Do Haunts have HD equal to their CR? and what dice is it if they do?
Good home-brew GMs generally don't need haunts and may be able to find a better way to incorporate it into the game - there is truth in that. But not all GMs have the experience or know how to accomplish that task. So lots of the subsystems like haunts are tools to help create that experience. I find the tool useful, when I design adventures using my published Japanese ghost story setting.
A creative GM might purchase such an adventure and all instances of haunts are replaced by roleplaying, or some home-brewed system. We all know most GMs change or only use parts of purchased modules. House ruling is an actual thing that many gaming groups do, right? For those with less time for game prep due to busy lives, relying on published modules is the only practical thing.
I'd rather make it easier on the GM than harder. Haunts fit that niche between a trap/hazard and undead. I don't want to turn every scary detail into a ghost encounter, haunts do a good job, as long as you include an appropriate backstory, and also include Knowledge DC checks as part of the stat-block, as is my solution. I actually prefer to use haunts as elements surrounding a ghost encounter that offer clues to the ghost's destruction. I never use a haunt as some arbitrary trap - its always part of story of the adventure in a major way.
A haunt is a plot hook, and that is its real value.
Good GMs can often find better ways of creating and running events - as you say, but I've met lots of less-than-good GMs, and newbie GMs who cannot without a good tool, like haunts.
Regarding your point about special class requirements. Lots of encounters that aren't haunts often require special class abilities to overcome. If you don't have a rogue or urban ranger how do you deal with a mechanical trap? If an adventure is filled with undead, but there's no divine casters in the party it might be impossible to overcome. Likewise I played in a campaign ending encounter, that if there weren't a cleric of some kind, it was a TPK for sure. I've seen a locked door with no rogue in the party, and a wizard that didn't select Knock as a spell end progress in a dungeon. So a haunt requires special treatment to overcome - I see no difference to many other non-haunt encounters.
If anything, its about time that divine casters had something else to do. There's value in that.
And regarding Thrikreed and the authority issue - I understand his issue now (despite it not being appropriate in this thread, since CC isn't PFS approved). I just wanted to clarify my meaning in the "authority" statement, since Thrikreed misunderstood my meaning - he took it the wrong way (I wasn't clear enough).
|
This haunt thread was pointed out to you because it offers proposed solutions that you were seeking, not because your criticism was in the wrong place.
-
I checked. I double checked. You are not among the people who contacted me about this thread; nor is the reason you stated numbered among the reasons they pointed it out.-
No... It's because they disagreed strongly with certain content of the thread.
-
And because when they've voiced critique of the amalgamated mush Haunts have become, with all the shifting goal posts; they've risked stepping on the toes of far too many people. These other people are often other players adamantly who defend any haunt ran with results better than that one tragic time, or maybe the gm who adamantly defends his interpretations because they are better than the Haunts he's encountered, or maybe the writers have their professional pride too, or maybe it's all the above. But that leaves those individual feeling very exposed in a room of people too busy defending their solutions and all too quick to dismiss all the others... And those people are all too often friends and family they would rather not risk this with. Meanwhile the problems with RAW Haunts are being forgotten.
-
Some people pointed it out to me because of my 'success' in previous threads... Which is still a surprise to me, because the threads they pointed out, I had thought lost and given up on.
-
But the person who finally got me to look said Haunts were so bad and wrong, a new word like badrong should be created just to to describe them and wondered why I wasn't involved in fixing the badrong Haunts.
-
I am pointing out your assumptions, as in the cases of your previous mention of vitriol and spite, are not always correct. Please ask instead of assuming. We all, including myself, need to work on playing nice and communicating.
-
While that's not to say your initial critique of haunts doesn't make some solid points or is out of place here, when you guys steer off course with the root of your conflict being about acceptable PFS allowance for GM fixes, which is a HUGE percentage of the source of your complaint, you're off-topic.
-
I disagree. By pointing out PFS as one place Haunts are more consistently ran RAW; it gives an opportunity to put a spot light on the problems with Haunts with out home rules muddling it to mush. Think of them as a control group. The comparisons and contrasts between home campaigns and PFS could be revealing, and be a helpful tool in bettering all Haunts.-
So, in my own inept way, I've been trying to do the following:
1. State clearly Haunts have problems with their rules as written.
2. To listen and note and examine the problems and solutions being used and boil them down to two lists... Though there are so many inconsistencies with how Haunts are being interpreted by writers and written, interpreted by GMs and ran, and interpreted by players... that Haunts and the interpretations are becoming an amalgamated mush most people just want to avoid like poison...
3. State the list of the problems, thank people for acknowledging some or all of the points, and encourage them to suggest more. It's not a completely comprehensive list, it does cover the biggest problems I have heard about. Well... trying.
4. Boil the list of solutions down and refine it to address all the problems listed... and find or create solutions to unaddressed points. This last one is pretty tough because to get people to create the solutions, first they have to agree there is a problem.
-
Moving forward: You've been offered a solution for fixing PC information on haunts with Knowledge checks, a system of which has since found print in 3PP products. You've noted a lack of backstory elements with the response that Haunting of Harrowstone has backstory elements for the important haunts, and the backmatter article's haunts doesn't have extensive backstories because they were meant for GMs to work their own histories for them in home campaigns. We all recognize the problems with inflicting the suicide haunt on PCs (though it does not appear in Carrion Crown or HoH), so let's get past that.
What non-PFS-related criticisms have not been addressed? Wonky 'screw-you' creation tactics with nasty GMs potentially jury-rigging the CR system? Initiative matters forcing haunts on PCs with no chance to otherwise react? Other issues? What would you propose be done to solve these perceived shortcomings?
-
Sure... Let's start by hitting the initiative one since there is another post present that seems to present the opportunity.|
|
Anybody can detect it, and avoid it by leaving the area of effect - they witness something scary, but does not affect them mechanically. A fighter with ranks in Perception can detect and avoid a haunt no problem, as long as he makes his DC check.
-
Per RAW, previous to the surprise round Haunts are undetectable with out detect undead or detect evil (or whatever the Haunt's alignment is, if one is included) and even then it's at a -4 penalty to the listed perception check. There is no other way to detect a Haunt pre-surprise round. None. This was my point 1.-
Although haunts function like traps, they are difficult to detect since they cannot be easily observed until the round in which they manifest. Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty). When a haunt is triggered, its effects manifest at initiative rank 10 in a surprise round. All characters in the haunt’s proximity can attempt to notice the haunt at the start of this surprise round by making a notice check.
If the haunt is reduced to 0 hit points by positive energy, it is neutralized— if this occurs before the haunt takes its action at initiative rank 10, its effect does not occur.
-
Haunts begin manifesting at the beginning of the surprise round. Also at beginning of the surprise round the members of the party can make their very first perception check, just to see if they can roll initiative for that surprise round.-
And you know all this assumes that there is even a perception check, because some haunts can only be detected by Wisdom checks... so no matter the number in ranks in perception, perception can be useless.
-
Striken Family, Notice: Wisdom check DC 10
Ghoulish Uprising, Notice; Wisdom check DC 13
Cannical Urgings, Notice: Wisdom check DC 18 Clerics with stat items make this less than 50% of the time.
-
Even after all that; it's still just a surprise round...
-
In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round.
Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round.
