|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I am running a haunt heavy scenario, I will start asking for Perception checks early. Regardless of how the player rolled, I describe something akin to a haunt manifesting. For example, "You hear water dripping. It appears to be getting louder. At the same time, you feel a rhythmic tapping against your left foot, as if something was hitting the floor repeatedly" or, "When you inspect the dresser you catch a glimpse of something in the corner of your eye. Perception check, please. As you look in the mirror, a large winged creature with glowing purple-black eyes flies towards you, its mouth agape, filled with razor teeth. A piercing howl fills your mind as it begins to break. Just before the creature is upon you it disappears. You are staring at your reflection." I will do this for each player at an appropriate time; usually when the group is exploring a room and one player wanders off by himself to far corner. There's a thread I started for Voice in the Void which has more examples of creating and/or ramping up the creepiness for that scenario (which has no haunts, by the way, though it should).
The reason for this is two fold. One, it gets the players on their toes. They know something is going on, just not what. They need to pay attention to room descriptions. They need to be aware of their surroundings. Two, when a haunt manifests, they are prepared for it. Also, they know things just got real when I ask for initiative. If the group ignores my small hints, I might as well ask Clubber Lang his prediction for the scenario's outcome.
As a player, I had no desire to play Haunting of Hinojai. As a GM, I loved it. It was right in my wheelhouse; a horror themed adventure where I could flex my creative impulses with off beat monsters.
|
|
Jon... I'm sure you add more... um... metagame information, when you do those 'hauntings' vs. actual haunts.
Just from the way you described it, that is one of the issues with haunts being described earlier in the thread (and mind you, I enjoy haunts myself): you can't tell when you're encountering one, or if you're just encountering creepy box text.
|
|
Majuba, it is a fine line between freaking them out enough they use resources, and giving them a good scare. I admit this is something I need to work on. Usually, when I do this, to me at least, it is fairly obvious that I am creating an atmosphere. If a player tells me they cast Destroyer of Invisible DOOM, I'll look at them, shake my head no or tell them, "No need," and move on. Also, when the player rolls a 2 on their Perception check and I launch into a frightening, I hope the realize this is flavor/fun/atmosphere/what have you. The call for initiative is the blinking lights, air horns, and big pointy arrows saying, "Haunt here!"
I can see your point about "encounter vs me making things up." To me, having a random haunt in a scenario when it doesn't add to the pot makes no sense. But a scenario built around haunts, or incorporating them into the larger plot is a good usage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, part of the problem as a GM is not knowing how to convey enough information to the players to know that it's a haunt. What the players get from the Perception check is usually specifically spelled out in the scenario ("DC 15 to notice the knife move"), but that information is often vague and unhelpful, and the players only get one Perception check before it manifests. ("Ok, the knife moved, so I examine it/cast detect magic--what do I get?" "You get to roll initiative.")
In a certain (non-PFS) AP with a multi-haunt scenario, our GM got really, really frustrated because we kept missing the point of the haunts: we weren't stepping in the correct place, taking the correct actions, or making our Perception checks to get any of the really cool backstory that actually would be helpful later on. All we were getting were the "Here, take some damage" parts instead of the parts that made those particular haunts really interesting. (For some reason, it was a lot easier to trigger the haunts that nearly killed us rather than the haunts that had interesting backstories...huh...)
|
Regarding traps, I don't tell the players "you found a trap", I describe to them what it is they see, and leave it to them to decide if it's a trap or not. I just assume that "show, don't tell" is a good way to keep players immersed in the game and not be metagamey.
So is it seem that it's a general consensus that I have to tell the players they're encountering a haunt, otherwise it's not fair? Rubbish. Perhaps the descriptions need to be expanded upon, but it's pretty lame if there is an expectation that they need to be directly notified that they're encountering a haunt.
A fighter can't combat a haunt? Boo-frickin-hoo. A fighter can't combat a fall into a 40' hole that drops into a lake of acid.
|
|
Regarding traps, I don't tell the players "you found a trap", I describe to them what it is they see, and leave it to them to decide if it's a trap or not. I just assume that "show, don't tell" is a good way to keep players immersed in the game and not be metagamey.
So is it seem that it's a general consensus that I have to tell the players they're encountering a haunt, otherwise it's not fair? Rubbish. Perhaps the descriptions need to be expanded upon, but it's pretty lame if there is an expectation that they need to be directly notified that they're encountering a haunt.
A fighter can't combat a haunt? Boo-frickin-hoo. A fighter can't combat a fall into a 40' hole that drops into a lake of acid.
Here's the problem:
"You notice that there is a pressure plate in the floor." = Ah, clearly a trigger of some kind, probably a trap.
"You notice that the knife moves." = ???
Mage Hand? invisible creature? construct? animated object? strong wind?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying the haunt descriptions are perfect, or couldn't use a little work, but I certainly shouldn't have to say: it's a haunt.
