From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 11:44 AM 
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #199 
 
 
champ-l-digest      Wednesday, February 10 1999      Volume 01 : Number 199 
 
 
 
In this issue: 
 
    Re: [Re: Multipower Questions] 
    Re: Desolidification 
    Re: Desolidification 
    Re: Fantasy Spell Colleges 
    RE: Desolidification 
    Re: Mimic & Cosmic Pools 
    Re: Mimic & Cosmic Pools 
    Re: <FHList> Fantasy Spell Colleges 
    Re: <FHList> Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World - Revision 
    Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    Re: Character: Gollum 
    RE: Fantasy Spell Colleges 
    Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    RE: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    Re: Character: The Lord of the Nazgul 
    Re: Character: The Lord of the Nazgul 
    RE: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    Apologies 
    Re: The 3d6- system sucks! 
    Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
    Marvel Ultimate Powers book 
    Re: Multipower Questions 
    Re: STST: Adrianna and Aladris: How Low Can You Go? 
    Re: <FHList> Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World - Revision 
    Re: STST: Brynn: The Road Goes Ever On 
    Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry") Brandybuck 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:20:32 -0800 
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> 
Subject: Re: [Re: Multipower Questions] 
 
At 11:07 PM 2/4/99 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: 
>If you put x2 END on a Multipower framework, each slot gets the x2 END 
>limitation.  If you put 14- Activation on a Multipower framework, each slot 
>gets the 14- Activation limitation.  Pick any limitation in the book; if 
>you put it on the Multipower framework, each slot gets that limitation. 
> 
>If you put 4 Charges on a Multipower framework, each slot gets 4 Charges. 
> 
>If not, you are treating Charges differently from every other limitation in  
>the book. 
 
   Something someone pointed out early on, regarding this aspect of Focus, 
is that if each slot is a different Focus, then it's not all the same 
Limitation; the Limitation on each slot is actually a different one for 
each.  Each may be OAF, but one is OAF: pistol, one is OAF: rifle, one is 
OAF: knife, and so forth. 
   Similarly, if each slot gets 4 Charges, each gets 4 *different* Charges, 
and so the pool doesn't get the bonus.  For the pool to get the bonus, then 
all slots would have to work off the *same* 4 Charges, just as the 2X END 
Limitation applies to the *same* pool of END. 
 
>AV> OAF on a Multipower means, if someone takes away your OAF, the whole 
>AV> Multipower is gone. 
> 
>Because a Multipower with Focus is considered to be a single power.  This 
>is the only 'exception', and it is not really an exception but a 
>clarification. 
 
   Wouldn't the above also count as a clarification? 
- --- 
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!  [Circle of HEROS member] 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm 
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join? 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:34:26 -0600 
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net> 
Subject: Re: Desolidification 
 
At 03:53 PM 2/9/1999 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote: 
> 
>Now compare it to what you get for that cost.  The minimum cost isn't the 
>point; what you get for it is. 
 
Once again, Desolid is the single most expensive Power in the game. 
Naturally I expect it to carry considerable benefits.  Cost is an absolute 
measurement, and thus a better solid basis for comparison than a subjective 
term like "value".  The value of any given Power will vary from character 
to character, player to player, campaign to campaign and even situation to 
situation within a single campaign. 
 
>>My *only* problem with this entire situation was that I thought it make 
>>sense to treat the "hole" you refer to as a window that would allow the 
>>free exchange of fire in both directions (and only for mental powers, as 
>>I've said repeatedly), not some bizarre inverted Force Field that allowed 
>>outside attacks to freely penetrate, but blocked the same outgoing mental 
>>attack unless a +2 Advantage was applied. 
> 
>And as I've said, make sense or not, it's still abusive; it still allows the 
>Desolid character to rule the battlefield in far too many situations because 
>there will be no one who can attack him in return. 
 
If, for any given Power, the SFX treatment that clearly makes the most 
sense cannot be allowed into the game, something is clearly wrong with (a) 
the game system, or (b) the ability of the GM to control his own campaign. 
NOTHING is inherently abusive.  Many things leave considerable room for 
abuse if GMs allow players to expolit them (or if players allow GMs, I 
guess).   
 
Warning labels, in the form of magnifying glasses and stop signs, have been 
applied to some of the Powers that are more likely than others to be 
utilized in an abusive manner.  This doesn't mean you can't use the Power 
with SFX that follow as a logical consequence; it only means you need to be 
careful with it. 
 
