Am I supposed to follow the errors

[Selter Sago de'Morcaine PFS]

I was preparing an old PFS scenario this weekend (specifically Among the Dead).

I believe some of the stats are in error. I went over it several times and I simply can't come up with the numbers they have for a few of the encounters.
One has too high of an attack bonus. One has too low of an attack bonus. Another the CMB is off (I don't remember which way atm).

So this scenario generated the question, but it could apply to others. If there is an error, do I follow the published numbers or do I use what it 'should' be?

[brock, no the other one...]

Always run exactly as written.

[Netopalis]

The errors probably occurred because that scenario was written for 3.5; do not try to fix the statblocks.

[Finlanderboy]

Some scenarios give bonuses for opponents that are not legal

I am looking at you citadel of flame boss...

[Selter Sago de'Morcaine PFS]

Ok, that's what I thought. Not a problem. Just wanted to make sure.

We have a few players at our local who are number crunching wizards. If at the table, they are likely to immediately notice that the X has too high of an attack bonus.

[Ascalaphus]

Well, sometimes bad guys have stupid tactics, as an intentional move by the writer to modify the difficulty of the encounter. Maybe the same happens to stats sometimes?

I'd say that you can run the stats as written if they seem appropriately challenging to your group. If the beancounters complain, tell them that you're running the scenario as written. On the other hand, if the players are trying their best but they're having a hard time due to bad luck or inexperienced players, that's a good moment to correct any "errors" that make the monster more challenging than it legally should be.

If you only correct errors if it's in favor of the players, I don't think anyone should be crying foul.

[claudekennilol]

Ascalaphus wrote:

If you only correct errors if it's in favor of the players, I don't think anyone should be crying foul.

Except for other people that find out that this one table had the stats reduced for them while other tables had to expend more resources to defeat the encounter as written.

[Gwen Smith]

Selter Sago de'Morcaine PFS wrote:

Ok, that's what I thought. Not a problem. Just wanted to make sure.

We have a few players at our local who are number crunching wizards. If at the table, they are likely to immediately notice that the X has too high of an attack bonus.

The main thing I would try to do is minimize distraction from the funky stats. So I might tell the group ahead of time that some of the bad guys stats will sound off, but I've double checked them and we will just have to roll with it. And I'll tell the players that I'll be happy to go over the bad guys with them after the scenario.

Or I might mention it if someone asks, but I would admit that I had issues with the stats and offer to discuss it after the game. I would probably also try to avoid any player deaths from the bad guys with errors, but that's more of a personal preference.

[Arkos]

On the other hand, I'll be running a certain scenario soon where a specific effect is used on creatures who are not legal targets for the effect.

My choices are to either run the scenario as it was intended by author and developers, or to jump in and make changes that weaken an encounter and make it so my players and other players have different experiences with this encounter.

Run as written is there for a reason!

[Finlanderboy]

If the tactics do not work(for example casting a spell on a target that is not able to be effected). I have them cast the spell and then it will not work.

I can think of a few scenarios where this happens.

[Arkos]

Finlanderboy wrote:

If the tactics do not work(for example casting a spell on a target that is not able to be effected). I have them cast the spell and then it will not work.

Since many PFS combats go only a round or two, wasting an entire standard action seems like easy mode for the PCs. Not casting a useless spell seems like a valid option, but it breaks the creature tactics. I'd prefer to go with the written intent, and when players complain about the option, I'll tell them it was Author Fiat, since they wrote it in the first place and clearly wanted it to work that way.

So to the OP, I run as written as I believe it was intended. But when I'm a player, I expect some table variation. Go with your best judgment for the situation.

I'm going to start using RAWAI as an acronym, by the way.

[Muser]

Run as written but look for any excuse to change faulty(recently had a cleric summoning 1d3 hellhounds with the wrong spell) tactics. I try to make it enjoyable for my players rather than run like a robot.

Be careful though, don't make it a resource hog.

[FLite]

Also, check the thread for that scenario. Sometimes it genuinely is a typo / miscalculation and the staff has weighed in with a correction.

[deusvult]

I don't see anything wrong with correcting scenarios written for 3.5.

In fact, there are some scenarios it'd be even MORE egregious to run as written than to 'fix'. What's more badwrong? Fixing stats, or letting spiked chains still have reach?

[Jeff Merola]

deusvult wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with correcting scenarios written for 3.5.

In fact, there are some scenarios it'd be even MORE egregious to run as written than to 'fix'. What's more badwrong? Fixing stats, or letting spiked chains still have reach?

I'd argue fixing stats is, because that encounter was written with reach in mind.

[Selter Sago de'Morcaine PFS]

Will in this case, it was nothing major. Just a difference of 1 point in an attack bonus or will save. Unlikely to make any significant effect. I just wanted to ask.

[Avatar-1]

Been discussed before.

Basically, if there are reasonable fixes for the scenario because something went wrong in development, there's no harm in fixing it.

Yes, another table might play it exactly as written faults included, but it's never going to be 1000% perfect. Better we all try to make it as good as we can for the players.

[Rycaut]

for 3.5 scenarios I had read somewhere (trying to remember where - I think one fo the Guides - though haven't checked the most recent version of the guide) that you can (and perhaps should) use the stats for monsters that are in Pathfinder in favor of the stat blocks from 3.5 (and you can and should always calculate CMB/CMD for the monsters in any case).

Where things get messy is in scenarios that don't have PFS equivalents - or where the PFS monsters are of a different CR than the ones in the 3.5 scenario. There isn't much you can do there other than run the monsters as written but do your best.

Personally I wish Paizo would republish all 3.5 scenarios with full Pathfinder stats (which would be harder for some scenarios than others) as they did for Mists of Mawagi.

Since PFS scenarios are digital products I actually wish they would correct mistakes in scenarios - it might result in some degree of table variation (for folks who played prior to errors being fixed or for DM's who don't check their downloads for updates) but it would also allow for the updates for changes to goals and prestige awards (and in more than a few scenarios correcting the mistakes would address many issues with some scenarios)

[kinevon]

It is in the Guide. Use the 3.5 monsters/stats, with an option to use the PF version, if - and only if - the CR for both monsters is the same.

There is a web site or two with the old 3.5 SRD, unfortunately, I no longer have the links on this PC.

[Muser]

kinevon wrote:

It is in the Guide. Use the 3.5 monsters/stats, with an option to use the PF version, if - and only if - the CR for both monsters is the same.

There is a web site or two with the old 3.5 SRD, unfortunately, I no longer have the links on this PC.

Hypertext d20 SRD