"I hate haunts" in PFS

[The Fox]

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

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

Here are three things you might not know about haunts:

1. Roll for Initiative!
The first thing we need to know about haunts is that when the trigger condition is met, we need to roll for initiative. This gives players an opportunity to avoid or neutralize the haunt before the effects take place.

The players should all roll for initiative, with the haunt acting on initiative count 10.

We execute a surprise round. On each player's turn, they are afforded a Perception check whose DC is given in the haunt description. If they notice the haunt (before it acts), they are allowed one action in the surprise round. They might use that action to run away, or try to destroy the haunt (see below). If they fail the Perception check, they do not get to act in this surprise round.

2. Haunts are harmed by positive energy.
If a PC who is aware of the haunt acts before the haunt, and is able to deal positive energy damage through channeling or a spell (attack spells are made against AC 10), then they might destroy the haunt before it has a chance to harm anyone.

3. Most haunts are instantaneous.
Unless the haunt has the line

haunt wrote:

Reset persistent, ...

then it will be "one and done." Persistent haunts continue their effects round after round on initiative count 10, with regular rounds allowing PCs a normal round's worth of actions. The non-persistent haunts do not continue acting beyond the surprise round.

I hope this is helpful.

If you have always played haunts correctly and still hate them, that is okay, of course. And please tell us why. My intent is not to tell you that you shouldn't hate haunts. Maybe someone will make a similar thread regarding chases. ;)

[EvilMinion]

You're missing a step, based on the way they seem to get adjudicated at any table I've seen them at...

You roll for initiative... you roll the perception check to notice 'something'... but there is often nothing really to tell you it was a haunt. 'The room suddenly starts to get colder' is not telling the player its a haunt, just that the room is getting colder. Same with 'You hear voices or screams or clinking chains' or any of the other myriad of ways a haunt can manifest.

In almost every game I've played, where it gets to this point, there is usually little to indicate what we're facing is a haunt. So we can make the perception, beat it in initiative... and still often have no idea we can do anything about it.

(Usually the GM tosses a knowledge (religion) in here, but usually only if we ask once it starts to manifest)

And what exactly would one learn with a knowledge check? Have seen a few scenarios that require permanently dispelling a haunt to succeed at some goal (usually with prestige on the line)... but no obvious way one is supposed to know to do some often obscure and rarely obvious thing to cause it to actually be permanent.

Perhaps an actual example of how this would play out at a table would be helpful?

[BigNorseWolf]

Haunts have basically taken up the niche that traps used to: As a dm i'm going to screw the players over and there's NOTHING You can do about it.. muahahhahah! aren't I clever...

The haunts HP scale far faster than a party's ability to do positive energy damage. Your only option becomes "run away", which becomes really problematic in a game thats supposed to be heroic fantasy.

[Jeff Merola]

The biggest difference between traps and haunts (to me at least) is that most characters cannot detect a haunt before it triggers. Traps anyone can spot with a high enough perception score. Haunts specifically require either Detect Evil or Detect Undead in addition to a perception score, so unless you're a class that gets one of those as an at-will ability you're kinda out of luck in terms of finding haunts before they go off.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of traps, either.

[Finlanderboy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Haunts have basically taken up the niche that traps used to: As a dm i'm going to screw the players over and there's NOTHING You can do about it.. muahahhahah! aren't I clever...

The haunts HP scale far faster than a party's ability to do positive energy damage. Your only option becomes "run away", which becomes really problematic in a game thats supposed to be heroic fantasy.

discretion is the better part of valor.

If you are not prepared to fight it, you should run away. I think it is horrible to accomodate to unprepared parties.

Although I do admit running a haunbt poorly is not fun for the PCs either.

[N N 959]

EvilMinion wrote:

In almost every game I've played, where it gets to this point, there is usually little to indicate what we're facing is a haunt. So we can make the perception, beat it in initiative... and still often have no idea we can do anything about it.

(Usually the GM tosses a knowledge (religion) in here, but usually only if we ask once it starts to manifest)

This is my biggest issue. Haunts should be COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Every culture across the planet has some concept of hauntings. But RAW doesn't give us any guidance on what it takes to identify a haunt as a haunt.

