PDA

View Full Version : Analysing Aragorn



Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 04:08 AM
In another thread, a link was given to This article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), in which Justin Alexander makes a number of claims about the D&D ruleset, one of them being that "Aragorn was about fifth level."

Now I like that he's putting the idea forward: as he points out himself, too many people assume that all fictional characters are 20th level with at least two stats at 18. I've got into arguments myself by suggesting that you could run Jack Sparrow with Charisma 8.

However, I don't think his Aragorn analysis stacks up.

Specifically, I don't think Aragorn is fifth level, or fiftieth level, I think that he's genuinely impossible to model satisfactorily in D&D.

The specific line I take issue with is this one:

Aragorn slays no more than six or seven CR 1/2 orcs in this encounter. A trivial accomplishment for a 5th level character.

He makes two mistakes here. The first is confusing a level 5 *character* with a level 5 *party*. The Encounter Calculator on d20srd.org suggests that an encounter with six CR 1/2 creatures is "very difficult" for a single level five character.

And that's before taking into account the fact that Aragorn is a sucky, sucky build.

If we take the Alexandrian's build, he's a Ranger 1, Fighter 1, Paladin 3. He wears light armour, and fights with a longsword, which he wields in both hands. Words just plain cannot describe how dumb that is (in D&D terms). And Anduril aside, he probably doesn't have any magic items either.

So Aragorn, according to the Alexandrian, is a grossly suboptimal, lightly armoured, multiclassed character who can take on six fully armed Orcs "without a scratch" (although since this is D&D we can charitably read "without a scratch" as meaning "losing less than 25% of his Hit Points").

Let's work this out.

Let's assume that Aragorn is created using Elite Array, so he has +2 Strength, +2 Dex, +2 Con. So with the proposed build he's attacking at +7, has an AC of 15 in studded leather, and is going to do an average of 7.5 points of damage on a successful hit, holding his longsword in both hands.

The Orcs, meanwhile, are at AC 13, fighting with Falchions, so doing an average of 8.5 damage on a successful hit.

Aragorn hits an Orc on a roll of 6+ (so 75% of the time). The Orcs hit Aragorn on a roll of 11+ (so 45% of the time). The Orcs have 5HP.

Being generous, let's say Aragorn goes first, and kills one Orc a round.

Against seven Orcs - assuming he's surrounded, he kills one, and the remaining six hit him for - on average - 4HP damage each. That's 24 hit points in the first round. Next round he kills another, and then takes a further 20 points of damage. Continue this until all Orcs are dead, and you find Aragorn has taken an average of 24 + 20 + 16 + 12 + 8 + 4 = 84 points of damage. Well enough to kill most fifth level characters. And that's ignoring the fact that the Orcs get bonuses from flanking (which would up their damage output bout about 10%.

Of course with clever tactics, Aragorn could wind up facing the orcs two at a time, but he'd still wind up taking upwards of forty points of damage, and that's ignoring critical hits, or the possibility of a run of misses.

Either way, it's a long way from the Aragorn I'd expect to see.

What it comes down to is that fictional characters just don't work according to a class/level system. Neither Ranger 20 nor Ranger 1/Paladin 3/Fighter 1 actually give you a character who is anything *like* the Aragorn of the book or film.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-17, 04:20 AM
Some insight into this can be gained from reading the Silmarillion. Aragorn is a Dunedain, which means alot. Being Halfelven is much better in Middlearth than it is in D&D. He has both the blessings of the elves and the courage of men.

What it boils down to is, Aragorn is ranger with a template. (it also bears mentioning that the Rangers in LotR were all Dunedain, the last remnants of a failing line.

Comparing Aragorn(Dunedain) to say, Boromir(Man) is very much like comparing Legolas(elf of Mirkwood) to Glorfindel(Noldor), which is very much like comparing Glorfindel to Gandalf(Istari, probably Maiar- as is Sauron).

The article you refer to is much better suited to using Conan in its arguments than Aragorn (who at the very least is in the CR 10-15 range). Of course, if you say that a Balrog(also Maiar) is CR 20, and Gandalf was hard pressed to defeat it, while it was out of Aragorn's league, CR 10-15 fits. The rest of the (non-hobbit) members of the fellowship were likely in the CR 8-12 range).

On a side note, I am currently working on adapting D&D for a middle earth campiagn. (I know there is a middle earth RPG, but I don't much care for it).

That and I prefer to tinker with game mechanics rather than buying a new book. That way, as the DM, I am guaranteed to know the rules better than anyone else.

sleeping fishy
2007-06-17, 04:29 AM
umm, why use d&d for middle earth?? you may not like the ME rpg, but there are other ones which could be better... i dont see how d&ds a good fit

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 04:32 AM
Some insight into this can be gained from reading the Silmarillion. Aragorn is a Dunedain, which means alot. Being Halfelven is much better in Middlearth than it is in D&D. He has both the blessings of the elves and the courage of men.

It means a lot, but not a lot that actually translates into D&D. It'd probably wind up being a feat which gives you, I dunno, some save bonuses and elvish life expectancy.


What it boils down to is, Aragorn is ranger with a template. (it also bears mentioning that the Rangers in LotR were all Dunedain, the last remnants of a failing line.

Comparing Aragorn(Dunedain) to say, Boromir(Man) is very much like comparing Legolas(elf of Mirkwood) to Glorfindel(Noldor), which is very much like comparing Glorfindel to Gandalf(Istari, probably Maiar- as is Sauron).

The article you refer to is much better suited to using Conan in its arguments than Aragorn (who at the very least is in the CR 10-15 range). Of course, if you say that a Balrog(also Maiar) is CR 20, and Gandalf was hard pressed to defeat it, while it was out of Aragorn's league, CR 10-15 fits. The rest of the (non-hobbit) members of the fellowship were likely in the CR 8-12 range).

Of course you then wind up with some nasty problems, such as:

The Balrog is CR20, Gandalf kills the balrog, so he must be at least CR20 himself. Saruman imprisons Gandalf, so *he* should be CR20, and Grima kills Saruman in a single blow (sure, he's lost a lot of his power, but he should still have those snacky racial hit dice).

This tells us either (a) Grima is a 20th level gestalt Rogue/Ninja with 10D6 each in Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike or (b) D&D is a bad system to do LotR.


On a side note, I am currently working on adapting D&D for a middle earth campiagn. (I know there is a middle earth RPG, but I don't much care for it).

That and I prefer to tinker with game mechanics rather than buying a new book. That way, as the DM, I am guaranteed to know the rules better than anyone else.

Fair enough. I prefer a custom-designed system to a patched one, but milage varies on that sort of thing.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-17, 04:33 AM
The point where the analysis falls flat is that in D&D speak, an orc has a set (and low) amount of HD, rather than being a race with class levels. It is frankly quite silly to assume that an intelligent world-conquering race consists of copy-pasted 1 or 2 HD grunts, while the elves, dwarves and humans consist of a variety of way-more-powerful classes (albeit most of them at low level).

I would say that those "orcs" in the battle qualify as 3rd or 4th level fighters, barbarians, or some other martial class. No biggie for a good adventurer, but quite capable of slaughtering any number of commoners. You have to look at the scale here. Group of orcs WAY stronger than group of peasants, and Aragorn/Boromir/Legolas WAY stronger than group of orcs. And Gandalf way stronger than that, but then he's a maia.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 04:56 AM
The point where the analysis falls flat is that in D&D speak, an orc has a set (and low) amount of HD, rather than being a race with class levels. It is frankly quite silly to assume that an intelligent world-conquering race consists of copy-pasted 1 or 2 HD grunts, while the elves, dwarves and humans consist of a variety of way-more-powerful classes (albeit most of them at low level).

I would say that those "orcs" in the battle qualify as 3rd or 4th level fighters, barbarians, or some other martial class. No biggie for a good adventurer, but quite capable of slaughtering any number of commoners. You have to look at the scale here. Group of orcs WAY stronger than group of peasants, and Aragorn/Boromir/Legolas WAY stronger than group of orcs. And Gandalf way stronger than that, but then he's a maia.

This is pretty much the argument which the linked article was arguing against, and not entirely successfully.

I think the basic problem is that in D&D "stronger" is pretty much an absolute. In fiction, and indeed in the real world, it isn't.

In D&D, if a given monster can defeat an army of normal soldiers, any hero who can defeat that monster can usually *also* defeat an army of normal soldiers. That's not the way it works in fiction.

The Balrog could probably have killed all the Orcs in Moria, Gandalf killed the Balrog, but he clearly couldn't kill all the Orcs in Moria, if he could, he would have done it.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-17, 05:07 AM
True enough, power does not equate to HP. Although Gandalf probably could have destroyed an army of orcs. Gandalf and the Balrog are on the same powerscale (both are Maiar), and Gandalf was victorious. He also has Narya, his staff, and Glamdring (the latter probably not terribly useful in wiping out large numbers of orcs). Gandalf also fought the Nine to a standstill at Weathertop. The only real reason that Gandalf would have not been able to wipe out an army of orcs is because to do so would draw the Eye of Sauron (he seeks the three elven rings almost as much as he seeks the One Ring).

He did conjure a great deal of flame when the Fellowship was beset by the Warg. All he needed was a bit of flame to start with.


As for Saruman, his staff was broken before Grima slew him. That is a significant blow to a Maiar, since the staff would have held a great deal of his power. He was probably weakened as much as Sauron was weakened when the ring was destroyed(depending on how much of his power he had put into the staff). I doubt Grima would have succeeded if the staff was intact.


Another note-

A large part of the reason that hordes of things have difficulty in dealing with high level PCs is high AC, and spellcasters. Gandalf is called a Wizard, but he does very few things that aren't by virtue of his staff or Narya that seem like magic. He knows words of power, and uses fire magic, and can create light (which is a big deal in Middle Earth, but he is Maiar, and that is more the reason he can produce light than by virtue of ancient lore).

Middle Earth is not the high magic setting that D&D is. If you cut the high magic out, High AC stops being a problem to mobs. You can get what, a 25 AC with full plate, a tower shield, and a +1 dex mod.?

Aragorn, even as a high level ranger, assuming all 17s by whatever level (I've always thought of Aragorn as having all 17s), would have had a 21 AC if full expertising.

21 AC has to flee from hordes of orcs, even level 1 warrior orcs, which hit 10% of the time, and crit 1%? of the time.

On top of that, Middle Earth is more fatal, and thus would probably use Armor as DR and Vitality/Wounds, which makes hordes of things even more frightening without access to AoE's to get rid of them in large numbers at a time.

Matthew
2007-06-17, 05:17 AM
I dunno. Aragorn never struck me as a Paladin. A Fighter/Ranger sure, but that whole Paladin thing never stood up to me. He doesn't go around 'Laying on Hands', he does it once as part of his role as King of Gondor.

Don't get me wrong, I see no reason to make him Level 16 or whatever, but I think we have to bear in mind that we're not attempting to exactly represent him, but come as close as possible in D&D terms.

Also, Aragorn is descended from a Maia, just like everybody else in that line, so he probably has some sort of Divinely Touched Template.

Dervag
2007-06-17, 05:47 AM
Now I like that he's putting the idea forward: as he points out himself, too many people assume that all fictional characters are 20th level with at least two stats at 18. I've got into arguments myself by suggesting that you could run Jack Sparrow with Charisma 8.He's totally correct about too many people making that assumption. Part of it is the desire to create as awesome a character as possible using the non-epic rules.

Although I'm not sure about Jack Sparrow. While his build could certainly work with a Charisma penalty, that's not really compatible with his personality. If anything, his ability to make people do things despite the fact that they should, by inclination, be opposing him is one of his greatest strengths, which suggests either very high skill in Diplomacy or a substantial positive Charisma modifier.


Specifically, I don't think Aragorn is fifth level, or fiftieth level, I think that he's genuinely impossible to model satisfactorily in D&D.You are quite possibly right, though I think it might be doable and is certainly worth the trivial effort required to try.


The specific line I take issue with is this one:

Aragorn slays no more than six or seven CR 1/2 orcs in this encounter. A trivial accomplishment for a 5th level character.

He makes two mistakes here. The first is confusing a level 5 *character* with a level 5 *party*. The Encounter Calculator on d20srd.org suggests that an encounter with six CR 1/2 creatures is "very difficult" for a single level five character.You're right.


If we take the Alexandrian's build, he's a Ranger 1, Fighter 1, Paladin 3. He wears light armour, and fights with a longsword, which he wields in both hands. Words just plain cannot describe how dumb that is (in D&D terms). And Anduril aside, he probably doesn't have any magic items either.Well, I suspect that it's a bastard sword. Like quite a few historical European swords, it is light enough to carry in one hand but too big to be wielded for maximum effect one-handed.

As for the lack of magic items, that isn't his fault; Tolkein was running a very low-magic campaign in terms of available items. In addition to which, it's probably a very very good sword, worth most or all of his Wealth By Level.


So Aragorn, according to the Alexandrian, is a grossly suboptimal, lightly armoured, multiclassed character who can take on six fully armed Orcs "without a scratch" (although since this is D&D we can charitably read "without a scratch" as meaning "losing less than 25% of his Hit Points").

Let's work this out...

Of course with clever tactics, Aragorn could wind up facing the orcs two at a time, but he'd still wind up taking upwards of forty points of damage, and that's ignoring critical hits, or the possibility of a run of misses.

Either way, it's a long way from the Aragorn I'd expect to see.
I think you're right.


What it comes down to is that fictional characters just don't work according to a class/level system. Neither Ranger 20 nor Ranger 1/Paladin 3/Fighter 1 actually give you a character who is anything *like* the Aragorn of the book or film.I don't know. I think you could come pretty close with a high hit point warrior-type; just not at fifth level.

The problem is that in real life it is harder to hit a more skilled opponent with melee weapons. Hitting Aragorn with a falchion would be harder than hitting say, me with a falchion, even if I had the same weapon and armor Aragorn was wearing. A swing that would probably decapitate me would be an invitation to a nasty parry-riposte-splortch from Aragon.

D&D models this with increased hit points instead of increased armor class. There is a rough correlation between hit points and skill in physical combat for human-like characters. So Aragon, in D&D terms, would probably have lost a lot of his hit points in the course of that fight while sustaining no serious wounds. Remember that you can lose all but one of your hit points and fight at full effectiveness- this suggests that most damage doesn't actually physically hurt you. A 12th level fighter with 75 hit points who gets 'hit' by twenty arrows for 20d6 damage and takes 70 points of damage is still fighting at full power, which no human being could possibly do with twenty arrows sticking out of them.

Since loss of hit points does not require a serious physical injury, a character who survives a long and fierce battle, killing several orcs, may have lost a lot of hit points even though he isn't bleeding. He might not be able to survive another fight like that, or the one after that, because he's getting winded or shaken.

So 'very hard to kill' can be modeled either as either high HP or high AC. Which is the only thing that makes Aragorn remotely modelable, because you're right that he's not an optimal build within the D&D system (until he puts on all that extra armor for the battle at the Black Gate, at which point he could plausibly be fighting as a power-attacker with a two-handed weapon). He has to be high level to stay alive in those fights because, as you correctly and very accurately observe, he has a terrible AC by D&D rules.


umm, why use d&d for middle earth?? you may not like the ME rpg, but there are other ones which could be better... i dont see how d&ds a good fitIt isn't, but people love to do it for the intellectual exercise.

Many of the elements that inspired D&D come from the Lord of the Rings. For instance, the Lord of the Rings contains one of the earliest well-known literary examples of the adventuring party. Most of the legendary heroes of antiquity fought alone or with one companion, rather than as part of a medium-sized group large enough to have its own social dynamic (like the Fellowship of the Ring).


It means a lot, but not a lot that actually translates into D&D. It'd probably wind up being a feat which gives you, I dunno, some save bonuses and elvish life expectancy.I'd just make 'Dunedain" a separate race like "Half-elf" in D&D. Actually, the Dunedain might well need a level adjustment; Tolkein's elves certainly would.


Of course you then wind up with some nasty problems, such as:

The Balrog is CR20, Gandalf kills the balrog, so he must be at least CR20 himself. Saruman imprisons Gandalf, so *he* should be CR20, and Grima kills Saruman in a single blow (sure, he's lost a lot of his power, but he should still have those snacky racial hit dice).

This tells us either (a) Grima is a 20th level gestalt Rogue/Ninja with 10D6 each in Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike or (b) D&D is a bad system to do LotR.You're right, that is a big problem. And D&D is a very suboptimal system for modeling the Lord of the Rings. But you can make it work if you don't approach the problem with a closed mind and if you make sure to use the right calibration.

If we calibrate the Balrog as CR 20, we do run into problems. But calibrating the CR of everything in the Lord of the Rings to the (false) assumption that the Balrog must be CR 20, we should problems because we are working with a false assumption.

The best calibration would probably be to place the warriors of the fellowship at CR 8-10 and 'supernatural' figures such as Gandalf and Saruman at CR 12-15. Which still makes it hard to explain Wormtongue's killing Saruman, but if we aren't restricted to fifth level we can make Wormtongue an eighth level or so rogue to bring his power up to the point where he could plausibly backstab Saruman, then bring Saruman's power down to the point where he could plausibly be killed by a backstab with +4d6 or so of sneak attack damage.


Fair enough. I prefer a custom-designed system to a patched one, but milage varies on that sort of thing.That's probably more logical of you. Just don't sneer at people who like the patched system.


I would say that those "orcs" in the battle qualify as 3rd or 4th level fighters, barbarians, or some other martial class. No biggie for a good adventurer, but quite capable of slaughtering any number of commoners. You have to look at the scale here. Group of orcs WAY stronger than group of peasants, and Aragorn/Boromir/Legolas WAY stronger than group of orcs. And Gandalf way stronger than that, but then he's a maia.I think that's about right, but remember that increasing the power of a thing by a factor of two increases its CR by only a factor of two.

So you can make an orcish warband WAY stronger than a group of peasants by making them a CR 4-5 encounter. Typical medieval peasants (commoners with very little in the way of weapons) won't stand a chance if the orcs fight intelligently and the peasants don't have a big comprehensive battle plan.

But a party of 5th level characters will typically mop the floor with a CR 5 encounter. By definition, a party of such should be able to defeat an average of four such encounters in one day.

You could build Aragorn-like characters at fifth level in D&D; you'd just need to give them a somewhat better build so that they'd be better armored and harder for the orcs to stab to death.


The Balrog could probably have killed all the Orcs in Moria, Gandalf killed the Balrog, but he clearly couldn't kill all the Orcs in Moria, if he could, he would have done it.In the mysticism/cosmology/theology of the Middle-Earth setting, there's actually an explanation for that kind of thing; Gandalf had enough power to do something like that but was operating under constraints. Only when fighting something like a Balrog did he take the gloves off and use all the power he had available.

boffer
2007-06-17, 06:02 AM
or he could have favored dodge from dragon magazine, which let him add his favored enemy bonus to ac...

Matthew
2007-06-17, 06:07 AM
D&D Aragorn is definitely using a Long Sword as far as I am aware. He takes up a Shield at Rohan from the King's Armoury.

Also, a word on LotR Orcs versus D&D 3.x Orcs. Definitely not the same thing. Orcs have taken a weird turn in 3.x and headed off to become steroid Monster Warcraft Orcs. Hobgoblins probably better represent LotR Orcs these days. Tolkien's Orcs are also not using D&D Falchions, as most carry Shields. Scimitars are much more likely for Mordor Orcs, whilst Saruman's Uruks appear to be carrying Short Swords, or perhaps Long Swords if we are generous. Saying that, they could just be carrying Scimitars as well, as Tolkien's description matches my Dictionary's definition of a Falchion fairly well.

Oh yeah, D&D Tolkien is definitely using the Defence Bonus Variant Rule.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-17, 06:27 AM
I just thought I would put in my two-bits worth as far as what leve/build/system I would put the fellowship at.

Gandalf: CR 15 outsider with three magic items (Narya, Glamdring, staff)
Aragorn: Level 8 Ranger with a level adjustment (prob. 1-2). Has all 17s(after mods).
Boromir: level 7 Fighter.
Gimli: level 7, multiclassed fighter/ranger
Legolas: level 7 ranger (has the non-LA elf race, as he is not of the Noldor IIRC)
Frodo: level 3, probably Expert- later on, probably picks up a ranger level
Sam: level 3, definetly Expert- probably picks up some warrior levels before Shelob
Pippin: level 2 Expert, gains fighter levels during the big battles
Merry: level 4 expert (he starts out more experienced than the others, at least how I read it).


For comparisan, I'd put Glorfindel at about ECL 12. What with being a Noldor and all. Of all the characters in the books, he is most likely to fit as a Paladin (exceptional steed, Lay on Hands)

Almost forgot. I see Middle Earth as being a HP/Reserve system, with Defense Bonus and Armor as DR. I plan on incorporating hit location rules for determing armor, but thats part of my little project.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-17, 07:57 AM
You know, given that D&D is pretty much based on fantasy books and films, why would it be unreasonable to have powerful characters from those books and films correspond to powerful D&D characters? It's like people want to claim that their level-X c00l d00d character is so much stronger than that Jack Sparrow/Neo/Corwin/Ridcully from that book or movie.

Wehrkind
2007-06-17, 08:20 AM
I think that is just the point though: Powerful to a real world human is around level 4-6. Powerful in a super high fantasy world is something else entirely. So low magic, more "realistic" fantasy like Tolkien doesn't need crazy characters to model it reasonably well. More "over powered" fantasy like Conan might require around level 10, or higher scores at least.
The main thrust of his argument is that D&D covers everything from the guy just starting out to heros that would make Heracles look like a wimp, heros who have killed enough monsters and villains to populate a few major cities. The trouble with that is that, by his analysis at least, 75% of the levels are in the "wow!" catagory, which sort of makes players expect that to be closer to their understanding.

As another example, consider that an 18 str is the top end of human ability, olympic weight lifter power. How many players roll fighters with much less? It would seem that 14-16 would be the strongest guys you have ever met. A 24 str would be frightening, significantly more than most beasts of burden.

One thing that is a little silly with D&D's encumberance system is how armor and loose gear like books are grouped together. They probably should have a 1/2 or 1/3 rating for things you wear. I say this because I know my armor weighs ~65-75 lbs. My Str score would be a 9-11 at best I am guessing (can't see the SRD at work... is there a # for benching 160-200?). At any rate, I can't carry all my armor at once in a box. I can run around with it for quite some time when wearing it though.

Dervag
2007-06-17, 09:05 AM
D&D Aragorn is definitely using a Long Sword as far as I am aware. He takes up a Shield at Rohan from the King's Armoury.You can single-hand a bastard sword and use it with a shield, not so?


I think that is just the point though: Powerful to a real world human is around level 4-6. Powerful in a super high fantasy world is something else entirely. So low magic, more "realistic" fantasy like Tolkien doesn't need crazy characters to model it reasonably well. More "over powered" fantasy like Conan might require around level 10, or higher scores at least.I'm not sure Conan is especially "over powered." The main way Conan is over powered is that he has exceptionally high ability scores, well beyond what could reasonably be expected of any normal ability score generation method. Since most of his opponents are human warriors or monsters not defined by the statistics of D&D, he doesn't have to be that high level to do what he does.


The main thrust of his argument is that D&D covers everything from the guy just starting out to heros that would make Heracles look like a wimp, heros who have killed enough monsters and villains to populate a few major cities. The trouble with that is that, by his analysis at least, 75% of the levels are in the "wow!" catagory, which sort of makes players expect that to be closer to their understanding.What Alexandrian really proves is that most real-world feats of achievement can be accomplished by 5th level characters. That doesn't mean that all real-world people should stat out as 5th level or lower. Real world people aren't normally as obsessively optimized for a single task as a 'built' D&D character.

Moreover, fictional characters often achieve feats of skill that exceed those found in real life. This is particularly true in combat. No real-world human could expect to get away with some of that stuff against intelligent and competent opposition. So it's reasonable for fictional characters to have levels of the range 5-8, perhaps even as high as ten, while still remaining in a world more or less similar to the one we know.


As another example, consider that an 18 str is the top end of human ability, olympic weight lifter power. How many players roll fighters with much less? It would seem that 14-16 would be the strongest guys you have ever met. A 24 str would be frightening, significantly more than most beasts of burden.The problem with that is that the ability score generation system in D&D distributes scores on a bell curve. If you use the simplest, straightest method of generating ability scores, one person in 216 has 18 strength. And one in 216 has 18 dexterity, and so on.

An Olympic weightlifter is something like one in a million when it comes to raw physical strength. D&D doesn't have a system for one-in-a-million human strength because the ability score generation system doesn't support it. The bell curve stops dead at 18 on one end and 3 on the other.

I know I've met some people who should stat out with strength 18, because less than one person in 200 is as strong as they are.

For that matter, I've met a lot more than 200 people in my life; simple statistics indicate that I should know at least one person with an 18 in each of the six D&D statistics.


One thing that is a little silly with D&D's encumberance system is how armor and loose gear like books are grouped together. They probably should have a 1/2 or 1/3 rating for things you wear. I say this because I know my armor weighs ~65-75 lbs. My Str score would be a 9-11 at best I am guessing (can't see the SRD at work... is there a # for benching 160-200?). At any rate, I can't carry all my armor at once in a box. I can run around with it for quite some time when wearing it though.Is benching 160-200 the average? Remember that the statistical average strength in D&D is 10.5.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 09:28 AM
I think that is just the point though: Powerful to a real world human is around level 4-6. Powerful in a super high fantasy world is something else entirely. So low magic, more "realistic" fantasy like Tolkien doesn't need crazy characters to model it reasonably well. More "over powered" fantasy like Conan might require around level 10, or higher scores at least.

