Erick Jenkins's page

When blood leaks from the floor and ceiling, and doors automatically shut with nigh impossible strength checks needed to open them I don't think being a paladin or cleric will help.

Are you allowing knowledge checks to deal with the haunts? I have been considering that, but that makes it too easy. At the same time I don't want the players to feel like DM Fiat is the only way to success.

I disagree that a cleric or paladin won't help. Cleric channels harm the haunts if their within 30 feet of the source (as do paladin channels at higher levels). Paladin evil detection ruins a number of surprises for my players (many that are different from the paizo plot twists in case they get a copy). Paladin save boosts vs. fear, easy protection from evil spells, massive and quick healing. None of these things are condusive to a suspensful and nerverwracking experience.

I understand that PF writers would take flack for eliminating core classes, but in these circumstances I think it adds to the challenge and to the atmosphere to have to buy or beg for charms, heals and strange tools to fight their otherworldly enemies.

I'm not allowing knowledge checks for the haunts (although obviously they can figure out numerous things about the haunt locations from knowledge checks), but they have many tools, including the spirit board, holy water and other arcane tools to fight and it is really exciting to watch them cautiously approach one room after another carefully, strategically and with some real trepidation. They aren't afraid, per se, but they're afraid for their character and it's a lot of fun for everyone.

One of my favorite moments was when they entered a storage room and it contained a haunt I made up. Pitch black starting at the doorway, no light functions once inside. When you're in it you hear whispers and feel soft touches on your arm, but otherwise it's just blackness. It is a standard haunt otherwise and after everyone held their breath, one player put his arm in. He was fine. Eventually they tied a rope to him and he went in (reminded me of poltergeist)and searched the room by hand, bringing items out to share with the group and stumbling through the room, hoping he didn't grab something that grabbed him back.

It was a kick, and they didn't have a cleric walk up to the doorway and burst three times to lighten the room. Would have completely ruined the experience in my book.

Incidentally, I do allow holy water and any other creative mechanism to injure haunts in the absense of holy handgrenades (positive energy channels).

Am I being crazy here?

Galnörag I had the same feeling when I started this campaign with a group of 6 party members. Several were already eyeballing clerics and paladins when they heard it was a horror campaign and I realized quickly that it would be a numbers game once the bursting and save bonusing and instaheals started up, which is fun under many circumstances, but in my opinion, does not in any way inspire fear or nervousness.

So I did what you're not supposed to do, and it worked out very well. I made, for this campaign, Clerics and Paladins prestige classes. I have a full backstory (that I made up) relating to limitations on churches in Ustalav to explain this change, but essentially you need five levels in another class before you can take these classes.

I wanted a horror campaign where the party could be really nervous, where they had to be extra careful and where they needed to be sure they were prepared, and I've never gotten such a positive reaction to a campaign as I have with this one, even though the party is at a disadvantage. They've just entered Harrowstone twice and are still trying to deal with haunts, but they are nervous and they went out and bought holy water.

They have a witch doing the healing for the group, and it's a challenge. The rest of the group is two fighters, one rogue, one Magus (I opened up the new classes to make up for closing a couple of core classes) and a sorceror.

It's much more Van Helsing than most campaigns and my players are eating it up. I have tinkered with quite a few of the ideas behind the Carrion Crown to add some dread, which I may post once my party is past it. I also added a few interesting town encounters to set the tone and make up for the reduced trust points.

Actually, it paused the game a bit, but didn't derail it since the character in question (my character) was both an archer and a caster and was better with the bow. But effectively had to shoot an ogre 5 feet away and take attacks of opportunity given the interpretation of the wording.

My take was that the ideal situation would be that I draw my sword and fight defensively in melee. However, since I was confused, I used my most common and deadly attack without concern about the consequences (like a raging barbarian, essentially). We talked as the game went on about what alternatives I had.

We assumed that I did not know that I was confused (even if I had identified the spell) so that I wouldn't pull punches in case I were attacking an ally or play defensively (which would mean, I assume, that I wouldn't necessarily cast defensively either).

I like the idea of letting the GM decide, do you mean as in making a house rule for how to adjudicate it, or on a case by case basis?

We had a game session a week ago that broke down into an hour long discussion of what it means to 'attack' when under the effect of a confusion spell. This is a relatively simple issue for fighter types, but it was confusing (no pun intended) for casters.

One side said that there is an 'Attack' action defined in the core rulebook that is a standard action separate from a spell. This side said that when the spell indicates you should 'attack' the nearest target or attack the last target that attacked you, that the attack would be a physical attack. The confused status in the core rulebook indicates that the target is 'mentally befuddled' and since this is a compulsion effect, they considered that they were forced to specifically attack the nearest target, but that spellcasting required too great a presence of mind, coordination, targetting, components, etc. This would also leave the door open to using limited use magic items or harming other targets with area effect spells. How far does 'attack' imply that you will go? This side assumed the attack was similar to a barbarian rage (in particular since you can't take attacks of op against any other targets while focused on the attacker). 3.5 also had the possibility of attacking the caster and indicated that this was a melee or ranged attack, but that has been removed in Pathfinder.

The other side indicated that the spell just changes your perceptions of who is an enemy. The condition also indicates that everyone is treated as an enemy and a touch attack is necessary to receive beneficial touch spells whily you're confused. This side felt that 'attack' meant generally to try to harm the target, not the specific definition in the rulebook, and that you would use any means necessary to do so. The implication is that you are 'confused' as to targets, but not necessarily mentally confused, since part of the spell allows you to act normally.

If this is the case, we would have a similar issue with spells as we do with invisibility, what is an attack spell and should the character cast the most devastating spell? Can they intentionally avoid collateral damage? What is an 'attack' spell, would charm person be considered an attack spell in this context, for example?

I couldn't find any guidance on this in pathfinder or 3.5, please let me know how this is supposed to work.

Thanks