thrikreed's page

You seem to think, because I agree haunts (unaltered) can be problematic, that I must agree that the mechanic is broken.

The suicide haunt which we agree is messed up, isn't even a Pathfinder haunt, its 3.5 so really has no place in this discussion.

-

Not that I agree they all have problems, but its hardly a thing to throw out haunts you don't like.

-

And most of your other points are just a short list of haunts you have a problem with. It doesn't seem to be a problem with all haunts, just the ones you've listed.

-

So the only alternative, in your opinion, is that Paizo takes up the haunt mechanic and either scrap it or rebuild it from the ground up, and that it has to be Paizo that does this. (Even though many PF 3PP designers are the same people creating the mechanics for Paizo products).

Other designers, like myself, who might have actually done freelance work for Paizo, and who have taken the time to bring the mechanic into my own shop, rebuild and/or tweak it to work - doesn't apply as a possible solution. For some mysterious reason, it has to be Paizo that does this?

Why is it that if I fix a problem with haunt - its some person's interpretation (and thus is somehow invalidated), but you have to be the one that all points satisfy, otherwise any changes are bunk (in your opinion).

-

I have fixed the haunt in my most recently released product only (I did not include DC checks in previously created haunts, although I've always included extensive backgrounds.) Its not an interpretation, its a geniune fix.

-

What makes you the defining arbitor of what should be accepted or not, and not someone like myself, who have taken the effort to not only fix the issue but publish it as well?

-

Most of your rant is falling on deaf ears, at least I'm not hearing it.

-

I'm not a fan of the suicide haunt, so I simply ban that one from my games,

-

That is just one bad haunt, toss it, forget it - no need for concern.

-

I can agree that the lack of a Knowledge check DC as part of the stat block is a problem

-

And unlike most haunts supplements each haunt in #30 Haunts for Kaidan include an extensive back story, regarding its origins and possible destruction - some nearly a full page of story.

-

I personally love the haunt mechanic, and no doubt will probably include at least one haunt in every published adventure product for PF that I ever design.

-

Since a couple of people were wanting me to update a couple of things... here ya go.

I have seen this sentiment on these boards in many discussions. As someone who likes haunts (both as a player and as a GM), I began wondering what's going on. It occurs to me that maybe haunts are not being run properly in PFS games, and maybe it would be a good idea to go over the haunt rules.

I could be way off and people dislike haunts for other reasons. The fact that so many people claim to hate haunts, but almost no one claims to hate traps, makes me a little suspicious. The fact that I have run haunts incorrectly and have seen others run them incorrectly supports this suspicion.

Hi! Just wanted to say that my interest in Pathfinder and pretty much anything else Paizo touches greatly diminished because of haunts... And on those limited occasions I do decide to play it's with people that know before hand that on a good day if the words 'Haunt' or 'Suicide' are mentioned in conjunction with this game, I will likely leave the table... And let's hope it's not a bad day.

Why?

Because I think haunts are ever so poorly written; they were used as a vehicle to ignore rules, there is no consistency to how they are being ran, that writers are using them without know what they are using, and most importantly that haunts need to be fixed or banned.

Here I am again being both vocal and specific in my thoughts about this subject. I think I want to try again since people are still stating things that do not seem to be consistent with my brief experience with one particular haunt, my repeated experiences with haunts, and my more extensive experience of the game.

So... My problems with Haunts and specifically this Haunt.

1. Without magic, there is no way to find the haunt before it triggers. None. With magic like detect undead or the appropriate detect alignment (this one is CE, how many of you knew that? Alignment is often omitted.) allows a perception check -4. By the time this perception check is allowed, the haunt has most likely been activated. I'm not going to really go into this because our perfect party as stated doesn't have this option, nor would I think the average party.

2. Running away is not a valid option.
In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check DC 15 to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The perfect party composed of a cleric (+13 perception), fighter (+10 perception), rogue (+10 perception), and wizard (+10 perception); they have a 48.6% chance of being able to run away.