The thing is, it's more subtle than that. "Power" is a lot more absolute in RPGs than it is in real life, see the "why the hell didn't Gandalf just kill all the Orcs in Moria?" issue.

In D&D it's not possible (or at least very difficult) to play a character who can kill a dragon, but still be killed by a man with a crossbow, but such characters exist in fiction.

If you stat out Aragorn below 10th level, you wind up with a character who would probably have died halfway through Fellowship of the Ring. If you stat out Aragorn *above* 10th level, you wind up with a character who should have been able to take out every orc in Moria with little or no trouble.

de-trick
2007-06-17, 09:30 AM
Against seven Orcs - assuming he's surrounded, he kills one, and the remaining six hit him for - on average - 4HP damage each. That's 24 hit points in the first round. Next round he kills another, and then takes a further 20 points of damage. Continue this until all Orcs are dead, and you find Aragorn has taken an average of 24 + 20 + 16 + 12 + 8 + 4 = 84 points of damage. Well enough to kill most fifth level characters. And that's ignoring the fact that the Orcs get bonuses from flanking (which would up their damage output bout about 10%.



my friend you can only be attacked by 4 creatures DM gets so mad when i bring that up

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 09:31 AM
As another example, consider that an 18 str is the top end of human ability, olympic weight lifter power. How many players roll fighters with much less? It would seem that 14-16 would be the strongest guys you have ever met. A 24 str would be frightening, significantly more than most beasts of burden.


Sorry for the double-post.

Interestingly there was an article about this on the Wizards' main site, where they looked at what particular Olympic athletes could achieve, and they actually all wound up being around fifteenth level. The world record for the snatch and jerk requires about Strength 22, and an olympic level archer can hit a Fine target 200 meters away with a regularity that suggests about a +20 to hit.

Morty
2007-06-17, 09:53 AM
my friend you can only be attacked by 4 creatures DM gets so mad when i bring that up

What do you mean? It's perfectly possible to be surrounded by more than 4 creatures.
Anyway, concerning Gandalf- I belive it's just that in D&D "magical power" means flying around on illusionary horse, throwing forcecages and cloudkills around, then sleeping in extradimensional space. In LoTR universe, it's something far more subtle. Gandalf was powerful for sure, but that didn't mean he could kill whole armies. Power =/= killing everyone weaker than you.

Peregrine
2007-06-17, 09:57 AM
Sorry for the double-post.

Interestingly there was an article about this on the Wizards' main site, where they looked at what particular Olympic athletes could achieve, and they actually all wound up being around fifteenth level. The world record for the snatch and jerk requires about Strength 22, and an olympic level archer can hit a Fine target 200 meters away with a regularity that suggests about a +20 to hit.

Ooh. Don't suppose you have a link?

Oh, and Legolas is a Noldorin Elf, actually. (His father, or possibly his grandfather, came east after the First Age -- like Galadriel and Celeborn did -- and took up a kingship over the local silvan elves.) Heck, even if he wasn't, every Tolkienian elf should probably have LA or racial HD. Maybe not much, but it'd be interesting to investigate...

Edit: And heck, I might as well weigh in on the Gandalf-blowing-away-armies discussion too. Gandalf couldn't do that because doing so would turn him into Sauron, basically. Sauron was a Maia (an 'angel', basically) who fell because he wanted use his power to order and control the world. Gandalf and his peers were forbidden to use their power in direct confrontation with Sauron, lest they fall into the same trap. Saruman failed and fell also. Gandalf very rarely used his power to directly harm enemies, certainly not more than a good warrior could have done in his place. Most of his power was used for -- in D&D terms -- abjuration, divination, and probably some enchantment. (Especially divination. Gandalf knew or guessed things that nobody could conceivably have learnt or researched. But in Tolkien, this is more a use of intuition and wisdom than magic and scrying mirrors.)

Raum
2007-06-17, 10:01 AM
my friend you can only be attacked by 4 creaturesIncorrect as written. While only four creatures can grapple with a similarly sized opponent, limits on attacking in melee are based on the ability to threaten the victim.

Back to the conversation at hand.

In general, I agree with Dan_Hemmens. Fictional worlds are seldom easily represented by game mechanics. The mechanics themselves are too limiting.

Spiryt
2007-06-17, 10:18 AM
Edit: And heck, I might as well weigh in on the Gandalf-blowing-away-armies discussion too. Gandalf couldn't do that because doing so would turn him into Sauron, basically. Sauron was a Maia (an 'angel', basically) who fell because he wanted use his power to order and control the world. Gandalf and his peers were forbidden to use their power in direct confrontation with Sauron, lest they fall into the same trap. Saruman failed and fell also. Gandalf very rarely used his power to directly harm enemies, certainly not more than a good warrior could have done in his place. Most of his power was used for -- in D&D terms -- abjuration, divination, and probably some enchantment. (Especially divination. Gandalf knew or guessed things that nobody could conceivably have learnt or researched. But in Tolkien, this is more a use of intuition and wisdom than magic and scrying mirrors.)

I'm interested : you mispelled "Maia" or is it correst. I'm just curious, beacuse in polish translation It's "Maiar"

And, anyway, Sauron was certainly evil, fallen being, and he also can't blow whole armies, not to mention cloud kills et cetera. Magic was indeed more subtle thing in Middlearth (fortunately), and is pretty impossible to make in D&D (with clerics doubling in size ).

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-17, 10:23 AM
I'm interested : you mispelled "Maia" or is it correst. I'm just curious, beacuse in polish translation It's "Maiar"

I believe that Maia is singular while Maiar is plural, but I'd have to check. It'll be written down in one of his books.

Edit: Just confirmed it in the back of the Silmarillion.

Peregrine
2007-06-17, 10:41 AM
I'm interested : you mispelled "Maia" or is it correst. I'm just curious, beacuse in polish translation It's "Maiar"

I should think it's the same in any translation, because the word itself is Quenya (Tolkien's high-elven language). Maia is singular, Maiar is plural. (Same goes for Dúnadan, Dúnedain... although that's Sindarin, the other major elvish language.)


And, anyway, Sauron was certainly evil, fallen being, and he also can't blow whole armies, not to mention cloud kills et cetera. Magic was indeed more subtle thing in Middlearth (fortunately), and is pretty impossible to make in D&D (with clerics doubling in size ).

True that. Indeed, even Sauron -- even Morgoth! -- didn't blow away whole armies, even at the heights of their personal power, which they squandered to increase their control over the world (and so increase their overall power). But the point stands: Gandalf avoided showy sorts of magic because he wasn't permitted to use it to dominate and control.

Wehrkind
2007-06-17, 10:53 AM
I agree insofar that the bell curve of stats in D&D is wider than it is in the real world. (I don't know what benching 160-200 equates to in D&D Str #s off hand, that's what I was asking). That fact goes hand in hand with what was said about people specializing so much to do great things. I think it is true, largely, that mostly no one specializes to the point that they are doing amazing feats at 5th level. However, most people never do amazing feats. That's why they are amazing. People who are extremely successful in a field almost always are extremely specialized. That is why there is so little cross over between sports; even though the fields are related, their skills are very specialized and as such do not really lend themselves to each other very well.

As to how it is shown in stories, characters are often protected by plot of course, but looking at what Aragorn actually does, for instance, there are some really dangerous situations, mostly the big battles, but nothing that necessitates death to a level 5 char. He is not the only fellow in those battles, so you can imagine the other soldiers being "ablative wounds" so to speak. Since presumably all humans look alike to orcs or uruk's, unless every human was killed at say Helm's Deep, there is little reason to assume that any particular one getting out alive is unreasonable, particularly if he is quite a bit higher level.
Keep in mind there is a little "power creep" in stories as well. Older fantasy could in general be termed more "realistic" insofar as most characters are not possessed of years of hard adventuring experience, usually being notable for 1-4 daring deeds that mark them as being great, then retiring or getting killed by their girlfriends (or the like). Heraclese is an exception, though he doesn't fight hordes so much as a few specific beasts.
In modern fantasy, heros usually have long careers, never settling down until after they have done absolutely stunning things, usually more on par with characters in extremely persistant campaign worlds in D&D when their players don't want to let them go.
I think that is part of the problem when doing modeling of various story types in D&D. Older school myths and stories are low level, newer versions are higher powered. (By rough comparison, spend an afternoon watching 30's westerns and then "A Few Dollars More" or "Outlaw Jose Wales" and note the change from "I punch one guy out!" to "I shoot 4 gun men before they can react")

Also, when considering fiction vs. D&D, keep in mind just how little the character's actions really affect the world. (Also keep in mind this is EXTREMELY general, your mileage will vary.) In one sense they are driving the world, as it only really exists as they contact it. However, the consequences of their actions are not always recorded as much as it is in literature. Characters in fiction usually have good reasons not to blow their power all at once, whether oaths, concern for some code, simply being tired or lazy, or even just not knowing that they have had their encounters for the day, and thus can rest to get spell back. So surely, Gandalf probably could have just cleared Moria had he really wanted to (barring oath or what have you), but he was on a tight schedule, and didn't know exactly what was going on in there. Put your players in a few situations where they don't know the number of encounters, or the likelihood of being able to rest enough to memorize spells, and you might see them make a lot of decisions like "Well, we have an excellent defensive position here holding the door... let's let the fighters handle this so the casters can conserve energy."

Now, I agree that D&D isn't a great system to model any particular story, but that is because it is general enough to cover a lot of different stories. Were it "LotR d20" or "Conan d20" it would probably be best for those, but weaker for others.

Speaking of Conan, I always figured him to be a little more high level because of the number of his exploits, and multi-classing he seems to do. I can see a build for him though with 4-5 levels and just really high stats though, since one doesn't know just how long he spent as a gladiator etc. from watching the movies.

Ramos
2007-06-17, 11:14 AM
Here are my thoughts on some LotR characters and the DnD analogy for them:

General world:
In Middle Earth magic items are really, really rare. Those that do exist however are very powerful-and usually intelligent.
Actual magic in Middle Earth is very rare-though supernatural powers are quite common. For example, almost all elves have resistance or immunity to Shadow attacks, many can harm supernatural creatures such as wraiths that normal weapons cannot harm and heal tainted wounds. Dwarves may have no actual magic in the form of spells but are capable of crafting magical weapons and items regardless. Numenorian share some of the qualities of elves-especially their resistance to Shadow attacks and their ability to harm Shadow creatures or heal tainted wounds-though to a lesser extent than elves. Mechanically, all the above races should have a level adjustment and all those special abilities-or templates to describe power differences in bloodlines.
Actual spells in Middle Earth are limited to Maiar and very ancient elves like Galandriel. Magic is less of a direct effect art-but not weaker. In fact, magic can affect vast areas-but the effects are "spread out", not concentrated. So, barring some of the more common spells (lightning bolt, fireball and the like) magic should mainly be abjuration, enchantment and illusion. No flashy effects but increased area of effect and range over the more combat-oriented DnD spells.
The combat mechanics would be well represented by the various DnD variants. Yes, we see many heroes without magic items not getting hit-so, defence variant. Yes, we see high-level heroes taken out in a couple of blows-usually only one-so wound points. A single really really lucky hit (critical) by an orc wielding a scimitar could seriously wound a lvl 20 if that lvl 20 had 14 wound points and the hit did 10 points of damage. We don't see wizards and magical creatures memorising/preparing spells-but we do see Gandalf getting tired after using serious magic once and needing a few minutes to recover (not 8 hours as per normal DnD). That means spell recovery time instead of spell slots per day. It also explains-if the recovery is set in minutes-why Gandalf is not blasting with lightning bolts left and right and center in a tough situation (we never see him in a fight casting a spell more than once in quick succession). Also, we do see some of the high level characters wearing nonmagical armor so armor has to be useful even when overriden by a character's defence score. Armor as DR sounds good here. So, the variants best describing Middle Earth are:

Rare magic items-but intelligent and powerful.
Non-human "player" races usually with LA and/or templates.
Spells limited to abjuration, divination, enchantment and illusion-but with increased AoE.
Spell recovery time.
Defence variant.
Wound points variant.
Armor as DR variant.


Characters:

Legolas: Legolas is the prince of Mirkwood-a centuries old elf from a middle-power elven line but still superior to DnD elves. In the various fights, despite not having any magic items at all, we never see him get wounded, never see him miss with a bow and we see him casually killing dozens of orcs and goblins on many occasions (Moria, Argonath, Helm's Deep). So, on DnD terms, we need him to be able to hit heavily armored orcs, sometimes with shields, on any roll except natural 1s and have a very high AC so goblins and orcs only hit him on a 20. I'd give him a +4 racial dexterity bonus. Also, since he's exceptional even for his people, I'd give him pretty high stats-especially in dexterity. So, say, 16-17 base dexterity (he could have 18 but we don't need it) for a total base of 21. Add another 3 points from level-up for a total of 24. That's +7 dex. modifier. Add weapon focus: Longbow for another +1. Now, make him a 5th level Scout, 7th level Order of the Bow Initiate. That's at least a +19 attack bonus with the Longbow (other feats can increase it). Oh, and a single shot would do 5d8 points of damage, not counting bonus from a composite bow or feats, more than enough to insta-kill most orcs below 3rd level (which are nearly all of them). For AC, we have +7 from dexterity, +6 from defence, +2 from scout if he moves around, 10 base. So, Legolas without armor would have an AC of 25-so Orcs would only hit him on a 20 in DnD terms. Now, we covered just about anything he did in the books.

Therefore Legolas can be done as a 12th level Mirkwood elf (Scout 5, OBI 7) with the appropriate level adjustment for his race and no magic items. This is the minimum, in DnD rules, that describes everything Legolas did in the books. "Minimum" Legolas should be about CR 10.

Boromir: Boromir is the easiest character to convert in DnD rules because we have a direct measure of his power. He is a man. Without magic items and while alone, he fought against a horde of orcs and Uruk-Hai in Argonath and died. Before dying he killed dozens of orcs-and it took an Uruk-Hai commander to finish the job. He wears medium armor, a large shield and wields a longsword in that battle. The orcs-except for the Uruk Hai commander-don't have ranged weapons. He is one of the best warriors of Gondor, from a strong bloodline. That means elite array and up-or rather 25 to 30 point buy because he's a player character. AC is +6 armor, +3 shield, +2 dexterity (I'm gonna give him 14 dexterity). His +6 defence overlaps with his armor-but armor gives him DR 3. So he's AC 21-a normal orc hits him only on a 20 and even if it does hit, some damage is absorbed by DR. He has a good base strength score-say 15 and similar constitution. He has an abysmal wisdom score so I'll leave him at 8 but 13 intelligence and 13 charisma as he's been a leader among his people (though not as good as Faramir). With the level-up bonuses we're looking at Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 14 for a 30ish point buy. He's a straight fighter 12. He has 102 VP and 16 WP, barring toughness feats. He attacks at +16 with his longsword, doing 1d8+5 damage, including weapon focus/specialisation. Using Great Cleave, the above stats are more than enough to have him kill 20+ orcs while swarmed and a couple of Uruks before being killed-provided the orcs are stupid enough not to have ranged weapons (which they were).

Therefore Boromir can be done as a 12th level human fighter with 30ish point-buy and no magic items. This is the minimum, in DnD rules, that describes what Boromir did in the books. "Minimum" Boromir should be about CR 7 to account for no magic items and fighters getting the short end of the stick in DnD.

Aragorn: Aragorn requires to do Legolas and Boromir first to have a good reference. That is because Aragorn's feats in the book either do not really push him to the limit of his abilities-or do not offer a good reference basis to work out stats. However, with Legolas and Boromir done, we have two reference bases-Boromir is the lower one and Legolas the higher. Aragorn is definitely a more skilled fighter than Boromir. His life in the wild and constant fighting against the orcs of the wildlands give him more experience than both Boromir and Legolas. Boromir is much younger while Legolas lived in a more peaceful environment as a prince. Aragorn is, therefore, higher level than both of them-so Boromir is the lower reference point here. Why is Legolas the higher though? Because Legolas is better with the bow than Aragorn is even though Aragorn is proficient with it-so we mustn't do Aragorn so high in level or stats so he outstrips Legolas in the bow accuracy by virtue of higher BAB. Aragorn is also a Numenorian-he's about even with a Mirkwood elf in stats/supernatural gifts (not counting life expectancy) and thus LA-but his racial modifiers should be more evenly spread (so not a +4 into dexterity). Let's do him level 16 ranger with 30ish point buy for a try. Strength 15, Dexterity 13, Constitution 14, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 14, Charisma 10 would be how I'd do him-he's not stronger than Boromir though he's certainly wiser. He is not a very charismatic person either-he doesn't want to lead and is unsure about his leadership skills on many occasions. Add +3 to strength and +1 dexterity from leveling, +2 constitution, +2 wisdom, +2 charisma from being Numenorian for a total of Strength 18, Dexterity 14, Constitution 16, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 16, Charisma 12. Since Rangers in Middle Earth don't cast spells and don't have animal companions, we remove the spells and give them both combat styles and we remove animal companion and give them Hide in Plain Sight at that lower level instead. This also represents quite well Aragorn using single weapon, two weapons and bow almost as well in the books. Aragorn's AC is 10 base + 8 defence, +2 dexterity for an AC of 20. His meele AB is +20, +22 for longsword with greater weapon focus, +28 for Anduril, assuming Anduril is an epic weapon with +6 base enhancement. Ranged AB is +18, just a bit lower than Legolas with the longbow-and Aragorn does a good deal less damage with it, which is just what we wanted. Aragorn has favored enemies Goblins, Orcs, Giants and Undead. He has a bit low AC but we can give him combat expertise so he can make up for it. He has 120 HP and 16 WP. With Anduril (a +6 ghost-touch, flaming, evil dread longsword) he attacks at +33/+28/+23/+18 against any minions of Sauron, doing 1d8+4d6+1d6+17 points of damage. So, we cover just about everything he could do with Ranger 16, 30ish point buy and Numenorian template.

Aragorn is a 16th level Numenorian Ranger with 30ish pointbuy wielding a +6 ghosttouch flaming evil dread sword (Anduril) and no other magic weapons. This is not the lowest level that would reflect his feats in the books-but the best level that would reflect his abilities compared to "Minimum" Boromir and "Minimum" Legolas. Aragorn is CR 13 against a standard group-and CR 15 against an evil group.


Enough number-crunching for today. Tomorrow I do Gandalf and the Balrog.

brian c
2007-06-17, 11:54 AM
I don't have a whole lot to say, just keep in mind that the Balrog is not necessarily CR 20. Balor, the D&D monster is a CR 20, but those were inspired by Balrogs and not equal to them. Balrogs do have flaming swords, but I don't think they have Greater Teleport, Greater Dispel Magic, Implosion, or any of the other neat SLAs that Balors have.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-17, 12:02 PM
Not necessarily, but we must also remember that Aragorn was described as being 'no match' for Durin's Bane, and Gandalf should be about on the same level of power (both are powerful Maiar who killed one another after a long, drawn out battle in Moria).

Tequila Sunrise
2007-06-17, 12:18 PM
What it comes down to is that fictional characters just don't work according to a class/level system. Neither Ranger 20 nor Ranger 1/Paladin 3/Fighter 1 actually give you a character who is anything *like* the Aragorn of the book or film.

Thank you! I am so sick of seeing debates about how to stat out fictional characters. Why does it take so many people so long to realize that it just doesn't work? Novelists don't care about some load of numbers and esoteric words that a sub-culture of gamers use to entertain themselves, and this arguably includes D&D novelists. And all those magic items that seem to be so important to our game? Newsflash: an author doesn't need to load his/her hero down with loot to make them badass, the author writes by his/her own rules!

Matthew
2007-06-17, 12:25 PM
It's a game, an intellectual excercise. Nobody really expects to be able to accurately represent Aragorn in D&D, but it's fun to try and get as close as possible. And, of course, should you ever need an Aragorn type NPC you have one at the ready.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-17, 12:26 PM
It's not about 'making the right character', it's about the fun of statting it out as close as you can get. It's recreational, not a competition or anything. Chill.

Edit: Simu-posted.

nooblade
2007-06-17, 01:38 PM
If you go by the book, Aragorn definitely has Paladin in there somewhere, though not enough to get the horse, based on the plot. You see, Aragorn never really wanted to skimp on his heritage. If you count the kingsfoil thing as magic then maybe even enough to get cure disease or something, but that's probably just a heal check. Plus they made Faramir look neutral. Those bastards.

Going by the book would be best, really. Peter Jackson didn't know what he was doing, making half of the static characters dynamic, killing Saruman early, and putting wings on the Balrog. I think a Balrog is a little more like a Nightwalker than a Balor. Too late to complain I guess. If he re-makes the Silmarillion (required reading for a Tolkein-world), then I'll get some people together to protest.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-17, 01:41 PM
Let's not start the wings debate, please. It was his interpretation, he's allowed to put wings on. Neither side is proven to be right on the wings debate, and neither side ever will.

Matthew
2007-06-17, 01:50 PM
I still don't get this Paladin thing. Why is it appropriate for Aragorn?

Starbuck_II
2007-06-17, 02:10 PM
I still don't get this Paladin thing. Why is it appropriate for Aragorn?

I never understood it either.

Aragorn could be straight Ranger or Scout as both fit the archetype (wilderness warrior).
Did he move alot when he fought? Scout with skirmish
Did he do Rangery things? ... not really both can survival.

skywalker
2007-06-18, 12:29 AM
I still don't get this Paladin thing. Why is it appropriate for Aragorn?

Because in the book, once Aragorn acknowledged and embraced his kingly heritage fully, he was capable of healing people that others could not. Specifically, "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known" Alot of people take this to mean, "Aragorn has lay on hands as an ability."

However, giving him paladin levels is a horrible way to represent this. Some people also take Brego(I'm not sure this is his book name, it's been a long while since I read them) to be his "paladin mount," directly glossing over the fact that Brego was simply a wild horse no other *man* could hope to tame, but who Aragorn(with both a massive handle animal and a numenorean racial bonus) was capable of connecting with and taming. This use of handle animal and the fact that he winds up as a leader of scores of men makes me chafe a little bit at trying to pin a "low" charisma on him. I think he deserves better than a 12.

As for these levels being too high for him and legolas, I think they survived some pretty crazy stuff, going through Helm's Deep, Pelennor Fields, and the Black Gate without ever being hurt. That's actually a pretty high-level accomplishment, I think. And the idea behind epic levels is that they describe epic characters, right? And Aragorn, Legolas, etc. are in fact epic characters. I think some of the things they do are epic. Aragorn tames Brego and trains him for war in a very short period, which is an epic use of handle animal.

What I want to know is why someone thought it would be appropriate to give Gimli levels of ranger. Why?

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-18, 12:44 AM
Gimli always came off as a pure Fighter to me. I also agree that Paladin is a poor representation of Aragorn, who came across to me as a non-spellcasting Ranger-Fighter, or something.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-18, 12:52 AM
Don't you need only a few levels of ranger to cast healing spells? What's the deal with paladin levels?

skywalker
2007-06-18, 01:37 AM
Well, I think Aragorn is definitely using at least a bastard sword. He's of course got a variant of ranger that allows him to take TWF and Archery as combat styles. I'm almost positive he's wearing at least a chain shirt, though, not just studded leather. He's working the whole "sword and dagger" thing, so I think definitely ranger with TWF, as before, there's a class defense bonus from UA that is pretty handy for mimicking "character armor."

They still seem epic to me.

Gimli would have to be a straight fighter, there's nothing in movies or books to support an affinity for nature, nor does either ever say anything about tracking, nor do either support archery or TWF as a fighting style.

Tor, are you asking why I think the paladin levels are wrong? In that case, it is because there is no religious fervor in Aragorn, no driving crusade, in fact, you could argue he has quite the opposite, he runs away from his destiny. Plus, there is a rather large lack of paladin class features in his repertoire. People just give him Pally levels to account for the "hands of a healer" and the horse, which is really something he himself trained.

Jannex
2007-06-18, 02:11 AM
Because in the book, once Aragorn acknowledged and embraced his kingly heritage fully, he was capable of healing people that others could not. Specifically, "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known" Alot of people take this to mean, "Aragorn has lay on hands as an ability."

Given that I'm pretty sure Tolkein based this ability on an actual historical belief in England that the King's touch could cure a specific disease (I forget which one), I'd call this just a feat, with the prerequisite of being the rightful, reigning King of a country of Men.

Beleriphon
2007-06-18, 02:12 AM
I don't suppose anybody would be interested in the Mutants and Masterminds Second Edition rendering I did for the Fellowship?

Even if you're not, too bad. Quick explanation, their Power Level is derived from the averages of their max damage bonus and to hit bonus or the average of max defense bonus and toughness save bonus. Even if you're not specifically familiar with M&M I think this can help to illustrate certain concepts about the characters using an RPG system while at the same time freeing oneself of the constraints of the D&D class structure. Also, as hint to the general power of each character M&M suggests 15 power points for each PL as a reasonable point if you were to start building a character specifically for that power level.

Aragorn (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291112#291112)
Boromir (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291112#291118)
Frodo (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291733#291733)
Gandalf (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=292066#292066)
Gimli (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291629#291629)
Legolas (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291196#291196)
Merry (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=292002#292002)
Pippin (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=292023#292023)
Sam (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?p=291937#291937)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 05:32 AM
It's not about 'making the right character', it's about the fun of statting it out as close as you can get. It's recreational, not a competition or anything. Chill.

Edit: Simu-posted.

Just to add - actually that wasn't quite my point, and I don't think it was Justin Alexander's point either. My point was more to open a broader discussion about how the D&D system works, what it does and what it doesn't, and what it can and can not represent.

