Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I am preparing to run scenario #13 The Prince of Augustana for PFS Organized Play this week. It will be my first time GMing a PFS event.
I've searched and found a few different threads, but still am not certain exactly what is allowed by the rules for adapting season 0 scenarios.
I've two issues that I would like help on: Spiked Chain and Scarab Swarm.
Spiked Chain
The thugs in this scenario use spiked chains as weapons and the statistic block for the thugs states they have 10' reach.
As I understand it, I'm not allowed to swap the spiked chains out for Guisarme even though the weapon does the same damage and gives trip and reach like the spiked chain in 3.5 had.
Is there any way to reconcile this so that they could use the reach tactics in Pathfinder? If not, do I just explain it is a conversion and run the spiked chain as having reach? Without reach, the tactics as written don't work.
I'm concerned about giving some players the same misunderstanding I had. My first scenario was this one, and it was quite a while later before I discovered that the spiked chain no longer had reach in Pathfinder.
Scarab Swarm
In Pathfinder swarms no longer need to roll in order to attack, they just do the damage. In 3.5 they had to roll the attacks.
The Spider Swarm isn't a problem since by the rules in the guide to organized play I can substitute the one in Bestiary (it is the same CR).
The Scarab Swarm is based on the Locust Swarm which I couldn't find in Bestiary nor the PRD. I found the 3.5 version of Locust Swarm and converted it.
N diminutive vermin (swarm)
Init: +4; Senses: Perception +4, Darkvision 60’
AC 18 (+4 Size +4 Dex), t 18, ff 14
HP 21 (6d8-6)
Saving Throws: Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +2
Immune: Weapon damage
Speed: 10’, fly 30’ (poor)
Melee: +4 / 2d6
Space: 10’; Reach 0 ft
Special Attacks: Distraction DC 12 or nauseated for 1 round
Ability Scores: Str 1, Dex 19, Con 8, Int 0, Wis 10, Cha 2
BAB: +4, CMB -- CMD --
Skills: Fly +6, Perception +4
The question is should I keep it as having to roll an attack (since that is evidently what it did in 3.5) or do I treat it as a Pathfinder swarm and automatically hit?
I know these are both rather minor points, but I would like to hold to the campaign rules best I can.
Thanks!
|
When I ran it, I told the characters that the bandit gang was known for the fact that they practiced an archaic martial art, now lost, that allowed them to use spiked chains as reach weapons.
I told the players that this was a season 0 using 3.5 rules and one encounter more or less forced me to use 3.5 rules since otherwise the tactics made NO sense.
As for the swarm, just use the stats provided but do NIT require an attack roll.
|
Is there any way to reconcile this so that they could use the reach tactics in Pathfinder? If not, do I just explain it is a conversion and run the spiked chain as having reach? Without reach, the tactics as written don't work.
I'm concerned about giving some players the same misunderstanding I had. My first scenario was this one, and it was quite a while later before I discovered that the spiked chain no longer had reach in Pathfinder.
You've got 3 options:
- Use spiked chains according to PFRPG rules (which means you can't follow the tactics in the scenario)- Use a different reach weapon e.g. guisarme (which means you're altering the scenario)
- Give their spiked chains 10' reach (which means you're using house rules)
None of them is perfect, so go with what you think is the best fit for your group. It's probably worth letting them know that it's a season 0 scenario so there is a small amount of adaptation involved to enable it to be used with PFRPG rules, especially if you choose the last option.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
There is a Pathfinder version of the scarab swarm in the first mummy mask AP. Same CR
Excellent!
Other than the attack line, is it any different than what I put in the original post above?
Technically the substitution is only supposed to be with monsters that appear in Bestiary, Beastiary 2, or Beastiary 3. A literal reading would indicate you can't use Beastiary 4 or other resources.
Then again, that section hasn't been updated recently. The faction names are wrong since there are no Sczarni faction PCs any more...they are now part of The Exchange.
|
|
XP 800
N Fine vermin (swarm)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 18, flat-footed 18 (+8 size)
hp 22 (4d8+4)
Fort +5, Ref +1, Will +1
Defensive Abilities swarm traits; Immune mind affecting
effects, weapon damage
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., climb 10 ft., fly 20 ft. (clumsy)
Melee swarm (1d6 plus disease and distraction)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks distraction (DC 13)
STATISTICS
Str 1, Dex 10, Con 13, Int —, Wis 11, Cha 2
Base Atk +3; CMB —; CMD —
Skills Climb +8, Fly +0, Perception +4; Racial
Modifiers +4 Perception
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Disease (Ex) Filth fever: Swarm—injury; save Fort DC 13; onset
1d3 days; frequency 1 day; effect 1d3 Dex damage and
1d3 Con damage; cure 2 consecutive saves.
|
Spiked Chain
The thugs in this scenario use spiked chains as weapons and the statistic block for the thugs states they have 10' reach.As I understand it, I'm not allowed to swap the spiked chains out for Guisarme even though the weapon does the same damage and gives trip and reach like the spiked chain in 3.5 had.
