to the action, but ended up misjumping to the swampy area on the other side of the river. They were able to stop all of the giants except the ones hitting the manor houses and the ones on the south end, which let the giants flee with about a dozen unnamed NPCs and half that named (Ameko, Mayor Deverin, the paladin brewer, etc). They drove Longtooth off (barely) and then had a merry chase across the land to Jorgenfist for a rescue mission-style next chapter.
I used this setting as my default 3rd ed campaign for many many years, and my players still would like to return to it someday. Scarred Lands were all over the place in terms of rule design, however. Some material was pure rubbish (getting into a PrC after 3rd level, and essentially getting multiple quickened spells out of the deal), but some of it was prescient (sorcerer bloodlines actually conferring powers and abilities, anyone?).
I told my group about this announcement, and they were all cautiously optimistic, but 100% of that caution was contingent on the rules used. Pathfinder or bust essentially. They have no desire to learn a new system, especially to play in a campaign where they had previously understood the system. I might get some of the new books for reading material, but if I run it, it'll be for Pathfinder or not at all.
In that case Knights vs Dragons is the next logical step. I think Lastwall (The orcs are using dragons as weapons, or the dragons are using the orcs as an army), Taldor (an empire in decline seeks a return to glory, by questing for the end of dragonkind) or Mendev/Worldwound (Demons and Dragons!) or Brevoy (return of the red tyrant)
Instead of a fractured Taldor instigating a grand crusade to wage genocide vs dragon kind, flip it around: they see the success their former vassal state Cheliax is having militarily with their Devil-alliances, so they offer up their vast riches of old to a series of dragonlords. The dragons move in and become essentially regional governors of Taldor and the unified nation of Taldor wages a war of reconquest vs Andoran, Galt, Cheliax, Nidal, etc etc. Or turns their attention to their ancient foes in Qadira. The AP revolves around the growing threat of Taldor resurgent, then all out war across the inner sea to stop the dragons when they inevitably enslave the native Taldans and move to conquer all the lands around the Inner Sea.
I find it ironic that you start a sentence with "To be clear", then rattle off a tongue twister about clear clarifications of clarifications that isn't in the least bit.... well, clear.
Nevertheless, the very scenario you say is so horrid (revisiting a "clarification") has happened multiple times in the history of PFS, and the walls ain't come tumbling down yet. I realize you are the OP and want Weapon Cords banned. But I disagree, and the counterpoints raised by myself and others seem to me compelling and valid (obviously, I made them). The pro-banning arguement seems overreaching and vicious overkill. I'm sure you and I are destined to disagree about this, but I feel compelled to have the opposing viewpoint expressed loudly and strongly, especially when it will affect my non-gunslinging, non-cheesy characters.
Wait, what? A rules clarification is not the same as creating a new rule from whole cloth, and you disagree?
How is telling a player who sits down at your table "Weapon Cords are banned, you can't play your Four-Barrelled Two-Gun Kid gunslinger any more" any different from telling the same player with the same character "You can't reload guns as a free action with a weapon hanging from your weapon cord anymore"? You think telling someone their whole character concept doesn't work as intended anymore WON'T cause an arguement no matter what the reason? I can see that putting something in the "Additional Resources" section hits more eyeballs than "Go look at this online FAQ", but neither hits as many eyes as one sentence in the Guide to Organized Play.
And all of this is beside the point, it doesn't have to reach a lot of players, just the ones playing two-double barrelled pistol-wielding gunslingers.
It would be as easy as adding a line to the Guide in the section under Gunslingers (where there are already "House Rules" regarding Gunsmithing, the price of ammo, etc) stating "reloading a firearm counts as 'fine manipulation' for the purposes of what cannot be done with a weapon dangling from a weapon cord". There are legitimate uses for weapon cords that would suffer by indiscriminately swinging the ban hammer, when the real problem lies elsewhere.
And like i said i openly and obviously admit i was wrong. But it wasnt for the reasons anyone stated but Umbral. While its true that the lines mean unavaliable till a certian level, that is not stated till you look elsewhere, so giving mean lines means nothing in a rule dispute, which is why it wasnt wrong till Someone pointed out the Ruling for the Ranger/Paladin Class. But i was indeed wrong, but meh dont really care about your opinion, I got my question answered l8r :p
"I wasn't wrong until I was wrong!" wha???
