Haunts, and what exactly *is* a secondary effect?

[HWalsh]

So, this came up in a game of Carrion Crown I joined.

Clarification:
I am not complaining, the GM made a rules call, it ultimately doesn't bother me at all, I am just curious as to how this actually *is* supposed to work.

Situation:
3rd Level Vanilla Paladin encountering a haunt - The haunt appears, and then attacks the Paladin by casting Scorching Ray.

What happens?

According to the Haunt Entry:

"All primary effects created by a haunt are mind-affecting fear effects, even those that actually produce physical effects. Immunity to fear grants immunity to a haunt’s direct effects, but not to secondary effects that arise as a result of the haunt’s attack."

By my account:

This is a direct effect of the haunt and thus, as stated, the Paladin is immune to the attack.

In our case the GM ruled that the Scorching Ray is a secondary effect of the haunt, thus the Paladin suffered the full effect of the Scorching Ray.

Now... I don't agree with it, but it was the GM's table, so the GM's call in the end. Either way, we disbursed the haunt in the next round and 1 CLW wand charge later I was back to full health so no harm or foul.

I'm just curious.

My opinion of what a "secondary effect" would be, would be, for example, that the haunt animates a scarf and it attacks the Paladin trying to suffocate the Paladin. (This happens in Rise of the Rune Lords)

The direct effect is the scarf becoming possessed, and the secondary effect is the haunt smothering the Paladin.

But I would like to get some opinions on this just out of personal curiosity.

[Kalindlara]

As a self-described haunt expert, I'd say that you were correct. The rays themselves are almost the very definition of a primary haunt effect. However, if they caused the area you were occupying to catch fire, you wouldn't have any protection from that.

It really is a case-by-case thing, though. And GM adjudication is the only real option for that. ^_^

[justaworm]

I agree that’s the language is difficult as well. To me, the spell effect caused by the is the primary effect Secondary effects are those that generally result from that spell effect. So a haunt that causes confusion cant directly affect the paladin, but the paladin is not safe from the attacks made by a confused ally.

I also disagree with the mechanic though. If a haunt manifests a spell, I want it to work normally on everyone. If haunt causes a fear condition or manifests a spell with fear, then those immune would be fine. But, that would just be a house rule for me.

[HWalsh]

justaworm wrote:

I agree that’s the language is difficult as well. To me, the spell effect caused by the is the primary effect Secondary effects are those that generally result from that spell effect. So a haunt that causes confusion cant directly affect the paladin, but the paladin is not safe from the attacks made by a confused ally.

I also disagree with the mechanic though. If a haunt manifests a spell, I want it to work normally on everyone. If haunt causes a fear condition or manifests a spell with fear, then those immune would be fine. But, that would just be a house rule for me.

So your house rules is just that haunts aren't fear based entities.

[outshyn]

I've always assumed that the initial "thing" the haunt does is the primary attack, and is pretty much by the rules a mind/fear attack. However, anything outside of that is secondary. For example, a haunt from Rise of the Runelords:

• It can make you grapple an ally and flee with them. This is the primary effect. It's fear.
  
• You can also see the ghost/haunted creature, and even hear them speak, and even get an imprint of what they saw when they died. These things are secondary. They aren't "the attack" but they are "things the haunt does."
  

A paladin might ignore the first effect, but the secondary effects can still be seen & experienced by the paladin.

[justaworm]

HWalsh wrote:

So your house rules is just that haunts aren't fear based entities.

Well, I play it by the rules in my games, and I think the rule makes sense.

My desire to play it differently would be to make haunts more formidable than they are. In that regard, I would probably make some other changes as well, such as letting the haunt make an initiative check instead of always acting on a 10. (There is definitely no paladin bias here, because I in fact love paladins and am tempted to play one every time I make a character.)

As for a house rule, I would say that the haunt is just as much a fear based entity as a ghost or spectre is, whose spells are perfectly capable of harming those with immunity to fear (unless the spell effect is fear based). My 'opinion' is that if a haunt is capable of manifesting a spell, then it should act as the spell in full.

[HWalsh]

justaworm wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

So your house rules is just that haunts aren't fear based entities.

Well, I play it by the rules in my games, and I think the rule makes sense.

My desire to play it differently would be to make haunts more formidable than they are. In that regard, I would probably make some other changes as well, such as letting the haunt make an initiative check instead of always acting on a 10. (There is definitely no paladin bias here, because I in fact love paladins and am tempted to play one every time I make a character.)

As for a house rule, I would say that the haunt is just as much a fear based entity as a ghost or spectre is, whose spells are perfectly capable of harming those with immunity to fear (unless the spell effect is fear based). My 'opinion' is that if a haunt is capable of manifesting a spell, then it should act as the spell in full.

Right - Ghosts and Specters aren't fear based entities.

By that same token I'd expect that haunts in your game be altered to be incorporeal rather than only being able to be harmed by positive energy.