Justin Alexander's article essentially said "D&D is a lot more flexible than you think, and it can model a wide number of real world fictional characters, and the reason people think it can't, is because they expect everybody to be high level." It's this point I was rebutting.

My point is that D&D isn't designed to create characters that work like fictional characters.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 05:42 AM
Let's not start the wings debate, please. It was his interpretation, he's allowed to put wings on. Neither side is proven to be right on the wings debate, and neither side ever will.

I'm not going to start the "wings debate", but I *am* going to highlight the "Wings Debate" as an example of why you can't do most fictional settings in D&D.

The correct answer to the "wings debate" is "the Balrog is a creature of fire and shadow, a walking allegory, and whether or not it has wings in completely beside the point."

Unfortunately, in a traditional RPG, "does the Balrog have wings" is an important question. You need to know, if you are fighting the Balrog, whether you can avoid it by flying. You need to know the reach on its whip, you need to know whether you take damage from its Firey Aura.

Which completely eliminates the whole point of the creature.

Mike_G
2007-06-18, 01:14 PM
The problem with your Aragorn example is that you oversimplify it.

Aragorn, book or movie, surrounded by eight Orcs all attacking him at once, would be hurting.

In the book, the fight in Moria is a bunch of orcs entering through a door, fighting a nine person group. They can't enter all at once, and have to face multiple threats. Aragorn probably didn't have to face more than one or two at a time, as his comrades were probably protecting his back and his sides. A 5th level Fighter can face a ton of orcs one at a time, and not take any significant damage from a mere five or six. Same thing with Boromir's last stand. It was a very mobile fight, where the orcs couldn't easily surround him. He probably fought small groups of two or three scattered orcs at a time.

The second point is that Middle Earth orcs are wimpy. Probably more like D&D Goblins than Orcs with two handed weapons and Str bonuses. Specific examples in the text (book only):

-Treebeard mistakes two hobbits for "little orcs."
-Frodo and Sam disguise themsleves as Orcs by donning Orc equipment.
-The Uruk Hai Boromir slays are descirbed as being "Large orcs...almost man sized" who use larger, stronger bows than normal orcs, with longer arrows that Legolas finds compatible to his bow.
-Gimli slays 42(!) Orcs at Helm's Deep, but at the breach, he hides from some Human Dunlandings that Aragorn adn Eomer are fighting because "they seemed overlarge for me."
-The Riders of Rohan (non PCs) who wipe out the orcs that kinapped Merry and Pippin killed around 200 orcs for the loss of 15 men, even without a significant numerical advantage.
-Sam, a Hobbit gardener, with no real combat training, kills an dorc in Moria and another at Cirith Ungol, being slightly wounded once and kncoked down by an escaping orc in the other instance. We cannot assume that hobbit gardeners are 5th level PC classes. Sam is probably a commoner or an expert.

Therefore, we can deduce that in the book:
*Orcs are generally smaller than men. Small enough that a Hobbit can pass.
*Even big orcs are just almost man sized. 5' is man sized, if a bit short, so I'd put the Uruks no taller than that.
*Orcs use smaller, lighter weapons.
* A Dwarf who can face and defeat dozens of orcs is not confident of his chances against a few human soldiers.
*Well trained, but non PC level human warriors can inflict very high casualties on orcs, in comparison to their own losses.
* A 2nd or 3rd level expert could probably kill a single goblin, which works perfectly for Sam in the Moria fight.


So, Orcs are wimpier in the book than in D&D 3.5, and Aragorn's tactics weren't one against a dozen, but against one or two at a time, so he could easily at 5th level with the crappiest build ever, kill a half dozen goblins in sequence. I've had 1st and second level Rangers kill six Goblins if they could hold a door or some other way to shorten their front.

The other points made in Justin's article are that his tracking, knowledge, etc are doable by a 5th level PC, and nothing he does requires a PC much higher. If you stat literary charcaters at 5th level, it's semi believable. If you stat them at 20th, then they shouldn't ever feel threatened. I really do think a 5th level Aragorn could survive the fights he's in in the book.

If you stat every Orc in Moria with a 16 Str and a Falchion, then you need to make Sam the humble gardener out to be a 2nd level fighter, which is just silly. If that were the case, nobody would ever try to steal their mushrooms.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 01:45 PM
Well put, Mike. I wouldn't be so hard on Tolkien's Orcs, but yeah, that sounds about right to me.

A word on Eomer's company (or his Household, I think he says). They were probably composed of Warriors and Fighters, Levels 1-5. They could have had a significant level advantage over the Orcs, as they seem to have been constantly engaged in border warfare. They were also mounted, which I think is a not insignificant advantage.

Tolkien's Orcs are best modelled by D&D Goblins and Hobgoblins, in my opinion. The Goblins would be the Snaga (Slaves or Lesser Orcs) and the Hobgoblins the Uruks (Orcs or Greater Orcs). Moria was mainly full of Lesser Orcs, by all account, though there was an Orc Captain who Aragorn slays after he wounds Frodo.

The fellowship, after losing Gandalf, also defeats a group of Orcs guarding the exit from Moria with little trouble (barely described).

Draz74
2007-06-18, 02:35 PM
One more thing to bear in mind to make all these debates even more complicated:

Just because something isn't described as an obvious, flashy magic weapon that can have a name attached to it doesn't mean it wasn't a magic item.

I think just about all of the gifts Galadriel gave the Fellowship would have been magical. Even if some of them just had a permanent cantrip on them (Gimli's lock of hair). Legolas's new Bow of the Galadhrim was not just a masterwork composite longbow. Sure, it's not described as anything flashy that makes arrows light on fire when shot or whatnot. But ... how is that different than a +3 Bow? That's not described as having any flashy effects either. Given the reverence of the characters toward mithril, I could see all mithril armor in Middle-Earth being, not just masterwork, but +1.

Heck, Gandalf's robe could even have minor magic powers that are just never dramatic enough to be worth the narrator's mentioning. Middle-Earth is low-magic, but there is no reason to completely chuck WBL assumptions (for D&D statting of LotR) without analyzing the situation carefully.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 02:46 PM
I often think that about the weapons in LotR, I have to admit. Hard to say how much magic is involved in anything, because it's so subtle it seems to be involved in everything. Still, I probably wouldn't take things too far. Those Noldorian(?) Daggers from the barrow downs could be +1 Weapons, but I get the feeling that Sting is more than just +2.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-18, 03:20 PM
Hmm, those are some interesting points about the weapons/items. I too have the tendency to underestimate their enhancement level because they're not blatantly described as enchanted with powerful magics or anything. The only things that get that kind of description are in the category of artifacts, like the Ring. But as you say, that doesn't mean the other items aren't the equivalent of D&D magic.

I think everyone is familiar with that quote about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. There's a tendency to reverse that, and assume that magic will work in a technology-like way in a fantasy world. D&D magic, certainly, is very logical and analytical. One can determine what sort of magic an item has, and they are crafted by magic-users in a fairly standardized fashion.

Tolkien's world doesn't really fit that model. Magic is much more mysterious, and the line between enchantment and craftsmanship is very blurred. For instance the cloaks which the Fellowship receives are almost certainly "of Elvenkind," as the magic item. But that's not because the elves went through a process of casting Invisibility into the item. Odds are they can't even CAST Invisibility. That's just the way elves make traveling cloaks. Similarly, Glamdring and Orcrist are probably Orc Bane with a few points of enhancement as well. But that's just because they were made during the war with the orcs, by elves who hate orcs. The smiths didn't make a conscious decision to craft some Orc Bane swords. They were simply making some very finely crafted swords indeed, with fighting orcs in mind.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-18, 03:55 PM
A Dwarf who can face and defeat dozens of orcs is not confident of his chances against a few human soldiers.

I really have only one thing to add to this.

"I followed you to stave off sleeping"

Gimli was fatigued, and didn't want to get in their(Aragorn and Eomer) way. He is not afraid of men. He in fact threatens Eomer while he was surrounded by Rohirrim on horseback (and himself on foot).

Matthew
2007-06-18, 04:06 PM
Oh man, a fight between Gimli and Eomer... Yeah, that's a good point. Gimli wasn't really afraid of Men, though he was afraid of the Paths of the Dead. Still, Gimli didn't exactly come from a Race that liked to weigh up the odds, fighting unto death is a common trope of Tolkien style fantasy, particularly with regards to Dwarves, if applied inconsistantly (The Dwarves in The Hobbit are sometimes cowardly and his description of them is not exactly flattering, but by the end they have recovered their bravery and pride along with their treasure and home).

Morty
2007-06-18, 04:07 PM
I don't think that D&D item rules apply to LoTR at all. As SpiderBrigade said, special items in Middle-earth weren't enchanted by some lowly mage, but they were specially crafted- that's really how magic items should work in D&D by the way. Besides, do we have any proof that, for example, Sting or Orcrist worked better against orcs beside glowing in their presence? "Epic" items in LoTR were products of very fine craftsmanship, while in D&D everything better that average is magical.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 04:12 PM
I think that's what we're saying. The question is what effects, if any, they actually had? Orcrist and Glamdring were described as being forged for use against Goblins/Orcs, but there is nothing to say they were more effective against them than any other foe, except, perhaps, their tendency to glow in their presence, which suggests Goblin specific enchantments (though it could be they just glow in the presence of evil). Goblins ceratinly hated the weapons and anyone who bore them, assuming them to be seeking to harm Goblins simply by bearing them, which is demonstrated in the result of their audience with the Great Goblin King.

Morty
2007-06-18, 04:20 PM
Well, while reading Hobbit and LoTR I considered it more like psychological effect rather than physical one. On the other hand, at the beginning of Two Towers Aragorn says that orcs left Merry and Pippin's daggers behind because there were "inscribed with spells baleful for Mordor" or however it sounded in English.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 04:26 PM
Good point. Of course, Orcs find all 'Elvish' things to be harmful or hateful, but there are exceptions. Shagrat is apparently able to bear Frodo's Dwarf manufactured Mithril Armour, Elvish Cloak and Dunedain Blade without problem.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-18, 04:33 PM
I'd suggest they were called "Biter" and "Baiter" for a reason (by orcs) so they would assumedly do more damage to them than the average blade. They did not actually glow in the presence of a miscellany of other evils (e.g. the ents in Bombadil's forest, or the Nazgul).

Person_Man
2007-06-18, 05:01 PM
I've always assumed that Aragorn's player rolled 4d6 drop the lowest, and by some fluke came up with all 18's or something similar. Aragorn is strong, quick, survives a ton of damage, intelligent, wise, and a natural leader. His DM also allowed him to take two minor flaws for bonus feats, and they're playing a gestalt game. I'm guessing he's a Swordsage/Warblade. Light Armor, Wis to AC, Int to a bunch of different bonuses, excellent Skills, full BAB, and a ton of maneuvers.

Mike_G
2007-06-18, 06:27 PM
I really have only one thing to add to this.

"I followed you to stave off sleeping"

Gimli was fatigued, and didn't want to get in their(Aragorn and Eomer) way. He is not afraid of men. He in fact threatens Eomer while he was surrounded by Rohirrim on horseback (and himself on foot).

Tired didn't stop him killing 42 orcs. The two he kills in that episode are the first of his three and a half dozen, so he ain't all that weary yet.

Plus, he says the Dunlandings "seemed overlarge." Not, "Hey, didn't want to kill steal."

Orcs are (in LOTR) small enough that a Hobbit can pass for one, and even the big ones are "almost" man high. I'd say a 3-5 foot height range.

Goblins work quite well for the lowly snaga types, as Matthew said, with Hobbos or RAW Orcs for the big Uruks.

If we look at the Fellowship as a party of four 4-5 th level melee types (Aragorn, Boromir, Legoloas and Gimli) whose mission is to escort a powerful NPC wizard and some non combatant Hobbits (who didn't even pack weapons when leaving the Shire, since "of their expected adventures, fighting did not occur to them"), would defending a room against say, 20 Orcs or mixed goblinoids be a fair challenge?

I would say any four melee PCs of that level could hold a room against a few dozen goblins or orcs all day. Let's look at the actual (Book version) fight in Balin's Tomb.


They wedged the door, so the orcs can't just swarm in and surround everybody, they have to force the opening and come in a few at a time. Leggy picks them off as they enter (he shoot two in the initial rush, so Rapid Shot or Manyshot), and then the three melee types form a line and wipe out the survivors that reach it. We don't know the exact positions, but I'm fairly sure our heroes wouldn't stand 15 feet away from each other so each could get surrounded by his own eight orcs. If each only had to face one or two per round, and had some feats like "Hold the Line" they could hack down charging orcs with AoO's before the poor buggers even got a blow in. 5th level Rangers or Fighters should be able to drop standard orcs with one shot, and shouldn't miss the AC11 of a charging orc, so figure most rounds they will drop their foe, who may or may not get a shot in. If they have Cleave, then they can expect to drop both foes more often than not.

Now, two Orcs do get past the front line. One wounds Sam and Sam shanks him (figure a crit with a Small shortsword would do it) and one Bullrushes past Boromir and stabs Frodo before Aragorn kills him. Frodo is saved by his armor, which is a homebrew item that grants DR.

This is totally doable encounter with a 4-5th level party, trying to protect some 2-3rd level Experts, Commoners, or Aristocrats, which make far more sense for the Hobbit characters since none of them were trained Fighters, Rogues or casters.

So, can Aragorn, alone, on a baketball court, win against eight orcs surrounding him as a 5th level PC? No.

Can the Fellowship, statted out as 4th or 5th, except for the Hobbits, who are lower, and Gandalf who is clearly a DMPC, defeat a few dozen CR 1/2 enemies if they have a good spot to defend? I hope so.

I've yet to see a party above 3rd level wiped out by a handful of Orcs.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-18, 07:00 PM
by his armor, which is a homebrew item that grants DR.

I see this as more of an argument for a LotR game would use the armor as Dr option, than a homebrew item. Although most LotR items would be hombrew stuff, except the 'classic' (cloak of elvenkind, for example).

Jorkens
2007-06-18, 07:26 PM
I'd suggest they were called "Biter" and "Baiter" for a reason (by orcs) so they would assumedly do more damage to them than the average blade. They did not actually glow in the presence of a miscellany of other evils (e.g. the ents in Bombadil's forest, or the Nazgul).
Ahem:

Sting (chaotic elven dagger)
Carried
No effect.

Wielded
+d5 to hit and x2 damage only against orcs (all o, orc mummies, and orc zombies).
Confers the warning intrinsic, specifically attuned to orcs.
Cuts through all webs.

Invoked
No effect.

and


Orcrist (chaotic elven broadsword)
Carried
No effect.

Wielded
+d5 to hit and x2 damage only against orcs (all o, orc mummies, and orc zombies).

Invoked
No effect.

Jorkens
2007-06-18, 07:28 PM
I'm not going to start the "wings debate", but I *am* going to highlight the "Wings Debate" as an example of why you can't do most fictional settings in D&D.

The correct answer to the "wings debate" is "the Balrog is a creature of fire and shadow, a walking allegory, and whether or not it has wings in completely beside the point."

Unfortunately, in a traditional RPG, "does the Balrog have wings" is an important question. You need to know, if you are fighting the Balrog, whether you can avoid it by flying. You need to know the reach on its whip, you need to know whether you take damage from its Firey Aura.

Which completely eliminates the whole point of the creature.
What's really annoying is when this process works backwards, and you get fantasy novels written like RPG's where you can't have a mighty wizard without having a well defined list of effects that they can and cannot produce at any given time...

TheElfLord
2007-06-18, 08:02 PM
-Treebeard mistakes two hobbits for "little orcs."

Do you notice the sublte differences in little kids that come to just below your knee compared to just above your knee? Treebeard is 14 feet tall, to him there isn't that big a difference between 3 and 5 feet.


-Frodo and Sam disguise themsleves as Orcs by donning Orc equipment.

Between people i've met there is over a 2 foot range of hieghts, is it so strange that orcs can be the same way? I'm sure they would be on the small end and that most other orcs would be taller. Plus, the orcs had never seen a hobbit before, and in the dark jumped to the conculsion that the strangers in orc equipment were orcs, as opposed to a new species they had never heard of.


-The Uruk Hai Boromir slays are descirbed as being "Large orcs...almost man sized" who use larger, stronger bows than normal orcs, with longer arrows that Legolas finds compatible to his bow.

Orcs are shorter then men, but not by that much. They seem to be about dwarf size, or a bit taller.


-Gimli slays 42(!) Orcs at Helm's Deep, but at the breach, he hides from some Human Dunlandings that Aragorn adn Eomer are fighting because "they seemed overlarge for me."

As before, orcs are about dwarf sized. That should have no impact on their fighitng abilty, as dwarves are short and considered powerful warriors.


-The Riders of Rohan (non PCs) who wipe out the orcs that kinapped Merry and Pippin killed around 200 orcs for the loss of 15 men, even without a significant numerical advantage.

Look at some millitary history, such as the time from the invetion of the sturrip until the comming of the longbow and guns. Mounted warriors are a huge advantage.


-Sam, a Hobbit gardener, with no real combat training, kills an dorc in Moria and another at Cirith Ungol, being slightly wounded once and kncoked down by an escaping orc in the other instance. We cannot assume that hobbit gardeners are 5th level PC classes. Sam is probably a commoner or an expert.[Quote]

The first one was probably luck, and the second one was circumstance (it fell through an open trap door)

[QUOTE] Therefore, we can deduce that in the book:
*Orcs are generally smaller than men. Small enough that a Hobbit can pass.

Again range, Hobbits average 3'2" in hieght, and orc could still be over 5 ft without a huge strech.


*Even big orcs are just almost man sized. 5' is man sized, if a bit short, so I'd put the Uruks no taller than that.

In LOTR the Numanorians were at least 6'4" tall, so I think your man sized is a bit short. I would say urks are between 5 and 5'6"


*Orcs use smaller, lighter weapons.
Orcs use scimitars and sabers, curved swords

* A Dwarf who can face and defeat dozens of orcs is not confident of his chances against a few human soldiers.

Similar to the horses idea, height brings many advantages in combat. Note that he also didn't say he was worried about his chances. His comment is presented in more of a not my cup of tea preference sort of way.

*Well trained, but non PC level human warriors can inflict very high casualties on orcs, in comparison to their own losses.
horses, enough said.
* A 2nd or 3rd level expert could probably kill a single goblin, which works perfectly for Sam in the Moria fight.



Aragorn's tactics weren't one against a dozen, but against one or two at a time, so he could easily at 5th level with the crappiest build ever, kill a half dozen goblins in sequence.

Pure presumption. We don't know how the fight occured. The book says the door burst open and goblins flooded into the room. It doesn't describe anything that happens untill after the 13 orc had fallen.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 08:51 PM
ElfLord. Don't even get me started on the Stirrup/Long Bow fallacy. Being Mounted doesn't mean much against steady Foot. If the Orcs had stood together the Riders wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it and I might point out that the Long Bows of the Uruks did them little good against the Riders. Unfortunately, Ugluk's non Isengard troops are gutless, as he says on p. 476 when discussing tactics, "They'd just squeal and bolt and there are more than enough of those filthy horse boys to mop up our lot on the flat." When it comes down to it, he's exactly right, as most of the non Isengard Orcs leg it after the first charge on p. 481.

All the same, it's evident that Eomer's Household Troops are on average better Warriors than the Orcs and losing fifteen out of a hundred and twenty men was, for him, considered a bad result (he hadn't counted on the Orcish reinforcements led by Mauhur). Discipline and morale were also probably key. Frankly getting Men and Horse to charge a compact body of Foot would speak volumes about their courage, discipline and horsemanship.

Note on height. Whilst there are other resources that put Elves at over 6' and Men with Elvish blood also, I wouldn't be inclined to think it from the book itself. All the same, almost Man height doesn't mean 5', probably more like a span (4) of inches off, and their stooped character probably factors into this observation.
However, it is plain that Orcs can be of any size from Hobbit to almost Man size (presumably some actually are man size), depending on the breed.

Dwarves never struck me as terribly short in LotR (4-5'), but then you have that passage in The Hobbit where Bilbo could be mistaken for a Dwarf. All the same, I think it would be fair to say that Tolkien doesn't make any specific claims about height in LotR, except by way of comparitive terminology.

Orcs use all kinds of weapons, their swords are 'usually' scimitars, but the swords of the Uruks in Saruman's service have their weapons described on p. 436 as not Scimitars, but 'short broad bladed swords'. Funnily enough, that is also the description my Dictionary gives for a Falchion, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

TheElfLord
2007-06-18, 09:05 PM
ElfLord. Don't even get me started on the Stirrup/Long Bow fallacy. Being Mounted doesn't mean much against steady Infantry. If the Orcs had stood together the Riders wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it and I might point out that the Long Bows of the Uruks did them little good against the Riders. Unfortunately, Ugluk's non Isengard troops are gutless, as he says on p. 476 when discussing tactics, "They'd just squeal and bolt and there are more than enough of those filthy horse boys to mop up our lot on the flat." When it comes down to it, he's exactly right, as most of the non Isengard Orcs leg it after the first charge on p. 481.

In the fact of a heavy calverly charge, steady infantry is often hard to come by. The fight also happened just before dawn, when the orc's were tired.



Note on height. Whilst there are other resources that put Elves at over 6' and Men with Elvish blood also, I wouldn't be inclined to think it from the book itself. All the same, almost Man height doesn't mean 5', probably more like a span (4) of inches off, and their stooped character probably factors into this observation.
However, it is plain that Orcs can be of any size from Hobbit to almost Man size (presumably some actually are man size), depending on the breed.

Dwarves never struck me as terribly short in LotR (4-5'), but then you have that passage in The Hobbit where Bilbo could be mistaken for a Dwarf. All the same, I think it would be fair to say that Tolkien doesn't make any specific claims about height in LotR, except by way of comparitive terminology.

Not in LOTR, no, but in Unfinished Taleshe does mention the average height of hobbits and Numenorians to be 3'2" and 6'4" respectivly. Aragon Boromir and Faramir were almost certainly at least this height. This would let lesser men that are related to the Numenorians, such as the Men of Rohan be shorter but still of good stature, such as around 5'10' - 6'0. Really weak and primitive men, such as the Wussus, could be even shorter. This still allows for almost man hight to be over 5 ft.


Orcs use all kinds of weapons, their swords are 'usually' scimitars, but the swords of the Uruks in Saruman's service have their weapons described on p. 436 as not Scimitars, but 'short broad bladed swords'. Funnily enough, that is also the description my Dictionary gives for a Falchion, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

You are correct in this

TheElfLord
2007-06-18, 09:08 PM
ElfLord. Don't even get me started on the Stirrup/Long Bow fallacy. Being Mounted doesn't mean much against steady Infantry. If the Orcs had stood together the Riders wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it and I might point out that the Long Bows of the Uruks did them little good against the Riders. Unfortunately, Ugluk's non Isengard troops are gutless, as he says on p. 476 when discussing tactics, "They'd just squeal and bolt and there are more than enough of those filthy horse boys to mop up our lot on the flat." When it comes down to it, he's exactly right, as most of the non Isengard Orcs leg it after the first charge on p. 481.

In the face of a heavy calverly charge, steady infantry is often hard to come by. The fight also happened just before dawn, when the orc's were tired.



Note on height. Whilst there are other resources that put Elves at over 6' and Men with Elvish blood also, I wouldn't be inclined to think it from the book itself. All the same, almost Man height doesn't mean 5', probably more like a span (4) of inches off, and their stooped character probably factors into this observation.
However, it is plain that Orcs can be of any size from Hobbit to almost Man size (presumably some actually are man size), depending on the breed.

Dwarves never struck me as terribly short in LotR (4-5'), but then you have that passage in The Hobbit where Bilbo could be mistaken for a Dwarf. All the same, I think it would be fair to say that Tolkien doesn't make any specific claims about height in LotR, except by way of comparitive terminology.

Not in LOTR, no, but in Unfinished Taleshe does mention the average height of hobbits and Numenorians to be 3'2" and 6'4" respectivly. Aragon Boromir and Faramir were almost certainly at least this height. This would let lesser men that are related to the Numenorians, such as the Men of Rohan be shorter but still of good stature, such as around 5'10' - 6'0. Really weak and primitive men, such as the Wussus, could be even shorter. This still allows for almost man hight to be over 5 ft.


Orcs use all kinds of weapons, their swords are 'usually' scimitars, but the swords of the Uruks in Saruman's service have their weapons described on p. 436 as not Scimitars, but 'short broad bladed swords'. Funnily enough, that is also the description my Dictionary gives for a Falchion, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

You are correct in this

Matthew
2007-06-18, 09:37 PM
In the face of a heavy calverly charge, steady infantry is often hard to come by. The fight also happened just before dawn, when the orc's were tired.

Sure, but I bet you the Rohirrim would have held (as would the literary convention). The point is that Ugluk doesn't trust his non-Isengarders to stand (and they don't). I would imagine both they and the Rohirrim were plenty tired by this point. Regardless, this particular company of Riders seem to have had the advantage of their foes in many respects. Probably better rested, higher morale, better discipline, probably better gear, skilled and mounted horsemen, probably all round more skilled fighters. If there had been two hundred Isengarders, I think it would have been a different story, but man for man, I'd still put the Rohirrim above them


Not in LOTR, no, but in Unfinished Taleshe does mention the average height of hobbits and Numenorians to be 3'2" and 6'4" respectivly. Aragon Boromir and Faramir were almost certainly at least this height. This would let lesser men that are related to the Numenorians, such as the Men of Rohan be shorter but still of good stature, such as around 5'10' - 6'0. Really weak and primitive men, such as the Wussus, could be even shorter. This still allows for almost man hight to be over 5 ft.

