|
A question came up today on the FB group regarding a typo within a particular PS scenario. The typo itself was rather innocuous - a scythe was listed in a stat block of having a crit range and multiplier of '19-20/x2', which is in conflict to the weapon's standard '20/x4'.
A conversation followed in which multiple parties stated (paraphrased): "never ever deviate from the text as written no matter what", with the instruction to use the unmodified typo. The implication is that we, as thinking people, are 'not allowed' to correct obvious mistakes when running scenarios.
While I do agree with the notion of 'run it as written', I tend to think this is a philosophy, and not a religion. What I saw 'written' in this case was a typo, and I do not feel I am wavering from the intent and challenge of the scenario by correcting this typo in game.
Are we really so hand bound that we are unable to correct even the most mundane of mistakes within Pathfinder Scenarios? I just can't imagine that we are. Am I alone on this? Thoughts?
|
|
These are pretty much the types of answers I was hoping for.
I just can't imagine the developers would want the GM's to be mindless, text-following automatons. The rebel in me wants to follow what I think is 'correct', and not what the scenario says (okay, on a scale of being a 'rebel' - this a mighty petty one, but still).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with fixing a typo, as long as (like nosig said) you're actually certain it's a typo.
For instance, did anyone check to make sure the baddy didn't have Improved Critical? Because if he did, then only half of the crit line was a typo. Or was it some kind of special scythe instead of just an ordinary one? Because sometimes there are non-standard things in scenarios (especially with monsters and their abilities).
And whatever you do, make sure you think twice, and then think again, before you change something with a reason of "because if it worked like that, X would happen!"
|
just double check the fact that it is a typo. I have seen a judge rule that a damage on a creatures attack that was listed as Melee bite +4 (1d3–4 plus attach) was clearly a typo, so he corrected it to be Melee bite +4 (1d3+4 plus attach), which turned the Weasel Familiar into a real terror!
To him it made no sense to list the attack damage as 1d3 minus 4, that would mean the creature could never actually do damage right? so it must have been a typo! So he fixed it...
Felt like we were fighting a certain rabbit ... we really needed a Holy Hand Grenade...
I know its off topic.
But for clarification:
1d3-4 would always do 1 nonlethal point of damage. Anytime a modified dice roll for damage would do 0 or less than 0 lethal, you do 1 nonlethal.
On Topic:
I agree with nosig and Jiggy.
|
There have been a lot of threads about run as written, and it's not as hardcore as it seems, in some cases at least.
The rule of thumb is not to change things willy-nilly.
- Check the messageboards
- Don't change what's happening in the scenario unless players purposely deviate and it's not covered in the books
- Avoid changing stat blocks unless you're pretty certain you've found an error like this (don't change it just to "give the players a challenge" because that's a great way to set up unintended consequences).
- Only stray from the tactics if the players put you in a position where they can't (or can't really, at least) be followed anymore, such as when the bad guy has been blinded
|
|
A question came up today on the FB group regarding a typo within a particular PS scenario. The typo itself was rather innocuous - a scythe was listed in a stat block of having a crit range and multiplier of '19-20/x2', which is in conflict to the weapon's standard '20/x4'.A conversation followed in which multiple parties stated (paraphrased): "never ever deviate from the text as written no matter what", with the instruction to use the unmodified typo. The implication is that we, as thinking people, are 'not allowed' to correct obvious mistakes when running scenarios.
While I do agree with the notion of 'run it as written', I tend to think this is a philosophy, and not a religion. What I saw 'written' in this case was a typo, and I do not feel I am wavering from the intent and challenge of the scenario by correcting this typo in game.
Are we really so hand bound that we are unable to correct even the most mundane of mistakes within Pathfinder Scenarios? I just can't imagine that we are. Am I alone on this? Thoughts?
Knowing Gamers, it may be a question of "awareness" as in being able to see clearly in broad daylight vs candle light. Many of our fellow gamers tend to be a bit sleep deprived and perhaps need to be able to "step back and breath". Does a Litch need to breathe? if not then perhaps developing a habit of taking the a restful interval to allow the brain (your brain, not the ones consumed) to recognize an error in wording or statistics would be a good habit to develop?
|
|
A question came up today on the FB group regarding a typo within a particular PS scenario. The typo itself was rather innocuous - a scythe was listed in a stat block of having a crit range and multiplier of '19-20/x2', which is in conflict to the weapon's standard '20/x4'.A conversation followed in which multiple parties stated (paraphrased): "never ever deviate from the text as written no matter what", with the instruction to use the unmodified typo. The implication is that we, as thinking people, are 'not allowed' to correct obvious mistakes when running scenarios.