-
2. Flight.Versus a perception check DC 15 (assuming players win ties) AND an initiative of 10... a 4th level cleric (+4 perception, +0 initiative) has a 27.5% chance to act, 4th level fighter (+0 perception, +3 initiative) has a 21% chance to act, 4th level rogue (+10 perception, +6 initiative) has a 68% chance to act, and 4th level wizard (+1 perception, +2 initiative) has a 22.8% chance to act... But for the entire party to escape all eight of those checks have to be successful and there is only .89% (yes, less than 1% chance) of that happening.
-
And then the effect goes off, and in cases where it's a single target screw, other characters are far less likely to be in a position to easily help their ally.
-
And if the Haunt is persistent and a character failed both of those checks... the Haunt may get to activate it's effect AGAIN before you've even acted for the first time since it appeared.
-
Yeah, I think this needs to be fixed.
-
Solutions: While not RAW, I think most us can agree that Standardizing the Notice to just perception would help but it's not the whole solution. Back story really does help here, when it's present to players prior to the Haunt. which it often is not. Also, a Haunt manifesting as a standard action makes this a lot less of a screw... What does everyone else think?
-
i merely allow rogues and stuff like urban rangers a chance to suppress the haunt with a disable device check, treating the haunt as a magical trap. because mechanically, it is a magical trap
-
In a home campaign this makes as much sense as giving otherwise unavailable perception checks before the surprise round. Unfortunately, since I've played in PFS I have to go by RAW. Per RAW, since they have no disable DC, they cannot be disabled.-
That being said, I'd like to point out that rogues have the BEST chance (in the above example an 68% chance to act) in the party to be able to react to the Haunt... They just need a vial of holy water (2d4 damage and assuming the GM rules Haunts undead creatures... more later on this) or heck even a potion of Cure Light (1d8+1) in their off hand before the surprise round started. The problem is that this usually means needing to know there could be haunts around AND giving up two weapon fighting, two handed weapons, spell casting, or anything else they might need that hand for in a surprise round for the entire dungeon/haunted house. Even If they don't do enough damage to neutralize it in the surprise round, in my experience it'll have been worth it because all too many haunts are persistent. This makes it all the more likely that enough damage can be poured on the Haunt to neutralize it before it activates it's effect a second time. (In other words, don't discount the rogues usefulness outside of disabling device it).
-
Coming back to to the GM considering Haunts undead creatures... There is some good reasons to thing so.
-
Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).
some haunts can be tricked by effects like hide from undead or invisibility.
-
But Haunt RAW do not treat Haunts like undead in any other way, for instance by giving them the undead template or stating them like a creature.-
Do Haunts have HD equal to their CR? and what dice is it if they do?
-
Per RAW, they do not have HD but are assigned hit points sort of like items.-
hp: This lists the haunt’s effective hit points for the purposes of resolving positive energy damage. A haunt’s hit points are equal to twice its CR, except in the case of a persistent haunt, in which case its hit points are equal to its CR × 4.5 (round fractions down).
-
The implication that the CR is a Haunts HD and the HD is at least a D6, or more likely a D8 or D12 can be made and built off of to say it is a creature... But then falls completely apart because Haunts are not stated out like any other monster in the game.-
Does Speak with Dead work on Haunts? I'd think so but wouldn't that mean Haunts would need Intelligence for languages and knowledge, Wisdom to make a will save, and Charisma to make a bluff? Where are those stats listed for Haunts? I would think the investigation Haunting section at the bottom of http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/haunts would rely on many the same things. Spirit boards would likely be keyed to specific alphabets used for common languages, but I remember languages often have different alphabets. A Chinese Haunt hundreds of years old may be unable to respond to a talking board lettered in English characters.
-
Solutions: Make Haunts creatures. Think on this... do haunts meet the definition of a creature per Paizo? What's Paizo's definition?
-
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.
-
And we're just getting started....
Although I was not aware of the Wisdom detectable haunts (I don't read everything Paizo), that is even better than a Perception check, since not everyone even possesses ranks in Perception, though everyone can make a Wisdom check (albeight not always the best stat to roll against - still available to every class.)
And no I don't think haunts should be considered undead, nor monsters, they are much more akin to a hazard or trap, and not any kind of entity on its own. Thus Speak with Dead should have no effect at all, a haunt is not an undead.
Fluff wise, a haunt is the residue of a dark event involving a tragic death - murder, suicide or other death with a heavy emotional resonance. It is something new of its own category. A haunt is a haunt and nothing else.
A haunt's CR is the amount of positive energy required to suppress - it otherwise has no physical form that can be damaged by weapon or most spells, thus no HD.
I have never considered haunts as undead creatures, they are dangerous resonances - a new category of thing, thus are treated differently. I am fine with that.
In the end, haunts are not in the Bestiaries, thus are not monsters and all the arguments that perceive them as monsters with HD, and could somehow affected by spells affecting monsters are completely groundless, so a valueless exercise in discussion.
Haunts have existed at least since the start of Pathfinder, and since haunts are not monsters, nor undead, and have been categorized as their own thing, why all the need to try to slot them into some other category of thing. If it was something introduced to the game much later than its founding, one might understand there might be issues to where it belongs, however, it was its own thing (and not a monster) from the beginning, so no need to try to justify a haunt as something that it is not.
I think for those players who want to run a Ghost Hunter campaign or PC, yeah, having some kind of haunt expert is a great idea. I'm all for making a purely ghost/haunt hunter archetype for perhaps an inquisitor or based off cleric - that would be a great inclusion in the game. IMO, any local NPC cleric, oracle, inquisitor, paladin, even an adept should have some knowledge of local haunts and how to deal with them, as your expert.
Purple Duck Games has a Medium (new class) from their Covenant Magic supplement which though complex is very cool and could also fit the concept of ghost/haunt hunter.
And back to my point, a haunt is not a trap, though it may seem to have similar functionality, the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook. An entity that introduces a dark storyline manifested in a particular locale. Learning the history of a haunt forces you to get involved with the local NPCs and local legends - which is what it takes to destroy a haunt. Its a sure way to bring a fun, non-combat investigation activity to the standard adventuring group.
Another way to solve many of these issues especially regarding haunt detection (granted its 3PP), but at the start of #30 Haunts for Kaidan by Rite Publishing is a wondrous item called the Skeleton Key.
Skeleton Key
Aura faint divination; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 3,700 gp; Weight -
Description
This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead. If there are no undead or lingering auras within 60 ft., the key will float on its string and point towards the strongest undead aura within 300 ft.
This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead three times per day as the spell. When within 60 ft. of a haunt, the wearer of a Skeleton Key can make a Perception check to notice the haunt at a –4 penalty regardless of whether or not the haunt has manifested.
Construction
Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead; Cost 1,850 gp
Problem solved.
So if I gave them a D8 Hit Points per CR would that make them to powerful?
So if I gave them a D8 Hit Points per CR would that make them to powerful?
Well according to d20pfsrd.com regarding haunt HP:
hp: This lists the haunt’s effective hit points for the purposes of resolving positive energy damage. A haunt’s hit points are equal to twice its CR, except in the case of a persistent haunt, in which case its hit points are equal to its CR × 4.5 (round fractions down).
So a CR 1 has 2 hit points, whereas a CR 1 persistent haunt has 4 HP. So, yeah, 8 hp for HD is way too much.
Well I want the great haunts in The Harrowstone a little tougher so what do you think would be good 5 or 6 times CR cause 4.5 is not powerful enough for my group
|
|
So if I gave them a D8 Hit Points per CR would that make them to powerful?