I think that gets back to the "when well done, haunts are ok". Part of the problem is that the descriptions of the haunt manifesting don't usually include any kind of "you get an eerie feeling" or "this feels supernatural", and since we're kind of restricted to the descriptions we get in the scenario...
How do you go about giving your players enough description that they "should" be able to guess it's a haunt?
"You smell the stench of rotting flesh" Ah, some kind of undead.
"You hear a lot of skittering" Crap! Some kind of swarm!
"You hear a hissing noise" Oh...snake like monster...Medusa? Naga? Hmmm
"The bottom of the pit is covered with a green slimy substance" Hey, I bet that's Green Slime!
"You see the knife move"* Um...OK...
But there is no way for players to "learn" how a haunt looks/sounds/acts, so they are always, always caught by surprise.
If there were a common feeling (or even two or three) that always accompanied haunts, that would solve many of the problems I have with them.
"The hair on the back of your neck stands up, and you see the knife move" or "The square you just stepped in is strangely cold, and you see the knife move", or "You see the knife move and you feel a sudden sense of dread."
It would be even better if the common feeling preceded the haunt by one round or in the surrounding squares, but that's probably too much to ask.
*Yes, I keep coming back to this one because, to me, this is the best example of everything that's wrong with haunts:
- It provides no backstory or information(I've run the darn thing 3 times, and I still don't understand what that haunt is all about)
- The "creepy feeling" is separated from the actual trigger area, and has a much higher Perception check
- It's notoriously deadly
- It's manifestation is vague and has nothing to do with what's going on--not even its own previous victim! ("So the knife moved...and then hanged somebody???")
Eighty percent of the time I've heard someone say "I hate haunts", this is the haunt they were talking about.
|
|
Actually, I have a couple of questions regarding the haunt mechanics:
If haunts are harmed by positive energy, can you target it with a Cure spell or attack it with a wand of cure light wounds?
If so, how do you target the haunt? Where exactly is the thing (especially those that have moving manifestations)?
Would a paladin's Aura of Courage render the party immune to haunts? (Are they always Fear effects?) What about a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone slotted in a wayfinder?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
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.
And I'm still paying attention!
:)
But I don't want to interfere with the feedback in the conversation.
|
|
really? where does it say that?
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
So it definitely CAN be hit with a cure light wounds spell.
Ahhh heres a better answer
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)
Is it incorporeal?
Doesn't say so, so no.
can I crit it?
It has an AC, so yes if you're touching it with a cure spell.
|
|
BNW, thanks for the clarification.
So if I go to attack a haunt, where do I target, exactly? Is it in the triggering square or the square where it manifests?
And it sounds like you can ONLY damage a haunt during the surprise round, not in any subsequent rounds--even if it's still manifesting. Is that how other people read that, also?
|
|
BNW, thanks for the clarification.
So if I go to attack a haunt, where do I target, exactly? Is it in the triggering square or the square where it manifests?
Wherever I think.
A haunt can infuse a maximum area with a 5-foot radius per point of CR possessed by the haunt, but the actual area is usually limited by the size of the room in which the haunt is located.
And it sounds like you can ONLY damage a haunt during the surprise round, not in any subsequent rounds--even if it's still manifesting. Is that how other people read that, also?
Most haunts only last one round anyway: they're one and done. I'd imagine that the "surprise round only" rule is there with that assumption. If the haunt lasts longer I'd say you can damage it.
|
There is a haunt in a module I was running, and the players had no difficulty in figuring out that it was a haunt, not a ghost or a trap.
Then again, it has a fairly good description, and some codified information on what happens at certain points, and what perception to notice certain things about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Would a paladin's Aura of Courage render the party immune to haunts? (Are they always Fear effects?) What about a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone slotted in a wayfinder?
Haunts are always mind-affecting fear effects. As such, Aura of Courage renders a Paladin immune to haunts, and grants a +4 bonus to saves for all allies within 10 ft. The remove fear spell can do similar. It could also be readied to cast on someone if you suspect a haunt is about to strike.
|
|
One of the main purposes of the spindle is to prevent, say, the densive brick, with feats like In Harm's Way and a 20+ Con, from getting Dominated by the succubus so he defends her from the rest of the party, or to keep the Power Attacking, 24 Str tank from killing off the rest of the party when he gets Dominated.
Heck, even getting a combat maneuver type Dominated can cause some issues...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen this sentiment on these boards in many discussions. As someone who likes haunts (both as a player and as a GM), I began wondering what's going on. It occurs to me that maybe haunts are not being run properly in PFS games, and maybe it would be a good idea to go over the haunt rules.
I could be way off and people dislike haunts for other reasons. The fact that so many people claim to hate haunts, but almost no one claims to hate traps, makes me a little suspicious. The fact that I have run haunts incorrectly and have seen others run them incorrectly supports this suspicion.
