Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nimblewright93 09-11-07, 06:22 PM	My freind is planning on making a nazguel like character from LOTR(lord of the rings) we have come up with some things like: undead traits, dark vision, +2 natural armor, weakness to fire:mage: , and weakness to women(FYI: nazguels are NOT gay they just take more damage from women. watch the third movie). But i really don't have anything beyond that any good ideas?
Easalyamusedoldman 09-11-07, 06:25 PM	Frightening presence? Aura of fear?
oreththecentaur 09-11-07, 06:57 PM	Nazgul are not weak against women ;) Originally posted by Wikipedia When she confronted the Witch-king, he boasted that "no living man may hinder me," referring to the 1,000-year-old prophecy by the Elf-lord Glorfindel, foretelling that the Witch-king would not "fall by the hand of man". Éowyn then removed her helmet, exposing her long blond hair and declared: "No living man am I! You look upon a woman." The prophecy merely said (in the vague way prophecies do) that the Witch-king (btw, not all nazgul), would be killed by a woman, not a man.:D
Sir_Chivalry 09-11-07, 07:05 PM	This "weakness to women" as you call it, applies to ONE of the N-A-Z-G-U-L : The Witch King. And it's not that women hurt more. It's that no man can kill him. Also, both Merry and Eowyn are able to hurt The Witch King. It's a clause in his mighty defences. He's like Macbeth, in that his weakness is laughably simple to solve once you see it.
Jshock_75 09-11-07, 07:09 PM	Nimblewright, please, PLEASE read the books: 1) NAZGUL is the correct spelling (not nazguel). 2) Nazgul are wraiths with character levels. Do you want your friend to play an incorporeal undead with Con drain on touch? Of course not. Of course, if he insists, you could start him with the One Ring, let him grow into the part...
j3st3r 09-11-07, 07:41 PM	Nâzgul is also a girl's name of Persian origin, adopted in various Middle-eastern languages, meaning "Shy rose" or "delicate flower". :heehee
Part-Human2 09-11-07, 09:47 PM	Take a look at the picture of a sample Evolved Undead (a template) Wraith (LM) and see if they're trying to imply something. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/libris_gallery/84752.jpg
Salakk 09-11-07, 10:32 PM	wow guys, that was the saddest thread ive ever read:weep:
Easalyamusedoldman 09-12-07, 07:24 AM	wow guys, that was the saddest thread ive ever read:weep: It goes to show you what happenes when a Tolken idea goes wrong, rabid fan abuse.
Sarig the Genie 09-12-07, 10:41 AM	Nimblewright, please, PLEASE read the books: 1) NAZGUL is the correct spelling (not nazguel). 2) Nazgul are wraiths with character levels. Do you want your friend to play an incorporeal undead with Con drain on touch? Of course not. Of course, if he insists, you could start him with the One Ring, let him grow into the part... What makes you say they're incorporeal?
j3st3r 09-12-07, 12:35 PM	What makes you say they're incorporeal? J.R.R. Tolkien says they're wraiths (ring wraiths more specifically), D&D says wraiths are incorporeal.
Sarig the Genie 09-12-07, 01:13 PM	J.R.R. Tolkien says they're wraiths (ring wraiths more specifically), D&D says wraiths are incorporeal. So you're saying that creatures in a book that predates DnD by a few decades are incorporeal because that's how DnD defines wraiths? Gotcha.
Easalyamusedoldman 09-12-07, 01:16 PM	If they where incorporeal, how did the river wash them away?
Jshock_75 09-12-07, 06:40 PM	The river didn't wash them away... it washed away their horses & cloaks. No cloaks, no form.
elonin 09-12-07, 07:33 PM	Have your friend advance his character to level 30+ and then make a deal with a devil. If Frodo had turned he would have been a mindless undead. In dnd terms the nazgul probibly existed in the etheral plane.
Aerodyth 09-12-07, 08:32 PM	Actually, the closest thing I could find was the Narzugon. It's a devil out of MotP. They are Hell's elite calvary sent out to recover people or items.
zook1shoe666 09-12-07, 11:52 PM	very interesting thread... i definitely agree that they should have a nice high amount levels and the Wraith template added to it.
zeratulcraft 09-13-07, 12:30 AM	The fact that the Nazgul wear cloaks and ride horses and wield swords (and even wear a helmet, in the case of the witch king) sorta makes them corporeal. I'd say they're just 9 unique creatures.
zook1shoe666 09-13-07, 09:16 AM	I'd say they're just 9 unique creatures. i think hes trying to find something similar to what they are. obviously he could create his own variant of a template to make them. add some "ring-finding" "corporeal horse-riding" abilities to the wraith template ;)
Return of the Flumph 09-13-07, 10:08 AM	Nazgul had ghost touch equipment, I believe. Perhaps they had a type of ghost touch body suit (probably the cloak) that allowed them to sit on their saddles.
Easalyamusedoldman 09-13-07, 01:43 PM	Nazgul had ghost touch equipment, I believe. Perhaps they had a type of ghost touch body suit (probably the cloak) that allowed them to sit on their saddles. Only the dagger was ghost touch, they had swords that where solid, and the whichkings flail was pretty solid too. Oh, and the gauntlets.