Is there any way to reconcile this so that they could use the reach tactics in Pathfinder? If not, do I just explain it is a conversion and run the spiked chain as having reach? Without reach, the tactics as written don't work.
I'm concerned about giving some players the same misunderstanding I had. My first scenario was this one, and it was quite a while later before I discovered that the spiked chain no longer had reach in Pathfinder.
When I ran this, I simply explained to the PCs that the adventure had been written using the 3.5 rules for Spiked Chain that gave them Reach. And while technically I am supposed to be using the PF rules for Spiked Chain, doing so would change the entire encounter. So if no one objects, these thugs have the feat Previous Rules Version (3.5E Spiked Chain).
No one objected.
|
|
The only "conversion" we are supposed to do is adding CMb/CMD to enemies. When I ran this,I took that to mean the spiked chains were PFRPG spiked chains without reach. This invalidated the tactics, and allowed me the flexibility to use my own. I think rules are more important to preserve than tactics.
|
|
The only "conversion" we are supposed to do is adding CMb/CMD to enemies. When I ran this,I took that to mean the spiked chains were PFRPG spiked chains without reach. This invalidated the tactics, and allowed me the flexibility to use my own. I think rules are more important to preserve than tactics.
Had this been simply a situation of invalidating the tactics, I would agree with you. But in this case it pretty much invalidates the entire encounter because the map pretty much prevents the bad guys from attacking if they don't have reach or ranged weapons.
This is the only encounter I have seen that so keyed the tactics and weapons to the terrain that I felt this was necessary to do this. Anything else, yes, just change tactics.
The only other thing I can think of that was close was an early adventure that had a Ghoul with levels in Barbarian. The stat block in the adventure gave it bonuses while raging, which by the rules wouldn't work, because the bonuses from Rage are morale bonuses and undead are immune to morale effects.
But in both above cases, it is obvious what the author intended. I do not look at it as a choice of preserving tactics over rules. I look at it as a choice of preserving intent over rules.
|
|
On the account of the spiked chain with reach and the raging undead, I would just go with it. Rare occasions where something goes against the rules isn't going to cause the sky to fall, and in at least a couple of season 0's makes some encounters run in a smoother fashion. I know another season 0 where if you don't use the 3.5 monster over the PFRPG version then the entire encounter falls flat. As GM's it's our responsibility to make the decision that will ensure that the players at our tables have a better time. To the OP, as far as this one particular season 0 goes, use whichever spiked chain you think will make for a better encounter.
|
|
The point being, in the absence of a clarification, we follow the rules. Spiked chains don't have reach in Pathfinder. That invalidates tactics and messes with the encounter. If it were to be clarified as an exception, I would have run it that way instead.
Why do you need clarification on something that is painfully obvious? Is there anyone familiar with 3.5 who read that mod that didn't understand the author's intent?
Oddly, I never pictured you as someone who'd put rules over intent.
|
|
Season 0 (Scenarios #1–#28): Season 0 scenarios were written under the 3.5 rules set of the world’s oldest roleplaying game, before the release of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Scenarios are to be run with minimal changes by GMs, limited to adding CMB/CMD scores to NPCs and monsters and using newly combined skills such as Stealth and Perception instead of Move Silently and Spot. If a creature in the scenario also appears in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2, or Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 and maintains the same CR between both rules sets, you may use the Pathfinder RPG stats in place of the 3.5 stats. This is the only substitution allowed in these scenarios.
I would say that this suggests that the only changes to be made are CMD/CMB, and leaving everything else as is. This would suggest that we cannot change the spiked chain from 3.5 to PFRPG. This rule is here to preserve the nature of the nature of the scenario. Sometimes the NPC's benefit from this, like the spiked chain wielding thugs. Other times the NPC's suffer very badly because of this, like clerics with no channeling ability and NPC's that get d4 hit dice.
|
Season 0 (Scenarios #1–#28): Season 0 scenarios were written under the 3.5 rules set of the world’s oldest roleplaying game, before the release of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Scenarios are to be run with minimal changes by GMs, limited to adding CMB/CMD scores to NPCs and monsters and using newly combined skills such as Stealth and Perception instead of Move Silently and Spot. If a creature in the scenario also appears in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2, or Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 and maintains the same CR between both rules sets, you may use the Pathfinder RPG stats in place of the 3.5 stats. This is the only substitution allowed in these scenarios.I would say that this suggests that the only changes to be made are CMD/CMB, and leaving everything else as is. This would suggest that we cannot change the spiked chain from 3.5 to PFRPG. This rule is here to preserve the nature of the nature of the scenario. Sometimes the NPC's benefit from this, like the spiked chain wielding thugs. Other times the NPC's suffer very badly because of this, like clerics with no channeling ability and NPC's that get d4 hit dice.
