Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 04:29 AM	Does anyone know if any Dungeons & Dragons stats have been made for Tolkien's various characters, officially or unofficially (perhaps in some earlier thread)? If not, why don't we start posting the stats here. It could be any character, high or low, but you should probably have extensive knowledge of Tolkien's works before you do it.
celtredleg 04-15-06, 09:46 AM	There have been a number of threads, almost always ending in flamewars, as many are vary passionate about the subject. A big problem is the difference between the movies and the books. People who have only read the books, tend to think of the charecters as much lower power. people who have also read the books tend to have a much differnet and higher opinion of the PC power. The problem is that without the background, its hard to understand why more spells are not cast. GAndalf throws very few spells, and so is sometimes stated as low as a 5th level soc. Others realize his is a planer agent with vast powers that he can only unleash at specific times. As the Balrog of moria is the original of the Balors, it seems a bit odd that a 5th level soc. could kill it in hand to hand, yet that is what happened. Middle earth does not translate well into DnD terms. It just isnt set up to be the same. It was not written with that sort of thing in mind. I also get the impresion that many people cant stand the idea that their are charecters out there with more power than the ones from thier favorite setting. FR seems to be especialy bad about this. Not that all people who play that are that way, but there is a very strident minority. So you are warned. I think it is an interesting idea, but so often it ends badly.
Rivelstraz 04-15-06, 10:08 AM	Before starting with D&D, I used to DM and play the LOTR game. I had a book with the stats of all characters. Now, LOTR characters went from level 1 to 10, while in Rolemaster, they could go up to 60. Gandalf is level 60(180), Eowyn is 8 and 24 after defeating the Witch King, and Sauron was level 240 if I remember correctly.
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 01:30 PM	There have been a number of threads, almost always ending in flamewars, as many are vary passionate about the subject. A big problem is the difference between the movies and the books. People who have only read the books, tend to think of the charecters as much lower power. people who have also read the books tend to have a much differnet and higher opinion of the PC power. The problem is that without the background, its hard to understand why more spells are not cast. GAndalf throws very few spells, and so is sometimes stated as low as a 5th level soc. Others realize his is a planer agent with vast powers that he can only unleash at specific times. As the Balrog of moria is the original of the Balors, it seems a bit odd that a 5th level soc. could kill it in hand to hand, yet that is what happened. Middle earth does not translate well into DnD terms. It just isnt set up to be the same. It was not written with that sort of thing in mind. I also get the impresion that many people cant stand the idea that their are charecters out there with more power than the ones from thier favorite setting. FR seems to be especialy bad about this. Not that all people who play that are that way, but there is a very strident minority. So you are warned. I think it is an interesting idea, but so often it ends badly. celtredleg, you make a lot of very good points. Even in general, character power levels in fictional works is a much debated subject, and fans tend to disagree who is stronger than who. However, stating Gandalf as low as level 5 borders on the absurd. He is a Maia, an immortal spirit who has taken on flesh. He would be way above that. Level 12 is about the lowest I could think of for him, and even that is stretching it. I realize a sorcerer on high level would probably know more spells than we see Gandalf use, but I think that is because the Dungeons & Dragon magic system does not work well for Middle-Earth. Also, the Istari (Wizards) were under strict rules on how they were allowed to use their magic. Therefore, they often appeared much weaker than was actually the case.
celtredleg 04-15-06, 02:19 PM	I quite agree that the power of the istari are very high. But then I am firmly in the books are great and the charecters are very powerful camp. I tend to think of Gandalf at around 30-45th level. Gimli and Boromir at around 10th. Aragorn maybe 15th level or so. But of course those numbers are just my ideas. And I am certain somebody will tell me how wrong I am about them. The comment about Gandalf as a 5th level was made by somebody in another one of these threads a while back.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 02:31 PM	However, stating Gandalf as low as level 5 borders on the absurd. This goes back to a very old issue of Dragon (issue #5, IIRC), where someone said that Gandalf didn't need to be any higher than a 5th level magic-user. The author of this article went through all of the magical effects that Gandalf produced, and argued that all of them could be performed by (something similar to) a spell of no higher than 3rd level. (So actually, if you want to make him a sorcerer, he'd have to be 6th level. This was back when there was only one magic-user.) There are a number of things to keep in mind. First, this argument was made way back when D&D first came out. The rules were very different from 3.5, so you didn't have official rules for monsters taking classes, there was no "level adjustment", and so forth. Second, 5th level may not seem powerful now, but it was pretty decent back in the day (we're getting spoiled by munchkins). Third, perhaps most importantly, power is relative. Being a 5th level magic-user is powerful is everyone else is 1st level, with perhaps a few heroes at 2nd level. And balrogs don't have to be 20 CR to be fearsome opponents (again, assuming everyone else is 1st level or thereabouts). Fourth, as celtredleg said, LotR doesn't translate well into D&D terms. What that article was doing was saying that Gandalf didn't need to be any more than a 5th level magic-user in order to cast the spells he cast in the books. The fact that a 5th level magic-user wasn't good at hand-to-hand combat and was unable to use a sword is due to game balance, but Gandalf was able to do so. But (using the old D&D rules that this author was going by) that can be accomplished by having him dual-class as fighter. Using the 3.5 rules, however, things become very different. You'd just need some sort of maia stats, and give him spell-like abilities. And if you're gonna use the CR 20 balor as a balrog, then sure, you'll need to make Gandalf high level. Either way, I doubt Tolkien would have liked forcing his characters into these sorts of pigeon holes.
Pandaemoni 04-15-06, 02:38 PM	However, stating Gandalf as low as level 5 borders on the absurd. He is a Maia, an immortal spirit who has taken on flesh. Really though, all that means, in game terms, is that he likely had lots of racial hit dice, not that he was a high level sorcerer. Gandalf would be hard to stat out because his powers are not well defined in D&D mechanical terms. In some ways, he was like a high-level expert or bard with lots of knowledge skills and languages.
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 04:24 PM	This goes back to a very old issue of Dragon (issue #5, IIRC), where someone said that Gandalf didn't need to be any higher than a 5th level magic-user. The author of this article went through all of the magical effects that Gandalf produced, and argued that all of them could be performed by (something similar to) a spell of no higher than 3rd level. (So actually, if you want to make him a sorcerer, he'd have to be 6th level. This was back when there was only one magic-user.) There are a number of things to keep in mind. First, this argument was made way back when D&D first came out. The rules were very different from 3.5, so you didn't have official rules for monsters taking classes, there was no "level adjustment", and so forth. Second, 5th level may not seem powerful now, but it was pretty decent back in the day (we're getting spoiled by munchkins). Third, perhaps most importantly, power is relative. Being a 5th level magic-user is powerful is everyone else is 1st level, with perhaps a few heroes at 2nd level. And balrogs don't have to be 20 CR to be fearsome opponents (again, assuming everyone else is 1st level or thereabouts). Fourth, as celtredleg said, LotR doesn't translate well into D&D terms. What that article was doing was saying that Gandalf didn't need to be any more than a 5th level magic-user in order to cast the spells he cast in the books. The fact that a 5th level magic-user wasn't good at hand-to-hand combat and was unable to use a sword is due to game balance, but Gandalf was able to do so. But (using the old D&D rules that this author was going by) that can be accomplished by having him dual-class as fighter. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and it does not truly bother me that someone wrote that in an article. I understand now that the point had to do with what spells we know Gandalf has cast. Thanks for that information, and I do agree that as far as the spells go, level 3 spells would probably suffice. However, he displays a rather wide range of other skills, particularly knowledge skills (because he is probably the single best concellors the good guys have during LotR. There aren't many skills that are useful in Middle-Earth that he does not have at least some idea on how to use. He has sneaked into Dol Guldūr, meaning he probably has some stealth related skills. He has also displayed quite a bit of skills in negotiations with the leaders of the free peoples, suggesting quite a bit of Diplomacy. I would also give him a rather high rank in the Sense Motive skill. All of this cost skill points, and I do think it would require that he have spent a much higher total of skill points than any level 5 character could have earned. Btw, I was also thinking about him dual-classing as a fighter, and perhaps that would be a good solution. Using the 3.5 rules, however, things become very different. You'd just need some sort of maia stats, and give him spell-like abilities. And if you're gonna use the CR 20 balor as a balrog, then sure, you'll need to make Gandalf high level. I agree there would have to be special Maia abilities and powers, but his level would still have to be high enough that he could buy a rather wide range of skills (see above). Either way, I doubt Tolkien would have liked forcing his characters into these sorts of pigeon holes. No doubt you are right there.
