Jade Mantis

thrikreed's page

Organized Play Member. 200 posts (276 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Undone wrote:


In my experience saves are the king of ACTUAL, PRACTICAL, IN GAME power. "I don't suffer bad effects" Is the king of power when both the GM and players have system mastery. For example I can have a CR 3 meteor swarm haunt because the rules are absurd for haunts. If you do save against it you'll take only 42. If you don't you'll die. Shockingly I don't think many casters will save or survive that. If you assume the players will cheese assume the GM will do it as well but within the restrictions of the CR system.

Just sat down to play pathfinder for the first time in a while and someone mentioned you quoting my old example of how broken the haunt rules were... Lols!

Dark Archive

Majuba wrote:
thrikreed wrote:
Is there perhaps a different example you would like to use in place of Resist Energy?
No, I think those spells spell out quite clearly the normal rules, extending them to cover those spells (since they technically operate differently). But I see I'm falling behind in the conversation and Arthanthos is explaining perfectly.

I think if Resist Energy and Protection from Energy used an example that illustrated how the normal rules apply to them you would be correct. Instead they include the text "Protection from energy overlaps (and does not stack with) resist energy. If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted."

Since these spells are not providing an example of the existing rules being applied to these two spells; but are instead providing new rules text applicable only to themselves, then this would be contrary to the regular rules. In other words: since writers do not repeat the regular rules in every spell; this must not be a regular rule.

This is why I thought this might a bad example to support your argument and was hoping for a different example.

Majuba wrote:
I do want to provide the text from the 3.0 SRD, since I think it was a little clearer for the typical examples. It was more generalized in 3.5 and Pathfinder but lost some clarity. This honestly happened a lot, as Pathfinder was written with deeply experienced 3.5 players in mind (and playtesting).

That is a great idea. Thank you for doing so.

Majuba wrote:
3.0 SRD wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Okay, let's compare and contrast those with the pathfinder. Instead of bolding as the text normally does; I will strike out words removed from the SRD and bold and italicize and new words included.

Changes from SRD to PRD wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one with the highest strength applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

In the first case of changing 'best one applies' to 'one with the highest strength', it does make it fractionally more clear; as players and characters alike can no longer say things like "This is the best one because I cast it with my pinky held out like this." It's still confusing as it does not define strength; leaving us to figure out if it's referencing Spell Level, Caster Level, or variable rolled.

In the second case, In the the text being omitted makes the rule more confusing; so I for one am glad they added it. In either case, the rule does not define how the previous spells are being made irrelevant (or after the addition, what happens when it is being trumped).

Well, it was still a good idea to try; i just don't think it bore fruit this time around. I will endeavor to think of trying it with other rules arguments though.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
Differing strengths examples are given in the book. The one that gave the most hit points takes precedence.

I would like to know more please. Could you please go to to said book, note the title of said 'book' and print version, then find this example you speak of and note it, and finally post the information so previously noted to this thread? I would really appreciate it, since that is the very information I am looking for.

wraithstrike wrote:
As an example if I cast mirror image 3 times whichever casting gives the most images is the one that counts.

Please quote the rules that make you think this and cite where they are from. It would be a huge help.

Thank you.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
thrikreed you are incorrect

I can certainly appreciate you taking the time to state your opinion of me being in a general state of incorrect-ness. I hope you can appreciate my taking the time to state my opinion of your opinion being incorrect.

wraithstrike wrote:
Almost nobody is going to use your interpretation, but that does not mean it should not be fixed.

My interpretation? Of what? Which rule? Which example? This is pretty reminiscent of a student turning in his test blank, the teacher asking him why, and him saying 'I didn't like one possible answer of one multiple choice question.' then walking out the door.

This is particularly frustrating because I have posted multiple possible interpretations for multiple rules in an effort to shine a light on the rules text I am trying to get a better handle on.

wraithstrike wrote:
Confusion gives you the confused condition which would only overlap and not stack.

Thank you for agreeing with what I said twice prior to your post?

wraithstrike wrote:
You may need to do another FAQ to ask when a spell with multiple outcomes only applies once, and when it can apply multiple times.

So you think another FAQ thread should be created to answer some of the questions that were brought up in this FAQ thread? What would be a good name for the new FAQ thread? What do you think about the name "SPELL STACKING: EVIL EYE, BESTOW CURSE, BLESSING OF FERVOR, RAY OF ENFEEBLEMENT, RESIST ENERGY, ETC."? What do you think should be the exact wording of the very first post to fully explain to everyone what is being exactly is being asked? Are there examples that should be cite too?

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
Blessing of Fervor: The spell effects grants one choice to the target. They cannot gain benefits of multiple castings, since all they will ever get is 1 choice. If the spell said you can cast the spell to grant one of those benefits for the entire duration, then you could stack multiple castings.

Each casting is presenting a choice; much like the FAQ/Errata for a witch's Evil Eye Hex and the mentioned Bestow Curse which says: "This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics."

Nowhere in this spell does it say when the choice is being made, just that they stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics. Yes, that's official Errata/FAQ text. I've included links to it in my original post.

Calth wrote:
The second scenario you present for Holy Word is the correct, but I don't know where you got the 71 rounds of paralyze, its only 50. Scenario Three does not apply, you dont layer on the effects of holy word, stacking durations. Instantaneous Effects applies to spells like Cure Light Wounds, where if you receive multiple Cures in a single round, they all heal, instead of only the strongest.

I get 71 rounds because A. Holy Word says "Duration instantaneous" and B. because Combining Magic Effects has the text "Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target." included in the text. Those are clickable if you need to see the source. Surprisingly I can honestly say that 48 hours ago I was completely unaware of this rules text. None the less, it is there.

Calth wrote:
Scenario one applies to spells like Death Knell, the temporary hit points don't stack, you only get the one granted by the best roll. If you still had temp hp from a different casting when the best expires, you would retain those temp hp until they expire, and so on, but damage would remove temp hp from all castings currently on you.

Okay.

Let's hypothetically say Scenario One (Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths) is correct for dealing with multiple castings of the same spell with higher numerical values (again ignoring the lack of definition for strength).

Let's also hypothetically say that the FAQ/Errata is correct for dealing with spells that target different game statistics.

Now let's look at the question my original post asked... Question: What is the point of having "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." clause in the game? I'm looking for two or three examples of a spell stacking with itself which does not fit in our hypothetical Scenario One or the Errata/FAQ.

And I can't think of a single example, scenario, spell, or effect it would apply to... Unless the trumping/irrelevant text is causing something odd to happen like our Scenario 2.

And if Scenario 2 is not correct, and Scenario 1 and the Errata/FAQ are both correct; what is the point to "Same Effect with Differing Results"?

Dark Archive

LazarX wrote:

That's the way I run because the other interpretation is just too wonky and simply doesn't make sense.

If you're going to insist on overlap I'll run it this way then. The spell with the greatest amount of hit points is the one operational. As damage removes the temporary points, the same amount is removed from ALL false life spells present on the wearer, Which will mean when the operational spells points are exhausted, so will have been those from the the others.

In other words, you are not going to get any benefit from stacking 10 False Life spells on yourself, no matter how you manage to pull it off.

Please let me clarify: The benefit I am seeking, is not the stacking 10 False Life spells or even two, but rather a better and clear understanding of the rules as written... especially since these are rules core to the entirety of the game we play.

I've seen casters stack extra higher level buffs (some of them even absurd buffs), to prevent dispelling of their lower level and more important buffs. For instance, multiple castings of water breathing split among 5 party members can often save the wizards mage armor and shield along with the cleric's divine favor and protection from evil from being dispelled.

As to your interpretation of the biggest randomly generated number determining the strength instead of the Caster Level or the Spell Level, is there a quotable rule or reason which swayed you to this particular choice?

Dark Archive

Artanthos wrote:
like sources don't stack.

"Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

False Life is the same spell as False Life. 1d10 + 1 per caster level (maximum +10) temp hit points is an varying effect.

This rules text indicates they do stack. I would like to know exactly how they stack.

Artanthos wrote:
Only the spell granting the highest number of temporary hit points is active, but all spells are present.

When the active or trumping False Life spell ends, what exactly happens when the next False Life spell switches from inactive and irrelevant to active and relevant trump?

Let's say a 9th level wizard who wakes up and casts False Life using a lesser rod of empower and a borrowed orange prism ioun stone which increases his caster level to 10. He rolls awesome and ends up with 30 temporary hit points. During a combat a cleric with Antimagic Field walks up to him suppressing his False Life and does 32 points of damage. The wizard does a withdraw action and moves 60 feet away, but provokes an Attack of Opportunity from a creature that hits him with a dagger for 2 hit points of damage? Is this wizard 34 hp from his max hp, 4 hp from his max hp, or 2 hp from max with 28 temp hit points left? Once that's been figured out we can move on to the next step.

The next step is figuring out if the the words 'suppressed', 'inactive', 'trumped', and 'irrelevant' all mean the same thing in a game where they are not defined game terms. I would certainly like to know your thoughts on this.

Dark Archive

LazarX wrote:
Which ever spell was last cast is the only False Life spell still in operation. casting a false life on yourself when you already have the spell in place, ends the earlier spell.

Ends the earlier spell? Are you saying that casting a second instance of a spell (any spell? or specifically just False Life) ends any and all previous copies of itself on the same target? Why does it end the earlier spell?

I can't find text that indicates so.

There does not seem to be something along these lines in the Core Book's Magic section. And why would the words 'The same spell' be found in rules text like "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

This doesn't have some text in it like Baleful Polymorph which says "Any polymorph effects on the target are automatically dispelled when a target fails to resist the effects of baleful polymorph, and as long as baleful polymorph remains in effect, the target cannot use other polymorph spells or effects to assume a new form. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to baleful polymorph, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action." so...

Based on the text "You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability to avoid death. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 per caster level (maximum +10)." found here; I would disagree.

Based on the "Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged; see text" The spell isn't even dismissable.

What rules text are you basing your opinion on? Please include links to the PRD or SRD to the rules text as I would really like to read it (though I may still disagree with it).

