|
Procedurally, then, a haunt works like this for my party, which frequently sends one person 10' or so ahead to scout.
1. Scout enters the haunted area.
2. I have everyone roll initiative, per PF rules.
3. If scout beats 10, they have a chance to notice the haunt. It's a surprise round, so they have up to a standard, at which point they will most likely retreat.
4. At 10, the haunt most likely finds nobody in the room. Will it manifest anyway?
5. Characters who have not yet entered the area can still see the haunt but not be affected by it, correct?Am I running these correctly?
No; first the characters in the haunt's area get a notice check (most often perception) to see if they sense something is wrong (this happens as the haunt is starting to manifest). Characters that succeed get to roll initiative, while the rest are surprised. If the scout goes solo, only (s)he will be affected by the haunt, and the rest can only watch.
In my games you don't automatically see every haunt; if you're immune to fear and the haunt produces a mind-affecting effect, you might not see it, even if you're in its AoE.
No; first the characters in the haunt's area get a notice check (most often perception) to see if they sense something is wrong (this happens as the haunt is starting to manifest). Characters that succeed get to roll initiative, while the rest are surprised. If the scout goes solo, only (s)he will be affected by the haunt, and the rest can only watch.
Asgetrion is correct. You handle a manifesting haunt just as you would any creature hiding in ambush trying to gain surprise, only it manifests on a pre-determined initiative count based on its desription (10 for most haunts, 0 for 'slow' haunts).
But any tangible effects of the haunt (blood running down the walls, etc) are visible to party members looking in from the outside, correct?
I figured I was doing something wrong because they simply were not working well for me. Thank goodness I haven't run many.
EDIT: And by rules, everyone rolls initiative, but only those unsurprised can act in the surprise round. [/nitpick]
EDIT2: And I like the "might not even see it" aspect of the way you run things, Asgetrion. It jives with the way things happen IRL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But any tangible effects of the haunt (blood running down the walls, etc) are visible to party members looking in from the outside, correct?
I figured I was doing something wrong because they simply were not working well for me. Thank goodness I haven't run many. [ooc]At this point, poor Brandon is probably thinking, "They're not that hard, people! Read the rules!" ;-)
Ha! Only sometimes! =-)
I know I've done a lot of defense of most of the <otherwise clear> haunt rules on this thread and others, but as far as "outside" viewing (PoV of PCs not technically in the area of the haunt's effect), the rules address it only with that cleverly-placed "How the haunt's effects manifest are left to you to determine" disclaimer.
You could really do it either way. PCs not in range of a "rats-in-the-walls" haunt might see their companion freaking out and waving their arms around trying to swat away invisible nothings, or, more horrifically, they probably see a spectral swarm of half-skeletal critters consuming their rogue even though they are far down the hallway.
Nothing in the rules explicitly states that only those in the area can see it; the listed area of influence is more about what triggers it, and defines the area of the haunt's effect. Though, an argument could be made that since haunts are mind-affecting, if you aren't in the specified area, you mind isn't affected. That makes sense, too.
But, since the effects of haunts can vary as much as the spells they trigger, this probably is one of those instances where it is best adjudicated by the GM as it best makes sense for that specific haunt.
So do what feels right! =-)
|
Breaking down the Haunting of Harrowstone for 7 PC's I noticed that I needed to add extra treasure to some encounters and that the candle of viscous ephemera from this years RPG Superstar Round 1 was an almost perfect fit both thematically and gp wise!
Any thoughts on how to tighten this item up? I was thinking extending the radius to 10 feet, allowing it to be relightable, and only providing a +2 to Notice checks and a +2 bonus (either sacred or alchemical) to saves against the haunts within the radius rather than slowing the haunts manifestation. Change up the base spell from hide from undead to detect undead.
--Vrocky Horror
Breaking down the Haunting of Harrowstone for 7 PC's I noticed that I needed to add extra treasure to some encounters and that the candle of viscous ephemera from this years RPG Superstar Round 1 was an almost perfect fit both thematically and gp wise!
Any thoughts on how to tighten this item up? I was thinking extending the radius to 10 feet, allowing it to be relightable, and only providing a +2 to Notice checks and a +2 bonus (either sacred or alchemical) to saves against the haunts within the radius rather than slowing the haunts manifestation. Change up the base spell from hide from undead to detect undead.
--Vrocky Horror
I would price it between 800 and 1000 gp using your changes to it, and drop the init affecting ability.
An hour is a long time unless you arbitrarily extent the time. They can probably clear the prison in 30 minutes in game time.