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 04:31 PM	I quite agree that the power of the istari are very high. But then I am firmly in the books are great and the charecters are very powerful camp. Well, the books are the most canon source when it comes to LotR, so I am with you. I tend to think of Gandalf at around 30-45th level. Gimli and Boromir at around 10th. Aragorn maybe 15th level or so. But of course those numbers are just my ideas. And I am certain somebody will tell me how wrong I am about them. The comment about Gandalf as a 5th level was made by somebody in another one of these threads a while back. I wouldn't put Gandalf quite as high as you do. Level 18-25 would probably be something like where I'd put him (at least in the form we see in LotR, since Olorin in his youth in Valinor is another matter). Yoda and the Emperor in Star Wars are both of a D20 level of 20, and I'd put Gandalf as roughly their skill and power equivalent in LotR. I agree about Aragorn, Gimli and Boromir, though. If we talk about characters from The Silmarillion I believe their levels would be higher. Feanor is very formidable and would deserve a very high level (higher than Gandalf, probably, although that is debatable). The Valar, however, would be extreme. I could easily picture them in the level 50-100 range.
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 04:36 PM	Really though, all that means, in game terms, is that he likely had lots of racial hit dice, not that he was a high level sorcerer. Gandalf would be hard to stat out because his powers are not well defined in D&D mechanical terms. In some ways, he was like a high-level expert or bard with lots of knowledge skills and languages. You are right, being an immortal spirit made flesh means only that in game terms, per se (plus, maybe, better chances of returning from death, which is a complicated subject when it comes to Maiar). However, someone who knows what Maiar are in Arda, they know they are very powerful, second only to the Valar (and Eru, obviously, but defining a divine being like that in game stats is at best very hard, at worst blasphemous).
Grunj 04-15-06, 04:49 PM	I remember somebody online making a compelling case that Gandalf was better described as a paladin than a wizard, given the majority of his activities in the novel. The most powerful spell he cast was the beam of light he fired at the Nazgul during the siege of Gondor. Sounds like searing ray to me. I'd stat him as a CR 20ish celestial with some levels of paladin included as well as wizard.
celtredleg 04-15-06, 04:56 PM	So what is your take on the Nazgul?? I usualy do them as either a sort of lich, or deathknight, depending on what they where in life. Of course only a few are mentioned by name or occupation.
Darth Angelus 04-15-06, 05:05 PM	So what is your take on the Nazgul?? I usualy do them as either a sort of lich, or deathknight, depending on what they where in life. Of course only a few are mentioned by name or occupation. I guess I'd have them be roughly level 13-20 (near 20 for Witch-King, less for the lesser ones). I am not too familiar with undead in D&D, but I think lich or death knight sounds pretty good. EDIT: Where do I read about lich and death knights in D&D, by the way? I gotta go. Be back tomorrow.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 05:21 PM	However, he displays a rather wide range of other skills, particularly knowledge skills (because he is probably the single best concellors the good guys have during LotR. There aren't many skills that are useful in Middle-Earth that he does not have at least some idea on how to use. He has sneaked into Dol Guldūr, meaning he probably has some stealth related skills. He has also displayed quite a bit of skills in negotiations with the leaders of the free peoples, suggesting quite a bit of Diplomacy. I would also give him a rather high rank in the Sense Motive skill. All of this cost skill points, and I do think it would require that he have spent a much higher total of skill points than any level 5 character could have earned. Yeah, totally understandable. But also keep in mind that the skills you describe are a d20 phenomenon. Back in earlier editions diplomacy was a matter of roleplaying, not rolling dice. I'm not saying there's no roleplaying in d20, just that it was all roleplaying in older editions. As for his sneaking into places, an invisibility spell could help him there. So again, 5th level magic-user is reasonable for OD&D. 5th level "human" wizard may not be sufficient in 3.5.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 05:24 PM	So what is your take on the Nazgul?? I usualy do them as either a sort of lich, or deathknight, depending on what they where in life. Of course only a few are mentioned by name or occupation. Just on another interesting historical note, in the original Chainmail (the progenitor of D&D), they gave stats for wraiths, and suggested they be used for Nazgul. In the original D&D boxed set, they said to use spectres instead. :)
celtredleg 04-15-06, 08:05 PM	Just on another interesting historical note, in the original Chainmail (the progenitor of D&D), they gave stats for wraiths, and suggested they be used for Nazgul. In the original D&D boxed set, they said to use spectres instead. :) I remember old chainmail, and also the strategic review. I dont remember the reference to that nazgul however. By the time I started DnD both greyhawk and blackmoor where out, and eldritch wizardry was just about to come out. I do remeber balrogs being balrogs, and as I recall, they had 10 hd. But as then there where max limits to all classes for HD, 10 was a lot. So a fighter 5/ mage5 would not be a bad call for that time. And considering his age, yes human is very not apropriate.
Stardrake 04-15-06, 08:30 PM	One of the first (if not THE first) person to say that Gandalf worked out to a 5th-level MU (they called 'em magic-users back then) was E. Gary Gygax himself. it was a small part of his argument that Tolkien wasn't much of an influence on D&D--Middle Earth was, in essence, too wimpy! Give him Cimmeria, Lankhmar, or The Dying Earth any day....and he had a point that D&D and Tolkien don't mix well.
Rico_Huerta 04-15-06, 08:45 PM	I wouldn't say Middle-Earth is wimpy, i would say that it seems somewhat weaker only because it was not designed as a game, but a story. It wasn't meant to be something to put into stats it was meant to interest and entertain the mind. Therefore Tolkien didn't create Uber characters but characters that fit his story. Gandalf didn't use much magic because Tolkien probably said to himself "You know, I don't WANT him to use magic here...I want him to whip this band of orcs with a sword...because that appeals to me...and shows that Gandalf ain't no wimp." This means Tolkien was not just a storyteller, but an overpowering DM...or a powerful jedi who convinced Gandalf his sword was better. ( No offense meant, I love Tolkien's works). I could see a gaming session: Gandalf's player: I use meteor storm and blast all those stupid orcs!" Tolkien : Nope, use the sword. Gandalf: (trancelike) Nevermind...I think, myself being a lvl5 sorcerer, I can take a band of over 100 orcs with my great combat skills... Tolkien: Good, now fall off a cliff.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 11:17 PM	I wouldn't say Middle-Earth is wimpy, i would say that it seems somewhat weaker only because it was not designed as a game, but a story. It wasn't meant to be something to put into stats it was meant to interest and entertain the mind. Therefore Tolkien didn't create Uber characters but characters that fit his story. Howard, Lieber, Vance, etc, also wrote stories. They weren't writing for D&D because D&D didn't exist yet. The point was just that Tolkien wasn't much of an influence on the game. In fact, the only reason things like balrogs, hobbits, ents, and so forth were put into the original game was because tons of people wanted to use the rules to play out LotR, so Gygax/Arneson just threw them a bone.
celtredleg 04-15-06, 11:34 PM	Not really true. The Middle earth stuff was in the first editions of DnD, when there where not tones of people playing. In fact there where very few people playing. When I bought my first set of DnD, only 6000 sets total had been printed, who knows how many had been actualy sold. As for it not haveing an influence, pure crap. Gygax was haveing sour grapes because he had gotten sued and lost of hobbits and ents and balrogs. Sure there where other influences as well, certainly a lot of them. All the authors listed had writen good stuff that certainly effected how the game came out. Even the title. If dungeons and DRAGONS doesnt bring up images of Smaug laying waste to dale, I dont believe you where paying attention. It is much easier for Gygax to deny it in an interview than it is for him to wipe the references from the original materiel.
caeruleus 04-16-06, 12:52 AM	Not really true. The Middle earth stuff was in the first editions of DnD, when there where not tones of people playing. In fact there where very few people playing. When I bought my first set of DnD, only 6000 sets total had been printed, who knows how many had been actualy sold. These requests were coming in before the game was published. Gygax and Arneson used to share their notes with other wargamers across the nation. As for it not haveing an influence, pure crap. Gygax was haveing sour grapes because he had gotten sued and lost of hobbits and ents and balrogs. Sure there where other influences as well, certainly a lot of them. All the authors listed had writen good stuff that certainly effected how the game came out. Even the title. If dungeons and DRAGONS doesnt bring up images of Smaug laying waste to dale, I dont believe you where paying attention. It is much easier for Gygax to deny it in an interview than it is for him to wipe the references from the original materiel. It was certainly an influence. But not as major an influence as most people make out. And it's not just Gygax's comments; looking at the original game, it should be clear that other authors were a much bigger influence. And it was Gygax's wife who came up with the name "Dungeons & Dragons", mainly because of the aliteration providing a catchy phrase rather than because of any reference to Smaug.