Dark Archive

Majuba wrote:

Edit: I think the trouble you're having with the rules is that you're trying to apply general rules to specific situations. Especially so for the "Differing Results" text, which has both "Sometimes" and "Usually" in it. This text is trying to cover a lot of spells and situations that existed when it was written, and all the situations that could come to exist afterwards.

The "different strengths" is the one that applies here, making the other two irrelevant unless the last is dispelled. Their effects are overlapping, and used up simultaneously.

The problems I have with this rule are as follows:

1) How is 'different strengths' defined? By Caster Level, Spell Level, or result of the dice? Is this 'strength' as defined in Detect Magic ('Aura Strength: An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning spell level or an item's caster level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.')? If so, the result of dice will never come into play in determining the strength of a spell.

2) The word 'Usually' in the context of this rules text is undefined inside the rule. I would think that means that if the rule is to not be applied, the reason would be stated outside of the rule in either another section of the Combining Magic Effects or in the specific spell text. You may not agree, which makes this one word part of the problem and worth adding.

3) 'the last spell in the series trumps the others' and 'their effects become irrelevant' seems to indicate something other than the spell effects working in series or parallel. Another way to phrase it is 'When the trumping False Life spell ends, what exactly happens when the next False Life spell switches from irrelevant to relevant trump?

Majuba wrote:
A similar (but not identical) situation is if someone with resist energy (CL 3) up, as well as protection from energy with 7 hp remaining. If they are hit for 12 points of damage (of the appropriate energy type), they will suffer 2 points of damage, because the resist and protection both 'absorb' each point of damage, one up to 7, the other up to 10, not one and then the other.

Since Resist Energy specifically has the text "Resist energy overlaps (and does not stack with) protection from energy. If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted." in it; this would be an unusual situation (see 2 above).

Is there perhaps a different example you would like to use in place of Resist Energy?

Dark Archive

Claxon wrote:
Blessing of Fervor, I'm not actually sure how to handle it. You don't make a selection when casting the spell, (it's not a situation like Blindness/Deafness) the recepient of the spell makes a choice how it affects them round by round. I think it's more similar to Confusion (though Confusion no one can control what happens), and thus you couldn't cast it twice and choose two different benefits. However, I'm not 100% sure on this. It is a more complicated exmaple than others.

Because I could see the strong argument for Confusion granting the single effect of the condition of Confused I pretty much conceded the Confusion was not a good example; which is why I switched it to Blessing of Fervor.

Blessing of Fervor does not grant a single effect of The Condition of Sped-Up with the Sped-Up condition then presenting the choice outside of the spell.

Going back to the Errata and FAQ, and replace each instance of 'evil eye' with 'Blessing of Fervor', and each instance of the word 'hex' with the word 'spell'...

"This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each Blessing of Fervor effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the Blessing of Fervor spell (the Blessing of Fervor spell is much like 5 separate weak spells under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the Blessing of Fervor spell stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics."

Seems pretty perfectly parallel to me.

Also seems that the Errata only cares about the targeting of different game statistics, not when the choice for the different statistics is made or who or how the choice is made. (And let's face it, with all the spells like Holy Word and Color Spray that make choices after being cast based on the level of the target, I think that's a good thing.)

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
The rule one effect makes another irrelevant does not cover the case of spells with multiple effects with independent random durations. Making something irrelevant is having say bull's strength on you than casting transformation. Transformation renders Bull's strength irrelevant because it grants the same benefit for the duration of Transformation, but when Transformation expires you still have Bull's Strength if it has not expired. So I keep telling you, this rule affects spells that have overlapping effects that are not identical in either value or duration, only the last applies.

Let's take the Holy Word example used previously. In round 1, a 13th level cleric casts Holy word on a 8th level fighter and the fighter fails his the will save. After the dice are rolled he's suffering from 4 rounds deafened, 8 rounds blinded, and 5 minutes of paralyzed. Round 3 he's caught in a second Holy Word with 4 rounds deafened, 8 rounds of blinded and 2 minutes of paralyzed. Round 5 after that he's hit with a 3rd Holy Word and he finally makes his save with a natural 20. Now let's apply each section of the spell stacking rules independently of each other to see what they would do.

"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies." We are also assuming that different strengths applied to the number rolled on the dice (instead of Spell Level or Caster Level).

Round 1: Deafened 4 rounds, 8 rounds blinded, 50 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 2: Deafened 3 rounds left, 7 rounds blinded, 49 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 3: Deafened 4 rounds left, 8 rounds blinded, 48 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 4: Deafened 3 rounds left, 7 rounds blinded, 47 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 5: Deafened 2 rounds left, 6 rounds blinded, 46 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 6: Deafened 1 rounds left, 5 rounds blinded, 45 rounds of paralyzed.

The entire duration of the paralyzed condition is 50 rounds.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Round 1: Deafened 4 rounds, 8 rounds blinded, 50 rounds of paralyzed. Round 2: Deafened 3 rounds left, 7 rounds blinded, 49 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 3: Previous spells trumped. Deafened 4 rounds left, 8 rounds blinded, 20 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 4: Deafened 3 rounds left, 7 rounds blinded, 19 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 5: Previous spell trumped. Deafened 0 rounds left, 0 rounds blinded, 1 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 6: Deafened 1 rounds left, 5 rounds blinded, 18 rounds of paralyzed.

The entire duration of the paralyzed condition is 71 rounds, during which time this poor fighter's hearing and sight keep coming and going as trumps leave with him likely terrified out of his mind as the effects aren't corresponding to when he's rolling the saves for them.

Also this would not apply to Transformation and Bulls Strength because they are not the same spell and this clause only affects situations of the same spell.

Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

Round 1: Deafened 4 rounds, 8 rounds blinded, 50 rounds of paralyzed. Round 2: Deafened 3 rounds left, 7 rounds blinded, 49 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 3: Deafened 6 rounds left, 14 rounds blinded, 68 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 4: Deafened 5 rounds left, 13 rounds blinded, 67 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 5: Deafened 4 rounds left, 12 rounds blinded, 67 rounds of paralyzed.
Round 6: Deafened 3 rounds left, 11 rounds blinded, 66 rounds of paralyzed.

This results in 6 consecutive rounds of deafened, 16 consecutive rounds of blinded, and 71 consecutive rounds of paralyzed.

While I think it obvious that this last scenario is the only one tha should be considered with Holy Word whose duration is instantaneous... I wrote out these examples because the first two rules texts being applied to other spells like Ray of Enfeeblement would not fall under the Instantaneous Effects rules text.

Let's say we have a 3rd level wizard with only two Ray of Enfeeblement spells left in his 3rd combat of the day, with a Troll Barbarian the party has little hope of defeating and no hope of fleeing from. In round 1 before the Troll Barbarian acts he hits it with Ray of Enfeeblement and it fails it's save, the wizard rolls a 3 so the Troll Barbarian has a 4 penalty to his strength for 3 rounds. In round 2, he hits it with Ray of Enfeeblement again and it again fails it's save, the wizard rolls a 1 though so the Troll Barbarian has a 2 penalty to his strength for 3 rounds.

"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies." Again we are assuming that by 'different strengths' this clause means the number rolled on the dice (instead of Spell Level or Caster Level).

Round 1: 3 rounds of a 4 strength penalty.
Round 2: 2 rounds of a 4 strength penalty.
Round 3: 1 round of a 4 strength penalty.
Round 4: 1st casting has ended. 1 round of a 2 strength penalty.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Round 1: 3 rounds of a 4 strength penalty.
Round 2: 1st casting is trumped, 3 rounds of a 2 strength penalty.
Round 3: 2 rounds of a 2 strength penalty.
Round 4: 1st casting has ended. 1 round of a 2 strength penalty.

Now you might say that the 'Same Effect with Differing Results' rules text is not applicable here; but then I ask when is it applicable? Please keep in mind the Errata/FAQ I mentioned.

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
I am still confused by your point. You in the post you first replied to me stated that Same Effects with Differing Results was one of your two options for dealing with Holy Word. You then ask what the rule Same Effects with Differing Results applies to, and again in this post, you posted and talked about the exact same text.

Ah... Sorry. Doing too many things at once.

The quote after 'Or Possibly' should have instead been, "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion."

I meant to be asking, if we took the solution this rules text provides "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." out of the game (because I think the Errata/FAQ is doing just that); what spells would become problems unsolved by the rest of the Stacking Effects section. Or what value does this section provide that the rest of the Stacking Effects section already does not cover?

Dark Archive

Deaths Adorable Apprentice wrote:
slapping magic mouth on an item would be hilarious. mostly I was wanting the time to work normally with a &chance to do something weird. I might add magic mouth to that list of odd things.... dirty limerick fireballs, insulting buffs, singing scorching rays... oh this could be hilarious and for the lols she would use its. YAY!!!!!!!

Even something as simple as an orcish insult whenever the item is used in combat can be pretty awesome. Yeah while the wielder might think it an insult to them, so would the the Orcs hearing it. Would it be enough to draw some or all the orc agro in the area? Up to the situation. Funnier if the language is one the wielder does not know.

Keep in mind, the player or the party might decide to have it dispelled; at which point I would let them do so. By that point it should have served it's purpose... Of reminding them happy NPC's pay better and unhappy NPC's can cost them.

Dark Archive

Deaths Adorable Apprentice wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

You could go with a magic item that works just fine, but the command to activate it is something like, "I apologize to her majesty for acting like an ass."

that would make her insane. if she doesn't apologize or does it in a mouthy way I might do that

That would be pretty cool.

I was thinking she could tell the party something like, "You did so splendidly well with your mission for me, I was thinking about providing you a bonus. After XYZ's passionate presentation, I knew exactly how the bonus should be spent to benefit you."

Then add a permanent magic mouth to either XYZ's item or the communal item. Once triggered (by holding the item in hand), the magic mouth could read inspiring poetry about passionate people or maybe says 'Long live the Queen.' Even better, make it a single Magic Mouth which triggers by spouting racial slurs in a certain language when native speakers of the language are present. Or maybe let it just sit there while the players keep asking about it... Until 3 game sessions go by without them asking, then it going off on some random condition.

