Subject: MYSTARA-L Digest - 29 Jan 2003 to 30 Jan 2003 (#2003-31) From: Automatic digest processor Date: 31/01/2003, 19:00 To: Recipients of MYSTARA-L digests Reply-to: Mystara RPG Discussion There are 18 messages totalling 760 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. 3E Dragons (4) 2. MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 (5) 3. More thoughts on X10 (2) 4. IMC: Veiled Society Adv (Sess 1) (4) 5. Magical Engineering Skill 6. Dungeon mag map downloads deleted from Wizards site 7. Comments to the Revised Taymoran Timeline ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.dnd.starflung.com/ To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:55:32 +1300 From: Chris Furneaux Subject: Re: 3E Dragons Quoting Dan Eustace : > Could you describe how 3E dragons are different from 0E dragons (small, > Lg, > huge)? I mostly stick to the 3e dragon stats and ignore the skills and feats and the society and breading notes. 3e dragons have 12 age catagories. depending on age and the dragon type they fit into 7 size catagories. Damage: -Damage by size not colour & size. Only large dragons can crush. Similar damage for other attacks across the size catagories. Breath: -once every 1d4 rounds. -line and cone breath shapes only. -cones are much shorter but wider (15'-70' x 15'-70'), and similar for line. -Damage is by dice not hp's (often less then 0e). HD & HP: A lot more Hit dice plus more hit points on top. Hit dice are d12 not d8. Huge attack bonuses (as I understand it in 3e this replaces the hit role chart. But we are talking around +12 for a young dragon with 10HD[+20hp] to +46 for a Great Wyrm with 37HD[+296hp] and an AC range of 19 (i.e. 0e AC 1) to 42 (i.e. 0e AC -22) [examples were black dragons]) HP range from 80 odd to 717ish (max of about 950hp). special abilities: -Dragons can develop spell resistance. -Have very good senses and can see in the dark for 100' x age catagory -depending on age they gain special spell-like abilities All in all the stats tend to go up from that they are in 0e. an huge 0e dragon may be on par with a about an adult 3e dragon. Chris. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:15:02 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ville_V_L=E4hde?= Subject: Re: MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dan Eustace wrote: > I must be insane, then! What's wrong with "Attack"? It is a good middle of > the road tactic, that lessens the benefits against inferior tactics, but > also lessens the pain vs. superior tactics (i.e. Trap). We've used the 6 > tactics for all War Machine battles ever since X10 IMC, and most of my > players know them by heart. One other thing I implemented was that if a PC > with "Knowledge of Military Tactics" makes his skill check prior to a > battle, he will be able to ascertain the opponent's Tactic (1-6), and be > able to take advantage accordingly. Fortunately, this PC only has a skill > of 7! Perhaps I was bit too stern about this. I don't have the table at hand now, but my main objection was that only against "Withdraw" was "Attack" a clearly superior tactic. In generally you do better if you vary between the trap and envelope, and stay away from Attack+ unless totally necessary (when you know the enemy will hold and must gain extra BR, like in trying to break through defended passes). But I may very well be wrong, I haven't made any statistical models on it... I'm not very good in math. Anyway, IMC the players didn't engage in the War Machine, I played them out against myself. Coincidentally I also used a Tactics skill to reflect the commanders' aptitude: before each battle I rolled d20 for each side, and the one who succeeded better got the better tactics result. Some additional remarks: some tactics and situations don't sit obviously well together. If an amry is "holding" inside a palisade or a fortress, "trap" and "envelope" aren't viable tactics for the other side, the enemy must choose between attack, attack+ or no combat at all. This is especially true for sieges. - BUT: If an army defends itself in a city, and the city is attacked, the defender already gets lowered (halved) casualties. If the attacker uses "attack", the defender (who is automatically "holding" of course) gets a C-1 result from the table. What do you think, should these results be cumulative, or should one devise a different set of tactics rules for siege battles? > Probably some loose rules on this, with judgement calls being made for > various situations would work. This is what I did essentially. > I agree. Any ideas for an overall troop limit? I've tryed to come up with > some guidelines IMC (for PC dominions), but I don't have any firm rules yet. > I was thinking that an army consisting of 1.5% of the population could be > "reconstituted" twice, for a total of 4.5% of pop. An additional 10% of the > pop. could muster as an untrained peasant militia. This seems to fit with > the RC and troop guidelines in the PWA's. This depends on the nature of the army and the nation. Darokinian Elite units, which include elves, shouldn't be able to reconstitute over and over again. Ethengarians propably have more leeway, since the whole culture is so "militaristic". Ville ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:22:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ville_V_L=E4hde?