celtredleg 04-16-06, 01:41 AM	I will certainly buy the others as very influencial. The standard adventurer group certainly lloked a lot more like a conan story than middle earth, at least as regards encounters. But the mixed group of different classes looks a lot more tolkien than howard or lieber. As regards other wargamers, sure there was some contarct. After all TSR had arguably the best WWII armour game out at the time, Tractics. I was playing Napoleonics with a TSR system named Tricolar. And the predeseser to dragon, the strategic review was somewhat regularly published. I first heard about DnD in a regular wargamers magazine, the wargamers digest. I had (supposedly) the third largest wargame club in the state, as a 15 year old knuclehead. Of course that was by Ken McCoy, editer and Publisher of the Wargamers digest. I always suspected that there where more large clubs out there somewhere that did not contact anybody else, but who really knows. So my rambling point is that there where not really tons of wargamers of any stripe back then. We where rather thin on the ground, and the links between us where weak at best. I dont doubt that Gygax had people asking him to put in LotR stuff. But, you never really heard him claiming that it did not have an influence until after the law suit. My BSometer has never bought that one. That other things had more is certainly possible, and might even be true. But I have always wondered if fritz lieber or Jack Vance had sued TSR as well, would he also have denied that they had any influence??? Question, as you seem to have a good grasp on the early history, did Moorcock and Howards desendants sue also?? I dont remember hearing about it, but the Elric stuff and the Coana stuff certainly disapeared faast. Perhaps they only threatened?? Or did TSR wise up and realize that copywrite applied to them as well??
Solaris 04-16-06, 01:48 AM	My BSometer has never bought that one.Agreed. did Moorcock and Howards desendants sue also?? I dont remember hearing about it, but the Elric stuff and the Coana stuff certainly disapeared faast. Perhaps they only threatened?? Or did TSR wise up and realize that copywrite applied to them as well?? See here for the sad story (link would be broken by the stupid "you are leaving" redirect, so you'll have to copy/paste): http://users.rcn.com/aardy/faq/rgfdfaq4.html#E8That's about the removal of Moorcock's and Lovecraft's material from Deities & Demigods. I don't know anything about any issues with Howard's stuff, though; there were a couple of Conan modules made for AD&D, presumably under license. Perhaps the Hyborean stuff from Gods, Demigods, & Heroes just didn't make the cut to AD&D.
darth_borehd 04-16-06, 02:48 AM	I've read the books and watched the extended version of the movies about 30 time each. I've thought about their equivalent D&D levels too. This is what i came up with. Aragorn: 13th level ranger/3rd level bard (You could substitute noble for bard if you want to borrow the class from Star Wars/Dragonlance) Gimli: 7th level Fighter/9th level Dwarven Defender Legolas: 7th level Fighter/2nd level elf paragon/7th level Order of the Bow Initiate (Deepwood Sniper from Masters of the Wild would fit better, but it was never converted to 3.5) Merry & Pippin: 7th level Rogues Boromir: 8th level Fighter/6th Level Barbarian Frodo: 5th level aristocrat/2nd level rogue (or you can substitute noble for aristocrat like above) Samwise: 2nd level Fighter/1st level Barbarian/4th level expert Gandalf the White: half-celestial 20th level Abjurer (prohibited schools: evocation/conjuration) (effectively half-celestial while on Middle Earth, reduce by 5 levels for Gandalf the Grey) Nazgul: Dread wraiths with damage reduction 15/good or fire or females :D
DwarfPcfan 04-16-06, 11:44 AM	Not to get into a massive debate but rather then giving them insane levels and calling into prestige classes, i'd rather think that they gained levels as the story progressed. Gandalf: half-celestial sorcerer 8/exalted arcanist 4 special access to all light spells of appropriate level. Becomes a half-celestial sorcerer 10/exalted arcanist 8 his spell list contains no spells with blatant effects like summon monster etc. The deadly Helms Deep Trio follow this progression after Helm's Deep Aragorn: fighter 4/ranger4, he becomes a fighter5/ranger6/marshall3/legendary commander 5 Legolas: Ranger 3/ fighter 4 becomes ranger 3/fighter6/ darkwood stalker 10 Gimli: Fighter 8 becomes fighter 19, favors power attack, critical hits, takes the dwarven fighter substitutions except for the level dealing with giants. He takes the roll with it feat three times to get damage reduction 6/- The two knightly hobbits follow this progression Merry rogue 3 becomes rogue 5/ fighter 6 Pepin rogue 3 becomes rogue 5/fighter 6 They basically are much the same in therm of stats even if they split during the story The ring bearers follow straight progression from beginning to end Frodo rogue2/fighter3 ends up rogue 9/fighter6 Sam rogue 2/expert 1 ends up rogue5/expert3/fighter6 Emphasison steatlh and hidding That's my opinion anyway...
celtredleg 04-16-06, 11:56 AM	Great posts, but I think sam got a bit more deadly than he is generaly credited with. Ths is great, I dont believe a thread of this type has ever gooten this far without flames breaking out. This is outstanding. As for DR 20/women...got to disagree. That Numenorian dagger basicly turned him back to mortal. Very much like in "The Mummy". Just not as well explianed. And that dagger through the bad of the knee just had to hurt, which is good, I dont like the idea of Angmar getting off without horrid pain.
Witch 04-16-06, 12:03 PM	I think "woman" didn't actually matter. It was just prophecy that a woman would kill him, eventually. That doesn't mean that it's because she's a woman.
celtredleg 04-16-06, 12:17 PM	I agree Witch. It is just like Macbeth. Both bad guys heard the profacies anf thought it meant that they were not going to get the chop. So one gets it from a dude that was delivered ceasarian, and the other got whacked by a hobbit and a woman. Imagine thier surprise.
Chosen01 04-16-06, 12:42 PM	Does anyone know if any Dungeons & Dragons stats have been made for Tolkien's various characters, officially or unofficially (perhaps in some earlier thread)? If not, why don't we start posting the stats here. It could be any character, high or low, but you should probably have extensive knowledge of Tolkien's works before you do it. Check out the Faces of Middle-earth (http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=47). The author is also a member of the Dicefreaks development team that made The Gates of Hell (http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=88) (Check out that as well, if you haven’t yet already). Both are free and fan-made but nonetheless are remarkably well made.
Zevox 04-16-06, 02:13 PM	This has been debated to death across these boards (literally - I've seen it come up on the minis and FR boards as well as this one), and the flat answer is that theres no way to determine it precisely, its always going to differ based on your perspective. Gandalf and the other Maiar like Sauron, the Balrog, and Saruman (as well as magically inclined Elves such as Elrond or Galadriel and other magical beings like the Nazgūl) especially simply do not translate at all into D&D since magic worked far differently in Arda than in any D&D setting. Personally, I'd put the fellowship at something like this: Frodo - Commoner 1. Picks up two levels of Ranger by the end of the war. Hes nothing to begin with, but he does have to learn to fight and sneak somewhat effectively to survive. Sam - Expert (Gardener) 1. Picks up a level or two of Fighter by the end of the war. See Frodo, but with less sneaking skill on his part. Merry - Commoner 1. Picks up a level of Fighter by the end of the war. He participates in some battles, but by and large does little throughout to gain any combat skills. Pippin - Commoner 1. Picks up two levels of Fighter by the end of the war. Participation in the battle at the Moranon and killing a Troll there means hes more skilled at combat than Merry, but still not highly skilled (the kill was mostly a fluke after all). Boromir - Fighter 10. He spent a lot of his life training as a warrior and fighting off Sauron's forces at Osgiliath, Andiun, and Ithilien. Gimli - Fighter 12. Hes a typical Dwarf - very much so skilled with that axe, and given his likely age I'd say hes definitely a better warrior than Boromir. Legolas - Ranger 13. Hes an Elf prince from Mirkwood - not only is he guaranteed to be the oldest in the group, but he'd have to be highly skilled given the circumstances under which his people live. Even so, being the peace-loving people Elves generally are (or at least prefering interludes as large as they do between major battles) hes not likely as skilled as Aragorn. Aragorn - Ranger 15+. The man is 87 years old when the whole thing starts, and he certainly hasn't been idle for most of that. Even with the slight hints at his exploits in the glossaries of The Return of the King its clear hes been through a lot, and equally clear that survival skills are as much his alley as combat ones (honestly, this is the guy the Ranger class is based off of - he can hardly be anything but). Gandalf - Does not translate. Would have a DvR of at least 4 if you absolutely had to - the Maiar are effectively lesser Gods in Arda, and it is said that he is one of the more powerful of them. He simply does not use all his abilities due to the combination of the orders of the Valar and being stuck in a mortal body (literally - Unfinished Tales reveals that its not one he created, its one he inhabited, originally that of a man who fell into the trance of the Enchanted Isles). Zevox
Darkxarth 04-16-06, 02:24 PM	I agree with Zevox, with maybe a little different about Gandalf. I'm not saying he's wrong, I just have a little to add. Gandalf would have Enchantment, some Illusion, and a few Abjuration/Conjuration spells. He's almost definitely an Epic character, unless you give him some Divine Rank, which I would put at 0-2. Mostly Wizard (duh!), some levels of Fighter (he wields Glamdring very efficiently), and possibly (just maybe) a few Paladin or Cleric levels. He is, after all, sent by the Valar to combat Sauron, so it is possible that he would have some divine spells. Or he could just have DvR himself, as Zevos said. Other than that, I agree totally with Zevox.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:34 PM	If you want to stat Gandalf out, I think you better use Gestalt. Something like Wizard8/Archivist3/Ranger5 would fit, I think. Stronger as Gandalf the White, and even stranger as Olorin.