This should reinforce the player's perceptions of the queens feelings on what happened AND provide them with an amount of Gold Pieces lost to think about (even though they weren't going to get the gold anyways... but they don't need to know that).

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
You just posted the same rules section twice, Same Effect with Differing Results, which is the rule in effect for holy word. Differing strength would apply to things like lesser effects for successful saving throws.

I posted 'Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths' and 'Same Effect with Differing Results', followed by a link to the source (in case a reader wants to see the whole section in it's entirety. I agree with you about the section titled 'Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths' would be the best section for dealing with multiple castings of Holy Word as you described it...

The nightmare of 'Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths' and 'Same Effect with Differing Results' I'll leave alone to be covered over at Dealing with Three False Life Spells, so i won't go into that here.

So that brings us squarely back to my original question. Why do you think "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." exists in the game?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Claxon wrote:
So Confusion will not stack because it applies a specific single effect and there is not a choice to cause different affects.

In the case of Confusion, I'm not sure I'd agree. Whether by choice or not, you are applying different affects using the spell... which the errata indicates stack. However after re-examining the spell, I'd say there is a strong argument for the spell granting the Confused condition, despite never mentioning the words 'condition' or 'Confused' anywhere in it.

Please allow a substitution of a different spell where the variable is chosen after casting... Say Blessing of Fervor?

If a single character with 3 different castings of Blessing of Fervor chooses 3 different benefits, per the Errata/FAQ they stack.

If I was countering my argument here, I'd say doesn't the spell say 'These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round. Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste.'? Blessing of Fervor is not Haste nor is it a speed weapon, nor are the effects being chosen stacking with similar effects (like choosing 'Increase its speed by 30 feet.' and figuring out if it stacks with Boots of Striding and Springing, Expeditious Retreat, and the Monk class speed bonus.).

So this ruling means, each character within an entire party can pick out 3 different benefits with 3 just castings of this spell.

Really, why does the section stating "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." exist in the same game as the Errata/FAQ mentioned above? I feel as if the two are in direct contradiction of each other and I'd like clarification.

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
I see the original rule applying to cases like Holy Word, which causes multiple effects with random duration. Lets say you cast Holy Word twice, first cast getting 4 rounds of deafness and 3 rounds of blindness, second getting 1 round of deafness and 8 rounds of blindness. After the deafness from the second casting expires, even though the deafness of the first casting still has duration, it has no effect since the second casting still has duration. Basically, you cant layer on the same spell with random durations for multiple effects to get the best durations from amongst the castings, you only get the last casting til it expires, then if the second to last casting still has duration on some effects they apply, and so on until all the spells have expired.

I think this scenario is specifically covered under a different part of Combining Magic Effects section, which follows:

PRD wrote:
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

or possibly:

PRD wrote:
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

This can be found here.

If these cover the scenario you mention far more aptly than "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.", why include this rules text at all?

I've asked for some clarification about those two sections as well here.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Which spell takes precedence: an empowered False Life CL 10 with 2 temp hp left cast 1st, a False Life CL 9 with 10 temp hp cast second, or a False Life heightened to a 3rd level spell with 10 temp hp which was cast last? Why? And what happens when

Let's say a player has a 9th level wizard who wakes up and casts False Life using a lesser rod of empower and a borrowed orange prism ioun stone which increases his caster level to 10. He rolls awesome and ends up with 30 temporary hit points. In his very first combat his party is getting trashed and he gets hit a few times for 28 hit points of damage and 4 points of constitution damage leaving him just 2 temporary hit points. In a moment of respite with no threats visible to him he casts another False Life and rolls a 1 which should provide him with 10 temp hit points. Still in initiative, his paranoia gets the better of him and he casts a False Life he heightened to a 4th level spell (I have no clue why) and rolls a 2, which should provide him with 11 temp hit points. Since these all grant the same effect with different strengths... how many temporary hit points should our scared out of his mind wizard have? What happens when each spell, which is not dismissable, discharges?

The relevant RAW are as follows:

PRD wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

This can also be found online here.

In this passage, when referring to different strengths, what is being referred to? Spell level, caster level, or strength of the result?

In the following round our wizard is hit with three arrows doing 5 damage each, then a dispel magic with a 20 total (dispelling one of his CL 9 spells if one is still present), then three more arrows doing an average of 5 damage each. What exactly happens?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Question: What is the point of having "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." clause in the game?

Per the errata found here and the FAQ found here, Evil Eye and Bestow Curse both stack with themselves which directly contradicts the rule found above or here.

I think this is setting a precedent for tons of other spells (off the top of my head like Blindness/Deafness, Confusion, Elemental Aura, Fire Shield, Protection from Energy, Resist Energy, etc) to follow.

I would think most players would be terrified of multiple castings of Confusion stacking; the affected players rolling multiple times and babbling incoherently when the results do not match each other. Two castings would drop a 25% chance to act normally to to 5%, three castings 1.25% chance. Why wouldn't villians stack Confusion while forcing saves on the heroes that made the first one?

Isn't this rules text the reason some spells were combined while others were broken up (like the Detect Evil or Protection from Chaos spells)?

What's the point or of having having the above rules text in the game if the precedent allows the rule to be pretty much ignored?

Really, what spells does the above rules text affect if not spells like these?

Dark Archive

Pryllin wrote:

Haunts are a brilliant concept. The mechanics are terrible.

Just like traps, they detract from the game when used poorly. But, when used well, they add so very much more.
Because the haunts are plot and story based, they need less rules, not more. They are continuously compared to traps, but instead of using trap rules, or disease rules, or curse rules or any other already established and known rules, we made up new rules for haunts. And sadly, the idea has suffered because of that.

-

Are you saying that to fix Haunts, you'd recommend removing all the mechanics? Would you agree with gamer-printer's following statement?
-
gamer-printer wrote:
the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook.

-

Could haunts be stripped of mechanics and run as plot or back story? I think most of us would answer... yes.
-
So... since when do good writers and GMs need Haunts to introduce good plot or back story to the game?
-
Necronus wrote:

IMO: Haunts are a lazy DM tool. Anything a haunt does, a good DM could do without relying on this tool (that seems to have a consensus of needing fixed anyways).

So, in the end how do they actual add value? Why not just use them as written as a guide to lead you to a better solution. You read the haunt, you know what it wants to do. Then just do it better.

-

It really sounds like all three of you are saying the same thing... And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it that way if that's what works for each of you individually.
-
But if this is what you're doing, why is it still being called a Haunt? Doesn't this create a situation where one table running a Haunt encounter had a great time playing with a plot hook, while another table had a horrible time playing with the mechanics? The irony is while they had very different experiences with very different 'Haunts', it was the same encounter. And the worst part? The table that tried to follow the rules is the one that had the horrible time. Is it really so bad to admit they need to be fixed, find the problems with them, find solutions to the problems, and fix them?
-
Necronus wrote:
So, in the end how do they actual add value?

-

As to what is it Haunts offer? I think Haunts were an attempt to create a delivery vehicle to inject plot and back story into the game without being the usual PC/NPC interactions.
-
Because Pathfinder is a rules based game and rules are necessary to provide a frame work for how player characters interact with everything in the game... Haunts needed rules. The thing about plot and back story is writers and GMs do not like their plot and back story disarmed or bypassed by the rogue, and then ignored by the party. So uninterruptable non-NPC non-traps Haunts were created.
-
(Note: I find it ironic writers are re-introducing NPC characteristics specifically stripped from Haunts like an ability understand language and communicate in an indirect means similar to what we use for Apes and Dolphins IRL.)
-
I am suddenly reminded... Years ago when I played in Living City I remember there being a similar set of rules which filled the same role... Boxed Texts. Walls of text to be read to players without interruption which got abused by some writers so much... other writers created Interrupt Boxed Text Certificates to give to players. Boxed Texts were used to introduce players to villains, guarantee villains' escape, transport players to inescapable locations, trigger traps, kill one or more players before the first round of combat without the players being able to react. Plot hooks and back story abounded; but really players often became frustrated with Boxed Texts because so often they were used to take away player choice and opportunities for role-playing.
-
Sound familiar?
-
I think Haunts are far more insidious since they hide behind game mechanics which at first glance give a chance to counter the Haunt... But when examined closely are not plausible.
-
And boxed text was never, to my knowledge, used to tell any player for all intents and purposes 'You failed the save, your character commits suicide.'

Dark Archive

gamer-printer wrote:
Although I was not aware of the Wisdom detectable haunts (I don't read everything Paizo), that is even better than a Perception check, since not everyone even possesses ranks in Perception, though everyone can make a Wisdom check (albeight not always the best stat to roll against - still available to every class.)

-

Perception is a skill based Wisdom check available to all classes too. While not everyone gets the +3 class bonus for putting in at least 1 rank, they can still take ranks in it. Also racial and class abilities specifically designed to interact with Perception get nixed. An 8th cleric min/maxed to 20 Wisdom + 2 level stat bumps, with a +4 stat bump fails a DC 18 Wisdom check 45% of the time.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook.

-

I've read through Haunts as present here repeatedly and still have not found the word plot anywhere. Maybe this should be part of the solution for Haunts; how to treat them like plot hooks. Please try writing a rule or rules that makes EVERY Haunt a plot device that cannot be abused.
-
ANYTHING can be a plot hook. I'll go with this definition of a plot hook... a plot hook is an in-game element that inspires a strong motivation to pursue a course of action that furthers the plot or enriches a narrative in a game. Give ANYTHING back story and it becomes a plot hook.
-
No, Haunts need more definition than just 'plot hook'.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
And no I don't think haunts should be considered undead, nor monsters, they are much more akin to a hazard or trap, and not any kind of entity on its own. Thus Speak with Dead should have no effect at all, a haunt is not an undead.

-

Was the 'not' in 'not any kind of entity' a typo? Are you saying you like Haunts existing outside of the rules? Are you defining them by what they are not?
-
gamer-printer wrote:

Fluff wise, a haunt is the residue of a dark event involving a tragic death - murder, suicide or other death with a heavy emotional resonance. It is something new of its own category. A haunt is a haunt and nothing else.