GMs, should just flat out tell the players they get the sense the immediate area is haunted. Any moron can get that notion. It shouldn't require any type of check and the game doesn't say that it should either. Characters should know what a haunt is just like they know what ghost is, or a dragon.

[EvilMinion]

Fight what? That's the point I was trying to make earlier.
One typically wouldn't think to run away (or not) until they actually are aware of a threat....

With a haunt, when exactly do you get that opportunity? (Without metagaming)

If you don't beat initiative 10, you don't get it.
If you fail the perception check, you don't get it.

If you do pass both of those conditions, you have to then know you're looking at a haunt, and knowing that, what you can do about it (whether it be run away or pour on the positive)... which is where things seem to fall apart and vary widely by table... usually resulting in the PC's not really having a chance to avoid it.

With a trap, if someone notices it, it remains dormant while they figure out what to do with it.
With a haunt, if someone notices it, it's already going off.

[Matthew Pittard]

Are we having a hate thread?

I hate Chases!/Chase scenes.

Or maybe just the mechanics of it. Feels like board game tacked in every so often.

Ive not had a lot of experience with Haunts per se, but Ive just been told they are 'supernatural' traps.

I do like the theme behind them though.

[nosig]

I think I have played all the scenarios with haunts in them ... except one. 3-15 has Haunt in the title, and my reaction to it is to avoid it. So I guess I took option 2... Run Away? I wish I could have had that option for the rest of them. Haunts tend to spoil otherwise good scenarios...(IMHO)

this subject has been flogged a lot in other threads. can we just link this to one of those?

[N N 959]

EvilMinion wrote:

If you do pass both of those conditions, you have to then know you're looking at a haunt, and knowing that, what you can do about it (whether it be run away or pour on the positive)... which is where things seem to fall apart and vary widely by table... usually resulting in the PC's not really having a chance to avoid it.

Bingo. Far too many GMs love to play hide the ball from the players. The game should be about making decisions, not screwing players over because their character can't know what's going on.

You tell me I have to beat both an init and perception? Fine. But when I do, tell me that it's a haunt and let me know everything that's in the PRD about haunts because there's nothing that says I don't.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

EvilMinion wrote:

If you do pass both of those conditions, you have to then know you're looking at a haunt, and knowing that, what you can do about it (whether it be run away or pour on the positive)... which is where things seem to fall apart and vary widely by table... usually resulting in the PC's not really having a chance to avoid it.

Bingo. Far too many GMs love to play hide the ball from the players. The game should be about making decisions, not screwing players over because their character can't know what's going on.

You tell me I have to beat both an init and perception? Fine. But when I do, tell me that it's a haunt and let me know everything that's in the PRD about haunts because there's nothing that says I don't.

if you make the perception check - you get to experience the "clue" the haunt is giving you. It doesn't give you more than that - it doesn't even give you that it's a haunt. Why would you get more? where does it say it does?

[Tony Lindman]

The Fox wrote:

Maybe someone will make a similar thread regarding chases. ;)

Maybe they already have...

And maybe someone else made one six months later...

:-)

[LazarX]

N N 959 wrote:

EvilMinion wrote:

If you do pass both of those conditions, you have to then know you're looking at a haunt, and knowing that, what you can do about it (whether it be run away or pour on the positive)... which is where things seem to fall apart and vary widely by table... usually resulting in the PC's not really having a chance to avoid it.

Bingo. Far too many GMs love to play hide the ball from the players. The game should be about making decisions, not screwing players over because their character can't know what's going on.

You tell me I have to beat both an init and perception? Fine. But when I do, tell me that it's a haunt and let me know everything that's in the PRD about haunts because there's nothing that says I don't.

It's not about what it says YOU DON"T, it alwasy has been what it says YOU DO. When you fnd that bit in the PRD that says every character automatically DOES know about haunts, link it to the rest of the class.

[Nathan Hartshorn]

I like Haunts, they can set a different kind of tone for play depending on where/when they are used. My guess is a lot of hate coming from one certain scenario...