caeruleus 04-16-06, 02:42 PM	So my rambling point is that there where not really tons of wargamers of any stripe back then. We where rather thin on the ground, and the links between us where weak at best. I dont doubt that Gygax had people asking him to put in LotR stuff. But, you never really heard him claiming that it did not have an influence until after the law suit. By "tons", I guess I just meant a fairly large portion of those he heard from. At least that's what I recall hearing/reading. I may not have said so, but I agree with your point about Gygax denying influence only after the lawsuit. There does seem to be a certain amount of bitterness there. I agree that there was an influence, I was only saying that it's not as strong as many people make it out to be (which I find happens all to often on these boards). You do not seem to be making it out to be more of an influence than it was, so I think we're in agreement here. :) Question, as you seem to have a good grasp on the early history, did Moorcock and Howards desendants sue also?? I dont remember hearing about it, but the Elric stuff and the Coana stuff certainly disapeared faast. Perhaps they only threatened?? Or did TSR wise up and realize that copywrite applied to them as well?? Solaris's link answers the question regarding Moorcock, but I have a bit more to add. Not too long ago, Moorcock commented on this in the forums on his website. He was happy to let TSR use the Elric mythos, and was quite upset at how Chaosium reacted. Last I heard, he was filing a lawsuit against Chaosium, because thier claims of "copyright" didn't fit the original terms of agreement. I don't know what's happened since. I've not heard anything regarding Howard.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-16-06, 02:49 PM	Personally, I'd peg Gandalf as a straight Paladin. Sure, he could cast spells, but he was excellent at melee combat, and he had a special horse.
Always-Late 04-16-06, 02:51 PM	I agree Witch. It is just like Macbeth. Both bad guys heard the profacies anf thought it meant that they were not going to get the chop. So one gets it from a dude that was delivered ceasarian, and the other got whacked by a hobbit and a woman. Imagine thier surprise.What's done cannot be undone. (I know I saw that in LoTR, somewhere, while I was in the middle of reading Macbeth.)
Witch 04-16-06, 02:53 PM	What's done cannot be undone. (I know I saw that in LoTR, somewhere, while I was in the middle of reading Macbeth.) Or as Rand Al'Thor from Wheel of Time would say: "Everything that is done can be undone".
celtredleg 04-16-06, 02:55 PM	Glad we are more or less in agreement. To completely deny Tolkien is just as absurd as to claim it is the main source. As for the pantheons that were dropped, I wish they would bring them all back, or at least the ones they can. I miss Loviatar, she made a great patron of bad guys. As far as stating it probably not really going to ever be close to what Tolkien would have wanted. But I have a bit of fun seeing what others think, especialy with folks that have more than a small understanding of the source material.
Witch 04-16-06, 02:57 PM	How about we stat out Sauron? =) I'd think it would involve a Druid/Blighter/Paladin of Tyranny
caeruleus 04-16-06, 03:27 PM	How about we stat out Sauron? =) I'd think it would involve a Druid/Blighter/Paladin of Tyranny You're right that he'd be lawful evil. After he lost the Ring and couldn't take physical form, I'd probably give him the ghost template as a rough approximation. Otherwise, I think I'd go with cleric... maybe also sorcerer. Or maybe even ardent/psion, since I really like psionics. :D
caeruleus 04-16-06, 03:31 PM	Going even more off topic... As for the pantheons that were dropped, I wish they would bring them all back, or at least the ones they can. I miss Loviatar, she made a great patron of bad guys. Yeah... I'd like to see that too. I don't care for all the stats in the 3e DDG, but a list of domains, favored weapons, organizational structure, rites, etc, for all those pantheons would be awsome.
Witch 04-16-06, 03:32 PM	You're right that he'd be lawful evil. After he lost the Ring and couldn't take physical form, I'd probably give him the ghost template as a rough approximation. Otherwise, I think I'd go with cleric... maybe also sorcerer. Or maybe even ardent/psion, since I really like psionics. :D Remember that Sauron frequently shapechanged into a wolf :)
Zevox 04-16-06, 05:57 PM	If you really want to be a stickler on Sauron, there is this little passage in The Silmarillion that one could see as being pretty ironic with regards to D&D: Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment. Class and divine portfolios anyone :P ? Of course, I don't think this could honestly be used to say that he works as a Sorcerer in D&D - as I said, magic in general just does not mesh between D&D and Tolkien's world - but the mention of his "dominion" could be used to say what his portfolio as a God was. And if you want to get as close as possible to what he'd be, "master of shadows and phantoms" would indicate a penchant for illusions and necromancies in D&D terms, and "misshaping what he touched" could be linked to a number of classes or spells. The shape-shifting would just be a divine power if you ask me - don't forget that every one of the Ainur could do that (except for Morgoth after putting so much of his power into Shelob and the Balrogs). Sauron just happened to like his wolf form ("master of werewolves" and all that, although werewolves in Tolkien are different from werewolves in D&D). Zevox
Auburn 04-16-06, 06:47 PM	One person I think has suggested this earlier, but I also think Gandalf should have some Ranger levels with his friendship with the Lord of the Eagles and all that. There are two omissions here though that at least to me seem glaring. Anyone want to take a crack at Bilbo (at the end of The Hobbit so there's no age penalties) and and Gollum?
Auburn 04-16-06, 06:49 PM	And Treebead too. I guess all the ents would be druids though so maybe that one is just a matter of how many levels.
Witch 04-16-06, 07:01 PM	One person I think has suggested this earlier, but I also think Gandalf should have some Ranger levels with his friendship with the Lord of the Eagles and all that. There are two omissions here though that at least to me seem glaring. Anyone want to take a crack at Bilbo (at the end of The Hobbit so there's no age penalties) and and Gollum? Yes, I considered Gandalf a ranger for several purposes. 1) Two-weapon fighting. Staff + sword ;) 2) Wilderness Lore and the likes 3) Trackless Step then just the plain skills. Bilbo would probably be an aristocrat2/rogue5. Possibly commoner2/rogue5, even. Gollum I think would be a Barbarian2/Rogue7 or something of the likes.
celtredleg 04-16-06, 07:44 PM	To continue from a few earilier posts, does anybody remember a reference to a ranger in any liturature prior to Aragorn?? I dont, but I may just not be remembering properly. Every reference I have found is to real world military units like Rogers Rangers. There may have been somebody called a ranger in Howard somewhere, But I am not sure. Anybody know for sure??
caeruleus 04-16-06, 11:42 PM	There may have been somebody called a ranger in Howard somewhere, But I am not sure. Anybody know for sure?? He called them borderers. They basically patrolled the borders of Aquilonia, guarding against barbarians (I believe there's a specific reference to them in "Beyond the Black River"), so it's basically the same thing. Howard's borderers predate Tolkien's rangers, but it's Aragorn in particular that directly influenced the D&D ranger (borderers didn't do magic, for example, but Argagorn was able to heal). Hm... actually, maybe I should say that that's what he called them in the Conan stories. I'm not too familiar with his other writings, and for all I know he could have had references to rangers there.
celtredleg 04-17-06, 12:34 AM	He did not have rangers in Kull. I have read some of his other stuff, but dont remeber rangers there either. Honestly, I have not read conan in years.