The chances of finding a party of 4 who all took wisdom 14, 1 rank in perception, skill focus: perception, and a talent granting +1 (and class skill); the chances of finding that party without planning are almost astronomical.

I think a real baseline party needs to be established. The party needs to be build for general play (and not just this one encounter) while still being competitive. Hmm... Oh, one moment Paizo provides us with just such characters and in the classes I think would make a good baseline... We'll use their pregenerated characters.

In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 1st level baseline party composed of a cleric (+3 perception), fighter (+0 perception), rogue (+7 perception), and wizard (+1 perception); they have a 3.0% chance of being able to run away. That's the chance that at least one party member fails their perception check and can't act in the surprise round. 3%.

How about the 4-5 subtier? In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check DC 20 AND have an initiative of 10 or higher to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 4th level baseline party composed of a cleric (+0 initiative, +4 perception,), fighter (+3 initiative, +0 perception), rogue (+6 initiative, +10 perception), and wizard (+2 initiative, +1 perception); they have a .02% chance of being able to run away. That's worse than the low tier.

Yeah, it's possible... It's not plausible.

Worth noting is that more party members makes running away before it triggers even less of an option.

3. How do the characters know that the dagger bouncing around on the table is a haunt?

The players know it because it's the only encounter in a game initiating a surprise round without a clearly defined enemy.

GMs let the character's throw a Knowledge: Religion check... but this check does not exist in any book I have gotten my hands on. It seems to exist purely as rumor based on one specific haunt that included it as a way to identify it's after effect.

Still... I would concede this is a logical extension of the rules... Until it comes time for determining the DC of haunts (every haunt is unique, right?) and "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."

Now all of a sudden we have a situation where the players can possibly know things about the module that they shouldn't. I know I'd certainly ask for 'Destruction' every single time I beat the check by 5.

4. Destroying the haunt before it triggers... is not a valid option either.

Ignore the fighter and rogue as they are unable to pull out holy water and throw it in the surprise round (because surprise round's have a standard action and only a standard action, drawing requires a move and spring loaded wrist sheaths require a swift action that they do not get). Ignore the wizard, as he doesn't have disrupt undead at 1st or 4th level. It's all up to the cleric. In either tier, I doubt the cleric is within a 5ft step necessary to cast a cure spell and attack the haunt with it.

At the 1-2 subtier, the haunt has 6 hp, notice DC 15. The cleric has +3 perception to try to channel for 1d6. Chances of neutralizing the haunt are 7.4%. Well, that's certainly a better chance than the party running away.

At the 4-5 subtier, the haunt has 12 hp, notice DC 20, and an initiative of 10. The cleric has +4 perception, +0 initiative, and can roll 2d6 with her channel. Chances of neutralizing the haunt are .007% Again, worse than the low tier.

This is possible but its just not plausible.

5. Is a character still present, make a will save.

Please note that I'm assuming anyone in the party can be hit with this. With Haunt targeting, positioning, and runners... It's hard for me to guess who will be hit by this. We'll just figure the party average.

At the 1-2 subtier, the DC is 15... The cleric (+5) makes that save 55% of the time. The fighter (+1) makes the save 35% of the time. The rogue (+1; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save... Is the Suicide Compulsion an enchantment? I think a reasonable GM would say so, despite it being unmentioned and haunts being necromantic. The rogue makes the save 45% of the time. The wizard (+3; +1 vs. divine spells)... Again? Well, I think a reasonable GM would probably say the trap is not divine. The wizard makes the save 45% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 45% chance of making this save.

At the 4-5 subtier, the DC of the trap does not change... The cleric (+9) makes that save 75% of the time. The fighter (+3; +1 vs. fear)... A reasonable or well prepared GM would say it's a fear based compulsion... so the fighter makes the save 50% of the time. The rogue (+3; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save 55% of the time. The wizard (+6; +1 vs. divine spells) makes the save 60% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 60% chance of making this save.

This is the most plausible part to the whole haunt.

