Pathfinder 2E PF2: Second Attempt Post Mortem

[Retreater]

I dont understand why haunts are anymore gamey than anything else in PF? Swarms are also a different type of encounter where typical methods are not always effective. The only difference is with Haunts there is a complex method of interacting with them if you want to permanently disable them. Otherwise, you can temporarily disable them and move on like any other trap or monster encounter.

Because it requires the players to "guess" what will be effective. When you're dealing with a trap, you know how to disable it. When you're dealing with a monster, you know how to damage it (in most cases, unless we're talking about high Damage Reductions). But with haunts, it's anyone's guess. And you could be facing two very similar haunts - let's say "fire spirits" - in the same adventure. One haunt you can defeat with water magic, another requires Occultism checks. But Occultism checks do nothing on Haunt 1, and Water does nothing on Haunt 2.

 

[payn]

Because it requires the players to "guess" what will be effective. When you're dealing with a trap, you know how to disable it. When you're dealing with a monster, you know how to damage it (in most cases, unless we're talking about high Damage Reductions). But with haunts, it's anyone's guess. And you could be facing two very similar haunts - let's say "fire spirits" - in the same adventure. One haunt you can defeat with water magic, another requires Occultism checks. But Occultism checks do nothing on Haunt 1, and Water does nothing on Haunt 2.

I guess gamey to me means routine with little variety. I know you didnt use that term, but you did seem to try and answer it. I think haunts are excellent because there is so much variety to them. Identifying the weaknesses and how to encounter them effectively might need some work. Though, that's just the skill system in general creeping up again.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If it's the one weakness that someone in the party can access. But if it's Occultism checks - and only one person in the party is trained in that skill - the rest of the party is supposed to do nothing?

How's that any different than the fact disarming traps is often dependent on a single skill?

 

[Retreater]

How's that any different than the fact disarming traps is often dependent on a single skill?

Because you know that it's Disable Device check to override any trap. You don't have to guess how to do it.
The main issue I have is that it's not clear how to disable a haunt by the way it's described. It's not common sense to players or their characters. So they fumble around, wasting actions, taking damage, growing frustrated, maybe without a reasonable chance to even get past the thing.

 

[dave2008]

I guess gamey to me means routine with little variety. I know you didnt use that term, but you did seem to try and answer it. I think haunts are excellent because there is so much variety to them. Identifying the weaknesses and how to encounter them effectively might need some work. Though, that's just the skill system in general creeping up again.

First, I want to say that I have never seen a haunt in play; but that will not stop me from giving my opionion!

What sounds gamey to me about haunts is that it is a completely different method of sealing with an "entity" compared to the typical expectation in PF and D&D type games. The general expectation with D&D games is that you beat down "entities," not skill check them.

Personally, I would never used haunts (RAW) for this very reason. IMO, if it is a spirit or sometime of entity it can be defeated with some type of "traditional," methods. I would allow magic and/or physically attacks to have some effect. Maybe not the most efficient method, but a potential method. For example, I see no reason a cleric should be able to "turn" a haunt. Removing that option feels "gamey" to me.

 

[payn]

First, I want to say that I have never seen a haunt in play; but that will not stop me from giving my opionion!

What sounds gamey to me about haunts is that it is a completely different method of sealing with an "entity" compared to the typical expectation in PF and D&D type games. The general expectation with D&D games is that you beat down "entities," not skill check them.

Personally, I would never used haunts (RAW) for this very reason. IMO, if it is a spirit or sometime of entity it can be defeated with some type of "traditional," methods. I would allow magic and/or physically attacks to have some effect. Maybe not the most efficient method, but a potential method. For example, I see no reason a cleric should be able to "turn" a haunt. Removing that option feels "gamey" to me.

Seems completely backwards to me. Gamey is just beating everything to death. Like being able to hurt fire elementals with fire, and being able to trip snakes. Where is the exploration? Where is the challenge? Where is the uniqueness and diversity of challenge?