Aerodyth 09-13-07, 07:03 PM	Nazgul had ghost touch equipment, I believe. Perhaps they had a type of ghost touch body suit (probably the cloak) that allowed them to sit on their saddles. If you believe that just because they could stab Frodo while he was wearing the ring means that they had ghost touch weaponry that would be a bit off. Frodo was not ethereal as he could still affect things while invisible, making him just invisibile not incorporeal or ethereal. Another problem is that Gollum could still touch him and I believe he didn't have any ghost touch capabilities.
Squirrel_Lord 09-13-07, 10:00 PM	There is a feat in the Libris Mortis that allows incorporeal undead to use corporeal weapons. The name escapes me at the moment, but it could be useful.
Alchahest 09-13-07, 10:27 PM	If you believe that just because they could stab Frodo while he was wearing the ring means that they had ghost touch weaponry that would be a bit off. Frodo was not ethereal as he could still affect things while invisible, making him just invisibile not incorporeal or ethereal. Another problem is that Gollum could still touch him and I believe he didn't have any ghost touch capabilities. it could have been the ring. only a few of it's myriad powers have been explained, and yet it contained the power of a being as powerful/more powerful than gandalf.
yrogerg 09-13-07, 10:35 PM	Only the dagger was ghost touch, they had swords that where solid, and the whichkings flail was pretty solid too. Oh, and the gauntlets. If you believe that just because they could stab Frodo while he was wearing the ring means that they had ghost touch weaponry that would be a bit off. I believe RotF's Ghost Touch speculation was due to the fact that they, despite being incorporeal, were wielding weapons that *were* corporeal. Remember folks: Ghost Touch works in both directions: It's fun like that: A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. (An incorporeal creature’s 50% chance to avoid damage does not apply to attacks with ghost touch weapons.) The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as either corporeal or incorporeal at any given time, whichever is more beneficial to the wielder. Frodo was not ethereal as he could still affect things while invisible, making him just invisibile not incorporeal or ethereal. Another problem is that Gollum could still touch him and I believe he didn't have any ghost touch capabilities. True, Frodo wasn't Ethereal per se, but the ring did allow him to see into what would be the Ethereal Plane in D&D, as well as making him much more visible and easier to target and attack via the same.
Shedeo 09-13-07, 10:48 PM	Okay, maybe the Nazgul's equipment was ghost touch. I highly doubt Aragorn's torch was, however. Nazgul, in DnD, wouldn't be. Frodo's ring effect just let him see the Wraiths for what they really were, not just their hooded, cloaked appearance. And, as for the women thing... I don't think that it should be taken to that level. It really didn't matter whether she was a woman or not. It mattered that the Witch King was weakened, and she effectively coup de grace'd him. At least that's how I saw it played out. But for the Nazgul, why not just give them the [Cold] subtype? I know that it never says anywhere that they're immune to cold, but would it really be too terrible of an idea? I mean, really? Also, look into the Curst from Forgotten Realms. They really seem Nazgul-ish to me, or have great capacity to be.
Sir_Chivalry 09-13-07, 11:17 PM	Actually, cold subtype isn't too far off. Fire hurts them ALOT, and they're second realm is in the north, really cold.
yrogerg 09-13-07, 11:19 PM	Okay, maybe the Nazgul's equipment was ghost touch. I highly doubt Aragorn's torch was, however. Well, yeah. Even though D&D Wraiths obviously draw on LotR Nazgul (and they *really* do, I mean, their Daylight powerlessness, Unnatural Aura, and Create Spawn abilities? C'mon), they're not identical, by virtue of the fact that D&D isn't LotR, and has rules about nonmagical fire not affecting incorporeal creatures. Of course, beyond the whole "burning cloak" thing, the fire didn't really *hurt* them; it just scared them off. So, meh.
Mojo_Rat 09-13-07, 11:51 PM	If I might recomend. Use ghosts as your Model. You can use Ghost touch feats and perhasps a 'tie to equiptment' to represent the fact that they are not wholly in this world. In the books (ad the movie) If you all will recall when Frodo put the ring on the Wraiths were much better able to sense him see him and interact with him (it was shown n the movies as that kind of negative imagery) so use this as an example (in dnd terms) of the ghosts connection to the ethereal plane. However treat them as always being manefested they are just on both planes at once. Fear Aura and Evil looking equiptment covers alot of the rest. Using this model they will be able to move and limited interact with the real world but will not be fully in it.
yrogerg 09-14-07, 12:33 AM	If I might recomend. Use ghosts as your Model. You can use Ghost touch feats and perhasps a 'tie to equiptment' to represent the fact that they are not wholly in this world. In the books (ad the movie) If you all will recall when Frodo put the ring on the Wraiths were much better able to sense him see him and interact with him (it was shown n the movies as that kind of negative imagery) so use this as an example (in dnd terms) of the ghosts connection to the ethereal plane. However treat them as always being manefested they are just on both planes at once. Fear Aura and Evil looking equiptment covers alot of the rest. Using this model they will be able to move and limited interact with the real world but will not be fully in it. How does any of this not apply to Wraiths, though?