>Or that the SFX are, by their nature, overpowered.  There are things that 
>work in the comics because the writers chronically underutilize them but 
>would break a game very thoroughly. 
 
And you can find no other way of restoring balance?  The only thing that 
occurs to you is to dismiss logical consequences of SFX, for Powers common 
to the comic/cinematic genre, because doing otherwise allows one character 
to be more powerful than another? 
 
I've taken up more than enough of the list's time on this.  I have not 
heard one person support my side of this discussion, nor have I made the 
slightest headway in convincing any of my worthy opponents that anything 
I've said might be worth considering. (No one's been rude about it, 
though.)  Move on to something else. 
 
Damon 
 
- ----------------------- 
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety. 
				-- Isaac Asimov 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:38:13 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Desolidification 
 
>At 03:53 PM 2/9/1999 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote: 
>> 
>>Now compare it to what you get for that cost.  The minimum cost isn't the 
>>point; what you get for it is. 
> 
>Once again, Desolid is the single most expensive Power in the game. 
>Naturally I expect it to carry considerable benefits.  Cost is an absolute 
>measurement, and thus a better solid basis for comparison than a subjective 
>term like "value".  The value of any given Power will vary from character 
>to character, player to player, campaign to campaign and even situation to 
>situation within a single campaign. 
 
Fine.  Then compare it to a 20/20 Force Field if you prefer.  Expense can 
only be assessed that way, because Desolid, unlike most powers is fairly 
absolute; you either have it or you don't.  There is little gradient. 
 
>>And as I've said, make sense or not, it's still abusive; it still allows the 
>>Desolid character to rule the battlefield in far too many situations because 
>>there will be no one who can attack him in return. 
> 
>If, for any given Power, the SFX treatment that clearly makes the most 
>sense cannot be allowed into the game, something is clearly wrong with (a) 
>the game system, or (b) the ability of the GM to control his own campaign. 
>NOTHING is inherently abusive.  Many things leave considerable room for 
>abuse if GMs allow players to expolit them (or if players allow GMs, I 
>guess).   
 
I disagree with the premise; some abilities are, indeed, intrinsically 
abusive.  As I said elsewhere, they only exist comfortably in the 
sourceworks because in the sourceworks a character never does anything the 
author doesn't want them to.  Games should be held to a more rigorous standard. 
 
> 
>Warning labels, in the form of magnifying glasses and stop signs, have been 
>applied to some of the Powers that are more likely than others to be 
>utilized in an abusive manner.  This doesn't mean you can't use the Power 
>with SFX that follow as a logical consequence; it only means you need to be 
>careful with it. 
 
There are none the less limits as to what the intended use of even those 
abilities are; allowing a single power to be a perfect unassailable attack 
platform in many common situations is not something that should be 
encouraged by making it easy. 
 
> 
>>Or that the SFX are, by their nature, overpowered.  There are things that 
>>work in the comics because the writers chronically underutilize them but 
>>would break a game very thoroughly. 
> 
>And you can find no other way of restoring balance?  The only thing that 
>occurs to you is to dismiss logical consequences of SFX, for Powers common 
>to the comic/cinematic genre, because doing otherwise allows one character 
>to be more powerful than another? 
 
Other than forbidding the ability altogehter, yes.  There are all sorts of 
logical consequences of SFX that are potentially abusive if given for free; 
the answer is to not give them for free.  This is one of those cases. 
 
> 
>I've taken up more than enough of the list's time on this.  I have not 
>heard one person support my side of this discussion, nor have I made the 
>slightest headway in convincing any of my worthy opponents that anything 
>I've said might be worth considering. (No one's been rude about it, 
>though.)  Move on to something else. 
 
I think, and I do not necessarily mean it in any derogatory manner, that the 
problem is you are approaching this in a fashion rather contrary to the 
design of the Hero System.  The Hero System is designed primarily around 
effects in it's pricing, and with some minor exceptions, ignores causes, and 
frankly many of the logical side effects of a given special effect.  Or put 
simply, if one wants something, one pays for it, except for minor issues. 
The system doesn't prevent you from making attacks when desolid; it simply 
charges you for it.  And it allows some attacks to work through desolid even 
though this is the case because it was the designer's assumptions that this 
was necessary to prevent the power from getting out of hand, even then. 
Attempting to bypass this balancing for free simply doesn't seem a very good 
idea to most of us, no matter how justified it is on a purely SFX basis. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 02:25:53 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Fantasy Spell Colleges 
 