An alternate rule I'm using for Haunts is instead of hit AC 10, I made it 10 + the CR of the haunt plus incorporeal. It makes them a little more difficult, appropiately so to my way of thinking, and also infinitely more scaleable.
I'll venture to dig back into the thread I started so confusedly. In my first session I put forth the slamming portals haunt vs. one of my PCs. He immediately cast Detect Magic. If I understand the rules correctly, this does nothing - and that's how I ruled it. He was very upset but this, and a bit unnerved - I suspect that's the intent.
What I'm confused about is how to tell him more. If I let him KN:Religion and say "this might be a haunt" it seems to take the sting out of them, to some extent.
How is this PC supposed to deal with this situation? Is he supposed to start attacking the window, doing damage? If I tell him that it's a haunt, and he would know as a divine follower (Oracle) that he should channel positive energy at it - he's just going to blast away at it.... it seems to miss the point.
I guess I'm still confused. Oh, and yes, I've read the entire thread several times so if the answer has been put forth before, perhaps numerous times, I guess I'm just confused and I apologize ahead of time for that.
I'm just saying I seem to be dancing between "it's spooky, you don't know what it is" and "it's this, just do that to it". There appears to be no middle ground. Someone help me out here. What should I have done and how should I handle it in the future.
The player is a rule's lawyer and was very annoyed that something he deemed as clearly magical was not visible via his detect magic.
I'll venture to dig back into the thread I started so confusedly. In my first session I put forth the slamming portals haunt vs. one of my PCs. He immediately cast Detect Magic. If I understand the rules correctly, this does nothing - and that's how I ruled it. He was very upset but this, and a bit unnerved - I suspect that's the intent.
What I'm confused about is how to tell him more. If I let him KN:Religion and say "this might be a haunt" it seems to take the sting out of them, to some extent.
How is this PC supposed to deal with this situation? Is he supposed to start attacking the window, doing damage? If I tell him that it's a haunt, and he would know as a divine follower (Oracle) that he should channel positive energy at it - he's just going to blast away at it.... it seems to miss the point.
I guess I'm still confused. Oh, and yes, I've read the entire thread several times so if the answer has been put forth before, perhaps numerous times, I guess I'm just confused and I apologize ahead of time for that.
I'm just saying I seem to be dancing between "it's spooky, you don't know what it is" and "it's this, just do that to it". There appears to be no middle ground. Someone help me out here. What should I have done and how should I handle it in the future.
The player is a rule's lawyer and was very annoyed that something he deemed as clearly magical was not visible via his detect magic.
This is definitely a grey area, and ultimately up to the GM to pace how he wants players to unlock the secrets of various haunts. One suggestion I can give is require multiple knowledge checks, each one giving a tidbit of information, yet for flavor should also include something foreboding or ominous, even if its only what type of spirit haunts this object, or describing what type of cruel fate results in such haunts. This is pretty much what I use, and applying the cinematic rule of 3's, I require 3 knowledge checks, each one giving incrementally more information, both of the useful and creepy flavorful variety. I hope this helps.
I'll need to haunt help as I'm unsure, but will read it up. The main problem I'm having is that the old model haunts could only be destroyed with a turning so they have a "Effective HD" on them and I'm unsure how to convert that to destruction info.
|
|
A Haunt can be shut down with Channel Energy or various other ways of combating them, but that does not destroy a haunt. Most haunts, like ghosts have a specific story related method to forever cleanse them from a place.
You can use a simple Knowledge (religion) check to identify what a haunt is and how to fight or protect yourself from it, but you'll need other Knowledge checks to learn how to permanantly destroy them. Whether your PC's do research or consult a Spirit planchett and board or ask a Rapping Spirit it takes some digging to find out the way to end the haunt.
--Vrocksalt Shotgun
|
|
Breaking down the Haunting of Harrowstone for 7 PC's I noticed that I needed to add extra treasure to some encounters and that the candle of viscous ephemera from this years RPG Superstar Round 1 was an almost perfect fit both thematically and gp wise!
Any thoughts on how to tighten this item up? I was thinking extending the radius to 10 feet, allowing it to be relightable, and only providing a +2 to Notice checks and a +2 bonus (either sacred or alchemical) to saves against the haunts within the radius rather than slowing the haunts manifestation. Change up the base spell from hide from undead to detect undead.
--Vrocky Horror
I would price it between 800 and 1000 gp using your changes to it, and drop the init affecting ability.
An hour is a long time unless you arbitrarily extent the time. They can probably clear the prison in 30 minutes in game time.