While I do agree with the notion of 'run it as written', I tend to think this is a philosophy, and not a religion. What I saw 'written' in this case was a typo, and I do not feel I am wavering from the intent and challenge of the scenario by correcting this typo in game.
Are we really so hand bound that we are unable to correct even the most mundane of mistakes within Pathfinder Scenarios? I just can't imagine that we are. Am I alone on this? Thoughts?
The 'run as written' philosophy is best summed up as 'If two players play the same scenario at different tables, they should have basically the same experience (outside of random luck and specific player actions).' When the cleric player walks away from your table and says 'man, it sucks that I got one-shot by that Scythe crit', the fact that the 'same build' cleric from the next table says 'wow, I got crit and it didn't hurt that much' indicates you have done something wrong.
At a guess, I'm going to say that playtesting resulted in too many character deaths due to 'unlucky crits' and the crit stats were therefore nerfed. The 'scythe' description was presumably left in because 'bad guy with a scythe' is just an awesome visual...
Assuming my guess is correct (and yes, that is a huge assumption), using the actual 'scythe' stats would be going against the intent of the author and editors. Even if my assumption is incorrect, you are still creating the potential for your players to have a significantly harder time than players at other tables. Either way, you are breaking the rules.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
At a guess, I'm going to say that playtesting resulted in too many character deaths due to 'unlucky crits' and the crit stats were therefore nerfed. The 'scythe' description was presumably left in because 'bad guy with a scythe' is just an awesome visual...Assuming my guess is correct (and yes, that is a huge assumption), using the actual 'scythe' stats would be going against the intent of the author and editors. Even if my assumption is incorrect,...
Except that when they do this, they generally leave a note in the scenarios along the line of "while X is wielding a scythe, years of neglect (yada, yada, yada.) Otherwise they are courting Table variation, because many GMs will read the stat block, see "Scythe" and miss that they changed the crit range on it.
It is *far* more common that it was playtested with a greatsword, and someone in dev thought a scythe would be cooler image, and changed the text and the damage, but missed updating the crit.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
There's an example of something that people thought was an error in The Confirmation:
The minotaur's axe in the final encounter has been "broken" from 3d6/x3 to 2d6/x2. The Broken condition does no such thing, it just inflicts a -2 to hit and damage.
However, this is supposed to be a fight for level 1 characters, and the variant axe is much less likely to kill newbie PCs in a freak accident.
I suspect you may be talking about
In that case, the discussion thread lists numerous other statblock errors, like a creature with the Staggered trait having "full attack" as a tactic. That scenario has a lot of issues (although it's a cool story). Given how unusually deadly the scenario is, I recommend taking whichever interpretation (scenario or by the book) is kinder.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
** spoiler omitted **
Actually...
It's more than just a -2, it does affect threat range and modifier. Getting it from 3d6 to 2d6 is unique to the scenario however.
If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
|
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
Unfortunately, no.
While there are things we can assume a character has (holy symbol for clerics, spell component pouch for casters, etc), that is about it.
So, if the bad guy gets his only weapon sundered (or disarmed), that's bad news for him. Guess he's going fisticuffs!
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
Can I give my PC one, if I didn't bother to buy it and note it before the game?
Can the judge give me one?
The reason I ask, during a game once, I was dominated and told to attack my friend "with my best weapon". Well, I had to explain to the judge that I actually didn't have one, a weapon that is. I carry two whips, but those are more "tools of my trade",part of my outfit.
Then I remembered that I might have bought a dagger on one of my first level Chronicals... So I started quickly flipping back in my character notes to see if I had said item. I kinda pictured this as my PC pulling everything out of her pack, dumping hampers of clothing and entertainers outfits, "fuzzy love cuffs", etc. frantically searching for the dagger that I might've bought 7 levels ago- and sure enough found it!
So I carefully sold it off at the end of that game.
It would have been very different if the judge could have just said "just use the rapier you have as a backup weapon"...
|
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
This is the best part of the game as a DM. You get to be creative. I had a guy have his two-handed sword sundered, and so I had him beating the PCs with the hilt for 1d4 dmg as an improvised weapon. Smash people with a chair, or whatever you have around you.
I critted a player with a chair once downing him. The guy took an AoO lifting it but it was worth it.
As a DM i have fun when the the players are doing poorly, or tearing my adventure apart!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
No, that would be going against "run as written". It's part of the reason that Sundering is such an effective tactic in PFS. Bad guys tend to carry only a single melee weapon or spell component pouch.
PFS loves oracles though, and those don't need divine focuses, so that's slightly harder.
Actually you'll often see enemies lacking a spell component pouch or holy symbol when they clearly do need one. In that case it's fair to assume they carry a single one.
|
The minotaur in question just happend to pass one of his weapon caches on the way to the battle to substitute his lost weapons. He's crazy prepared.