At 07:32 PM 2/9/99 -0500, dflacks wrote: 
>Hello again. 
> 
>Thanks once more to everyone who made suggestions for my Necromancy / 
>Necrourgy question. 
> 
>I have another question.  How usefull do you find Spell Colleges.  In the 
>campaign world I envision, magic is no organized into formal schools.  It is 
>generaly tought by a master to a single apprentice at a time, a few at best. 
>Also the way I have defined magic means that the spell limitiation vary with 
>the caster.  The more limitations, the less proficent the caster is in that 
>spell. 
> 
>There would not be a set of limitiation specific to each college. There are 
>a few standard limitations for all colleges, such as Requires skill roll, 
>but that is all. 
> 
>Has anyone out there done away with the spell colleges successfully?  Or 
>found a good alternative method?  Right now I am looking at using a stripped 
>down set of 10 or so master colleges as a way to groups spells and have 
>knowledge skills, but without college specific limitations. 
 
I use nine schools, all but one more or less opposed in pairs.  Flesh opposes 
Thought; Divination opposes Illusion; Fire v. Water; Air v. Earth. 
Conjuration 
is at the middle of a wheel with each of these opposed pairs as spokes.  I 
find it works well. 
 
>Any suggestions or comments chearfully accepted.  Flames equally chearfully 
>ignored. 
 
Here's one:  "C-h-e-e-r-f-u-l-l-y".  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:23:46 -0800 
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> 
Subject: RE: Desolidification 
 
From: Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin 
<snip> 
> 
> If, for any given Power, the SFX treatment that clearly 
> makes the most 
> sense cannot be allowed into the game, something is clearly 
> wrong with (a) 
> the game system, or (b) the ability of the GM to control 
> his own campaign. 
 
Absolutely correct. However, we are not talking about a Power that 
cannot be allowed into the game, we are talking about a Power that is 
particularly potent, and thus very expensive. 
 
> Warning labels, in the form of magnifying glasses and stop 
> signs, have been 
> applied to some of the Powers that are more likely than others to be 
> utilized in an abusive manner.  This doesn't mean you can't 
> use the Power 
> with SFX that follow as a logical consequence; it only 
> means you need to be 
> careful with it. 
 
There is no problem with either the Power or the SFX, in this case. 
Some Powers and SFXs automatically imply certain Advantages or 
Limitations. A Desolid character with a damaging attack caused by 
choking people (SFX Mist Form), clearly is a potent effect. However, 
even though it makes sense that such a Power would automatically work 
against solid people does not mean that you don't have to buy "Affects 
Solid", anymore than the fact that you clearly don't get your PD or ED 
against it means that you don't have to pay for NND. 
 
> >Or that the SFX are, by their nature, overpowered.  There 
> are things that 
> >work in the comics because the writers chronically 
> underutilize them but 
> >would break a game very thoroughly. 
> 
> And you can find no other way of restoring balance?  The 
> only thing that 
> occurs to you is to dismiss logical consequences of SFX, 
> for Powers common 
> to the comic/cinematic genre, because doing otherwise 
> allows one character 
> to be more powerful than another? 
 
There is a simple way to restore the balance, and that is built into 
the game. Allow virtually any Power, but make it cost in proportion to 
its effectiveness, by requiring the purchase of the appropriate 
Advantages, Limitations, or Powers needed to match the SFX. No matter 
what the attack is that you have, it can only be used from Desolid if 
you pay for it. If the SFX says it should be useable from Desolid, 
then you still pay for it. , 
 
> I've taken up more than enough of the list's time on this. 
> I have not 
> heard one person support my side of this discussion, nor 
> have I made the 
> slightest headway in convincing any of my worthy opponents 
> that anything 
> I've said might be worth considering. (No one's been rude about it, 
> though.)  Move on to something else. 
 
If you wish. 
 
To tell you the truth, I'm not certain exactly what your position is. 
I thought I had a fair grip on it, but there seems to be some elements 
that I am missing. 
 
Are you contending that a character with Desolid and Mental Powers 
should be able to use them against solid beings, because solid beings 
with Mental Powers can affect him, and it should go both ways? 
 
Filksinger 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:52:54 -0500 
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@early.com> 
Subject: Re: Mimic & Cosmic Pools 
 
>A friend of mine asked a question regarding the following: 
> 
>What if a character with a mimic pool, tried to mimic a character with a 
>cosmic power pool? 
 
And can a Champions transmuter with the power Growth: Usable Against Others 
make a rock so big that a Champions brick can't lift it? 
 