Return of the Flumph 09-14-07, 12:34 PM	Ghost touch items are physical. They can touch corporeal and incorporeal creatures equally well. When Aragorn set them on fire, he ruined their equipment and scared them away (they are probably pyrophobic, since the sun weakens them).
nimblewright93 09-14-07, 05:21 PM	guys my player read this you insulted him. he called you poo poo heads any way thank you that will be sufficient sorry i suck at spelling that was all in one night
Mojo_Rat 09-14-07, 05:46 PM	How does any of this not apply to Wraiths, though? I am Pretty sure simply being incorpreal does not create the state of being linked to the Ethereal plane. I was under the Impression that this was a function largely in the ghosts realm of existance. That's why they have to Manifest. Although i do agree the Evolved undead picture of the evolved wraith was suggesting something :P
Banatine 09-15-07, 09:21 AM	I would say that the Nazgul are corporeal. Never see what is under their cloaks doesn't mean that nothing is there. They are dark shadows of their former selves, kept alive and bound to the existence and servitude of the ring. I would personally say you are nearer the mark saying that they are liches, than wraiths. So: Corporeal undead, unholy toughness, fear aura, DR 10/fire or magic, turn resistance, when they die they regenerate at Minas Morgul (is that the right name?), they can sense the ring when it is being used (only when it is being used, remember when that wraith in the first film was like 5 feet away from it?), have i missed anything? (Can they use shatter? or is that only the witch king, with the whole "your staff is broken!" thing?)
Shedeo 09-24-07, 09:16 AM	Could possibly just be the Witch King's power over that particular kind of item, kind of like Gandalf and Saruman.
nimblewright93 09-26-07, 03:05 PM	would he be able to change outfits seeing that he is pure energy
Ariath Ska'Vhor 09-26-07, 03:22 PM	Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10746)'s a template I used to make an epic Nazgul character. No LA listed but I've been informed it's around a +10 LA. Likely a bit much.
1 ton ghost 09-28-07, 11:15 AM	ok ppl, stop confusing terminology and mechanics. there is something called artistic license Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tolkien liked to employ regularly. it's what keep/kept them from becoming hacks or another fantasy knockoff, though i wouldn't say Tolkien was a brilliant author, just first in line for the fantasy genre really. now look these days... -don't confuse "wraith" with wraith. it's a term, nothing more. to that end, i (IMO) would not say they were incorporeal given visual/dramatic cues, but that's open to interpretation. if you wanted to be real ****, you'd say no, "the torches hurt/affected them" and they were assuredly not +1 torches, etc. the "fiend strahd" (ravenloft) wasn't fiendish, he was undead... the Witch King was just like any other iconic villain; he had a weakness and like all big villains, they always underestimate the hero(ine). ie) i wouldn't give your Nagul specific weaknesses vs. females, but on some level all men have it :raincloud whoever posted the Evolved Undead (Wraith) illustration, good eye/memory, though i think it is purely coincidental. you could argue Nagul are, and surely, they are very old and thusly very powerful, but again, i think they're corporeal, just very tough. the artist probably was thinking the same thing we are, laid out his design, and bam! another badass undead. Libris Mortis is excellent btw. one of VERY FEW supplements worth the $. this is all guess work but i'd work w/ the following: Scent-cannibalize the ability somewhat, like Lifesight, etc. they could sniff out the ring and all Turn Resistance-that's gotta' be a given Fear Aura-some (Su) fear-based ability, that high pitched wail was fairly creepy, banshee-esque Profane/Vile Weaponsthese kick ass btw (always get Profane if playing Necropolitan/any undead). Frodo's wound was probably Vile in that it needed special treatment Telapathy weren't completely helpless in daylight that i remember. it's not going to be perfect no matter what. hard to apply game mechanics to books/film, but it's cool to see you try. for their mounts i guess you could do alot wyverns, there's a Faerunian winged nasty too fairly similar to "fell beasts" (zhents use them alot), any fiendish horse, etc.
Mindolin 09-28-07, 11:45 AM	I would give them a weakened version of scent, rather than the full thing. Reason for this is because scent would reveal the exact location. What I would do is give them a version that lets them know the general location, even when they are close. Because, as pointed out, the Nazgul who almost caught the hobbits was unable to pinpoint them, as the scent ability would do. I would have them as corporal undead, that has vision that sees both material and etherial planes. Also, on the Ethereal plane, they appear as the aged kings they are. That way, you could injure them with the torch, and they are actually solid beings. Perhaps they could be treated slightly like liches, where they reform after being killed, except for the Witch King, of course. If you want to play up the lich thing, then have the rings of power act as phylacteries. In the end, though, I would not allow a character to play as a Ring Wraith, as they are effectively immortal, are bound to the rule of a major evil guy, and have a single purpose in getting some magic ring, which would only cost 20,000 gp on the black market. And remember: Witch King was not just a catchy title. He actually had training as a caster, so spells are not beyond his ability.