Hi! Just wanted to say that my interest in Pathfinder and pretty much anything else Paizo touches greatly diminished because of haunts... And on those limited occasions I do decide to play it's with people that know before hand that on a good day if the words 'Haunt' or 'Suicide' are mentioned in conjunction with this game, I will likely leave the table... And let's hope it's not a bad day.
Why?
Because I think haunts are ever so poorly written; they were used as a vehicle to ignore rules, there is no consistency to how they are being ran, that writers are using them without know what they are using, and most importantly that haunts need to be fixed or banned.
Here I am again being both vocal and specific in my thoughts about this subject. I think I want to try again since people are still stating things that do not seem to be consistent with my brief experience with one particular haunt, my repeated experiences with haunts, and my more extensive experience of the game.
So... My problems with Haunts and specifically this Haunt.
1. Without magic, there is no way to find the haunt before it triggers. None. With magic like detect undead or the appropriate detect alignment (this one is CE, how many of you knew that? Alignment is often omitted.) allows a perception check -4. By the time this perception check is allowed, the haunt has most likely been activated. I'm not going to really go into this because our perfect party as stated doesn't have this option, nor would I think the average party.
2. Running away is not a valid option.
In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check DC 15 to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The perfect party composed of a cleric (+13 perception), fighter (+10 perception), rogue (+10 perception), and wizard (+10 perception); they have a 48.6% chance of being able to run away.
The chances of finding a party of 4 who all took wisdom 14, 1 rank in perception, skill focus: perception, and a talent granting +1 (and class skill); the chances of finding that party without planning are almost astronomical.
I think a real baseline party needs to be established. The party needs to be build for general play (and not just this one encounter) while still being competitive. Hmm... Oh, one moment Paizo provides us with just such characters and in the classes I think would make a good baseline... We'll use their pregenerated characters.
In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 1st level baseline party composed of a cleric (+3 perception), fighter (+0 perception), rogue (+7 perception), and wizard (+1 perception); they have a 3.0% chance of being able to run away. That's the chance that at least one party member fails their perception check and can't act in the surprise round. 3%.
How about the 4-5 subtier? In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check DC 20 AND have an initiative of 10 or higher to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 4th level baseline party composed of a cleric (+0 initiative, +4 perception,), fighter (+3 initiative, +0 perception), rogue (+6 initiative, +10 perception), and wizard (+2 initiative, +1 perception); they have a .02% chance of being able to run away. That's worse than the low tier.
Yeah, it's possible... It's not plausible.
Worth noting is that more party members makes running away before it triggers even less of an option.
3. How do the characters know that the dagger bouncing around on the table is a haunt?
The players know it because it's the only encounter in a game initiating a surprise round without a clearly defined enemy.
GMs let the character's throw a Knowledge: Religion check... but this check does not exist in any book I have gotten my hands on. It seems to exist purely as rumor based on one specific haunt that included it as a way to identify it's after effect.
Still... I would concede this is a logical extension of the rules... Until it comes time for determining the DC of haunts (every haunt is unique, right?) and "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
Now all of a sudden we have a situation where the players can possibly know things about the module that they shouldn't. I know I'd certainly ask for 'Destruction' every single time I beat the check by 5.
4. Destroying the haunt before it triggers... is not a valid option either.
Ignore the fighter and rogue as they are unable to pull out holy water and throw it in the surprise round (because surprise round's have a standard action and only a standard action, drawing requires a move and spring loaded wrist sheaths require a swift action that they do not get). Ignore the wizard, as he doesn't have disrupt undead at 1st or 4th level. It's all up to the cleric. In either tier, I doubt the cleric is within a 5ft step necessary to cast a cure spell and attack the haunt with it.
At the 1-2 subtier, the haunt has 6 hp, notice DC 15. The cleric has +3 perception to try to channel for 1d6. Chances of neutralizing the haunt are 7.4%. Well, that's certainly a better chance than the party running away.
At the 4-5 subtier, the haunt has 12 hp, notice DC 20, and an initiative of 10. The cleric has +4 perception, +0 initiative, and can roll 2d6 with her channel. Chances of neutralizing the haunt are .007% Again, worse than the low tier.
This is possible but its just not plausible.
5. Is a character still present, make a will save.
Please note that I'm assuming anyone in the party can be hit with this. With Haunt targeting, positioning, and runners... It's hard for me to guess who will be hit by this. We'll just figure the party average.
At the 1-2 subtier, the DC is 15... The cleric (+5) makes that save 55% of the time. The fighter (+1) makes the save 35% of the time. The rogue (+1; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save... Is the Suicide Compulsion an enchantment? I think a reasonable GM would say so, despite it being unmentioned and haunts being necromantic. The rogue makes the save 45% of the time. The wizard (+3; +1 vs. divine spells)... Again? Well, I think a reasonable GM would probably say the trap is not divine. The wizard makes the save 45% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 45% chance of making this save.