Len Carpenter 
redlion@early.com 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:23:32 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Mimic & Cosmic Pools 
 
>>A friend of mine asked a question regarding the following: 
>> 
>>What if a character with a mimic pool, tried to mimic a character with a 
>>cosmic power pool? 
> 
>And can a Champions transmuter with the power Growth: Usable Against Others 
>make a rock so big that a Champions brick can't lift it? 
 
What if he did it with a one-day charge, but he did it right on the 
International Date 
Line and he was travelling west?  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 10:11:15  
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> 
Subject: Re: <FHList> Fantasy Spell Colleges 
 
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:32:14 -0500, dflacks wrote: 
 
>Thanks once more to everyone who made suggestions for my Necromancy / 
>Necrourgy question. 
> 
>I have another question.  How usefull do you find Spell Colleges.  
 
Quite useful, but instead of the 'Must have X pts in College' I use 
'Must have KS: Spell College at Y-' as below 
 
11-  -1/4 
14-  -1/2 
16-  -3/4 
18-  -1 
 
Further, the VPP that a mage has is set so that a mage with 18- in a 
school acts as a Cosmic Pool, to represent his mastery. 
qts 
 
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 10:13:21  
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> 
Subject: Re: <FHList> Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World - Revision 
 
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:23:57 -0500, dflacks wrote: 
 
>As for the 0 END advantage, I am questioning that myself.  Because of the 
>active point caps in the campaign, having the advantage reduces the 
>effectiveness of Necromancers.  Necromancy is releated to Secular magic.  A 
>secular mage powers his spells from the essence around him will a 
>Necromancer powers them from lifeforce torn from his victums.  If the 
>secular mage must spend END even though the spell power comes from exterior 
>essence, then why should the Necromancer spend END for spells powered from 
>exterior life force? 
 
How about having a Transfer BODY to END? 
qts 
 
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 07:04:28 -0400 
From: John P Weatherman <asahoshi@nr.infi.net> 
Subject: Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 2/9/99 9:57 PM 
 
>MERIADOC "MERRY" BRANDYBUCK 
>In Edoras, Merry became squire to King Theoden, but was  
>ordered to stay behind when the Rohirrim rode to war.  Merry  
>secretly disobeyed the king and rode with Eowyn, who was  
>disguised as the man Dernhelm, and together they slew the  
>Lord of the Nazgul on the Pelennor Fields while defending  
>Theoden's body. 
 
Given that the Barrow-sword is specifically sited as having  
special powers to distroy the Lord of the Nazgul, I think 
it needs to either be listed as a "package" here with a  
lot of extra KA dice just for the Nazgul (and limited like 
nobodies business sence it was a 1 change never reusable 
type of thing), or the Lord of the Nazgul needs a Physical 
Limitation: Slain by Barrow-sword (uncommon, total).  Note 
that the Sus. to elven weapons doesn't apply.  The  
Barrow-swords are of a distinctly human design (North Kingdom). 
 
Also, Luck and Unluck in equal proportions might well be called 
for in the case of both Merry and Pipin.  Remarkable things 
kept happening at the must unusual times...:) 
 
PAX! 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:28:02 EST 
From: ErolB1@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Character: Gollum 
 
In a message dated 99-02-09 02:17:02 EST, nolan@erols.com writes: 
 
> >An Uruk-hai could have peeled Gollum off and stomped him into paste. But  
> the 
>  >Misty Mountain goblins were mostly wimpy 'mountain maggots' smaller &  
> weaker 
>  >than humans. Besides, I figure Gollum to have some sort of martial grab 
>  >maneuver. (Or maybe two: A grab with a chokehold follower) 
>   
>  I did give him a choke maneuver in my write-up.  Also, the Misty Mountains 
>  orcs, although not uruk-hai, were no pushovers.  They held their own 
>  against the dwarves for a long, long war.  
 
I was thinking in terms of a martial grab with +5 STR for Gollum, built using 
the rules in Ninja Hero. As for the Misty Mountain goblins holding against the 
dwarves in a long war, I'd say that that was due mostly to numerical 
superiority rather than individual prowess. (Although a few goblin chieftain 
types did have such prowess.) 
 
Based on the goblin attack in The Hobbit, goblins prefered to have a 6-to-1 
advantage when attacking dwarves. Allowing for goblin cowardace, this would 
make 2-3 to 1 odds a 'fair match.' I'd say that the standard sword-fodder 
snaga goblins were only a little stronger than the average Hobbit (STR 6-8, vs 
STR 4-5 for a Hobbit), while the uruk-hai and chieftan types were stronger 
(STR 10-16).  
 
