|
From time to time I come across a stat block that looks wrong. Attack or damage is a little too high or low. Counting in feats, equipment, abilities etc. the numbers are a bit off. Do you use the stat block, or do you try to correct the numbers?
On a similar note, what do you do about two-handing a one handed weapon. The stat blocks are usually set up vanilla without things like power attack built in. I believe it is assumed that an NPC will use power attack if it is available. Would an NPC also two-hand a one handed weapon to take advantage of the bonus damage? Any PC would.
|
Owner - Gator Games & Hobby
|
If a block seems off but only by a little bit I'll usually just roll with it.
If an NPC has a one-handed weapon and nothing in their other hand, I default to them using it two-handed if there's nothing conflicting in their tactics. I do consider that an area with GM wiggle room if you're looking to lighten up on newer players or something though.
|
NPCs will use their abilities to the fullest - so, yes, power attack, two-handing if the other hand is free, etc. If an NPC is supposed to "pull punches", it will say so in the tactics block. Often, this is a way of having a super-powerful foe appear, without just TPKing the group. I've fought a fire oracle who doesn't use their best fire power because it would destroy the PCs; a way-over-APL monster that splits its attacks evenly to avoid killing one player per turn; etc. As a GM, I've also had an NPC bullrush someone when it was the best option, accepting the AO and depending on high AC/HP to complete the maneuver.
You generally don't correct errors, though - an extra +/- 1 here or there isn't a game-breaker.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
There is at least one scenario where a creature that normally has two attacks is reduced to one attack. In cases like that (where they are intentionally reducing the NPC power), you shouldn't two-hand the weapon.
It also depends on level. I would say never do it in tier 1-2.
I have not corrected NPC stat blocks. I assume the stat block as written is what they wanted.
|
|
Very much run it case by case. Often a NPC uses sub-par tactics because a) it reduces the challenge to the intended level and b) it makes narrative sense for one reason or another.
Sometimes mistakes make it into the stat blocks, some of us fix them some of us don't. As GM Lamplighter said, those tend not to be game-breaking. If one looks major check the scenario forum and product discussion, those sometimes have author or editor comments. And lastly, you are the GM. Use your judgement to decide what will give your players the best experience.
Lastly, occasionally the NPCs are built with the rule of cool. They will have abilities stacking that don't normally stack or will apply meta-magic rods to spells that can't benefit from those meta-magic feats. Although these tend to result in very cool encounters, I personally struggle as my inner rules lawyer dies a little every time I cast a selective entangle.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
Play it as it lies.
Yup. You cant correct it. Sometimes it doesnt add up for a reason. Like the minotaur in the confirmation. 'correcting' it has led to dead players.
If it seems particularly off, see if the scenario hasa GM duscussiin thread. Most do and a lot of them even have the author of the scenario chip in. Discussing the problem statblock will give you more insight as to why it is wrong.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, OK, here's the question. You don't have to correct it. Everybody agrees with that. Some people are saying you can't correct it, though, and I don't agree with that.
The Minotaur in Confirmation doesn't have any error in its stat block that I can see. If you remember that it's large, and that the battleaxe is broken, then the stat block is fine as is. "Correcting" it would be making it wrong.
The real problem is that Pathfinder is such a complicated rule set that you need to be really sure that something is wrong before you conclude its wrong. For instance, if you're looking at a fighter, make sure you've include Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Training properly before you conclude that the attack or the damage is too high.
But, if you do it right, I believe it is OK to correct it. When I run in person, I never audit the scenario enough to find the errors, so I never correct it. When I run online, I often build a Roll20 character sheet. When you've put in the BAB and stats and so forth, and things still don't add up, you can go looking for abilities. If the stat block really is in error, I'll use the corrected version. If that's not allowed, then I probably need to rebuild most of my tables... and I need to stop using the character sheet, because errors seem to show up a lot in the stat blocks, making it more painful to use the character sheet than to manually code each attack as a separate macro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean I bought a twenty-one sided dice for nothing?
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
The Minotaur in Confirmation doesn't have any error in its stat block that I can see. If you remember that it's large, and that the battleaxe is broken, then the stat block is fine as is. "Correcting" it would be making it wrong.
Exactly. But people have read the statblock, and assumed battleaxe was a mistake and went for a greataxe, as greataxe is used in the bestiary.
That makes the encounter go from hard to ridiculous.|
|
I tend to play as the stat block is written, even when I observe a mistake. My favorite mistakes are creatures with the advanced template that don't have their HP adjusted. My rationale is that I don't want to deal with any questions of whether I ran the scenario/module as written.
My only variance on this is "the enemy will never do anything if they sit here buffing" tactics, but even that is predicated on the PCs effectively breaking those tactics - i.e. why would the wizard cast Summon Monster if he's currently in melee with 2 PCs?
|
|
Thanks everybody for the input. I'm generally in favor of keeping a stat block "as is" for consistency if nothing else. The only reason I even questioned it, was an NPC for a table I'm prepping appeared to be putting out a bit more damage than expected. If I end up killing a PC I want the numbers to be accurate. But after carefull recalculating, the numbers all added up.
I had a character killed once by a bad guy that used a spell in a way that no PC would ever be allowed. I found it mildly irksome, but one of the other players that got his character killed was so pissed off he quit playing PFS.
So, I like to make sure the numbers are as legit as possible.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Do opponents optimize?"
That's a loaded question. It could mean: "Should I play the opposition optimally as a GM?" And the answer is complicated.
The easy answer would be: "Play them as clever as they should be. Trained militia are going to have good tactics against opponents they've prepared to fight. A bandit gang, less so. A pack of dogs, even less."
But there's another element to it, which is GM metagaming for the players. When you looked over the PC sheets before play, did anything stand out? Do two of the characters have a teamwork feat in common? Did a sorcerer know create pit?
Once you know what to look for, it's not too hard to create situations in the game where a PC can shine. Kyle Baird likes to tell of a situation where a dragon got sick of one fighter, grappled him, and isolated that PC behind her, so she could finish him at her leisure. Which, of course, set up the other PCs to flank the dragon.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The Minotaur in Confirmation doesn't have any error in its stat block that I can see. If you remember that it's large, and that the battleaxe is broken, then the stat block is fine as is. "Correcting" it would be making it wrong.
Exactly. But people have read the statblock, and assumed battleaxe was a mistake and went for a greataxe, as greataxe is used in the bestiary.
That makes the encounter go from hard to ridiculous.
Except it explicitly says in the text that it's great axe got disarmed earlier. So "assuming it was a mistake" means you have not read the adventure.
If they chose to encounter it earlier than they are supposed to, then it still has it's great axe, and the GM is *instructed* to correct it. Several other encounter balancing features are also removed.
The 8 Charisma Rogue/Clerics in Rise of the Runelords with Selective Channel are clearly wrong.
