I've gotten conflicting answers from a few threads about whether a GM can or must use the legacy or remastered version of a creature in an adventure.
On the one hand, GMs are prohibited from altering any mechanics presented in the adventure. On the other hand, GMs are also required to use the remastered rules where possible.
So which stat block is the GM supposed to use?
|
We covered this before.
Rules are things like how the Grab ability works, not what the monster stat block says.
Use the existing statblock.
I looked back through the threads you've been posting about this recently and Baarogue is the only person posting otherwise. Despite their insistence, the quote they listed does not support their position.
The only section that tells you to treat reprinted material as errata is in the player options section.
Rules are how things work.
Stat blocks are not "Rules"
Baarogue wasn't even referring to the rule saying to treat the remaster as errata, just this rule:
Players and GMs must use the remastered rules of the game immediately where possible.
And if rules are how things work, wouldn't that mean stat blocks are rules by definition? They define exactly how the monster works. In fact, even the introduction of Monster Core says this.
Each creature’s rules appear in a stat block, with a structure similar to those of feats, spells, and magic items.
I also agree with SuperParkourio creature's stat block they not only governs about how what a creature could do but its rules.
Remaster isn't the first (and probably not the last) time that Paizo changes a creature stat block in many different degrees. Remaster changes the license what makes many thing a bit confuse but in practice still a big errata. Also if they don't change the creature name so this creature should be used unless the GM judges that this could break the story or event in someway. What not happens the 99% of cases.
I was re-reading Running an Adventure guide and the new Run Prudently and nothing forbids the GM to switch a non-remastered creature to a remastered version of the same name. It's the opposite the objective is to "To incentivize adoption of the new, Remastered ruleset" and follow erratas as described by Pathfinder 2e Remaster that is general for both players and GMs to "converting characters and adventures to the Remaster rules":
1. Players and GMs must use the remastered rules of the game immediately where possible.
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
While I agree with Rob (use the printed stat block, though with Run Prudently one is absolutely within bounds to run a +171 save as a +17, or whatever), I doubt the black helicopters will come for you if you use the remastered version of a critter of the same name.
Personally I consider that using a wholly different creature (for example, a vordine rather than a barbazu) would run afoul of the spirit and the letter of Run Prudently. (For example, "GMs must not...Add new encounters or NPCs with mechanical weight or influence.")
But the best solution, I would think, is to Just Use the Provided Statblocks. There's absolutely no question that doing so is 100% okay. And with Run Prudently, GMs are empowered to fix obvious issues.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use the provided statblocks (but fix obvious issues).
The problem with changing to "remastered versions" is that it can have unintended consequences that significantly change the difficulty of the encounter.
The NPC statblock in the scenario can have deliberate changes in it and switching to the 'new version' might override these - for example, there's a scenario where a monster has a favored enemy type of an ability (typically human), but for the scenario the favored enemy is an ancestry that is highly unlikely (possibly even impossible) to be a PC. This seems to be a clear balancing choice, ensuring that the creature does not get to fully use it's most powerful tools. Switching to the default version would mean that it suddenly becomes a lot more effective against humans.
In the harpy example - while it might not be relevant in this specific adventure, changing to the new version and switching from captivating song to stench fundamentally changes what the creature is about - from drawing the opponent close, to keeping them away. In some other scenario, this could completely change the encounter or even invalidate it: "Harpies on the rocks! Oh no, try not to get captivated and drown!" vs "Harpies on the rocks! No worries, let's just... Not go there.!"
Or it could otherwise mess up the encounter design - maybe the harpies have allies that have abilities that only work on fascinated opponents, maybe there are traps they are pulling PCs into, and so on and so on.
Changing from a specific creature to a creature that has a different name but is the "spiritual successor" is completely out of the question. Despite Archives of Nethys thinking that Vordine is the remastered version of Barbazu, it is not: They are two completely different creatures with different names, lores, abilities, and functions, and while they are both creature 5, they are very different in terms of difficulty, and in how they can utilise their surroundings to their advantage. Mechanically, they both serve the same function - melee fiend at creature level 5, but that doesn't mean they are interchangeable at will.