Erol K. Bayburt 
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:39:56 -0500 
From: "Johnson, Adam" <AJohnson@clariion.com> 
Subject: RE: Fantasy Spell Colleges 
 
The way that I'm running my Fantasy Hero campaign is that the spells are 
open to anyone. However, anyone who decides to specialize in one particular 
college or church (or has at least 35 points of spells in a college) gets a 
+1 to their Magic Skill rolls with spells from that college, and a -1 for 
any spells outside of that college. (I'm talking college-specific spells, 
not the basic ones.) Also, the limitation of "Must have X points in spells 
from Y college" is changed to "Must have X points in spells." This means, 
all you need is X points in spells, mixed from any of the colleges. 
 
 
 
- ---------------------------------------------------------- 
Adam Johnson 
Product Support -- Head Lab Resident Area Tech (RAT) 
ajohnson@clariion.com 
	Life's a long song... but the tune ends too soon for us all 
Jethro Tull, "Life's a Long Song," Living in the Past 
- ---------------------------------------------------------- 
 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From:	dflacks [SMTP:dflacks@ican.net] 
> Sent:	Tuesday, 09 February, 1999 19:32 
> To:	Heroes Mailling List 
> Cc:	Fantasy Hero List 
> Subject:	Fantasy Spell Colleges 
>  
> Hello again. 
>  
> Thanks once more to everyone who made suggestions for my Necromancy / 
> Necrourgy question. 
>  
> I have another question.  How usefull do you find Spell Colleges.  In the 
> campaign world I envision, magic is no organized into formal schools.  It 
> is 
> generaly tought by a master to a single apprentice at a time, a few at 
> best. 
> Also the way I have defined magic means that the spell limitiation vary 
> with 
> the caster.  The more limitations, the less proficent the caster is in 
> that 
> spell. 
>  
> There would not be a set of limitiation specific to each college. There 
> are 
> a few standard limitations for all colleges, such as Requires skill roll, 
> but that is all. 
>  
> Has anyone out there done away with the spell colleges successfully?  Or 
> found a good alternative method?  Right now I am looking at using a 
> stripped 
> down set of 10 or so master colleges as a way to groups spells and have 
> knowledge skills, but without college specific limitations. 
>  
> Any suggestions or comments chearfully accepted.  Flames equally 
> chearfully 
> ignored. 
>  
>  
> Daniel Flacks   dflacks@ican.net 
>  
> Give me ambiguity or give me something else 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:06:06 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
At 07:04 AM 2/10/99 -0400, John P Weatherman wrote: 
>Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 2/9/99 9:57 PM 
>Given that the Barrow-sword is specifically sited as having  
>special powers to distroy the Lord of the Nazgul, 
 
Where is this specifically stated, John? 
I've never heard of this. 
 
 I think 
>it needs to either be listed as a "package" here with a  
>lot of extra KA dice just for the Nazgul (and limited like 
>nobodies business sence it was a 1 change never reusable 
>type of thing), or the Lord of the Nazgul needs a Physical 
>Limitation: Slain by Barrow-sword (uncommon, total).  Note 
>that the Sus. to elven weapons doesn't apply.  The  
>Barrow-swords are of a distinctly human design (North Kingdom). 
> 
>Also, Luck and Unluck in equal proportions might well be called 
>for in the case of both Merry and Pipin.  Remarkable things 
>kept happening at the must unusual times...:) 
 
Good point.  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:57:35 EST 
From: ErolB1@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
In a message dated 99-02-10 07:13:43 EST, asahoshi@nr.infi.net writes: 
 
> Given that the Barrow-sword is specifically sited as having  
>  special powers to distroy the Lord of the Nazgul, I think 
>  it needs to either be listed as a "package" here with a  
>  lot of extra KA dice just for the Nazgul (and limited like 
>  nobodies business sence it was a 1 change never reusable 
>  type of thing), or the Lord of the Nazgul needs a Physical 
>  Limitation: Slain by Barrow-sword (uncommon, total).  Note 
>  that the Sus. to elven weapons doesn't apply.  The  
>  Barrow-swords are of a distinctly human design (North Kingdom). 
 