-
Hypothetically...-
If a GM were to rule that they are a creature then a D8 is fine. Keep in mind this alone should not be used to change the formula of 2 hit points per HD, or 4.5 hp per HD if they are persistent. Since most creature types have constitution scores, Haunts could have more hit points.
-
If a GM were to rule that they are a undead then a d8 is fine. Keep in mind this alone should not be used to change the formula of 2 hit points per HD, or 4.5 hp per HD if they are persistent. However as undead, they would benefit from the effects of desecrate.
-
IF Haunts were ruled creatures, they would need to be stated out more completely. I'd probably start with with the incorporeal and undead monster traits to start off with. The discrepancy between how incorporeal undead can be hurt by other things other than positive energy and holy water; and how haunts are usually immune (unless a weakness is chosen) would need to be addressed. Would a new creature trait do it? Create one for disembodied or haunts? How would that new trait be defined?
-
What are your thoughts Joey?
I dont really want them to be creatures I like that they are not creature
They are something different
I just dont want my players to walk through these haunts that should be epic encounters
So I think more HP and a bump in the DCs should be good to help like a plus 1 or 2 (my PCs have really good stats and make very good characters)
im thinking 6 HP per CR and not making them creatures and A DC of 1.5 x CR rounded down instead of one for one
|
|
Another way to solve many of these issues especially regarding haunt detection (granted its 3PP), but at the start of #30 Haunts for Kaidan by Rite Publishing is a wondrous item called the Skeleton Key.
Skeleton Key
Aura faint divination; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 3,700 gp; Weight -Description
This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead. If there are no undead or lingering auras within 60 ft., the key will float on its string and point towards the strongest undead aura within 300 ft.This small black key on a leather string enables the wearer to detect undead three times per day as the spell. When within 60 ft. of a haunt, the wearer of a Skeleton Key can make a Perception check to notice the haunt at a –4 penalty regardless of whether or not the haunt has manifested.
Construction
Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead; Cost 1,850 gpProblem solved.
-
Beautiful! Not only does this acknowledge the problem with detecting Haunts but solves it nicely.-
For "If there are no undead or lingering auras within 60 ft., the key will float on its string and point towards the strongest undead aura within 300 ft.", would the Skeleton Key ever point toward a Haunt?
-
I think the line "When within 60 ft. of a haunt, the wearer of a Skeleton Key can make a Perception check to notice the haunt at a –4 penalty regardless of whether or not the haunt has manifested." should more plainly state the ability is granted for the wearer all the time, and not just for the 15 minutes a day when the detect undead is up. Or does it?
-
That being said, I do not think this item is the whole solution to my points of parties not getting ample time to react, but combined with other solutions like Haunts taking a standard action to Manifest; I think this could be epic in modules that have even one Haunt.
-
Thank you for sharing this.
|
|
I just dont want my players to walk through these haunts that should be epic encounters
So I think more HP and a bump in the DCs should be good to help like a plus 1 or 2 (my PCs have really good stats and make very good characters)
im thinking 6 HP per CR and not making them creatures and A DC of 1.5 x CR rounded down instead of one for one
-
Based on my experience, I'd not recommend it.-
If I may suggest something... when introducing a new rule into my home campaigns I usually try to give that new rule an exit strategy. If you want to grant Haunts the benefits you mentioned or something similar to a desecrate; which is to say a +1 or +2 hp per CR and bonus to attack and damage rolls... just put in an item specific to that one Haunt as a reason for that benefit.
-
Also the new rule can often be looked at like an opportunity to introduce players to elements from the long term story arc or in this case the story of a particular Haunt. Something that can create a connection between players and the Haunt. A child's faded crayon drawing of a two particular people or an old moth eaten dress with a name sewn into the collar. If you like the idea of Haunts communicating, why wouldn't they try doing it when players aren't around? For instance a board with the names of a couple of people from the haunt's history scratched into it with sewing needle or teeny tiny peeble? Back story really does help with Haunts, the more that is introduced the more likely players to get hooked in a fun way.
-
If you decide that Haunts are getting too powerful, you can stop introducing the items... or have one or more of the items begin rotting suddenly for some logical reason (like the item went too far from the Haunt) or even better for no reason.
No the detect haunts ability of the skeleton key is completely separate from the Detect Undead - those are two different abilities. Detect haunts is always active as long as your are within 60 feet of a haunt. The 300 feet detection ability is for undead auras, and though it doesn't explicitly state it, since Detect Undead can detect a haunt, that a haunt has an undead aura.
|
|
Although I was not aware of the Wisdom detectable haunts (I don't read everything Paizo), that is even better than a Perception check, since not everyone even possesses ranks in Perception, though everyone can make a Wisdom check (albeight not always the best stat to roll against - still available to every class.)
-
Perception is a skill based Wisdom check available to all classes too. While not everyone gets the +3 class bonus for putting in at least 1 rank, they can still take ranks in it. Also racial and class abilities specifically designed to interact with Perception get nixed. An 8th cleric min/maxed to 20 Wisdom + 2 level stat bumps, with a +4 stat bump fails a DC 18 Wisdom check 45% of the time.-
the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook.
-
I've read through Haunts as present here repeatedly and still have not found the word plot anywhere. Maybe this should be part of the solution for Haunts; how to treat them like plot hooks. Please try writing a rule or rules that makes EVERY Haunt a plot device that cannot be abused.-
ANYTHING can be a plot hook. I'll go with this definition of a plot hook... a plot hook is an in-game element that inspires a strong motivation to pursue a course of action that furthers the plot or enriches a narrative in a game. Give ANYTHING back story and it becomes a plot hook.
-
No, Haunts need more definition than just 'plot hook'.
-
And no I don't think haunts should be considered undead, nor monsters, they are much more akin to a hazard or trap, and not any kind of entity on its own. Thus Speak with Dead should have no effect at all, a haunt is not an undead.
-
Was the 'not' in 'not any kind of entity' a typo? Are you saying you like Haunts existing outside of the rules? Are you defining them by what they are not?-
Fluff wise, a haunt is the residue of a dark event involving a tragic death - murder, suicide or other death with a heavy emotional resonance. It is something new of its own category. A haunt is a haunt and nothing else.
A haunt's CR is the amount of positive energy required to suppress - it otherwise has no physical form that can be damaged by weapon or most spells, thus no HD.
I have never considered haunts as undead creatures, they are dangerous resonances - a new category of thing, thus are treated differently. I am fine with that.
since Detect Undead can detect a haunt, that a haunt has an undead aura.
-
It sounds to me like you have a definition of what a Haunt is: A dangerous residue with heavy emotional resonance that has an undead aura lacking physical form. Without telling me what Haunts are not, please tell me more about what you consider Haunts to be. Than we can start comparing notes with each other and with RAW.-
In the end, haunts are not in the Bestiaries, thus are not monsters and all the arguments that perceive them as monsters with HD, and could somehow affected by spells affecting monsters are completely groundless, so a valueless exercise in discussion.
-
Are you saying Haunts are immune to spells which say "Target creature touched"? That is exactly what Cure Spells say. You've now stated Haunts are not monsters, undead, or affected by spells affecting monsters; but this seems to contradict the RAW.-
On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt’s hit points (a haunt never gains a Will save to lessen the damage done by such effects, and attacks that require a successful attack roll to work must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits).