babysamurai 04-18-06, 05:56 AM	As others have said - the LotR does not trsanslate at all well into D&D, what with things like the "Rangers of the North" being nothing like the "Ranger" of D&D etc. ...but, what the hell: Aragorn, Aristocrat 1/Expert 3/Fighter 6 Legolas, Aristocrat 2/Expert 2/Fighter 4 Gimli, Fighter 5 Boromir, Aristocrat 1/Fighter 4 Frodo, Aristocrat 1 Samwise, Expert 1 Merry, Commoner 1 Pippin, Commoner 1 Gandalf, Celestial - no class levels ...or something...
caeruleus 04-18-06, 01:55 PM	While it's not a perfect translation, I often think of Aragorn as having started off as a ranger, and then later multiclassed into paladin. While rangers have some ability to heal (largely because the class is based on Aragorn, even though it's gone through many changes since then), I nonetheless think the paladin class gives some of the flavor of when he showed up at Minas Tirith, preparing to become king. I agree that Frodo is best described as an aristocrat, but I think Merry and Pippin would also be best described thus. Sam I see as a commoner, who later perhaps multiclassed as warrior. And yeah, Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, etc, should have particular unique outsider stats rather than any class levels.
babysamurai 04-19-06, 10:58 AM	While rangers have some ability to heal (largely because the class is based on Aragorn, even though it's gone through many changes since then) I don't think the "Ranger" class was ever based off of Aragorn; especially the 1st edition one - remember it had access to magic-user spells. Now I don't recall Aragorn zapping people with magic missiles...or casting any spells for that matter, he merely had ranks in Heal. Saying Aragorn has levels in the D&D "Ranger" class is even worse than saying Drizzt has levels in the "Ranger" class, considering neither of them hardly ever emulate any of the "Ranger" class abilities (only Drizzt might use the TWF business): Animal Companion, Spells etc. Now I don't want any Drizzt-Avengers to take offence - he's a fine fantasy character, it's just that anybody who has read the books will probably agree that he's better represented in the D&D rules with a combination of any of the following classes: Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue/Scout.
Rivelstraz 04-19-06, 02:26 PM	Sauron also called himself "The Necromancer" before he was banished from the Dark Forest. And he had to be, at least, a level nine caster in order to get 'forge ring' feat.
caeruleus 04-19-06, 03:31 PM	I don't think the "Ranger" class was ever based off of Aragorn; especially the 1st edition one - remember it had access to magic-user spells. Now I don't recall Aragorn zapping people with magic missiles...or casting any spells for that matter, he merely had ranks in Heal. Aragorn is exactly who it was based on. It wasn't an attempt to recreate Aragorn, but the idea was directly influenced by the character. And you're right that he didn't cast spells. But he did heal (fulfilling the prophecy of the king), and the original D&D ranger was given some healing to emulate that (not necessarily to be identical). Just as Tolkien characters are not well represented by D&D classes, D&D classes were not meant to be exactly like the literary figures they were based on. The barbarian was not exactly like Conan, and the thief was not exactly like the Grey Mouser (in fact, Tunnels & Trolls had a rogue class that they also claimed was based on the Grey Mouser, and it's very different from the D&D thief/rogue - it combined fighting ability with magic ability - because they focused on different aspects of the character). Saying Aragorn has levels in the D&D "Ranger" class is even worse than saying Drizzt has levels in the "Ranger" class, That's why I said it's not a perfect translation. The ranger wears light armor, is good at fighting, knows how to survive in the wild, and can track. That aspect sounds like Aragorn to me, and that's all I meant to capture. It's not like any other class or class combination would be perfect. And I believe the official stats for Drizzt give him one or two ranger levels.
AkaKageWarrior 04-19-06, 04:46 PM	Personally, I'd put the fellowship at something like this: Frodo - Commoner 1. Picks up two levels of Ranger by the end of the war. Hes nothing to begin with, but he does have to learn to fight and sneak somewhat effectively to survive. Sam - Expert (Gardener) 1. Picks up a level or two of Fighter by the end of the war. See Frodo, but with less sneaking skill on his part. Merry - Commoner 1. Picks up a level of Fighter by the end of the war. He participates in some battles, but by and large does little throughout to gain any combat skills. Pippin - Commoner 1. Picks up two levels of Fighter by the end of the war. Participation in the battle at the Moranon and killing a Troll there means hes more skilled at combat than Merry, but still not highly skilled (the kill was mostly a fluke after all). Boromir - Fighter 10. He spent a lot of his life training as a warrior and fighting off Sauron's forces at Osgiliath, Andiun, and Ithilien. Gimli - Fighter 12. Hes a typical Dwarf - very much so skilled with that axe, and given his likely age I'd say hes definitely a better warrior than Boromir. Legolas - Ranger 13. Hes an Elf prince from Mirkwood - not only is he guaranteed to be the oldest in the group, but he'd have to be highly skilled given the circumstances under which his people live. Even so, being the peace-loving people Elves generally are (or at least prefering interludes as large as they do between major battles) hes not likely as skilled as Aragorn. Aragorn - Ranger 15+. The man is 87 years old when the whole thing starts, and he certainly hasn't been idle for most of that. Even with the slight hints at his exploits in the glossaries of The Return of the King its clear hes been through a lot, and equally clear that survival skills are as much his alley as combat ones (honestly, this is the guy the Ranger class is based off of - he can hardly be anything but). Gandalf - Does not translate. Would have a DvR of at least 4 if you absolutely had to - the Maiar are effectively lesser Gods in Arda, and it is said that he is one of the more powerful of them. He simply does not use all his abilities due to the combination of the orders of the Valar and being stuck in a mortal body (literally - Unfinished Tales reveals that its not one he created, its one he inhabited, originally that of a man who fell into the trance of the Enchanted Isles). Zevox great post! Although I would add some levels to all of them. Remember Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli following the Urug-Hai which had kidnapped the Hobbits? That's almost epic I'd say, running for some days, and fast-tracking. (both book and movie) Or a scene from the movie, the battle of Minas Tirith when Legolas climbs an Oliphant with climb/tumble/balance checks DC>50... So I'd say Aragon and Legolas are epic, Gimli almost: Aragon: neutral good Ranger 15, Fighter 10 and yes, he's the archetype ranger! Legolas: lawful good* Ranger 15, "Something" 10 that gives him feats for longbow and tumble/balance as class skills. *yes, lawful good, I'd say the LOTR elves are rather lawful. Gimli: "grouchy" good Fighter 18 Anyway, it's ashame that Tolkien didn't have access to 3v5 when writing LOTR... ;) so some 3v5 class features never appear! just my 2 coppers, AKW
celtredleg 04-19-06, 06:09 PM	A comment on Aragorn as the insperation for the ranger class. If not him, then who??? I can find no earlier charecter called a ranger. And lots of them after him. But I am willing to hear an alternate candidate, but have not heared one yet. Especialy not one flat called a ranger.
caeruleus 04-19-06, 06:17 PM	A comment on Aragorn as the insperation for the ranger class. If not him, then who??? I can find no earlier charecter called a ranger. And lots of them after him. But I am willing to hear an alternate candidate, but have not heared one yet. Especialy not one flat called a ranger. The LotR influence also explains why rangers had to be good in previous editions (or "Lawful" when it first appeared the The Stretegic Review... this is when there were only three alignments, and Lawful just meant "good"). I'm glad they removed that alignment restriction in 3e, but it makes sense if it's based on Tolkien's rangers.
celtredleg 04-19-06, 08:13 PM	The LotR influence also explains why rangers had to be good in previous editions (or "Lawful" when it first appeared the The Stretegic Review... this is when there were only three alignments, and Lawful just meant "good"). I'm glad they removed that alignment restriction in 3e, but it makes sense if it's based on Tolkien's rangers. :lightbulb . :embarrass While I have always considered Aragorn the model for the ranger, it just never ever clicked for me as to why the had to be good. That has sat around in my brain for 30 years, and I had the answer all along. Talk about feeliong like a knuclehead. Thank you good sir, you have answered one of lifes great mysterys for me. And I am even more convinced that Aragorn had to have been the basic ranger.
caeruleus 04-19-06, 09:28 PM	Thank you good sir, you have answered one of lifes great mysterys for me. No thanks are needed. I'm a professional philosopher, it's all in a day's work. :cool: I'm kidding around. Glad that my comment helped.
babysamurai 04-20-06, 05:04 AM	Although I would add some levels to all of them. Remember Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli following the Urug-Hai which had kidnapped the Hobbits? That's almost epic I'd say, running for some days, and fast-tracking. (both book and movie) Or a scene from the movie, the battle of Minas Tirith when Legolas climbs an Oliphant with climb/tumble/balance checks DC>50... So I'd say Aragon and Legolas are epic, Gimli almost: Aragon: neutral good Ranger 15, Fighter 10 and yes, he's the archetype ranger! Legolas: lawful good* Ranger 15, "Something" 10 that gives him feats for longbow and tumble/balance as class skills. *yes, lawful good, I'd say the LOTR elves are rather lawful. Gimli: "grouchy" good Fighter 18 I don't understand why people attribute such high levels to the Fellowship. If you think about the characters (save Gandalf) and their abilties in the books - your average D&D party of 4 characters at level 7+ (with the insane abilites thereof) would wipe them easily. Do you really think the Fellowship, without ol' Gandy, could stand up against a Cleric 7, Fighter 7, Rogue 7, and a Wizard 7...no, they would die...quickly.