He's not the villain Kortos needs, but the villain Kortos deserves or something like that.
(Of course I'm making that up, but this is totally how it could've happened!)
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you'll often see enemies lacking a spell component pouch or holy symbol when they clearly do need one. In that case it's fair to assume they carry a single one.
I wonder. Are those enemies lacking secondary weapons and (secondary) component pouches due to their stupidity or due to wordcount.
|
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
I've certainly seen many a GM give the "obvious" backup stuff to NPCs. Wizards get a dagger if they were lipstiched, mages get a backup spell component pouch, etc.
Arguably technically illegal but makes for far more enjoyable games when a single maneuver doesn't completely shut down the BBEG.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you'll often see enemies lacking a spell component pouch or holy symbol when they clearly do need one. In that case it's fair to assume they carry a single one.I wonder. Are those enemies lacking secondary weapons and (secondary) component pouches due to their stupidity or due to wordcount.
Given the number of villains who sit in a basement waiting until the PCs come to kill them, I think it's stupidity.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Can we give the npc, bbeg, etc. a backup weapon if they only have 1 ?
I've certainly seen many a GM give the "obvious" backup stuff to NPCs. Wizards get a dagger if they were lipstiched, mages get a backup spell component pouch, etc.
Arguably technically illegal but makes for far more enjoyable games when a single maneuver doesn't completely shut down the BBEG.
I too occasionally despair of ill-prepared villains that all get taken down by the same tricks. It would really be nicer if you couldn't just spam the same trick every adventure.
But there's a dangerous slippery slope here; if a spell component pouch or a dagger, why not a level 1 scroll with a spell that would've come in really handy?
|
|
But there's a dangerous slippery slope here; if a spell component pouch or a dagger, why not a level 1 scroll with a spell that would've come in really handy?
There is already a slope. Some NPCs don't have the things they absolutely need to have (spell components, arrows, etc). So we ARE expected to use our judgment sometimes.
The criteria I've seen used, at least for NPCs that are supposed to be competent, is "stuff that 95+% of PCs played by experienced players have". Just about EVERY PC has a dagger and backup component pouch and/or holy symbol. Much beyond that is probably pushing it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
But there's a dangerous slippery slope here; if a spell component pouch or a dagger, why not a level 1 scroll with a spell that would've come in really handy?There is already a slope. Some NPCs don't have the things they absolutely need to have (spell components, arrows, etc). So we ARE expected to use our judgment sometimes.
The criteria I've seen used, at least for NPCs that are supposed to be competent, is "stuff that 95+% of PCs played by experienced players have". Just about EVERY PC has a dagger and backup component pouch and/or holy symbol. Much beyond that is probably pushing it.
I would give them the things that they certainly need for their stated tactics - a spellcaster does get the spell component pouch if he's got any spells he needs components for. But I'm not comfortable giving them anything just because "a competent PC would have it". Because that's way too vague.
It [i]is[\i] possible for players to outsmart a PC's build, and it should be. Players really like the feeling they've outsmarted the scenario. (Although it's nicest if they have to come up with new tricks now and then; don't allow the same sucker punch to work every time.)
If you give the GM some vague licence to add additional spell component pouches because the PCs happen to be sunder-happy, you're already sliding down the slippery slope. At that point it's not really a fair game for the players anymore because if you feel they're being the wrong flavour of clever you'll just nullify it by retroactively adding stuff to an NPC's gear. I don't wanna go there.
I do think every NPC should at least get one light backup weapon. Editor, please just add ", dagger" to the gear list. It's just one word. It's worth the trouble.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
shudder Do not remind me of the horror that is raging undead. I just ran a scenario series that contains them. And I still have to play it as well.
I think I know of which one you speak. I felt that was a big weakness in the scenario; the game rules get broken by the scenario and no excuse/lampshading is given to the players why this is allowed this time. So as a player you just go "this is (...)" and that reduces player buy-in to the scenario.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
shudder Do not remind me of the horror that is raging undead. I just ran a scenario series that contains them. And I still have to play it as well.I think I know of which one you speak. I felt that was a big weakness in the scenario; the game rules get broken by the scenario and no excuse/lampshading is given to the players why this is allowed this time. So as a player you just go "this is (...)" and that reduces player buy-in to the scenario.There is now, actually. From the Monster Codex:
Undead Barbarian An undead creature with the ability to enter a rage gains the morale bonuses from rage despite being immune to morale effects. The bonus to Constitution from the rage applies to an undead creature's Charisma instead.
Interesting. That's exactly what the scenario did, years earlier.
It is an intuitive approach, and raging barbarian undead are kinda cool. But I think in that case the undead type's immunity to mind-affecting spells should also be relaxed so that you can for example use Calm Emotions. Otherwise it's rather shamelessly playing both sides.