Aerodyth 09-28-07, 04:36 PM	for their mounts i guess you could do alot wyverns, there's a Faerunian winged nasty too fairly similar to "fell beasts" (zhents use them alot), any fiendish horse, etc. I personally like the abyssal drake from Dragoncomian. It has a fear aura of its own, although the breath weapon would have to go.
Starcloud 09-28-07, 04:51 PM	The Nazgul were nine human kings who wore the Nine Rings of Humankind and fell under Sauron's curse. They're humans, with class levels and undead "Nazgul" templates, basically.
Elemmakil 09-28-07, 04:53 PM	this is all guess work but i'd work w/ the following: Scent-cannibalize the ability somewhat, like Lifesight, etc. they could sniff out the ring and all Turn Resistance-that's gotta' be a given Fear Aura-some (Su) fear-based ability, that high pitched wail was fairly creepy, banshee-esque Profane/Vile Weaponsthese kick ass btw (always get Profane if playing Necropolitan/any undead). Frodo's wound was probably Vile in that it needed special treatment Telapathy weren't completely helpless in daylight that i remember. I would add some form of invisibility to that: From Unfinished Tales, J.R.R. Tolkien, p353: The Lord of Morgul then led his companions over Anduin, unclad and unmounted, invisible to eyes, and yet a terror to all living things they passed near. You are right, by the way, that they were not helpless in daylight. From Unfinished Tales, J.R.R. Tolkien, p358: All [the Nazgul] except the Witch-king were apt to stray when alone by daylight; and all, again save the Witch-king, feared water, and were unwilling, except in dire need, to enter it.That passage says that their fear aura (although not using that term) was their most dangerous quality, and it was strongest when the Nazgul where both together and invisible. The invisibility mechanic has me particularly interested. It functions when the Nazgul are "unclad:" unarmored and unarmed. In addition to invisibility it increases the power or save DC of the fear aura. Physical combat should be ineffective while invisible (not necessarily completely forbidden, but weakened). -Elemmakil
Soulless_Enigma 09-30-07, 12:30 PM	I'd personally give them the ability to switch between two forms - the cloaked and armoured form that is so familiar, in which they count as corporeal (they could, after all, be banished temporarily), and an "unclad" form, where they count as incorporeal and invisible (or ethereal depening on taste). My 2cp
Stormbrand 09-30-07, 01:35 PM	Try Death Knight, of some form or another. This (http://www.dl3e.com/fan/rules/12702.aspx) variant includes a switchable wraithform, although best not to keep shifting all the time. Add DR 10+/good or something similar, perhaps a +5 natural armour bonus instead of the overlapping enhanced armour, and any vulnerabilities are simply where it has no special defences. Undead are pretty fragile when you use effective weapons against them - if fire, turning and holy inflicts full damage, then they count as vulnerabilities to something with no CON bonus. With the Witch King, he had no special invincibility against men, just fate really. No special weakness either. My trick would be a Death Knight Blackguard walking around with Protection from Fire up... once it is either dispelled or overwhelmed by enough fire damage, he knows to get the heck out of there before he is barbequed. Until then, hack away with the greatsword and trust in his mighty defences.
nimblewright93 09-30-07, 05:15 PM	With the Witch King, he had no special invincibility against men, just fate really. No special weakness either. I have a quote from the movie *Evil laugh* no man can destroy me *takes off helmet* I am no man! Either the witch king ment No man as in male or man as in Human (as the mythbusters say) Myth that witch king Has a weakness to women... Plausable. If any one Knows what term he ment speak. LET THIS UNIVERSALY DEBATED QUESTION BE ANSERWED!
SokenzanMarauder 09-30-07, 05:48 PM	I have a quote from the movie Either the witch king ment No man as in male or man as in Human (as the mythbusters say) Myth that witch king Has a weakness to women... Plausable. If any one Knows what term he ment speak. LET THIS UNIVERSALY DEBATED QUESTION BE ANSERWED! A male hurt him. Merry, stabbed him with his barrow blade, which brought him down so that a female (Eowyn) could stab him in the face. By man I think it would be rather easy to infer that he was gloating that he was unkillable. Which, was not the case. Nothing more, nothing less. --- Further, I think it bears mentioning, don't quote the movie to support your opinions. If you're going to quote anything, quote the books. The movies leave out a LOT of rather important goings-on. -Gene
nimblewright93 09-30-07, 05:52 PM	well merry didn't exactly kill him now did he? :P
Aerodyth 09-30-07, 06:02 PM	Either the witch king ment No man as in male or man as in Human (as the mythbusters say) Myth that witch king Has a weakness to women... Plausable. If any one Knows what term he ment speak. It could be similar to Macbeth. Macbeth was prophesied to be killed by a man not born of his mother's womb, who turned out to be Macduff. The Witch King may have learned that "no man" would destroy him, meaning that his death was simply prophesied to be done at the hands of a woman, not a weakness against women but simply that he would eventually be slain by one.