There's also a scenario where an enemy, if you were to switch to remastered version, gets a completely new ability. The remastered version has DC 27 for that ability (because it's higher level) but the scenario version is scaled to 4 or 2 levels lower, and that DC 27 would be way too much for the PCs. It's also a ranged ability that hampers movement (and deals a lot of damage on lower level PCs) which would make an already difficult combat even harder as PCs already have trouble engaging the monster. It's just one more example of a why deliberately switching statblocks or trying to update them to 'remastered versions' is a bad idea.
The bottom line is that the adventure was written with the specific statblocks and there's absolutely no reason to go changing them, unless you're fixing a specific error.
In the specific case of these harpies SuperParkourio considers to use the one from the remaster because the Captivating Song action of its legacy version is poorly written and leads to doubts that significantly change the difficulty for players to deal with it, as discussed in the thread
Legacy Harpy: Extending Captivating Song.
As an alternative, he saw the option of using the remastered version of it, which has different abilities, but the same name and lore, and these abilities do not cause ambiguity like the legacy harpy. Which I think is perfectly valid and even recommended rather than having to resolve on his own a dubious understanding of an ability that neither he nor the adventure he is mastering care about.
I agree that if the story were related to the harpy singing ability, the situation would be different. But that's not the case, and unlike what many people have argued here, it almost never is. In most situations where the society's designers put a ready-made creature, without making a variant or an NPC, they only care superficially about it (it's even common to change creatures for different ones when the players' level is higher), making a choice more along the lines of "we need a creature that makes sense to be here that is at the level of challenge these players need to face now" and basically look for one that is available and doesn't care much about its details.
Anyway, I go back to my point that this violates no society rules or guidelines, and that if the GM thinks that the remastered version of a creature is better for the situation or solves a problem he found, he can and should use it. It's much better than risking using an ability in an unbalanced way or not using it at all.
Actually, the harpy encounter in question uses both the regular pre-remaster harpy and variants of that harpy exclusive to this scenario. The author went through the trouble of rebuilding the entire stat block twice, once as a level 7 creature and once as a level 9 creature, yet the encounter still has absolutely nothing to do with harpies. No mention of tactics. Only that they are searching for valuables and susceptible to bribes.
I think the author needed to do this because of Captivating Song. Non-harpies are susceptible to Captivating Song, so all the enemies had to be harpies. Captivating Song has the incapacitation trait, so at least some of the enemies must be the same level as some PCs (this adventure is for level 7-10). And moderate encounters are easier to scale for challenge points when there are PL-2 creatures, so the author also wanted regular harpies.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I kept harping on this in the previous topic, but I think this is still important. From the Lorespire site (emphasis mine):
The Paizo Organized Play program strives to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs are required to run Paizo Organized Play adventures as written, but are empowered to make adjustments to suit the table, fix obvious errors or typos, use alternate maps, and ensure all players have the best possible experience.
Again, that's the key to me. Unless there's a giant typo or error (Pathfinder Trials, for example), the scenario needs to stay the same. As umopapisdnupsidedown said, the Vordine is the "updated" Barbazu, but have vastly different abilities. But a lot of monsters got minor tweaks, such as changing the AC or saves by 1 or 2, but even still, that could be pretty major. If everything else went the same, a failed save could lead to vastly different outcomes, depending on which version of the monster you run.
Again, the Vordine or the Harpies are an extreme example where entire abilities get changed, and ignoring specific tactics enemies might or might not have, the intent of the game is that whether you play Second Edition in 2020 or 2030, the adventure should stay the same. You can't have people who played premaster have a different experience from the ones that play remaster, other than their characters. The adventure should stay the same.