= Subject: Re: More thoughts on X10 On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Michael Stephan wrote: > > Certainly the Master will have to deal with the Sindi armies one way or > another. I just didn't like treating the masters armies as part Sindi > because Sindi doesn't use humanoids. So does Hosadus have even more > troops in Sind to control that region? I was also anticipating my > players using magic get the diplomacy done VERY quickly, so was looking > for ways to boost the size and initial hitting power of the nomads. We > are agreed that rebellion is brewing in Sind though. > Perhaps it would be interesting if the people who have played out X10 could make rough timelines about how the diplomatic missions came out. Comparisions would be nice, and they would benefit people who wish to play the module in the future. My Nomad War Updates in the Vaults have until now stopped after 2nd month, since I haven't had the time to write them down from my notes. But perhaps a little later... Ville ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:08:20 +0100 From: Jacob Skytte Subject: Re: MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 Ville V L=E4hde wrote: > Some additional remarks: some tactics and situations don't sit = obviously > well together. If an amry is "holding" inside a palisade or a = fortress, > "trap" and "envelope" aren't viable tactics for the other side, the = enemy > must choose between attack, attack+ or no combat at all. This is > especially true for sieges. > - BUT: If an army defends itself in a city, and the city is attacked, = the > defender already gets lowered (halved) casualties. If the attacker = uses > "attack", the defender (who is automatically "holding" of course) gets = a > C-1 result from the table. What do you think, should these results be > cumulative, or should one devise a different set of tactics rules for > siege battles? Well, we already have the Siege Machine from the Master rules box (and a = shorter version in the Cyclopedia), it offers rules and tactics = appropriate for sieges. It takes extra work, since you have to decide = what siege weapons both sides have available, but will simulate a siege = battle better than the regular War Machine rules. An army with plenty of = siege weapons can just bombard the other side with no risk to itself = (apart from opposing siege weapons), forcing the other side to take = casualties or try to break the siege. Jacob Skytte scythe@wanadoo.dk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:38:44 -0800 From: Darth Darknerd Subject: Re: IMC: Veiled Society Adv (Sess 1) > Darth Darknerd wrote: > > > > Well that's find an dandy, but do you know the > work > > involved, especially the pscion class. It's > rather > > daunting. That was my point: It's a lot of work. > > Sure it is, but are you suggesting that people > playing OD&D can't or won't do a lot of work? Sounds > like that to me, which was why I felt provoked to > respond. I find that most role players (regardless > of their preferred rules systems) I know will take > on insane workloads, if they are inspired. Did I ever make this claim? Could you point where I asserted this claim? (I want to improve my communication ability) I think my original point was that when I listed pscion and other classes, they were notable D&D3e classes, and therefore could not be a D&D0e game by nature of the classes listed. Another pointed out that people could make such classes into D&D0e. I don't dispute this. Though, I followed up with the question: Where have people made such material? There isn't any material that I know of. That is why I was confused. Therefore I will clarify with this claim on the factual matter: ------------------------------------------------------ Classes of pscion and sorcerer are D&D3e classes. Classes of pscion and sorcerer are not D&D0e classes. Therefore, a game with a pscion and sorcerer will not be a D&D0e game. ------------------------------------------------------ >> From that logic, I was confused why someone asked me if I was doing a D&D0e or D&D3e game. Discussion insued... - joaquin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:58:17 +1100 From: Jonathan Nolan Subject: Re: IMC: Veiled Society Adv (Sess 1) > From that logic, I was confused why someone asked me if I was doing a D&D0e or D&D3e game. Discussion > insued... > > - joaquin -I- asked you which edition you were running. And if you genuinely can't see how 0e could adopt 3e stuff, you need to mix with more gamers. If you consider your proposition you can see the illogicity of it - a game can adopt anything it pleases: monsters, rules, classes or maps. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:56:26 -0600 From: Michael Stephan Subject: Re: MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 > - The rules about routed units returning home and being reinforced = back to > full strength work well and should be used IMO in this module. = Without > them, it is even harder to keep up the Nomad pressure.But: > 1) There should be some BR loss for the reinforced units. I didn't = use > this rule, but I think it is a good idea. > 2) An overall troop limit should be placed for both Nomads and the > Darokinains, when they reinforce depleted units. > 3) Some units "return" from rout in a very bad state. IMC I had a = Nomad > division return with 20 troops. Rebuilding such a unit shouldn't be > allowed, or at least is should take more turns. I agree. Any ideas for an overall troop limit? I've tryed to come up = with some guidelines IMC (for PC dominions), but I don't have any firm = rules yet. I was thinking that an army consisting of 1.5% of the population could = be "reconstituted" twice, for a total of 4.5% of pop. An additional 10% = of the pop. could muster as an untrained peasant militia. This seems to fit = with the RC and troop guidelines in the PWA's. I like the idea of percentages. I think I went with 10% of pop, with = warlike nations like Hule getting fully trained soldiers, and others = like Darokin getting untrained(though trainable) militias.=20 As far as reconstituting Divisions: I am trying to fight all the = battles with battle system, so after each fight I know what happened to = the Division at the company level. If the company was wiped out it's = gone perminantly, otherwise the officers survived and it is able to = reform. The key is the officers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:15:33 +0100 From: Jacob Skytte Subject: Re: IMC: Veiled Society Adv (Sess 1) Darth Darknerd wrote: > > Sure it is, but are you suggesting that people > > playing OD&D can't or won't do a lot of work? Sounds > > like that to me, which was why I felt provoked to > > respond. I find that most role players (regardless > > of their preferred rules systems) I know will take > > on insane workloads, if they are inspired. > =20 > Did I ever make this claim? Could you point where I > asserted this claim? (I want to improve my > communication ability) You didn't. I haven't saved the original mail, but, as I recall it, you = seemed to scoff at the idea that anyone would use classes from other = editions under OD&D (or D&D0e, if you prefer) rules. I felt that was = provocative, as I have played with people who have adopted 2nd ed. = classes (or "classes" from other RPGs entirely) for OD&D, and are = probably adopting 3rd ed. as well (no, I can't point you to where = they're keeping this stuff, since, as far as I know, it has never been = put on the web). You went on to say that it would take a lot of work, = and I read into that statement that, since you seemed to not believe = that such a thing could be done, it must be because people weren't = willing to do that amount of work. My bad. > I think my original point was that when I listed > pscion and other classes, they were notable D&D3e > classes, and therefore could not be a D&D0e game by > nature of the classes listed. Actually the psionicist was a notable 2nd ed. class that also appears in = 3rd ed. AFAIK, but then I can't say I know a lot about 3rd ed. And no, = you won't be playing vanilla OD&D if you're using those classes, but if = you're using OD&D rules for your games, and are using these classes = adapted to work under those rules, you're not playing 3rd ed. but OD&D, = IMO. > Another pointed out > that people could make such classes into D&D0e. I > don't dispute this. Ok, I thought you did. I stand corrected. > Though, I followed up with the > question: Where have people made such material? There > isn't any material that I know of. I don't know of anywhere it can be found either, but have you been = looking for it? I haven't. I