6. This Suicide Compulsion haunt is used to achieve something otherwise almost achievable in the game... Order a character to commit suicide. A suicide clause was written into every enchantment spell and even spells that can accomplish a character injuring themselves remove the Coup De Grace, turning it into a whimsical 'quit hitting yourself gimmick. Why would we want something deliberately taken out of the game put back into it?

7. The Suicide Compulsion haunt contradicts the rules for Haunts that says "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.) " What spell is this based off of? It doesn't list one anywhere.

8. Forget sense motive or any other game mechanic for trying to figure out what a character is going to do. Forget all the faction missions and role playing reasons why a character might hold up a dagger in a funny way or even cut himself. GMs let all players know this is a coup de grace, usually by literally saying the words 'coup de grace'. From my experience these words are usually synonymous with 'Pay!!! Attention!!!'

9. Stopping the character's suicide attempt.

If another character says 'Stop, don't do it!', is that a try to prevent the attempted suicide? Does our victim now attack that character instead? What if he throws a diplomacy check at the victim? I think that would be a better try to stop it than say damage. Damage (even subdual) to a character already killing themselves is not likely to be considered anything but assistance. Does the victim have to make Sense Motive checks to figure who is trying to stop his attempt? Healing the character or buffing the character's AC do not hinder the character's suicide attempt in any way. Protection from Evil (Will save negates) would only delay the suicide attempt... does the victim get a Spellcraft check to know this? The only thing left is Disarm or Grapple, which both succeed in stopping the suicide and affected character takes a swing, right? How does the character still do damage it he's disarmed? Does he have to go get the dagger or can he take an attack with an unarmed strike instead?

Having read through various threads, I see several interpretations of this based on how well the module was read and prepared... Leading us to the next problem.

10. If the GM running this does not make every interpretation of the haunt favorably to the characters, he's blamed for killing the character. Not the Suicide Compulsion. Not the writer. Not Paizo. ...The GM.

The GM, knowing how bad haunts are, will grasp at any straw possible to in order to not kill a character in such an unbalanced way. See points 3 and 8.

11. This is not a role playing encounter. Where did the players really get a choice in all of this? Effectively it's an... Undetectable... Inescapable... Un-neutralize-able... Saving throw waiting to happen. Then a failed saving throw presents the first and only role playing choice but not for the unfortunate victim. That choice is which if any of the others will take the critical hit damage or whether they let the victim finish the coup de grace. At the 1-2 tier modifiers like 20 strength characters, low hit point low constitution characters, whether there is already damage on characters, and whether the cleric has any healing left suddenly become very important.
I'd certainly like to know what goes through the victim's player's mind. As a player, would you really think this is fun? How about a GM? As a writer? How about as the publisher? Let's all sit around and discuss the value of this victim.

I feel that the way this is being ran or the introduction of Suicide into Pathfinder Society play, this does not bring forth enough opportunity for role playing to justify the risks. Maybe in a home campaign, maybe; but not in Pathfinder Society.

12. A player's issues with suicide... If you know the player has an issue with suicide, you can bypass the encounter or use it to provoke conversation that could promote mental health.

What if you don't know? What if you're a GM at a public game day or a convention who may not know the players at the table... whether they themselves have or are contemplating suicide, have lost friends or family, or have any other issues with the subject. How do you know to bypass the encounter or provoke the conversation that could help them?

13. This is the exact type of thing that gave role playing a BAD reputation years ago. Talking about BADD; does anyone remember the Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons advocacy group started by Patricia Pulling after her son Irving committed suicide in 1982? No? How the movie Mazes and Monsters with Tom Hanks? Its the tip of the iceberg. Go check out wikipedia.org to find out more.

14. Why create haunt rules? Don't we already have traps, ghosts, and glyphs of warding? Why mate them together? Why?

15. I'm glad we had the discussion. I hope it educates others on this. I hope it is drawn to Paizo's attention so that Haunts can be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition.