And, of course, that's the problem. Tolkien never actually published this work himself and his world was always in a state of flux (take, for instance, the Orcs are Elves problem). All the same, I would say 6'0" would be a fair guess for 'man size', with 6'4" for Numenorians like Aragorn. I'd say on the basis of that, that Isengard Uruks could have been just under or just over 6'0", but it's all supposition really and I doubt Tolkien thought in such exact terms when writing that passage. In short, I agree with you that 5'0" is far too short for Great Orcs, but I think Lesser Orcs must logically have had quite a height range (something like 3'6" to 5'0").

[Edit] Oops, forgot, Tolkien does give the height for Halflings in more precise terms in LotR with Merry and Pippin's competition and Ent Draughts.

Mike_G
2007-06-18, 11:43 PM
OK, on the height thing:

Six feet tall is not "almost" man high.

Four foot ten is "almost" man high.

I'm a towering 5'3" and the last guy to call me "almost man sized" may walk again some day, with lots of luck and good physical therapy.

The Rohirrim weren't all over six foot, and they don't get demoted to "almost." Nor do the Breelanders, or the Boernings, or the Men of Esgaroth or all the other non-Numenorians.

Orcs in Middle Earth are smaller than Men.

On the whole thing about the Fellowship needing to be over tenth level to survive the battle at Balin's Tomb:

Any 5th level party worth its salt can hold off a dozen Orcs no problem.

If you think you need a twelfth level party to defeat a dozen CR 1/2 monsters, I weep for your tactics.

Matthew
2007-06-18, 11:51 PM
Hah, hah. Okay, I can see real life height may be an issue here. We have to remember that Tolkien's stuff is fairly abstract. I would say, since Men run from 5'+ to 6'+ that it's not unreasonable to read 'almost man height' as a range of 5-6'. What's the page reference for the phrase, anyway?

I think most people here are on board with Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli being in the 5-10 Level range. I can see Level 5 or 6 no problem (though Legolas probably has some not insignificant LA)

Mike_G
2007-06-19, 12:01 AM
Hah, hah. Okay, I can see real life height may be an issue here. We have to remember that Tolkien's stuff is fairly abstract. I would say, since Men run from 5'+ to 6'+ that it's not unreasonable to read 'almost man height' as a range of 5-6'. What's the page reference for the phrase, anyway?


Not sure of the page.

It's in the Two Towers after the death of Boromir when Sragorn, Legolas and Gimli are examining the fallen, and note the differences between Isengarders and other Orcs.

I just think, logically, if a man can be 5 feet tall, then 5 feet is "man high," if at the short end. "Almost" man high, would have to be less.

How can someone be "man high" at 5'6", and Ugluk be "Almost man high" at six feet?


The height thing is a bit irrelevant, I just wanted to point out thet JRRT consistently describes Orcs as lesser staure than men, and D&D Orcs are big and strong. Orcs always lose more troops in battle, even against "normal" human warriors, so I think a bog standard 3.5 RAW Orc is an exceptionally tough Middle Earth Orc. I would stat the bulk of the Moria crowd as Goblins, easily a managable challenge for four Fighter/Ranger types of 4th-5th level.

Matthew
2007-06-19, 12:11 AM
That's where I was looking, but I couldn't find it. Maybe it's later on after Helm's Deep? I do seem to remember the phrase.

It all depends on your definition of 'man high'. Minimum, average or ideal, it's impossible to know what Tolkien had in mind (if anything). I don't think it has much literal meaning beyond the 'not as good' overtone.

I bloody hate D&D 3.x Orcs. Just rubbed me up the wrong way with their War Hammer/World of War Craft feel. Yeah, Moria Orcs are going to be mainly Goblin types, I would tend to agree.

skywalker
2007-06-19, 12:44 AM
The average man is 5'9" in Tolkien's native UK. Figure 5"8" in Tolkien's day, since there is a demonstrated creep towards taller heights recently. This would, conceivably, mean that almost man-size means between 5'3" to 5'7". Yes, there are men who are 5' flat. No, there are not many, and in fact, many classify those 4'10" and under as little people, or in less polite terms, *dwarves.*

Now, I know that people with dwarfism and Tolkien's dwarves are two different things, however, I think that if the Orcs were 5' or shorter, wouldn't they be referred to as dwarf-sized, not almost man sized?

A myth is being perpetuated in this thread that there were only a dozen orcs/goblins/baddies in the Balin's tomb fight. There are 13 killed, but there are many more that flee, and of course, there is one orc chieftain, who is surely higher than CR 1/2.

I would like to point out that perhaps the orcs are RAW orcs, or do have the levels people give them, and the hobbits happen to be using luck feats, or possibly action points. Luck feats seem to fit really well with what happens to the hobbits, they get on by the skin of their teeth rather often, especially in the books.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-19, 04:02 AM
Given their characters, it would be quite plausible to consider Peregrin and Meriadoc as low-level rogues or somesuch even at the beginning of the books. Main characters tend not to be Commoners.

Matthew
2007-06-19, 09:18 PM
Nah, Pippin and Merry are Aristocrats, like Frodo. Sam's an Expert.

The Orcs in Moria are no way RAW Orcs. 17 Strength? No way. Anywho, yeah there are more than thirteen Orcs in that attack, but the point is that they only have to kill thirteen and the encounter 'was sharp', which suggests short. The Orc Chieften is himself a separate Encounter, it seems.

Dervag
2007-06-19, 11:34 PM
The height thing is a bit irrelevant, I just wanted to point out thet JRRT consistently describes Orcs as lesser staure than men, and D&D Orcs are big and strong. Orcs always lose more troops in battle, even against "normal" human warriors, so I think a bog standard 3.5 RAW Orc is an exceptionally tough Middle Earth Orc. I would stat the bulk of the Moria crowd as Goblins, easily a managable challenge for four Fighter/Ranger types of 4th-5th level.I think you're right. Orcs are supposed to be twisted and inferior abominations, the product of evil's sick attempt to create their own version of the 'natural' races of demihumans and humans. This suggests that they should not be huge and fierce and scary relative to the 'natural' races (halflings being excepted since all the humanoid races are out of their weight class anyway).


The average man is 5'9" in Tolkien's native UK. Figure 5"8" in Tolkien's day, since there is a demonstrated creep towards taller heights recently. This would, conceivably, mean that almost man-size means between 5'3" to 5'7". Yes, there are men who are 5' flat. No, there are not many, and in fact, many classify those 4'10" and under as little people, or in less polite terms, *dwarves.*As others pointed out, the "average man" of Tolkein's fictional universe is somewhat taller than the average man of the United Kingdom.


Nah, Pippin and Merry are Aristocrats, like Frodo. Sam's an Expert.Why Aristocrats?

Matthew
2007-06-19, 11:37 PM
Often overlooked by readers is the fact that Pippin and Merry are from the noble Took and Brandybuck families respectively (notice how they don't have jobs or professions, unlike Sam), though they are also related to one another. Much like Frodo, they're members of the local gentry, so Aristocrat is the best fit, especially considering their later roles.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-06-19, 11:43 PM
The average man is 5'9" in Tolkien's native UK. Figure 5"8" in Tolkien's day, since there is a demonstrated creep towards taller heights recently. This would, conceivably, mean that almost man-size means between 5'3" to 5'7". Yes, there are men who are 5' flat. No, there are not many, and in fact, many classify those 4'10" and under as little people, or in less polite terms, *dwarves.*

Funny, because I always found the term 'little people' to be infinitely more offensive than 'dwarves'. One's condescending, the other's a nickname.

Let's not forget, of course, that the Numenoreans were much taller than normal men, and some of their bloodline still exists in much of the population (though none as pure as Aragorn, and few as pure as, say, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor).

Breaon
2007-06-20, 02:48 AM
Just for reference, since there's a lot of Tolkien talk going on, some of which is speculation:

The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/default.asp)

You can spend hours here, just looking, reading, following bloodlines, links, etc.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 03:19 AM
Often overlooked by readers is the fact that Pippin and Merry are from the noble Took and Brandybuck families
True, but as major characters they're effectively player characters, so they should have a true PC class. Given their behavior, rogue seems appropriate.

Dervag
2007-06-20, 04:56 AM
My impression was that while Aristocrat is an NPC class, it is at least remotely viable as a PC class. It's not as sucky as, say, Commoner. Since however you stat out the Fellowship it's clear that the characters are not balanced in level or power, it's quite plausible that some of the players chose to play halfling Aristocrats.

Morty
2007-06-20, 05:10 AM
True, but as major characters they're effectively player characters, so they should have a true PC class. Given their behavior, rogue seems appropriate.

But they don't have any rogue abilities. They can't find traps, don't have many different skills and, most importantly, they can't stab people in the back with deadly precision. I think that Aristocrat is preety good fit for them, as well as Frodo. Let's not forget that the point of all hobbit characters in LoTR was that they got driven into something too big for them.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 05:15 AM
But they don't have any rogue abilities. They can't find traps, don't have many different skills and, most importantly, they can't stab people in the back with deadly precision. I think that Aristocrat is preety good fit for them, as well as Frodo. Let's not forget that the point of all hobbit characters in LoTR was that they got driven into something too big for them.

None of the characters in LotR have *any* class features. Aragorn doesn't cast magic (Ranger) lay on hands (Paladin) or wear heavy armour (Fighter or Paladin). Gandalf seldom if ever casts spells.

Tobrian
2007-06-20, 05:17 AM
On top of that, Middle Earth is more fatal, and thus would probably use Armor as DR and Vitality/Wounds, which makes hordes of things even more frightening without access to AoE's to get rid of them in large numbers at a time.

Not to mention that in D&D hitpoint increase with every level and can reach ridiculous amounts, while on most other RPG systems (LotR, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy, Midgard, Shadowrun, GURPS, KULT etc) you get a small amount of hitpoints that are pretty static (or they don't increase much) or you get fixed wound levels that are the same for every character. Being killed with a single critical blow can still happen to a high-level character in those games.


True, but as major characters they're effectively player characters, so they should have a true PC class. Given their behavior, rogue seems appropriate.

*groan*
Player character classes in D&D were created to reflect heroes the likes of Conan. Not normal people.

There is such a class as "Expert"... both in the DMG (the NPC variant) and in Unearthed Arcana (the more powerful PC variant with more bonus feats). No need to make them rogues.

on the other hand, the original D&D ranger was modeled by Gygax after "Aragorn the ranger" from LotR: tracking, favorite enemy (orks), healing skill, survival skill, riding, knowledge (nature), sword and bow proficiencies, endurance.

Aragorn in D&D would probably be an elite scout or ranger/fighter without spellcasting and animal companion, but instead with noble heritage and various Knowledge skills (history/local/nature/nobility) as class skills. Or something. The whole laying on hands stuff was part of the "True King of Gondor" package. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2007-06-20, 05:19 AM
None of the characters in LotR have *any* class features. Aragorn doesn't cast magic (Ranger) lay on hands (Paladin) or wear heavy armour (Fighter or Paladin). Gandalf seldom if ever casts spells.

Aragorn fights well and knows how to survive in wilderness, and Gandalf is wizard, even if he doesn't throw fireballs around- so they do have ceratin combat and survival skills, even it those don't fit into any D&D class. Hobbits on the other hand, don't posses any skills like that. They're just common folks who got into something too big for them.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 05:32 AM
Aragorn fights well and knows how to survive in wilderness, and Gandalf is wizard, even if he doesn't throw fireballs around- so they do have ceratin combat and survival skills, even it those don't fit into any D&D class. Hobbits on the other hand, don't posses any skills like that. They're just common folks who got into something too big for them.

They don't die instantly, which implies that they at least possess a reasonable number of hitpoints. And they do *actually* manage to kill some Orcs.

Wizardguy
2007-06-20, 05:41 AM
No one familiar with good old MERP by Iron Crown Enterprises?
If you're looking for stats of chars and monsters from Tolkien's world for the use in a D&D RPG... why start at the beginning, when others already did half the work! ^^
someone mentioned the new (realeased with the movies) lotr rpg already, but old MERP covers more of Endor: more locations and maps, more npcs, higher level encounters, more overall material!
You just gotta make or find (in the vastness of the web) some conversion rules. there were some out there for AD&D2e to MERP and vice versa... from there it's but a little step to D&D3.5.
The material is not always canon (regarding the books of JRRT) and is vastly expanded by material made up entirely by ICE.
But if you want some serious action (high level + high-magic) in Middle-Earth, you have to take a look at those books!
Combine them with D&D3.5 and the epic level rules and you can meddle with everything from a city street ruffian (merp lvl about 5 ~ dnd lvl 3+) to a renegade maia (merp lvl up to 100+ ~ dnd lvl 40+) ... something like that ;)

in MERP Aragorn, son of Arathorn (?) is listed as a lvl 36 ranger (around 3019, at the end of the third age)! ^^

Legolas "sucks" levelwise with just lvl 28, but his attack bonus with the bow is way bigger than that of his dunadan friend

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 05:45 AM
Plus they're moderately effective in fighting Boromir, using attacks that plausibly qualify as sneaky. I suspect they don't have a lot of skills due to low int :) but they do have pretty good ranks in cooking, stealth, some singing, knowledge/local, and rudimentary wilderness survival. The only reason they never found any traps is because there aren't any over the course of the books.

And they don't use Acting. Everybody knows acting is on the aristocrat's skill list.



but old MERP covers more of Endor
Endor? Hobbits aren't nearly as lame as ewoks.

And yes, Aragorn is the son of Arathorn, with a long bloodline stretching back to Isildur.

Wizardguy
2007-06-20, 05:52 AM
Endor? Hobbits aren't nearly as lame as ewoks.


^^ as far as i know the main continent of arda is called endor... my memory might trick me though!

tolkien and lucas might both have borrowed from the (hebrew) bible... there somewhere endor is a canaanite village, home of the witch of endor...

Matthew
2007-06-20, 06:48 AM
True, but as major characters they're effectively player characters, so they should have a true PC class. Given their behavior, rogue seems appropriate.
Well, whilst it's a good point that as major Characters they should be Player Characters, I don't get why people want to make them Rogues. The Hobbits don't do much of anything early on in the story, except fight ineffectually. The only stealthy thing that springs to mind is when they all successfully hide from a Nazgul (which was clearly handled by DM fiat to scare the crap out of the players). They aren't professional anythings really. Later on in the books I could see them getting a few Player Class Levels in Fighter, but they could have just as easily stayed Aristocrat. They may have Ranks in Cooking, Singing, Survival and Knowledge (Local); two of these are Class skills for the Aristocrat, Singing and Cooking could be Cross Class Skills, as they aren't professionals or anything. Aristocrats gets loads of Class Skills and 4 Skill Points per Level.
Frodo, on the other hand, is probably taking levels in the Ring Bearer Prestige Class, in my opinion, and Sam may have Multi Classed into Fighter, but might just as easily be in some Prestige Class of other.

Fighting Boromir? Is that in the book?

Endor is an Elvish term for Middle Earth, as far as I know. Apparently, it literally translates as 'Middle Land'.

[Edit[] Mike, found that almost Man sized reference, it's part of the description of the Orc Chief in Moria.

Morty
2007-06-20, 06:52 AM
Fighting Boromir? Is that in the book?


It's in the movie -they're practicing swordfight with Boromir- but I can't remember it happening in book.

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 09:06 AM
It's in the movie -they're practicing swordfight with Boromir- but I can't remember it happening in book.
It didn't. It's important when discussing stats for LotR characters to identify which source material you're going by. There are many differences in the depictions of the various combat encounters between the movies and book, including some that were made up out of whole cloth (such as the Orc/Warg attack on the road to Helm's Deep, and the play between Boromir, Merry, and Pippin).

However, if you really want to be pedantic, Merry and Pippin show swordfighting abilities entirely consistent with nonproficient commoners or aristocrats, but may be fairly capable at wrestling, which is briefly noted elsewhere in the book (Pippin to Bergil in Minas Tirith). Of course, now someone is going to say "they must have Monk class levels", which is patently ridiculous.

Also, after picking up their magic barrow swords and enlisting with the respective armies of Rohan and Gondor, it's entirely reasonable to assume that Merry and Pippin might have spent some accumulated experience points to level up as fighters, or may have spent a feat to learn Martial Weapon Proficiency (short sword).

Matthew
2007-06-20, 10:27 AM
Nah, not if they're Aristocrats. They'd already be proficient with all Simple and Martial Weapons (which is admittedly a little odd at first sight, but during the Scouring of the shire it becomes quite apparent that the Hobbits are not entirely unacquainted with the practice of arms - The Weapon Groups Variant Rules would probably cover things better, I suppose)

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 10:30 AM
Nah, not if they're Aristocrats. They'd already be proficient with all Simple and Martial Weapons (which is admittedly a little odd at first sight, but during the Scouring of the shire it becomes quite apparent that the Hobbits are not entirely unacquainted with the practice of arms - The Weapon Groups Variant Rules would probably cover things better, I suppose)
Actually, that's a good point - as Aristocrats they would be proficient with such weapons. Thanks. However, Tolkien made no mechanical discussions of weapon proficiency, merely comparative ones (so and so was more skilled than someone else).

The_Werebear
2007-06-20, 10:42 AM
On the topic of Gandalf...

The best way I ever heard him described was as a Bard/Paladin. Bard gives him subtle charming magic, the ability to inspire everyone around him with oratory, good skill at talking and persuasion, and a huge pile of various lore. Paladin gives him good combat ability, healing powers, and a magic horse that answers his summons only. For the fire abilities, you can say the staff and ring are Paladin use items that give him scorching ray and flame strike.

It sums him up pretty well.

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 10:50 AM
On the topic of Gandalf...

The best way I ever heard him described was as a Bard/Paladin. Bard gives him subtle charming magic, the ability to inspire everyone around him with oratory, good skill at talking and persuasion, and a huge pile of various lore. Paladin gives him good combat ability, healing powers, and a magic horse that answers his summons only. For the fire abilities, you can say the staff and ring are Paladin use items that give him scorching ray and flame strike.

It sums him up pretty well.
Or he's a Outsider with the Lawful and Good subtypes with a boatload of innate powers and some class levels...

Silliness aside, Gandalf is the quintessential Wizard archetype, complete with pointy hat, staff, and powerful incantations. There are numerous examples of him spellcasting in LotR (more from the book than the movies), and you can't use his proficiency with Glamdring to reverse-justify that Tolkien intended him to be a Bard or Paladin, since Tolkien didn't have a D&D rulebook to read from to tell him that Wizards don't have Martial Weapon Proficiency.

As a further example, he does not have exemplary healing powers: remember that Elrond cured Frodo in Rivendell, and Aragorn did most of the healing in Minas Tirith and on the Field of Cormallen.

His power to inspire people to great deeds was probably innate to a certain extent because of his divine nature, but was also helped in no small amount by his wielding of Narya, the Ring of Fire, which Círdan told him he could use to rekindle the hearts and hope of others. At no point did he use oratory to any great effect other than as a storyteller; the books describe his mere presence as sufficient to inspire hope - clearly a racial trait with a magical item bonus.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 10:53 AM
Besides, D&D is based (in part) on Tolkien, not the other way around. To my knowledge D&D is the only system that prevents spellcasters from wearing armor. If you think about this restriction, it's kind of silly and has been done purely for reasons of game balance. Only the third edition has a marginally plausible explanation for it; you can do acrobatics in armor but not hand gestures? Yeah right.

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 10:59 AM
Besides, D&D is based (in part) on Tolkien, not the other way around. To my knowledge D&D is the only system that prevents spellcasters from wearing armor. If you think about this restriction, it's kind of silly and has been done purely for reasons of game balance. Only the third edition has a marginally plausible explanation for it; you can do acrobatics in armor but not hand gestures? Yeah right.
In 1st and 2nd edition, arcane spellcasters could not cast in armor, period (with the slightly cheesy exception of elves or half-elves in elven chainmail). In 3rd edition, they merely have a spell failure chance that they could suffer through if they really wanted.

There's nothing stopping a 3.x wizard or sorcerer from donning full plate... but an amulet of natural armor or a ring of protection do the job a lot more effectively.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 11:07 AM
Besides, D&D is based (in part) on Tolkien, not the other way around. To my knowledge D&D is the only system that prevents spellcasters from wearing armor. If you think about this restriction, it's kind of silly and has been done purely for reasons of game balance. Only the third edition has a marginally plausible explanation for it; you can do acrobatics in armor but not hand gestures? Yeah right.

A lot of other RPGs copied the sterotype, I'm fairly sure WFRP did, at least in its early editions, and there's a lot of similar ideas floating around. In Shadowrun you can't mix magic and cyberware, for example.

It's partially a game balance thing, partially just a style issue. You very seldom see non-evil spellcasters in heavy armour.

Of course, you very seldom see major fictional characters in heavy armour at all. As Diana Wynne Jones put it "Armour, in the opinion of the management, is cheating."

Matthew
2007-06-20, 11:10 AM
Heh. Actually, (A)D&D being what it is (contradictory and adaptable), there was precedent for Armour wearing Wizards. The Player's Option supplements Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic allowed for the Armoured Mage. I don't think it quite came out of the blue either, it was probably a reasonably popular House Rule. The justification behind the 'no Armour' rule is made in the PHB Wizard description and then contradicted a bit later on.

Gandalf, though, is best represented as an Outsider. Exactly what Class Levels he might have are entirely dependent on what he looks like as an Outsider. Marshal strikes me as a possibility.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 11:18 AM
In 1st and 2nd edition, arcane spellcasters could not cast in armor, period

Yes, but the thing is that they never gave a reason. There was some drivel about "lacking the training to wear armor properly" but that only makes (marginal) sense for giving the character AC and/or Dex penalties, not for physically prohibiting the character from donning the stuff. I mean seriously, what kind of absurd body contortions are needed for spellcasting anyway? And how come you can perform these without any problems if your dex is 6?

Likewise with weapons; IIRC in 1st ed wizards couldn't use swords because they were said to lack the strength. Through happenstance and random attribute generation, my first wizard character was in fact stronger than the party fighter. What do you mean I can't hold a sword? 2nd ed fixed that by giving them a sizeable to-hit penalty, now that makes sense.

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 11:27 AM
Yes, but the thing is that they never gave a reason. There was some drivel about "lacking the training to wear armor properly" but that only makes (marginal) sense for giving the character AC and/or Dex penalties, not for physically prohibiting the character from donning the stuff. I mean seriously, what kind of absurd body contortions are needed for spellcasting anyway? And how come you can perform these without any problems if your dex is 6?

Likewise with weapons; IIRC in 1st ed wizards couldn't use swords because they were said to lack the strength. Through happenstance and random attribute generation, my first wizard character was in fact stronger than the party fighter. What do you mean I can't hold a sword? 2nd ed fixed that by giving them a sizeable to-hit penalty, now that makes sense.
Most RPGs contain absurd rules that exist for game balance, flavor, or a combination of both. When you attempt to abstract realistic situations down to a set of rules that an average gamer is capable of understanding, something is inevitably lost. Furthermore, you're talking about "magic", which has no real-world precedent, so who but the authors of the game have any reasonable expectation to say how it "should" work?

Besides, the basic point here is that Tolkien did not write LotR with an FRPG sourcebook at hand.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-20, 11:56 AM
On the hobbits debate:

Sam does stab Shelob in, what could be considered, a weak-point. Further, he goes through most(if not all) of Cirith Ungol stabbing Orcs in the shins. Pippin stabs the Witch-King in the back, again, arguably in a human weak-point. (How would he know undead are immune to sneak attack?) Merry.. Well he's on a horse. He kinda gets screwed in the back-stabbing respect. And Frodo just holds the Ring.

lacesmcawesome
2007-06-20, 11:59 AM
(b) D&D is a bad system to do LotR.

Yes.

I donn't believe you can really or should really stat out any literary figure. For most protagonists, the author would give them more advantages or abilities or something than they could in DND. The best you could find would be a character from one of the fiction books produced *about* dnd, and even those are difficult (I mean, look at all the arguments on drizzt's classes)

All that aside, I generally agree with you, especially about the CR thing. I made the mistake of thinking CR2 meant one level two PC could beat it... that did NOT happen, and the guy I was DMing for was slaughtered.... twice (I brought him back to life with divine intervention)

*EDIT*

Oh my thrice-darned overeagerness to post, I see that what I said resembles other posts from the FIRST PAGE, sorry about that. I still stick to what I said though.

Matthew
2007-06-20, 12:00 PM
On the hobbits debate:

Sam does stab Shelob in, what could be considered, a weak-point. Further, he goes through most(if not all) of Cirith Ungol stabbing Orcs in the shins. Pippin stabs the Witch-King in the back, again, arguably in a human weak-point. (How would he know undead are immune to sneak attack?) Merry.. Well he's on a horse. He kinda gets screwed in the back-stabbing respect. And Frodo just holds the Ring.

Hmmn, examples? Sam does do Shelob in, but it's hardly a Sneak Attack, she just sits on top of him too hard. Merry is the guy who stabs the Witch King in the back of the knee. It seems to have been a height issue...

[Edit] It's not really a case of should/shouldn't, it's more like can you? It's obvious D&D isn't going to do well, but how close can we get it?