+1
Indeed, make the minimum changes (as listed) to the characters. This may mean that the characters get abilities they wouldn't normally get in PF (such as a Death Domain cleric with Death Touch), but that's the way it is. Perhaps they'll update the scenarios to use legit PF weapons to match the tactics, but I am not holding my breath.
I recall a moment in a certain scenario that one of my players (who had GM'ed the scenario in season 0) said "What? You are using the 3.5 version of [redacted]?! We're dead!" That was before he realized they had reduced the number of [redacted] from 5 to 2.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I've decided to go with the Spiked Chain using reach. OOC I'll explain this is a 3.5 conversion and IC special martial training. This gives the Spiked Chains the reach required by the tactics, preserves the feel of the encounter, and I believe to be within the rules from the Guide to Organized Play.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've decided to go with the Spiked Chain using reach. OOC I'll explain this is a 3.5 conversion and IC special martial training. This gives the Spiked Chains the reach required by the tactics, preserves the feel of the encounter, and I believe to be within the rules from the Guide to Organized Play.
That's what I did when I ran it.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
This is one of my favorite scenarios... but using the PFRPG rules invalidates the tactics, which were written using 3.5 rules. Prior to the clarification to ONLY calculate CMB/CMD and change nothing else, I armed my version of the Steel Wyverns with Guisarme... giving the Reach and Trip back. Same damage, same effect.
This is one of those conversions I wish Paizo would make. Trying to adhere to the most recent rules without changing the weapon to match takes the challenge right out of this one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to make a change to make an encounter work, make the smallest change possible. In this situation you have 3 options highlighted above. The least obtrusive is changing the chains to guisames. That change doesn't require that you stop the game and have a rules discussion, and maintains the game balance of the encounter. Most players won't know the difference, and GMs who have read/run it before know the situation you are in.
The point of "run as written" is to make sure we're not making insane choices like turning those guys into ogres or making the sewer filled with lava to make it "more fun/challenging/kill-count raising." It is a guideline not a straightjacket. Don't use "run as written" as an excuse to bash organized play (not saying you are, but has come up often before) or as an excuse to not do what is necessary to make the game run and fun. GMs, even under "run as written" are not mindless automatons slave to a script. Be careful about your choices, but don't think you don't have to make choices if you are going to be a PFS GM.
|
|
Why do you need clarification on something that is painfully obvious? Is there anyone familiar with 3.5 who read that mod that didn't understand the author's intent?
Oddly, I never pictured you as someone who'd put rules over intent.
Just for reference, this comment comes off as insulting, just in case you didn't know (although it's painfully obvious to me).
I understand what you mean to say, though: since you assume that all PFS GMs have played 3.5, *and* have a personal relationship with Craig Shackleton and know his mind, and that all PFS GMs should rule the way you would, that there is no need for Paizo to issue a clarification in a situation where following the campaign rules causes a scenario encounter to collapse.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion.
|
|
The only "conversion" we are supposed to do is adding CMb/CMD to enemies. When I ran this,I took that to mean the spiked chains were PFRPG spiked chains without reach. This invalidated the tactics, and allowed me the flexibility to use my own. I think rules are more important to preserve than tactics.
Of course one of the issues with switching to the Pathfinder version of Spiked Chain is that you are changing more about the stat block then just adding CMB/CMD. As the stat block actually calls out that they have a 10ft reach.
So you actually changed more about the stat block then you are suppose to, by the guidelines we have been giving.
In the end though what you did wasn't wrong. It was just a different shade of right then what some others have done. A situation like this is one of those times when we need to look at the guidelines we have been given about changing only what's necessary and use our best judgments as GMs.
Whether it be the change tactics use PF spiked chain, or switch to Guisarme or meteor hammers the main thing to keep in mind is to keep it in line with the expected challenge and to make sure the everyone has fun.
|
|
I do like the meteor hammer comparison, and next time I run this I will probably use the stat block as is but describe the weapon as looking and functioning somewhat like a meteor hammer. That way, PCs aren't surprised when the spiked chains suddenly have reach, which to my mind is a pretty big change, and a nasty surprise.
|
|
Why do you need clarification on something that is painfully obvious? Is there anyone familiar with 3.5 who read that mod that didn't understand the author's intent?
