I really like Haunts, but there IS a rediculous amount of confusion about them. ENough that I have decided to support Chris Mortika's original post but with a caveat.
Let's lay off the Haunts UNLESS you can dedicate enough space in the Scenario to clear up possible confusion.
Most of the problems I see coming out of Haunts are from a misunderstanding of the rules. The next most common problem is Haunts write-ups that come across as confusing, such as in two of the Scenarios listed above. (I haven't played or prepper Hinojai).
PFS should be a nice go-to place to learn hard rules (I'm a better GM and Player due to PFS) but it hasn't been that way for Haunts. So, if we continue to use them, hopefully we can do a better job in describing them and their effects.
And then I read the part about the haunt manifesting and driving Wei to hang himself. Apparently the haunted lasted long enough that Wei had time to construct a makeshift ladder, climb it, tie a rope around a beam, and then tie the rope around his neck. This is the example provided by the module writer for how long this haunt's effect should last.
Yes, because noone was there to stop him from his 1 attempt to kill himself, and he was successful. A PC only has to either fail his coup de grace, or be stopped, and the haunt's effects are over.
You might argue this example is and the haunt below might be two different haunts... One moment. There is something worse than this haunt and that's 6 of them in the same room, and what's more they can be made persistent by adding in a couple of obscure modifiers. Yuck.
HOW the haunt manifested the suicidal urge is basically irrelevant, though I will admit it adds to the confusion here. It's basically a haunt that says 'kill yourself' and then is creative in how it attempts to force ou o do so.
Speaking of Persistent, I think I see your confusion over how Haunts work now. See, my understanding is that a haunt is like a summoned creature that has a duration of one round to throw one spell effect. Regardless of the success or failure of the saving throw or the duration of the spell effect, the summons ends at initiative -1. Once that spell effect is in place, it follows the rules of the spell. This is much like a 3rd level wizard casting mage armor on everyone in the party then being killed off 5 minutes into the 3 hour duration. The effect is still there,...
And here I see what I think is your disconnect. I'm going to bold this for emphasis, no insult is meant to anyone: DO NOT TREAT HAUNTS LIKE CREATURES. Yes, there is the remaining essence behind the haunt, but the haunt is meant to be run like a trap and not a creature. It's made very apparent that this is the intention in the haunt rules though some people still seem to fight it.
Now, if the haunt replicated Summon Creature I, the creature would stay behind, but the haunt itself is no longer active to give it commands. The haunt has dispersed after doing its thing. There is nothing left there that can force you to keep attempting to kill yourself after the first save. It's done. If you failed, you do as the haunt told you to do before it dispersed. You try to kill yourself. The haunt didn't tell you to CONTINUALLY try to kill yourself, nor does it even have the power to. You either succeed, fail, or get interrupted.
Allowing a haunt to work the way you describe IS unfair. It IS a bad use of rules. But it ISN'T how Haunts are designed.
I can appreciate your concern about #7. It's a valid concern and shows that you have a lot of heart. But I don't want to play a santized game either. If we worry about every little thing that someone could take offense to or use as an exscuse to hurt themselves or others, we might as well be playing Candyland. This issue is, of course, a bigger one than many, but that's why we have people in charge instead of machines. It is the GMs responsibility to know their audience and be prepared for it. With a table of younger people, I'd probably just skip this encounter. You have the same issue with Murder on the Throaty Mermaid and it's strong sexual tones at times.
I suggest we follow Mark's wishes and move on from the Gunslinger discussion.
I find myself fairly satisfied with 4.2. It's not exactly how I would organize things but it's not so far from how I would. I've been impressed in just how open M&M have been to discussion. I'm not sure I'd feel as comfortable as them letting the community weigh in on things.
Here's to another year of Pathfinder fun. *raises glass*
Blocking a Gunslinger or any other class from getting his full iterative attack by limiting the free action reload is simply wrong. Doubly so when you make a point of allowing the Archer to do it. Blocking the rediculous amount of Free Actions done by some builds is perfectly fine, but at the very least, every class should get their full iterative attack. Simply put, it wouldn't be there if it wasn't meant to be used.
i have to admit that i hate that you "top brass" are going the rout of the RPGA of 3.5. bann and prevent "broken material" even though it doesnt adversly effect the game.
This entire idea has nothing to do with the reality of the decisions that were made.
Matthew Morris wrote:
There you go being all rational and stuff.
And I once got into a rather disrespectful argument with Erik Mona. I'm actually rather ashamed of how I acted in that thread. I don't think I was wrong, and I'm sure many people here don't, but that doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it.
I just don't want this discussion to turn into the animal companion discussion where lots of horrible things were said about people who were doing something that was completely inside the rules at the time.
I would recommend that, instead of poking or laughing at the people some felt were gaming the system, everyone recognize that some of their fun has been squashed. The boards have had a habit, in the past, of claiming that people 'should have known better' when all they were doing was playing by the rules.
Not everyone chose the synthesist for cheese. Not everyone chose the Undead Lord to skirt evil.
I would never have chosen to play those classes, but I respect the feelings of those who may think they have had the rug pulled out from under them. I salute those characters.
Keep in mind that none of these decisions were easy.