I think we're at that point where either A. You agree with me that Haunts need to be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition (maybe a complete overhaul or even banning); or B. you disagree with my interpretation of how Haunts work. We're now at the point that if B. is chosen, the discrepancy in our interpretations validates my stance with A. Who's interpretation is right or wrong doesn't even matter; the fact haunts are being left up to interpretation is what does matter.

That's what I think.

P.S. Please do not try to advocate the problem as just being with the suicide compulsion haunts; the mechanics need an overhaul... Doubt it?

Please read "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.)".

Creating a Haunt 
Step 1:  I pick Meteor Swarm +1 for a base 10. 
Step 2:  I pick Persistent (+2), Notice DC 15 (-1), Reset Time (+2), Slow (-2), Weakness Cold (-1), Weakness Acid (-1), Weakness Electricity (-1), Weakness Sonic (-1), Tricked by hide from undead (-2), Trick by invisibility (-1), and Tricked by Stealth (-2); for a total of -8. 10 - 8 is 2. CR is 2. 
Step 3:  Caster level = CR for a CL 2. 
Step 4:  HP = CR * 4.5 (because its persistent); for a total of 9 hp. 
Step 5:  Saving throw is equal to 10+9 (for Meteor Swarm) + 4 (for minimum ability modifier needed to cast it). DC 23.

That's right! According to the rules I can have a 1st level party take 24d6 fire damage, DC 23 for half every round until such time as they do 9 points of damage to the haunt. In 1 minute it begins again.

Yeah. Needs a complete overhaul.

Show in the book were it defines spell damage as lethal.

Okay I accept your challenge.

Merciful Spell — Spell inflicts nonlethal damage instead of lethal

This can be found at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedFeats.html#_merciful-sp ell under the description of feats.

So... What excuse are you going to use to ignore this evidence? Are you going to say "It's not part of the rules because it's a feat description?" Yup, it is and that makes it part of the rules.

Honor.

I would accept a rule from the authors/creators and request that they clarify this, since I see a problem either with how Lethal Damage is interpreted or the spell itself, probably both.

Let me try one last time to explain this.

----- Example 0: Baseline -----
A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire damage and rolls 37 fire damage.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Because the 10 goblins have no rules that interact with the fire damage, we can remove the word fire so it would now read:

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 damage and rolls 37 damage.

Damage

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.

Damage

Damage reduces a target's current hit points.

These tell me how to apply the damage, so 8 -37 = -29.

Hit Points

When your hit point total reaches 0, you're disabled. When it reaches –1, you're dying. When it gets to a negative amount equal to your Constitution score, you're dead.

The goblins are dead.

----- Assertion 1: Fire can kill without being damage ----

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire damage and rolls 37 fire damage.

Since you're assertions seems to be that fire damage is not to be treated the same way as damage, so it becomes

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire and rolls 37 fire.

If this were true, you'd be able to point out something similar to

Fire

Fire reduces a target's current hit points.

or maybe something like

Dealing Fire: Certain attacks deal fire. When you take fire, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the fire number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your fire equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.

Can you do this? I don't think so, but hey I could be wrong. Please include a link to it in the PRD if you do.

---- Assertion 2: Lethal is a damage type like fire. -----

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Lethal is quite clearly not listed in this list. It is not like fire.

If you want to continue this assertion, please find an expanded list that shows lethal included in the number of descriptors AND information about how it interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

---- Assertion 3: Lethal is a damage type like bludgeoning. -----

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

Lethal is quite clearly not listed in this list of damages either. It is not like bludgeoning.

If you want to continue this assertion, please find an expanded list of weapon damages that shows 'L for lethal' included in with the others AND at least one weapon that deals L instead of B, P, or S damage.

----- Assertion 4: Well if lethal isn't any of those, what is it? -----

I think Forseti said it best when he said,

The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. The term is only used in those contexts to signify that something that might cause nonlethal damage under some circumstances can cause regular damage under other circumstances. The word 'lethal' is only used to emphasize this contrast.