SokenzanMarauder 09-30-07, 06:04 PM	well merry didn't exactly kill him now did he? :P I never said he killed him, I said he injured him; then Eowyn killed him. -Gene
nimblewright93 09-30-07, 06:48 PM	yes but the argument was about what can kill the witch king huerting and killing are totally diffrent. The witch king is essentialy a spirit in armor kind of like a nimblewright(no reference to me). Maybe the sword temporarily disrupted the spiritual energy in the wounds genaral area causing there to be no means of support or control over said area thus the WK would not be able to souport him self thus causing him to fall down. even if merry disrupted all said energie who's to say that Merry could do any more? It could be similar to Macbeth. Macbeth was prophesied to be killed by a man not born of his mother's womb, who turned out to be Macduff. The Witch King may have learned that "no man" would destroy him, meaning that his death was simply prophesied to be done at the hands of a woman, not a weakness against women but simply that he would eventually be slain by one. This could also be true but being stabbed in the face would kinduv make you wonder about the proficy
SokenzanMarauder 09-30-07, 06:51 PM	yes but the argument was about what can kill the witch king huerting and killing are totally diffrent. The witch king is essentialy a spirit in armor kind of like a nimblewright(no reference to me). Maybe the sword temporarily disrupted the spiritual energy in the wounds genaral area causing there to be no means of support or control over said area thus the WK would not be able to souport him self thus causing him to fall down. even if merry disrupted all said energie who's to say that Merry could do any more? Well, the sword was magical, actually. However, there's no way that someone who had watched the movies could have known this because they gloss over the whole part with the Barrow Downs. I stand by my point, anyone could have killed the Witch King, it just so happened (drama, anyone?) that it was a woman that did it. -Gene
nimblewright93 09-30-07, 07:26 PM	Hey buddy FYI i've read the books. so don't lecture me:mad:
SokenzanMarauder 09-30-07, 07:48 PM	Hey buddy FYI i've read the books. so don't lecture me:mad: And I was supposed to know this how? You quoted the movies and I assumed (rather logically) that you'd only seen the movies, you never mentioned your having read the books. Don't get your undies in a wad because I was assuming you hadn't read the books. You gave me valid reason to have that belief. -Gene EDIT: And for the record, I could get all huffy because you called me 'buddy' but you couldn't have known that calling me that annoys me so I won't.
nimblewright93 10-01-07, 04:22 PM	sorry i was really ****** at my freind so naturally that carried over to what i wrote
BigGus 10-01-07, 08:42 PM	A few points; It's never implied in the books that the Nazgul are incorporeal. They're just permanently invisible, as a side-effect of their rings. In fact, in the scene where the witch-king is killed, the book says "Merry's sword...had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee". Sounds pretty corporeal to me. The scene in the movie where the witch-king broke Gandalf's staff is not from the book; it was added by Jackson et al. for dramatic effect, and is a front-runner for the title of "most inappropriate scene in any of the films". Emphatically, the witch-king should not have the power to break Gandalf's staff - Sauron alone on all Middle-earth is powerful enough to do that, and even then, probably only if he had the One Ring. Finally, as has been noted earlier in this thread, there was a prophecy which said that "no man" could kill the witch-king. He was killed by a woman and a Hobbit. This idea is indeed directly inspired by Macbeth (as was the march of the Ents; Tolkien was disappointed as a boy by the resolution of the prophecy that Macbeth would not fall until "Great Burnham wood shall come against him", in which an army disguised as trees sneaked up on him, and decided to put the real thing in LotR). As to their powers; Humans with class levels plus template Aura of Fear - very wide, at least 100ft radius. Also their screams cause fear Permanently invisible, can't be dispelled Cannot see normally, but perceive auras, astral forms or similar of living things. Blind in bright sunlight. "They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys" (FotR, chapter 11) Can see normally using the eyes of living creatures which are under their power (usually their mounts) Telepathy - limited, seems more like empathy Scent The Black Breath - their breath causes "despair, unconsciousness, nightmares, even death" (quote from wikipedia) Vile or Unholy weapons Fear of water, especially running water (never made very clear, possibly requires a will save to cross/ enter) Ring sense Turn resistance - since there are no Clerics or Paladins in Middle-earth, this never comes up, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have it Fire vulnerability - never made explicit in the books, but I'd be inclined to agree with giving them damage reduction 10/ fire or magic or good Witch king only - any weapon which pierces him is destroyed PS: Banatine - where did you get "when they die they regenerate at Minas Morgul" from? I've never heard of that in the books or films. (In fact, I thought the witch-king was the first of them ever recorded to have been killed).
drtompki 10-02-07, 04:14 PM	PS: Banatine - where did you get "when they die they regenerate at Minas Morgul" from? I've never heard of that in the books or films. (In fact, I thought the witch-king was the first of them ever recorded to have been killed). I don't know if I am right on this one, but I swear that there was something about the witch-king's form being stripped once where he had to recoop at Minas Morgul.