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
Regarding the harpy question, in that scenario the encounter is trivially skippable so the point is almost academic anyway. And the scenario is long enough and complex enough that I would recommend encouraging that resolution.
Regarding tactics, I suspect you'll find that very few scenarios actually have any tactical guidance.
As an aside, I don't mean any disrespect, but I recommend starting with easier scenarios to learn to GM, rather than skipping straight to complicated tier 7-10s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kept harping on this in the previous topic, but I think this is still important. From the Lorespire site (emphasis mine):
The Paizo Organized Play program strives to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs are required to run Paizo Organized Play adventures as written, but are empowered to make adjustments to suit the table, fix obvious errors or typos, use alternate maps, and ensure all players have the best possible experience.
Again, that's the key to me. Unless there's a giant typo or error (Pathfinder Trials, for example), the scenario needs to stay the same. As umopapisdnupsidedown said, the Vordine is the "updated" Barbazu, but have vastly different abilities. But a lot of monsters got minor tweaks, such as changing the AC or saves by 1 or 2, but even still, that could be pretty major. If everything else went the same, a failed save could lead to vastly different outcomes, depending on which version of the monster you run.
Again, the Vordine or the Harpies are an extreme example where entire abilities get changed, and ignoring specific tactics enemies might or might not have, the intent of the game is that whether you play Second Edition in 2020 or 2030, the adventure should stay the same. You can't have people who played premaster have a different experience from the ones that play remaster, other than their characters. The adventure should stay the same.
If this were the main concern, then we are not adopting the remaster rules. Because if the main goal is to maintain a consistent experience, the remaster gets in the way here. Things like disarming and the grab rules that are no longer automatic change how tactics and rules behave. The same goes for focus spells that can be recovered to the maximum without sleeping and for spiritual damage that now affects everyone!
If we are going to stretch and force this logic, even using materials released after the adventure already changes the experience. When the designer wrote it, the new content did not exist.
But that is not the goal. A player may want to play a legacy adventure with the exemplar or an animist, because he wants to enjoy that story with a different experience! In other words, the very concept of maintaining a consistent experience is not applicable, the change in GM itself already significantly changes the experience, even when there are tactics described, the way each GM deals with them is very different. Honestly, in my opinion, a consistent experience is not even desirable.
What can and should be kept consistent is the story. Swapping a harpy for a dragon would break the story, just as Vordine as a replacement for Barbazu also doesn't make sense to me, it would be like swapping a red dragon for a diabolic dragon, as they are essentially different in what they are and this would change the story, something that should never be done in PFS.
Actually, the harpy encounter in question uses both the regular pre-remaster harpy and variants of that harpy exclusive to this scenario. The author went through the trouble of rebuilding the entire stat block twice, once as a level 7 creature and once as a level 9 creature, yet the encounter still has absolutely nothing to do with harpies. No mention of tactics. Only that they are searching for valuables and susceptible to bribes.
I think the author needed to do this because of Captivating Song. Non-harpies are susceptible to Captivating Song, so all the enemies had to be harpies. Captivating Song has the incapacitation trait, so at least some of the enemies must be the same level as some PCs (this adventure is for level 7-10). And moderate encounters are easier to scale for challenge points when there are PL-2 creatures, so the author also wanted regular harpies.
Here you've already added a point that I didn't know about.
If the author made changes to the harpy's stat block, then you have a much more complex situation. In that case, you'd be better off just trying to find a way to make the captivating song work fairly than trying to do the whole adaptation.
I agree that perhaps the author kept them because other creatures could be affected by the ability, but then we're entering another level of assumption that I don't think is very appropriate for use in a PFS game. As long as the change was a simple monster swap without any editing, it was OK for me and it was the simplest solution, but the moment the author modified the stat block to fit it there (in addition to the simple elite/weak), then the story enters a much more complex level.
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
No, "consistent experience" is about the adventure, not the PCs. We're going off into silly-land now.