did fail to see why you needed to see it in = writing, before you would believe it could be done, but then you just = said that you didn't dispute that it could, so I'm sorry, I must have = misunderstood you. > That is why I was confused. Therefore I will clarify > with this claim on the factual matter: > ------------------------------------------------------ > Classes of pscion and sorcerer are D&D3e classes. > Classes of pscion and sorcerer are not D&D0e classes. > Therefore, a game with a pscion and sorcerer will not > be a D&D0e game. > ------------------------------------------------------ My claim: Classes don't make rules. Anything that works within the rules = system you use, belongs to that rules system. Psionicists and sorcerers = in OD&D? Why not? Just adapt them to the rules. That'll be even easier = than writing up entirely new classes (something that lots of people have = done; I refer you to the vaults of Pandius, if you want to see it), = since you already know exactly what these classes are supposed to do. > From that logic, I was confused why someone asked me > if I was doing a D&D0e or D&D3e game. Discussion > insued... Point taken. I think your logic is flawed, though. Jacob Skytte scythe@wanadoo.dk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 03:38:23 +1100 From: Jonathan Nolan Subject: Re: IMC: Veiled Society Adv (Sess 1) Careful guys, we're all staying remarkably civil... we don't want to get drummed out of the D&D-related forums! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:14:59 +0100 From: Felix Holtschoppen Subject: Magical Engineering Skill Hi, even if the topic of identification might be a bit tedious, I still need your advice on one aspect: How do you guys handle the Skill "Magical Engineering" (RC p. 84) for OD&D? The skill description says that anone having this skill can "recognize most common magical items with a successful skill roll". This seems a little bit odd to say the least, since "common" and "magical item" should be mutually exclusive in most campaigns. And even if one can say that some potions (eg healing) are relatively common compared to a Wheel of Fortune for example, there is a Detect Magic spell necessary to identify any given item as magical in the first place. Then there's the Analyze spell to further identify the nature of any given item (at a rather low chance in comparison to a skill check). These spells would seem rather obsolete when there's the possibility of the Magical Engineering skill. Of course, the skill gives other classes the possibility to identify some items, but nonetheless it is far from balanced IMO. I'm thinking about disallowing it IMC. What are your opinions on this? Before anyone asks: I use OD&D according to the RC with a smattering of AD&D 2nd Ed. rules. Thanks in advance, Felix ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:35:42 -0800 From: Mike Harvey Subject: Re: 3E Dragons 3E stats are much higher because in general, 3E has considerable "stat inflation" over 0E. Compare 1st-level fighters, for example. Anyway, I believe the 0E huge dragon was meant to be truly huge, regardless of the stats. Taking a midrange example, a huge blue dragon, it does 3d10+8 bite damage and 1d10+3 claw/wing/tail damage. In 3E it should do MORE damage than 0E considering overall inflation, but you'd have to be gargantuan to even in in the same ballpark -- ancient, wyrm, or great wyrm. (Even a small white 0E dragon, the weakest sort, has bite and secondary attacks equal to a good sized 3E dragon!) A large 0E dragon has a reach (kicking) of 10 ft, equal at *least* a large (juvenile blue) or huge (very old blue) 3E dragon. A slam 0E dragon can crush 1 opponent. In 3E you have to be at least Huge to crush anyone, but size-wise you'd have to be at least Small to cover a 5x5 area. A Large 0E dragon can crush a 20x20 circle, which requires at least a Huge/Gargantuan (mature adult to great blue wyrm) dragon in 3E terms. A Huge 0E dragon could crush all opponents in a 40x40 circle, which would be Gargantuan/Colossal (ancient+ blue) in 3E terms. Looking at sheer size and ferocity of attacks, 0E dragons are *big*! The huge blue gets 5/5/5/4 spells, which is comparable to a 9th level sorcerer -- an old blue in 3E terms. The huge blue does 80 pts with his breath weapon, assuming only average hit points, which is enough to kill an average 22nd level fighter (ignoring CON bonuses). A truly huge blue with max hit points would do 160 hp, enough to kill a 49th level fighter. Of course damage is reduced as the dragon is wounded, so we could go with half as an average (enought to kill a 11/25 level fighter). In 3E, that's 64 hp average (14d8, mature adult), or 141 hp (31d8, more than a great wyrm). Anyway the point here is that a Huge Blue dragon in 0E is as threatening against 0E characters as probably an Old or Very Old, depending on how important spellcasting is to you. A 0E huge blue with maximum hit points is perhaps (ignoring spells) comparable to a 3E great blue wyrm, judging from melee attacks and breath weapon attacks. Anyway, decide how tough you want your dragons to be, and convert them appropriately. How do you play them, as monsters to be hunted or as fearsome and nearly undefeatable foes? I'd suggest: Small 0E = Wyrmling to Young Adult 3E Large 0E = Young Adult to Old 3E Huge 0E = Old to Great Wyrm 3E Adjust individuals to taste, and to fit your campaign needs. Mike -- Mike Harvey -- Beaverton, Oregon http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/ ICQ: 15446302 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:16:04 +1300 From: Chris Furneaux Subject: Re: 3E Dragons > Anyway the point here is that a Huge Blue dragon in 0E is as > threatening against 0E characters as probably an Old or Very Old, > depending on how important spellcasting is to you. A 0E huge blue > with maximum hit points is perhaps (ignoring spells) comparable to a > 3E great blue wyrm, judging from melee attacks and breath weapon > attacks. > > Anyway, decide how tough you want your dragons to be, and convert > them appropriately. How do you play them, as monsters to be hunted or > as fearsome and nearly undefeatable foes? I'd suggest: The biggest problems I faced are that 0e dragons simply do not have enough hit points. I had saw a 13th level fighter deal 72hp of damage in a single round (haste, potion of speed, with 2 attacks [hit on 2] and weapon mastery, +3 sword +3 strength). I needed a good reason to beef up my dragons and 3e seems to have worked. In general I am only concerned with the dragons in the upper end of the scale because with the theory I have brought them in under it has not needed a reality shift, and the only increase the scale for the 'bigger' dragons. I agree that they probally should do more damage and I am thinking about beefing up the breath damage especally. but they can also breath more often then 0e dragons (maybe not as fast though). Anyway I think dragons should be scary, but when you have a death crazed fighter and a couple of spellcasters, dragons tend to be far too close to death to be of use. If there were several of them maybe, but then thats not the image I want to go for. Having encountered (not killed tho) some bigger dragons they are less keen to mess with them now. Chris. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:54:34 -0000 From: jason o'brien Subject: Re: Dungeon mag map downloads deleted from Wizards site Yes Please. Mortus. > Apologies for OT, but I have been using Dungeon in my Mystara campaign. > > WotC have removed links to the back issues, so you can't download the maps > directly. > > Google's cached pages can still find them, but I've managed to get all the > maps from #77 to #90 if anyone wants them. > > Hammer of Ulric > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:17:59 -0800 From: John Calvin Subject: Re: MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 >> One other thing I implemented was that if a PC with "Knowledge of Military Tactics" makes his skill check prior to a battle, he will be able to ascertain the opponent's Tactic (1-6), and be able to take advantage accordingly. Fortunately, this PC only has a skill of 7! << Wow, I think that's a great idea. I'd implement it as an opposed tactics roll with perhaps some chance of reading the tactics wrong if the PC failed by a certian amount. -John ===== Rule #85. I will not use any plan in which the final step is horribly complicated, e.g. "Align the 12 Stones of Power on the sacred altar then activate the medallion at the moment of total eclipse." Instead it will be more along the lines of "Push the button." from "A Guide to Becoming an Evil Overlord" by Peter Anspach __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:18:01 -0500 From: Dan Eustace Subject: Re: More thoughts on X10 > I am trying to fight all the battles with battle system, *All* the battles with Battlesystem? How long is that going to take? In my experience, a Battlesystem game can easily go 10-12+ hours! You might be still doing this with your grandchildren! ;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:03:01 -0500 From: Dan Eustace Subject: Re: 3E Dragons > The biggest problems I faced are that 0e dragons simply do not have enough hit > points. I had saw a 13th level fighter deal 72hp of damage in a single round > (haste, potion