At the 4-5 subtier, the DC of the trap does not change... The cleric (+9) makes that save 75% of the time. The fighter (+3; +1 vs. fear)... A reasonable or well prepared GM would say it's a fear based compulsion... so the fighter makes the save 50% of the time. The rogue (+3; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save 55% of the time. The wizard (+6; +1 vs. divine spells) makes the save 60% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 60% chance of making this save.
This is the most plausible part to the whole haunt.
6. This Suicide Compulsion haunt is used to achieve something otherwise almost achievable in the game... Order a character to commit suicide. A suicide clause was written into every enchantment spell and even spells that can accomplish a character injuring themselves remove the Coup De Grace, turning it into a whimsical 'quit hitting yourself gimmick. Why would we want something deliberately taken out of the game put back into it?
7. The Suicide Compulsion haunt contradicts the rules for Haunts that says "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.) " What spell is this based off of? It doesn't list one anywhere.
8. Forget sense motive or any other game mechanic for trying to figure out what a character is going to do. Forget all the faction missions and role playing reasons why a character might hold up a dagger in a funny way or even cut himself. GMs let all players know this is a coup de grace, usually by literally saying the words 'coup de grace'. From my experience these words are usually synonymous with 'Pay!!! Attention!!!'
9. Stopping the character's suicide attempt.
If another character says 'Stop, don't do it!', is that a try to prevent the attempted suicide? Does our victim now attack that character instead? What if he throws a diplomacy check at the victim? I think that would be a better try to stop it than say damage. Damage (even subdual) to a character already killing themselves is not likely to be considered anything but assistance. Does the victim have to make Sense Motive checks to figure who is trying to stop his attempt? Healing the character or buffing the character's AC do not hinder the character's suicide attempt in any way. Protection from Evil (Will save negates) would only delay the suicide attempt... does the victim get a Spellcraft check to know this? The only thing left is Disarm or Grapple, which both succeed in stopping the suicide and affected character takes a swing, right? How does the character still do damage it he's disarmed? Does he have to go get the dagger or can he take an attack with an unarmed strike instead?
Having read through various threads, I see several interpretations of this based on how well the module was read and prepared... Leading us to the next problem.
10. If the GM running this does not make every interpretation of the haunt favorably to the characters, he's blamed for killing the character. Not the Suicide Compulsion. Not the writer. Not Paizo. ...The GM.
The GM, knowing how bad haunts are, will grasp at any straw possible to in order to not kill a character in such an unbalanced way. See points 3 and 8.
11. This is not a role playing encounter. Where did the players really get a choice in all of this? Effectively it's an... Undetectable... Inescapable... Un-neutralize-able... Saving throw waiting to happen. Then a failed saving throw presents the first and only role playing choice but not for the unfortunate victim. That choice is which if any of the others will take the critical hit damage or whether they let the victim finish the coup de grace. At the 1-2 tier modifiers like 20 strength characters, low hit point low constitution characters, whether there is already damage on characters, and whether the cleric has any healing left suddenly become very important.
I'd certainly like to know what goes through the victim's player's mind. As a player, would you really think this is fun? How about a GM? As a writer? How about as the publisher? Let's all sit around and discuss the value of this victim.
I feel that the way this is being ran or the introduction of Suicide into Pathfinder Society play, this does not bring forth enough opportunity for role playing to justify the risks. Maybe in a home campaign, maybe; but not in Pathfinder Society.
12. A player's issues with suicide... If you know the player has an issue with suicide, you can bypass the encounter or use it to provoke conversation that could promote mental health.
What if you don't know? What if you're a GM at a public game day or a convention who may not know the players at the table... whether they themselves have or are contemplating suicide, have lost friends or family, or have any other issues with the subject. How do you know to bypass the encounter or provoke the conversation that could help them?
13. This is the exact type of thing that gave role playing a BAD reputation years ago. Talking about BADD; does anyone remember the Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons advocacy group started by Patricia Pulling after her son Irving committed suicide in 1982? No? How the movie Mazes and Monsters with Tom Hanks? Its the tip of the iceberg. Go check out wikipedia.org to find out more.
14. Why create haunt rules? Don't we already have traps, ghosts, and glyphs of warding? Why mate them together? Why?
15. I'm glad we had the discussion. I hope it educates others on this. I hope it is drawn to Paizo's attention so that Haunts can be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition.
I think we're at that point where either A. You agree with me that Haunts need to be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition (maybe a complete overhaul or even banning); or B. you disagree with my interpretation of how Haunts work. We're now at the point that if B. is chosen, the discrepancy in our interpretations validates my stance with A. Who's interpretation is right or wrong doesn't even matter; the fact haunts are being left up to interpretation is what does matter.