I'd give it +1 extra Stun multiplier "only vs the forces of the Witch King of 
Angmar" and call its zapping of the Witch King himself a special effect/plot 
device. (I'd also expand the Nazgul's sus. vs elven weapons to "Sus to elven 
and numenorian weapons.") I know that a lot of Tolkien fans disagree on this 
point, but the way I read the fight, it was Eowyn who did the killing blow. 
Merry's stab *hurt* the Nazgul more, probably did more BODY, and also con- 
stunned the bad guy, but IMO it ws Eowyn's thrust that put him down.  
 
(BTW, this brings up the old "immortality power" debate: It seems that the 
Nazgul in general and the Witch King in particular always 'get better' when 
killed, with the 'permanent death' condition being a) Destroy the Ring, or b) 
get killed by someone who is "no living man.")  
 
Erol K. Bayburt 
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:33:37 -0600 
From: "Hudson, Robert" <x2rhudso@southernco.com> 
Subject: RE: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
At 8:06 AM Feb 09 Scott Nolan wrote: 
 
	>Where is this specifically stated, John? I've never heard of this. 
 
	I can't recall this one either Scott - but I lay no claim to being a 
Tolkein scholar.  I *do* think I recall the sword as being tacitly referred 
to as enchanted however, so you might think about that. It never struck me 
as being of earth-shattering power, so some extra OCV, perhaps with the 
limitation, "Only Against Creatures of the Enemy" might do. 
 
	Another thing to consider with Merry and Pippin is the effects of 
the "Eny-draughts" they imbibed with Treebeard. They were noted as being 
*much* taller [and presumeably more physically powerful] after hem than 
almost any other Hobbits in history. 
 
 
	Rob Hudson 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:57:34 EST 
From: ErolB1@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Character: The Lord of the Nazgul 
 
In a message dated 99-02-09 22:22:56 EST, ctaylor@viser.net writes: 
 
> >> 5) The Morgul-Knife, if it cuts a victim, may sometimes have a sliver 
>  >> break off and stay in the wound.  If it reaches the heart, the victim 
>  >> dies and is reborn as an undead servant of the nazgul. 
>   
>  I got the impression that this wasnt a special power of the knife, but an 
>  effect of weapons, that the deadly nature of the knife was just its metal 
>  and the evil aura that the Nazgul had.  That a splinter broke off was just 
>  damage the weapon sustained when it hit him (possibly due to the ring's 
>  protection). 
 
I got a much different impression: "He stooped again and lifted up a long thin 
knife. There was a cold gleam in it. As Strider raised it they saw that near 
the end its edge was notched and the point was broken off. But even as he held 
it up in the growing light, they gazed in astonishment, for the blade seemed 
to melt, and vanished like a smoke in the air, leaving only the hilt in 
Strider's hand. 'Alas!' he cried.' It was this accursed knife tha gave the 
wound. Few now have the skill in healing to match such evil weapons. But I 
will do what I can.' " (_Fellowship of the Ring_, Ch 12: Flight to the Ford).  
 
From this I get the impression that 1. The knife had special powers, itself. 
2. That the notch near its end was put there deliberately, that the end was 
*intended* to break off in its victim.  
 
There's also Glorfindal's comment a little later: "There are evil things 
written on this hilt, even though your eyes may not be able to see them. 
Handle it as little as you may!" 
 
Of course the Nazgul had a 'black breath' power in addition, but I still think 
the Morgul knife was special. It had the Ringbearer's name on it - perhaps 
literally. I'd call the knife a one-charge focus with the additional -1 for 
being especially difficult & dangerous to recover ("Must ask Sauron for a 
replacement"). The Nazgul reserved it for a special occasion when he didn't 
merely want his enemy dead, but most sincerely undead.  
 
(Which reminds, IMO Frodo (and probably Hobbits in general) ought to have 
Power Defense instead of the Mental Defense - he didn't seem to be so 
resistant to mental commands from the bad guys as to various drains and 
tranforms: "It seems that Hobbits fade very reluctantly.") 
 
Erol K. Bayburt 
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:07:14 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Character: The Lord of the Nazgul 
 
>(Which reminds, IMO Frodo (and probably Hobbits in general) ought to have 
>Power Defense instead of the Mental Defense - he didn't seem to be so 
>resistant to mental commands from the bad guys as to various drains and 
>tranforms: "It seems that Hobbits fade very reluctantly.") 
 