-
This could be read to say "When a Haunt manifests, a Haunt gains a form with an AC 10 vulnerable only to positive energy." Usually the perception check describes an effect. Is the effect the form which should be attacked? Or does it gain a separate form? Does perception alone see the form? Is the form the size of a mote dust or as big as the Haunt?-
Haunts have existed at least since the start of Pathfinder, and since haunts are not monsters, nor undead, and have been categorized as their own thing, why all the need to try to slot them into some other category of thing. If it was something introduced to the game much later than its founding, one might understand there might be issues to where it belongs, however, it was its own thing (and not a monster) from the beginning, so no need to try to justify a haunt as something that it is not.
-
Are you saying 'if something existed since the start of the Pathfinder, there is no reason to make it better'? If that was true: why come out with errata, new rules, or new content?-
why all the need to try to slot them into some other category of thing.
-
Pathfinder is a rules based game and when something comes along based more on what rules it does not follow than what rules it does follow, I think it needs to be fixed. To make the game better, just like all the other errata.
Perception is a skill based Wisdom check available to all classes too. While not everyone gets the +3 class bonus for putting in at least 1 rank, they can still take ranks in it. Also racial and class abilities specifically designed to interact with Perception get nixed. An 8th cleric min/maxed to 20 Wisdom + 2 level stat bumps, with a +4 stat bump fails a DC 18 Wisdom check 45% of the time.
So a haunt is not an easy encounter/event, if it weren't challenging it wouldn't add something interesting by its existence. I don't see a problem with that. I'd rather see traps, mechanical and magical,become more challenging than they are, rather than have haunts become something less.
-the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook.
I'm defining what a haunt actually does in the gaming environment. A haunt is not some obstacle like an unusually difficult to deal with trap to frustrate the party. If that is how it is used in some published module or even in a home brew, the haunt was used incorrectly. A haunt should be directly associated with the place, history and current inhabitants of its locale. The backstory should be directly integrated with the existing adventure and learning the backstory should help you eventually help overcome the villain at the end of the adventure. This is why I call it a plot hook.
But a plot hook is not something that would be in the mechanical description of rule itself, so why you're reading my post that way, I don't know. I'm giving you my personal definition of the concept of 'haunt', not some description of rules that needs to be broken down into RAW.
-
Was the 'not' in 'not any kind of entity' a typo? Are you saying you like Haunts existing outside of the rules? Are you defining them by what they are not?...
My use of 'entity' is as equaling 'monster', rather than something less, as is a haunt - so no, not a typo.
-Are you saying Haunts are immune to spells which say "Target creature touched"? That is exactly what Cure Spells say. You've now stated Haunts are not monsters, undead, or affected by spells affecting monsters; but this seems to contradict the RAW.
I read it as immune to "target creature touched" with the exception of Cure spells, not that because "target creature touched" which applies to Cure means haunts can somehow be touched. You're reading into RAW that which is not there. The Cure spell is the exception, not the definition. To my understanding early on only channeled positive energy could suppress a haunt, and a tester suggested that Cure spells should affect it too, so it was added. That shouldn't forcibly change it to a touchable state, it was simply a means to lessen the necessity for channel energy for every adventuring group. Many classes can cast Cure, only 2 can channel.
-Is the effect the form which should be attacked? Or does it gain a separate form? Does perception alone see the form? Is the form the size of a mote dust or as big as the Haunt?
The area where a haunt manifests is the target. The Perception check reveals the visual components of the manifesting haunt, in of itself not a thing you can attack. Applying positive energy onto the area of effect is how you target a haunt. In comparison, its a trapped area, like a hazard - its not a thing you can attack, except to suppress its effects. Only destroying a haunt could be considered an attack usually involving a divine spell and/or act or ritual (bury the deceased's bones, etc.) Except to suppress its effects, you cannot otherwise attack a haunt.
Are you saying 'if something existed since the start of the Pathfinder, there is no reason to make it better'? If that was true: why come out with errata, new rules, or new content?
No, I was trying to compare to AP specific rules, like the Trust mechanic in CC, which some people don't care for (including me). Because its not a rule from a hard bound book like the GMG. To me, haunts are more Core than the Trust mechanic, for example. So I was simply implying that its a 'core' rule. I don't imagine PFS allows most of the subsystem rules provided only in the APs.
My statement had nothing to do with 'reasons for making it better or not'.
Pathfinder is a rules based game and when something comes along based more on what rules it does not follow than what rules it does follow, I think it needs to be fixed. To make the game better, just like all the other errata.
Haunts currently sit in this rules based game in its own unique category, similar to traps and hazards, separate from monsters. It fills a niche that greatly enhances play, IMO.
I can appreciate that because you primarily play in the PFS environment, you need all the rules to fit perfectly together mathematically and read exactly worded so that there was no possible mistake of interpretation. I see the value in that.
However, I'm of the opinion, that since the birth of D&D, except for living campaigns like PFS, most groups house rule to some extent, so that almost no two gaming groups use the rules exactly the same way. I actually prefer the rules to be as exact as they currently are, with some ambiguity for individual GM interpretation. I don't want. nor expect all the rules to be played exactly the same in every group. I'm perfectly fine with GM adjudication in trying to read RAW.
I try to design any rules using Paizo's example in existing rules. I don't want to be more ambiguous. Where I can, I'll add missing rules in any publications I'm involved in, since I don't see the haunt as otherwise broken, I'm mostly fine with haunts as it currently sits in RAW. Most of the mechanics I'm involved in applies to one specific setting only, with individual GMs approval whether to incorporate its rules into their regular home-brew games. I don't expect my rules to be accepted in Core, and accept that fine.
You're free to disagree, and I hope you eventually get a solution you can be happy with (even added to Core RAW). Except for my tweaks, I'm pretty much happy with how it reads now. And with a skeleton key, I'm set!
in the few published modules and APs i have played and read samples of that actually used haunts, the way they are used, is simply as a healing tax. in other words, a trap. so, when i think of a haunt, i tend to think of it being mechanically very similar to a trap.
haunts should be a plot device intended to give you a bit of backstory to beat the BBEG of the adventure, but at the same time, they shouldn't be a resource sink like they currently are.
even if they shared the trap mechanics for the purpose of perception and disable device, it would help them with their own mechanical niche.
my issue with them, is they are a resource tax a low level party cannot afford, and a high level party scoffs at. there is like only one class that channels positive energy by default and 2 archetypes that get it at great opportunity cost.
cleric gets channel by being cleric, based off a tertiary stat
life oracle gets it by saccing their mystery choice
paladin gets a crappy version by saccing uses of lay on hands
there is literally no other way to get channel. till the warpriest comes out.
I understand where you're coming from, but I look at it differently. Most clerics serve as healbots, though they can be competent warriors when self-buffed, can buff and debuff allies/opponents, but is mostly just a healbot or a dealer with the undead. Haunts, especially in learning its backstory towards its destruction gives clerics something else to do in the game, something outside of combat - I think that's a good thing.
Regarding most of Kaidan adventures with haunts and the #30 Haunts for Kaidan supplement, (since I can't attest other publishers use of haunts) while there are some lethal haunts, most are just debillitating haunts - debuffs essentially, and designed as an immediate event prior to a major encounter with a ghost, BBEG, etc. So even if your party fails to detect the haunt, and have no way to suppress its effect, its most likely not going to kill you.