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 12:30 PM
On the hobbits debate:

Sam does stab Shelob in, what could be considered, a weak-point. Further, he goes through most(if not all) of Cirith Ungol stabbing Orcs in the shins. Pippin stabs the Witch-King in the back, again, arguably in a human weak-point. (How would he know undead are immune to sneak attack?) Merry.. Well he's on a horse. He kinda gets screwed in the back-stabbing respect. And Frodo just holds the Ring.
Sam got lucky. Even the most inept commoner can get a critical hit with a magical short sword and inflict some serious damage. As for the blow that pierced her belly, she inflicted that upon herself. He also did not engage in any real combat in the tower of Cirith Ungol - all the orcs he encountered were either dead or fled from him. His only melee encounter with an orc was in Moria, where he killed it in a straight-up fight.

As pointed out, Pippin didn't stab the Witch King; it was Merry. Also, his blow would have been completely ineffective were it not for the fact that he was wielding a magical weapon. While I suppose one could see where D&D might pull the idea of "backstabbing" from this event, it would be an unbelievable stretch to interpret Merry's attack as the product of rogue training.

It is true that Hobbits, as a race, are very sneaky (racial Hide and Move Silently bonuses) and have excellent throwing arms (racial attack bonus with thrown weapons and slings). However, this merely means they have racial bonuses, not that every Hobbit has Rogue levels. Even Bilbo started out as a low-level Aristocrat, although he may have added some Rogue levels as he continued on his adventures.

Matthew
2007-06-20, 02:32 PM
Sam got lucky. Even the most inept commoner can get a critical hit with a magical short sword and inflict some serious damage. As for the blow that pierced her belly, she inflicted that upon herself. He also did not engage in any real combat in the tower of Cirith Ungol - all the orcs he encountered were either dead or fled from him. His only melee encounter with an orc was in Moria, where he killed it in a straight-up fight.
Hmmn. Depends what you mean. He does cut the arm off a Goblin (Snaga) at the top of the tower, but it's hardly a straight up fight and the Goblin trips over, falls through the trapdoor and dies. His encounter with Shagrat barely registers, though. I 'd certainly agree with the sentiment, Sam doesn't do much in the way of real fighting outside of his combats with Shelob (where he gets very lucky) and Gollum (who appears to be an appropriately difficult encounter)

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 02:43 PM
Hmmn. Depends what you mean. He does cut the arm off a Goblin (Snaga) at the top of the tower, but it's hardly a straight up fight and the Goblin trips over, falls through the trapdoor and dies. His encounter with Shagrat barely registers, though. I 'd certainly agree with the sentiment, Sam doesn't do much in the way of real fighting outside of his combats with Shelob (where he gets very lucky) and Gollum (who appears to be an appropriately difficult encounter)
I forgot about his fight with Snaga, but that does bring the sum total of his melee encounters during the books to three. (I count Gollum separately because those were mainly unarmed fights.)

Now that I think about it, I'm also forgetting about the Battle of Bywater, where Merry, Pippin, and Sam all engaged in combat against the ruffians. However, those were straight-up fights and there is certainly no evidence of rogue-like abilities among any of the Hobbits present.

Oh yeah, and he also pitches an apple at Bill Ferny. :-)

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 04:02 PM
While I suppose one could see where D&D might pull the idea of "backstabbing" from this event, it would be an unbelievable stretch to interpret Merry's attack as the product of rogue training.
A 3rd ed sneak attack is not a backstab.


Even Bilbo started out as a low-level Aristocrat, although he may have added some Rogue levels as he continued on his adventures.
I beg to differ. He was hired as a burglar. By Gandalf, one of the most wise and sapient creatures this side of the ocean, no less. Bilbo's role is one of the very foundations of the entire "thief" class.

Mike_G
2007-06-20, 04:04 PM
Sam, as a 3rd level Expert taking a feat in Shortsword sometime after the Barrow Downs, is easily capble of killing one or two D&D orcs. There's no need to give him Fighter levels, and even less to give him Rogue levels.

Nor should Frodo get any class levels besides Aristocrat. He never fights. He never steals anything. He sneaks and hides a bit, but a high Dex, small size, and racial mods, plus an Elven Cloak explain that well. Frodo has good social skills, knows several languages, and is well read, so points in history/legends. Giving him Fighter or Rogue levels is way out in left field.

Merry and Pippin clearly start out as Aristocrats, and have put all their skill points in Get Into Trouble and Be a Wastrel. Later, after sweaing fealty to Rohan and Gondor, taking a Fighter level could be explained. Rogue levels really don't ever make sense. Even Bard makes more sense than Rogue. Elan as Pippin... I can see it.


The charcters with clear PC levels are Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas, and the misssion is "escort the NPC class characters and the Epic NPC/Plot Device Wizard on the quest to destroy the Ring." If we stats them around 4-5th, and have them encounter Orcs, Wolves, Dunlandings, etc. then the book works very well as a low level campaign.

Matthew
2007-06-20, 04:12 PM
I beg to differ. He was hired as a burglar. By Gandalf, one of the most wise and sapient creatures this side of the ocean, no less. Bilbo's role is one of the very foundations of the entire "thief" class.

Yeah, he sucked at it, though, until he got that Magic Ring!

Mike: Frodo probably has levels in the Prestige Class - Ring Bearer / Bearer of the One Ring - Prerequisites: Get suckered into bearing the One Ring to Mount Doom...

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 04:22 PM
A 3rd ed sneak attack is not a backstab.
Ouch. Are you intentionally forgetting that our current D&D system comes to us by way of no less than three previous editions (four if you count 3.0 and 3.5 separately)? It was "backstab" all the way through 2nd edition, and at this point, any discussion of direct correspondence between LotR and D&D must be taken with an incredible grain of salt.

If you must apply 3rd edition rules, Merry's strike could be explained as a flanking attack while the Witch King was threatened by Eowyn. By Occam's Razor, the simplest plausible explanation is the most likely to apply.


I beg to differ. He was hired as a burglar. By Gandalf, one of the most wise and sapient creatures this side of the ocean, no less. Bilbo's role is one of the very foundations of the entire "thief" class.
I'm going to assume you actually read the book, and so you know that Bilbo was not, and never had been a burglar by his own statements or by any special training. Gandalf plainly used the whole "burglar" thing as a ruse to get the dwarves to accept him into their group. Bilbo grew into the role expected of him, not vice versa. I can't recall him ever making a sneak attack, for example, nor having any particular inclination towards stealth or, indeed, actual burglary, that was not obviously described as a racial bonus.

In fact, the notion of the thief class was solidly rooted in fantasy literature well in advance of The Hobbit.

Edit: Before you bring up his taunting and ambush of the spiders in Mirkwood, that was made possible by his possession of the One Ring and in terms of his racial bonus to throwing weapons. I suppose you could say he had a sneak attack bonus to allow him to kill them so efficiently, but you could just as easily have the spiders be 1 HD monsters.

TheElfLord
2007-06-20, 04:22 PM
I beg to differ. He was hired as a burglar. By Gandalf, one of the most wise and sapient creatures this side of the ocean, no less. Bilbo's role is one of the very foundations of the entire "thief" class.

Yep, cause title always equals character class. Just look at Miko :)

Gandalf chose him for his potential, not his existing skills. Its called character growth. Biblo started out as a sedentary aristocrat and grew into a capable rogue.

Matthew
2007-06-20, 04:26 PM
In fact, the notion of the thief class was solidly rooted in fantasy literature well in advance of The Hobbit.
Too true. Conan and The Grey Mouser are the most conspicuous inspirational precursors.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-20, 04:39 PM
Sam, as a 3rd level Expert taking a feat in Shortsword sometime after the Barrow Downs, is easily cfpable of killing one or two D&D orcs.

I think therein lies the source of our disagreement. If you take the orcs and various enemies as MM base (don't have an MM with me but iirc they're not all that impressive), then yes, a low-level NPC-classed character can take them down. If you give the orcs a few levels in fighter or warrior or something like that (because you can make a plausible case for them being way stronger than any number of peasants) then it pretty much follows the hobbits have class levels as well.

If you take all the Shire as first-level commoners or somesuch, then a 3rd level expert would be well above the crop. If you take all the Shire as a variety of low-levelers with a variety of NPC classes, then Sam & co need to be more than that. In essence, it's the "Aragorn is 5th level vs. Aragorn is epic level" debate. There's something to be said for both.

So on that note, let us just agree on the fact that it's an awesome series of books (and yes, I've read them, including the Silmarillion, Farmer Giles, and the Bombadil poem book, but that was ten years ago so I'm kind of going by memory here; I've even read some Fafhrd books but I only just found out that they predate Tolkien by several years).

Dervag
2007-06-20, 04:40 PM
Too true. Conan and The Grey Mouser are the most conspicuous inspirational precursors.However, both characters predate the Lord of the Rings by a very narrow margin, and it is quite likely that Tolkein was uninfluenced by them. His stories come directly from his own obsessively constructed mythical version of northern European lore, not from the general fantasy culture of the 1930s.

Draz74
2007-06-20, 04:43 PM
Gandalf's "[Lawful][Good] Outsider demigod with a slew of powers that he just couldn't use, during this adventure, because of the need for secrecy" is what we call a backstory, people. Mechanically, it works just fine to represent him as an Aasimar Bard/Paladin with a Staff of the Magi artifact, aside from a few minor details like the way bards can't be Lawful Good (which is silly).

Aragorn does cast spells. Again, use imagination in the fluff. He just doesn't wave his hands around and chant strange words and say, "look at me, I'm casting a spell!" The whole reason the Ranger class in D&D gets spellcasting (or, at least, the Cure spells on their spell list) is because of the "Houses of Healing" magic healing that Aragorn does. The Longstrider spell was invented to simulate "Longshanks's" speedy traveling ability over long terrain stretches. His spellcasting is subtle.

The hobbits started out the campaign as low-level Aristocrats (or Experts, in Sam's case). This makes the most sense even if the weapon proficiencies don't quite line up. As they adventured, though, they would have gained levels, and they would have chosen levels in PC classes. Merry and Pippin got levels in Rogue and/or Fighter. Frodo either got Rogue levels or stayed an Aristocrat, although he arguably dipped one level in Bard too. Sam might have gotten some Rogue (maybe his stab on Shelob had a little bit of Sneak Attack damage in addition to being a crit?), or he might have stayed an Expert because that's the odd flavor of his character -- he never really became an adventurer at heart the way Merry and Pippin did.

Matthew
2007-06-20, 05:13 PM
However, both characters predate the Lord of the Rings by a very narrow margin, and it is quite likely that Tolkein was uninfluenced by them. His stories come directly from his own obsessively constructed mythical version of northern European lore, not from the general fantasy culture of the 1930s.
Hah, hah. Not Tolkien, he didn't write (O)D&D or the (A)D&D PHB, Gygax, I mean. He claims to be uninfluenced by Tolkien and (whether true or not) these former two Characters have a much stronger claim to being the inspiration behind the Thief Class (especially since (O)D&D didn't even use Classes for Non Humans).


I think therein lies the source of our disagreement. If you take the orcs and various enemies as MM base (don't have an MM with me but iirc they're not all that impressive), then yes, a low-level NPC-classed character can take them down. If you give the orcs a few levels in fighter or warrior or something like that (because you can make a plausible case for them being way stronger than any number of peasants) then it pretty much follows the hobbits have class levels as well.

If you take all the Shire as first-level commoners or somesuch, then a 3rd level expert would be well above the crop. If you take all the Shire as a variety of low-levelers with a variety of NPC classes, then Sam & co need to be more than that. In essence, it's the "Aragorn is 5th level vs. Aragorn is epic level" debate. There's something to be said for both.

Why would you do that, though? Why would you use MM Orcs, never mind Orcs with more than one Class Level?

Mike_G
2007-06-20, 05:17 PM
I think therein lies the source of our disagreement. If you take the orcs and various enemies as MM base (don't have an MM with me but iirc they're not all that impressive), then yes, a low-level NPC-classed character can take them down. If you give the orcs a few levels in fighter or warrior or something like that (because you can make a plausible case for them being way stronger than any number of peasants) then it pretty much follows the hobbits have class levels as well.


But Sam is obviously not a fighter or Rogue.

He fights in a mediocre fashion, when he needs to, and without any real skill. He doesn't pick locks, or disarm traps, or climb without a rope. He's a freaking Expert, with skills in Use Rope, Sense Motive, Occupation: Gardener, Cooking, Perform: Poetry, and Handle Animal.

What PC class skills does Fordo have? He's certainly no Fighter, I don't think he ever kills anything. He stabs one troll in the foot, and threatens Gollum with his sword. His sword stays in its sheath during the Battle of Bywater. He's an Aristocrat with skills in Etiquette, Languages, and some Knowledge skills.

I do not see how people justify giving the Hobbits Fighter or Rogue skills. Anybody can get a lucky shot in, and anybody gets a bonus attacking form behind or when flanking. Anybody can hide, especially a Small character wearing and Elven cloak.

The original article explains how Aragorn could do everything he does in the book as a 5th level PC. I think this is accurate, and the Hobbits could do anything in the book as a 2-3rd level Aristocrat or Expert.

Nobody makes a Leap of the Clouds, or a Great Cleave, or any epic type feats or class features. If Aragorn were 20th level, he shouldn't sweat a few orcs or wolves.

At what level do you guys meet a bunch of orcs in deep caverns? I've never seen that above 3rd.

Gandalf and the Balrog don't really count, since they do very little fighting except against each other. Both are plot characters, played by the DM, far more powerful than the PCs.

Gandalf is there to expound plot points, and operate as Deus ex machina if the PC's get really screwed. The Balrog is a threat, but never gets to attack the PC's, since it would smear them ("This foe is beyond you.")

Beleriphon
2007-06-20, 09:29 PM
But Sam is obviously not a fighter or Rogue.

He fights in a mediocre fashion, when he needs to, and without any real skill. He doesn't pick locks, or disarm traps, or climb without a rope. He's a freaking Expert, with skills in Use Rope, Sense Motive, Occupation: Gardener, Cooking, Perform: Poetry, and Handle Animal.


I would posit that if one were to stat Sam up he would certainly start as an Expert. I'd limit him to level 2 to start with. By the end of his grand adventure he could conceivably be statted up with a single level of fighter in addition to any other expert levels.

Both Merry and Pippin are probably best represented by an Aristocrat/Fighter combination by the time they return to the Shire. By all accounts they've becoming pretty deft hands with their weapons at that point, although certainly not the same skill level as Legolas, Gimli, or Aragorn.

A quick point on the Witch-King, Merry stabs him yes, but he also suffers a crippling injury because of it. The Witch-King should probably have DR ∞/Women. ;)

Fighteer
2007-06-20, 10:57 PM
A quick point on the Witch-King, Merry stabs him yes, but he also suffers a crippling injury because of it. The Witch-King should probably have DR ∞/Women. ;)
That's cute, but if I were really to try to stat out the Witch King's capabilities, he's a free-willed (well, more or less) undead with DR #/magic (where # is any arbitrary value you care to pick), a fear aura, arcane spellcaster levels, and a supernatural ability to inflict retributive Dexterity damage on anyone who deals melee damage to him. He also has a supernatural disease effect called the Black Breath that inflicts progressive Wisdom damage (possibly with a side helping of Constitution damage).

Merry's barrow sword could be an undead bane weapon, but also appears to have a special property to suppress the Witch King's damage reduction.

Justin_Bacon
2007-06-20, 11:56 PM
The specific line I take issue with is this one:

Aragorn slays no more than six or seven CR 1/2 orcs in this encounter. A trivial accomplishment for a 5th level character.

He makes two mistakes here. The first is confusing a level 5 *character* with a level 5 *party*. The Encounter Calculator on d20srd.org suggests that an encounter with six CR 1/2 creatures is "very difficult" for a single level five character.

Thanks for your interest in the essay. But I do want to point out that, if you don't take that quote out of context, you can clearly see that I'm talking about something that Aragorn accomplishes while:

(a) Fighting as part of a party; and
(b) In a tight, enclosed space.

So the subsequent analysis of Aragorn soloing against six or seven orcs is off-base.


Justin Alexander's article essentially said "D&D is a lot more flexible than you think, and it can model a wide number of real world fictional characters, and the reason people think it can't, is because they expect everybody to be high level." It's this point I was rebutting.

Actually, just to clarify, the point of analyzing Aragorn in my essay wasn't to say "D&D will give you a result just like LOTR as it was written". There are a couple of reasons for this:

(1) D&D is a game; LOTR is a novel. D&D is never going to give you outcomes like "Grima kills Saruman in one-shot", for example, because that event is a thematic plot point and has nothing to do with the relative strength or ability of Grima or Saruman.

(2) D&D's out-of-the-box assumptions about the way the world works don't match up well to LOTR's assumptions. This requires some adjustments within the way the world is modeled, but it also requires some adjustments to the rules themselves. Let's take Saruman, for example: The Saruman who is killed by Grima at the end of LOTR is significantly diminished in power compared to the Saruman of the first two volumes. D&D has absolutely no mechanics for handling this.

In my essay, analyzing Aragorn was one way of confronting people with the false expectations they bring to the game. It was about re-calibrating people's expectations of what a phrase like "Strength 18" or "5th level" means so that their expectations are more in line with the effects that the game system is actually delivering.

Arguing about whether Aragorn is a Rgr5 or a Rgr3/Pal3 or a Ftr8 is an argument that has no definite conclusion: How you chose to capture narrative descriptions into precise game terminology is going to vary depending on your interpretations of the narrative descriptions.

But my point was that, with any rational analysis of Aragorn as a character (based on the things he's actually described as accomplishing), you're not looking at a 12th or 15th or 20th level character. And if you're expecting your 12th or 15th or 20th level character to behave in a fashion resembling Aragorn, then your false expectations are going to be constantly clashing with the results that the game system is actually giving you.

The rest of the discussion in here is interesting to read. I'm seeing a lot of the fallacies I talk about in the essay, plus a bunch of other ones that didn't make the cut.

The classic example is the "if we assume the Balrog is a CR 20 creature, then X, Y, and Z... but Z doesn't make sense!" argument. Well, let's go back and re-analyze your premise, then. Is a Middle Earth Balrog actually a CR 20 creature?

(No.)

I'll have to admit I've never seen the "they're a main character, so they should have a PC class" fallacy before.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Kurald Galain
2007-06-21, 03:41 AM
Gygax, I mean. He claims to be uninfluenced by Tolkien
Seriously? How on earth could D&D not be influenced by Tolkien? Sure, it has a ton of other influences as well, but still.


Why would you do that, though? Why would you use MM Orcs, never mind Orcs with more than one Class Level?
Variety, mostly. Orcs are a sentient race, therefore it stands to reason that if the PCs meet a group of orcs, they're not all the same, and like any unit of an army could feasibly contain a scout, or a healer of sorts, or a squad leader who is somewhat stronger than the rest.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 07:45 AM
(2) D&D's out-of-the-box assumptions about the way the world works don't match up well to LOTR's assumptions. This requires some adjustments within the way the world is modeled, but it also requires some adjustments to the rules themselves. Let's take Saruman, for example: The Saruman who is killed by Grima at the end of LOTR is significantly diminished in power compared to the Saruman of the first two volumes. D&D has absolutely no mechanics for handling this.

Hmmn. Negative Levels, maybe (better if it were Level Drain, but that seems to have gone the way of THAC0)? I'd say he lost his Outsider Template, for sure. Not sure if D&D is totally devoid of mechanics that could represent this.


Seriously? How on earth could D&D not be influenced by Tolkien? Sure, it has a ton of other influences as well, but still.

Well, I ight have done better to say 'relatively uninfluenced. As I understand it, Gygax claims to have tacked Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits onto the game, as they were popular at the time and would help sales. I assume he would say the same of Orcs and Rangers.
Whilst I think he is minimising the influence, there is no escaping the fact that D&D doesn't really model Middle Earth or much resembling it, so there is quite a bit of truth to what he is saying. It is a popular misconception that D&D unintentionally poorly models Middle Earth, as Justin has rightly pointed out, it is a matter of adjusting your own expectations of the game, not the game to meet your expectations.


Variety, mostly. Orcs are a sentient race, therefore it stands to reason that if the PCs meet a group of orcs, they're not all the same, and like any unit of an army could feasibly contain a scout, or a healer of sorts, or a squad leader who is somewhat stronger than the rest.

Maybe so, but that wouldn't necessitate Class Levels (maybe for a leader, but that's already been assumed). An Orc/Hobgoblin/Goblin Scout 1 or Adept 1 would more than adequetly meet such needs in the context of Middle Earth and adjusting Attribute Scores is a simple measure for physical and mental diversity (not every Orc need be 'average'). Ramping up Monster Levels and then Player Character Levels to meet them is a bit of a false argument.

Kurald Galain
2007-06-21, 08:10 AM
Maybe so, but that wouldn't necessitate Class Levels ... An Orc/Hobgoblin/Goblin Scout 1 or Adept 1 would more than adequetly meet such needs
How are "scout 1" and "adept 1" not class levels? I said "some kind of healer", I didn't say "cleric level 5". The healer could easily be an adept, or a whatever with a few dots in healing skill.


Ramping up Monster Levels and then Player Character Levels to meet them is a bit of a false argument.
It's not false, but circular. Keeping player character levels low and keeping monsters low-powered to meet them is similarly circular. We are agreed that Aragorn > Meriadoc > Some orc > Some villager. You can say Fighter 5 > Aristocrat 3 > 1 HD orc > Commoner 1, or you can say Ranger 12 > Rogue 5 > Fighter 3 > Any NPC class 1. It's all a matter of scale.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 08:35 AM
Thanks for your interest in the essay. But I do want to point out that, if you don't take that quote out of context, you can clearly see that I'm talking about something that Aragorn accomplishes while:

(a) Fighting as part of a party; and
(b) In a tight, enclosed space.

So the subsequent analysis of Aragorn soloing against six or seven orcs is off-base.

This is true, but he still takes a reasonable amount of damage even if he only fights the things two at a time. Nowhere do we actually find out how many Orcs attacked Aragorn at once, so you can't really make a case for or against from any given scene.


Actually, just to clarify, the point of analyzing Aragorn in my essay wasn't to say "D&D will give you a result just like LOTR as it was written". There are a couple of reasons for this:

(1) D&D is a game; LOTR is a novel. D&D is never going to give you outcomes like "Grima kills Saruman in one-shot", for example, because that event is a thematic plot point and has nothing to do with the relative strength or ability of Grima or Saruman.

(2) D&D's out-of-the-box assumptions about the way the world works don't match up well to LOTR's assumptions. This requires some adjustments within the way the world is modeled, but it also requires some adjustments to the rules themselves. Let's take Saruman, for example: The Saruman who is killed by Grima at the end of LOTR is significantly diminished in power compared to the Saruman of the first two volumes. D&D has absolutely no mechanics for handling this.

Oh I quite agree, but what that means is that the statement "Aragorn was fifth level" and the statement "Aragorn was twentieth level" are equally false.


In my essay, analyzing Aragorn was one way of confronting people with the false expectations they bring to the game. It was about re-calibrating people's expectations of what a phrase like "Strength 18" or "5th level" means so that their expectations are more in line with the effects that the game system is actually delivering.

I get that, I just think you're making a couple of mistakes.

The big one, I think, is that you're calibrating from success rather than from failure.

Take the "breaking down doors" example. It's a DC 13 Strength check (for an ordinary wooden door). Now you're quite right that this means that an ordinary person can succeed roughly one time in three, which is probably about right. On the other hand, a Hill Giant (with a Strength of 25, giving him a +7 Strength modifier) will fail one time in three. A giant failing to kick down a normal interior door one time in three strikes me as nonsensical.

In fact, if you put a hill giant (strength 25) against your grandmother (Strength 6) in a "who can kick down the most doors in a minute" contest ... well the giant would win, but not by a huge amount. He'd have knocked down about six doors to granny's two.

"Strength 18" means "strong enough to break open a strong wooden door" but it also means "cannot match the world record for the snatch, clean and jerk". It also means "will consistently fail comparatively simple Strength checks".


Arguing about whether Aragorn is a Rgr5 or a Rgr3/Pal3 or a Ftr8 is an argument that has no definite conclusion: How you chose to capture narrative descriptions into precise game terminology is going to vary depending on your interpretations of the narrative descriptions.

But my point was that, with any rational analysis of Aragorn as a character (based on the things he's actually described as accomplishing), you're not looking at a 12th or 15th or 20th level character. And if you're expecting your 12th or 15th or 20th level character to behave in a fashion resembling Aragorn, then your false expectations are going to be constantly clashing with the results that the game system is actually giving you.

And that's where I think your analysis is falling down. Any rational analysis of Aragorn won't be based on what he is described as accomplishing, but on an overall analysis of what he accomplishes versus what he fails to accomplish.

Aragorn may never encounter anything which he would *have* to be level 12 or 20 to defeat, but he encounters plenty of things which, were he level 5, would have a chance of defeating *him*.

Thinking about it, I think the "Aragorn is low-level" and the "Aragorn is high level" people are actually defining the character in two different ways.

The "Aragorn is low level" argument involves taking the events in Lord of the Rings, assigning Difficulty Classes and Challenge Ratings to the various events, and saying "what is the minimum level at which Aragorn could have made that set of dice rolls." The "Aragorn is high level" argument involves saying "if I were playing a character in a game of D&D, what stats would I need in order to convincingly play Aragorn."

To put it another way: it depends whether he has the DM on his side or not.

Aragorn in The DM of the Rings is probably about fifth level. Hell, he might even be first level, but the DM is hellbent on making his character act like Aragorn, so it all works out fine.

The tracking is probably the best example of this. DMotR Aragorn probably didn't even bother putting points into survival for obvious reasons (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=887). But the DM wants him to be able to follow the hobbits into Fangorn, so follow the Hobbits into Fangorn he can.

On the other hand, if you've got a DM who doesn't give a rats ass about your character's literary antecedent, you've got a much tougher job on your hands.