That's what I think.
P.S. Please do not try to advocate the problem as just being with the suicide compulsion haunts; the mechanics need an overhaul... Doubt it?
Please read "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.)".
Creating a Haunt
Step 1: I pick Meteor Swarm +1 for a base 10.
Step 2: I pick Persistent (+2), Notice DC 15 (-1), Reset Time (+2), Slow (-2), Weakness Cold (-1), Weakness Acid (-1), Weakness Electricity (-1), Weakness Sonic (-1), Tricked by hide from undead (-2), Trick by invisibility (-1), and Tricked by Stealth (-2); for a total of -8. 10 - 8 is 2. CR is 2.
Step 3: Caster level = CR for a CL 2.
Step 4: HP = CR * 4.5 (because its persistent); for a total of 9 hp.
Step 5: Saving throw is equal to 10+9 (for Meteor Swarm) + 4 (for minimum ability modifier needed to cast it). DC 23.
That's right! According to the rules I can have a 1st level party take 24d6 fire damage, DC 23 for half every round until such time as they do 9 points of damage to the haunt. In 1 minute it begins again.
Yeah. Needs a complete overhaul.
|
|
BNW, thanks for the clarification.
So if I go to attack a haunt, where do I target, exactly? Is it in the triggering square or the square where it manifests?
And it sounds like you can ONLY damage a haunt during the surprise round, not in any subsequent rounds--even if it's still manifesting. Is that how other people read that, also?
Well I can think of one haunt that it would save you from
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haunts are slightly problematic it seems because GMs have little idea how they work/run them other than a stat block and a paragraph in a rule book.
They do work very well with a little imagination and fore planning. In an isolated scenario less so.
I would like the rules on Haunts expanded not with more stat blocks but tips on how to run them successfully. A lot which has been written about them is untrue.
Please read this where Brandon Hodge explains/expands the Haunt rules.
|
I think it's less that they are vague and more that they are just not complete, but that's pretty much the entire GMG. It's not that people do not understand them, RAW or RAI, it's that the RAW needs more thought put into it.
Now, Haunts can be great, but it basically requires a DM to add to to make it work. I think the worst part about Haunts, is that n practice, and possibly in intent, they are designed to steal the spotlight from the players, put them on the sidelines and let the Haunt do cool stuff. A DM that is not afraid to use a little metagaming to enhance (ie make actually work) the haunts and can avoid stealing the player's spotlight can make Haunts work well.
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.
I bet that this will eventually lead players to spamming Channel Positive Energy in rooms where weird stuff happens and then getting accused of metagaming for doing so.
I'd totally allow that method for beating a Haunt if I was the DM.
|
Kind of curious what would happen with Turn Undead vs Haunt. Fail the save and the haunt must flee, breaking it's story based connection to the area and being permanently destroyed, (no matter what)?most judges treat Haunts as a mix of Creature and Trap... mostly just trap though. So using this trick will most likely just waste the Channel (and your one round) and fail to effect the Haunt. In fact, it looks like a very bad thing to do - why not just channel to damage, rather than taking your one shot to try something that is most likely not going to work? (very judge dependant). Also, what would the Haunt get as a Will save to resist the Turn Undead? I don't think it has a will save bonus...
Some characters can Channel Positive Energy but only to Turn Undead. I also would allow it.
A GM would certainly need to ad hoc a rule for that, but good GMs will ad hoc rules all the time in their games. (What are the DCs to jump from a balcony, catch a chandelier, and swing over a crowd before landing in a somersault?)
I would probably use the Good Save (undead have good Will saves) score from the Monster Statistics by CR based on the haunt's CR. It is in the back of the Bestiary.
|
|
I've absolutely adored haunts thus far every time I've encountered them as a player or run them as a GM. That said, nobody's died to a haunt yet - although some folks have come very close.
The "saving moment" for a suicide compulsion haunt is the other players need to get involved in disarming the character, and luckily every time I've seen that mechanic someone's saved a life, which has almost always led to good memories over beers later.
I actually like how haunts have different rules. I actually quite enjoy when mechanics harken back to the 1E days of mechanics and "something different" interrupts the typical rules treadmill with a twist.
|
|
I actually like how haunts have different rules. I actually quite enjoy when mechanics harken back to the 1E days of mechanics and "something different" interrupts the typical rules treadmill with a twist.
While I can appreciate this perspective, I believe it be problematic in an organized play environment. Back in the days of 1E the only rule that really mattered was Rule 0. A big part of 1E, from my experience, was figuring out what rules each GM was using. And I can also tell you from my experience, all too often player and GM had completely different understandings of some fundamental rule and this was not discovered until a character life or mission failure was on the line.