AkaKageWarrior 04-20-06, 08:09 AM	I don't understand why people attribute such high levels to the Fellowship. If you think about the characters (save Gandalf) and their abilties in the books - your average D&D party of 4 characters at level 7+ (with the insane abilites thereof) would wipe them easily. Do you really think the Fellowship, without ol' Gandy, could stand up against a Cleric 7, Fighter 7, Rogue 7, and a Wizard 7...no, they would die...quickly. why that? Aragon, Legolas and Gimli seem to be the best warriors in the book (and the movie). and IMO you can't really bring in standard D&D spellcasters to compare. and I was not only thinking of the combat abilities. (but that again, comes more from the movies...) AKW
babysamurai 04-20-06, 09:04 AM	why that? Aragon, Legolas and Gimli seem to be the best warriors in the book (and the movie). Only Aragorn is stated as being the "hardiest of men", it never states that Legolas was the best Elven Warrior and like-wise for Gimli. I don't know for what reason they decided to make Legolas a Quasi-Deitiy in the film, and Gimli a laughing stock...but that's a conversation for another thread. The only Middle-Earth characters I would put past 10th level are 1st/2nd age characters (Thingol, Gil-Galad etc). The Istari I would classify as Outsiders.
AkaKageWarrior 04-20-06, 09:09 AM	okay, and then comes the question: what are levels in real life anyway? so everyone has his own philosophy. but I admit that I'm much more influenced by the movie, it was all so shiny and bright, ya know? ;) AKW
celtredleg 04-20-06, 10:15 AM	I don't understand why people attribute such high levels to the Fellowship. If you think about the characters (save Gandalf) and their abilties in the books - your average D&D party of 4 characters at level 7+ (with the insane abilites thereof) would wipe them easily. Do you really think the Fellowship, without ol' Gandy, could stand up against a Cleric 7, Fighter 7, Rogue 7, and a Wizard 7...no, they would die...quickly. And I dont understand why some people want to put them at insanely low levels. It is modeled off of a real world not a DnD setting. Everybody gets better at what they do, not judst people who kill stuff. And practice is a great way to get better. Not an argument that needs to be ran in this thread, but if you think that a 7th level party is the best in the wiorld, must be a pretty crappy world. And there does not seem to be any real justification for it besides them not haveing any DnD style feats. Or class abilities. And again, it was not written with that sort of thing in mind. It was not written to be a blow by blow account of combat. The high skill moves are there, just not commented on. After all, everybody knew what a combat vetern looked like, at that time in england most adult males where vets themselves. Including Tolkien.
babysamurai 04-20-06, 10:31 AM	but if you think that a 7th level party is the best in the wiorld, must be a pretty crappy world. I never said that. I'm just saying that compared to your average 7th level D&D party (or 5th level for that matter) the Fellowship sucks ass. And of course we all know that the book was not written with any kind of game mechanics in mind (thank god).
celtredleg 04-20-06, 10:50 AM	I just dont see where boromir takeing out all those orcs makes him low leve, especialy as some of them where uruk-hai. Unless you call all orcs 1th level, which considering some of the other stuff going on is most likely incorrect. Try this one. A basic US army infantryman is 10th level. WHAT??? How on earth do you figure that!!!!! Well in DnD AC 10 is only hit 50% of the time by a 1st level fighter at close range. Yet the infantryman has to hit close targets 100% of the time, or he doesnt get out of basic. So he needs a +10 to hit. And as he is just a basic grunt, he does not have a super dex, so he was to get that from class levels. See, its easy. Of course, they probably are not 10 level any more than they are 1st. It is just the DnD idea that all basic troops have to be 1st level that is wrong. 1st levelers cant do most of the tasks a real basic troop needs. And of course if the basic guy is higher level, then it follows that people than can just mow them down are muh higher level. Have to go to work but will continue.
babysamurai 04-20-06, 11:00 AM	I just dont see where boromir takeing out all those orcs makes him low leve, especialy as some of them where uruk-hai. Unless you call all orcs 1th level, which considering some of the other stuff going on is most likely incorrect. Try this one. A basic US army infantryman is 10th level. WHAT??? How on earth do you figure that!!!!! Well in DnD AC 10 is only hit 50% of the time by a 1st level fighter at close range. Yet the infantryman has to hit close targets 100% of the time, or he doesnt get out of basic. So he needs a +10 to hit. And as he is just a basic grunt, he does not have a super dex, so he was to get that from class levels. See, its easy. Of course, they probably are not 10 level any more than they are 1st. It is just the DnD idea that all basic troops have to be 1st level that is wrong. 1st levelers cant do most of the tasks a real basic troop needs. And of course if the basic guy is higher level, then it follows that people than can just mow them down are muh higher level. Have to go to work but will continue. Well, we can certainly agree that: D&D + Realism = Wrong.
caeruleus 04-20-06, 12:26 PM	Well, we can certainly agree that: D&D + Realism = Wrong. Absolutely. I would tend to agree with babysamurai on the levels thing, especially at the start of the books. (I can imagine Aragorn getting up there in levels by the end, though. But I absolutely despise what they did with Legolas and Gimli in the movies. Legolas was just a way of attracting the younger female crowd, and for some reason they always feel a need to have a comedy relief.) The thing is, in D&D terms, certain skills are attached to high levels. But characters in novels (or even real world people in some cases) who can perform those skills (eg, real good diplomacy, swift tracking, whatever) are not necessarily expected to be able to survive, say, a 100 ft fall. But in D&D, those would go together. Also keep in mind that just because a character does something (eg, fight with two weapons), it doesn't mean they're the best possible at doing it, so they don't necessarily have to have all the feats and/or prestige classes found in rulebooks. Try this one. A basic US army infantryman is 10th level. WHAT??? How on earth do you figure that!!!!! Well in DnD AC 10 is only hit 50% of the time by a 1st level fighter at close range. Yet the infantryman has to hit close targets 100% of the time, or he doesnt get out of basic. So he needs a +10 to hit. And as he is just a basic grunt, he does not have a super dex, so he was to get that from class levels. See, its easy. Here's a good example. You say an infantryman has to hit close targets 100% of the time. Well that's impossible in D&D, because a 1 always misses. So that's just one example of how these things don't translate. Also keep in mind that needing to roll a 10 with no modifier gives you a 55% chance of success. A 1st level fighter has a +1 BAB, and I'm sure would average a +1 for Dex. That's a 65%, not too bad. 1st level isn't as wimpy as most make out, especially considering most NPCs have one or two levels in NPC classes. To hit AC 10 the most possible number of times in D&D, you need a +8 (remember a 1 always misses, rolling a 2 hits AC 10 when you have +8). Give a +2 for Dex, +1 for weapon focus, +1 for masterwork weapons (you did say US army, right?), then he only needs a BAB of +4. As babysamurai said, D&D and realism don't mix. However, if you're going to use these examples, it's best to be precise. :)
celtredleg 04-20-06, 04:12 PM	I would argue that the M-16 is far from a masterwork weapon, but yes to the rest. But the +2 for dex sort of moves you out of the random commoner in the militia idea that seems to make up many DnD armys. Another thing that wont fit into DnD is the hobbits. They are supposed to be very very stealthy, and yet if you give them very many class levels to show that, they wind up as more powerful than they should be. Gimli and Legolas are two of my iritants from the movie. They were certainly sent to rivendell as reps for thier people and as such should be rather powerful. Legolas comes off in the movies as so good you wonder why they let him come instead of commanding the armys at home, and Gimli is such a dummy you wonder who on earth sent him, and could they not have gotten anybody better?? I got the feeling from the books that they were close togather in abiility, else the rivalry would have been very one sided.