nimblewright93 10-03-07, 03:44 PM	A few points; It's never implied in the books that the Nazgul are incorporeal. They're just permanently invisible, as a side-effect of their rings. In fact, in the scene where the witch-king is killed, the book says "Merry's sword...had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee". Sounds pretty corpol to me. AH-HA The ansewer, If the nazgual had sinew i highly doubt he is an actual wraith but a ........................................ ........................................ ......................Dum-De-Dum-DumDum-Dummm ZOMBIE!:eek: :emp: On a more serious note we should talk about the full stats of the nazgul now that the whole corperal incorperal argument is out of the way i agree totally with bigus on some ideas. We have already put the screech in. my one question which actually applies to all fear spells and effects. Would some one who has been to hell and back, been in a house filled with snakes and other creepy crawleys have any save to the fear affects. And another thing would there be a limit on the screech possiable 4 or 5 a week? Let's discuss this till we have everything done with this part then we can argue and tear each others throats out virtually:P I think the fact that the witch king is corpral is quite clear, sooo I guess the witch king can change armor. But how in God's name did he crumple up like a imploding hollow metal ball?:confused: the witch king would go great with the Tower of Death campaign i have Heres a link: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=913654
SokenzanMarauder 10-03-07, 05:55 PM	sorry i was really ****** at my freind so naturally that carried over to what i wroteAh it's fine. No worries. :D I was kinda wondering why you got so hostile all of a sudden. :P -Gene
BigGus 10-03-07, 06:46 PM	I think the fact that the witch king is corpral is quite clear, sooo I guess the witch king can change armor. But how in God's name did he crumple up like a imploding hollow metal ball?:confused: In the book he doesn't implode, he just vanishes. The implosion is another addition of Peter Jackson's (although a good one this time, in my opinion; it looked impressive and there's no particular reason he shouldn't do that). I think the reason there's no body left when he dies is that he should have died millenia ago (he was originally human, and the Nazgul first appeared about 4200 years before the events of LotR), and his body has been artificially maintained by Sauron's magic ever since. When he dies, the spell is broken, and time catches up with him; thousands of years of decay happen in a couple of seconds and he crumbles to dust. I think the idea in the film is that when the spell is broken, a kind of "time storm" happens, with the same result as above, but more spectacularly. NB: The above is my personal understanding. The books don't spell it out, they just say that his armour falls down empty, and a shrill bodiless cry goes up, which quickly fades. However, when Saruman dies, it says "it seemed that long years of death were suddenly revealed in (him)...the shrivelled face became rags of skin on a hideous skull", so it seems a fair assumption that a similar thing happens when the witch-king dies.
Zombie_Duck 10-04-07, 02:26 AM	My freind is planning on making a nazguel like character from LOTR(lord of the rings) we have come up with some things like: undead traits, dark vision, +2 natural armor, weakness to fire:mage: , and weakness to women(FYI: nazguels are NOT gay they just take more damage from women. watch the third movie). But i really don't have anything beyond that any good ideas? I sorry but I had to say this....It was a great book, but a horrible movie. Peter Jackson took a blender to the storyline for no good reason. He added many things that need not be in the movie and changed important plot points. So read the book for a better idea of the character of this type. That said, I would look at the books Libris Mortis or Ghostwalkfor this character. Take a simple wraith from the monster manual and add arcane caster levels. I would go wizard but sorcerer can work just as well the stat bonus is the same for both. The first items you will need is a ghost touch shroud. I would try and talk the DM in to letting your friend in to having a Weapon of Legacy maybe stick with the ring but there are other objects that would work just as well. Maybe even make your own there are rule for it in the book of the same name. You may also want to go with a mohrg, the are not Incorporeal but a good choice for an undead character.
Banatine 10-04-07, 03:34 AM	PS: Banatine - where did you get "when they die they regenerate at Minas Morgul" from? I've never heard of that in the books or films. (In fact, I thought the witch-king was the first of them ever recorded to have been killed). To be honest, i'm not sure. That was just the impression i got from the films (i havent read the books). Of course, that rule would be a little too campaign-specific to include for most people.
Mindolin 10-04-07, 10:40 AM	I think you might have gotten it from when the Ringwraiths were washed away by the river, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that they reformed in Minas Morgul.
nimblewright93 10-04-07, 03:53 PM	In the book he doesn't implode, he just vanishes. The implosion is another addition of Peter Jackson's (although a good one this time, in my opinion; it looked impressive and there's no particular reason he shouldn't do that). I think the reason there's no body left when he dies is that he should have died millenia ago (he was originally human, and the Nazgul first appeared about 4200 years before the events of LotR), and his body has been artificially maintained by Sauron's magic ever since. When he dies, the spell is broken, and time catches up with him; thousands of years of decay happen in a couple of seconds and he crumbles to dust. I think the idea in the film is that when the spell is broken, a kind of "time storm" happens, with the same result as above, but more spectacularly. NB: The above is my personal understanding. The books don't spell it out, they just say that his armour falls down empty, and a shrill bodiless cry goes up, which quickly fades. However, when Saruman dies, it says "it seemed that long years of death were suddenly revealed in (him)...the shrivelled face became rags of skin on a hideous skull", so it seems a fair assumption that a similar thing happens when the witch-king dies. yes this reminds me of an ancient dwarven myth (probably hundreds of years old) "and one of the kings men jumped down of his horse in horror of what the old man had said. The moment his feet touched the ground the knight turned to ash and blew away. The king relized that for every day that passes in the dwarven world 100 years pass in the mortal world. And from that day forth the king and his men romed the country side as phantoms of an ancient past. the dwarven hound never left the saddle of the king." well something like that i'll post the whole story when i find the book:cool: so i guess dying removed his immortallity and all the years of decay that a corpse would have gone through happened at once.
nimblewright93 10-04-07, 03:56 PM	Fact: Read the entire thread or at least the current topic because is there ever a thread that goes on this long and doesn't go on a tangent?