GMs are required to run Paizo Organized Play adventures as written, but are empowered to make adjustments to suit the table and ensure all players have the best possible experience.
GMs must... Ensure players experience all major plot points and NPC interactions (excluding optional or bypassed encounters)
GMs must not... Add new encounters or NPCs with mechanical weight or influence
In earnest, just use the printed stat blocks.
The remaster seems like an exception to the "consistent experience." They changed Grab because they wanted to change the experience from "my defenses don't matter" to "my defenses very much matter." They changed Recall Knowledge from "I hope the GM knows what I want to get out of this" to "ask a question". And they changed a multitude of monster mechanics because they were overpowered or otherwise unfun to deal with.
They likely want the experience of the adventure to be consistent across tables, not across different printings or versions of the rules.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
I don't think there's any good reason to change a creature that has a printed statblock in the adventure, to a different statblock.
Why would you ever do that? What does this accomplis? What's the benefit? The GM is just creating additional work for themself and potentially causing either lore inconsistencies, or messing up the intended mechanical encounter.
SuperParkourio considers to use the one from the remaster because the Captivating Song action of its legacy version is poorly written and leads to doubts that significantly change the difficulty for players to deal with it, as discussed in the thread
Legacy Harpy: Extending Captivating Song.
If this is the case (as written, ability is ambigious) then the solution is to try and work out a reasonable adjudication on how the ability works - not to try for loopholes to replace it with a completely different ability.
As an example that I stumbled upon recently, old Blade Barrier - now Blessed Boundary - is just poorly written and ambigious. But if a scenario has a creature that has Blessed boundary on it's statblock, Your job as a GM is to figure out how you run blessed boundary, and then run it consistently like that when it props up - not to go through a spell list and try to figure out if the creature could prep a different spell instead.
Or the recent thread about roiling incant. Spellschools got removed which causes issues with it's abilities, the creature has engulf which requires striding twice which in turn uses landspeed, but it only has fly speed. The correct solution is to work out a reasonable way to run the creature, not to scour a monster core to look for a closest match and replace it with a different creature.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I see the change in Disarm and such more as bug fixes, in that the mechanics needed tweaking after the had been rolled out. But I do agree that it's nebulous, especially with how sweeping some changes can be. The changing of monsters isn't a bug fix, that's an overhaul, but again I agree it's muddy when it comes to tweaked numbers, rather than the changing of abilities.
The addition of player options is moot. Yes, later options can invalidate certain scenarios (especially Kineticists, I feel), but again those are not changes to the scenario. Hell, the scenario can change based on whether I play a Bard or a Barbarian. Like I said, a single changed die roll can make the scenario completely different. That 100% consistency is unattainable does not mean we shouldn't strive for it.
Fun example of how a new class can completely invalidate a fight: in a Starfinder scenario there was a guy in a mine cart playing keepaway. The cart moved faster than the players could move, so there's no way of catching up to him. The encounter was built around the premise of the bad guy being able to outmaneuvre the players. Then someone played a Witchwarper, who can teleport enemies a short distance, and the teleported the guy out of the mine cart. Now the guy was hopelessly outgunned and outclassed. But even if the Witchwarper had been out then, I feel like no one could have predicted that outcome.
EDIT: I misremembered, they managed to grab the bad guy, essentially holding it in place. I made a check and the cart moved on without him.
I don't think there's any good reason to change a creature that has a printed statblock in the adventure, to a different statblock.
Why would you ever do that? What does this accomplis? What's the benefit? The GM is just creating additional work for themself and potentially causing either lore inconsistencies, or messing up the intended mechanical encounter.
It accomplishes the goal of playing the remaster ruleset, which changed those monster statistics for several good reasons, including balance and fun. Perhaps it would be a different story if there were lore inconsistencies, but any invalidated monster tactics can simply be adjusted to match changes to the rules, as PFS guidance recommends GMs do anyway.