Welcome to the boards. Good luck with getting anyone to take any more of your forum posts seriously in the future with that attitude of yours.
First off, I don't think Weapon Cords should be banned. They made it through two rounds of designer scrutiny and emerged intact and unchanged (AA and UE). If there is a problem with abuse, it's not the cord's fault, it's the combination it's used with's fault.
Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Thirdly, a Weapon Cord does NOT replace a feat (Quick Draw). Not even close, so quit using that arguement in your Cord-Discord arguements.
Fourthly, a Weapon Cord does NOT do the job of a Glove of Storing. The glove keeps an item in an extra-dimentional/non-dimensional space, where not only is it safe from any and all environmental effects, it's also 100% undetectable. What's he got in his glove? A scroll of Breath of Life? A lit torch? A bouquet of roses? Who knows?? Also, accessing the item in a GoS is a free action, not a swift action. You can access it as many times per round you want (assuming you had a reason). You can access it and still have your swift action for the round (Hello Quicken Spell!), which seems to make this a must-have for Magi. It's WAAAAYYYY better than a Weapon Cord, with zero of the drawbacks. There is no comparison.
Fifthly, it's a common sense item that should not be banned because it has multiple legitimate uses that have nothing to do with gunslinger cheese. Both of my main PFS characters have one, because both are weapon/heavy shield casters. Without it, they would be massively penalized, mainly because of the apparant lack of love for the sword'n'board fighting style. No one should ever fear losing their prized magic weapon because they are in a water-themed or airborne adventure either. Disarms aren't the only thing that can make you drop your weapon, and dropping your weapon when on a bridge over a chasm, or while swimming, or flying at high altitudes means a massive wealth dump. "Yeah man, sorry you lost your 18,000+gp blade because you got stunned while swimming in the ocean. Better luck next time I guess."
Finally, instead of just griping, I'll contribute my option toward a solution. The item description clearly states that having a weapon dangling from a cord "might interfere with finer actions". Clarifying this statement to better define "finer actions" A) changes no RAW and B) falls right in line with many of the message board clarifications that already exist. Instead of lobbying to ban the cords, working together to make a list of PFS "finer actions" would be a better use of our efforts.
In my opinion.
"Virtuous" doesn't really fit well with my players' party.....
It's not like having a ton of points makes any difference, it's just a way of leaning for book 5. It doesn't matter if you have 1 point or 1000, the effect is the same if it's the highest among all sins. More of a "default" setting, I guess.
Speaking of which, you might want to sprinkle a few around from the very start, because if your group doesn't do a lot of role play, they might not stand out much as far as assigning them goes. I gave out (in secret, of course) a point based on the players' race and class combos before the first die was rolled. For example, elves got a Pride point, dwarves a Greed point, half-orcs a Wrath point, halflings a Gluttony point, while some classes like rangers (favored enemy = Wrath point), specialist wizards (easy and obvious), some bard builds (Pride, etc). Then during play some tendencies and actions merited more as outlined in the text.
Isn't this from Season 1? As in the very first scenario in the very first Pathfinder Core Rules-using era? Got anything more out of date to use as an example? Better yet, can you go back and see how many wizards in season 1 have spell component pouches listed? How about bards?
It's not as big of a deal as you are making it. And honestly, I can't see why a DM would be ok with a grapple-monkey grappling a caster to prevent casting but HELL NO! DON'T YOU SUNDER MY SPELL COMPONENT POUCH!!! Or Steal it. Or Disarm it. It's a viable tactic from the core rules. It had a bad reputation in 3.X because it did destroy treasure, but Pathfinder changed the sunder rules to ease the blow, and PFS in particular makes it even less of a disadvantage, since you can pay to get your stuff fixed (even if it takes a 30th level caster to do it).
When I played in that one, my friend and I (the dwarven fighter and human cleric) were the stragglers due to the chase. The rest of the party was being beaten soundly by the hounds, and the Mauler was at the door, ready to end the chase and put us all out of our misery. The summoner (who's eidolon was gone) was up, and he had zero offense without his pet. He cast a Grease in desperation and the Mauler spent the next 4-5 rounds rolling around in it, giving the party time to get their act together and deal with the minions before moving on to him. Every round the whole thing could have been lost with a successful reflex save and every round, Mr Brock rolled poorly!