It might seem to tax your healing resource, but if you choose not to suppress it (no tax), it will have some debillitating effect that will most likely be a disadvantage in an upcoming combat, which leads to greater potential harm, which requires spending a healing resource you have to use anyway. It tends to balance out. So I don't really see the 'tax', beyond normal expectations for the use of healing in a normal game in the first place.
And for cleric, I've never considered Wisdom a tertiary stat, all her spells are Wisdom based, a party needs someone with a good Will save, Perception and other key skills are Wisdom based. It seems we must optimize our clerics differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks--another reminder. This forum is for the discussion of haunts as they pertain to their use in the Carrion Crown adventure path. Not PFS, and not Rite Publishing products. Please be considerate of further threadjacking by moving those aspects of the conversation either back to the PFS forums, or to the respective product pages for the oft-mentioned publications. Gamer-printer, if you "can't attest other publishers use of haunts," then perhaps you should stop and familiarize yourself with Paizo's haunts (specifically those in CC), particularly since they are the focus of this thread. How else are you to know that the products you keep promoting present the right solutions to the posed problems? =-) You do good work, buddy!
@ Brandon - while I'm trying to defend haunts in general, I'm just trying to be careful, in case, someone states something like, "what about X haunt in Y publication, how do you defend that" and I haven't read everyone's possible haunt, so I just wanted to be fair in my position in that I only truly know my own work (and those I have read, including those in CC). I cannot necessarily defend every haunt designed by every designer - some may in fact be more problematic, I just don't know for sure.
I don't mean to bring PFS discussion here (which is not my thing), I just want to be fair to all points of view.
I'd like to think I've pretty well covered my points regarding haunts and shouldn't need to go beyond this, but then how many threads and discussions have we thought ended, that keep going.
That said, I'm done here (with this thread).
channel is charisma based, and charisma, is a tertiary stat. wisdom is the primary for many caster clerics. though most of the clerics i played with, have been wannabe fighters and well, healbots don't come easy to find.
I reiterate; what purpose do the haunts, in 'Carrion Crown', serve? More importantly, how do they add value to the campaign/scenario/encounters they are placed in?
A good haunt, could bring all kinds of meanings and back history, and campaign arc; I would admit, when done right.
Which haunts do you guys feel were well done, and why?
Which were done poorly, and need improvement; and why?
i only played a small glimpse in a PBP before i died, but i didn't like any of the haunts. they were all listed as nothing more than fancy traps and resource taxes that were flavored with a cheap generic "horror" skin. it felt more like they were trying to capture generic horror elements from a cheap attempt at emulating gothic horror that failed.
we had haunts, vampires, werewolves, and aberrations. i really wouldn't call it a true transylvanian moment. and well, the adventures really didn't capture the feel. to capture the appropriate feel would require a completely different system. PF is a poor engine for running classic gothic horror and a poor engine for running a campaign of political intrigue and infiltration. it does an excellent job at hack and slash and stuff.
even Savage Worlds, has a better casting system and a better political intrigue system.
i'm not saying that with lots of houserules and a good DM, you can't run a horror game in Pathfinder, but Pathfinder, Carrion Crown, Ustalav in General, and well, D&D Ravenloft, failed to capture horror because the systems are primarily focused on combat more than anything else. and because of the way challenges are weighted as well as the way numbers scale. Player characters are literally designed to do the Van Helsing thing more than the cowering commoner thing due to the way the system is written. they don't want to be the guys hiding from the werewolf legion, they want to be the guys whom run around with magic crossbows and mow down the werewolf mooks with a rapid spray silvered bolts to the brain as if they were firing a gatling gun and collect lupine heads to mount on their wall.
Pathfinder, has a very different set of Expectations that leave it incompatible with the Horror Genre. i acknowledge haunts are a nice attempt at bringing backstory, but most of the time, they will feel like glorified magical traps. in other words, little more than a healing tax.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"lazy writing."
I hope the "lazy" author of Haunting of Harrowstone, Michael Kortes, was able to pull himself off the couch long enough to pick up the Gold Ennie we won for that adventure.
"lazy writing."I hope the "lazy" author of Haunting of Harrowstone, Michael Kortes, was able to pull himself off the couch long enough to pick up the Gold Ennie we won for that adventure.
Awards mean nothing. the fact that Haunts mechanically function as mechanical traps with a few exceptions attached is proof of the lazy mechanic they are. it's easy to impress the people that make up the masses when you write an adventure loaded with Unique Intelligent Undead, Bestial Shapeshifters, and Lovecraftian Horrors.
those 3 topics are guaranteed to increase the sales rate of just about anything RPG related, even fantasy related.
Seriously? You're calling the Haunts lazy because they didn't convey horror in a play by post game you partially participated in ? In a format that lacks 90% of the sensory enhancement required to covey that mood? (voice, lighting, music, etc.)?
Also, as Brandon said, if you have a problem with Haunts, take them to another forum or create your own. This whole thread's devolved into a "I don't like Haunts" thing rather than what was in the first 50 or so posts.
If you can't use these haunts that 90% of the posters seem to enjoy in a way that coveys horror, I have to wonder who is being lazy here? I guess I'm bugged because posts like the above don't add anything to making the game or its experience better; it's just whining for the sake of whining. Have you actually read the AP or are you just making an assumption that all the elements above couldn't possibly be related in a cohesive story? (turns out, they are).
Seriously? You're calling the Haunts lazy because they didn't convey horror in a play by post game you partially participated in ? In a format that lacks 90% of the sensory enhancement required to covey that mood? (voice, lighting, music, etc.)?
Also, as Brandon said, if you have a problem with Haunts, take them to another forum or create your own. This whole thread's devolved into a "I don't like Haunts" thing rather than what was in the first 50 or so posts.
If you can't use these haunts that 90% of the posters seem to enjoy in a way that coveys horror, I have to wonder who is being lazy here? I guess I'm bugged because posts like the above don't add anything to making the game or its experience better; it's just whining for the sake of whining. Have you actually read the AP or are you just making an assumption that all the elements above couldn't possibly be related in a cohesive story? (turns out, they are).
so, yeah, i played CC for 2 and a half months and got to like level 7. before i died to a crit from a 11th level werefolf in hybrid form with a scythe.
the haunts felt bland, and the werewolves didn't feel so much like carnivorous beasts as much as they felt like furry humans with clawed gloves and rubber wolf masks
might have been a bad DM
I can tell you for a fact that there is no 11th level werewolf with a scythe in the whole AP, so it sounds like you had a DM that was doing their own take of it. I'm not one to call someone a bad DM, but the inclusion of this is interesting, it smacks of escalation. How many players were there?
Sorry if the above came across as vitriolic, I feel the amount of designer-bashing within the past few weeks has escalated (not this thread necessarily but others), so it was sort of a jerk reaction.
I can tell you for a fact that there is no 11th level werewolf with a scythe in the whole AP, so it sounds like you had a DM that was doing their own take of it. I'm not one to call someone a bad DM, but the inclusion of this is interesting, it smacks of escalation. How many players were there?