Don't Look Here!:

I prepared Explosive Runes today

Or Here!:

The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment, which has, as a friend of mine would describe, an "insta-nib" haunt.

[Ill_Made_Knight]

This thread makes me sad, since I love haunts and chases. I think they are cool and add flavor to the game.

[The Fox]

Ill_Made_Knight wrote:

This thread makes me sad, since I love haunts and chases. I think they are cool and add flavor to the game.

I like both haunts and chases too. :)

[EvilMinion]

If the 'clue' doesn't give them enough in-character or even out of character information to act on, what was the point of giving it at all?

So compare:

GM says "You hear the sounds of a woman sobbing"

my reaction: The player can't work with this at all, perhaps the woman's in a chest or under a bed, or on the other side of a door. Nothing here indicates a haunt and the player will likely react inappropriately

vs

GM says "The hairs on the back of your neck stand up, as you hear the ghostly sounds of a woman sobbing."

my reaction: ok, better. At least they player is not going to assume its a real woman. Still, not alot to go on, and could be other magical causes.

vs

"The hairs on the back of your neck stand up, as you hear the ghostly sounds of a woman sobbing indicating a haunt nearby."

my reaction: OK, now we have an actual reward for the perception check, giving the player not only the effect, but a cause he might be able to respond to. Whether the player or PC knows what to do is still up in the air a bit.

vs

"The hairs on the back of your neck stand up, as you hear the ghostly sounds of a woman sobbing indicating a haunt nearby. Roll knowledge (religion)."
If < X nothing more. If X+ "[give some info on haunts]"

my reaction: This would be optimal IMO, especially if the value of X is a 10 (or less) indicating common knowledge that even players without ranks in knowledge religion could make.

Which one is appropriate? Which one leads to a better player experience? Which one is intended? I've seen various versions at tables, usually the first one. Rarely the 2nd. Never the 3rd or 4th

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

It's not about what it says YOU DON"T, it alwasy has been what it says YOU DO. When you fnd that bit in the PRD that says every character automatically DOES know about haunts, link it to the rest of the class.

Where does it say I know what a dragon looks like? Where does it say I know how much damage a longsword does? No where. No where does the rulebooks specifically state what the character does know.

Anything that does not specifically list a knowledge check or some other skill check, is by default, knowable to the character.

Any idiot can figure out that the FIRST time any human being ran into a haunt and survived, the knowledge of that encounter would be spread. TONS of Pathfinders have undoubtedly encountered Haunts throughout history and the information on how they would work would be basic training knowledge.

Quit trying to screw over players.

[The Fox]

nosig wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

EvilMinion wrote:

If you do pass both of those conditions, you have to then know you're looking at a haunt, and knowing that, what you can do about it (whether it be run away or pour on the positive)... which is where things seem to fall apart and vary widely by table... usually resulting in the PC's not really having a chance to avoid it.

Bingo. Far too many GMs love to play hide the ball from the players. The game should be about making decisions, not screwing players over because their character can't know what's going on.

You tell me I have to beat both an init and perception? Fine. But when I do, tell me that it's a haunt and let me know everything that's in the PRD about haunts because there's nothing that says I don't.

if you make the perception check - you get to experience the "clue" the haunt is giving you. It doesn't give you more than that - it doesn't even give you that it's a haunt. Why would you get more? where does it say it does?

If a player succeeds at a Perception check to find a trap, I would tell them "you find a trap of blades rigged to swing down on anyone who steps near that statue."

If that same player succeeds at the Perception check to notice a haunt, I would tell them "you feel a cold sensation as you approach the skull; *wink* it is a haunt."

I guess I am now understanding the angst toward haunts.

[N N 959]

The Fox wrote:

I guess I am now understanding the angst toward haunts.

The concept of haunts is great. I like that such a thing exists in PF. How it's allowed to be executed is problematic and ill-conceived.

[Finlanderboy]

I do not come out and say it is a haunt. I allude something myserious and have them make d20 check and look to adjust their knowledge religion myself to see if they know what it is.

I also think it is awesome to be surprised if you character would not understand it.