I think it'll take far more than 30 minutes of game time to clear the whole prison. The module assumes they make a few trips into the prison and certainly in my game they will need to return to Ravengro to rest and maybe do more research. The wandering monster tables will be sure to hasten them off if they over push to hard.
I think it'll take far more than 30 minutes of game time to clear the whole prison. The module assumes they make a few trips into the prison and certainly in my game they will need to return to Ravengro to rest and maybe do more research. The wandering monster tables will be sure to hasten them off if they over push to hard.Breaking down the Haunting of Harrowstone for 7 PC's I noticed that I needed to add extra treasure to some encounters and that the candle of viscous ephemera from this years RPG Superstar Round 1 was an almost perfect fit both thematically and gp wise!
Any thoughts on how to tighten this item up? I was thinking extending the radius to 10 feet, allowing it to be relightable, and only providing a +2 to Notice checks and a +2 bonus (either sacred or alchemical) to saves against the haunts within the radius rather than slowing the haunts manifestation. Change up the base spell from hide from undead to detect undead.
--Vrocky Horror
I would price it between 800 and 1000 gp using your changes to it, and drop the init affecting ability.
An hour is a long time unless you arbitrarily extent the time. They can probably clear the prison in 30 minutes in game time.
They can put the candle out to save time on it though. Those trips to town won't count against the duration, and when they reenter the prison they probably won't relight it until they get back to where they were last time.
What I'm confused about is how to tell him more. If I let him KN:Religion and say "this might be a haunt" it seems to take the sting out of them, to some extent.
I totally feel for you AND your player here. As a PC during Council of Thieves I, myself -playing a cleric of Pharasma, no less -was totally hornswoggled by my GM with the haunts in Delvehaven. He played them very deceptively, and even my bad-ass undead-killing cleric couldn't figure them out. We ended up losing our fighter to a phantasmal killer haunt, and there was my priest, standing there with a full day's worth of channel energy charged up, his thumb firmly lodge up his backside as he stood there dumbfounded not knowing what to do about these crazy ghost visions we kept seeing.
I would skirt the issue -and use any word but "haunt" -if you have a problem with metagamers. Say "this appears to be a manifesting spirit similar to a ghost or other undead, yet strangely static in its actions. Your knowledge of undead causes you to consider that positive energy may have some effect." I mean, they still have to win initiative and notice it, right?
. . . I mean, they still have to win initiative and notice it, right?
Oh wow. This was a nuance that I clearly see now but didn't recognize earlier.
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). Unless the haunt has an unusual weakness, no other form of attack can reduce its hit points. 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.
So this means that if you don't beat it's initiative, you cannot damage it with positive energy? Am I reading that correctly? On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, it can be damaged by positive energy. Let's say they don't beat the init, they are under the effects of the haunt and the only way to stop it at this point is to achieve the Destruction clause? Is that correct?
So I've got a cleric. I want a Slamming Portal haunt to manifest. It says there is a "Notice: Perception DC 10 (to see a portal closing)". The haunt is going to manifest at initiative rank 10 in the surprise round. I ask the cleric to roll a perception check.
One of two things happens:
- He gets less than 10. He doesn't "see a portal closing". Therefore he doesn't get to act in the surprise round. The haunt manifests at init 10, the portal SLAMs shut, and is now held fast.
- He does beat the 10. I tell him "you see the window closing, moving on its own, very slowly". I then ask him to roll initiative? I hate to imply initiative here! Maybe I ask him to roll DC20 and do the init add myself, since I have his character sheet. Then one of two things happens.
1: He gets less than 10 on initiative (10 is overloaded in this example, this 10 corresponds to initiative 10 of the haunt). Therefore the haunt goes first and the portal slams. At this point he cannot damage the haunt by positive energy and he just is under the effect of it for the duration. During this time he can try and communicate with it, trying to figure out how to neutralize it. Or he could actively destruct it - in this case, by using holy water.
2: He beats the 10 initiative and he has first chance to act before the portal slams. He can try and do (in this case) 2 HP damage via channel positive energy to the haunt. If he does this much, it is neutralized, but not destroyed. If he doesn't do enough, his turn ends, the haunt goes on init 10, slams the door and now positive energy has no more effect?
Is the above correct? I'm looking here for 2 things. (1) am I interpreting it right (now) that after the surprise round, or after 10 on the surprise round and the haunt is in effect it can no longer be damaged via channel positive energy. And (2) did I outline the flow of it correctly above as to how I would play it out?
Thanks.