Sorry if the above came across as vitriolic, I feel the amount of designer-bashing within the past few weeks has escalated (not this thread necessarily but others), so it was sort of a jerk reaction.
there were 9 players and the DM wanted to trim down the numbers.
i was one of the ones that get trimmed down by a crit. i didn't get to see what trimmed down the other 3 out of a reduction from 9 to 5 players. but, i was the urban ranger of the party, a sylph switch hitter whom worked as a street magician by day and a vampire hunter by night.
i think the guy may have ad libbed encounters, but i died to a crit from a hybrid form werewolf with a scythe, whom was an additional NPC to fight, and to reinforce the werewolves designed for a four person 7th level party.
the second to die to the same werewolf, was an angelkin life oracle the DM disliked due to her minmaxed channel destroying the haunts before
all i know, was it was 2 years ago, and the numbers were trimmed from 9 players to 5, by means of death in combat, and special encounters were designed to trim numbers to a more manageable number.
That sounds.. rough. I mean, cutting the group down to size by killing off PCs with a crit-specialized monster smacks of a 'DM vs PCs' mentality, a mindset that's easy to fall into when you have more than five players. Did all of the players agree to this or were given any warning of "I need to trim some players, who volunteers?" If not, I could see why your opinion of the AP as a whole is negative.
That sounds.. rough. I mean, cutting the group down to size by killing off PCs with a crit-specialized monster smacks of a 'DM vs PCs' mentality, a mindset that's easy to fall into when you have more than five players. Did all of the players agree to this or were given any warning of "I need to trim some players, who volunteers?" If not, I could see why your opinion of the AP as a whole is negative.
it was more like "i need to trim some players, it's becoming hard to design encounters, so i will include a series of encounters to reduce the numbers. are you fine with it?"
the group gave a reluctant nod, after i brought up, "if you need to trim players, i can volunteer and well. i'm probably the most different player in the group to begin with, at a key point in the story that makes sense, i will try to retire." some of the other characters agreed to my suggestion, and gave a reluctant nod when the DM suggested "if you find a point to retire, but for those reluctant to retire, let the survival games begin."
it's hard to leave when you are in the middle of a dungeon. so in an attempt to finish the dungeon, convincing the DM to allow us to finish it before we headed back to town
the werewolf den had an 11th level werewolf barbarian with a scythe and 2 9th level weretiger clerics of lamashtu with falchions, all in hybrid form, the trio had fought with no sense of preservation and trimmed a group of 9 to a group of 5. 5 PCs died and a new PC was recruited. 2 to the barbarian, and 3 to the clerics. the only thing keeping the party functioning, was the werewolves were extremely reckless and were hurting each other with channels while they hurt the PCs and the barbarian used pounce as a means to fish crits.
You have my sympathies. Again, I'm not usually one to ever call anyone a bad DM, but I can't think of anything else to say here. If I was running a horror game and people volunteered to leave, I would take it as a golden opportunity to give them the most spectacular, horrifying death they wanted rather than randomly drawing straws. Sheesh, again, it just smacks of DM vs PC escalation, and I'm sorry you had to experience it. I love running this path, as have my PCs, and have had no problems conveying terror in this game. (and I'm a big White Wolf WoD second edition fan and GM)
Back on topic: I feel that haunts are specifically designed for less players than more, just as a good horror game is more effective with less players. Its easier to work in personal horror and individual moments of terror when the DM doesn't have to split his attention so many ways. With four players, you almost have the time to give individualized descriptions to each PC of how they perceive the haunt. This just isn't possible with too many players since not only are you dealing with that many extra actions (or lack of actions) against the haunt, but you're forced to give abbreviated, blanket descriptions of what's happening because of that loss of game-time. I could why some people might equate the haunt to a trap in that regard since like a trap, you're hoping the PCs that can deal with it do so, and when you've got that many actions against it, its all about mechanics and loses the flavor. In fact, if your DM didn't take any pains to describe the haunt and just went about the mechanics, it might as well be a trap. Isolation is a key component of horror, and that just isn't going to happen with that many people. Its like the reaction of two people seeing a ghost versus a crowd.
I’ve put a fair amount of work into customizing Carrion Crown, but so far haven’t needed to fiddle with the haunts to make them interesting and evocative for my players.
The best of the bunch so far have been Father Charlatan and the burning brand haunt, both from the Haunting of Harrowstone. Father Charlatan was a well-scripted encounter, and isolating one person from the rest of the party is a great little device for a horror game, creating an atmosphere of doubt and fear. The burning brand haunt is pretty simple and straightforward, but investigating them was the first time my players had any sympathy for the caged and tormented inmates of Harrowstone.
My players are about to head to Feldgrau, so I’ll consider how the haunts there add to their experience and report back. I’m looking forward to Virlych, and trying to plan out disturbing effects for the Tyrant’s Whispers to inflict.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haunts are, mechanically, a unique feature. You can call them traps, but they aren't. Traps can be detected using Detect Trap or Perception. They have triggers like trip wires, door latches, or loose stones. They can be disarmed via a skill check, even the magical ones.
Haunts are similar to traps in that they are location specific, have trigger conditions, have a means to remove them, and have means to detect them. However, it isn't exclusively perception and disable device, so you aren't hosed if you lack a rogue. Anyone can damage them in a variety of ways, or determine and act upon the dismissal mechanic.
This means they have far more flexibility than a trap. They can provide a creepy sense of horror to the game and provide the players with an interactive puzzle. Sure, you can create from scratch mechanics of your own to do this. But you can also invent your own monsters instead of using a Bestiary, though most players don't.
Haunts are simply another mechanic providing an interesting approach to a problem. How do you provide players with traps that don't require rogues to find and disable, can provide background story, and can increase the 'creepy' factor of an adventure?
Lastly, and this is being stated rhetorically, but you don't have to use them if you don't like them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lastly, and this is being stated rhetorically, but you don't have to use them if you don't like them.
LOL. The answer to the thread on how to use Haunts in Carrion Crown is "Don't!"
My wife GMed us through the Haunting of Harrowstone. She hated the rules for haunts. She wanted to be a good GM and she read the rules for haunts and checked the forums and tried so hard. She's an actual lawyer and still couldn't piece together the rules. Ultimately we did what we always do- we rolled a d20 when we thought it would help.
After that, we had an awesome time.
The scorching ray trap almost killed one PC. We managed to save him and we avoided that area afterwards. The burning brands- another trap, more damage.
But Father Charlatan- that was awesome!!!
Why did Father Charlatan work sooooo well!!??
Because it didn't trigger immediately.
Because we knew something was wrong with our Sorcerer but we didn't know what. The GM said we could see Father Charlatan behind the Sorcerer every time my Paladin used detect evil. And with the Sorcerer being a halfing, that just added creepy and disturbing child abuse issues, all put there by our imaginations, because the GM didn't reveal much at all. She just smiled quietly and answered our questions. We fled the dungeon with our Sorcerer and tried to fix him. It took ages. We even gave up for a session or two and returned to Harrowstone to slaughter more undead. Eventually, the Oracle had an idea and we took the Sorcerer to the church. He explained his idea to us.
The Sorcerer has never been hurt!
We all looked on sceptically. He got the sorcerer's permission.
Then stabbed him with a dagger.
"I rolled a 3...+2 strength damage."
"You... you're adding strength?"
"I want to make sure it works."
"You... you're adding strength?"
We almost died with laughter. Then, as per the rules, the GM took the player outside and the tension flooded back in and rose to new heights.
The GM tried to follow the haunt rules, but they just got in the way, so we mostly ignored them.
"Can I lay on hands the haunt?"
"Umm, sure, roll a d20. Make it a touch attack or somesuch."