[N N 959]

Finlanderboy wrote:

I do not come out and say it is a haunt. I allude something myserious and have them make d20 check and look to adjust their knowledge religion myself to see if they know what it is.

I also think it is awesome to be surprised if you character would not understand it.

In our world, we arguably don't even have real haunts. Do you have any doubt the average RL person would be able to know a room was haunted if they encountered it?

[Finlanderboy]

N N 959 wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

I do not come out and say it is a haunt. I allude something myserious and have them make d20 check and look to adjust their knowledge religion myself to see if they know what it is.

I also think it is awesome to be surprised if you character would not understand it.

In our world, we arguably don't even have real haunts. Do you have any doubt the average RL person would be able to know a room was haunted if they encountered it?

Depends on the haunt. They are undead people. People are unique and huants are doubly so.

[Gwen Smith]

I think, like most other things, haunts are cool when done well and awful when done poorly.

Sometimes, the haunt is integrated into the storyline, providing clues to the characters about the overarching plot. In these cases, facing the haunt provides a reward of information that might save your bacon later or at least give an intangible feeling of "what a cool backstory".

Sometimes, the haunt is just thrown in to increase the challenge of the scenario and doesn't really have anything to do with the overall plot. In these cases, facing the haunt provides no rewards whatsoever. It feels pointless and mean-spirited, like having a killer trap on an completely empty room with nothing of value inside. The players are left wondering why they even bothered.

I understand the concept of needing to up the CR and challenge the players, but I hate feeling like I'm in that scene in Galaxy Quest with the "chompers": "Why are these things even here? That episode was poorly written!"

[Talon89]

Haunts, at least the ones i have seen written up in the PFS mod which i ran, were well described. The players were allowed a perception check to identify the precursor event which led to the haunt activating. The problem with haunts, if they are part of the storyline is this: if you leave the area you miss out on the pieces of information which they disclose, after activation. The other part, is that it is hard for the players to inflict enough damage to "despawn" the haunt effect, before it triggers. The third, is that haunts, can do extremely nasty things to pc's.

There are ways around the haunts but the players have to be prepared.

[Cardinal Chunder]

I'd check out the Carrion Crown section specifically regarding Haunting of Harrowstone.
It contains much about running Haunts and how parties can overcome them.
BTW Knowledge Religion is your friend.

[Muser]

It's not the haunts people have a problem with, but some writers turning an interesting threat and plot device into a vaguely written PC killer.

Haunting of Hinojai had great haunts, well written, plot-related and fair. Some other scenarios, won't be naming names, didn't and instead caused anguish, dead characters and long threads over what is what.

I'll be running one of those come next month and hell, I had to a) read a haunt over twice b) read a thread about it in the forums c) look up a spell and d) correct a comma in the haunt write-up before I dared prep the scenario. Instant death is not fun. Neither is vague wording.

[FallofCamelot]

I disagree entirely with the Haunting of Hinojai having great haunts. That one had:

Spoiler:

waves of exhaustion on the way in making further progress pointless

and

Spoiler:

a finger of death trap on the stairs, poof! bye bye character!

Those two were just ways to screw the party. Pure and simple. Horrible.

Not to mention:

Spoiler:

Stupidly overstatted enemies (the skeletons)

The only good thing I can say about Haunting of Hinojai is that at least I have done it now so I don't have to have anything to do with the damn thing again. Just awful.

Haunts are just a poor mechanic. They rely on you having a cleric, channelling oracle or paladin in the party with a decent perception and a decent initiative. Not at all common. Then you get one opportunity in a surprise round to dispel the haunt (which a good 90% of characters have no way of doing) or you take the effect.

And when I am talking effect we are often talking instagib high level magic. That's not fun.

I try to avoid using them wherever possible. I certainly won't use them unless they are an integral part of a scenario and have removed them from published paizo works before now and replaced them with an encounter that could count as actually fun rather than a way to mess with my players.

tl;dr? Haunts are rubbish.

[BigNorseWolf]

Finlanderboy wrote:

If you are not prepared to fight it, you should run away. I think it is horrible to accomodate to unprepared parties.

Its unfair to call a party that can't kill a haunt before it goes off unprepared. There simply is no preparation the party can make that compares with the effectiveness of the scooby do "run awaaaaay!"