No, this is incorrect.
This was covered earlier in the postings on this thread.
If it's a one round haunt, it acts, and then is gone (until it resets). In this case, yes, your players missed it. It popped up, shot it's wad, and is now gone.If it is persistant for more than 1 round, you can channel energy on later rounds. So even if it gets init, you can still attack it with positive energy until either a)it takes all its HP and goes away, or b)it finishes what it was doing (more than likely killing a PC) and goes away.
OK. I dug back and saw where Joel asked that and it was acknowledged that the rules were confusing in this regard.
The Slamming Portal haunt says this:
Once triggered, the phantom’s hold on the door persists for 1 minute, although neutralizing the haunt releases the portal.
But it's not listed as persistent. So I hate to be a rules lawyer here, but if it's not persistent, how does it hold the door past "shooting its wad" in the surprise round, as you put it. During that minute, can one still apply channel positive energy to the held door or in this case, since it's a non-persistent haunt, can only only channel positive energy by beating its initiative in the surprise round.
Yes -you've recognized something a couple of us haunt authors have struggled with, and that is the question of whether a "one-round" haunt that replicates a spell effect that last multiple rounds sets the spell off, then disappears while the spell goes on for a number of rounds based on the spell's duration. Or does it last only as long as the haunt itself persists? It is tricky and unclear, but making every haunt with an effect lasting more than one round be auto-persistent doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. What if a one-round haunt reaches out with a poison spell, touches you, and disappears? Do the effect evaporate, too? No, they wouldn't. In this case, I tried to take care of it "in-haunt" with the slamming portal, so-to-speak.
I ruled on this one that the portal stays stuck (because what's the threat otherwise? "Hey guys! This door was stuck for 3 seconds!"), and that channeled energy will release it. It COULD have just as easily skirted the issue by making it persistent, but that adds a +2 CR, and didn't seem to make a lot of sense on that front for this particular threat level of haunt.
So, "as-read" it works just as you point out, but it also shines a light on an interesting conundrum in the haunt rules that never quite gets answered. My take has been that the spell effect only last as long as the haunt persists...unless stated otherwise.
And that seems to work. =-)
EDIT: And to answer your last question, postive energy WILL release the slamming portal after the surprise round during that minute it is held, as stated in the haunt's description -it just doesn't neutralize the haunt, which seemed at the time to me to be a minor but important distinction when it came to a haunt's reset time, but thinking on it now, maybe it ultimately didn't matter!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well here's my Candle of Viscous Ephemera redux for any of you out there that want to drop this as an item in the False Crypt area. Here's a link to the orginal version by David Vigil.
Candle of Viscous Ephemera
Aura faint necromancy; CL 6th
Slot --; Price 800 gp; Weight 1/2 lbs.
Description
When lit, this candle burns with a pale, bluish glow, shedding light as a normal candle. While the glow has no effect on true undead, the candle light dulls the spirits that power haunts. Anyone within a 10-foot radius of the candle targeted by a haunt receives a +2 competence bonus on their notice check to notice the haunt before it manifests. Furthermore, if a haunt targets anyone within a 10-foot radius of the candle, that target gains a +2 alchemical bonus to their saving throw against the haunts effect. The candle burns for one hour, after which it is destroyed. The candle may be snuffed out but doing so reduces its duration by 10 minutes.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead; Cost 400 gp
Changing out hide from undead to detect undead also allows alchemists to make this.
--Vrocky Horror
Great thread! I am consistently impressed by the quality of the posts by the Community and the participation of the designers.
I'm going to start this AP soon and I have to admit that the Haunts are causing me some trouble. I probably need to read the rules and this thread a little more closely. In the meantime, my plan to run the Haunted Foyer is something like this:
Surreptitiously clear a space on the game table so I can slam the Core Rulebook down when the haunt is activated. Once everyone has a chance to recover, we can discuss the Paladin’s immunity to Fear.
I want the game to be a Horror Movie Experience. If I reduce the game to dice rolls, I’m going to lose that. Just my 2 cp.
Partly looking forward to playing Carrion Crown in a few months, partly dreading it, but that is based on how I have seen haunts run.
Take damage, take damage, take damage, no you can't get a spot or knowledge check to figure out how to fight back, best run away or have the 10th level party TPK'd by the CR4 monster.......
I so don't the answer to be "try metagaming."
Just tell you GM he will inducted into this thread if he does that.
That thread kind of says you might quit so that might not be a good idea, but really is that the company he wants to be in?
