|
There's a LOT of errors in the stat blocks for that scenario. It was a Season 1 release scenario and was probably written for 3.5 then quickly converted to PFS without time for a full vetting.
Once upon a time one of the Campaign Heads said something to the effect of "Don't 'fix' errors, just play them as they are" in regards to stat block errors. It was Mike, Mark, or maybe even Josh Frost, but my searching isn't coming up with the right keyword.
|
Melee +2 greatsword +12 2d6+8
Character has BAB 5
Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Weapon Training 1 and an 18 strength.
That gets us to +13 2d6+11
Note that the sword is listed as +1 in the combat gear section and a +2 sword would be inappropriate wealth for a level 5 fighter (It appears to be a c/p error from the high tier statblock)
So I believe a more accurate correction would be to +12 2d6+10
(One of the dangers with correcting things, is it's very easy to make further mistakes)
(Chronicle sheet also lists greatsword +2 for loot in high tier while this is the low tier stat block)
There are numerous other statblock "errors" in that scenario, including clerics in heavy armor and incorrectly listed DCs on spells.
I'd just run as written here.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
A friend ran that scenario, and he mentioned there are incorrect tactics as well. Enemies are supposed to five-foot-step underwater, but can't since they lack a swim speed.
I can see it being run either way. I've seen scenarios where writers (or other posters) have said, "sorry, this should be the correct statblock," and others, like this, where they suggest leave it as is. If the changes are pretty minor, I could see the difference not mattering a whole lot, but your mileage may vary.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I would say if the scenario discussion thread has writer or leadership commentary with a fix, use the fix. And you can ask for it of course.
But otherwise, use the stats as given, for similarity/fairness reasons. And sometimes the writer's erroneous stats might be more balanced than the correct ones.
Sometimes scenarios have tactics that rely on wrong rules, like human rogues sneak attacking in dim light conditions, or enemies charging into melee across rough terrain. Often, fixing the error would make the scenario toothless. So then I let the error stand but if players ask me about it I admit that the writer messed up. But I'll treat it as "yeah, I guess they have a special ability for that. Maybe they drank a potion of darkvision?"
|
|
This is one of the things I'm digging about Starfinder, where the Challenge Rating determines what the stat block values should be (approximately). Instead of a lot of math which can a)be done wrong or b)vary wildly depending on optimization, Starfinder just says "it doesn't matter how you get there, here's what the value should be."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, I don't do math on scenario stat blocks. I just use them. Unless there is a really egregious error, like a +20 (instead of +2) in a Tier 1-5 scenario, I don't think its worth my time to do the math.
This includes things like stat blocks that do things that technically aren't possible. Well, that stat block breaks the rules, and becomes possible for that stat block only.
|
IIRC, in the older Guides, you were allowed to give creatures a CMD and determine the correct CMB, but otherwise you left them as is.
My biggest annoyance was skill bonuses. I wanted to deconstruct every NPC and give them the appropriate totals.
When you see something is off by a couple numbers, it's probably best for everybody to just leave it.
But I correct current scenarios whenever I see an error.
|
|
IIRC, in the older Guides, you were allowed to give creatures a CMD and determine the correct CMB, but otherwise you left them as is.
My biggest annoyance was skill bonuses. I wanted to deconstruct every NPC and give them the appropriate totals.
When you see something is off by a couple numbers, it's probably best for everybody to just leave it.
But I correct current scenarios whenever I see an error.
Season 0 I certainly made it compatible with the Pathfinder rules.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Yeah, that one's just a case of Season 0 being funky, not one of incorrect stats.
I did notice some stats in several Season 0 or 1 scenarios that were improperly scaled up/down, usually in the party's favour (so the enemies are weaker than they should be) (such as to-hits/saves being too low, feats they don't qualify for or are missing, and so on). I usually try to run the "correct" versions, as those are the ones they are CRed for. I'm not making the enemies stronger than they should be, I'm just giving the players a proper challenge. And if they're too strong, I DEFINITELY run the "correct" versions. When the tactics clash with what they're able to do, I just let them do it, as that's what the author intended (such as an author overseeing a 10-minute casting time for a spell used mid-combat).