PFS requires GMs to adjudicate the rules under the RAW paradigm. Which means players have an expectation that GM/Scenario is going to follow the same rules that the players are bound to. It is inappropriate for the author to present an obstacle that does not follow the rules or requires that the players think in a manner outside of the rules to overcome it.
GMs love to talk about creative problem solving, but solving the problem creatively is subject to GM discretion. I've played enough RPG's to know that there is no predicting what absurdities players/GMs will subscribe to when creative thinking is employed. Sometimes GMs allow the ridiculous and sometimes they prohibit the valid.
I would hope that the Haunt mechanic is not attempting to prop itself up on such precarious footing as an opportunity for creative thinking. While I cherish my 1E days, IMO, Rule 0 is antithetical to organized play.
This is a very good point. I admit, the constancy of the rules is what draws me to PFS-OP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since a couple of people were wanting me to update a couple of things... here ya go.
Here I am again being both vocal and specific in my thoughts about this subject. I think I want to try again since people are still stating things that do not seem to be consistent with my brief experience with one particular haunt, my repeated experiences with haunts, and my more extensive experience of the game.
-
So... My problems with Haunts and specifically the Suicide Haunt <updated>.
-
1. Perception check? What perception check? Without magic, there is no way to find the haunt before it manifests or triggers. None. With magic, there is a less than a 70% chance thought I'd put it at 56% since most haunts I've encountered are CR 6 and below.
-
How did I get those percentages? Well... out of the 69 Haunts on d20pfsrd.com the 48 had Evil alignments, 1 of them had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 19 Haunts undetectable even by magic. For CR 6 and below this becomes even more skewed. Of 34 Haunts, 17 had evil alignments, 1 had Chaotic Neutral, and 1 of them said 'varies'; leaving 15 undetectable even by magic.
-
But let's say you do have the correct spell up AND the Haunt has an alignment (if not already present the GM just assumes an evil alignment), you can finally make a perception check but at a -4 penalty. But hey, at least its a chance, right?
-
So unless one or more characters is using just the right spell, the haunt has just the right alignment, and the player with the spell up makes the perception check at -4; these are unavoidable.
-
2. Did I mention that when one specific entry was looked for in 73 Haunts, 19 omitted part of the stat block defining them? This really makes me curious as to what other parts of the stat block are missing from some Haunts. Pretty much proves Haunts are no being written consistently, even with their own rules.
-
3. Running away is not a valid option. In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check and roll better initiative than the Haunt.
-
We'll start with an example Haunt with an initiative of 0 and a Perception DC 15 versus the party built for perception. The perfect party composed of a cleric (+13 perception), fighter (+10 perception), rogue (+10 perception), and wizard (+10 perception); they have a 48.6% chance of being able to run away. The chances of finding a party of 4 who all took wisdom 14, 1 rank in perception, skill focus: perception, and a talent granting +1 (and class skill); the chances of finding that party without planning are almost astronomical.
-
I think a real baseline party needs to be established. The party needs to be build for general play (and not just this one encounter) while still being competitive. It just so happens that Paizo provides us with just such characters and in the classes I think would make a good baseline... We'll use those specific pregenerated characters.
-
In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 1st level baseline party composed of a cleric (+3 perception), fighter (+0 perception), rogue (+7 perception), and wizard (+1 perception); they have a 3.0% chance of being able to run away. That's the chance that at least one party member fails their perception check and can't act in the surprise round. 3%.
-
How about the 4-5 subtier? In order to run away, the entire party must make their perception check DC 20 AND have an initiative of 10 or higher to run away before the haunt throws it's effect. The 4th level baseline party composed of a cleric (+0 initiative, +4 perception,), fighter (+3 initiative, +0 perception), rogue (+6 initiative, +10 perception), and wizard (+2 initiative, +1 perception); they have a .02% chance of being able to run away. That's worse than the low tier.
-
Yeah, it's possible... It's not plausible.
-
Worth noting is that more party members makes running away before it triggers even less of an option.
-
4. How do the characters know that the dagger bouncing around on the table is a Haunt?
-
The players know it because it's the only encounter in a game initiating a surprise round without a clearly defined enemy.
-
GMs let the character's throw a Knowledge check... but this check does not exist in any book I have gotten my hands on. It seems to exist purely as rumor based on one specific haunt that included it as a way to identify it's after effect. Though upon further review Brandon Hodge, the writer Paizo employed to create haunts, has stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“
-
Still... I would concede this is a logical extension of the rules... Until it comes time for determining what is learned about a haunt. "For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
-
Now all of a sudden we have a situation where the players can possibly know things about the module that they shouldn't. I know I'd certainly ask for 'Destruction' every single time I beat the check by 5. Every single time.
-
But then, what's the chances of a group making a Knowledge (religion) or (local) DC 19 to identify the suicide haunt and DC 24 to get a useful piece of information about the Suicide Haunt? Glad to be 1st level facing it right?