You can alternately send him here and we can troll him and denounce him as a GM until he allows knowledge religion checks or something to work. :)
The players get
among other things in that same cache.
To what affect can these be used on haunts - on the physical manifestation of haunts. I can't imagine using them on a Cold Spot or Slamming Portal but on
My players are now asking this as they struggle to find a way for 4/6ths of the party to be effective in these particular encounters.
Please CHECK OUT MY THREAD about player handout haunt cards. I welcome comments about them in that thread.
|
|
The players get
** spoiler omitted **
among other things in that same cache.To what affect can these be used on haunts - on the physical manifestation of haunts. I can't imagine using them on a Cold Spot or Slamming Portal but on
** spoiler omitted **My players are now asking this as they struggle to find a way for 4/6ths of the party to be effective in these particular encounters.
I don't think that everything needs to be reduced to Ghost touch for melee types to be effective.
If anyone is interested I will post the stats in this or a new thread - so far looking at stating up the corporeal manifestation of the Headless Horseman, Choking Hands (very limited pc physical interaction but some), Ectoplasmic Miasma (temp destroy multiple spirits to dissipate the cloud), Spectral Carriage (not combat per se, jump on and try to drive it into sacred ground: only for the truly crazy) plus some alternate methods of destruction (non-caster related but very hard), and some variant haunts.
For those interested, let me know.
Brandon - THANK YOU for your commentary on this thread as well as sending me here from my own questioning thread. VERY helpful as I gear up to run haunts! These things look like a lot of fun... (says he who ran an underground adventure using only a lit candelabra sitting on the battle-map, blowing out candles as magical light-sources faded... just as the vargouilles attacked...) (yes, I think Harrowstone and haunts might just scar- erm, be remembered by my players for years to come!)
Aux - I'm very interested in your ideas, as I was wondering about doing something like that myself.
|
|
Brandon - THANK YOU for your commentary on this thread as well as sending me here from my own questioning thread. VERY helpful as I gear up to run haunts! These things look like a lot of fun... (says he who ran an underground adventure using only a lit candelabra sitting on the battle-map, blowing out candles as magical light-sources faded... just as the vargouilles attacked...) (yes, I think Harrowstone and haunts might just scar- erm, be remembered by my players for years to come!)
Aux - I'm very interested in your ideas, as I was wondering about doing something like that myself.
I will try and post something over the course of the next few days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking down the Haunting of Harrowstone for 7 PC's I noticed that I needed to add extra treasure to some encounters and that the candle of viscous ephemera from this years RPG Superstar Round 1 was an almost perfect fit both thematically and gp wise!
--Vrocky Horror
Just a note: Candle Got Moved because of the new RPGSS.
I have been ripping though messageboards looking for a way to handle paladins and haunts. I'm going to start running Harrowstone next week and have recently realized the paladin in the party will be immune to all the primary effects. There seem to be very few secondary effects. What if my party retreats and lets the paladin handle the Mosswater Marauder alone? I suppose it's unlikely he'll be able to Lay on Hands enough energy to destroy it. Hopefully he won't think to use wands. Will the paladin even see the Marauder? If not, will he be relegated to party support whenever they encounter a haunt? I can see how, initially, he would be excited to realize he's immune to some nasty stuff because of a second level class feature but I also see him becoming frustrated when his character can't experience haunt thrills-and-chills like the rest of the party.
...recently realized the paladin in the party will be immune to all the primary effects...
Why would he been immune and to WHAT?
You should also consider looking at the various Haunt supplements from Rite Publishing, especially #30 Haunts for Objects and #30 Haunts for Kaidan.
The former places haunts within specific objects, thus the area of affect is around the object, but the object can be moved so the haunt can affect any area the object is located.
The second mentioned haunt book really delves into the story aspect of a haunt and pushed haunts to being plot hooks, more than just simple encounters. Plus the knowledge skill research goes a long way to learning the secrets about a specific haunt and how to lay it to rest.
There are rules clarifications, and options that can be added to haunt activity in these supplements. Maybe something to check out.
Rite Publishing also offers #30 Haunts for Houses and #30 Haunts for Ships and Shore - for more haunted variety.
|
|
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...
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.
|
|
Since a couple of people were wanting me to update a couple of things... here ya go.
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.
Most of your rant is falling on deaf ears, at least I'm not hearing it. But a couple things. 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.
I can agree that the lack of a Knowledge check DC as part of the stat block is a problem, and in my 3PP adventure site product: Haiku of Horror: Autumn Moon Bath House which includes 4 custom haunts, I did include an appropriate Knowledge (religion) DC check for each haunt stat block.