BigGus 10-04-07, 08:38 PM	I think you might have gotten it from when the Ringwraiths were washed away by the river, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that they reformed in Minas Morgul. Ah, I think I understand now. IIRC, after they were washed away they were all separated and they reformed as a group in Minas Morgul, rather than reforming their bodies there. At least I think that's what happens in the books, I couldn't find the actual quote. Also, if they lost their forms they would have lost their rings, which are all that keeps them "alive", and nowhere is it suggested that the rings have any travel powers of their own, so they wouldn't have been able to get them back. On a separate issue, I think the Ringwraiths' damage reduction may need to be higher. In TT, (The White Rider chapter) Gandalf describes a Ringwraith (not the witch-king, as far as I can tell) as "one you cannot slay with arrows". Since a mighty composite longbow with a +4 strength bonus, with weapon specialisation and greater weapon specialisation can do a non-magical 16 points of damage, their damage reduction should probably be at least 15.
BigGus 10-04-07, 08:54 PM	my one question which actually applies to all fear spells and effects. Would some one who has been to hell and back, been in a house filled with snakes and other creepy crawleys have any save to the fear affects. Not quite sure what you mean here. Is it "would someone who had survived an extremely terrifying experience get a save bonus against future fear effects"? And if so, do you mean against experiencing the same thing again, or against fear generally?
nimblewright93 10-06-07, 12:27 PM	Not quite sure what you mean here. Is it "would someone who had survived an extremely terrifying experience get a save bonus against future fear effects"? And if so, do you mean against experiencing the same thing again, or against fear generally? fear in general because he has seen hell and i thunk that would make him harder to scare.
1 ton ghost 10-06-07, 01:56 PM	everyone is going to dissect till there is nothing left. best to just call them unique undead as to try and enforce current game mechanics for an approximation is going to be very hard. i mean, everyone is arguing from what they saw or read and you have to consider the artists' discretion and/or vision. it's a work of art first, then a game facet, not the other way around.
yrogerg 10-06-07, 02:11 PM	Not quite sure what you mean here. Is it "would someone who had survived an extremely terrifying experience get a save bonus against future fear effects"? And if so, do you mean against experiencing the same thing again, or against fear generally? Shouldn't it really be neither? Usually, suffering an extremely terrifying experience makes you *more* afraid of the same thing in the future, not less.
BigGus 10-07-07, 12:18 PM	Shouldn't it really be neither? Usually, suffering an extremely terrifying experience makes you *more* afraid of the same thing in the future, not less. I think it can do either. Sometimes people seem to think "I've seen that, and I really, really don't want to see it again" and other times "I've seen that and I survived, and I can do so again". Soldiers who've been in many battles sometimes get pensioned off with PTSD, other times they become hardened and cope with battle far better than raw recruits. Also, I think that someone who has survived a truly terrifying experience, even if they were more afraid of experiencing the same thing in future, might well find different, less terrifying experiences easier to deal with than before, because they seem mild by comparison. Since D&D player characters are supposed to be heroes, exceptional individuals, it seems likely that fear would generally make them stronger, not weaker. Having said that, however, I don't see any particular need for an additional bonus for such people. I think this is already simulated by the fact that all classes' Will saves improve as they gain levels, as you get more used to frightening/ stressful experiences, just as Fortitude saves improve as your body gets more used to punishment, and Reflex saves improve as you get ever-warier of danger. You could allow characters who've been through terrifying experiences to take feats to simulate their mental toughness. There was one in the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting (also found in the 3.0 Tome of Feats) which might be relevant; it was called Dead Man Walking, and required that you'd survived an encounter which turned against you (you needed to have failed a Horror save (a Ravenloft-only mechanic, as far as I know; a Fear save would do just as well) or have been reduced to "dying" status) which gave you a bonus to saves and skill checks for the rest of the encounter whenever you succeeded at a Fear or Horror save, due to "the icy calm with which you face mortal danger". Also in the same books is a feat called "Courage" which had no prerequisites, which just gave a straight bonus to fear saves. Either of these ought to be easy enough to adapt for someone who's "been through hell". One final possibility is that DMs may think it appropriate to give circumstance bonuses vs. Fear saves in some situations. For example, someone who has survived a battle with a Pit Fiend might find lesser devils far less frightening than someone who'd never seen any devils before, and so get a bonus to saves against their fear auras. This would be very much up to the individual DM to decide when, and if, it was appropriate.