 
The One Ring is most certainly exhibiting Mind Control.  Gandalf, Elrond 
and Galadriel fear what it would do to them, but Bilbo carries it for sixty 
years 
without much thought.  I call that Mental Defense.  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:56:03 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: RE: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
At 08:33 AM 2/10/99 -0600, Hudson, Robert wrote: 
>At 8:06 AM Feb 09 Scott Nolan wrote: 
> 
>       >Where is this specifically stated, John? I've never heard of this. 
> 
>       I can't recall this one either Scott - but I lay no claim to being a 
>Tolkein scholar.  I *do* think I recall the sword as being tacitly referred 
>to as enchanted however, so you might think about that. It never struck me 
>as being of earth-shattering power, so some extra OCV, perhaps with the 
>limitation, "Only Against Creatures of the Enemy" might do. 
> 
>       Another thing to consider with Merry and Pippin is the effects of 
>the "Eny-draughts" they imbibed with Treebeard. They were noted as being 
>*much* taller [and presumeably more physically powerful] after hem than 
>almost any other Hobbits in history. 
 
Yes, that is in the write-up.  I gave Merry a 10 STR, considering that 
the average hobbit probably has a 6.  I considered making the STR 11, 
but left it as was.  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:19:02 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Apologies 
 
Damn!  Oops!  Very sorry for the two stray posts. 
 
Ack! 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 10 Feb 1999 10:18:45 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: The 3d6- system sucks! 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"F" == Filksinger  <filksinger@geocities.com> writes: 
 
>> This one is so simple... if there is no chance of failure, DON'T ROLL DICE. 
 
F> Which is A) completely arbitrary without a set guideline, 
 
You said it was impossible for the power lifter to fail to open the door. 
I simply presented you with a way to model the effect using the game's 
mechanics (or in this case the absence of them). 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org 
 
iD8DBQE2waNVgl+vIlSVSNkRAvCkAJ9ej9XIOKhLeQvGQziAw4N+l5q6BACfeKzB 
Q3LZgi3FcDv4Nw9DYyh5alc= 
=BV3F 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and 
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:45:03 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry') Brandybuck 
 
At 08:57 AM 2/10/99 -0500, ErolB1@aol.com wrote: 
>In a message dated 99-02-10 07:13:43 EST, asahoshi@nr.infi.net writes: 
 
I know that a lot of Tolkien fans disagree on this 
>point, but the way I read the fight, it was Eowyn who did the killing blow. 
>Merry's stab *hurt* the Nazgul more, probably did more BODY, and also con- 
>stunned the bad guy, but IMO it ws Eowyn's thrust that put him down.  
 
This is the only reasonable interpretation, in my opinion.  Merry put the LoN 
in the position to be killed by Eowyn.  Note that Eowyn was -not- using a 
magic 
weapon, as far as we know. 
 
>(BTW, this brings up the old "immortality power" debate: It seems that the 
>Nazgul in general and the Witch King in particular always 'get better' when 
>killed, with the 'permanent death' condition being a) Destroy the Ring, or b) 
>get killed by someone who is "no living man.")  
 
I don't think this part is supported by the facts.  At no time was the Lord of 
the Nazgul or any other nazgul ever 'killed' (or just plain killed) before the 
War of the Ring.    
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:47:01 -0500 
From: David Stallard <DBStallard@compuserve.com> 
Subject: Marvel Ultimate Powers book 
 
If anyone is interested in getting a free .PDF copy of the Marvel Super 
Heroes Ultimate Powers book, go to the URL below.  The old rulebooks (from 
the 1st edition yellow boxed set, I think) are also there in .PDF format. 
 
http://www.rabunda.com/super/rules/ 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: 10 Feb 1999 10:10:38 -0500 
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> 
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions 
 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 
 
"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes: 
 
BG>    Where? 
BG>    (Note:  Cite HSR page number, paragraph from top, and give a full quote 
BG> along with an explanation of why you think this says so.) 
 
HSR, page 115, first column, third paragraph. 
 
  Power Limitations may be applied to Multipowers.  If the Limitation 
  applies to a slot within the Multipower, then the Limitation serves to 
  decrease the cost of the slot, but not the Multipower.  If the Limitation  
  is applied to the whole Multipower, then the Limitation reduces the cost 
  of the point reserve and the slots.  THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE 
  RESERVE COST CAN BE LIMITED.  [Emphasis and typing errors are mine.] 
 
That last sentence requires no explanation, I think. 
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux) 
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org 
 
iD8DBQE2waFugl+vIlSVSNkRAjEEAJoDeLRk5xnwnlu0xZqObbowxSAI6gCePITN 
cu8g0L5XnUEngKxU0NwqdVc= 
=nhQO 
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 
- --  
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types 
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \  
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:18:10 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: STST: Adrianna and Aladris: How Low Can You Go? 
 
