forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

That's not quite true.

Dwarves have broken spells, Elves have Wood Elf Magic, and you can be darn sure the Rivendell Elves will have a third sort of magic.

Anyways, instead of making a wizard 'class', we'd actually be making an Istari culture, of sorts. Even if you assume the big 5 aren't alone on middle earth, we're basically talking about a bunch of Maia being sent over.

So you'd have to make a culture based on being a Maia straight from Valinor come to help.

Mim wrote:Malbeth the Seer comes to mind.

I rather think the Barding "Woeful Foresight" already covers this sort of thing quite nicely.

Here's something I just thought of:
The Revised Core Manual mentions new art by John Howe.
Dare I ask if the cover is going to be changed? I love it, but as a retailer, I gotta tell ya, it doesn't do the game any favors. Selling itself from the shelf is definitely not in its capabilities.

PaulButler wrote:... but as a retailer, I gotta tell ya, it doesn't do the game any favors. Selling itself from the shelf is definitely not in its capabilities.

... I remember when it first came out and a lot of people said that; great as a front piece for a chapter but as a cover? No.

The lack of magic users is a feature.

Elfcrusher wrote:

windsurfjunkie wrote:

Sprigg wrote:The limited scope and lack of playable cultures almost turned me and my group off of the game, so I'm really glad to see Rohan and Eriador coming soon!

I must be misreading this. How is there a lack of playable cultures? Woodmen, Beornings, Dwarves, Bardings, Elves, Hobbits? Limited scope?- Wilderland with an extensive and detailed landscape? I must be misreading this? Who is this Loremaster?

cheers

Two ways of reading it: 6 cultures, is a lot fewer options than many RPGs which have X races times Y classes. Not saying it's right or wrong, but a lot of players want lots of options.

Alternately, it could simply mean "Lack of Dunedain and Rohirrim == too few options".

I don't agree with that sentiment, nor apparently do you, but that doesn't make it wrong or bad.

I probably should have been more specific. I was indeed referring to the lack of cultures and official material outside of Wilderland. The Rohirrim, men of Gondor, Rivendell, Rangers, etc. One aspect of Hobbit and LotR that really captured me was the epic journey across a huge swathe of land for a cause, and having such a small playable space was, at first glance, quite disappointing.

That criticism aside, I absolutely love ToR and it has become my preferred PnP game already, and I'll very likely be plunking down the money for the new edition when it comes out.

Heilemann wrote:The lack of magic users is a feature.

Is it? I do recognize the issues of canon and even power-balance to a degree, but the fact remains that you couldn't build a Fellowship of the Ring without Gandalf, and could not build a PC based equivalent fellowship of that kind in The One Ring as it stands. Is that a feature? I dunno…

As I said before, you can play The Doctor in Doctor Who: AiTaS, and he's meant to be the one and only last Time Lord. I'm not saying that players should get to play Gandalf, per se, just that there should be ways looked at to make the archetype of 'a wizard' a playable possibility (even if rare and buried in a supplement somewhere). It's akin to not providing the opportunity have a Dragon as a monster.

Trippy wrote:As I said before, you can play The Doctor in Doctor Who: AiTaS, and he's meant to be the one and only last Time Lord.

True, but I've bought DWAITAS and never played it for that reason: none of us feels able or wants to play the Doctor. I feel that DW is about being a compagnon thrown in a crazy world of aliens and time travellers, and LotR is about being a hobbit (or a man) thrown in a world of powers greater than you. I even went as far as discouraging my players from playing elves.

Of course, YMMV, and I'm sure a lot of you have great fun playing elves. I wouldn't mind elves in another game either, but in my Middle Earth, elves are alien and mysterious. So are wizards. I would not take arms to fight a wizard culture, but I would just forbid them at my table.

Back to DWAITAS: the book actually acknowledges the question of who is going to play the Doctor. It suggests taking turns, maybe using regenerations as a way to have a seamless transition. This is a great idea, but not really applicable to wizards (although Gandalf does regenerate).

So…we should remove playable elves too?!

I do feel that whatever perceptions people may have about the feel of the world, implied meanings or what LotR is 'about' - there should still be leeway given for players to get to play who they want in a game. Gandalf, in the book, movies or wherever is still a relatable character - that would be fun to play. If handled thoughtfully, I don't buy the argument that all authenticity need break down in the setting - which is basically how the Doctor issue was handled in AiTaS.

Just pitching in with my opinion on the "playable wizards vs no playable wizards"-thing:

I'm would not be happy to see playable wizards in the game at all. But, that being said, one thing Darkening of Mirkwood does very well is that it casts the player characters as the main heroes. They're actually "movers and shakers", and their actions have huge consequences in a way that, say, characters in The Great Pendragon Campigns don't have. In stories such as these, wizards should be the mysterious helper coming and going. Making a wizard playable takes away much of the mystery about them, I think.

That said, I'm not agains magic being available to player characters. Gandalf says, outside the gates of Moria "I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves, Men and Orcs." Does this imply that there are spells for every culture and not just wizards? Maybe.

Eirik