Auburn 04-20-06, 05:51 PM	Not an argument that needs to be ran in this thread, but if you think that a 7th level party is the best in the wiorld, must be a pretty crappy world. That would be the best in the published Eberron Campaign Setting wouldn't it? For the thing about an infantryman: I'll admit I have no idea what the test your describing entails, but my guess would be that they're shooting at targets that are sitting still which does not reflect real world conditions in the real world so in an actual combat situation said person would hit less often. But as I said I don't know the test so I might be wrong.
babysamurai 04-21-06, 04:22 AM	The thing is, in D&D terms, certain skills are attached to high levels. But characters in novels (or even real world people in some cases) who can perform those skills (eg, real good diplomacy, swift tracking, whatever) are not necessarily expected to be able to survive, say, a 100 ft fall. But in D&D, those would go together. Exactly - obviously people like Mozart/Jimi Hendrix/Segovia would have massive ranks in Perform (instrument), but that doesn't mean they would have more than 2 or 3 hp.
celtredleg 04-21-06, 10:09 AM	Not an argument that needs to be ran in this thread, but if you think that a 7th level party is the best in the wiorld, must be a pretty crappy world. That would be the best in the published Eberron Campaign Setting wouldn't it? For the thing about an infantryman: I'll admit I have no idea what the test your describing entails, but my guess would be that they're shooting at targets that are sitting still which does not reflect real world conditions in the real world so in an actual combat situation said person would hit less often. But as I said I don't know the test so I might be wrong. Absolutely in the real world. But in DnD terms, no there is no difference. My point that I dont think I made that well is that real people dont model well in DnD terms.Tolkien charecters largely act like real people, and seem to have skills much like them. In order to get some things right, you go over in others. This is one of the reasons why youget such wide variations on levels. I think that it is very important for the hobbits to be stealthy. So they need several levels in a stealthy class. Others consider different aspects of them, and give them lower levels and NPC classes. Neither of us is completely correct, nor completely wrong. I of course think I am closer to the truth. Others feel they are closer. There is no absolute judge that can decide the issue. I actually feel that Runequest could model the charecters much better as far as skills and abilitys go. However, it does not do a good job on very powerful magic. But then little high level magic is needed to recreate the books. And this is not a RQ forum anyway.
caeruleus 04-21-06, 01:43 PM	Exactly - obviously people like Mozart/Jimi Hendrix/Segovia would have massive ranks in Perform (instrument), but that doesn't mean they would have more than 2 or 3 hp. Good example, I gotta remember that one. :) I of course think I am closer to the truth. Others feel they are closer. I don't think I'm closer to the truth. That's because I couldn't care less about "truth". I just describe what I think works for me. I could change my mind, so it's worth discussing reasons with people, but ultimately there's no reason why the same thing should work for everyone.
celtredleg 04-21-06, 04:05 PM	Yes truth is not the p[roper term when you are discussing a simulation of a work of fiction. :) And it is not like there is a requirement that we all agree anyway. As long as everybody leaves happy, thats cool. I find that by being forced to defend a given position, I learn more about how I think about something than when I just talk to a crowd that agrees with me.
caeruleus 04-21-06, 04:22 PM	Yes truth is not the p[roper term when you are discussing a simulation of a work of fiction. :) Absolutely. Although, as an aside just for what it's worth, when I said I don't care about "truth", I mean in general. I find that by being forced to defend a given position, I learn more about how I think about something than when I just talk to a crowd that agrees with me. That's part of what I'm talking about. By testing things against other people's views, or whatever else, I learn about myself. Most of what we express has to do with ourselves anyway, despite our thinking that we make "objective" claims. But that's because I'm a neo-Kantian (of a post-Darwinian stripe, of course).
celtredleg 04-21-06, 09:46 PM	Everybody viewws the world through the filters of their life experience. Especialy those who dont think they do. You cant turn your filters off, but if you are aware of them, you can compensate. So back to the thread, as I am havein fun with this one, and dont want it to die just yet, what about burliman?? Or even nob ?? Or if you want somebody more powerful, how about old tom?? I would put him as a celestial of a very powerful sort, but aperently a low stat or two somewhere. I would say wis, but that would give him a poor will save, which I dont believe considering his unprecedented save vs the ring.
caeruleus 04-21-06, 10:30 PM	Everybody viewws the world through the filters of their life experience. Especialy those who dont think they do. You cant turn your filters off, but if you are aware of them, you can compensate. So back to the thread, as I am havein fun with this one, and dont want it to die just yet, what about burliman?? Or even nob ?? Or if you want somebody more powerful, how about old tom?? I would put him as a celestial of a very powerful sort, but aperently a low stat or two somewhere. I would say wis, but that would give him a poor will save, which I dont believe considering his unprecedented save vs the ring. Here's a question. Did he make a save, or is he just immune? I always assumed it was the latter. He wasn't interested in power, that's why the ring had no effect on him. And I'm not sure if you can specify that in game terms (but I'm willing to see someone try, and hopefully I'll be surprised).
SolkaTruesilver 04-22-06, 07:05 PM	Why no one think of giving Gandalf the White some Risen Martyr class level? After all, from the PrC description, it fits perfectly speech of Gandalf "I was sent to you, to finish my task". Which is exactly why a Risen Martyr is usually created.. So, I would say the main difference between G the Grey and G the White is about 5-6 level of Risen Martyr.. By the way, I do not accept the idea that Gandalf is somewhat of a demigod in height of power. After all, the Lich King almost got him (in the movie, that is. Maybe in the book?). Even if the Lich King was of great power, he could not have faced a Demigod. So let's go for a Celestial Man, Half-Celestial, or Exalted Arcanist, anything but of divine power.
celtredleg 04-22-06, 08:44 PM	Here's a question. Did he make a save, or is he just immune? I always assumed it was the latter. He wasn't interested in power, that's why the ring had no effect on him. And I'm not sure if you can specify that in game terms (but I'm willing to see someone try, and hopefully I'll be surprised). Actually yes, I would go with imune. Give a peek at his power when he is imune to possibly the most powerful magic item ever. But not so sure that DnD handles things like imunity to any magic you want to be imune to.
celtredleg 04-22-06, 08:53 PM	Why no one think of giving Gandalf the White some Risen Martyr class level? After all, from the PrC description, it fits perfectly speech of Gandalf "I was sent to you, to finish my task". Which is exactly why a Risen Martyr is usually created.. So, I would say the main difference between G the Grey and G the White is about 5-6 level of Risen Martyr.. By the way, I do not accept the idea that Gandalf is somewhat of a demigod in height of power. After all, the Lich King almost got him (in the movie, that is. Maybe in the book?). Even if the Lich King was of great power, he could not have faced a Demigod. So let's go for a Celestial Man, Half-Celestial, or Exalted Arcanist, anything but of divine power. You need to read the books. The movie was OK, but not that close on a lot of things. The correct name is the witchking of angmmar, but you wont hear that in the movie, or enven what the kingdom of angmar was. The divine ranks for Gandalf come from his power in valinor before he was sent to middle earth. He accepted a reduction in aperent power to fly under the radar so to speak. As so many other things, the DnD difference between celestial and divine does not translate well to middle earth. But that is not a big surprise. And you need to read the books because they have so much more to them than what you saw in the movies.
caeruleus 04-22-06, 09:22 PM	The correct name is the witchking of angmmar, but you wont hear that in the movie, or enven what the kingdom of angmar was. The movie had one reference to the Witch-king of Angmar, but no explanation of why he had that name/title. I suppose if someone's not familiar with it, they might hear it as "lich king". The divine ranks for Gandalf come from his power in valinor before he was sent to middle earth. He accepted a reduction in aperent power to fly under the radar so to speak. As so many other things, the DnD difference between celestial and divine does not translate well to middle earth. But that is not a big surprise. Yup. But maybe it's could be something like how deities have avatars that are less powerful than themselves. At least, that's the closest thing I can think of in D&D terms that might match. Why no one think of giving Gandalf the White some Risen Martyr class level? I didn't think of it because I don't give the Book of Exalted Deeds much thought to begin with. Its notions of good/evil are rather simplistic. Although, come to think of it, so are Tolkien's. :P
celtredleg 04-22-06, 10:01 PM	I didnt mean to pick about the witchking. In fact, I thought lichking was not a bad name at all. Yes tolkien definately like his good guys good, and his bad guys bad. So do I for that matter. I have to deal with enough relativeisms everyday, I dont want to have to deal with it in my fantasys.