Quote:

Although I do admit running a haunbt poorly is not fun for the PCs either.

And there seems to be some disagreement on what the "proper" way to run it is. (the way I do it of course. Holds for most values of I)

[GreySector]

Jeff Merola wrote:

The biggest difference between traps and haunts (to me at least) is that most characters cannot detect a haunt before it triggers. Traps anyone can spot with a high enough perception score. Haunts specifically require either Detect Evil or Detect Undead in addition to a perception score, so unless you're a class that gets one of those as an at-will ability you're kinda out of luck in terms of finding haunts before they go off.

Jeff, here is the quote from the Haunts section of the PRD:

Gamemastery Guide: Haunts wrote:

Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).

Those detect spells give you the opportunity to notice a haunt before it manifests. They are not required to make the Perception check to notice the haunt as it is manifesting.

[Majuba]

---- /Addendum to the OP/ ----
4. Haunts are mind-affecting fear effects.
Any bonuses against fear (e.g. Bravery), or immunity, is effective against haunts.

---- / / ----

Haunts are quite difficult to defeat, but unlike traps they do not require active perception checks to uncover or flee from.

I *do* think that while Haunts are new as a mechanic to role-playing, they should be considered common knowledge for the purpose of knowledge checks (and thus DC 5 + CR, attainable untrained).

[TriOmegaZero]

nosig wrote:

I think I have played all the scenarios with haunts in them ... except one. 3-15 has Haunt in the title, and my reaction to it is to avoid it. So I guess I took option 2... Run Away? I wish I could have had that option for the rest of them. Haunts tend to spoil otherwise good scenarios...(IMHO)

A pity. Hinojai is one of the better done haunts. There is actually a story the PCs can experience.

[Calybos1]

The biggest problem with haunts, from what I've seen, is that you get one AND ONLY ONE chance to do anything to it--and even then, only if you win initiative to notice something that's almost always going to surprise you anyway.

Once you realize it's a haunt, you're already into Round 2 of its effect, and it's completely impervious to anything you do at that point. And it's not like you had anything that would affect it anyway--only a cleric can affect a haunt, so everybody else just stands around and helplessly takes the damage. And so what if the cleric does manage to do some positive-energy damage in Round 1? If you don't one-shot it, it's worthless, because a haunt with 2 HP left out of 80 does just as much damage as if you'd never channeled at all. If you can't destroy it with a single action, you're unable to do anything further.

Only one chance to react--and only if the CLERIC (yeah, right) gets a good initiative roll. Everybody else is helpless. And even if the cleric manages to some damage, the effect is all-or-nothing. Yeah, that sounds like a screw-the-party formula right there.

Solution: Remove one of the two limitations. Either give everyone in the party a chance to hurt the haunt in the initial round (while it's manifesting), or allow the haunt to be fought for more than a single round, even if the cleric's still the only one who can affect it.

[nosig]

Majuba wrote:

---- /Addendum to the OP/ ----

4. Haunts are mind-affecting fear effects.
Any bonuses against fear (e.g. Bravery), or immunity, is effective against haunts.

---- / / ----

Haunts are quite difficult to defeat, but unlike traps they do not require active perception checks to uncover or flee from.

I *do* think that while Haunts are new as a mechanic to role-playing, they should be considered common knowledge for the purpose of knowledge checks (and thus DC 5 + CR, attainable untrained).

so... which knowledge? and how?

Do you consider them Creatures (and thus you can roll a knowledge check to "...use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.") or Traps (which you would NOT use Knowledge skills for)?

If they are creatures, do you use Kn Religion (because they are sort of undead) or Kn local (they are tied to an area) or Kn Arcane (they generate magical effects - sort of casting spells), or Kn Histroy (they have a story to tell...) or ... what?

the common practice is to give a Kn Religion, but what does it give you?

Haunt Buster:

I have a PC built as a "Haunt Buster". He has a level in Prescience Wizard (always go in the surprise round), a high Perception (+20 or more perception - more for traps, but Haunts don't normally count as traps for this), Knowledge Religion (+9 at least) and a Haunt Syphon in a spring wrist sheith (when the judge rules that it wont work with the syphon, he carries it in hand) so that he can shot a haunt with 3d6 positive energy damage. He has yet to encounter a haunt...