I also know all the Rite Publishing haunt supplements, including #30 Haunts for Kaidan (IMO, one of the best 3PP books on haunts, though I am certainly biased), while lacking the skill DC check (which all agree do not exist on any haunt), has all its proper alignment descriptors, and none of the other inconsistencies you describe as existing on published haunts. And unlike most haunts supplements each haunt in #30 Haunts for Kaidan include an extensive back story, regarding its origins and possible destruction - some nearly a full page of story.
I cannot attest what Paizo released, nor other 3PP regarding haunts material (I am not their quality control person, nor do I want to be, nor even care), but all of Rite Publishing's are correct and inclusive, and as mentioned, I've even included skill check DC as part of the stat block on my most recent product.
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.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.-
I'm not a fan of the suicide haunt, so I simply ban that one from my games,
-
That is just one bad haunt, toss it, forget it - no need for concern.
-
Thank you for acknowledging that at least that one haunt is a problem.-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a point of clarification as I otherwise sidestep this pothole of vitriol: I am not the creator of the haunt mechanic. The first appearance of the haunts (and your hated suicide haunt) was in The Skinsaw Murders, which was written during the 3.5 era. The rules were refined for the Gamemastery Guide, and given that I spend just about every spare minute researching historical hauntings and séance history, Paizo asked me to write the haunts article for Haunting of Harrowstone.
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.
So obviously I recognize that the mechanic has some issues, though I'm not willing to subscribe to most of your points of breakdown. The point of the HoH article, since it wasn't immediately obvious to you, was to provide basic haunt statbocks of various CRs that could be customized for home campaigns. That's when haunts work best--when their backstories are crafted and customized for your gaming table and weaved into the stories you're trying to tell. The point of the HoH article was to provide the mechanics and leave the intimate backstories open for GMs to work into their own campaigns. Other sources, like the fantastic Rite Publishing series, did that backstory work for you and addressed two of your main complaints by also adding Knowledge checks, but you've seen fit to dismiss those as products you would "avoid buying." Way to play, dude.
I've used haunts for years to great effect at the game table, but maybe that's because I take special care with them. And I can't account for how other GMs run them or use them or how other gaming tables react to them. But they work for me and my people. Looking at the thread that got you here, they obviously work for lots of other folks as well, despite their perceived shortcomings. If they don't work for you as a GM, fix them or design something else. If they don't work for you as a player, let your GM know. If it's a PFS thing, avoid scenarios with them if that's your beef. If your complaint is that they're overused in PFS, I'm afraid I can't help you and that's a topic of conversation for a different thread and different people, which you seem to have already found. Beyond that, while we appreciate your enthusiasm, please be a little nicer on these boards and dial back the spite a bit. We're all intelligent folks here trying to have a good time, and it's just a game.
|
|
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.
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.
@thrikreed - I am perfectly fine with you not wanting to buy any of my products, as my setting and the materials that support it are extremely niche, being both feudal Japanese and Asian horror. That certainly cannot appeal to everyone's interests in any way. I have a strong fanbase, but it doesn't include every PF gamer and never will.
In my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, which is entirely based on Japanese folklore and eastern tropes, where ghosts and hauntings are at the core of what sets it apart from other settings, the very name "Kaidan" is Japanese for ghost story. It only makes sense that a setting about ghost stories would find the haunt mechanic as a common feature.
As monsters, I like tarrasques too, however, they don't belong in a Japanese horror setting. So I don't have any tarrasques in Kaidan, perhaps other kinds of kaiju, however.
I currently don't design/write for any other setting, so all products I release (for the time being) only pertains to Kaidan, thus the reason why the haunt mechanic is so prevalent in the materials I write.
If you look at the product ratings by the reviewers, while there are some 3 star reviews, 4 star and 5 star reviews are the most common regarding all our products. Strangely, none of the products that include haunts are anything less than 4 to 4.5 for ratings (most are 5 star). One of my very first products is the first module for the 3 module Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy, with 5 each 5 star ratings (7 each 5 star ratings on DTRPG) and there are almost a dozen haunts in that module alone.
Certainly if I were designing for a more traditional fantasy setting, the haunt mechanic would probably not be prevalent, or at least just as common as any other mechanic and subsystem in Pathfinder. Haunts might appear, but certainly not in every product I release. However, as stated, I design for a Japanese ghost story setting - how could you not expect to see haunts for that?