of speed, with 2 attacks [hit on 2] and weapon mastery, +3 sword > +3 strength). I needed a good reason to beef up my dragons and 3e seems to have > worked. In general I am only concerned with the dragons in the upper end of the > scale because with the theory I have brought them in under it has not needed a > reality shift, and the only increase the scale for the 'bigger' dragons. But the damage dealt by the fighter above would apply to all opponents. I'd say the issue is not the strength of dragons, but the power of the fighter. I've seen some serious damage dealt out by fighters, which is one of the main reasons I gave other classes some benefits to offset the advantages fighters get due to Wpn Mstry. I cut the WM to hit bonus in 1/2. I also changed the rules for haste, so that x2 speed is the max, even when combining spells & potions. Only the duration of the x2 speed gets extended, and I eliminated all to hit and AC bonuses due to speed. I think this helped with game balance esp. when PCs reached even higher levels and gained even more attacks and better THAC0's. I might have kept a to hit and/or AC bonus if it was hasted vs. slowed (2x vs. 1/2), but this situtaion rarely occured, if ever, so I can't really recall. You could also give the dragon some magic protection lowering its AC (to elim. the multiple att's), or a dispel magic to negate the speed effects. Mirror images would help, too. The fighter wastes a round on the MI's while the dragon dispels the speed, then breathes on him the next round. Tactics can go a long way. But I guess bigger and badder dragons don't hurt either! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:01:58 +0000 From: adrian mattias Subject: Re: MYSTARA] More thoughts on X10 > From: Dan Eustace > > I agree. Any ideas for an overall troop limit? I've tryed to come up with > some guidelines IMC (for PC dominions), but I don't have any firm rules > yet. > I was thinking that an army consisting of 1.5% of the population could be > "reconstituted" twice, for a total of 4.5% of pop. An additional 10% of > the > pop. could muster as an untrained peasant militia. This seems to fit with > the RC and troop guidelines in the PWA's. I found that the standard Warmachine rules gave far too high BRs for reinforcing units with raw recruits. James Ruhland and I reformulated the Warmachine rules to give a much better indication of how newly drafted troops would affect BR and morale of the unit. Our revised rules are available at the Vaults of Pandius. As for the percentage of the population you could use as recruits - I have always thought that the PWA figures are too high. I would say a maximum of 10% of the population would be capable of joining the army as potential soldiers (that is probably 1 in every 3 men between 16 and 50). The most a country would be able to take in losses might be 2-3% of the population (20-30% of its potential fighting force). If a country lost more troops than this, it would more than likely surrender. So, for Darokin, a loss of more than 30,000 of its troops would create serious pressure for a ceasefire or surrender by the population. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:35:30 -0800 From: John Calvin Subject: Re: Comments to the Revised Taymoran Timeline >> la Volpe wrote: > > Giampaolo, you wrote the basic timeline for Taymora > that I used, are you satisfied with my changes? I'd > like to work out something that we can all agree upon. << Using my timeline utility I've combined Giulio's, Giampaolo's, and James' Taymoran timelines, with that of a few others I found by surfing the Vaults (Sharon Dornhoff's included). Giulio, take a look at Sharon's work especially (labeled IER2) since I think she has some great ideas about the Makai and the Albarendi. For those who wish to download the timelines (in Khoronus format) they are TAY1, TAYG, TAYC, TUMA, and IER2. All can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/chimpman.geo/Events.html The compiled timeline is here: http://www.geocities.com/chimpman.geo/Taymora_timeline.html I'll probably add a few more over the next few days (including my own revised lycanthrope timeline). -John ===== Rule #85. I will not use any plan in which the final step is horribly complicated, e.g. "Align the 12 Stones of Power on the sacred altar then activate the medallion at the moment of total eclipse." Instead it will be more along the lines of "Push the button." from "A Guide to Becoming an Evil Overlord" by Peter Anspach __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of MYSTARA-L Digest - 29 Jan 2003 to 30 Jan 2003 (#2003-31) ***************************************************************