Not quite. The player who has the Haunt displayed in front of him has the difficulty of all his checks increased by 1 for each Haunt he has displayed. So if he has 2 Huants, the difficulty of all his checks is increased by 2. And it lasts as long as the Haunts are displayed in front of the player. So probably the rest of the scenario unless you happen to have Aldren Foxglove.
The 1d6 part means this: each time a player encounters a Haunt, you add up the total number of Haunts currently displayed in front of every player (including the one you just encountered). Then, roll a 1d6. Add the result of the roll to the number of Haunts you counted. If that number is greater than 5, you have to summon an encounter Iesha.
For example. The first time you encounter a Haunt, there will be 1 Haunt. So it will be 1 + 1d6 = ?. If that is 5 or more, you encounter Iesha.
The second time someone in your group encounters a Haunt there will now be 2 Haunts displayed. So it will be 2 + 1d6 = ?. If it is 5 or more, you encounter Iesha.
The third time someone in your group encounters a Haunt there will now be 3 Haunts displayed. So it will be 3 + 1d6 = ?. If it is 5 or more, you encounter Iesha.
You can see each Haunt increases the odds of encountering her. She can be encountered multiple times in the scenario. Oh, and the difficulty increase from the Haunts starts with the check to defeat her, so keep that in mind.
Also, no matter which skill you choose to use to attempt the check to defeat her, she is only defeated if the check has the Magic trait. At that point in the Adventure Path, the only character that can make a non-combat check with the Magic trait is Kyra. She can add 1d8 with the Magic to any check to defeat a bane with the Undead trait. Everyone else can roll high enough to not take damage, but they can't defeat her.
I think he gets that. He is saying that when they played it, he couldn't convince them to do it the right way, so they did it the wrong way. And thus they were increasing the difficulty by 5d6. And therefore they complained about how hard of a scenario it was.
Noted. Would the issue be addressed if it said "Then roll 1d6 + the number of Haunts in front of all players"?
I think the problem is that people are in the mind set of "Blessings" which "add" a physical object to the game, a die. So when they read the scenario text, they think "I need to add a Haunt card." Granted, when you read it carefully and slowly you see there is only one real possible meaning, but it is definitely something that has tripped people up.
There isn't any point in making an errata, since to find the errata someone would have to come on this site, and in doing so they can just find one a thread that explains it.
But in the future when writing a similar rule it might be good to try to make it more obvious. Something like what Mike suggested above or even:
After you display the Haunt in front of you, roll a 1d6, count the number of Haunts displayed in front of all charters, and add the two numbers together. If the result is 5 or greater summon and encounter Iesha Foxglove.
That might be too long, but something that includes the words "add together" would make it much harder to misunderstand.
I didn't have an issue with the wording on the Foul Misgivings scenario. What I did have an issue with was remembering to roll a d6 each time a Haunt was encountered to determine if Foxglove was summoned.
|
I had to look up this thread to clarify what I had misunderstood.
We got to the scenario misread the card and thought "naw, that's completely messed up." And went to the thread looking for a FAQ or something. This was how we at first interpreted it:
"When you encounter a haunt put it in front of you." (One haunt)
"Roll 1d6 and add the number..." here we thought it meant the number of the die roll (say, 3).
Then, "... of haunts..." (three now, we just rolled it)
"... in front of all players." (So now there are four haunts in front of the first player and three on every other player)
Then the Haunt says it adds 1 to the difficulty for each haunt. Well, with the misread scenario that is now 4 or 3 from the example. And we've only closed one location so far ... four more to go making for about 12-16 haunts by the end of the scenario.
After reading the clarification here I don't know how I misread it in the first place but every player at our table (three) did so.
I have a question and I'm pretty sure during my game of it with my friends we mess something else up.
Do you roll for Iesha foxglove to appear first before closing or do you close before? Because on the haunt card you go through all the instructions on it, at the end it says to close. Which we did and then we rolled for Iesha.
I was really conflicted on that part. If anyone can clear it up please do.
As far as I'm concerned/interpreting it, in order for Iesha to pop up and have the Haunt +1 be added. You first must acquire the card(which is automatic) so it's actually in your possession displayed above adding the +1 difficulty to checks, which would then also mean you follow the last instruction to close the location, then follow the scenario to roll for Iesha foxglove to appear.
You roll for Iesha "When you encounter a Haunt".
It means BEFORE you start resolving that encounter.
Else if would say something like:
"After you encounter a Haunt" or "When you defeat a haunt".
IMHO
Seconding Frencois.
The very first step of an encounter is to perform any when-encountered powers. Checking to summon Iesha happens before you even finish encountering the Haunt.
Seconding Frencois.
The very first step of an encounter is to perform any when-encountered powers. Checking to summon Iesha happens before you even finish encountering the Haunt.
I would be fine if this is officially confirmed, but our table played the opposite - you get a Haunt, and then roll Ieasha (and it's also how it's in the app - yes, this is no proof of anything, ofc). To be honest, ROtR had some rules in a very nascent stage, and timing during encounter was one of the vaguest things. Yes, NOW we can say for sure you roll Ieasha BEFORE you get stuck with a Haunt, but back then - I'm not at all confident that was the intent of the wording.
(For example of inconsistency of wording (or unclear wording?) - back then, to my understanding, you were supposed to try to evade a card or ELSE you encounter it- therefore, you DON't encounter until after you've decided to evade - so we all played we can avoid Blessings in Shrine to Lamashtu, and Monsters in the Warrens - which TODAY is confirmed as wrong by RAW)
The very first step of encountering a card is "Apply Any Effects That Happen When You Encounter a Card" (MM rulebook, p9). This means you would encounter Iesha before doing anything with the Haunt (even before Before You Act powers, if it had any). Most recent rulebook overrides all previous versions, so even if it was unclear back at RotR's release, it is completely clear on how to handle that situation right now.
Also WizWar100, it's better if you create new threads if you have questions instead of necroing ones that are 3 years old. We don't mind answering the same thing over and over again, and having a new thread instead of posting in one that is tangentially related helps future searches for the topic and doesn't confuse people who posted in the original thread years ago who suddenly see there are new replies.
I concur with Longshot that the nascent wording is unclear.
It does actually say that when you encounter the haunt you "put it in front of you", so it seems that its penalty DOES apply to your encounter with Iesha, even though you haven't finished encountering the Haunt.
The wording would be very different if written post-RotR.
My impression it is the Shrine of Lamashtu that prompted the revision of encounter-evasion rules that happened between RotR and S&S. Mike Selinker's posts on evasion made us think you could evade blessings at the Shrine, but today's rules clearly say you can't.
Also WizWar100, it's better if you create new threads if you have questions instead of necroing ones that are 3 years old. We don't mind answering the same thing over and over again, and having a new thread instead of posting in one that is tangentially related helps future searches for the topic and doesn't confuse people who posted in the original thread years ago who suddenly see there are new replies.
I'll try, haven't been having the easiest time figuring out how the forums on paizo work compared to other forums I've been use to.
I'll try, haven't been having the easiest time figuring out how the forums on paizo work compared to other forums I've been use to.
Also WizWar100, it's better if you create new threads if you have questions instead of necroing ones that are 3 years old. We don't mind answering the same thing over and over again, and having a new thread instead of posting in one that is tangentially related helps future searches for the topic and doesn't confuse people who posted in the original thread years ago who suddenly see there are new replies.
It does take a bit of getting used to. If you go to a specific forum, such as here, there will be a link near the top "Add New Thread" (next to Focus and Show Hidden).