forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Right now I cannot add anything clever to the posts, just my excitement!!!!!

PaulButler wrote:I guess the big question for me is... what about the maps?
Will the new rulebook include both maps of Wilderland? (perforated inside the back cover perhaps?)
What about the new areas covered in Rivendell and Rohan? Will we get separate maps for those areas as well?
The player's map of Wilderland is ever-present in every game that I run. It'd be a shame not to have one for Eriador.

+1
Hopefully we get an answer concerning an updated map soon.
I'm playing with the idea to buy the updated version of the rulebook, but surely not without a updated map for the Loremaster with all locations from the different books.

Hi,

Thanks to the C7 folks for posting the new release schedule; there is a lot to look forward to there for TOR players. I would have liked to see Dale and Erebor get a more detailed treatment earlier on (akin to the Lake Town mini-supplement in the screen), however that's a minor thing.

I do have a query about the timelines given (and I appreciate they are deliberately wide windows); are those the intended periods for the hard copies releases with PDFs some months before, or are those PDF release periods with hard copies some months after?

Regards,

Shane

On the question of PC "Wizards", definitely not at the level of the White Council in the late Third Age. However I do think there is room for more than "Broken Spells". I don't know that I would want to see a full n "magic user" type like other fantasy games as that really doesn't fit the setting, but I think there might be room for a character who who knows and uses a bit more magic than those we have now.

Elfcrusher wrote:Wizard questions gets back to the Necromancer discussion: if the Council didn't know who the Necromancer was,it means there's somebody other than themselves who is capable of being a "necromancer".

Arount TA 1100, long before Gandalf's discovery that the Necromancer was Sauron, the Wise believed that one of the Nazgul had most likely taken control of Dol Guldur. The next best guess was that it was some lesser servant of Sauron. An evil sorcerer, perhaps of Numenorean stock since he had already occupied the fortress for half-a-century, was another possibility.

DavetheLost wrote:On the question of PC "Wizards", definitely not at the level of the White Council in the late Third Age. However I do think there is room for more than "Broken Spells". I don't know that I would want to see a full n "magic user" type like other fantasy games as that really doesn't fit the setting, but I think there might be room for a character who who knows and uses a bit more magic than those we have now.

I'm pretty sure some cultures, like Rangers of Elves will have magical flavoured virtues.
And to be honest, anything more than a few virtues would dissapoint me. I definitely don't want wizards in my middle-earth, at most wise men, healers, that kind of stuff.

Keeping it as Virtues gives about the right scarcity and level of power for me. Couple this with an abundance of Lore skills. Middle Earth magic is also decidedly not showy. When Gandalf uses his magic to kindle a fire in a blizzard he states "I have announced Gandalf is here!"

Making a light in the dark is about as spectacular as I would go. Lighting a fire in difficult conditions, making a skill check a little easier, opening or locking a door. I am afraid that those who dream of powerful Wizards would still be gravely disappointed at the level of magic I would allow in my games. Now if it were a First or Second Age game that might be different.

Angelalex242 wrote:The biggest problem with playing a wizard is that there's exactly of 5 of them. No more, no less.

Um, sorta. You raise a great point about their rarity, however, you may want to take a second look at this passage from UT:

Of this Order the number is unknown; but of those that came to the North of Middle-earth, where there was most hope (because of the remnant of the Dúnedain and of the Eldar that abode there), the chiefs were five.

This means an LM can conceivably add a few more lesser ones (non-chiefs), as appropriate to your scenario. It opens up a whole new vista

DavetheLost wrote:On the question of PC "Wizards", definitely not at the level of the White Council in the late Third Age. However I do think there is room for more than "Broken Spells". I don't know that I would want to see a full n "magic user" type like other fantasy games as that really doesn't fit the setting, but I think there might be room for a character who who knows and uses a bit more magic than those we have now.

Spot on!

I'd also like to see something like this. Malbeth the Seer comes to mind. We can certainly interpret his ability as provided by his use of one (or more) of the palantíri of the North-kingdom, but there's no reason that you can't extend it to include something akin to Broken Spells. Properly played, they are low-key & balanced.

C7 apparently will not do this anytime soon, if at all, but some of the player-developed spells on the Forums offer a work-around.

Again, we are falling into an area of the story I don't think that is covered by the C7 licencing agreement. Not to say it isn't possible...it would just have to be unofficial (ie fan made.)

To be honest I am quite happy that there isn't any majic in the game the PCs can use.