"What does he do?"
"He thrashes about some more?"
"I detect evil. What do I see?"
"Chains. Strangling him."
"Try some holy water. A symbol. Cures. Anything."
The battle was intense and memorable. I don't think we'd found the haunt siphons at that point otherwise we would have used one and mayhaps that brilliant piece of story would instead have been a footnote of "Yeah, whatever, it dies."
My long winded point?
Haunts are a brilliant concept. The mechanics are terrible.
Just like traps, they detract from the game when used poorly. But, when used well, they add so very much more.
Because the haunts are plot and story based, they need less rules, not more. They are continuously compared to traps, but instead of using trap rules, or disease rules, or curse rules or any other already established and known rules, we made up new rules for haunts. And sadly, the idea has suffered because of that.
$0.02
|
|
Haunts are a brilliant concept. The mechanics are terrible.
Just like traps, they detract from the game when used poorly. But, when used well, they add so very much more.
Because the haunts are plot and story based, they need less rules, not more. They are continuously compared to traps, but instead of using trap rules, or disease rules, or curse rules or any other already established and known rules, we made up new rules for haunts. And sadly, the idea has suffered because of that.
-
Are you saying that to fix Haunts, you'd recommend removing all the mechanics? Would you agree with gamer-printer's following statement?-
the true purpose of a haunt is a plot hook.
-
Could haunts be stripped of mechanics and run as plot or back story? I think most of us would answer... yes.-
So... since when do good writers and GMs need Haunts to introduce good plot or back story to the game?
-
IMO: Haunts are a lazy DM tool. Anything a haunt does, a good DM could do without relying on this tool (that seems to have a consensus of needing fixed anyways).
So, in the end how do they actual add value? Why not just use them as written as a guide to lead you to a better solution. You read the haunt, you know what it wants to do. Then just do it better.
-
It really sounds like all three of you are saying the same thing... And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it that way if that's what works for each of you individually.-
But if this is what you're doing, why is it still being called a Haunt? Doesn't this create a situation where one table running a Haunt encounter had a great time playing with a plot hook, while another table had a horrible time playing with the mechanics? The irony is while they had very different experiences with very different 'Haunts', it was the same encounter. And the worst part? The table that tried to follow the rules is the one that had the horrible time. Is it really so bad to admit they need to be fixed, find the problems with them, find solutions to the problems, and fix them?
-
So, in the end how do they actual add value?
-
As to what is it Haunts offer? I think Haunts were an attempt to create a delivery vehicle to inject plot and back story into the game without being the usual PC/NPC interactions.-
Because Pathfinder is a rules based game and rules are necessary to provide a frame work for how player characters interact with everything in the game... Haunts needed rules. The thing about plot and back story is writers and GMs do not like their plot and back story disarmed or bypassed by the rogue, and then ignored by the party. So uninterruptable non-NPC non-traps Haunts were created.
-
(Note: I find it ironic writers are re-introducing NPC characteristics specifically stripped from Haunts like an ability understand language and communicate in an indirect means similar to what we use for Apes and Dolphins IRL.)
-
I am suddenly reminded... Years ago when I played in Living City I remember there being a similar set of rules which filled the same role... Boxed Texts. Walls of text to be read to players without interruption which got abused by some writers so much... other writers created Interrupt Boxed Text Certificates to give to players. Boxed Texts were used to introduce players to villains, guarantee villains' escape, transport players to inescapable locations, trigger traps, kill one or more players before the first round of combat without the players being able to react. Plot hooks and back story abounded; but really players often became frustrated with Boxed Texts because so often they were used to take away player choice and opportunities for role-playing.
-
Sound familiar?
-
I think Haunts are far more insidious since they hide behind game mechanics which at first glance give a chance to counter the Haunt... But when examined closely are not plausible.
-
And boxed text was never, to my knowledge, used to tell any player for all intents and purposes 'You failed the save, your character commits suicide.'
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traps do damage and can only be removed by rogues. You can tie spells to them to do funky stuff. They do little, if anything, to further the story.
Haunts do damage and can be removed by anyone who fulfils the special condition. You can tie spells to them to do funky stuff. The special condition can be something that furthers the story.
I think haunts are superior to traps story wise, and inferior damage wise. The tension with haunts is knowing something will happen and that you can't stop it.
Haunts should take at least a round to manifest.
They should have a scary description of how they manifest.
They should be suppressible with positive energy once they manifest.
They should be always persistent.
They should be only destroyed by a special condition.
If players want to bypass the haunt, they pay the healing tax every time they do. And it affects them multiple times. Otherwise, they go off somewhere else, find the story condition required and use that to defeat the haunt, with little extra expenditure of resources.
Detection should be a non issue. The haunts shouldn't be able to be detected until they manifest. The only way you should be able to find out about one is rumour, hearsay, or some other forewarning.
The haunt manifests. Party gets actions. Haunt attacks.
Give it an initiative of 0 if you have to. It appears as its action. Characters respond by either fleeing and taking no damage, or by fighting it. If the latter, they can only hurt it with positive energy and it attacks them every single round until they flee, suppress it or destroy it.
This is particularly apt for PFS, where combat is almost always an option for bypassing an encounter, but rarely the best option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you boil things down to bare mechanics, all things are the same. Traps and monsters are the same thing, right? They affect the players and removal requires specific conditions to be met. In that way, haunts are traps are monsters are puzzles are environmental effects. It isn't until you break out the rules on player interaction that you see differences.
Haunts interact with parties differently than traps. They are, as a category, separate from traps and have a different set of inherited rules. Haunts act on initiative, they are capable of making choices and responding to environmental situations, like monsters. A pit trap doesn't target the person carrying a holy symbol, a swinging scythe doesn't ignore anyone who is singing the nursery rhyme. Haunts also have a destruction mechanic that is far more variable than 'disable device, DC 25'.
If you make a trap which can only be overcome by setting the five fire crystals of Zyeraan into the right sections of the mural, then you've not made a trap. You made a puzzle and that isn't actually a category of things from a purely rules-focused point of view. They are purely of GM construct and can, theoretically, do anything the GM wants.
The Haunt system provides an attempt to codify and quantify a type of puzzle that can be used as a framework to provide future similar puzzles. This is the same thing as the "how to build an animated object" rules. You get tables, you get points, and you get trade-offs that allow systematic and consistent animated object 'monsters'. A GM doesn't need to them to say the candlestick comes to life and starts going for your eyes, but if the system is used to make the stats, the results is a more consistent experience.
That's all haunts are. It is a system for generating unique experiences that do not already exist Pathfinder. A GM could have written these things before the haunt system, naturally, but the same could be set about the ship-to-ship combat system in Skulls and Shackles, the kingdom building of Kingmaker, the caravan system of Jade Empire (I think that's the one). It is a new system to be used by GMs who are interested in a system to generate something the other systems wouldn't allow.
I wouldn't hesitate to add that all these game systems are frameworks and the GM shouldn't assume they must be followed. If a group doesn't like how the rules work, they should change them; this goes for every single rule in the entirety of Pathfinder though, so I figure it was a known rule. That's how one turns traps into puzzles, after all, so if you can do that then you can fix haunts. Anyone who wants to keep existing systems in place without modifications, however, could not duplicate haunts with the trap mechanics.