A haunt's CR is the amount of positive energy required to suppress - it otherwise has no physical form that can be damaged by weapon or most spells, thus no HD.
I have never considered haunts as undead creatures, they are dangerous resonances - a new category of thing, thus are treated differently. I am fine with that.
gamer-printer wrote:
since Detect Undead can detect a haunt, that a haunt has an undead aura.

-

It sounds to me like you have a definition of what a Haunt is: A dangerous residue with heavy emotional resonance that has an undead aura lacking physical form. Without telling me what Haunts are not, please tell me more about what you consider Haunts to be. Than we can start comparing notes with each other and with RAW.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
In the end, haunts are not in the Bestiaries, thus are not monsters and all the arguments that perceive them as monsters with HD, and could somehow affected by spells affecting monsters are completely groundless, so a valueless exercise in discussion.

-

Are you saying Haunts are immune to spells which say "Target creature touched"? That is exactly what Cure Spells say. You've now stated Haunts are not monsters, undead, or affected by spells affecting monsters; but this seems to contradict the RAW.
-
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt’s hit points (a haunt never gains a Will save to lessen the damage done by such effects, and attacks that require a successful attack roll to work must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits).

-

This could be read to say "When a Haunt manifests, a Haunt gains a form with an AC 10 vulnerable only to positive energy." Usually the perception check describes an effect. Is the effect the form which should be attacked? Or does it gain a separate form? Does perception alone see the form? Is the form the size of a mote dust or as big as the Haunt?
-
gamer-printer wrote:
Haunts have existed at least since the start of Pathfinder, and since haunts are not monsters, nor undead, and have been categorized as their own thing, why all the need to try to slot them into some other category of thing. If it was something introduced to the game much later than its founding, one might understand there might be issues to where it belongs, however, it was its own thing (and not a monster) from the beginning, so no need to try to justify a haunt as something that it is not.

-

Are you saying 'if something existed since the start of the Pathfinder, there is no reason to make it better'? If that was true: why come out with errata, new rules, or new content?
-
gamer-printer wrote:
why all the need to try to slot them into some other category of thing.

-

Pathfinder is a rules based game and when something comes along based more on what rules it does not follow than what rules it does follow, I think it needs to be fixed. To make the game better, just like all the other errata.

Dark Archive

Joey Virtue wrote:

I just dont want my players to walk through these haunts that should be epic encounters

So I think more HP and a bump in the DCs should be good to help like a plus 1 or 2 (my PCs have really good stats and make very good characters)
im thinking 6 HP per CR and not making them creatures and A DC of 1.5 x CR rounded down instead of one for one

-

Based on my experience, I'd not recommend it.
-
If I may suggest something... when introducing a new rule into my home campaigns I usually try to give that new rule an exit strategy. If you want to grant Haunts the benefits you mentioned or something similar to a desecrate; which is to say a +1 or +2 hp per CR and bonus to attack and damage rolls... just put in an item specific to that one Haunt as a reason for that benefit.
-
Also the new rule can often be looked at like an opportunity to introduce players to elements from the long term story arc or in this case the story of a particular Haunt. Something that can create a connection between players and the Haunt. A child's faded crayon drawing of a two particular people or an old moth eaten dress with a name sewn into the collar. If you like the idea of Haunts communicating, why wouldn't they try doing it when players aren't around? For instance a board with the names of a couple of people from the haunt's history scratched into it with sewing needle or teeny tiny peeble? Back story really does help with Haunts, the more that is introduced the more likely players to get hooked in a fun way.
-
If you decide that Haunts are getting too powerful, you can stop introducing the items... or have one or more of the items begin rotting suddenly for some logical reason (like the item went too far from the Haunt) or even better for no reason.

Dark Archive

gamer-printer wrote:

Another way to solve many of these issues especially regarding haunt detection (granted its 3PP), but at the start of #30 Haunts for Kaidan by Rite Publishing is a wondrous item called the Skeleton Key.

Skeleton Key
Aura faint divination; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 3,700 gp; Weight -

Description
This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead. If there are no undead or lingering auras within 60 ft., the key will float on its string and point towards the strongest undead aura within 300 ft.

This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead three times per day as the spell. When within 60 ft. of a haunt, the wearer of a Skeleton Key can make a Perception check to notice the haunt at a –4 penalty regardless of whether or not the haunt has manifested.

Construction
Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead; Cost 1,850 gp

Problem solved.

-

Beautiful! Not only does this acknowledge the problem with detecting Haunts but solves it nicely.
-
For "If there are no undead or lingering auras within 60 ft., the key will float on its string and point towards the strongest undead aura within 300 ft.", would the Skeleton Key ever point toward a Haunt?
-
I think the line "When within 60 ft. of a haunt, the wearer of a Skeleton Key can make a Perception check to notice the haunt at a –4 penalty regardless of whether or not the haunt has manifested." should more plainly state the ability is granted for the wearer all the time, and not just for the 15 minutes a day when the detect undead is up. Or does it?
-
That being said, I do not think this item is the whole solution to my points of parties not getting ample time to react, but combined with other solutions like Haunts taking a standard action to Manifest; I think this could be epic in modules that have even one Haunt.
-
Thank you for sharing this.

Dark Archive

Joey Virtue wrote:
So if I gave them a D8 Hit Points per CR would that make them to powerful?

-

Hypothetically...
-
If a GM were to rule that they are a creature then a D8 is fine. Keep in mind this alone should not be used to change the formula of 2 hit points per HD, or 4.5 hp per HD if they are persistent. Since most creature types have constitution scores, Haunts could have more hit points.
-
If a GM were to rule that they are a undead then a d8 is fine. Keep in mind this alone should not be used to change the formula of 2 hit points per HD, or 4.5 hp per HD if they are persistent. However as undead, they would benefit from the effects of desecrate.
-
IF Haunts were ruled creatures, they would need to be stated out more completely. I'd probably start with with the incorporeal and undead monster traits to start off with. The discrepancy between how incorporeal undead can be hurt by other things other than positive energy and holy water; and how haunts are usually immune (unless a weakness is chosen) would need to be addressed. Would a new creature trait do it? Create one for disembodied or haunts? How would that new trait be defined?
-
What are your thoughts Joey?

Dark Archive

gamer-printer wrote:
Anybody can detect it, and avoid it by leaving the area of effect - they witness something scary, but does not affect them mechanically. A fighter with ranks in Perception can detect and avoid a haunt no problem, as long as he makes his DC check.

-

Per RAW, previous to the surprise round Haunts are undetectable with out detect undead or detect evil (or whatever the Haunt's alignment is, if one is included) and even then it's at a -4 penalty to the listed perception check. There is no other way to detect a Haunt pre-surprise round. None. This was my point 1.
-
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Although haunts function like traps, they are difficult to detect since they cannot be easily observed until the round in which they manifest. Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty). When a haunt is triggered, its effects manifest at initiative rank 10 in a surprise round. All characters in the haunt’s proximity can attempt to notice the haunt at the start of this surprise round by making a notice check.
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
If the haunt is reduced to 0 hit points by positive energy, it is neutralized— if this occurs before the haunt takes its action at initiative rank 10, its effect does not occur.

-

Haunts begin manifesting at the beginning of the surprise round. Also at beginning of the surprise round the members of the party can make their very first perception check, just to see if they can roll initiative for that surprise round.
-
And you know all this assumes that there is even a perception check, because some haunts can only be detected by Wisdom checks... so no matter the number in ranks in perception, perception can be useless.
-
Striken Family, Notice: Wisdom check DC 10
Ghoulish Uprising, Notice; Wisdom check DC 13
Cannical Urgings, Notice: Wisdom check DC 18 Clerics with stat items make this less than 50% of the time.
-
Even after all that; it's still just a surprise round...
-
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round.
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round.

-

2. Flight.
Versus a perception check DC 15 (assuming players win ties) AND an initiative of 10... a 4th level cleric (+4 perception, +0 initiative) has a 27.5% chance to act, 4th level fighter (+0 perception, +3 initiative) has a 21% chance to act, 4th level rogue (+10 perception, +6 initiative) has a 68% chance to act, and 4th level wizard (+1 perception, +2 initiative) has a 22.8% chance to act... But for the entire party to escape all eight of those checks have to be successful and there is only .89% (yes, less than 1% chance) of that happening.
-
And then the effect goes off, and in cases where it's a single target screw, other characters are far less likely to be in a position to easily help their ally.
-
And if the Haunt is persistent and a character failed both of those checks... the Haunt may get to activate it's effect AGAIN before you've even acted for the first time since it appeared.
-
Yeah, I think this needs to be fixed.
-
Solutions: While not RAW, I think most us can agree that Standardizing the Notice to just perception would help but it's not the whole solution. Back story really does help here, when it's present to players prior to the Haunt. which it often is not. Also, a Haunt manifesting as a standard action makes this a lot less of a screw... What does everyone else think?
-
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i merely allow rogues and stuff like urban rangers a chance to suppress the haunt with a disable device check, treating the haunt as a magical trap. because mechanically, it is a magical trap

-

In a home campaign this makes as much sense as giving otherwise unavailable perception checks before the surprise round. Unfortunately, since I've played in PFS I have to go by RAW. Per RAW, since they have no disable DC, they cannot be disabled.
-
That being said, I'd like to point out that rogues have the BEST chance (in the above example an 68% chance to act) in the party to be able to react to the Haunt... They just need a vial of holy water (2d4 damage and assuming the GM rules Haunts undead creatures... more later on this) or heck even a potion of Cure Light (1d8+1) in their off hand before the surprise round started. The problem is that this usually means needing to know there could be haunts around AND giving up two weapon fighting, two handed weapons, spell casting, or anything else they might need that hand for in a surprise round for the entire dungeon/haunted house. Even If they don't do enough damage to neutralize it in the surprise round, in my experience it'll have been worth it because all too many haunts are persistent. This makes it all the more likely that enough damage can be poured on the Haunt to neutralize it before it activates it's effect a second time. (In other words, don't discount the rogues usefulness outside of disabling device it).
-
Coming back to to the GM considering Haunts undead creatures... There is some good reasons to thing so.
-
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
some haunts can be tricked by effects like hide from undead or invisibility.