>>As they exit the back of the tent, they are greeted with the sight of 
>>a great number of people gathered just beyond.  As soon as Adrianna's 
>>knife slashes the tent's fabric, hands reach in to yank her out. 
>>They are cold, those hands, and have a grip like iron. 
> 
>[Don't you just hate it when that happens?] 
> 
>First, if there's any way to grab onto Adrianna and pull her back into the 
>tent before she's yanked out, Aladris will do so. 
 
Nah.  She's watching the other direction. 
 
>>"You should have heeded my warning," says Jamia, who is one 
>>of them.  "For the desert ghosts have arrived, and now they smell 
>>blood." 
>> 
>>The group closes in to attack. 
> 
>"Much blood may well be spilled," Aladris says, both blades out, watching 
>their advance, her voice steady, "but not all of it ours.  Let Adrianna go, 
>and we can settle this -- quietly." 
 
[I'll wait to let Connie react before I go on.]  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:33:27 -0500 
From: David_A._Fair@fc.mcps.k12.md.us (David A. Fair) 
Subject: Re: <FHList> Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World - Revision 
 
qts@nildram.co.uk writes: 
>If the 
>>secular mage must spend END even though the spell power comes from 
>exterior 
>>essence, then why should the Necromancer spend END for spells powered 
>from 
>>exterior life force? 
 
>How about having a Transfer BODY to END? 
>qts 
 
How about giving Necromancers (and maybe the secular mages as well) an 
End Reserve, with No Rec. Then give them a Transfer, Body to END 
Reserve that they use when killing a sacrifice that recharges their 
Reserve? 
 
Thanks, 
Dave 
- --------------------------------------------------------- 
David A. Fair 
Montgomery County Public Schools 
Office of Global Access Technology 
Elementary User Support Specialist 
David_Fair@fc.mcps.k12.md.us 
- --------------------------------------------------------- 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:14:25 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: STST: Brynn: The Road Goes Ever On 
 
>>Ulrich follows her, riding easily as he did when they were soldiers 
>>together on a vain quest.  "I think you've fooled most of them," 
>>he says without preamble an half hour later.  "But Anwythn knows, 
>>and so do I.  Where're we really goin'?"  
> 
>"We're travelling to the Unmaking," she replies, equally frank. "There  
we will find a gate to another world and step through. We will continue  
travelling through the worlds until we come to the end." 
 
Like most northerners, Ulrich is phlegmatic at the most stressful of 
times.  He nods and says "I don't know which to ask about first. 
'travelling through the worlds' or 'the end'.  What did Gwynn say 
to you up there?"  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:54:08 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: Character: Meriadoc ("Merry") Brandybuck 
 
At 09:23 AM 2/10/99 -0500, John P Weatherman wrote: 
>Scott Nolan wrote: 
>>  
>> At 07:04 AM 2/10/99 -0400, John P Weatherman wrote: 
>> >Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 2/9/99 9:57 PM 
>> >Given that the Barrow-sword is specifically sited as having 
>> >special powers to destroy the Lord of the Nazgul, 
>>  
>> Where is this specifically stated, John? 
>> I've never heard of this. 
> 
>It's in book 6 immediately following his strike against the  
>Nazgul.  It says in effect no other weapon had the power 
>to undo its unlife.  I don't have the book at but  I already 
>posted the citation in the thread on Eowen, with regard  
>to who really killed the Lord of the Nazgul. 
> 
>If you can't find the quote, just mail me back and I'll get it  
>tonight. 
 
Actually, I don't think that's what it says.  I'm looking at it  
now and it says: 
 
"So passed the sword of the Barrow-Downs, work of Westernesse. 
But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly 
long ago in the North Kingdom when the Dunedain were young and 
chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and it's  
sorcerer king.  No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded 
it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead 
flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will." 
 
First, it doesn't say that no other blade could kill or harm him, just 
that no other blade could do it so well. Second, I personally interpret 
this to mean 'no other blade but one forged with the power and skill 
of Westernesse', not 'no other blade than this particular individual 
blade.' 
 
Still, I suppose I should alter his Vulnerability to include weapons 
of Numenorean make. 
 
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"I waste him with my crossbow!" 
        Bob 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
End of champ-l-digest V1 #199 
*****************************