There's nothing in Carrion Crown's list of haunts that an inventive GM couldn't create on their own. But I would hesitate to suggest any GM can do this, or even "all the good ones" could, because there are a lot of things that make a GM good and being able to create involved traps or puzzles isn't necessarily one of them.
Thank you for a great contributions to this thread, MP and Pryllin.
I haven't been able to muster up the energy for rebuttals of my own to some of the other recent posts. One or two are outright offensive from a contributing freelancer's perspective. Others are unnecessarily vitriolic. Some make false assumptions about the content of the adventure at hand, while others display a lack of comprehension of the haunt rules. Note that in most of them, there's a good point or two made, and even some solid fixes and good advice offered--so thank you all for those. But until I sense more honey than vinegar in here, I'm going to spend my time on more fruitful matters for appreciative folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I was only attracted to this thread because I saw Brandon posted in it. However after a quick read, I have to agree. Well said, MP. EDIT: and Pryllin
The implementation of haunts has been a new design space that freelancers have (and still are) learning to use effectively and with finesse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necronus, I believe your most recent question is
What benefit do the haunts serve, that couldn't be better served through something else? What makes them so unique and awesome, that makes everyone defend them so.
Is that accurate? Because that is what I originally answered.
The benefit is that we have a codified system for making puzzles that fit a specific thematic concept. Why is this good? Because systems ensure consistency from instance to instance of the feature. There exists these systems for monsters, traps, animated objects, golems, magic items, etc.
If you are suggesting there is a better system of rules for making a haunt currently in Pathfinder, what is it? Your suggestion of a trap with the [haunt] tag isn't actually a thing in the game.
It is an option but it would either mean special rules that would remove aspects of what makes a trap into a trap, or it requires a large pile of extra rules that specify how a haunt is different from a trap. At that point, you are better off making a new system than trying to retrofit an existing system with a pile of new rules. An example is specialized system for animated objects instead of just using the monster rules and having an 'animated object' template.
If you instead suggest that haunts aren't anything special because any GM could just throw together as a puzzle, that's fine, but there is no system for this. Every GM approaches puzzles differently and they are a safe place for arbitrary effects and qualities where the limit is the GM's imagination. That's great, and awesome, and no one will ever want to codify puzzles.
Are Haunts awesome? Not necessarily; no more than traps or monsters or environmental effects. They are simply a thing you can do. Some people think Golems are awesome and make all kinds of fancy constructs for their games. I don't think they are fun (and my player who prefers wizards really dislikes them) but that doesn't make the rules for Golem customization horrible, wrong, stupid, or a waste. The rules exist because there was a need for a system.
What we have is a difference of opinion. You have stated that a Haunt isn't any different than a puzzle or a trap that you could make. That's entirely possible. They may not meet your expectations for something called a Haunt. That is bound to happen. The rule for them are a bit iffy. Yes, I agree, I believe the majority of GMs playing Carrion Crown have had trouble with the specific details. And there have been plenty of discussions on how to 'fix' them, or house rules for odd edge cases (can you use Lay on Hands? Can I just cast CLW?) But that doesn't mean the entire system should be scrapped.
Several of us have tried to describe how they are different, giving various examples of cases where a Haunt does something a Trap cannot. Do you disagree? Can a pit trap, using the rules for traps, provide priority targeting to someone with a specific Holy Symbol? Your counter example was a puzzle, and a good one, but as I've said, puzzles aren't systems of rules.
There are people who replaced all the haunts in the books with custom puzzles. There are people who removed them entirely. Others turned them into monsters or traps. Others house ruled the issues to a position where they and their players all agreed would make sense. There is always room to discuss the system, but taking an initial stance of confrontational sarcasm and then refuting every attempt to come to a consensus by stating that if we don't agree with you then we are obviously just not listening hard enough isn't going to actually get anything out of the discussion.
We accept that you don't like them. Several of us have tried to answer your core question but have been rebuffed with sarcasm, our points selectively addressed, and been told that we're obviously incorrect because we don't agree. That's fine, but it won't lead to production conversation on any issue.
Sometimes people cannot agree and that isn't the same thing as bruised egos and glad-handing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the overwhelming response is now, "If you don't like it, just fix it or don't use it". I no longer find this productive.
I had genuine questions, that keep getting ignored or taken as insults. So, I apologize for bruising egos. I do not appreciate the glad-handing.
I wish you all the best, and just remember to enjoy the game.
No egos were bruised in the last 24 hours. We praise whoever we like.
Alright, let's look at this then.
I think at this point, it is very important we ask our selves some questions.
1) Who benefits from the haunt "encounter"
2) What purpose does the haunt serve in, (insert encounter/campaign name here)
3) When should the haunt be used, instead of something else
4) Where do haunts get placed
5) Why not use an undead, or story based encounter instead
6) How, when deciding to use the haunt, does the haunt add more value, instead of something else
1.) The GM benefits. They're able to introduce a hazard that is flavorful, thematic, challenging, and provides XP. Even if levels are granted subjectively, encounters are still required to be in place to justify raising the characters to another level. A haunt contributes to that. It is part of an XP budget that must be spent to construct an adventure. The players don't really benefit, except from the experience of dealing with a haunt (thrills, chills, suspense). That is where the GM can really help to improve the game with colorful narration. The author also needs to ensure the haunt is reasonably well constructed and how it works is clear.
2.) It introduces a supernatural event without the reliance on a creature. That is really important. It is also mechanics based, rather than relying on subjective GM narration. That is not a condemnation of rules-lite, narrative RPGs. Far from it. Pathfinder RPG, however, is not that type of game. Haunts provide an objective structure to introduce these supernatural hazards.
(Granted, a GM can sway thing events to their liking. That is a different conversation however).
3.)Honestly, word count plays a factor. Creatures, especially unique ones, absorb word count in adventure design. A haunt requires much less of the author's wordcount. Also, sometimes having multiple creatures, side by side and in every room and hallway, is redundant and boring design. It can be a simple matter of variety, while adhering to a supernatural theme.
Finally, many spell-like effects would make some creatures more powerful than they need to be. Haunts can be a little more flexible in that regard (still, even they have limits).
4.) This question is too subjective to provide a fair answer. I'm not trying to dodge it. I can't honestly describe where should a monster or a traditional trap should be placed either. That is a creative decision and a lot of factors go into making it. RPG authors are not just mechanics, there is some artistry in our work and this is part of it. I would look to the story for the best answer, and also the physical layout and spacing in relation to more traditional encounters.
5.) You might have used those elsewhere already. Again, nothing consumes wordcount more than creature encounters or roleplaying encounters. A good adventure requires a variety of different types of encounters to avoid redundancy. A haunt is another tool. I could turn this around and ask why an adventure is nothing but endless waves of monsters, or lacks combat encounters in favor of endless roleplaying scenes. Variety is the spice of adventure design.
5A.) Some encounters, like monsters with class levels receive a greater than normal treasure allocation. To compensate, other encounters must be introduced that don't grant treasure in order to balance the treasure budget. A haunt encounter works well for that.
6.) Again, this is a subjective question. I can tell that there are instances when you thought something else should have been used besides a haunt. You might be right. That's not sarcasm at all. If the topic concerns you, then there might something to what you're saying. I honor that. But in a general conversation, without specifics, who knows?
Necronus, you have conceded that haunts can be good tools in some instances. I concede that their use requires some thoughtful consideration and not every implementation in the Pathfinder line has been perfect. I hope we can respect each others views.