-

But Haunt RAW do not treat Haunts like undead in any other way, for instance by giving them the undead template or stating them like a creature.
-
Joey Virtue wrote:
Do Haunts have HD equal to their CR? and what dice is it if they do?

-

Per RAW, they do not have HD but are assigned hit points sort of like items.
-
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ wrote:
hp: This lists the haunt’s effective hit points for the purposes of resolving positive energy damage. A haunt’s hit points are equal to twice its CR, except in the case of a persistent haunt, in which case its hit points are equal to its CR × 4.5 (round fractions down).

-

The implication that the CR is a Haunts HD and the HD is at least a D6, or more likely a D8 or D12 can be made and built off of to say it is a creature... But then falls completely apart because Haunts are not stated out like any other monster in the game.
-
Does Speak with Dead work on Haunts? I'd think so but wouldn't that mean Haunts would need Intelligence for languages and knowledge, Wisdom to make a will save, and Charisma to make a bluff? Where are those stats listed for Haunts? I would think the investigation Haunting section at the bottom of http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/haunts would rely on many the same things. Spirit boards would likely be keyed to specific alphabets used for common languages, but I remember languages often have different alphabets. A Chinese Haunt hundreds of years old may be unable to respond to a talking board lettered in English characters.
-
Solutions: Make Haunts creatures. Think on this... do haunts meet the definition of a creature per Paizo? What's Paizo's definition?
-
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.
-
And we're just getting started....

Dark Archive

Brandon Hodge wrote:
This haunt thread was pointed out to you because it offers proposed solutions that you were seeking, not because your criticism was in the wrong place.

-

I checked. I double checked. You are not among the people who contacted me about this thread; nor is the reason you stated numbered among the reasons they pointed it out.
-
No... It's because they disagreed strongly with certain content of the thread.
-
And because when they've voiced critique of the amalgamated mush Haunts have become, with all the shifting goal posts; they've risked stepping on the toes of far too many people. These other people are often other players adamantly who defend any haunt ran with results better than that one tragic time, or maybe the gm who adamantly defends his interpretations because they are better than the Haunts he's encountered, or maybe the writers have their professional pride too, or maybe it's all the above. But that leaves those individual feeling very exposed in a room of people too busy defending their solutions and all too quick to dismiss all the others... And those people are all too often friends and family they would rather not risk this with. Meanwhile the problems with RAW Haunts are being forgotten.
-
Some people pointed it out to me because of my 'success' in previous threads... Which is still a surprise to me, because the threads they pointed out, I had thought lost and given up on.
-
But the person who finally got me to look said Haunts were so bad and wrong, a new word like badrong should be created just to to describe them and wondered why I wasn't involved in fixing the badrong Haunts.
-
I am pointing out your assumptions, as in the cases of your previous mention of vitriol and spite, are not always correct. Please ask instead of assuming. We all, including myself, need to work on playing nice and communicating.
-
Brandon Hodge wrote:
While that's not to say your initial critique of haunts doesn't make some solid points or is out of place here, when you guys steer off course with the root of your conflict being about acceptable PFS allowance for GM fixes, which is a HUGE percentage of the source of your complaint, you're off-topic.

-

I disagree. By pointing out PFS as one place Haunts are more consistently ran RAW; it gives an opportunity to put a spot light on the problems with Haunts with out home rules muddling it to mush. Think of them as a control group. The comparisons and contrasts between home campaigns and PFS could be revealing, and be a helpful tool in bettering all Haunts.
-

So, in my own inept way, I've been trying to do the following:
1. State clearly Haunts have problems with their rules as written.
2. To listen and note and examine the problems and solutions being used and boil them down to two lists... Though there are so many inconsistencies with how Haunts are being interpreted by writers and written, interpreted by GMs and ran, and interpreted by players... that Haunts and the interpretations are becoming an amalgamated mush most people just want to avoid like poison...
3. State the list of the problems, thank people for acknowledging some or all of the points, and encourage them to suggest more. It's not a completely comprehensive list, it does cover the biggest problems I have heard about. Well... trying.
4. Boil the list of solutions down and refine it to address all the problems listed... and find or create solutions to unaddressed points. This last one is pretty tough because to get people to create the solutions, first they have to agree there is a problem.
-

Brandon Hodge wrote:

Moving forward: You've been offered a solution for fixing PC information on haunts with Knowledge checks, a system of which has since found print in 3PP products. You've noted a lack of backstory elements with the response that Haunting of Harrowstone has backstory elements for the important haunts, and the backmatter article's haunts doesn't have extensive backstories because they were meant for GMs to work their own histories for them in home campaigns. We all recognize the problems with inflicting the suicide haunt on PCs (though it does not appear in Carrion Crown or HoH), so let's get past that.

What non-PFS-related criticisms have not been addressed? Wonky 'screw-you' creation tactics with nasty GMs potentially jury-rigging the CR system? Initiative matters forcing haunts on PCs with no chance to otherwise react? Other issues? What would you propose be done to solve these perceived shortcomings?

-

Sure... Let's start by hitting the initiative one since there is another post present that seems to present the opportunity.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
You seem to think, because I agree haunts (unaltered) can be problematic, that I must agree that the mechanic is broken.
"gamer-printer wrote:
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.

-

This is an incorrect assumption. Paizo moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder in 2009. The continued reintroduction of the suicide Haunt has since re-occurred in numerous publications including Pathfinder Society Scenario 3-21 The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment released in 2012, which was a deal breaker. And, since it's still part of the publications being released and is still present in online publications like d20pfsrd; it is still a part of the problem.
-
"gamer-printer wrote:
Not that I agree they all have problems, but its hardly a thing to throw out haunts you don't like.

-

This is spoken like someone that has never sat at a table under an unreasonable game master or played in a living campaign like Pathfinder Society for any significant amount of time...
-
Pathfinder Society rules say things like:
- "If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter." which means that if a suicide Haunt triggers and kills the character of a 10 year old kid, the GM is supposed to let it happen. Discussions occur like this are occuring a lot more than you'd think in real life.
- "Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons."; so all too many GMs can interpret that to include haunts... and some GMs can interpret that to exclude them and give grounds to remove Haunts from the Pathfinder Society modules. Eventually Paizo will compensate for this oversight... And sadly the suicide haunt will still be around.
-
"gamer-printer wrote:
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.

-

I disagree and I think many more people than you suspect do... but because of dismissive statements like 'I fixed it by doing this' or 'It works for me' or 'I'm going to play it my way and you play it yours' or 'it's just a game suck it up' or 'if you don't like it don't play' or (my new favorite) 'Who made you an authority'. We'll come back to that last one here in a bit... but I will say that these Haunt threads were pointed out to me.
-
"gamer-printer wrote:

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).

-

Because Paizo controls the distribution of information into the Pathfinder Society hardcovers (making the knowledge readily accessible without internet), Pathfinder Society play, and www.paizo.com/prd; then, unfortunately, yes... Paizo will have to be involved. If, as a 3rd party publisher, you think you can get this done... I challenge you to do it. Ban the suicide Haunt. Add Back Story and the knowledge checks and investigation/rapping. These things will definitely improve haunts. Will they, by themselves, fix haunts... I don't think so.
-
"gamer-printer wrote:
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.

-

All I have to go off of is one rather biased opinion. I'm saying Back Story and Knowledge checks and Rapping Spirits/Investigating Haunts are all likely parts of the solution; but they should not be considered the whole solution or used to dismiss the search for the whole solution. You very well could have the a genuine fix but I haven't seen a solution that fixes Haunts yet... And if it's a really awesome solution I can certainly understand not posting it on an open forum... but an undistributed unknown is not a solution for a game long in distribution.
-
"gamer-printer wrote:
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?

-

'who made you an authority'... Is there a correct answer to this? No matter how I answer it gives reason for you to take umbrage. So, I guess the best way to answer is from the heart...
-
Start with each and every one of us being authorities on what we find and do not find fun; and let me tell you no one is a great authority on that subject than themselves. See I loved D20/Pathfinder Role Playing... And after repeated exposures to Haunts I was not having fun and that love was fading fast. Usually I look around at the fun in the eyes and faces of the players around me and it rejuvenates my love of the game... But when I started looking around at other players at my table; there was not a single player at the table that had a smile on their face. So I went to other tables, then other event days and a convention or two, and then forum boards; and I noticed a startling pattern. I was not the only person who had problems with Haunts and those of us who did were being dismissed not just from the haunts but from the game they loved. So, I listened without being dismissive. I did research. I talked through my issues on forums just like this one. I refined my arguments and my examples. I fought to stand up for the game I love and point out it needed to be fixed so that one day it will still be around for me to share with my community, or my kids, or my grandkids. So you ask who made me an authority on something I love; and I declare that I did, by loving it. What better credentials could there be?

Dark Archive

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

-

No, what I expected was for Haunt advocates to
thrikreed wrote:
dismiss all of what I am saying by more or less saying 'I fixed it by doing this' or 'It works for me' or 'I'm going to play it my way and you play it yours' or 'it's just a game suck it up' or 'if you don't like it don't play'.

My expectations have again been met.

-
This is the reason I state
thrikreed wrote:
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... 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.

-

gamer-printer wrote:
However, you aren't even considering that I've fixed all those issues in my published haunts, thus I certainly plan to continue using them, as my designs don't share the problems that other haunts might have.

-

Oh I considered it. After removing...
-
Four for suicide:
gamer-printer wrote:
On your first post you spend a good amount of it discussing the suicide haunt. I'm not a fan of the suicide haunt, so I simply ban that one from my games, but I don't see the suicide haunt as indicative of a problem regarding all haunts. That is just one bad haunt, toss it, forget it - no need for concern.

-

IF Paizo stopped their promotion of suicide by taking a stance and banning just that one trap from all their publications; this would fix FOUR of my points.

-
and One for knowledge checks for background:
gamer-printer wrote:

We've discussed and agreed that Knowledge (local) and (religion) DC checks should be included as part of the basic haunt stat-block. Since I include those DC checks in the stat-block of haunts I create, then such mechanics aren't missing - look at my stat-block there they are...