Bottom line, I only design for my niche, I don't design every product that includes the haunt mechanic, and I cannot account for other publishers misuse or misunderstanding of a given mechanic and not present properly. Any mechanic can be misused. I don't throw out everything, because a few examples are done poorly. I'm only responsible for the work I do and no one elses.
I agree that there are problems with the mechanic itself, which is why I try to fix those issues in the haunts I include in my products.
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.
Just because some GMs and some designer cannot seem to design a haunt that is not problematic, doesn't mean that my designed share those problmes. So I agree some badly designed haunts are badly designed, but for the most part haunts are generally well designed - not every designer is capable of good design.
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.
You seem to think, because I agree haunts (unaltered) can be problematic, that I must agree that the mechanic is broken. 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.
I have absolutely no responsibility, nor control for other people's designs. If others include haunts and do not include the necessary missing features that make haunts work - that has no reflection on my haunts nor anything else I design. I will continue to publish haunts with my products, as my haunts work the way they should - which is to create fun and scary elements to the basic game.
|
|
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 todismiss 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
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.
-
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...-
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.-
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...
-
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?
-
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...
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.
So the only alternative, in your opinion, is that Paizo takes up the haunt mechanic and either scrap it or rebuild it from the ground up, and that it has to be Paizo that does this. (Even though many PF 3PP designers are the same people creating the mechanics for Paizo products).
Other designers, like myself, who might have actually done freelance work for Paizo, and who have taken the time to bring the mechanic into my own shop, rebuild and/or tweak it to work - doesn't apply as a possible solution. For some mysterious reason, it has to be Paizo that does this?
Why is it that if I fix a problem with haunt - its some person's interpretation (and thus is somehow invalidated), but you have to be the one that all points satisfy, otherwise any changes are bunk (in your opinion). I have fixed the haunt in my most recently released product only (I did not include DC checks in previously created haunts, although I've always included extensive backgrounds.) Its not an interpretation, its a geniune fix.
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. In no way should sway the arguments one way or the other regarding issues with haunts (that is why I say, ban it, forget it - it doesn't apply), yet it seems to be a third of your argument.
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. Not that I agree they all have problems, but its hardly a thing to throw out haunts you don't like. There are feats and spells that I don't allow in my game from the Core rules, but I don't need a complete design do over to all spells and feats, just because I have problem with a few of them.
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?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think, because I agree haunts (unaltered) can be problematic, that I must agree that the mechanic is broken.
The suicide haunt which we agree is messed up, isn't even a Pathfinder haunt, its 3.5 so really has no place in this discussion.
-
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.-
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.
-
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.-
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.-
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.-
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?
my general recommendation for making haunts solveable without requiring a healbot cleric or life oracle in the party. is to treat haunts as magical traps for the purpose of class features that deal with magical traps. such as trap finding.
may be off topic. but it works better than "must have a class feature exclusive to one class and one archetype of a 2nd class"
Yeah, I don't know much about PFS rules, as I don't participate in that. I prefer using lots of third party material at my table, not just my own stuff. I consider PFS a whole different animal, and something I don't find attractive - I have a firmly established group, I don't need to go to the game store to find a PF game. So I had no idea of the reuse of the suicide haunt in modules released under PFS.
So I guess I understand your situation better, and why the haunt mechanic is particularly problematic for you.
While I have run Carrion Crown and other Paizo APs, they are not set in Golarian officially, not in my game anyway. So not only don't I do PFS, I don't even use the default setting. So I can see how my perspective is different than many. You might understand my point of view, in that I don't need Paizo to officially approve my 'fixes'. For those that play games outside of PFS, what I and other 3PPs create is ready to use now, without needing added to the FAQ.
Obviously my fix doesn't fix it for you - I get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
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.
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. There's a reason responses like "I fixed it by doing this" and others are valid here where they may not be valid on other areas of the messageboard, Thrikreed. You brought your complaints and the root cause for them out of the PFS threads and into the AP threads, and out here, suggested fixes for home GMs, whether they come from freelancers, other GMs, 3PP material suggestions, or just any interested party with a good idea, are valid.
This thread was created to aid GMs running the Carrion Crown AP and, in particular, Haunting or Harrowstone and its associated haunts. 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. And as the thread's also labeled "DMs ONLY," it's not exactly the proper forum to air player grievances, either. I would kindly suggest that those aspects of the conversation be brought back to the PFS boards or moved to respective product pages. Because until/unless Carrion Crown is sanctioned for PFS play, criticisms based on "we can't fix it because the rules say so" are off-target, and off-topic.