Khelvaster 04-22-06, 11:31 PM	Gandalf is a bard. How could people be blunt enough to be unable to distinguish a bard and a sorcerer? Look at what gandalf does. He does lots of fighting in melee, and lots of inspiring. He hardly ever casts real spells in the books, and those that he does cast can easily be attributed to his staff. Maybe give him cosmopolitan from 3.0 FR to give him UMD as a class skill, and you are set with gandalf.
babysamurai 04-24-06, 05:55 AM	how about old tom?? I would put him as a celestial of a very powerful sort. I would definitely classify ol' Tom as a unique Fey, and the same for Goldberry.
Mirtek 04-24-06, 06:53 AM	okay, and then comes the question: what are levels in real life anyway? 1st level mostly, maybe 2nd - 3rd level for the best elite units of armies. I just dont see where boromir takeing out all those orcs makes him low leve, especialy as some of them where uruk-hai. Unless you call all orcs 1th level, which considering some of the other stuff going on is most likely incorrect. No, not really incorrect. The typical orc would be a 1st level warrior, the typical Uruk-hai would be a first level fighter or barbarian, with higher racial bonuses to Str and Con and without light sensitivity Since fighters tend to rise above the level of the common soldier, few armies are composed of high- or even low-level fighters. While there is little difference in ability between the typical foot soldier and a 1st-level fighter, it is just not possible to find an army of 20,000 4th-level fighters. It's rare enough to find 1,000 or so 2nd-level fighters in a single unit. Such units are elite, superbly trained and outfitted, and are normally held in reserve for special tasks. They may be the shock troops of an assault, a special bodyguard, or the reserve of an army held back for pursuit.
celtredleg 04-24-06, 11:18 AM	1st level mostly, maybe 2nd - 3rd level for the best elite units of armies. No, not really incorrect. The typical orc would be a 1st level warrior, the typical Uruk-hai would be a first level fighter or barbarian, with higher racial bonuses to Str and Con and without light sensitivity Sorry, but that doesnt work. 1st level charecters cant begin to carry out the tasks any soldier needs to perform regularly. In fact, as a 1st level commoner, you cant even type, much less post on the internet. :) The average RL person is much more capable than the average citizen in a fantasy game setting. In fact, most fantasy charecters are much more capable, else they would have all starved long ago. 1st level is nearly helpless, and cant do much of anything well. How could they possible even build a house when they fail at whatever they try over half the time??
babysamurai 04-24-06, 11:40 AM	1st level is nearly helpless, and cant do much of anything well. How could they possible even build a house when they fail at whatever they try over half the time?? Not true. Having even 1 rank in a skill reperesents more than average dedication. Also, most DC's for mundane tasks are at most 10, usually 5, and characters can take 10 unless they're under duress. So there is actually no chance of a village of 1st level commoners not being able to erect a house...unless they're under attack from Orcs or something while they're trying to build it, but I think they would run away instead of trying to get that one last nail in before the orcs disembowel them.
celtredleg 04-25-06, 12:35 AM	Not true. Having even 1 rank in a skill reperesents more than average dedication. Also, most DC's for mundane tasks are at most 10, usually 5, and characters can take 10 unless they're under duress. So there is actually no chance of a village of 1st level commoners not being able to erect a house...unless they're under attack from Orcs or something while they're trying to build it, but I think they would run away instead of trying to get that one last nail in before the orcs disembowel them. OK back to the military again. To get out of basic you have to pass the obsticle course, which means some skill at climbing and jumping. There goes your 2 fighter skill points. Then you have to learn how to use camoflage...hide pretty much. sentry duty, need skill at both spot and listen. Or perhaps blacksmithing. You need skills in a variety of things or you just wont get it donme right. Of course you can roll all of the different ones into a single skill and call it good, but then make a military skill and let them have spot,listen hide and sneek all as one skill. Great for them. Of course you can counter me by saying the military is really more ranger class than fighter. And that may well be right. I just dont buy into the idea that the only way you get to be a better blacksmith is by hunting and killing orcs. They should get better thier entire lives. And in DnD that means levels. A society of all or mostly all 1st levelers is a society of retarded individual who cant learn anything. Or I suppose I should say developmentaly challnged. Of course, this only manifets after they become adults, and have gotten thier first NPC class. And yes, I agree with Motzart with 3 HP and a dozen ranks in music. It is just that there is no way to model that in DnD.
celtredleg 04-25-06, 12:40 AM	And I should add that when I started back in 1977, I played for about 3 weeks and decided that HP was a big bunch of cow hooey, and had nothing to do with anything real. I have found nothing to change that thought since then. Nor have I come up with a workable alternative system that does not require a total change of the whole system. And I still play with it as is, because it works just fine for a game. It it when you try to reproduce something specific that you get into trouble. But it si always fun to tyr. :) :)
babysamurai 04-25-06, 05:21 AM	But it si always fun to tyr. :) :) And fun to Odin.
celtredleg 04-25-06, 10:06 AM	And fun to Odin. Talk about a typo that worked. :) Glad you notice, it was late, and I never reread my own unless somebody points out a major goof. In this case, I like it better like this.
babysamurai 04-25-06, 10:14 AM	Talk about a typo that worked. :) Glad you notice, it was late, and I never reread my own unless somebody points out a major goof. In this case, I like it better like this. Totally - I couldn't resist. It was either that, or Baldur/Loki/Frey, ya know etc.
Witch 04-25-06, 10:23 AM	I would definitely classify ol' Tom as a unique Fey, and the same for Goldberry. I partially disagree. He would be either a unique, near-epic level creature, or something with divine rank. Possibly just Divine Rank 0, but still. Gandalf is a bard. How could people be blunt enough to be unable to distinguish a bard and a sorcerer? Look at what gandalf does. He does lots of fighting in melee, and lots of inspiring. He hardly ever casts real spells in the books, and those that he does cast can easily be attributed to his staff. Maybe give him cosmopolitan from 3.0 FR to give him UMD as a class skill, and you are set with gandalf. As stated before, Gandalf is an outsider, not a humanoid with class levels. If you really do want to give him class levels, he would probably be a Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana or a multi-class character. (Something involving Ranger and [Battle] Sorcerer) As for the Risen Martyr argument - it would be rather silly to give a celestial spirit-creature a class that turns him into a celestial. Gandalf never truly died. Only his body did.
babysamurai 04-25-06, 11:23 AM	I partially disagree. He would be either a unique, near-epic level creature, or something with divine rank. Possibly just Divine Rank 0, but still. Why do you think he would be near epic, let alone divine? Only the Valar/Maia would be divine. I agree that he would be a unique being...a unique Fey...they have potential immortality.
Witch 04-25-06, 11:33 AM	Why do you think he would be near epic, let alone divine? Only the Valar/Maia would be divine. Ofcourse you forgot Illuvatar, but we'll leave him out - I presume you just didn't mention him because of the improbability. There have been arguments that states Bombadil to be Maia, Vala or even Illuvatar himself. The latter is extremely improbable, the second is possible for a particular Vala, and the first is actually quite reasonable. Bombadil possesses power none but Sauron wields in Middle Earth. He merely doesn't care. And probably the only reason Sauron would win against Bombadil is because of his influence over others, not because of personal power. This was implied at the meeting with Elrond, although not specifically stated.
babysamurai 04-25-06, 11:54 AM	Ofcourse you forgot Illuvatar, but we'll leave him out - I presume you just didn't mention him because of the improbability. Don't worry about it, my petit pois.
celtredleg 04-25-06, 10:12 PM	I have not looked for a long time, but I thought that tom was definaetly Maia. Could be I am misremebering.
caeruleus 04-25-06, 11:30 PM	I have not looked for a long time, but I thought that tom was definaetly Maia. Could be I am misremebering. Very reasonable, as Witch said, but AFAIK it's not explicitly stated in Tolkien's writings. (Not that I've read all his writings, which is why I use the proviso AFAIK.)
Solaris 04-26-06, 02:16 AM	Bombadil is a first level Plot Device. "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954 See http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/t/tombombadil.html for more information.
babysamurai 04-26-06, 04:33 AM	Bombadil is a first level Plot Device. "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954 See http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/t/tombombadil.html for more information. Nice. I was just reading Lost Tales I last night, and I've come across a lot of interesting correspondence from Tolkien.
celtredleg 04-26-06, 10:09 AM	Not sure that means he is just a polt device, or just not stateds out. Gamers, particularly DMs always want to kniw everything. Historians do to, but you cant always get what you want.