[nosig]

(EDIT: removed one of my posts that wasn't helpful or constructive... sorry about that)

[nosig]

Here's a suggestion to fix Haunts that I posted in a different thread on them, and I wanted to post something constructive here so I'm reposting it....

Let's invent a new form of haunt. One that gives you the "vision" information if you make the Perception roll. We can even call it a Haunting Vision. Gives you the creepies, and all that, but doesn't do anything else. Sets the mood, creeps the PCs, lets the judge play it up big... and doesn't attack anyone. So it's not "an undetectable trap".
.
I can see it now.

judge - "roll init"
players roll and anounce.
judge - "perception check?"
players anounce...
judge - "Kn. Religion from you Joe"
Joe - "Fark - it's a Haunt! I hate these things... I got a 12 Knowledge check"
Judge discribes creepy murder as a vision.
judge - "on Init 10, everyone make a Will save."
PC 1 - "24"
PC 2 - "Damn, 15?"
PC 3 - "19"
Joe - "Nat 1! I hate these things!"
Judge - "Ok, now what do you do?"
Joe - "what happened?"
Judge - "nothing you detect"
Joe - "wooo.... that's creepy... Nothing?"
Judge "nope"
Joe - "something wierd is going on here. What was that 'vision' again?"

that... that's a good haunt. (IMHO)

[Jeff Merola]

Michael Eshleman wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

The biggest difference between traps and haunts (to me at least) is that most characters cannot detect a haunt before it triggers. Traps anyone can spot with a high enough perception score. Haunts specifically require either Detect Evil or Detect Undead in addition to a perception score, so unless you're a class that gets one of those as an at-will ability you're kinda out of luck in terms of finding haunts before they go off.

Jeff, here is the quote from the Haunts section of the PRD:

Gamemastery Guide: Haunts wrote:

Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).

Those detect spells give you the opportunity to notice a haunt before it manifests. They are not required to make the Perception check to notice the haunt as it is manifesting.

I didn't say they were required to notice it manifesting, I said they were required to find it before it started manifesting.

[N N 959]

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

[TOZ]

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

At the door of every unexplored room?

[N N 959]

Finlanderboy wrote:

I do not come out and say it is a haunt.

No one says you have to say it's a "haunt." But you you should tell the players it "feels haunted."

Quote:

I also think it is awesome to be surprised if you character would not understand it.

And that is exactly why GMs don't want use the words "haunted" and try and give as little useful information as possible, because they want to screw the player over with something that the village idiot would be able to identify and avoid.

Despite the fact that hauntings are COMMON KNOWLEDGE in our own world across every culture, when they aren't even real, somehow Pathfinders, trained adventures can't know such a thing exists or how avoid/defeat it without a Religion check above DC 10? Come on, Fin, your motivations here are transparent.

[N N 959]

TOZ wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

At the door of every unexplored room?

First, I've never seen anyone use Detect Undead....ever.

Second, I've never been in a mission where someone uses DM on every door. GMs generally give you the evil eye when players do things that slow down the game.

Third, I've come across haunts that were not behind doors.

Fourth, when you use DM to detect a haunt, that doesn't mean you succeed. You still need ot make the perception roll.

Fifth, what exactly do you the GM tells the player when she detects the Haunt with DM? The same worthless description if they make the Perception check? Which ultimately conveys no real clue whether the thing you've encountered is a Haunt or some other random type of magical event.

Let's not try and hide behind the idea that DM/U are somehow making this encounter fun.

[TriOmegaZero]

N N 959 wrote:

Let's not try and hide behind the idea that DM/U are somehow making this encounter fun.

What? You asked a question. I answered from experience.

[BigNorseWolf]

TOZ wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

At the door of every unexplored room?

Constantly, while sitting in bat form, while on top of the velociraptors head. Move action to concentrate, move action to look around.

Its STILL pulling teeth with DM's to even be allowed a perception check.