Take the tracking, it's true that a lot of the time, DC15 is about as high as a Track DC gets, but the example of an "Impossible Feat" (DC 40) given in the SRD is "Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall" incidentally. In fact, since Aragorn manages to distinguish the tracks of the Hobbits from the tracks of the Orcs, we could reasonably conclude that he can "Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks." - an Epic Level use of the Tracking feat requiring a check against DC 60.

A low-level Aragorn only works if the DM helps it to work. If the GM says "well I suppose singling out the tracks of two hobbits from amongst the wreckage of a battle, fought between men, orcs, and horses, which happened the previous day, resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, and involved a whole bunch of people running around all over the place would be about ... hmm ... DC 15? And yes, of *course* you can take ten on it" then you can model Aragorn as a level five character, but if you actually tried to *play* Aragorn as a fifth level character you'd be bitterly disappointed, because you'd keep messing up.

I think what it comes down to, actually, I that I sort of reject the central premise of your article. I don't think that D&D is supposed to model the real world, or even a real world. Your argument seems to be that a twentieth level character is, in a sense, a literal demigod: they can plunge head-first into a lake of lava and be completely unharmed, because they really are that powerful. Because we expect Aragorn, ultimately, to be mortal, he can't be high level. If he took a swan dive into the crack of doom, he'd die.

I view it rather differently. I view the capacity of high level characters to survive things which should obviously be fatal as an artefact of a system which is just designed to stop them dying from random crossbow bolts. So to me high-level Aragorn makes the most sense. I view the very fact of his being a major character as evidence that he's probably high enough level to be sure of surviving the book.

I don't view this as a fallacy, I view it as the way the system actually works. Level isn't a measure of skill, it's a measure of importance.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 08:51 AM
How are "scout 1" and "adept 1" not class levels? I said "some kind of healer", I didn't say "cleric level 5". The healer could easily be an adept, or a whatever with a few dots in healing skill.
All MM listed Orcs have 1 Class Level - Orc Warrior 1. Changing their Class Level is no big deal, but stacking Class Levels is not required.


It's not false, but circular. Keeping player character levels low and keeping monsters low-powered to meet them is similarly circular. We are agreed that Aragorn > Meriadoc > Some orc > Some villager. You can say Fighter 5 > Aristocrat 3 > 1 HD orc > Commoner 1, or you can say Ranger 12 > Rogue 5 > Fighter 3 > Any NPC class 1. It's all a matter of scale.
It's certainly false in the context of trying to model Middle Earth with D&D.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 09:01 AM
It's certainly false in the context of trying to model Middle Earth with D&D.

I'm with Galain on this one actually. If you buy the Aragorn > Sam > Orc > Ordinary Guy tree, you have to model the Orcs as being slightly better than ordinary guys.

Of course the big flaw with this logic is that Middle Earth (along with every other work of fiction ever created, and indeed the real world) just doesn't work like that. You get things like:

Gandalf > Balrog > A Huge Mob of Orcs > Gandalf.

D&D (and indeed most RPGs) grossly simplify the concept of "power". The entire CR system is based on the idea that if Group A can beat Group B and Group B can beat Group C, Group A must be able to beat Group C as well.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 09:08 AM
Heh, so I gathered from the above. However, you do seem to be ignoring the whole 'Gandalf can't use his full power' aspect of Lord of the Rings. Of course there are going to be contradictions (hell, Lord of the Rings is itself not entirely internally consistant, even less so externally when you bring other related texts into question), but I don't see how increasing the levels of various creatures helps matters any.

[Edit] It actually works more like this, though:

Man > Goblin
Uruk > Goblin
Man - Uruk
Dunedan > Uruk

Elf > Dunedan > Man

Though, obviously, such a simplistic organisation fails to take all manner of aspects into account (both D&D mechanical and LotR storywise)

On the subject of DM fiat and LotR, I agree that a good deal of LotR simply cannot be modelled, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to attempt to create as close a model as possible.

[Edit] Interestingly, Gygax has a Level 2 Ranger named as a 'Strider' in the (A)D&D 1.x PHB, but sadly he doesn't give a Level for 'Returned King'.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 09:38 AM
Heh, so I gathered from the above. However, you do seem to be ignoring the whole 'Gandalf can't use his full power' aspect of Lord of the Rings.

It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I don't agree with it. I don't believe that Gandalf possessed the power, at any point, to literally defeat an Orc army single handed. LotR "Wizards" don't work like D&D Wizards. A lot of their "magic" is actually just spiritual and supernatural authority over the world.

Take Saruman's influence over Theoden. You could say "Saruman had used magic to bewitch Theoden, and Gandalf dispelled it" or you could say "Saruman, through Grima, had convinced Theoden of his own weakness, and Gandalf made him remember his power and his duties."

You could say either of those things, but I'd take the third option, which is to say "you cannot meaningfully draw a distinction between the two, clearly Saruman's power over Theoden is uncanny, but movie-continuity aside, it is also obviously not any kind of Dominate Person spell, Saruman's magic is persuasion, persuasion is Saruman's magic."

The Balrog is a being of fire and destruction, so it's good at destroying stuff. Gandalf is a being of light and hope, so he's good at defeating beings of fire and destruction, but not so good at wiping out armies single handed.

Of course, I could be talking nonsense.


Of course there are going to be contradictions (hell, Lord of the Rings is itself not entirely internally consistant, even less so externally when you bring other related texts into question), but I don't see how increasing the levels of various creatures helps matters any.

Increasing the levels of various creatures helps normalize performance, if you see what I mean. Aragorn at 5th level *could* have done all the things he does in the books, with good rolls and a following wind. He could also have been killed in Moria.

As I say above, the argument (I think) really boils down to whether you expect Aragorn to have a character build which renders his actions in the trilogy (a) possible (b) likely or (c) certain. It's *possible* he could have done everything he did at level 5, it's likely at level 10, and it's pretty much certain at level 15+. Unless you follow that weird rule which specifies that identifying Hobbit Tracks is an epic level feat.

Dervag
2007-06-21, 10:33 AM
In my essay, analyzing Aragorn was one way of confronting people with the false expectations they bring to the game. It was about re-calibrating people's expectations of what a phrase like "Strength 18" or "5th level" means so that their expectations are more in line with the effects that the game system is actually delivering.In fairness, I would point out that "Strength 18" reflects a strength level that, statistically, a few people per thousand would have using the normal methods of ability score generation in D&D. While D&D does a great job of handling wide ranges of character skill and power, it does a less good job of handling wide ranges of strength or intelligence; the distinction between a bright person, a genius, and an Einstein is compressed into a narrower range.

On the other hand, "5th level" can do a good job of representing the most skilled people alive; I agree with this part of your argument. Aragorn, however, might reasonably be considered to be mildly superhuman.


Take the "breaking down doors" example. It's a DC 13 Strength check (for an ordinary wooden door). Now you're quite right that this means that an ordinary person can succeed roughly one time in three, which is probably about right. On the other hand, a Hill Giant (with a Strength of 25, giving him a +7 Strength modifier) will fail one time in three. A giant failing to kick down a normal interior door one time in three strikes me as nonsensical.On the contrary, the giant can take 10 on his checks and succeed every time, thus breaking down doors as fast as he can make his Strength checks.


"Strength 18" means "strong enough to break open a strong wooden door" but it also means "cannot match the world record for the snatch, clean and jerk". It also means "will consistently fail comparatively simple Strength checks".Well, they will succeed in knocking down stuck interior doors every time. They never need to hit the door twice; all they have to do is take 10. They only need to roll dice for something too hard to take 10 on. Since taking 10 involves making a serious but by no means exceptional attempt, that means that anything with a DC of 14 or less is of negligible difficulty for them. Anything with a DC of 15 or above is in fact rather hard for them, as opposed to a DC of 11 or above for the average person.


Take the tracking, it's true that a lot of the time, DC15 is about as high as a Track DC gets, but the example of an "Impossible Feat" (DC 40) given in the SRD is "Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall" incidentally.The hard ground in question would be solid rock; tracking orcs across a granite mountaintop would be very difficult indeed.


In fact, since Aragorn manages to distinguish the tracks of the Hobbits from the tracks of the Orcs, we could reasonably conclude that he can "Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks." - an Epic Level use of the Tracking feat requiring a check against DC 60.Since halflings are considerably smaller than orcs, distinguishing their tracks should not be difficult; any normal tracker can tell the difference between the footprint of a lion and the footprint of a housecat without need for a DC 60 skill check. There's definitely a problem with that rule.


A low-level Aragorn only works if the DM helps it to work. If the GM says "well I suppose singling out the tracks of two hobbits from amongst the wreckage of a battle, fought between men, orcs, and horses, which happened the previous day, resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, and involved a whole bunch of people running around all over the place would be about ... hmm ... DC 15? And yes, of *course* you can take ten on it" then you can model Aragorn as a level five character, but if you actually tried to *play* Aragorn as a fifth level character you'd be bitterly disappointed, because you'd keep messing up.Now that is true; it would be prohibitively difficult for a player to play Aragorn as a fifth level character.


I don't view this as a fallacy, I view it as the way the system actually works. Level isn't a measure of skill, it's a measure of importance.I'd say it's a composite of the two. A highly skilled but unimportant character may be high level; and a very important character may be low level. Frodo, for instance, could be played as a low level character without straining the DM's forbearance; Aragorn probably couldn't.


In my essay, analyzing Aragorn was one way of confronting people with the false expectations they bring to the game. It was about re-calibrating people's expectations of what a phrase like "Strength 18" or "5th level" means so that their expectations are more in line with the effects that the game system is actually delivering.In fairness, I would point out that "Strength 18" reflects a strength level that, statistically, a few people per thousand would have using the normal methods of ability score generation in D&D. While D&D does a great job of handling wide ranges of character skill and power, it does a less good job of handling wide ranges of strength or intelligence; the distinction between a bright person, a genius, and an Einstein is compressed into a narrower range.

On the other hand, "5th level" can do a good job of representing the most skilled people alive; I agree with this part of your argument. Aragorn, however, might reasonably be considered to be mildly superhuman.


Hah, hah. Not Tolkien, he didn't write (O)D&D or the (A)D&D PHB, Gygax, I mean. He claims to be uninfluenced by Tolkien and (whether true or not) these former two Characters have a much stronger claim to being the inspiration behind the Thief Class (especially since (O)D&D didn't even use Classes for Non Humans).Oops.

I misunderstood. You said "A and B are the precursors" and I understood that to be "A and B are the precursors to C" when in fact you were talking about D.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 10:42 AM
On the contrary, the giant can take 10 on his checks and succeed every time, thus breaking down doors as fast as he can make his Strength checks.


Only if the GM allows it. And in a competition you can argue you can't take 10 because it's a stressful situation.


Well, they will succeed in knocking down stuck interior doors every time. They never need to hit the door twice; all they have to do is take 10. They only need to roll dice for something too hard to take 10 on. Since taking 10 involves making a serious but by no means exceptional attempt, that means that anything with a DC of 14 or less is of negligible difficulty for them. Anything with a DC of 15 or above is in fact rather hard for them, as opposed to a DC of 11 or above for the average person.

Take 10 messes a whole lot of things up. It turns a hugely random system into a totally deterministic system.

Also: having checked the stats, a domestic cat can kick down an interior door something like one time in five. Then again, we know that D&D cats are lethal.


The hard ground in question would be solid rock; tracking orcs across a granite mountaintop would be very difficult indeed.

It depends on whether you were relying purely on footprints, or whether you included things like the remains of their camps.


Since halflings are considerably smaller than orcs, distinguishing their tracks should not be difficult; any normal tracker can tell the difference between the footprint of a lion and the footprint of a housecat without need for a DC 60 skill check. There's definitely a problem with that rule.

I know.


Now that is true; it would be prohibitively difficult for a player to play Aragorn as a fifth level character.

As I say, this is the bit I think is most important. To my mind if you want to "stat up" a character in D&D, you have to pick a build that would actually work in play, not just one that works in theory.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 10:52 AM
Of course, I could be talking nonsense.

I don't think so. D&D Magic and Middle Earth Magic are clearly divergent, but things aren't quite clear cut. Gandalf does throw the odd Lightning Bolt around (a very evident bit of magic), but for the most part Magic in Middle Earth operates under a different set of conditions than that in D&D, or more specifically Greyhawk/Oerth.

In the case of Saruman, the films do take things a little far, from his Ninja style fight with Gandalf, to his enchanting of Theoden to his flaming of Gandalf (in one of the cut scenes on the DVD). In the books, though, which I think we are all agreed we are using as the primary source material, Sauman's powers are very subtle, mainly augmenting skills he already has. How much of that would be his Base Class(es) and how much his Istari Template, is going to be up to the individual. Clearly, though, he is powerful in a subtle way and also a direct way (his imprisoning of Gandalf was not the result of his persuasive voice).

Now the Balrog and Gandalf are an interesting case in point. What are they capable of doing? It's never really made clear what their limits are, but their mutual destruction and Gandalf's own statements suggest that in D&D they would be of the same EL (somewhere above EL10, I would say). What does that mean? It's hard to say, he returns to Middle Earth after his death more powerful than before, but his direct actions seem generally reserved for combating the Nazgul. Could Gandalf have destroyed an entire Orc army by himself? Probably not. His power was similar in scope to that of the Balrogs and Nazgul.


Increasing the levels of various creatures helps normalize performance, if you see what I mean. Aragorn at 5th level *could* have done all the things he does in the books, with good rolls and a following wind. He could also have been killed in Moria.

As I say above, the argument (I think) really boils down to whether you expect Aragorn to have a character build which renders his actions in the trilogy (a) possible (b) likely or (c) certain. It's *possible* he could have done everything he did at level 5, it's likely at level 10, and it's pretty much certain at level 15+. Unless you follow that weird rule which specifies that identifying Hobbit Tracks is an epic level feat.

Well, this is where I start to lose track of things. What kind of things can Aragorn do at Level 15 he cannot do at Level 10? To be honest, I don't think Aragorn is a Ranger 5. I think he's probably more like a Ranger 5/Fighter 2 with some sort of inherited Template and a Legacy Weapon. But whether he's Level 5, 10, 15 or 20, how does increasing that level and that of the monsters he fights reflect in the story? It's not like he does that much that cannot be accomplished by a lower level Character.

If we take Moria and the Orcs as an example, then it would be fair to say that Aragorn kills four Orcs (Legolas is described as killing 2, Gimli killing 1, Sam killing 1 and Aragorn and Boromir the remaining 7). The encounter is descibed as 'sharp' and Gandalf appears to play no role. If we stat Aragorn out as a Fighter 2/Ranger 5 with Weapon Focus (Long Sword) and a Strength of 15, we get AB 10. Add in the powers of Anduril and we're probably looking at an AB 12-15. Let's say these 'Orcs' have Mail, Heavy Shields and A Dexterity Bonus. We're looking at AC of something like 17-18 and have maybe 5 or 6 Hit Points. Is it difficult to believe that Aragorn could take them out? I'd say he's almost certain to, especially with Cleave. His Damage is a minimum of 1D8+4, and that's not counting Favoured Enemy.
The Orc Chieften who strikes Frodo is probably Level 3-5, but even so we're only talking 13-32 Hit Points. He rushes past Boromir and Aragorn, drawing Attacks of Opportunity, completes his charge and then is slain by Aragorn. The Orc Chieften is described as in mail 'from head to foot' (implying his followers are not) and has a Shield, but again we're only looking at an AC of 18-20 max and he's charging (-2) and possibly Flanked on the completion of his charge (Frodo isn't dead after all).

So, I just wonder what exactly (apart from that Tracking thing - where is that by the way? [Edit] Ah, found it) it is that Aragorn wouldn't be able to do below level 10 that he can above (within the context of the books)?

[Edit]
Oh yeah, Aragorn and Tracking. Presumably, he has Ranks in Knowledge (Nature) and Search, which should give him +4. Add in Wisdom +2 and his base Skill should be [8 Ranks + 4 + 2], which should net tasks of DC 24. Aragorn might also be getting a Favoured Enemy Bonus, which should bring him into the 'Formindable Category'. I guess Legolas and Gimli could be using 'Aid Another', which might get us to 30 if they're successful, but that's about as high as I'm willing to push it (i.e. Heroic). Certainly couldn't reach 40! Typical D&D. [Edit] (Well, he could push 37 with wasted Skill Focuses and assuming his first Favoured Enemy was Orcs!)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 11:17 AM
So, I just wonder what exactly (apart from that Tracking thing - where is that by the way? [Edit] Ah, found it) it is that Aragorn wouldn't be able to do below level 10 that he can above (within the context of the books)?


Participate in multiple pitched battles with zero risk of death.

This is the crux of my disagreement with the Alexandrian. I don't view the D&D rules as simulating reality, I view them as simulating fiction. I don't see a character with 250 Hit Points as being impervious to arrows, I view them as benefiting from a narrative convention which says "this person is now powerful enough that it would suck for them to be killed by a stray arrow."

We don't know how much actual fighting Aragorn sees in the various battles he's in, but we do know that some of them go on a pretty damned long time, and that at no point do we seriously expect him to be killed. This, to me, is identical to the suggestion that he has a huge number of hitpoints.

There's nothing Aragorn does in the books he would *have* to be above tenth level to do, but if I was setting out to play a character in D&D who did everything that Aragorn did, I'd want to be as high level as possible, because I could never be sure when a run of bad luck would screw my character concept.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 11:44 AM
Ah, fair enough. Pitched battles are always something of a difficulty to model with D&D and a lot comes down to how you choose to handle them. The conventional way, as I understand it, is to treat it as a series of encounters that take place against the backdrop of a battle. Truly, we have not much of an idea how much fighting Aragorn participated in at Helm's Deep, The Pelennor Fields or before The Black Gate. Either we consider them to have had EL appropriate to his level, or we consider his level to be appropriate for taking on X number of EL Y Challenges.

I think both ways are valid enough mechanisms for playing D&D on a LotR style model, though I have my own preferences. Even differing methods of approaching the game can cause people to have different ideas about what is or is not appropriate (i.e. for instance, the expected lethality rate).

Beleriphon
2007-06-21, 12:17 PM
I present the following a working model for a low level Aragorn. Assuming that we use the orcs, or hobogoblins, from the MM this works pretty well. I've taken a few liberties such as giving Aragorn a chain shirt as he does seem to wear some kind of armour after the battle at Helm's Deep. This is of course does not take into account any of the racial bonuses that you may want to assign to the Dunedain, so unless somebody can come up with a decent set of bonuses for them Aragorn is a human.

Aragorn, Male Human Rgr3/Ftr3: CR 6; Medium Humanoid ; HD 3d8+9(Ranger) , 3d10+9(Fighter) ; hp 56; Init +4; Spd 30; AC:18 (Flatfooted:14 Touch:14); Atk +8/3 base melee, +10/5 base ranged; +12/7 (1d10+6, +3 Mithral Sword, bastard); +10/5 (1d8+2, Longbow, composite ( +2 Str Bonus)); AL N; SV Fort +9, Ref +8, Will +6; STR 14, DEX 18, CON 16, INT 16, WIS 19, CHA 16.
Skills: Diplomacy +6, Handle Animal +12, Heal +9, Jump +10, Knowledge (Nature) +11, Listen +10, Move Silently +9, Ride +15, Spot +13, Survival +15.
Feats: Armor Proficiency: heavy, Armor Proficiency: light, Armor Proficiency: medium, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Endurance, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Sword, bastard, Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Self-Sufficient, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency, Track, Weapon Focus: Sword, bastard.
Weapons: Anduril [+3 Mithral Sword, bastard: Keen, Defending (53,335 gp)]; Longbow, composite ( +2 Str Bonus) (300 gp); Arrows (20), Masterwork (140 gp).
Armor: Chain shirt, Masterwork (250 gp)

Matthew
2007-06-21, 12:29 PM
Hmmn. Higher Attributes than I would have given, him, but on the whole looks okay. Just for your information, Aragorn takes up a Mail Hauberk and Shield from Theoden's Armoury before leaving for Helm's Deep, but you never really hear anything specific about them (Legolas does as well).

Anduril is definitely a Weapon of Legacy (is it actually Mithral? I don't recall)

Beleriphon
2007-06-21, 01:03 PM
Hmmn. Higher Attributes than I would have given, him, but on the whole looks okay. Just for your information, Aragorn takes up a Mail Hauberk and Shield from Theoden's Armoury before leaving for Helm's Deep, but you never really hear anything specific about them (Legolas does as well).

Anduril is definitely a Weapon of Legacy (is it actually Mithral? I don't recall)

The stats are what I actually rolled using the high powered method (5d6 drop the lowest 2). I then arranged them to fit Aragorn as best as possible. Its about the only way that I could conceivably give him stats since there are so few concrete examples of what he can do physically. I did need certain abilities though, he speaks at least one variety of Elven and understands Khazadul (the dwarven language) so he has some base languages. Anything beyond that escapes my memory for the moment.

Not that I recall, but I would certainly qualify Andúril as a special material. Mithril seemed to fit best given that Narsil was forged sometime in the First Age by Telchar of Nogrod.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 01:13 PM
I dunno, I think you'd hear about it if it was, but it doesn't make a lot of difference. I might have gone Adamantine, but I can see going with Mithral.

Beleriphon
2007-06-21, 01:38 PM
I dunno, I think you'd hear about it if it was, but it doesn't make a lot of difference. I might have gone Adamantine, but I can see going with Mithral.

I know, but it seemed like the most logical choice given what we know about Narsil's properties and thus in turn Andúril's. It didn't strike me as being Adamantine given the breaking of the weapon, and it is described as being lighter and stronger than even the best dwarven steel so I picked mithril.

As a heads up I've done an upgraded and much more powerful Aragorn for those that might like to see him as a higher level character. I was tempted to give Aragorn some kind of prestige class, but I can't for the life of me think of one that fits. At any rate Argorn at this level can hit Survival checks of 30 by taking 10, or if he needs to roll then he can pull of a total 40 with a hefty helping of luck. In theory Aragorn can cast spells with D&D ranger levels, although I'll either leave that as an artifact of the system or some of the more esoteric feats he manages to pull off.

Aragorn, Male Human Rgr4/Ftr7: CR 11; Medium Humanoid ; HD 4d8+12(Ranger) , 7d10+21(Fighter) ; hp 108; Init +4; Spd 30; AC:18 (Flatfooted:14 Touch:14); Atk +13/8/3 base melee, +15/10/5 base ranged; +17/12/7 (1d10+6, +3 Mithral Sword, bastard); +15/10/5 (1d8+2, Longbow, composite ( +2 Str Bonus)); AL LG; SV Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +7; STR 14, DEX 18, CON 16, INT 16, WIS 19, CHA 16.
Skills: Diplomacy +9, Handle Animal +17, Heal +14, Intimidate +11, Jump +10, Knowledge (Nature) +11, Listen +10, Move Silently +9, Ride +20, Spot +13, Survival +20.
Feats: Armor Proficiency: heavy, Armor Proficiency: light, Armor Proficiency: medium, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Endurance, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Sword, bastard, Great Cleave, Mobility, Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Self-Sufficient, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency, Track, Weapon Focus: Sword, bastard.
Spells Known (Rgr --/1):
Spells Prepared (Rgr --/1):
Weapons: Andúril [+3 Mithral Sword, bastard: Keen, Defending (53,335 gp)]; Longbow, composite ( +2 Str Bonus) (300 gp); Arrows (20), Masterwork (140 gp).
Armor: Chain shirt, Masterwork (250 gp)

Matthew
2007-06-21, 01:54 PM
Sure, I was just thinking Adamantine because it smashes through helmets and usually never breaks (it's actual moment of breakage was mostly symbolic).

Attributes for Aragorn? Well, given his all round better than other men, but not better than everybody, I would have probably given him flat 14-15s in just about every Attribute, but that's just me. Good work on both counts!

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-21, 04:18 PM
Anduril is definetly not adamant. There is one sword in the Silmarilion that was, and it was described as being a black sword. The character that weilded it in fact was eventually reffered to as The Black Sword of (don't remember).

Kurald Galain
2007-06-21, 04:21 PM
I dunno, I think you'd hear about it if it was, but it doesn't make a lot of difference. I might have gone Adamantine, but I can see going with Mithral.

Er, Mithril is the moon-metal from Tolkien. Mithral (and likewise, Milrith) are related substances used to avoid copyright infringement, for the same reason hobbits in D&D are called halflings.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 04:21 PM
Isn't that forged from a Metorite or something, though? Anduril should probably just be some sort of Legacy Weapon anyway.

Mike_G
2007-06-21, 04:32 PM
Participate in multiple pitched battles with zero risk of death.



It's not "zero risk of death." Aragorn in the books is a human being. A stray arrow can kill him.

Normal human warriors survuive pitched battles all the time. If we go with the D&D assertion that most rank and file spear carriers are Warrior 1's then obviously, armies don't get wiped out every fight, so a lowly character can survive.

Historicaly, a single arrow or bullet or swordstroke can kill the average soldier, but soldiers do survive multiple battles.

Saying Aragorn needs to be 12th level to survive Helms Deep and the Pellenor is a fallacious assumption.



This is the crux of my disagreement with the Alexandrian. I don't view the D&D rules as simulating reality, I view them as simulating fiction. I don't see a character with 250 Hit Points as being impervious to arrows, I view them as benefiting from a narrative convention which says "this person is now powerful enough that it would suck for them to be killed by a stray arrow."

We don't know how much actual fighting Aragorn sees in the various battles he's in, but we do know that some of them go on a pretty damned long time, and that at no point do we seriously expect him to be killed. This, to me, is identical to the suggestion that he has a huge number of hitpoints.