Oddly, I never pictured you as someone who'd put rules over intent.
Just for reference, this comment comes off as insulting, just in case you didn't know (although it's painfully obvious to me).
I understand what you mean to say, though: since you assume that all PFS GMs have played 3.5, *and* have a personal relationship with Craig Shackleton and know his mind, and that all PFS GMs should rule the way you would, that there is no need for Paizo to issue a clarification in a situation where following the campaign rules causes a scenario encounter to collapse.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion.
To be more precise, I am saying that if the GM:
A) Is familiar with the fact that Spiked Chains in 3.5 had Reach
B) Knows that the Year 0 adventures were written for 3.5
C) Took a good look at the map in the encounter
D) Read the creature tactics
E) Has at least a basic knowledge of encounter design
Then it should be obvious the entire encounter was designed around using Reach. You don't need to know the author to be able to deduce that. But I suppose that if you didn't, given the above listed information, then my comments would be insulting. I have a hard time believing most people would not be able to make that deduction, given that information, though.
Regardless, I have no idea why you think my statements are an assertion that all GMs should rule that way. My assertion has only ever been that the way I ruled it was a perfectly acceptable way to rule it and my responses to you have been based on the fact that you appear to disagree that it is an acceptable way to rule it. That, for some reason, even though it was painfully obvious (to me) what the author's intent was, I was wrong in ruling the way I did because I did not have official clarification from Paizo.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Relevant to this discussion is that, yes, 3.5 spiked chains have reach, and I think it's unreasonable to expect PFS GMs in 2015 to know that.
(Likewise, 3.5 clerics of the forces of corruption cannot channel negative energy without a splat book feat. If a newer PFS GM were to give, say, the clerics of Zyphus in "Among the Living" that power, I would think it a reasonable error.)
I see this as a moderately serious problem. If PFS is supposed to be an ambassador for the Pathfinder rulesystem, then I think we're doing a disservice to the game by running encounters that "teach the game wrong".
As a sidebar, should we consider writing a document for the GM's Shared Resources, that spells out how the conventions of Season 0 run against PFS expectations?
|
|
I don't see where anyone was arguing otherwise.Relevant to this discussion is that, yes, 3.5 spiked chains have reach, and I think it's unreasonable to expect PFS GMs in 2015 to know that.
I'm actually going to argue otherwise. Not because I think PFS GM's should know any 3.5 rules, but because it is stated in their stat block that the guys have a reach of 10.
Their tactics even bring attention to this fact by stating they "[use] reach to attack the PCs."
The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play states, "scenarios are to be run with minimal changes by GMs, limited to adding CMB/CMD scores to NPCs and monsters and using newly combined skills..." The way I interpret this, is that you play with those NPCs as having reach with spiked chains. If you take away the reach for the NPCs you are changing the scenario, which is contrary to the guidelines. (and no, you can't just throw your arms up into the air and claim that "you're just following PFRPG rules." You are making a change to the scenario.)
|
Looks like the tier 4-5 stat block doesn't list space/reach, though tier 1-2 does. And the tactics for both are the same, "[they use] reach to attack the PCs".
It could use a cleanup, but as long as one of them lists reach, it's probably less serious than it appears. If it didn't mention it at all, I'd completely agree with Chris (and he may have missed it as well?).
|
|
The way I interpret this, is that you play with those NPCs as having reach with spiked chains. If you take away the reach for the NPCs you are changing the scenario, which is contrary to the guidelines.
I agree with you that the guide's intention is that scenarios are run as intended. However, I think it would be wiser to choose a legal weapon that matches the scenario's tactics, rather than give the NPCs weapons with rules that are not found in any Pathfinder rulebook. So whatever reach weapon they could use that would have similar damage and other properties would be my preference.
|
|
The way I interpret this, is that you play with those NPCs as having reach with spiked chains. If you take away the reach for the NPCs you are changing the scenario, which is contrary to the guidelines.I agree with you that the guide's intention is that scenarios are run as intended. However, I think it would be wiser to choose a legal weapon that matches the scenario's tactics, rather than give the NPCs weapons with rules that are not found in any Pathfinder rulebook. So whatever reach weapon they could use that would have similar damage and other properties would be my preference.
Seriously, the best option is to stay with what is written, but explain to your players that the NPCs use some legacy material, so some things they do can no longer be duplicated in Pathfinder in the same fashion.