[Dan Simons]

Two years ago Jim Groves, author of Hinojai, went through his thoughts/intent on the scenario and we debated whether he had the mechanics correct or not, but after this I modified the way I GM'd the haunts in this scenario so that the players could experience the important story elements they provided while still having a chance to counter the negative effect of the haunt.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

well... we have a problem here.

Detect Magic doesn't detect Haunts... as was posted above:
"Gamemastery Guide: Haunts wrote:
Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).

so you MIGHT be able to detect it with a Detect Evil (if it's evil) - but you can't with a Detect Magic.

Oh - and yes, my scouts/trap-detectors will normally use Detect Magic - sometimes as often as using Perception checks. It's established as part of the SOP for "checking a room" and uses almost no real time. (and only one to three PC rounds in game).

[N N 959]

nosig wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

well... we have a problem here.

Detect Magic doesn't detect Haunts... as was posted above:
"Gamemastery Guide: Haunts wrote:
Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).

so you MIGHT be able to detect it with a Detect Evil (if it's evil) - but you can't with a Detect Magic.

Oh - and yes, my scouts/trap-detectors will normally use Detect Magic - sometimes as often as using Perception checks. It's established as part of the SOP for "checking a room" and uses almost no real time. (and only one to three PC rounds in game).

[sarcasm]Sorry, I should have said Detect Alignment. Clearly that makes a difference because DA is used all the time. [/sarcasm]

Honestly, nosig, aren't you the guy who posted a huge complaint about GMs screwing you over on Perception checks as SOP? I've yet to see a GM give players anything that could involve a roll as SOP. And I really like my regular GMs, so this isn't an indictment.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

nosig wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

And how often do players randomly fire off Detect Magic/Undead without any clue that they need to do such?

well... we have a problem here.

Detect Magic doesn't detect Haunts... as was posted above:
"Gamemastery Guide: Haunts wrote:
Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty).

so you MIGHT be able to detect it with a Detect Evil (if it's evil) - but you can't with a Detect Magic.

Oh - and yes, my scouts/trap-detectors will normally use Detect Magic - sometimes as often as using Perception checks. It's established as part of the SOP for "checking a room" and uses almost no real time. (and only one to three PC rounds in game).

[sarcasm]Sorry, I should have said Detect Alignment. Clearly that makes a difference because DA is used all the time. [/sarcasm]

Honestly, nosig, aren't you the guy who posted a huge complaint about GMs screwing you over on Perception checks as SOP? I've yet to see a GM give players anything that could involve a roll as SOP. And I really like my regular GMs, so this isn't an indictment.

actually, it makes a difference because detect magic is used a lot, but detect alignment and detect undead are not (partly because they are 1st level spells and have limited uses). Why the sarcasm? because you were being corrected? I figured you would want to know if you were doing it wrong... sorry. I will try not to correct your mistakes in the future.

???... "aren't you the guy who posted a huge complaint about GMs screwing you over on Perception checks as SOP? "??? I have had several threads in which I have questioned the variations in the way the Perception skills are being done, but no, I do not recall stating that judges have been "...screwing you over Perception checks as SOP...". I normally establish a SOP on "clearing a room" or "scouting"... most judges seem to appreciate it - it makes their job easier and our gaming faster and smoother. We may differ on what is allowed, but they are the judge at the table, so what they say goes... and I adapt to that.

I do come here to see if we can iron out some of the table variations, and to insure that I am understanding the rules correctly. Sometimes it helps... after all, we can take 10 on day jobs now right?

anyway - sorry if I offended you. I'll try not to do it again.

[N N 959]

Sorry, the sarcasm wasn't directed at you, but at the notion that DU/A are being proffered as methods of avoiding haunts. So I'm accepting your correction and then using it to my advantage :) vs a general sentiment.

Nothing you did was offensive, nor did I take offense. No need to apologize.

[roysier]

I think they are fun, I thing of them as fun traps. Traps in PF are stupid, not really dangerous more annoying then anything.

[thaX]

You will all love this. There is a new monster in the Bestiary 4 that takes over haunts and won't let them be put to rest until that monster is killed or he released his control over it.