-
5. Remember the part where Brandom Hodge stated “I think my original turnover addressed Knowledge (religion) and (local) checks to discern the destruction method of haunts, and if I recall was 15+ the CR of the haunt.“ Wow... You know... If the foremost expert on Haunts has to state rules as “I think” to preface the rules he wrote; what hope does anyone else have for stating this is part of the rules? Why doesn't he just fix it? Why doesn't he contact Paizo to fix it? Why doesn't Paizo just fix it?
-
6. Destroying the haunt before it triggers... is not a valid option either.
-
Ignore the fighter and rogue as they are unable to pull out holy water and throw it in the surprise round (because surprise round's have a standard action and only a standard action, drawing requires a move and spring loaded wrist sheaths require a swift action that they do not get). Ignore the wizard, as he doesn't have disrupt undead at 1st or 4th level. It's all up to the cleric.
-
In either tier, I doubt the cleric is within a 5ft step necessary to cast a cure spell and attack the haunt with it. IF (and I do mean big if here) the cleric is, what AC does he have to hit? Per the description of haunts AC 10. Be thankful the aforementioned writer of haunts did not get his wishes of 10+Haunt CR with an incorporeal miss chance.
-
At the 1-2 subtier, the haunt has 6 hp, notice DC 15. The cleric has +3 perception, +2 bonus to the attack. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Light Wounds is 16.25%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel 7.4%. Well, that's certainly a better chance than the party running away.
-
At the 4-5 subtier, the haunt has 12 hp, notice DC 20, and an initiative of 10. The cleric has +4 perception, +0 initiative, +5 bonus to attack and much better damage. Chances of neutralizing a Haunt with a 5ft step and Cure Moderate Wounds is 4.95%. Chances of neutralizing the Haunt with a channel are .007%. Again, worse than the low tier.
-
Yes, it is indeed possible to make the perception check and act in the surprise round, roll higher initiative than the haunt, target the haunt, and roll enough damage to destroy said haunt... Do you call these percentages plausible? How about fun?
-
7. If a character still present, make a will save.
-
Please note that I'm assuming anyone in the party can be hit with this. With Haunt targeting, positioning, and runners... It's hard for me to guess who will be hit by this. We'll just figure the party average.
-
At the 1-2 subtier, the DC is 15... The cleric (+5) makes that save 55% of the time. The fighter (+1) makes the save 35% of the time. The rogue (+1; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save... Is the Suicide Compulsion an enchantment? I think a reasonable GM would say so, despite it being unmentioned and haunts being necromantic. The rogue makes the save 45% of the time. The wizard (+3; +1 vs. divine spells)... Again? Well, I think a reasonable GM would probably say the trap is not divine. The wizard makes the save 45% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 45% chance of making this save.
-
At the 4-5 subtier, the DC of the trap does not change... The cleric (+9) makes that save 75% of the time. The fighter (+3; +1 vs. fear)... A reasonable or well prepared GM would say it's a fear based compulsion... so the fighter makes the save 50% of the time. The rogue (+3; +2 vs. enchantments) makes the save 55% of the time. The wizard (+6; +1 vs. divine spells) makes the save 60% of the time. So on average the person targeted has a 60% chance of making this save.
-
This is the most plausible part to the whole haunt.
-
8. This Suicide Compulsion haunt is used to achieve something otherwise almost unachievable in the game... Order a character to commit suicide. A suicide clause was written into every enchantment spell and even spells that can accomplish a character injuring themselves remove the Coup De Grace, turning it into a whimsical 'quit hitting yourself gimmick. Why would we want something deliberately taken out of the game put back into it?
-
9. The Suicide Compulsion haunt contradicts the rules for Haunts that says "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.) " What spell is this based off of? It doesn't list one anywhere, many haunts don't. Just to back this up with some numbers, when looking at the 17 Paizo published haunts CR 3 or less, 9 of them did not appear list a spell effect. I guess this is a reiteration of #2.
-
10. Forget sense motive or any other game mechanic for trying to figure out what a character is going to do. Forget all the faction missions and role playing reasons why a character might hold up a dagger in a funny way or even cut himself. GMs let all players know this is a coup de grace, usually by literally saying the words 'coup de grace'. From my experience these words are usually synonymous with 'Pay!!! Attention!!!'
-
11. Stopping the character's suicide attempt.
-
If another character says 'Stop, don't do it!', is that a try to prevent the attempted suicide? Does our victim now attack that character instead? What if he throws a diplomacy check at the victim? I think that would be a better try to stop it than say damage. Damage (even subdual) to a character already killing themselves is not likely to be considered anything but assistance. Does the victim have to make Sense Motive checks to figure who is trying to stop his attempt? Healing the character or buffing the character's AC do not hinder the character's suicide attempt in any way. Protection from Evil (Will save negates) would only delay the suicide attempt... does the victim get a Spellcraft check to know this? The only thing left is Disarm or Grapple, which both succeed in stopping the suicide and affected character takes a swing, right? How does the character still do damage it he's disarmed? Why can't he just finish his coup de grace if he's still able to do damage? Does he have to go get the dagger or can he take an attack with an unarmed strike instead?