Also as mentioned both products of mine that involve haunts all have extensive back stories - because they are required to make haunts work. Its not my fault that other designers, including those at Paizo do not include extensive back stories. And because they don't doesn't mean all haunts are at fault.

-

IF every haunt had this entry this would satisfy ONE more of my points. Heck I'd even settle for all future publications and the online PRD and d20pfsrd.com having them posted in every Haunt. They do not.

-
That still leaves us with TWELVE other un-addressed points. TWELVE which are being dismissed.
-
I even searched for Rite Publications which mention haunts and found 5 different free publications available, 4 of which had a total of 11 haunts. While alignment was consistently present (though I think I recall at least 1 non-evil alignment), knowledge checks were not present in more than half of them... (Note to self: I think I'd like to see the Initiative included in the entries since haunts can have more than one, maybe include for v4).
-
I became reminded of an issue of Haunt vs Effect, persis...
-
Choo! Choo!:

And was completely derailed by chain haunts! Haunts that build off of each other! The first haunt starts with a hold person and begins feeding information, after two failed saves a second haunt triggers mind fog and that feeds more information, and then a little while later phantasmal killer. Mind fog stacks with the other spell effects, how else were we going to get the DCs for the Will saves into the mid 20s for CR 3 and 4 haunts? At least it's not confusion right? What does everyone else thing about this?

-
and the awesome skeleton army hat:

What player character does not want a non-magical item that can be worn in the same slot as an existing magical item, has 31 hit points, fixes itself after 1 hour, and casts repulsion every single round of the day (because a the wearer is constantly triggering it) with the visual effect of a wall of skeletons. What are the trade offs? You appear to have a skeleton on a throne riding your head, the item detects as Evil, you have to walk in the back of the party (to constantly be popping the repulsion for your allies. I've seen entirely too many characters that would LOVE this item.

-
Well... since I am not going to spend money on anything with Haunts to see if there is some updated content... I guess I will fall back upon...
thrikreed wrote:
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... 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.

Have a nice day.

Dark Archive

Brandon Hodge wrote:
So obviously I recognize that the mechanic has some issues, though I'm not willing to subscribe to most of your points of breakdown.

Even if you do not subscribe to my whole list, I thank you for acknowledging that Haunts do have some issues. That is a heartfelt thank you, as I really do mean to state my thanks to both you and game-printer.

Why? Because it allows people to see that even the advocates for haunts see that there are problems with Haunts that need to be fixed.

My biggest obstacle has always been that most Haunt advocates are not willing to do this. They dismiss all of what I am saying by more or less saying 'I fixed it by doing this' or 'It works for me' or 'I'm going to play it my way and you play it yours' or 'it's just a game suck it up' or 'if you don't like it don't play'. The inconsistencies with Haunts (and how they are being presented to players) are actually making this obstacle even worse, as it provides more people with an experience used to do just this... at least until they are a player in a module where the more typical haunt experience occurs.

Brandon Hodge wrote:
Now, I am the guy responsible for trying to fix some of your concerns. I introduced the rapping spirit rules in that article to give PCs at least some means of communicating with haunts and learning the methods of their destruction. The Knowledge check rules you stated above were cut from the published version of the HoH article, so I put them here on the boards for the community to use as they see fit, along with some other refinements that are posted upthread here. It's my hope that I'm given another crack at plugging some of those holes in an official rules format. We'll see.

Again, thank you for agreeing with me that they need to be fixed.

And I especially thank you for trying to fix them AND being willing to continuing to try to fix them. I really do hope Paizo takes you up on fixing haunts. I really wish you luck on this endeavor.

Something like this right here has been my hope from the very beginning of my posts going all the way back to the summer of 2012 when I posted here that Haunts would be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition and thus fixed; or, if not fixed, then banned. Please note banning was never my first option, but always my last resort.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
Most of your rant is falling on deaf ears, at least I'm not hearing it.

-

Thank you for stating you choosing to ignore a portion of my post and also for reading what you did. I hope you can understand me choosing to do the same.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
I'm not a fan of the suicide haunt, so I simply ban that one from my games,

-

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

-

Thank you for acknowledging that at least that one haunt is a problem.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
I can agree that the lack of a Knowledge check DC as part of the stat block is a problem

-

Thank you for acknowledging that haunts are missing mechanics to make them viable.
-
I would like to point out that per Brandon Hodge, who apparently is the guy responsible for haunts, you would also need to include a Knowledge (local) with the knowledge (religion). I also note that the DC on those checks should only have been 15+CR for identifying the Haunt and the first piece of information (I misstated it previously). So when a player does make it and the player asks for destruction, what do you give the player? I'd certainly like to know what your solution is.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
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.

-

Thank you for acknowledging that most haunts do not include an extensive back story.
-
My baseline party has one character, the cleric, that could have tossed +4 (1st) or +7 (4th) at the Knowledge (religion) DC 19; giving the entire party a 30% or 45% chance to identify the haunt and get 1 piece of information. What happens to the other 62% of the parties that never make that check? They don't get to keep re-rolling do they? So all that back story is irrelevant to them unless you put other ways for them to find information about those haunts; again something that does not happen consistently.
-
gamer-printer wrote:
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.

-

Thank you for letting us all know what products to avoid buying. I personally love the mechanics behind Tarrasques, so no doubt if I wanted to follow your example, I should include at least one in every published adventurer product for PF I ever design regardless of tier. I will never do that, for I imagine the same reason other writers do not, because players either get frustrated having to remake characters or bored facing the same thing over and over.
-
Once again; I just want to thank you for agreeing that haunts are problems, missing mechanics, missing adequate back story, and yet you still plan on using them them.

Dark Archive

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

My updated rant...:

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 the Suicide Haunt <updated>.
-
1. Perception check? What perception check? Without magic, there is no way to find the haunt before it manifests or triggers. None. With magic, there is a less than a 70% chance thought I'd put it at 56% since most haunts I've encountered are CR 6 and below.
-
How did I get those percentages? Well... out of the 69 Haunts on d20pfsrd.com the 48 had Evil alignments, 1 of them had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 19 Haunts undetectable even by magic. For CR 6 and below this becomes even more skewed. Of 34 Haunts, 17 had evil alignments, 1 had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 15 undetectable even by magic.
-
But let's say you do have the correct spell up AND the Haunt has an alignment (if not already present the GM just assumes an evil alignment), you can finally make a perception check but at a -4 penalty. But hey, at least its a chance, right?
-
So unless one or more characters is using just the right spell, the haunt has just the right alignment, and the player with the spell up makes the perception check at -4; these are unavoidable.
-
2. Did I mention that when one specific entry was looked for in 73 Haunts, 19 omitted part of the stat block defining them? This really makes me curious as to what other parts of the stat block are missing from some Haunts. Pretty much proves Haunts are no being written consistently, even with their own rules.
-
3. Running away is not a valid option. In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check and roll better initiative than the Haunt.
-
We'll start with an example Haunt with an initiative of 0 and a Perception DC 15 versus the party built for perception. 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. It just so happens that Paizo provides us with just such characters and in the classes I think would make a good baseline... We'll use those specific 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.
-
4. 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 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. Though upon further review Brandon Hodge, the writer Paizo employed to create haunts, has stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“
-
Still... I would concede this is a logical extension of the rules... Until it comes time for determining what is learned about a haunt. "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. Every single time.
-
But then, what's the chances of a group making a Knowledge (religion) or (local) DC 19 to identify the suicide haunt and DC 24 to get a useful piece of information about the Suicide Haunt? Glad to be 1st level facing it right?
-
5. Remember the part where Brandom Hodge stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“ Wow... You know... If the foremost expert on Haunts has to state rules as “I think” to preface the rules he wrote; what hope does anyone else have for stating this is part of the rules? Why doesn't he just fix it? Why doesn't he contact Paizo to fix it? Why doesn't Paizo just fix it?
-
6. 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. IF (and I do mean big if here) the cleric is, what AC does he have to hit? Per the description of haunts AC 10. Be thankful the aforementioned writer of haunts did not get his wishes of 10+Haunt CR with an incorporeal miss chance.
-
At the 1-2 subtier, the haunt has 6 hp, notice DC 15. The cleric has +3 perception, +2 bonus to the attack. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Light Wounds is 16.25%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel 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, +5 bonus to attack and much better damage. Chances of neutralizing a Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Moderate Wounds is 4.95%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel are .007%. Again, worse than the low tier.
-
Yes, it is indeed possible to make the perception check and act in the surprise round, roll higher initiative than the haunt, target the haunt, and roll enough damage to destroy said haunt... Do you call these percentages plausible? How about fun?
-
7. If 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.
-
8. This Suicide Compulsion haunt is used to achieve something otherwise almost unachievable 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?
-
9. 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, many haunts don't. Just to back this up with some numbers, when looking at the 17 Paizo published haunts CR 3 or less, 9 of them did not appear list a spell effect. I guess this is a reiteration of #2.
-
10. 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!!!'
-
11. 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? Why can't he just finish his coup de grace if he's still able to do damage? 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.
-
12. 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.
-
13. This is not a role playing encounter. Where did the players really get a choice in all of this? Effectively it's an... Undetectable... Unavoidable... 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. Is this a game you want you 14 year old son or daughter to learn? Is this something you want to explain to convention coordinators when they get complaints? Does it change things if the person being complain to convention coordinator for a non-gaming convention AND a parent? “Mommy, mommy... I just played this game for the first time and the game master had me commit suicide. Can I go home now?” Yeah, that's just as possible as anything else we've been discussing.
-
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.
-
14. 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?
-
15. 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.
-
16. Why create haunt rules? Don't we already have traps, ghosts, and glyphs of warding? Why mate them together into the twist and abused creation? Why?
-
17. 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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

My updated rant...:

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 the Suicide Haunt <updated>.
-
1. Perception check? What perception check? Without magic, there is no way to find the haunt before it manifests or triggers. None. With magic, there is a less than a 70% chance thought I'd put it at 56% since most haunts I've encountered are CR 6 and below.
-
How did I get those percentages? Well... out of the 69 Haunts on d20pfsrd.com the 48 had Evil alignments, 1 of them had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 19 Haunts undetectable even by magic. For CR 6 and below this becomes even more skewed. Of 34 Haunts, 17 had evil alignments, 1 had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 15 undetectable even by magic.
-
But let's say you do have the correct spell up AND the Haunt has an alignment (if not already present the GM just assumes an evil alignment), you can finally make a perception check but at a -4 penalty. But hey, at least its a chance, right?
-
So unless one or more characters is using just the right spell, the haunt has just the right alignment, and the player with the spell up makes the perception check at -4; these are unavoidable.
-
2. Did I mention that when one specific entry was looked for in 73 Haunts, 19 omitted part of the stat block defining them? This really makes me curious as to what other parts of the stat block are missing from some Haunts. Pretty much proves Haunts are no being written consistently, even with their own rules.
-
3. Running away is not a valid option. In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check and roll better initiative than the Haunt.
-
We'll start with an example Haunt with an initiative of 0 and a Perception DC 15 versus the party built for perception. 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. It just so happens that Paizo provides us with just such characters and in the classes I think would make a good baseline... We'll use those specific 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.
-
4. 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 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. Though upon further review Brandon Hodge, the writer Paizo employed to create haunts, has stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“
-
Still... I would concede this is a logical extension of the rules... Until it comes time for determining what is learned about a haunt. "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. Every single time.
-
But then, what's the chances of a group making a Knowledge (religion) or (local) DC 19 to identify the suicide haunt and DC 24 to get a useful piece of information about the Suicide Haunt? Glad to be 1st level facing it right?
-
5. Remember the part where Brandom Hodge stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“ Wow... You know... If the foremost expert on Haunts has to state rules as “I think” to preface the rules he wrote; what hope does anyone else have for stating this is part of the rules? Why doesn't he just fix it? Why doesn't he contact Paizo to fix it? Why doesn't Paizo just fix it?
-
6. 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. IF (and I do mean big if here) the cleric is, what AC does he have to hit? Per the description of haunts AC 10. Be thankful the aforementioned writer of haunts did not get his wishes of 10+Haunt CR with an incorporeal miss chance.
-
At the 1-2 subtier, the haunt has 6 hp, notice DC 15. The cleric has +3 perception, +2 bonus to the attack. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Light Wounds is 16.25%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel 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, +5 bonus to attack and much better damage. Chances of neutralizing a Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Moderate Wounds is 4.95%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel are .007%. Again, worse than the low tier.
-
Yes, it is indeed possible to make the perception check and act in the surprise round, roll higher initiative than the haunt, target the haunt, and roll enough damage to destroy said haunt... Do you call these percentages plausible? How about fun?
-
7. If 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.
-
8. This Suicide Compulsion haunt is used to achieve something otherwise almost unachievable 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?
-
9. 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, many haunts don't. Just to back this up with some numbers, when looking at the 17 Paizo published haunts CR 3 or less, 9 of them did not appear list a spell effect. I guess this is a reiteration of #2.
-
10. 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!!!'
-
11. 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? Why can't he just finish his coup de grace if he's still able to do damage? 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.
-
12. 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.
-
13. This is not a role playing encounter. Where did the players really get a choice in all of this? Effectively it's an... Undetectable... Unavoidable... 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. Is this a game you want you 14 year old son or daughter to learn? Is this something you want to explain to convention coordinators when they get complaints? Does it change things if the person being complain to convention coordinator for a non-gaming convention AND a parent? “Mommy, mommy... I just played this game for the first time and the game master had me commit suicide. Can I go home now?” Yeah, that's just as possible as anything else we've been discussing.
-
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.
-
14. 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?
-
15. 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.
-
16. Why create haunt rules? Don't we already have traps, ghosts, and glyphs of warding? Why mate them together into the twist and abused creation? Why?
-
17. 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.

Dark Archive

Ullapool wrote:

Rather than block this entire thread in a /spoiler I'm going to assume PCs read the header and don't come in.

I'm pretty confused about the Haunts section in the Haunting of Harrowstone book - page 64.

Can we talk about this some and some folks explain them to me?

The best way to deal with a haunt that I've seen is to strip the information the haunt tries to convey and pass that to the players; then discard the rest. This approach has greatly reduced head aches on the part of both GMs and Players in my area.

If you want to know my problems with haunts... Well...

Here is my rant.:

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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:

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.

Dark Archive

Troubleshooter wrote:
Catch Off-Guard and Shatter Defenses have no business using the wording Flat-footed in their descriptions. They should deny Dex bonus to AC instead. Flat-footed and losing your Dex bonus are confusing enough as it is.

Flat-footed denies dexterity (which is the purpose of these feats), however it does more than these feats intended, so I can definitely see your opinion receiving validation from an official source; should said official sources be presented with it, take the time to consider it, and then take the time to make an official statement.

Though this weakens my suggestion for rewording flat-footed, I think it strengthens my other suggestion...

Dark Archive

Drakkiel wrote:

@Thrikreed

The part about the shadowdancer's HiPS is irrelevant since the shadowdancer does not need to be IN dim light to use it, just within 10 ft.

So it comes back to the argument of if you are using stealth to "hide in plain sight" do you gain any form of concealment since you cannot be seen? IF you do I would say you gain total concealment and therefore could still not execute an AoO.

My GM in his use of common sense plays using stealth from someone that fails their perception to spot you as you being invisible. NO not the condition invisible, you do not gain all the stuff from being invisible, only that you have total concealment from the person you are hiding from, and you get sneak attack. Is this RAW, probably not as it is constantly argued for no reason, but by god if someone doesn't use common sense at a table........who will?

I am reminded of a snippet of article I've read on wikipedia, which modified for gamers, goes something like this:

'When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the game, not your own common sense. Exhorting another writer, GM, or player to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the game, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve the game in that instance.'

If you want to see the rest article, unmodified, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

As to the invisibility that isn't invisibility, how does that interact with everything that interacts with invisibility? A couple of examples would include interactions between a invisible-that-is-not-invisibility character and see invisibility and invisibility purge? While such a ruling is fine for a home campaign, in large groups of players this is just the first glance inside a Pandora's box I do not really want explore the depths of.

As to your rather justifiable opinion that stealth should have some benefit, I agree. There should be some benefit for being stealthed. What if I told you there was a better frame work for one?

Perhaps a little out of context, but still seemingly pertinent I'd start with "Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC." from http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Surprise; replacing the italicized text with "because they have lost track of an enemy, but they are only flat-footed in regards to that enemy;". Next read up on the benefits for http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Flat-Footed, which already needs to be fixed to makes sense for feats like Catch-Off Guard and Shatter Defenses. I'd consider making an 'unaware Condition'. Finally, I'd take these modified rules to my GM or the Paizo community and ask them what they thought.

Effectively the same benefit but with tighter wording and a firmer foundation in the rules.

On the other hand if you want to use your opinion of common sense (or lack of it) to justify not playing by the rules or as a plea to be excused from doing so; please do not allow me to distract you.

Dark Archive

Ximen Bao wrote:
Shinigaze wrote:

As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?

He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.

In the case of the invisible ninja walking past an enemy, the enemy would not be able to take an attack of opportunity. This is per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Invisibility, which establishes invisibility grants total concealment; and per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Concealment, which clearly states "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 is quite clearly spelled out in the rules.

In the case of the Hidden-In-Plain-Sight shadowdancer walking past an enemy, the enemy would be able to take an attack of opportunity. This is per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/shadowdancer #TOC-Hide-in-Plain-Sight-Su- which says "A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."; and per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light, which only ever establishes concealment (20% miss chance) but not total concealment... And so does not establish a condition with verbiage about attacks of opportunity.

Dark Archive

necronus wrote:


The reason I never mentioned anything about RAW is because RAW doesn't define lethal damage, and RAW doesn't answer the question how this spell works.

Whether or not RAW defines lethal damage; RAW does answer the question about how this spell works, you have chosen to ignore RAW. You have also chosen to ignore pretty much everyone here on the subject of either how ablative barrier works or what lethal damage is. You have chosen to ignore posts like this which objectively cover every single one of your ever changing goal posts.

necronus wrote:


It is left up to the interpretation of those playing. Felt I was clear on this, if not, maybe now I am clear. Unlike other people, I am stating my opinion as an opinion and I am not trying to disguise this as RAW or claiming my interpretations are RAW.

Until you GM a table that is... Which I think you said you were at the beginning of this thread.

necronus wrote:


Spells and other abilities that do damage such as Fireball do what kind of damage. Does a fireball do lethal fire damage, and since hitting a person with a fireball is an attack that does damage does the Ablative Barrier protect against this.

The rule books are very vague in regards to damage, and I need a clarification for my table.

Then all of a sudden your affecting everyone at your table. With rulings like 'Fireballs do not do lethal damage' and the arguments that ensue, we're talking about something that affects a whole table of people and possibly more if you GM Pathfinder Society.

necronus wrote:


ThriKreed wrote:


necronus wrote:


I had a friend read the spell, and he is as munchkin as they come. He stated it should work as DR does, and it shouldn't stack with existing DR.

And one uninformed friend does not trump RAW and everyone else that has participated in this thread. The simple fact he hasn't participated in this thread says quite a bit.

Why would he participate in a thread of people quoting opinions as facts? Why would he even care?

That is exactly my point. Why would he care? If he really cared, why not invite him to participate in this thread?

It seems to me you came in here wanting validation of your opinion and when no one gave it to you, you went to a friend that you indicate may not even care and used him as a source to validate your opinions to us.

necronus wrote:


It is left up to a GM, or a FAQ.

I can honestly say, based upon this thread, if that GM were you I'd be thinking pretty hard about getting up from the table and leaving.

Dark Archive

necronus wrote:

Nuku, that is my <b>assessment</B>. It would only work against P/B/S damage. After reading the spell, looking how it operates, and considering how other spells work and stack with one another I came to the <b>assessment</B>, that it shouldn't work against energy attacks.

I <B>feel</B> the spell is best suited for just the P/B/S damages.

