Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
I'm currently prepping a scenario to run on the weekend, and I've noticed a few mechanical errors with one of the NPC statblocks (attack bonus is one short, and the guy has a feat he doesn't qualify for) - do I just run with it, or should I try and fix it? Is there a spot for collected known errors?
|
This forum contains lots of errors in scenarios. Do a search for the scenario's name and see how others have dealt with it, or bring it up if nobody else discovered it.
If you don't get an answer, run with it if you can, or fix it as best you can - use your best judgement. Prioritise a better player experience.
|
For calculation errors, I would fix them myself. These are easy, and there are no choices to be made which can greatly skew the difficulty. But you can also leave them as is; tell yourself that the guard whose BAB is down by 1 is having an existential crisis ("What am I doing with my life?") and is therefore suffering a –1 penalty to his attack rolls.
For a feat the character does not qualify for, I would just remove it. If you want to be mechanically correct, then replace it with Skill Focus (Profession [candlestick maker]).
The only exception I would make is if it is a feat called out in the tactics. In this case, remind your self that there are many ways in-game that our would-be candlestick maker could have a feat he does not qualify for—maybe he once drank from a strange fountain, maybe he caught a genie who cast wish on him, etc.—so you can leave it as is.
Anything that involves a choice, I would avoid the temptation to make a substitution, even if it would be both a legal and reasonable substitution. One of your players will eventually read the scenario—maybe just because she is going to GM it someday—and you don't want her to say, "Hey, I thought the BBEG was supposed to have prepared disintigrate!" (Even if he had prepared too few spells that day—maybe he had used that disintigrate instead of taking out the garbage from his candlestick making business earlier that day.)
As Avatar said, err on the side of "player fun", but note that not all people agree what leads "player fun".
|
|
I'll tell the players about the errors, beforehand if it isn't a spoiler, or afterward if it could be. "Yeah, he wasn't that high a level, but they gave him 'Heal' anyway." (true example)
I'm about to run a module Sunday that has a couple errors and a good-sized "gray area" due to overlapping environmental/magical effects and I've already told my players I'd be interpreting those to the advantage of the villains and their tactics (without detailing what they were) because they're strong players coming in a level above average.
Or there was one scenario where a wizard had a bonded item and I pulled a spell from his spellbook to use, so I told the players afterward so all was on the up and up should they GM that scenario.
Or if a stat gives one-handed damage (due to Herolab?) for a one-handed weapon that the villain uses two-handed. I'll tell the players later.
Or if they're actions caused the villain to alter their tactics. Ditto.
Be open. We're all adults.
(Maybe. I do have an 11-year old I've GMed a couple times, but he's pretty mature.)
Cheers
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone missing a bonus or penalty is too small an error to bother with. Not having prerequisites for some feats or spells is more problematic, but players are never going to know. Illegal tactics by the rules is more troublesome.
For the most part, if it is something the players will never be able to notice, I just use it as written.