So any random Rider of Rohan must have a lot of Hit Points?



There's nothing Aragorn does in the books he would *have* to be above tenth level to do, but if I was setting out to play a character in D&D who did everything that Aragorn did, I'd want to be as high level as possible, because I could never be sure when a run of bad luck would screw my character concept.



But a run of bad luck should be able to destroy your D&D character. A challenge should include a chance of failure.

High level PC's routinely sneer at challenges literary heroes take very seriously. Conan didn't have 200 hp, since if he did, he could have just jumped down off the Tower of the Elephant, soaked the 20d6 and not worried about escaping from the poisonous spider. D&D characters over 10th level are supermen. They don't need to use tactics. A 20th level Aragorn could have held the gates at Helms Deep alone.

Matthew
2007-06-21, 05:03 PM
I think Dan's just coming at it from a different angle than us. What he appears to be saying is that if he wants to play Lord of the Rings from it's start to it's conclusion he wants there to be no risk of the story failing through mischance. It is an unusual way to think about it, but I can see why he is, even if I don't agree with the theory behind it.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 05:11 PM
It's not "zero risk of death." Aragorn in the books is a human being. A stray arrow can kill him.

And this is exactly where I disagree with you and the Alexandrian.

I know that Aragorn in the books is a human being. So are high level D&D characters. Just because your character is twentieth level, that doesn't mean that they are literally impervious to arrows. Their biological makeup doesn't change, they don't become invulnerable to normal damage.


Normal human warriors survuive pitched battles all the time. If we go with the D&D assertion that most rank and file spear carriers are Warrior 1's then obviously, armies don't get wiped out every fight, so a lowly character can survive.

Can survive, but will not *necessarily* survive. And that's the point. Aragorn must *by necessity* survive until the end, or the book makes no sense. For that to work in D&D he has to have a lot of hit points or a huge run of luck, and if you wanted to *play* Aragorn, you wouldn't be able to rely on a huge run of luck.


Historicaly, a single arrow or bullet or swordstroke can kill the average soldier, but soldiers do survive multiple battles.

I am, in fact, aware of that.


Saying Aragorn needs to be 12th level to survive Helms Deep and the Pellenor is a fallacious assumption.

That's not what I said. I said that Aragorn needed to be 12th level (or preferably higher) for there to be no probability of his dying, pointlessly and stupidly, at Helms Deep or the Pellenor (remember he doesn't have access to a Cleric) thus rendering the entire book pointless.


So any random Rider of Rohan must have a lot of Hit Points?

Would you bet money on any given Rider of Rohan surviving any given battle?

Would, having never read Lord of the Rings, bet against Aragorn surviving to the end of the book.


But a run of bad luck should be able to destroy your D&D character. A challenge should include a chance of failure.

Lord of the Rings wasn't set up as a challenge.


High level PC's routinely sneer at challenges literary heroes take very seriously. Conan didn't have 200 hp, since if he did, he could have just jumped down off the Tower of the Elephant, soaked the 20d6 and not worried about escaping from the poisonous spider.

Or alternatively, Conan was being played by a decent roleplayer, who wasn't about to exploit a shoddily written rule in order to avoid the challenge the DM had set for him.


D&D characters over 10th level are supermen.

No they aren't. They're ordinary human beings. Otherwise they'd become immune to sneak attack (since if it's impossible for a dagger to kill them, it shouldn't matter where you stick it), all spells which affect humanoids (since they're no longer human) and a variety of other effects.

High level D&D characters are just too important to die from random crossbow shots.


They don't need to use tactics. A 20th level Aragorn could have held the gates at Helms Deep alone.

Only if the gates of Helms Deep were less than five feet wide. At twentieth level he could still only kill four orcs a round, and he would still be losing roughly 4.5 hit points every time an Orc hit him, and that would mount up.

Aragorn at Helm's Deep wasn't worried about his own survival, he was worried about the actual, y'know, people of Rohan.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 05:16 PM
I think Dan's just coming at it from a different angle than us. What he appears to be saying is that if he wants to play Lord of the Rings from it's start to it's conclusion he wants there to be no risk of the story failing through mischance. It is an unusual way to think about it, but I can see why he is, even if I don't agree with the theory behind it.

Pretty much.

More specifically, I see a lot of the artefacts of high-level D&D as modeling narrative convention rather than physical reality.

A high level D&D character clearly isn't literally impervious to arrows: if they were they shouldn't take any damage from them at all. He is biologically human, he doesn't register as magical, he's just too important to die randomly.

I really *like* the Hit Point system. I think it's simple, elegant, and does exactly what it's supposed to do. It is not, however, supposed to model literal physical reality.

Mike_G
2007-06-21, 05:44 PM
And this is exactly where I disagree with you and the Alexandrian.

I know that Aragorn in the books is a human being. So are high level D&D characters. Just because your character is twentieth level, that doesn't mean that they are literally impervious to arrows. Their biological makeup doesn't change, they don't become invulnerable to normal damage.



Can survive, but will not *necessarily* survive. And that's the point. Aragorn must *by necessity* survive until the end, or the book makes no sense. For that to work in D&D he has to have a lot of hit points or a huge run of luck, and if you wanted to *play* Aragorn, you wouldn't be able to rely on a huge run of luck.



I am, in fact, aware of that.



That's not what I said. I said that Aragorn needed to be 12th level (or preferably higher) for there to be no probability of his dying, pointlessly and stupidly, at Helms Deep or the Pellenor (remember he doesn't have access to a Cleric) thus rendering the entire book pointless.



Would you bet money on any given Rider of Rohan surviving any given battle?

Would, having never read Lord of the Rings, bet against Aragorn surviving to the end of the book.



Lord of the Rings wasn't set up as a challenge.



Or alternatively, Conan was being played by a decent roleplayer, who wasn't about to exploit a shoddily written rule in order to avoid the challenge the DM had set for him.



No they aren't. They're ordinary human beings. Otherwise they'd become immune to sneak attack (since if it's impossible for a dagger to kill them, it shouldn't matter where you stick it), all spells which affect humanoids (since they're no longer human) and a variety of other effects.

High level D&D characters are just too important to die from random crossbow shots.



Only if the gates of Helms Deep were less than five feet wide. At twentieth level he could still only kill four orcs a round, and he would still be losing roughly 4.5 hit points every time an Orc hit him, and that would mount up.

Aragorn at Helm's Deep wasn't worried about his own survival, he was worried about the actual, y'know, people of Rohan.

I guess.

I just think of D&D as a system to simulate adventures, which requires challenges that you aren't necessarily guaranteed to overcome, or else why bother rolling?

The challenges for the Fellowship seem appropriate CR 2-6, which should be just about right for a low level party.

The "Aragorn had no chance to die, since he's in the third book" logic is.... I dunno, just not easily translated to a game, which, by virtue of being a game, has winning and losing (of encounters anyway) built in.

Raum
2007-06-21, 06:05 PM
I suspect it boils down to a difference in what you emphasize in games. D&D isn't a good story telling system. Nor is it really for simulations. It is a good game system abstracted for simplicity. Granted, no RPG can be only one of the above but gaming is what D&D seems to emphasize over drama and simulation.

Consequently it isn't a good system for telling the LotR story or for simulating the LotR world. It does let us all play a game were we can insert some aspects of fiction.

Justin_Bacon
2007-06-26, 12:28 AM
Hmmn. Negative Levels, maybe (better if it were Level Drain, but that seems to have gone the way of THAC0)? I'd say he lost his Outsider Template, for sure. Not sure if D&D is totally devoid of mechanics that could represent this.

The core problem, for me, is what caused whatever change happened. I agree that taking away templates or negative levels or simply re-statting him will all work.


Oh I quite agree, but what that means is that the statement "Aragorn was fifth level" and the statement "Aragorn was twentieth level" are equally false.

By analogy, I show you a 6'2" man and I say, "He's six feet tall."

You say, "No, he's 6'2"."

I say, "Well, yes. But the yardstick I'm using doesn't have inch markings so I rounded to the nearest value. That doesn't mean it's useless as a yardstick."

You say, "Oh, I quite agree, but what that means is that the statement 'Aragorn is 6 feet tall' and the statement 'Aragorn is 20 feet tall' are equally false."

In short, you are arguing from a premise that says: "If it isn't perfect, no insight can be gained from it". I disagree with your premise.


Take the "breaking down doors" example. It's a DC 13 Strength check (for an ordinary wooden door). Now you're quite right that this means that an ordinary person can succeed roughly one time in three, which is probably about right. On the other hand, a Hill Giant (with a Strength of 25, giving him a +7 Strength modifier) will fail one time in three. A giant failing to kick down a normal interior door one time in three strikes me as nonsensical.

Based on your vast experience with Hill Giants in the real world, I suppose? :smallconfused:

This is a pretty good example of exactly what my essay is talking about. You've come in with a preconceived notion of what a Hill Giant should and shouldn't be able to do. Your preconceived notion doesn't match up with the reality of how a Hill Giant is actually described in D&D, but rather than simply changing the Hill Giant to match your conception of it (instead of the WotC designer's conception of it), you conclude that the rule system is "nonsensical".


Take the tracking, it's true that a lot of the time, DC15 is about as high as a Track DC gets, but the example of an "Impossible Feat" (DC 40) given in the SRD is "Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall" incidentally.

Yet again you misquote me. What I actually said: "He leads the hobbits through the wilderness with great skill. (The highest Survival DC in the core rules is DC 15. A 1st level character can master the skill for non-tracking purposes."

The discussion of what it takes to be a master tracker (like Aragorn) comes later.

For the record: The highest base DC for tracking in the core rules is DC 20. This can be modified in many ways, however, with an essentially infinite upper limit.


In fact, since Aragorn manages to distinguish the tracks of the Hobbits from the tracks of the Orcs, we could reasonably conclude that he can "Identify race/kind of creature(s) by tracks." - an Epic Level use of the Tracking feat requiring a check against DC 60.

I'll be frank and admit I'm not going to try to defend the ridiculous DCs set by the epic level rules. The Epic Level Handbook was busted in all kinds of ways, and the implication that every boy scout who can tell the difference between a wolf track and a deer track is an epic level survivalist is just one obvious example of it.


A low-level Aragorn only works if the DM helps it to work. If the GM says "well I suppose singling out the tracks of two hobbits from amongst the wreckage of a battle, fought between men, orcs, and horses, which happened the previous day, resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, and involved a whole bunch of people running around all over the place would be about ... hmm ... DC 15? And yes, of *course* you can take ten on it" then you can model Aragorn as a level five character, but if you actually tried to *play* Aragorn as a fifth level character you'd be bitterly disappointed, because you'd keep messing up.

I'll also be frank and admit that I don't know why you on insist on blatantly misquoting and misrepresenting me. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe it's deliberate. But, whatever the case may be, I see little point in attempting to continue the conversation unless you cut it out. It's rude and insulting and completely unnecessary.


Your argument seems to be that a twentieth level character is, in a sense, a literal demigod: they can plunge head-first into a lake of lava and be completely unharmed, because they really are that powerful. Because we expect Aragorn, ultimately, to be mortal, he can't be high level. If he took a swan dive into the crack of doom, he'd die. I view it rather differently. I view the capacity of high level characters to survive things which should obviously be fatal as an artefact of a system which is just designed to stop them dying from random crossbow bolts.

I don't view this as a fallacy, I view it as the way the system actually works. Level isn't a measure of skill, it's a measure of importance.[/QUOTE]

First off, this is not only a vast over-simplification of my argument it is essentially a complete mispresentation of it (yet again). Indeed, you'll note that hit point inflation is only mentioned in a totally tangential fashion as an interesting consequence of analyzing Einstein (and not vice versa).

But, much like your failure with the hill giants, we are yet again seeing you bring a preconception to the system. In this case you think that main characters and/or important characters should always be high level. This, of course, gives you "nonsensical" or "broken" results as the system "fails" to deliver what you want due to the "artifacts" in its design.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-26, 05:12 AM
By analogy, I show you a 6'2" man and I say, "He's six feet tall."

You say, "No, he's 6'2"."

I say, "Well, yes. But the yardstick I'm using doesn't have inch markings so I rounded to the nearest value. That doesn't mean it's useless as a yardstick."

You say, "Oh, I quite agree, but what that means is that the statement 'Aragorn is 6 feet tall' and the statement 'Aragorn is 20 feet tall' are equally false."

In short, you are arguing from a premise that says: "If it isn't perfect, no insight can be gained from it". I disagree with your premise.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that we have a man who is six feet tall, and you say "that man is an orange" and I say "that man is a banana". Neither of these statements are true. They are both equally false.


Based on your vast experience with Hill Giants in the real world, I suppose? :smallconfused:

This is a pretty good example of exactly what my essay is talking about. You've come in with a preconceived notion of what a Hill Giant should and shouldn't be able to do. Your preconceived notion doesn't match up with the reality of how a Hill Giant is actually described in D&D, but rather than simply changing the Hill Giant to match your conception of it (instead of the WotC designer's conception of it), you conclude that the rule system is "nonsensical".

Yes, yes I do.

A *domestic house cat* can kick down an interior door approximately one time in five.

The idea that this is because "in D&D" a domestic house cat can "really do that" is ludicrous. It's an artefact of the system.


Yet again you misquote me. What I actually said: "He leads the hobbits through the wilderness with great skill. (The highest Survival DC in the core rules is DC 15. A 1st level character can master the skill for non-tracking purposes."

The discussion of what it takes to be a master tracker (like Aragorn) comes later.

For the record: The highest base DC for tracking in the core rules is DC 20. This can be modified in many ways, however, with an essentially infinite upper limit.

Furthermore, DCs are essentially arbitrary anyway. You can't look at Aragorn and say "he could have done everything he did with these stats", because it depends entirely on his DM agreeing with you.


I'll be frank and admit I'm not going to try to defend the ridiculous DCs set by the epic level rules. The Epic Level Handbook was busted in all kinds of ways, and the implication that every boy scout who can tell the difference between a wolf track and a deer track is an epic level survivalist is just one obvious example of it.

I'll also be frank and admit that I don't know why you on insist on blatantly misquoting and misrepresenting me. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe it's deliberate. But, whatever the case may be, I see little point in attempting to continue the conversation unless you cut it out. It's rude and insulting and completely unnecessary.

I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm highlighting a difference in approach.


First off, this is not only a vast over-simplification of my argument it is essentially a complete mispresentation of it (yet again). Indeed, you'll note that hit point inflation is only mentioned in a totally tangential fashion as an interesting consequence of analyzing Einstein (and not vice versa).

Your argument is that the D&D rules represent the *literal* reality of the D&D world. If I think that it's stupid that a hill giant can only kick down doors twice as fast as an elderly woman, that's because I'm bringing "preconceptions" to the world.


But, much like your failure with the hill giants, we are yet again seeing you bring a preconception to the system. In this case you think that main characters and/or important characters should always be high level. This, of course, gives you "nonsensical" or "broken" results as the system "fails" to deliver what you want due to the "artifacts" in its design.

It's not a preconception, it's a statement of how I think the system *works*. This is different to how you think the system works.

Your opinion is no more valid than mine.

Cobra
2007-06-26, 04:45 PM
DnD 3.x is a MUCH better version than any of the prior editions.

That being said, it still fails to either model reality OR most classical fantasy very well. The two big issues respectively are hit points and spells. Other areas, such as the bizarre weight of things like the two bladed sword, are largely irrelevant, since if a DM knows enough about weapons to realize the weight is absurd, he can easily change it. Unfortunately, its pretty hard to 'fix' hp or spells without a major rewrite of the whole rule book.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 05:02 PM
DnD 3.x is a MUCH better version than any of the prior editions.

Hmmn. Whilst it's fairly safe to post that sort of remark here, it would be nice if you prefixed it with "I think" or "In my opinion", as it's not exactly an absolute statement.

Dervag
2007-06-26, 06:26 PM
Only if the GM allows it. And in a competition you can argue you can't take 10 because it's a stressful situation.On the other hand, if it is in fact inconceivable that a giant could fail to smash down an interior door, then it is equally inconceivable that a rational GM would fail to allow the giant to take 10 on his roll to smash down the door.


Take 10 messes a whole lot of things up. It turns a hugely random system into a totally deterministic system.Yes, it does. But there's a good reason for having the 'take 10' mechanism. Many ordinary tasks are practically deterministic for a competent person who is performing them under normal conditions. Sailors shouldn't need to roll Climb checks (and risk failure) every time they go up in a ship's rigging. Characters shouldn't need to roll Diplomacy checks (and risk failure, even if the DC is low) every time they go up to someone in the street and ask them the time of day. And so it goes.

Taking 10 is an antidote to precisely the kind of credulity-straining unrealism you have observed in the D&D system. It allows competent people to perform tasks that, realistically, they should be able to do without trouble, and to do so consistently.


Also: having checked the stats, a domestic cat can kick down an interior door something like one time in five. Then again, we know that D&D cats are lethal.Now that is more of a problem. I think you observed yourself in the past that D&D isn't good at handling things at the 'weaker than human' end of the scale. In essence, the lower limit on the power level that D&D can deal with effectively is that of the first level commoner; anything less powerful than a first level commoner (such as a housecat) will not be modeled convincingly.


It depends on whether you were relying purely on footprints, or whether you included things like the remains of their camps.Even with things like that to help you it would be extremely difficult. You'd have to know which way they were going to get from one campsite to the next, and they wouldn't be leaving many detectable traces. It could quite reasonably be a nigh-epic-level challenge to track a small band of orcs across a granite mountaintop.


This is the crux of my disagreement with the Alexandrian. I don't view the D&D rules as simulating reality, I view them as simulating fiction. I don't see a character with 250 Hit Points as being impervious to arrows, I view them as benefiting from a narrative convention which says "this person is now powerful enough that it would suck for them to be killed by a stray arrow."That makes a lot of sense, though there should be a strong correlation between high hit points and ability to survive being shot at by arrows, though not necessarily ability to survive being pierced by arrows.


Ah, fair enough. Pitched battles are always something of a difficulty to model with D&D and a lot comes down to how you choose to handle them. The conventional way, as I understand it, is to treat it as a series of encounters that take place against the backdrop of a battle. Truly, we have not much of an idea how much fighting Aragorn participated in at Helm's Deep, The Pelennor Fields or before The Black Gate. Either we consider them to have had EL appropriate to his level, or we consider his level to be appropriate for taking on X number of EL Y Challenges.We do, however, know that Legolas and Gimli (more or less his equals in combat skill) killed something like twenty orcs apiece at Helm's Deep. That may give us an indication.


Based on your vast experience with Hill Giants in the real world, I suppose? :smallconfused:

This is a pretty good example of exactly what my essay is talking about. You've come in with a preconceived notion of what a Hill Giant should and shouldn't be able to do. Your preconceived notion doesn't match up with the reality of how a Hill Giant is actually described in D&D, but rather than simply changing the Hill Giant to match your conception of it (instead of the WotC designer's conception of it), you conclude that the rule system is "nonsensical".You may have a point.

Hill giants are huge. They're what, nine, ten feet tall? They're also pretty well muscled- that isn't 'beanpole' height we're talking about. If some hulking great monster like that decided to bash down my bedroom door, assuming it could fit in my house in the first place, I can hardly imagine it failing to do so.

But my bedroom door is a hollow-core, like many interior doors in modern houses. Now, if my door were made out of solid planks, I could imagine the giant failing and needing a second or maybe even a third try to break the door down enough to allow entry. But my door is one inch thick. A one-inch door of solid planks is "simple" under the rules. And the giant might need two or three tries to break down a simple door, given the DC for doing so.

However, it is not a good model if it allows the family cat to break the door down one time in five. Or if someone's arthritic granny can knock down doors almost half as fast as a hulking great ten-foot giant.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 06:30 PM
We do, however, know that Legolas and Gimli (more or less his equals in combat skill) killed something like twenty orcs apiece at Helm's Deep. That may give us an indication.

How many did they kill precisely again? We can probably work out their level from there. [Edit] Found it, forty one and forty two respectively.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-26, 06:31 PM
Gimli 42, Legolas 41

EDIT- and Gimli notched his axe, because 42 wwas wearing an iron collar.


EDIT -sweet, I simu-posted the answer to a question!

Matthew
2007-06-26, 06:45 PM
Heh, simued, now for the maths...

[Edit] Reposted
83 Orcs/Hobgoblins at CR 1/2 makes for about 7 Encounters of ECL 5-7. Hmmn, pity Legolas and Gimli don't operate in a party of four. Let's see, this also makes for 10-14 ECL 5-7 Encounters. Now, what Level Character could deal with 4 ECL 5 Encounters? Hmnn. Hard to say. I would think they would have to be Level 7 or 8.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-26, 08:06 PM
Actually, Legolas and Gimli were seperated for the majority of the battle.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 08:26 PM
Yes, I know, but I was calculating CR based on a 4:1 Ratio - Parties versus Monsters.

Thus one Character faces 40 Orcs, two Characters face 80 Orcs, four Characters face 160 Orcs. Then work out the CR on the Table for what would be an appropriate ECL.

Dividing by four (on the four encounters per day premise), we get four encounters of 40 Orcs. The table doesn't legislate for such things.

So, I ended up falling back on the idea of working it out seperately, four ECL 5 encounters (i.e. 10-12 Orcs/Hobgoblins) is an appropriate Challenge for four Level 5 Characters. Now the question is, how high a level does a Character need to be to be equivalent to four Level 5 Characters? I reckon, levels 7-8.

Unfortunately, WBL throws that whole thing off completely.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-26, 08:37 PM
And yet, my gut tells me that lvl 7-8 is where Legolas and Gimli would fall.

Caewil
2007-06-26, 08:40 PM
Now the question is, how high a level does a Character need to be to be equivalent to four Level 5 Characters? I reckon, levels 7-8.
Not by a long shot. Twelve, at the least.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 08:58 PM
Really, how did you decide that?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-27, 03:55 AM
On the other hand, if it is in fact inconceivable that a giant could fail to smash down an interior door, then it is equally inconceivable that a rational GM would fail to allow the giant to take 10 on his roll to smash down the door.

This is true.

But to be honest a rational GM would probably ignore the door-smashing rules entirely and just say "the giant smashes the door down."


Yes, it does. But there's a good reason for having the 'take 10' mechanism. Many ordinary tasks are practically deterministic for a competent person who is performing them under normal conditions. Sailors shouldn't need to roll Climb checks (and risk failure) every time they go up in a ship's rigging. Characters shouldn't need to roll Diplomacy checks (and risk failure, even if the DC is low) every time they go up to someone in the street and ask them the time of day. And so it goes.

This is my problem with it though. The Take 10 rules are founded in the (in my opinion false) assumption that the D&D rules can and should attempt to model the everyday actions of ordinary people.

Essentially it just becomes a needlessly complicated way of saying "don't be silly, of course that wouldn't happen."


Taking 10 is an antidote to precisely the kind of credulity-straining unrealism you have observed in the D&D system. It allows competent people to perform tasks that, realistically, they should be able to do without trouble, and to do so consistently.

The point is, I don't see how that's an advantage to a game of heroic fantasy.


Now that is more of a problem. I think you observed yourself in the past that D&D isn't good at handling things at the 'weaker than human' end of the scale. In essence, the lower limit on the power level that D&D can deal with effectively is that of the first level commoner; anything less powerful than a first level commoner (such as a housecat) will not be modeled convincingly.

Pretty much. I don't actually think it's a *problem*, I just think one should recognize that D&D does not model reality. This is not a failure on its part, because it does not *attempt* to model reality.


Even with things like that to help you it would be extremely difficult. You'd have to know which way they were going to get from one campsite to the next, and they wouldn't be leaving many detectable traces. It could quite reasonably be a nigh-epic-level challenge to track a small band of orcs across a granite mountaintop.

True, and ultimately it's going to be up to the DM to decide how that will work.


That makes a lot of sense, though there should be a strong correlation between high hit points and ability to survive being shot at by arrows, though not necessarily ability to survive being pierced by arrows.

I think there should be a strong correlation between high hit points and probability of surviving being shot at by arrows (because there is) but the book more or less states outright that "just being very, very lucky" is one such justification.


We do, however, know that Legolas and Gimli (more or less his equals in combat skill) killed something like twenty orcs apiece at Helm's Deep. That may give us an indication.

As others have pointed out, it winds up being in the region of forty apiece.

The problem is we don't know anything about the circumstances and, crucially, we don't know how easy they found it.

The reason I would pitch the Fellowship at reasonably high levels (probably above 10th) is that, were I playing Gimli in a game, I would want to be able to run around hacking at orcs all day long, and have my only concern being keeping track of my kills.

Somebody below observes that forty-something orcs winds up being about CR 5-6, to my mind you'd have to be at *least* tenth level to go through however many CR 5-6 encounters that is and only be worried about keeping count of your kills.


However, it is not a good model if it allows the family cat to break the door down one time in five. Or if someone's arthritic granny can knock down doors almost half as fast as a hulking great ten-foot giant.

And this, pretty much, is where I disagree with the premise of the Alexandrian's article.

He *seems* (and if I've got this wrong I'm sorry, he can correct me) to be saying that if the system seems wrong it's our fault not the system's fault, that we should assume that the system works as intended, and that the ability or otherwise of a hill giant to kick a door down is supposed to give us information about how Hill Giants work in the setting.

The system also tells us that elephants can jump anywhere from six to eight feet vertically, or 25-30 feet horizontally, given a running start.

Essentially my philosophy is that Levels literally *do* represent how important a character is. A low-level character dies easily, and fails frequently, much like an unimportant or low-key fictional character. A high-level character survives improbably and succeeds regularly, much like an important or epic fictional character.