If you want to persist with this assertion as incorrect, you would need to find 3 examples of 'lethal' being used completely independently of 'non-lethal'. Heck, I'd take just 1 such example.

----- My conclusion -----

Each of your multiple assertions have been systemically refuted by members of this thread and the PRD.

Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

is exactly identical to

Additionally, the first 5 points of damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

Since you were the original poster in this thread Necronus, I hope this helps you.

----- P.S. Fireballs are still not attacks. -----

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Yes, fireballs are attacks.

I find it an odd place to mention channel energy though. Since channel energy is a Supernatural Ability, perhaps this alludes to more than just spells.

You haven't found any rule that states spells do lethal damage. Spells either do lethal damage, (bludgeoning, slashing or piercing) or they do elemental damage, (fire, cold, acid or etc.)

I am at a total loss as to how to explain this any better than I have... Anyone else?

I'd like a show of hands - Does anyone agree with Necronus on this? That you can't die from fireballs? If so, could you explain his reasoning a little bit better to me?

So just to some up the line of reasoning I'm seeing here, and add in the appropriate rules text...

Quote 1:
"Attacks of Opportunity
"Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

- Everything includes creatures, establishing how a character threatens other characters.

Quote 2:
"Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

- This just directs readers to read up on Total Concealment.

Quote 3:
"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."

- This establishes how creatures that are opponents, which in quote 1 were included in the everything threatened, are no longer part of the everything.

Quote 4:
"Flanking
"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
"When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
"Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
"Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent."

- This establishes that the creature (the defender) and not the square must be threatened.

Summary: There are two ways to try to interpret this...
Following the intent: A blind create does not threaten because he cannot see the lapses in defense and react to them.
The literal: A blind character threatens squares and not characters; and thus cannot flank because only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

In the case of Necronus's example, I would try explaining it as so... When creature B reacts to creature A's attacks on the square, creature C could in turn react to creature B's lapse in defense, granting creature A a +2 bonus. When creature B reacts to creature C's attack, creature A, being blind, did not see creature B's lapse in defense and react.

Coming back to the original post...

Quote 5: "The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen."

This does not establish a way around either the intent nor around the literal 'threatening the defender'.

Well... That's my two cents.

I had the misfortune of playing this module this past weekend and had this been my first taste of Pathfinder Society play, I would never play Pathfinder Society play again... and this is due to the *SUICIDE COMPULSION* haunt.

1. This haunt is based off of the Suicide Compulsion (CR 4) found in Riyal's Research: Haunts (PFRPG) and the Pathfinder SRD. When I go to Pathfinder Resource Document, neither of these appear as valid sources.

2. When I open the Game Master Guide, this haunt does not exist.

3. When I build the Haunt using the rules at the Game Master Guide, I cannot arrive at CR 3 (the judge provided me with pages 8 & 9 of the module afterwards). Step 1 - Determine Base CR: I was unable to find a spell allowing suicidal commands while duplicating the description of the trap besides Magic Jar, CR 6. Terrible remorse and confusion come close causing characters to attack themselves but not the Coup De Grace this spell mentions. Step 2 - Select Notice DC 15 for -1, Reset Time of 1 hour for +1, and Slow (manifests at initiative rank 0) for -2; CR 4. Module showed CR 3, that's only 1 difference. Please compare to the list of CR 3 and 4 monsters to this trap is equivalent to; would it be okay to throw a single group of 1st level characters against the majority of these challenges? Luckily this didn't include 'Tricked by invisibility' for -1, Susceptibility to Sonic for -1, and Persistent for +2 to make it the same exact CR. It's there in the rules, why not?