If this is the case (as written, ability is ambigious) then the solution is to try and work out a reasonable adjudication on how the ability works - not to try for loopholes to replace it with a completely different ability.SuperParkourio considers to use the one from the remaster because the Captivating Song action of its legacy version is poorly written and leads to doubts that significantly change the difficulty for players to deal with it, as discussed in the thread
Legacy Harpy: Extending Captivating Song.
What loopholes? They want us to use the remastered rules whenever possible. For this encounter, it looks quite possible to do so. And I wasn't looking for a way out of running Captivating Song. I started that thread so I could wrap my head around how "sustaining" it worked.
As an example that I stumbled upon recently, old Blade Barrier - now Blessed Boundary - is just poorly written and ambigious. But if a scenario has a creature that has Blessed boundary on it's statblock, Your job as a GM is to figure out how you run blessed boundary, and then run it consistently like that when it props up - not to go through a spell list and try to figure out if the creature could prep a different spell instead.
I don't see anything ambigous in Blessed Boundary, but I see your point. That's what I was trying to do with the other thread with Captivating Song.
Or the recent thread about roiling incant. Spellschools got removed which causes issues with it's abilities, the creature has engulf which requires striding twice which in turn uses landspeed, but it only has fly speed. The correct solution is to work out a reasonable way to run the creature, not to scour a monster core to look for a closest match and replace it with a different creature.
Yeah, that monster is a different can of worms entirely. It's main feature (the bigger of the two issues with its stat block) is that it's immune to evocation magic and absorbs evocation spells, so it's pretty much meaningless. There is no way to make that ability work as intended without altering it on some mechanical level. And unlike the harpy, there is no remastered version. In the remaster preview, the developers even admit that the removal of spell schools invalidates quite a few game elements, all of which will eventually be addressed.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spoilered blessed boundary because it's not really relevant to the topic, I just think it's an interesting example of ambigiuous spell
If you make the shell smallish, say, 10ft burst in a 10ft hallway, does a creature get damaged twice if it runs through the whole area to reach you (passing through both sides of the shell) or just once?
"The creature also takes the damage at the end of its turn, but only if it didn't already take damage from the shell that turn."
Does this bit only refer to creatures that start their turn standing on the barrier and don't move, or does it mean that if you move through the shell and crit succeed on the save (and thus don't take damage), you still take damage at the end of your turn? If the creature fails it's save, you get to push it 10 ft. Can you push it again into the barrier to deal another instance of damage? If it keeps failing, can you keep pingballing it off the boundary until it's dead?
I think there's a reasonable interpretation for the spell, the above is just throwing out questions that the text as written brings up.
What loopholes? They want us to use the remastered rules whenever possible. For this encounter, it looks quite possible to do so. And I wasn't looking for a way out of running Captivating Song. I started that thread so I could wrap my head around how "sustaining" it worked.
The problem is with the "for this encounter". If you're supposed to update for the remaster version of a creature for this encounter then you should be updating for all encounters, which brings out various issues as I pointed out earlier - invalidating tactics, invalidating synergies between creatures, accidentally buffing or nerfing creatures when there were deliberate changes in the statblock.
As others pointed out, rules are "how this ability works" (like grab), not "does this creature have captivating song or not". If a writer put in a monster with a certain statblock and ability, you should be using that statblock, instead of switching it to something else entirely - if that ability wasn't meant to be used, it would say so in the tactics or encounter description or statblock.GMs can change the presentation of adventure elements (reskin) to avoid phobias or otherwise ensure a positive experience for all players, but cannot change the mechanics of those elements.
Adjust obvious typos or errors in a scenario
Use alternate maps (or areas of provided maps) for encounters
Reskin enemies to avoid phobias or for personal preference without altering mechanical traits
Per the guide, you aren't supposed to change the mechanics, and swapping from captivating song to stench is not a typo, nor is it an alternative map. The remaster rules for society statet that if a player option has been reprinted with the same name, it's treated as errata - it does not apply to monsters. Even before remaster, if an adventure had a statblock for a creature that was different from the bestiary entry, you wouldn't change it for the bestiary version - so why would you do it now?