As was stated by Necronus himself, the conversation should not be about opinions and feelings... Yes, that includes using 'assessment' to disguise your 'opinion'. Sounds like a double standard.

necronus wrote:
When I include energy attacks, that also includes channeling so negative or positive energy. Also untyped damage, such as vampiric touch.

And by RAW you would be wrong.

necronus wrote:
I had a friend read the spell, and he is as munchkin as they come. He stated it should work as DR does, and it shouldn't stack with existing DR.

And one uninformed friend does not trump RAW and everyone else that has participated in this thread. The simple fact he hasn't participated in this thread says quite a bit.

necronus wrote:
Even still, imagine a necromancer with a few decent skeletons. He casts ablative barriers on them, they now get +2 AC and it would increase their DR to 10. The spell lasts hours per level, and doesn't cost anything.

If a character wants to use several of his 3rd level spells doing so, that's up to him. Should we cry and complain when it's <i>blink</i> or <i>fly</i> too? Or how about <i>fireball</i>?

What's next? Are you going to find something wrong with every magic spell how it could be used or are you just going to limit it to the ones you don't like?

Dark Archive

necronus wrote:


It changes both weapon damage, spell damage, and supernatural damage all into nonlethal damage.

Now you're getting it!

Does anything else Necronus say about this matter now?

Dark Archive

necronus wrote:
PRD wrote:

Merciful Spell (Metamagic)

Your damaging spells subdue rather than kill.
Benefit: You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type. A merciful spell does not use up a higher-level spell slot than the spell's actual level.

The actual feat, does not at all mention lethal damage. If you cared more about what the rules said, instead of trying to be correct in your assessment you wouldn't be grasping at flavor text or short descriptions that don't use the same language under the complete description.

It doesn't need to because all references to damage that are not nonlethal are - IN EVERY REASONABLE WAY - Lethal.

necronus wrote:


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


Okay I accept your challenge.
PRD wrote:


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.

necronus wrote:


Only you thrikreed, would quote flavor text and expect it to be considered a rule.

I did what you asked. EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED. I clearly found a spot in the book where it defines where spell damage as lethal.

And in your opinion it is not part of the rules.

necronus wrote:


This is what it seems the Rules Message board is, a bunch of people quoting opinion as RAW.

In your case, yes. I have summed up all your assertions here, countered them logical using RAW, and then stated what RAW would need to be cited for you to open up those assertions to further debate. YOU have chose not to progress logically using RAW; instead citing YOUR opinions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating your opinions until...

Mirror, mirror; On the wall... wrote:
If Necronus states an opinion as fact, it should be ignored from now on.

Despite the elementary school "I'm rubber and you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you." mentality behind the mirror, mirror approach... It seems pretty applicable to these circumstances... So... Will do, buddy. Will do.

“Honor isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with the consequences.” - Sophocles

P.S. - I know a guy in real life that's like this. He just keeps talking and talking and talking, ignoring everything everyone else has to say; literally increasing volume to monologue over everyone else, disregarding everything they have to say and all the proof they show him. Then, no matter what comes of it or what the rest of the world decides; he says that it's his opinion, that the rest of the world cannot change his opinion, and that quite specifically that he has never been proven wrong. Well, in my opinion, monologing is not an acceptable debate strategy and being able to admit when you're wrong is part of civility.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necronus wrote:


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

Okay I accept your challenge.

PRD wrote:


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.

Dark Archive

I stated exactly what you would need to find in the RAW and show me to validate your interpretations. You have chosen not to do so.

Mirror, Mirror; on the wall... wrote:

Necronus, you are quoting an interpretation of the rules.

The rules do not support your opinion anywhere.

This is a Rules Forum, RAW only.

...

Oh, and you feel like stating opinions as facts.

Nice job.

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:

I still don't see, other than the 3.5 Skippy guy, why a blind person would not threaten.

I would recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_Williams as an excellent source of information about Skip Williams.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necronus wrote:

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.

PRD wrote:


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.

PRD wrote:

Damage

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
PRD wrote:

Damage

Damage reduces a target's current hit points.

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

PRD wrote:

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

Hypothetical Necessary Proof Possibility 1 wrote:

Fire

Fire reduces a target's current hit points.

or maybe something like

Hypothetical Necessary Proof Possibility 2 wrote:
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. -----

PRD wrote:


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. -----

PRD wrote:


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,

Forseti wrote:
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.

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

is exactly identical to

Alternate Text wrote:
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. -----

PRD wrote:
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.

Dark Archive

GreenMandar wrote:


... I would ask you to really consider if this is how we should approach rules dilemmas. Seems to me that if we approach rules dilemmas this way the rules for Pathfinder would dissolve away like the brain of someone with Mad Cow disease, since like I stated before if you try hard enough you can probably find a absurd situation with any rule out there.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I think many of those situations you find absurd were rather useful in establishing there was more than one way to interpret the rules, a few double standards, and most importantly there was more to the threatened rules than what could be found in Pathfinder.

I cannot speak for others, but I pulled out 3 different versions of the Core Rule book to verify they all said the same thing because I knew I had read more rules about threaten then I could find in the PRD.

At first my strategy for arguing was to simply establish there were unspoken rules. This was done with examples I came up, including the one with ethereal creatures threatening squares.

Laura stack wrote:
When faced with a conflict, most healthy groups will look for more information to resolve it. Because the disagreement was expressed, a more thorough investigation will be conducted. When the group makes a decision, it will be based on additional information that probably wouldn’t have been obtained had the conflict not occurred.

The rest of Laura's article can be found at: http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10385718/conflict-in-the-workplace-conf lict-can-be-positive-and-productive

This is what I would like to think of as happening here, when necronus pointed out:

necronus wrote:


WotC, Skip Williams wrote:
Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.11/02/2004

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

As for this...

Grick wrote:
That's frequently the point when one or two people keep a thread going long past resolution. ... So some people will continue to argue (or cease arguing but continue to post about how they're right and everyone else is wrong) in order to goad people into responding, prolonging the thread in hopes of getting Paizo to address their pet peeve.

I really do hope this was not the case with this thread, but if it bothers you; it might be wise if you ask yourself 'why do I bother participating/reading?'

Later everyone.

Dark Archive

necronus wrote:

WotC, Skip Williams wrote:
Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.11/02/2004

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

I knew I had seen that ruling somewhere. Eh, I guess that settles that. Seems kinda anti-climatic though.

Should we just keep arguing it for awhile for the sake of it?

Dark Archive

Forseti wrote:


"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

That sentence doesn't mean you have to be able to make an off-turn melee attack. Try reading it like:

"Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack."

But I cannot make a melee attack when it is not my turn.

Forseti wrote:


Your reading makes no sense, because that would imply there was already a definition of "Attack of Opportunity." At the point in the text where the sentence appears, the concept of "AoO" doesn't exist yet, it is still being set up.
PRD wrote:


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.

That seems to establish a concept of "AoO" to me. An outline of the section goes like this:

1. Attacks of Opportunity
A. Threatened Squares
B. Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
C. Making an Attack of Opportunity

That would imply Threatened Squares are a part Attacks of Opportunity in and of itself since the threatened squares is firmly nestled between the two. Can you threaten squares when it's not your turn?

So... Remove AoO from the game for a minute... Why take the time explain that something in your melee attack range can be hit by you during your turn? Why the redundancy?

Dark Archive

Forseti wrote:

It's just an assumption that you need to be able to attack a creature to threaten it. The problem with that assumption is that it doesn't fit with the rules.

Another assumption would be that you need to be able to affect a creature to threaten it. That's a better assumption, because it avoids to set up a lot of situations that don't mesh with the rules.

Thank you.

Forseti wrote:
Regardless, total concealment and thus blindness don't take away your chance to hit a creature in an adjacent square. You can still hit it, by attacking the square. Your chance to hit it is just not as good anymore. It is a very common occurrence for (N)PCs to successfully hit and damage their intended target in spite of a 50% miss chance imposed by concealment. The threat implied by the rules is quite obviously also a threat in the usual sense of the word. If you can hit and damage someone, why on earth would you want to maintain that there's no threat?
PRD wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

Since you seem pretty reasonable and you've been paying attention, I would really like you Forseti to answer some questions... Do you need to be able to make a melee attack into square when it is not your turn to threaten a square? Is this synonymous with AoO, since there is no other way to make a melee attack into a square when it's not your turn? Can you say why or why not? Maybe cite some rules that you're basing your decision on?

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:


You know all to well that you can't attack through walls. Why ask something to which you already know the answer?

You might think it obvious but until you can cite rules to back it up it's not.

Example A: what if its an incorporeal creature? Are you saying something lacking a physical body can't attack through walls that are not also force effects?

Example B: Similar in concept to castles' arrow slits many castles had murder holes on ceilings and holes on walls that could be attacked through by pole arms like long spears. This would be similar to the windows I mentioned. What if the creature is amorphous?

Example C: Walls have doors, can you attack through doors? I would think so. How about a halfling with the lunge feat equipped with a long spear just one one side of a small size door set in a stone wall? So a Tyrannosaurus's size is Gargantuan, it's bite weapon is mostly likely is not a light weapon which makes it Huge or Gargantuan and even with squeezing rules it can't get it's natural weapon through that door to make an attack on that halfling. Do both the halfling and the Tyrannosaurus threaten through the wall or just one?

Example D: What if a dungeon builder decided to build a stone hall 10 feet wide, then built a rice paper wall right down the middle? Let's make some of those bricks on just one of side of the hall enchanted with continual light stones. Now let's put a guard in the dark hall opposite one of these lights. Are you saying absolutely he can't stab a spear through that rice paper wall when he sees someone walking down the lit hall? Is your opinion based on the guard not being able to stab through rice paper or because there isn't a hole for him to stab through? Would it help if he was a 20th level fighter with 24 strength and all the sunder feats including the Greater Sunder feat wielding an adamantine long spear? Still can't attack through that wall?

Not even going into the hole illusionary walls and floors over pit traps.

Are you so sure now? If so, what makes you so sure? Feel free tell me what rules your basing your opinion on.

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>