4. I have to single this out the 'Slow (manifests at Initiative rank 0)' for -2 to the CR as so awesomely cheesy, I am shocked every haunt does not have it. Why? Because haunts always start on the surprise round the chances of a character able to damage the haunt making the Notice DC, having line of sight/effect to be able to identify and damage the haunt with only a 5ft step, and the right combination of item in hand or not in hand... to damage it. I am saying that a non-healer cannot draw and throw a vial of holy water (0 damage, because it can't be done even with quick draw), a healer with cure light wounds (1d8+1, 4.5 average) can't move up more than 5ft and touch it, and a cleric can not channel energy (1d6, 3.5 average and the parties best hope) and expect to neutralize this trap's 6hp (per the module, my example would have had 8 hp) before it goes off on initiative 0. This modifier just needs to be removed and ALL traps need have a low initiative of 0... Failing that 0 + spell level or caster stat modifier.

5. Haunts are so poorly written that the DC of the trap never changes. It's always DC 15. I'd actually recommend Haunts requiring the base spell the effect is designed around and making this DC scaleable like scrolls. Perhaps whatever spell the Haunt designer used would have reduced the DC down to a 13, a marginally more survivable DC at 1st level.

6. This haunt throws an effect with NO DURATION. Once the saving throw is failed, the character is done. There is no second saving throw against this compulsion. If knocked unconscious, the compulsion is waiting for the character to be wakened. There is no rule where neutralizing or destroying the haunt does not make the effect go away. It might be argued that the haunt is not Persistent, so effects can never extend beyond the surprise (enter the next round); but then why include the coup de grace's (a full round action) damage since it can never be completed in the surprise round. It might be argued that the line stating "After this attack, the knife vanishes." but this line does not appear in the Subtier 1-2 AND since the halfling father killed himself by hanging they just have to keep trying until they succeed. It might be argued that the line "If anyone tries to prevent the attempt, the haunted character instead makes a single attack against that person with the knife." but I was literally told by the person running the module that was to prevent compelled characters with multiple attacks (or fireball) from obliterating the party. So... NO DURATION. If the saving throw is failed, you try coup de gracing yourself until you succeed... this is, by the way, what happened to my 1st level character. My character eventually got my suicide right and failed the fortitude save to die. Whether it was the 2nd or 22nd attempted suicide doesn't even matter. Being first level with no prestige and no money, the judge said there was no way to raise, and that was that. Perhaps spell duration or specifically 1 or 2 rounds?

7. And now my biggest objection with this particular Haunt named *SUICIDE COMPULSION*. This game is played by a lot of teenagers who use it as an escape from the rest of their lives. If one of them were to play this module, encounter this Haunt, have an adult GM they respect tell them they should kill themselves. If they succeed and spend the next 3 hours thinking about that, while being unable to play the game everyone else at the table is playing... <shudder> What do you plan on telling the parent when they find out? What do you plan on telling convention security and coordinators when they find out? I think, whatever and wherever the line is; this crosses it. Remember back in #3, step 1 when I was looking at spells close to this? I think this could very well be the reason that all those charm spells, suggestions, etc specifically mention what they do about suicidal commands. Something someone else besides me should be thinking on.

So what can make this better?

As a human being, I dislike the idea of irredeemable evil and I dislike the idea of the killing of any sentient being; especially their children.

As a GM I can understand that simplifying all the moral ambiguity and ethical rationalizations to the 'it's evil, so kill it' mindset is sometimes necessary, (especially for hack and slash players that just want something to be put in front of their swords). I think you are wanting to insert some of the complexity of morality and ethics into the game... Kudos for that. As a GM, I think this done carefully can be a good thing too.

With that being said...

Really want to make it 'better?' Make some of the babies half drow. Have their lineages wizard mark'd or tattooed on their backs. Have those lineages include nobles of the player characters hometown cities or better yet the PC's relatives. Heck, why not make it so that some of the babies are the PC's from when they went wenching early on in the campaign.

Be ready for that detect evil to go off on them. Do only some of the half drow babies radiate evil or none of them?

Just imagine the looks on their faces as they figure out what they are going to do... And then the excitement as the players debate with one another about what they are going to do.

P.S. PC's becoming suicidal, players may leave the game, and/or the lynching of the GM may occur. <insert long disclaimer with lots of legal jargon here>.