Good point Jiggy. I would recommend to everyone to reread the stat damage rules at the end of the Core Rulebook. They don't quite work the way they did in 3.5 and it seems to be something many of us (including myself) get wrong.
Depending on the region, there are often a lot of benefits for helping out at the con. Whether it's the free badge that most cons give away to free rooms at the big conventions like GenCon and Origins. Always check with both the GM organizers for the game(s) you want to play as well as the volunteer section for the overall con itself. These things do take away from time you have to just sit and play, but they can make attending much cheaper.
If you are travelling, split fuel costs. I travelled to Origins with 4 people in the car and it looks like we'll be doing at least 2 for GenCon. This will save a lot of money, especially when the other option is flying.
As above, splitting room fees with as many people as is feasible will help tremendously. Travelling will also make you friends in the local community which can equal to crash space.
Dollar menus at fast food may not be tasty, but they can be your friend. Even so, I'd suggest having at least one good meal every 2 days of a con. Talk to locals for where the good deals are hidden or do your research ahead of time. Some of my favorite and inexpensive places to eat at GenCon tend to not be the crowded ones.
My trip to GenCon this year is going to be incredibly inexpensive (save for when I find time to go to the dealers hall). Of course, I'm running every slot of the convention. 8 slots of Pathfinder (1 OF) and 2 slots of Heroes of Rokugan. All I have to worry about is getting there and food.
Obviously, some of these won't work with everyone, but it's a start. I LOVE the convention scene. I LOVE meeting and playing with new players. Paizo and other companies I've dealt with have been very kind with awarding thier judges, but I'll say here what I say to them every time. I don't do it for the Freebies. I don't do it for the boons or the free product. I don't do it for the store credit. I do it because I LOVE gaming.
Matthew Morris wrote:
The problem with this line of thought is you seem to be saying 'You are penalizing me for not going to an event' That's not the case at all. It's 'we're rewarding you for going to an event'.
Just because someone got something you didn't doesn't make you any less valid as a person or a player.
Whenever I see threads like this I try to balance what is necessary versus what is neat.
New races aren't necessary, but they sure are neat.
Because they aren't necessary, there really no reason we have to open the ARG up. Because they are neat, it would be nice to have a method to get them.
A lot of people keep implying that these are only available at conventions. That simply isn't true. It does need to be an 'event' but that event isn't necessarily a convention. Sure, it's mostly through convention play. I'm not adverse into opening them more but nothing I've seen offered up in the thread really seems to work in my mind.
They need to be rare and special. It needs to be enforcable.
I've seen arguments before along the lines of 'This should be open because these creatures exist'. Yes, these creatures do exist, but you are completely ignoring the rarity of them. Everyone wants a character to be 'special'. But they don't have to be from a rare race to be special. I don't think anyone wants a 'Drizz't effect' here. I think by making these rare you are encouraging creativity as people have to find their uniqueness in deeper ways.
Anyways, just my thoughts.
Anytime you choose to play at home and not in a public arena you have already made the choice to include/exclude people. Whether its 'My friends' or 'All Paladins'
A private game is just that. Everyone at the private game can agree to follow another set of more restrictive rules as set by whomever. If you do not wish to follow them, you don't have to play there. They do not have to make you welcome in their home.
And you can't force them to.
I think the point, which seems to have been lost among the clutter, is that it wasn't any of the many changes that drove these players from our ranks. It was the impression of a very bad attitude from the player-base (represented mainly by these boards).
We can disagree about things all we want, we don't need to be jerks about it.
It's been a long time since I looked at that thread, and whether people intended to or not it came off as full of vitriol and malice.
Alex Draconis wrote:
Essentially it comes down to are you willing to sacrifice versatility on the altar of conformitiy. The "fast food" of rpgs is fine for some, but us veterans want to dine at a "restaurant" where the chef has the leeway to create what his experience tells him is right instead of shoveling the same stuff into the same prepackaged box over and over.
Organized Play IS the 'fast food' of the RPG world. It doesn't matter where you go, you expect the food to match your expectations.
Wanting to flavor something up to 'fine dining' is a home game.
OP campaigns work best when everyone has the same expectations and experiences. It is absolutely AWESOME to sit around with people from across the globe and talk about this or that moment in a mod. Sure there will be some slight variation from how the players chose to approach things, but that is minimal. This is one of the most precious parts of playing an OP game. Letting GMs muck with things can rob people of this experience.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:
Something to remember for those in favor of reskinning:
WHile you may find the silly reskin funny and entertaining , not everyone does. I prefer a more serious style of roleplaying. So, I would have found the butler above more annoying than humorous. I'm sure I'm not the only one, even if I am in the minority (which I expect).
Some of your harmless reskinning does in fact ruin other people's fun rather than enhance it. Just because the reskinner likes it doesn't mean the rest of the table does.
Noone wants their characters to die, and most GMs don't like it when they kill one. But if death is irrelevant, the game loses a lot of it's fun. In this case, challenge = fun (which is the case for me). It's probably the #1 reason I left LFR.
This represents all that is wrong with the whole random business model. Falsely created 'collector' rarity does not encourge me to spend money on them. Inflated Ebay prices, sends me further away.
Vic, I understand why you have to do them randomly, but as long as they continue to be random, there are those of us who just won't buy.
I wish Paizo luck as I do with all their ventures, I'm just disappointed.