 

[dave2008]

Seems completely backwards to me. Gamey is just beating everything to death. Like being able to hurt fire elementals with fire, and being able to trip snakes. Where is the exploration? Where is the challenge? Where is the uniqueness and diversity of challenge?

Well, that is an issue. Everyone has a different idea of what "gamey" means to them.

 

[Teemu]

First, I want to say that I have never seen a haunt in play; but that will not stop me from giving my opionion!

What sounds gamey to me about haunts is that it is a completely different method of sealing with an "entity" compared to the typical expectation in PF and D&D type games. The general expectation with D&D games is that you beat down "entities," not skill check them.

Personally, I would never used haunts (RAW) for this very reason. IMO, if it is a spirit or sometime of entity it can be defeated with some type of "traditional," methods. I would allow magic and/or physically attacks to have some effect. Maybe not the most efficient method, but a potential method. For example, I see no reason a cleric should be able to "turn" a haunt. Removing that option feels "gamey" to me.

All but one published haunt allows Religion, so that’s a go-to even if you don’t or can’t know how to disable a haunt. Spirits are also not the same thing as undead in PF2; spirits can be undead, so a spirit undead could be affected by Turn Undead (which is a feat for the heal spell). But other spirits are things like kami or spirit guides (like animal spirit guide), and they’re not affected by positive damage.

Really the difference between a haunt and a spirit is whether you want the thing to be affected by attacks! If you want the cleric to turn the thing, it’s a spirit undead creature. But if it’s intended to be a “lingering presence” type of thing where you exorcise the spirit, it’s a haunt. Hell, go for both!

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think it’d be Religion or Occultism? Even if only one PC is good at those, how’s that any different from figuring out a golem or some other specialty monster? Or disabling a mechanical trap?

I believe that by RAW, if you fail a RK check, you cannot try again (or if you do, the DM can raise the DC). Consider a Religion based Haunt. In a 4 person party, you may have a single character trained in Religion. That character tries, but the Haunt is generally at least an on-level challenge (if not higher, either because it is Rare (increasing RK) or because it is higher level than the party).

If the party misses its Religion check, I suppose the choices avoid the haunt (if possible), or do random stuff and hope it works while it attacks you. Neither option is very fun.

It’s worse for Occultism haunts, since it’s definitely possible that a 4-person party wouldn’t have ANYONE who is trained in Occultism.

 

[GrahamWills]

I believe that by RAW, if you fail a RK check, you cannot try again (or if you do, the DM can raise the DC). Consider a Religion based Haunt. In a 4 person party, you may have a single character trained in Religion. That character tries, but the Haunt is generally at least an on-level challenge (if not higher, either because it is Rare (increasing RK) or because it is higher level than the party).

If the party misses its Religion check, I suppose the choices avoid the haunt (if possible), or do random stuff and hope it works while it attacks you. Neither option is very fun.

It’s worse for Occultism haunts, since it’s definitely possible that a 4-person party wouldn’t have ANYONE who is trained in Occultism.

This is definitely my experience. A couple of times everyone failed the RK check and then it was pretty much no fun. If this was a Call of Cthulhu or similar game, then such failure is expected and the answer is "to the library to do some research!" and I think once that's actually what we did -- we left and asked for help. But D&D is often structured so this is impossible, and when this last happened to our group we just made random rolls and looked sadly at the GM until they took pity on us and said "having tried a variety of things, you have landed enough to make another RK check" which was nice of them.

On the other hand, it was amusing to be pummeled in the face with rock and respond with a variety of options like "I sing calming songs" or "I use Absalom Lore to explain why they should no longer be here" or "I implore the Gods to speak sense to the spirits". But yeah, the need for a single skill is like gating for a specific level of training -- it makes it possible that the encounter cannot be run in a way that is fun.

I'm not sure it does any harm to ignore gating expertise levels, or to allow any vaguely useful skills for haunts.