BigGus 10-07-07, 12:32 PM	everyone is going to dissect till there is nothing left. best to just call them unique undead as to try and enforce current game mechanics for an approximation is going to be very hard. i mean, everyone is arguing from what they saw or read and you have to consider the artists' discretion and/or vision. it's a work of art first, then a game facet, not the other way around. If you mean "Nazgul" should be a unique template, rather than using an existing one, then I agree with you, as they are clearly not normal wraiths, zombies etc. However, if you're going to use them in a D&D game, they need to be statted, and I don't see what's wrong with "dissecting" them to come up with the best approximation of those stats possible. Yes, they'll never be perfect, because only Tolkien himself knew how they really worked, but we can work out how to simulate them as well as possible based on their published appearances.
Xiuhcoatl 10-07-07, 12:58 PM	I have a quote from the movie Arwen did not slay the Witch-King.
BigGus 10-07-07, 01:02 PM	Arwen did not slay the Witch-King. You're right, it was Eowyn.
BigGus 10-07-07, 08:16 PM	Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10746)'s a template I used to make an epic Nazgul character. No LA listed but I've been informed it's around a +10 LA. Likely a bit much. Just read this, missed it first time round. I like the treatment of the Black Breath, the Morgul knives, the fear aura, the fell beasts, and the Nazgul's invisibility (it's an important point that their invisibility does not extend to their clothes, while the One Ring's does). But they should be completely blinded in bright sunlight, and I'm not sure why they should be immune to electricity or cold (although resistance might be reasonable, especially to cold), why they take such high damage in running water (I'd have said maybe 2d6 per round, if they actually take damage from it at all), or why they get such high adjustments to ability scores. I don't know of any official source which says they can be summoned back if killed, or that shows them having a touch attack. Also, they don't summon their mounts as far as I'm aware, they're normal flesh-and-blood creatures reared in Mordor; when the ring-wraiths lost their horses in the river they didn't get new ones for some time, IIRC. And I think only the witch-king has the Weaponbane ability. As is mentioned in the posts below your template, it's said (in Unfinished Tales, Part 3(IV)(i), "Of the Journey of the Blacks Riders...") that Sauron now holds the rings of the Nazgul, so ignore what I said about them not being able to get them back. On the same page, I noticed that their fear aura is stronger when they are "unclad and invisible" and when they are "gathered together". So I'd say probably the DC is +2 higher when they're unclad, and an additional +1 or +2 higher for every other Nazgul within 30ft. Also mentioned in the posts is the fact that Athelas helps in the treatment of wounds made by Morgul-knives, which is true. As you say, it's a direct conversion from Merp/ Rolemaster. Problem is, as Jaltum says in the posts, "in MERP; they made huge swathes of their stuff up out of whole cloth". In general, though, a damn fine job.
Wylantern 10-07-07, 09:33 PM	I always figured that the Ring Wraiths were vampires of a sort, without blood lust because they were sustained by the magic of their rings. That would explain the River scene and the one where Aragorn lights them on fire. As well as their vulnerability/weakness/preference against light. The rings they had been given by Sauron acted exactly like the One Ring in terms of invisibility, because in the "undead plane" that Frodo sees when he wears the ring that the Wraiths are wearing different clothes, clothing fit for kings. Thus it can be said that the Rings only make the clothes you're wearing at the time of putting them on invisible, and that any clothes added later are not affected by the rings' power. I always though that the Nazghul were the black creatures that they ride on, but maybe I'm wrong. As for the Witch King being defeated previously, you have to have read The Hobbit to get that one. When Gandalf leaves the party just previous to Mirkwood he leaves and goes south to the southern-most edge of Mirkwood and defeats the Witch King there at Dol Guldur. Dol Guldor was where the Witch King patiently awaited the new rise of Sauron, because they hadn't taken/retaken Minas Morgul from the Gondorians yet.
Sir_Chivalry 10-08-07, 02:18 PM	No. The Necromancer, who resides in Dol Gulder, is Sauron. The Witch King is in Angmar at the time, far to the north. Gandalf merely discovers that Sauron is back, and that he is the Necromancer. There is no defeat of anyone. Gandalf sneaks. He does however, witness the last of the dwarf rings being taken by Sauron.
Sir_Chivalry 10-08-07, 02:21 PM	And Minas Isil was taken by Mordor back during the time of the Last Alliance. It was renamed Minas Morgul, and Gondor never retook it.
BigGus 10-08-07, 08:28 PM	In the Silmarillion, in the section "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", it makes this clear. It was Sauron who was the Necromancer of Dol Guldur; "Mithrandir at great peril went again to Dol Guldur...and returning to Elrond he said...This is not one of the Ulairi...It is Sauron himself". And there was an assault on Sauron after Gandalf left Bilbo and the dwarves at the edge of Mirkwood; in the same section of the Silmarillion it says "the Council...put forth their strength; and they assailed Dol Guldur, and drove Sauron from his hold". It also says so in the last chapter of The Hobbit. For those who haven't read the books, Mithrandir is the Elvish name for Gandalf, and the Council is the White Council, consisting (at that time) of Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel, and perhaps others. Oh, and Wylantern, interesting point about the Ringwraith's clothes. In the book, it says that Frodo "was able to see beneath their black wrappings", and describes what they look like (which is exactly as they appear in the film). However, it's not made clear whether their clothes are invisible, or just hidden by their cloaks.