So please keep debating the merits or lack thereof of haunts and potential fixes, but with the new understanding, lets please move the conversation beyond the restrictions of PFS-allowable rules changes and throw that conversation back to the thread that IS discussing it, because that isn't going to help anyone coming here to look for help with haunts.
(I'll also note that that PFS thread's responses to haunts are overwhelmingly positive/neutral, with less than a half-dozen true detractors among 100 posts. Most are in the "I like haunts" camp, almost all the rest are in the middling "when well done, haunts are OK" camp, noting some occasional problems when they aren't used right, and only a small percentage (about 4 posters) falls into the "I hate these things they are too problem-plagued" mode of thinking. I think that mix of public opinion has been pretty consistent on this thread as well. Which, along with my home experience, makes me feel pretty confident in the mechanic and the public's perception and use of it.)
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?
If everyone continues to play nice, I'll continue to help.
my general recommendation for making haunts solveable without requiring a healbot cleric or life oracle in the party. is to treat haunts as magical traps for the purpose of class features that deal with magical traps. such as trap finding.
Having the ability to damage a haunt best might be had with a healbot, but you don't need special class features to detect and avoid a haunt, you just need ranks in Perception and a successful DC check, which any player has the opportunity.
To me the real opportunity for haunts, unlike traps, is that it takes some adventure, detective work and roleplay to learn the truth behind the formation of a haunt and destroy it permanently, which can bring great satisfaction.
Regarding traps, if a rogue or urban ranger fails to detect a trap, despite class abilities that grant trap detection, it kills/maims PCs just as well as a haunt. The only real difference is that your DC is based on whatever the spell is, and not a Will/Fear check as it pertains to haunts. Aside from that, I don't really see the difference between a haunt versus a trap mechanically.
'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?
I didn't mean to suggest that your opinion regarding your needs for your game, somehow makes you not an authority. You misunderstood my post completely.
What I meant, was why is my solution to your problem somehow invalidated to your authorative judgement. Whereas my authority is meaningless, and yours is the only meaningful one. You are an authority as much as I am an authority - no one has precedence over the other, yet you still dismiss any solution of not meeting your very narrow minded version of what is a fix or not (for the Core game, and not specifically your group) - as if your judgement is all that matters in meeting a solution (even if it actually fixes the problems).
If we were discussing issues with your table only, then your authority is firmly in place, but we're talking about everyone's table (not including PFS) aren't we?
my general recommendation for making haunts solveable without requiring a healbot cleric or life oracle in the party. is to treat haunts as magical traps for the purpose of class features that deal with magical traps. such as trap finding.Having the ability to damage a haunt best might be had with a healbot, but you don't need special class features to detect and avoid a haunt, you just need ranks in Perception and a successful DC check, which any player has the opportunity.
To me the real opportunity for haunts, unlike traps, is that it takes some adventure, detective work and roleplay to learn the truth behind the formation of a haunt and destroy it permanently, which can bring great satisfaction.
Regarding traps, if a rogue or urban ranger fails to detect a trap, despite class abilities that grant trap detection, it kills/maims PCs just as well as a haunt. The only real difference is that your DC is based on whatever the spell is, and not a Will/Fear check as it pertains to haunts. Aside from that, I don't really see the difference between a haunt versus a trap mechanically.
positive energy still works, 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
anyone can make a perception check to find them, positive energy does full damage to them with no save, but rogues and stuff, can be a viable alternative when the cleric needs to safeguard their channels for emergencies.
however, the rogue solution isn't permanent, it lasts a number of hours equal to the disabler's ranks in disable device. which generally makes resting not a good idea till later because it could trigger while you rest, but could suppress it long enough to go through a few key points without worrying about that haunt
it allows people whom don't have a cleric, or don't have the resources to do the investigation, to bypass the haunt if they have an easily acquriable class feature or a highly specific trait from a recent companion pamphlet.
Again, to me, the only thing being a cleric has an advantage regarding haunts is in suppressing it or destroying the haunt once they learn the steps necessary to do so. 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. You don't have to be divinely powered to avoid a haunt, being so is only good for suppression/destruction, and nothing else.
I've run a party with no divine casters that detect/identify a given haunt, take the steps to learn what it takes to destroy it, then go find an NPC cleric to assist them in its destruction. Though such a party cannot suppress, nor destroy a haunt themselves, they can find someone else to help them in its destruction and gain experience for doing so.
My players don't simply detect/get affected by a haunt and move on, they invariably always try to find the means of destruction and destroy it. A haunt is always a plot hook and adventure side-quest in my game, and not just a trap.