The boon to make gold stars "worth" something doesn't have to be anything more than a title or guild membership, perhaps even a title on the message boards next to a user's name. I was not looking for another "Treasure Map" monitary reward boon. People who want the challenge of playing on "hard mode" also want recognition for doing so. Bragging rights/rank is a nice way of putting a cherry on top of a hard-won accomplishment.
I was pretty sure it was 3 licenses, but an additional license is only $10.
And yeah, totally, I own all of those computers, I just let my friends borrow them. Indefinately. So much so that I made them buy the computers. From retail.
And I'm not worried about the shortcomings of the iPad app, I use HL on my Surface Pro.
If you mostly DM, it's even MORE useful. Get the bestiaries and you can add templates and class levels to the monsters and that makes it well worth the price. I see you mention the NPC Codex. I believe that was a free add-on. Someone mentioned bugs; well yes, it IS a computer program. But it is not a fire-and-forget product. They actively seek input from thier user comunity on features and bug reports, and they fix them!
Not only is it a top-notch character builder, it also is a Godsend during play. Many of the most common buffs and all of the status conditions are a click away, so you don't have to do the math on the fly for when your character is sickened, shaken, Hasted, Blessed and using Power Atack. At higher levels, ye gods what a difference.
And if $30 seems steep, note that that price includes a ton of free content (Adventure Paths, the GMG, the NPC Codex, etc) and two extra licenses, so you can install it on 3 computers for that price and all 3 get the same add-on packs. $10/player? You probably spend more than that on snacks at any given session, and this will be with you way longer than that.
Well, I went digging a bit. Here's what the offical CRB errata Update 1.2 — Release Date: 08/20/10 says:
My fourth printing PDF does not have this language in it, nor does my 5th printing PDF.
The 1st to 6th printing errata says "Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."
So it seems that in 2009, it did stack, then in 2010, it no longer stacked, and now it possibly does. I can't be sure as it's really hard to disprove a negative, and the FAQ has zero to say about it.
Perhaps a FAQ button hit is in order?
Formally stated: Can Intimidate to Demoralize create a greater state of fear if used in conjunction with any other source of fear that produces another state of being shaken or frightened, such as from a spell (Fear, Cause Fear), feat or trait?
Additionally, is the fear state (shaken) created by the spell "Blistering Invective" the same as that caused by a successful use of the Intimidate skill to Demoralize, or is it a spell effect like "Fear"?
At one point, the wording was akin to "Intimidate doesn't stack with anything" but I don't know if that still holds true.
Also, if you are going bard, get Blistering Invective. Lvl 2 spell, intimidate all foes within 30', those that are shaken take 1d10 fire damage and are on fire, taking 1d6/rnd until they put themselves out. Ranged debuff plus a little DoT, not bad.
If you find out, you let me know. They changed the rules on this a few printings of the CRB back, and then changed them again. I had a similar concept (fear-stacking bard) and I have mostly abandoned the concept, but not the character.
His fear sources are/were:
Intimidate (which now no longer contributes to fear stacking, I believe)
These fit my concept at the time. I moved him away from fear stacking and now just into "consistant Intimidate-based debuffing".
I don't see Mr Eshleman's response as snippy. Terse, maybe, but accurate.
My more burning question concerning this item is this: are wands "the same general size and shape" as an arrow? Are metamagic rods "the same general size and shape" as a javelin? Staves are already explicitly called out as fitting in the biggest compartment, sure would make this item more useful for casters if it could hold wands and rods as well as staves.
Or if you have a boon from an earlier scenario as well, have fun explaining to the paladin why a body part of yours also detects as evil. (My druid had to, in Refuge of Time, explain why his, erm, posterior detects as evil. Luckily, he was not forced to show the offending part.)
I don't know what scenario that's in, but I must have it! That way my character would, quite literally, be a Bad-Ass! Paladin-confirmed!
Paladins, as a class, need a home they can feel good about in PFS just as much as the EEE-VILE (sorta) Chelaxians. Andoran, while "good", have had some pretty questionable faction missions. Grand Lodge might be ok, but some classes need some safe choices for factions, and this is one.
Plus, Silver Crusade vs Cheliax would play up well, much better than Andoran vs Cheliax. Likeise, I think Taldor vs Qadira needs to happen, just like Grand vs Shadow Lodges. Every faction needs at least one, perhaps two "opposites", not for pvp, but for good natured rivalries.