Caewil
2007-06-27, 07:51 AM
Well, try running one Lvl 7 character against 10-12 Orcs - Without any healing.

LoTR had no clerics, which significantly modifies the number of encounters/day that are a challenge. From four, it's probably stripped down to two or one. No flashy wizards or utility spells. No buffs or significant magic items. No haste or grease. The Lvl 7 character may be able to survive, but can he survive with a significant portion of his health remaining? (none of the heroes look very badly injured in the movies)

Dervag
2007-06-27, 10:20 AM
This is my problem with it though. The Take 10 rules are founded in the (in my opinion false) assumption that the D&D rules can and should attempt to model the everyday actions of ordinary people.

Essentially it just becomes a needlessly complicated way of saying "don't be silly, of course that wouldn't happen."Perhaps. But they also serve the purpose of providing a mechanical justification for why the PCs don't fail at basic tasks. There's something schizophrenic about the assumption that people have wildly variable random results when applying a skill "on camera" and not "off camera." I, for one, am not comfortable with that assumption. And I think that the 'take 10' rule has a place in keeping us from having to make that assumption.

For instance, imagine that I build a by no means exceptional first level ranger with four ranks in Climb and a +2 strength modifier. A ranger who climbs trees is not an unreasonable character. His Climb modifier is +6, so he will roll a 7-26 on Climb checks. According to the DM Guide, climbing a tree without tools is a DC 15 challenge. So if my ranger goes into a tree, he'll succeed on 55% of his Climb checks and make progress up the tree during that six-second interval. 25% of the time he'll make no progress. And 20% of the time he will fail his check by five or more and fall out of the tree.

So my tree-climbing ranger, at first level, with fairly good modifiers to his check, falls out of the tree about once every thirty seconds. We have a problem. It strains credulity that a 1st-level ranger, who is supposed to be a basically competent member of a group that spends most of their time in a forest, can't climb a tree in reasonable safety. For that matter, even if my ranger has 18 strength (and is therefore about as fit and athletic as any normal human gets), he still has 'only' a +8 bonus and therefore falls out of the tree he's climbing an average of once a minute or so.

This is ridiculous. Under the rules as written, a character needs a +10 Climb bonus to be able to climb trees safely without fear of falling out of the tree due to simple bad luck an average of once every two minutes or less.

If, on the other hand, we have a 'take 10' rule, the situation is drastically different. On the one hand, characters with a +4 or lower Climb bonus can't climb trees by taking 10; this indicates that their character, due to lack of climbing experience or strength, has to try to climb a tree and it is not trivially easy for them. But characters with a +5 or higher Climb bonus will have no difficulty climbing normal trees under normal conditions (they aren't being shot at, the branches aren't brittle and prone to breaking underfoot, etc.) This allows me to construct a first level ranger who can reliably climb trees.


The point is, I don't see how that's an advantage to a game of heroic fantasy.Because it lets my ranger climb a tree to get into an ambush position for archery, or just to get a look around from the top, without falling and suffering a painful or lethal injury.


Pretty much. I don't actually think it's a *problem*, I just think one should recognize that D&D does not model reality. This is not a failure on its part, because it does not *attempt* to model reality.But the system loses something if my 'heroic' characters are incapable of performing actions that fairly normal, real people can do (like climbing trees without falling out of them every minute). I mean, this isn't a legendary feat of climbing we're talking about here; my ranger is proposing to scale an elm tree, not Mount Everest.


Essentially my philosophy is that Levels literally *do* represent how important a character is. A low-level character dies easily, and fails frequently, much like an unimportant or low-key fictional character. A high-level character survives improbably and succeeds regularly, much like an important or epic fictional character.How does that mesh with the fact that the PCs start out at low level, and therefore are unimportant characters?

Matthew
2007-06-27, 10:25 AM
Exactly, Dervag. the 'take 10' rule is one of the best things going for Skills and it's a fairly old concept. A lot of this comes down to what you think a D20 Roll represents. To me, all it represents, is unforseen variables. 10 is 'normal'. The whole purpose of a die roll is to take into account factors that have not been taken into account by modifiers. If, however, you have already taken into account all the variables, then 'taking 10' or any other number is the same as saying these are the conditions under which this task will succeed.

[Edit] From reading Dan's posts here and elsewhere it's fairly clear to me that he and I are at great variance over our approach to D&D, so I wonder whether we need some clearer definitons to proceed from?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-27, 10:28 AM
Perhaps. But they also serve the purpose of providing a mechanical justification for why the PCs don't fail at basic tasks. There's something schizophrenic about the assumption that people have wildly variable random results when applying a skill "on camera" and not "off camera." I, for one, am not comfortable with that assumption. And I think that the 'take 10' rule has a place in keeping us from having to make that assumption.

For instance, imagine that I build a by no means exceptional first level ranger with four ranks in Climb and a +2 strength modifier. A ranger who climbs trees is not an unreasonable character. His Climb modifier is +6, so he will roll a 7-26 on Climb checks. According to the DM Guide, climbing a tree without tools is a DC 15 challenge. So if my ranger goes into a tree, he'll succeed on 55% of his Climb checks and make progress up the tree during that six-second interval. 25% of the time he'll make no progress. And 20% of the time he will fail his check by five or more and fall out of the tree.

So my tree-climbing ranger, at first level, with fairly good modifiers to his check, falls out of the tree about once every thirty seconds. We have a problem. It strains credulity that a 1st-level ranger, who is supposed to be a basically competent member of a group that spends most of their time in a forest, can't climb a tree in reasonable safety. For that matter, even if my ranger has 18 strength (and is therefore about as fit and athletic as any normal human gets), he still has 'only' a +8 bonus and therefore falls out of the tree he's climbing an average of once a minute or so.

Rather than have the "take ten" rule, wouldn't it be easier just to drop all DCs by five or so?


This is ridiculous. Under the rules as written, a character needs a +10 Climb bonus to be able to climb trees safely without fear of falling out of the tree due to simple bad luck an average of once every two minutes or less.

If, on the other hand, we have a 'take 10' rule, the situation is drastically different. On the one hand, characters with a +4 or lower Climb bonus can't climb trees by taking 10; this indicates that their character, due to lack of climbing experience or strength, has to try to climb a tree and it is not trivially easy for them. But characters with a +5 or higher Climb bonus will have no difficulty climbing normal trees under normal conditions (they aren't being shot at, the branches aren't brittle and prone to breaking underfoot, etc.) This allows me to construct a first level ranger who can reliably climb trees.

It allows you to construct a first level ranger who can reliably climb trees, right up to the point where climbing trees becomes important and the DM makes you roll for it.


Because it lets my ranger climb a tree to get into an ambush position for archery, or just to get a look around from the top, without falling and suffering a painful or lethal injury.

But the system loses something if my 'heroic' characters are incapable of performing actions that fairly normal, real people can do (like climbing trees without falling out of them every minute). I mean, this isn't a legendary feat of climbing we're talking about here; my ranger is proposing to scale an elm tree, not Mount Everest.

Low-level D&D characters fail at trivial tasks all the time. I had a character try to sucker-punch a peasant in a bar once and miss.


How does that mesh with the fact that the PCs start out at low level, and therefore are unimportant characters?

D&D characters start out unimportant. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be able to get taken out by lucky arrows and domestic animals.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 10:30 AM
Dropping the DC only allows you to consider the D20 roll as a positive modifier.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-27, 10:35 AM
Dropping the DC only allows you to consider the D20 roll as a positive modifier.

I don't follow you.

How is "Climbing a tree is DC15, but under relaxed conditions you can take ten" different from "climbing a tree under relaxed conditions is DC10" (or even DC5)?

Matthew
2007-06-27, 10:44 AM
It's the scale of DCs versus Skill Level.

For me, the D20 roll is a positive/negative Axis. Under normal conditions, it is simply a flat circumstance Modifier of 10. What I mean is that DCs already are 10 points lower than they appear (or skills are ten points higher). The entire game could be played without rolling a D20 once, just based on the idea that every circumstance is already accounted for.

All the D20 is, for me, is a random determination of (+10/-10) circumstance modifiers.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-27, 10:50 AM
It's the scale of DCs versus Skill Level.

For me, the D20 roll is a positive/negative Axis. Under normal conditions, it is simply a flat circumstance Modifier of 10. What I mean is that DCs already are 10 points lower than they appear (or skills are ten points higher). The entire game could be played without rolling a D20 once, just based on the idea that every circumstance is already accounted for.

I'm okay with the idea that a random roll represents changing circumstances. The problem is that I think the D20 is a bit *too* random. I mean the average "circumstance modifier" in the game is about +/- 2.

My problem with the "Take Ten or Roll 1D20" situation is that you wind up with a world that is either *completely* deterministic or *massively* random, and nothing in between.

Take two characters, one with a Climb Check of +5, the other with a climb check of +4.

One of them can take ten and climb trees all day long. The other falls out once every two minutes. All because of a one-point difference in their skill modifiers.

This is why I think it would be much more sensible to drop the DCs, you don't get that artificial jump between "can take ten" at one level and "can't take ten" at another.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 10:15 PM
Sure, the D20 roll is far too random, but that's a different question to Skill to DC ratios. if you reduce the D20 to a D10 Roll, you need to take 5 away from all difficulties, but you reduce the ceiling as well as the floor.

[Edit]
Yes, a Character with 4 Ranks needs to find a Circumstance Modifier from somewhere if he attempts a DC 15 task or risk failing. Rolling once a round to climb a tree is a bit silly, mind, unless you are under a lot of stress (such as combat).
In this case (and it's probably not RAW) I would allow a +1 Modifier for him to do the task more slowly than a guy with 5 Ranks, same as I would allow a guy with 6 Ranks to go more quickly. They could all attempt to do it via D20 Rolls, but they know their limits.

[Edit]
So, I was thinking about my Wealth By Level comment and the earlier discussion about the correlation between LotR equipment and D&D equipment and now I'm not so sure the WBL would be too whacked.

So I am think Level 7 for most of these guys, which means 19,000 GP,

Aragorn
Anduril - Weapon of Legacy (got to be pretty bloody expensive)
Elvish Cloak (2,500 GP)
Evenstar thingy [working from memory here] (probably 2,000 GP or so)
Masterwork Mail Hauberk - From Theoden's Armoury (350 GP)
Masterwork Heavy Shield - From Theoden's Armoury (157 GP)

Gimli
Dwarvish Axe (310-8,310 GP)
Elvish Cloak (2,500 GP)
Dwarvish Mail Hauberk (350-4,350 GP)
Masterwork Light Shield (153 GP)
Lock of Galadriel's Hair (maybe 2,000 GP?)

Legolas
Elvish Bow - From Galadriel (600-18,600 GP)
Elvish Dagger/Short Sword (301-8,311 GP)
Elvish Cloak (2,500 GP)
Masterwork Mail Hauberk - From Theoden's Armoury (350 GP)
Masterwork Heavy Shield - From Theoden's Armoury (157 GP)

Given the ideas about how LotR mundane equipment could in fact be less flashy enhanced gear, I would say wealth by level may not be too far off.

Certainly, if you calculate their AC based on the Defense Bonus Variant Rule, their AC should be in the low to mid twenties and Damage Reduction would be in play from the Armour as Damage Reduction Rules. That should really be sufficient to see them through forty Hobgoblins each (though not Orcs) [AC 15, AB 1(2), HP 6]. Even as lowly Level 7 Characters they should be hitting the Hobgoblins 75% of the time and being hit in return only 5%.

Hmmn, anyway, just food for thought.

Dervag
2007-06-27, 10:39 PM
Rather than have the "take ten" rule, wouldn't it be easier just to drop all DCs by five or so?Because then there would be little risk of failure in situations where the PCs are rushed, or working under fire, or operating against a strict time limit. For instance, if my ranger has thirty seconds to climb a tree and he's in a tearing great hurry, he might take chances he wouldn't normally take, slip and fall. If the rogue has to pick a lock before the rising water drowns him, there's a chance that he'll make mistakes he wouldn't make if there were no water. And so on.

High DCs make it possible for characters to fail at dramatic moments, as when the characters in Star Wars are trying to escape from the garbage masher in the Death Star. They are useful. The downside is that they also make it possible for character to fail in ordinary situations where they should have no difficulty (such as climbing a tree under idyllic conditions for the sheer joy of it).


It allows you to construct a first level ranger who can reliably climb trees, right up to the point where climbing trees becomes important and the DM makes you roll for it.By the rules, a character can take 10 when "not being threatened or distracted." Therefore, my ranger can take 10 to climb a tree to set a trap or an ambush (before the threats and distractions arrive). However, if there are guys shooting arrows at him, or a bear is shaking the tree, or he's trying to climb in the middle of a swarm of hornets, then he must make rolls. But it is reasonable for a normal tree-climber to slip and fall when he's being shot at or stung by hornets or when a bear is shaking the tree. At least, it is more reasonable than for a normal tree-climber to fall out of the tree an average of once a minute.

If the purpose of D&D is, as you claim, to model heroic fantasy, then characters must be able to perform more or less the range of tasks that ordinary people can perform as a baseline. They should not start out as a pack of invalids. The 'take 10' rules make it much easier to fulfill this requirement.


Low-level D&D characters fail at trivial tasks all the time. I had a character try to sucker-punch a peasant in a bar once and miss.Well, sucker-punching someone isn't trivially easy and doesn't necessarily automatically succeed as a damage-dealing attack.

A D&D punch will do enough nonlethal damage to take out about half of an ordinary person's hit points. So they can take two, maybe three, such punches before falling unconscious.

Imagine how hard a punch that is. You hit so hard that all you have to do is hit them like that one more time, and they will pass out on the floor.

For an ordinary person who does not have special training in unarmed combat, that is not easy to do. Most punches simply do not cause that kind of harm. Even if your character is supposed to be a basically trained combatant, it is still by no means guaranteed that you can deliver such a powerful blow to a person in command of their faculties and able to protect themselves.

So why do you complain when your character can't automatically punch out a peasant in a bar? At low levels, your character is supposed to be human, remember? They are still in danger of being killed by stray arrows and such, just like the rest of us mortals. They are ordinary. And ordinary people can't automatically punch out a guy in a bar, just like that.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-27, 10:45 PM
I think he means DC-5 instead of taking 10 when not rushed etc.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 11:19 PM
If he does, which I doubt, it wouldn't work. DCs would have to drop by 10, in which case you're doing exactly the same as 'taking 10'.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 05:18 AM
If he does, which I doubt, it wouldn't work. DCs would have to drop by 10, in which case you're doing exactly the same as 'taking 10'.

Actually, that is what I mean.

But it's not exactly the same as taking ten, because you still get the D20 roll.

In D&D as written, "climb a tree" is a DC 15 skill check. Under "normal conditions" you can take ten, so a person with a +5 modifier will always succeed, while a person with a +4 modifier will fail more than half the time.

Then, if you suddenly get ambushed by orcs, you are no longer under "normal circumstances", so you're both rolling. But you're still rolling against DC15, so so the guy with the +4 does not have his performance affected in any way, but the guy with the +5 does.

This is the basic issue with the "D20 as circumstances" school of thought. Circumstances seldom get *better* as a result of your being in a stressful situation.

Matthew
2007-06-28, 07:35 AM
That is rather silly, then, in my opinion. Circumstances don't really have to get better, the Character just takes a greater risk to succeed, but essentially the idea is that there is a lot more going on in a stressful situation to take account of. You can use any probability generator you prefer, the D20 is just the default measure.

By lowering the DC you are making it 20-25% likely that a Character will fail to climb a Tree under non combat conditions, but as I was saying before, the DC is not set in stone. A Character with 0 Ranks in Climb could climb a Tree with 100% success providing he can find sufficient circumstance modifiers.

As written 'taking ten' allows Characters with 0 Ranks and Modifiers to succeed at Average Tasks. The DCs presented in the Skill Descriptions are only guidelines, according to the rules, for establishing DCs for particular tasks. Climbing a Tree is rated as 'Tough 15', but you are free to modify the difficulty in any direction you choose based on the circumstances and the 'actual difficulty' of climbing a specific Tree. If you feel 'Climbing a Tree' should be Easy or Average, modify the DC as you feel appropriate - that is the expectation.

Essentially, though, Dan, your beef doesn't really appear to be with the idea of 'taking ten', but with the D20 roll in general, in which case you have a more serious problem, because that is the mechanic underlying the entire system. The idea that you can do extremely well or very poorly based on the roll of a D20 is fundamental to combat and has been extended to all other tasks (however unwisely).

Lowering the DC of tasks 'out of combat' is the same for me as 'taking 10' because 'taking 10' does represent modifying the difficulty and removing any unforseen factors (all factors are accounted for).

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 08:46 AM
Lowering the DC of tasks 'out of combat' is the same for me as 'taking 10' because 'taking 10' does represent modifying the difficulty and removing any unforseen factors (all factors are accounted for).

Taking ten doesn't modify the difficulty.

If you need an 11+ to succeed at something, then "normal circumstances" don't help you. Curiously enough, though, they don't hinder you either.

Two characters can be performing the *same* task under the *same* conditions, one of them taking ten and the other not. How is that possible if the D20 roll represents "unforseen factors"?

Matthew
2007-06-28, 09:38 AM
It all depends on how you read the meaning of 'taking ten' and 'rolling a D20'. A guy with Climb 4(4) and a guy with Climb 4(5) can both 'take 10' and reach difficulty 14 and 15 respectively. You can play it fail/pass or you can say Character A has to 'do something' to make the task less difficult. Going more slowly or following the progress of a more proficient climber would both qualify. On the other hand, both Characters can 'roll a D20' and take a risk. That represents them not being careful, according to the description in the Using Skills section.

'Taking ten' does effectively lower the difficulty because a D20 Roll is just essentially a randomly determined Circumstance Modifier. Circumstance Modifiers either lower/increase the difficulty or lower/increase your modifier.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 09:46 AM
'Taking ten' does effectively lower the difficulty because a D20 Roll is just essentially a randomly determined Circumstance Modifier. Circumstance Modifiers either lower/increase the difficulty or lower/increase your modifier.

But it's a randomly determined Circumstance Modifier between -9 and +10, with an average of 10.5.

Let me put it another way: how would you model somebody trying to perform an action under *optimal* circumstances? Not just average, but optimal?

Matthew
2007-06-28, 10:14 AM
You add more Circumstance Modifiers. 'Taking 10' isn't done in isolation. So, if I wanted a Character to climb a Tree under optimal circumstances, he would be 'taking 10' and adding whatever I consider to be appropriate for 'optimal' circumstances (there is no such thing as 'optimal' really, though, as it can always be increased through something not yet thought of) for a net total of [10+X].

Now much of this relies on how you perceive the game world and the role of the D20 in it. For me, luck is just a word for describing unforseen circumstances that affected a given event (either positively or negatively). Those circumstances could be anything from a slippery branch to divine interference (after all, Hit Points represent Divine favour to some extent, according to their description, so why not a D20 roll?).

If you perceive the D20 as truly random and without bearing on the game world (i.e. without context or interpretation) then niether 'taking 10' nor 'rolling a D20' will make any sense at all.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 10:32 AM
You add more Circumstance Modifiers. 'Taking 10' isn't done in isolation. So, if I wanted a Character to climb a Tree under optimal circumstances, he would be 'taking 10' and adding whatever I consider to be appropriate for 'optimal' circumstances (there is no such thing as 'optimal' really, though, as it can always be increased through something not yet thought of) for a net total of [10+X].

But this is sort of my point.

To get the equivalent of +20 on your roll, you would need a *huge* number of circumstance modifiers. Enough to give you +10 total. That, to put it bluntly, is loads.

But if you choose not to take ten, you can suddenly get +20 on your roll by pure chance.

Where do these sudden "circumstances" come from?


Now much of this relies on how you perceive the game world and the role of the D20 in it. For me, luck is just a word for describing unforseen circumstances that affected a given event (either positively or negatively). Those circumstances could be anything from a slippery branch to divine interference (after all, Hit Points represent Divine favour to some extent, according to their description, so why not a D20 roll?).

The problem is that the circumstances represented by a D20 roll aren't just unforeseen, they're completely undetectable.

I climb a wall, choosing not to take ten. I roll a 20.

I climb down the wall, and climb up it again. I roll a 5.

How can circumstances have changed to much in the intervening few seconds that they justify a fifteen point difference?


If you perceive the D20 as truly random and without bearing on the game world (i.e. without context or interpretation) then niether 'taking 10' nor 'rolling a D20' will make any sense at all.

The problem is that if they *do* have context and interpretation, it makes no sense that you can choose which to do. Either you are doing something under normal circumstances, or you are not. You can't say "well under normal circumstances I couldn't do this, so I choose to believe that these circumstances are abnormal, which allows me to succeed 45% of the time."

Similarly for trying again. If you do something twice in succession, the "circumstances" represented by the D20 roll somehow change completely.

So to me it makes no sense for the D20 roll to represent "circumstances", because they're not definable, or repeatable, or identifiable, but are somehow massively more influential than any concrete circumstance modifier.

Matthew
2007-06-28, 10:54 AM
But this is sort of my point.

To get the equivalent of +20 on your roll, you would need a *huge* number of circumstance modifiers. Enough to give you +10 total. That, to put it bluntly, is loads.

But if you choose not to take ten, you can suddenly get +20 on your roll by pure chance.

Where do these sudden "circumstances" come from?

They come from your imagination, but seriously, they can be anything, including simple Divine favour or disfavour. The D20 roll is too random, but that's the way the game runs.


The problem is that the circumstances represented by a D20 roll aren't just unforeseen, they're completely undetectable.

I climb a wall, choosing not to take ten. I roll a 20.

I climb down the wall, and climb up it again. I roll a 5.

How can circumstances have changed to much in the intervening few seconds that they justify a fifteen point difference?

That's not a problem of mechanics, it's a problem of imagination. If you choose not to 'take 10' you are consciously choosing not to take all factors into consideration. Basically, you rush the job and take unecessary risks. You may succeed brilliantly or you may fail dismally. Rolling the Die is not recommended for tasks that can be completed without it.
Although the actual headings in the SRD do not make this clear, the introduction does:


Circumstances can affect your check. A character who is free to work without distractions can make a careful attempt and avoid simple mistakes. A character who has lots of time can try over and over again, thereby assuring the best outcome. If others help, the character may succeed where otherwise he or she would fail.



The problem is that if they *do* have context and interpretation, it makes no sense that you can choose which to do. Either you are doing something under normal circumstances, or you are not. You can't say "well under normal circumstances I couldn't do this, so I choose to believe that these circumstances are abnormal, which allows me to succeed 45% of the time."

Similarly for trying again. If you do something twice in succession, the "circumstances" represented by the D20 roll somehow change completely.

So to me it makes no sense for the D20 roll to represent "circumstances", because they're not definable, or repeatable, or identifiable, but are somehow massively more influential than any concrete circumstance modifier.

The circumstances do not change completely, but your choice of whether you are careful or not does change the circumstances. If you choose to see the D20 roll as representing 'random stuff' that's up to you. However, the D20 roll does not need to operate that way. Because it represents circumstancial change, the DM narrates what happens based on the information given by the Die Roll.

So, if Character A chooses not to 'take 10' when climbing the rope and rolls a 5, failing in his attempt, the DM creates a suitable reason for why he failed. A sudden gust of wind, bright sunlight, failure of concentration, worn boots, whatever is appropriate for the failure. If Character A rolls a 15 and succeeds when he would not have on a 10, the DM creates a suitable reason, a burst of adrenaline or inexplicable clarity of mind.

Honestly Dan, by looking at the game in only one way it's no wonder you find problems with it. Instead of expecting the game to conform to your expectations why not change your expectations to accord with the information provided by the game? When you roll the die and it comes up higher or lower than 10 something unexpected has occured and it's up to the DM to determine and narrate what that is. It's exactly the same as combat.

To be clear, D&D is not a 'good' system for modelling reality and the 3.x Skill System is one of the worst I have ever seen (in some ways worse than the 2.x Proficiency System, depending on which version you use). However, the random die roll versus 'taking 10' is not a big deal. 10 is the default circumstance (as the DMG implies when it discusses variable Armour Class and why the baseline is 10), some circumstances have variable modifiers determined by the D20 for the purposes of the game.

Mike_G
2007-06-28, 11:35 AM
Oh, for the lovw of God, it's a game. Games use dice to determine hits and misses, and the 3.x unified mechanic applies that to skills.

What would you rather have? Do you want every singele action decided by DM fiat?

As far as tasks and obstacles, success isn't always assured, so we need a die roll, but routine things for a skilled character should be pretty much a dione deal, which is what taking ten is.

Even the same task, under the same circumstances, you could sometimes fail and sometiems succeed. I've broken boards in Karate. Sometimes. More boards gives a higher DC, but there's no etched in stone "I can break three always, but not four ever." I'd set the base DC is, say 15, hard but not too hard, +2 per extra board. I can succeeed, and do much more often with fewer, but it's not a given, even if I repeat the attempt under the exact same circumstances.

In this instance, I view the D20 as how well I adhere to my form, and how squarely I hit. My sensei can take ten, I can't.

People do "roll 1's" in RL. Great hitters strike out. American League pitchers hit home runs in Interleague Play. These are 1's and 20's. I'm a good Paramedic, but some times I can miss an IV, then get a second successful attempt IV on the same patient ten seconds later. The ambulance is still a bumpy ride, the patient is still struggling, his heroin use scarred veins still suck, but this time, I succeed. My skill hasn't changed, circumstances haven't, I just rolled better.