Further, if this is the specific scenario I'm thinking about, it has 3 different harpies - creature 5, 7, 9. Swapping the creature 5 harpy for the bestiary harpy also gives it a bigger damage for it's attacks, different AC, different HP, and a disease, plus changes skills, making several mechanical changes to the combat: While it could be 'easy' to just swap out the song for the stench for the creature 7 and 9, those don't have statblocks printed anywhere else, so how do you adjust the ac, hp, dmg and skills? Just guesstimate what they would be? Then you're just making stats up, not "running with the remaster version".
Messing with the statblocks is unnecessary, and just creates more problems if it's taken as a general guideline.
The problem is with the "for this encounter". If you're supposed to update for the remaster version of a creature for this encounter then you should be updating for all encounters, which brings out various issues as I pointed out earlier - invalidating tactics, invalidating synergies between creatures, accidentally buffing or nerfing creatures when there were deliberate changes in the statblock.
No? Where possible does not mean all encounters. If the story presents harpies as using their songs to lure in villagers, or if the harpies have instructions regarding their songs, then it would not be possible to use the remaster harpies. If the story just says "here are some harpies" and nothing else, then it should be possible.
As others pointed out, rules are "how this ability works" (like grab), not "does this creature have captivating song or not". If a writer put in a monster with a certain statblock and ability, you should be using that statblock, instead of switching it to something else entirely - if that ability wasn't meant to be used, it would say so in the tactics or encounter description or statblock.
Stat block contents are unambiguously rules, even if they are specific to the monsters in question. And of course the adventure author meant for the stat block in the adventure to be used, just as the Bestiary authors meant for the stat block in the 1st printing of the Bestiary to be used. That doesn't mean we should dismiss every future version of that stat block with prejudice.
Per the guide, you aren't supposed to change the mechanics, and swapping from captivating song to stench is not a typo, nor is it an alternative map. The remaster rules for society statet that if a player option has been reprinted with the same name, it's treated as errata - it does not apply to monsters. Even before remaster, if an adventure had a statblock for a creature that was different from the bestiary entry, you wouldn't change it for the bestiary version - so why would you do it now?
I'll concede that the rule about treating the remaster as errata is limited to player facing options, but the remastered monster stats still follow the rule telling GMs to use the remaster where possible. Using the most up to date version of the mechanics of a monster is not the same as altering the mechanics. And even before the remaster, it would make sense to use the most up to date version of the Bestiary stat block rather than an earlier printing of that stat block that was copied into the adventure.
For instance, the roiling incant stat block in the adventure refers to Bestiary 3. But it states that its melee and ranged attacks do identical damage, which is almost never the case. I checked the Bestiary 3 entry it referred to, and sure enough, the melee damage is slightly higher. So either the adventure author made a typo, or the monster was simply fixed after the adventure was published. It makes more sense to go with what Bestiary 3 says here, though I wouldn't do the same for the variant roiling incant in the same adventure.
Further, if this is the specific scenario I'm thinking about, it has 3 different harpies - creature 5, 7, 9. Swapping the creature 5 harpy for the bestiary harpy also gives it a bigger damage for it's attacks, different AC, different HP, and a disease, plus changes skills, making several mechanical changes to the combat: While it could be 'easy' to just swap out the song for the stench for the creature 7 and 9, those don't have statblocks printed anywhere else, so how do you adjust the ac, hp, dmg and skills? Just guesstimate what they would be? Then you're just making stats up, not "running with the remaster version".
Messing with the statblocks is unnecessary, and just creates more problems if it's taken as a general guideline.
I'll concede this, too. At the very least, the variant harpies should be left as is.
Organized Play Coordinator has clarified in the Remaster Clarification Thread that GMs are strongly encouraged to use the stat blocks in the adventure rather than the remastered ones.