-
Having read through various threads, I see several interpretations of this based on how well the module was read and prepared... Leading us to the next problem.
-
12. If the GM running this does not make every interpretation of the haunt favorably to the characters, he's blamed for killing the character. Not the Suicide Compulsion. Not the writer. Not Paizo. ...The GM.
-
The GM, knowing how bad haunts are, will grasp at any straw possible to in order to not kill a character in such an unbalanced way.
-
13. This is not a role playing encounter. Where did the players really get a choice in all of this? Effectively it's an... Undetectable... Unavoidable... Inescapable... Un-neutralize-able... Saving throw waiting to happen. Then a failed saving throw presents the first and only role playing choice but not for the unfortunate victim. That choice is which if any of the others will take the critical hit damage or whether they let the victim finish the coup de grace. At the 1-2 tier modifiers like 20 strength characters, low hit point low constitution characters, whether there is already damage on characters, and whether the cleric has any healing left suddenly become very important.
-
I'd certainly like to know what goes through the victim's player's mind. As a player, would you really think this is fun? How about a GM? As a writer? How about as the publisher? Let's all sit around and discuss the value of this victim. Is this a game you want you 14 year old son or daughter to learn? Is this something you want to explain to convention coordinators when they get complaints? Does it change things if the person being complain to convention coordinator for a non-gaming convention AND a parent? “Mommy, mommy... I just played this game for the first time and the game master had me commit suicide. Can I go home now?” Yeah, that's just as possible as anything else we've been discussing.
-
I feel that the way this is being ran or the introduction of Suicide into Pathfinder Society play, this does not bring forth enough opportunity for role playing to justify the risks. Maybe in a home campaign, maybe; but not in Pathfinder Society.
-
14. A player's issues with suicide... If you know the player has an issue with suicide, you can bypass the encounter or use it to provoke conversation that could promote mental health.
-
What if you don't know? What if you're a GM at a public game day or a convention who may not know the players at the table... whether they themselves have or are contemplating suicide, have lost friends or family, or have any other issues with the subject. How do you know to bypass the encounter or provoke the conversation that could help them?
-
15. This is the exact type of thing that gave role playing a BAD reputation years ago. Talking about BADD; does anyone remember the Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons advocacy group started by Patricia Pulling after her son Irving committed suicide in 1982? No? How the movie Mazes and Monsters with Tom Hanks? Its the tip of the iceberg. Go check out wikipedia.org to find out more.
-
16. Why create haunt rules? Don't we already have traps, ghosts, and glyphs of warding? Why mate them together into the twist and abused creation? Why?
-
17. I'm glad we had the discussion. I hope it educates others on this. I hope it is drawn to Paizo's attention so that Haunts can be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition.
-
I think we're at that point where either A. You agree with me that Haunts need to be taken back to the shop for more detailing and definition (maybe a complete overhaul or even banning); or B. you disagree with my interpretation of how Haunts work. We're now at the point that if B. is chosen, the discrepancy in our interpretations validates my stance with A. Who's interpretation is right or wrong doesn't even matter; the fact haunts are being left up to interpretation is what does matter.
-
That's what I think.
-
P.S. Please do not try to advocate the problem as just being with the suicide compulsion haunts; the mechanics need an overhaul... Doubt it?
-
Please read "A haunt can have virtually any effect identical to an existing spell effect, but often with different—and distinctly more frightening or unnerving—sensory or physical features than that spell effect normally has. (A haunt that has an effect not identical to an existing spell is certainly possible, but this requires designing a new spell effect.)".
-
Creating a Haunt
Step 1: I pick Meteor Swarm +1 for a base 10.
Step 2: I pick Persistent (+2), Notice DC 15 (-1), Reset Time (+2), Slow (-2), Weakness Cold (-1), Weakness Acid (-1), Weakness Electricity (-1), Weakness Sonic (-1), Tricked by hide from undead (-2), Trick by invisibility (-1), and Tricked by Stealth (-2); for a total of -8. 10 - 8 is 2. CR is 2.
Step 3: Caster level = CR for a CL 2.
Step 4: HP = CR * 4.5 (because its persistent); for a total of 9 hp.
Step 5: Saving throw is equal to 10+9 (for Meteor Swarm) + 4 (for minimum ability modifier needed to cast it). DC 23.
-
That's right! According to the rules I can have a 1st level party take 24d6 fire damage, DC 23 for half every round until such time as they do 9 points of damage to the haunt. In 1 minute it begins again.
-
Yeah. Needs a complete overhaul.