Middle Earth in 5E is becoming an official thing

[Asmodai]

I didn't see a thread about this, but since it's some amazing news I thought I'd want to share it with you folks!
Cubicle 7, the makers of the glorious One Ring RPG, are going to be making 5E based Middle Earth RPG's.

This sounds like brilliant news. (http://cubicle7.co.uk/dd-comes-to-middle-earth/) And C7 is really well known for its awesome production values, and getting the feel of LotR.

[Lines]

I didn't see a thread about this, but since it's some amazing news I thought I'd want to share it with you folks!
Cubicle 7, the makers of the glorious One Ring RPG, are going to be making 5E based Middle Earth RPG's.

This sounds like brilliant news. (http://cubicle7.co.uk/dd-comes-to-middle-earth/) And C7 is really well known for its awesome production values, and getting the feel of LotR.

In a D&D context, don't we usually refer only to WotC stuff as official things?

[Rhaegar14]

I second Lines' opinion above.

More to the point, however, I feel like D&D is (ironically) not a great system for Middle Earth. Too many of the D&D classes rely on overtly magical effects and abilities. We could see some interesting Warlock Patrons, though.

[Talamare]

If they include all new classes and rule it that the original classes can't be used, I think it would be great.

Currently in DnD the only non-magical class I believe is Barbarian

[Shaofoo]

If they include all new classes and rule it that the original classes can't be used, I think it would be great.

Currently in DnD the only non-magical class I believe is Barbarian

If you mean subclasses without any spell or spell like abilities then two of the three subclasses for Fighter and Rogue are also without magic.

If you mean a class with any sort of spell of spell like abilities in any of the subclasses then the Barbarian is disqualified because Totem contains talk with the animals and other such spell abilities. Even Barbarians must reference the Spell section of the book.

[Lines]

They're going to need the kind of martial subsystems 5e lacks, a non magic setting will be boring as hell if everyone has to say 'I attack' over and over. LotR is fun to watch, but what I saw and read doesn't translate to tabletop well.

[VoxRationis]

They're going to need the kind of martial subsystems 5e lacks, a non magic setting will be boring as hell if everyone has to say 'I attack' over and over. LotR is fun to watch, but what I saw and read doesn't translate to tabletop well.

It could translate to tabletop well, but not to D&D rules. In order to do the sorts of long, epic slogs like Helm's Deep without wasting everyone's time, you'd have to have rules where heroes fighting against faceless mooks cut through X (which is proportional to level or combat ability) per unit time, at the cost of Y level of fatigue (probably with different fatigue rules than D&D has, though the exhaustion levels of 5e are better than 3.5's approach for this sort of thing).

[Regitnui]

It could translate to tabletop well, but not to D&D rules. In order to do the sorts of long, epic slogs like Helm's Deep without wasting everyone's time, you'd have to have rules where heroes fighting against faceless mooks cut through X (which is proportional to level or combat ability) per unit time, at the cost of Y level of fatigue (probably with different fatigue rules than D&D has, though the exhaustion levels of 5e are better than 3.5's approach for this sort of thing).

Sounds an awful lot like 4e's 'minions' that had only 1 HP a piece...

[Talamare]

Sounds an awful lot like 4e's 'minions' that had only 1 HP a piece...

To be fair, I personally think Minions were great because they were able to add a few numbers to small fights that made it feel more interesting and more engaging.

A Kobold stronghold for example, could have 2~3 Lt Orcs that were the real threat, 1 BBEG and about 10-20 Kobolds that filled the room but were quickly dispatched.
Not to mention it added importance to AoE effects, and more than a few classes lacked good AoE. Making diversity important.

In my experience with 5e, the vast majority of my battles have been damage soak fights. In which the monsters are incredibly easy to hit, so easy that people happily spend 5 attack to gain 10 damage.

[hymer]

If they include all new classes and rule it that the original classes can't be used, I think it would be great.

There's always homebrew. If they make some good locations and monsters, I'd be happy to make some more appropriate classes to fit the feeling.


To be fair, I personally think Minions were great because they were able to add a few numbers to small fights that made it feel more interesting and more engaging.

You could add some kobolds (or whatever mook fits) into a high level fight and have them make an impact. Giving the bigger CR monsters advantage on their attacks, provoking OAs, and swarming around PC lines to annoy people in the back of their formation. Some mooks could grapple PCs (assisting each other) to reduce their mobility.

[Joe the Rat]

More to the point, however, I feel like D&D is (ironically) not a great system for Middle Earth. Too many of the D&D classes rely on overtly magical effects and abilities. We could see some interesting Warlock Patrons, though.

The first thing is to define the races and classes of the setting. Yes, holy crap, not everything in the PHB will be in used. Some classes will make no sense, some will need to be given new subclasses. Redefined, restricted, and new subraces will be needed. Come to think of it, they'll have to. If this is 5e compatible, and not an "official" D&D / DM Guild type release, they'll have to make everything they need that Isn't in the OGL.

Second, magic is a peculiar thing. Traditional Caster Classes don't pop up much, but anyone can learn a bit of magic. More specifically, you might know a few spells (The Dwarves casting their spells of warding over their buried troll loot; using fragments of half-forgotten spells to open the hidden door on Lonely Mountain), or have a more native magic (the small everyday magics of Hobbits and their puttering, enchanted dwarf-made toys, everything about elves). A lot of magic seems to be in crafting - herbalism and itemcraft - almost every elven blade has a bit of magic about it, the Rings of Power, etc..

As low magic as we aim, somebody will want to be a "wizard". While being a Maiar isn't an option (or is it...), one could argue for the presence of caster-types trained in/by one of the Five Wizards, or amongst the elves, or by a certain chain of rather Sith-like entities. A common argument is to use the Bard as the generic caster-chassis. A bit less flashy, a bit more personality and mind-magic, unless one is inclined to use all of their Arcane Secrets selections for, say, Fire spells. It also fits nicely with the "Song" themes of the world. A massively restructured spell list would cover this as well.

The half-casters and pocket casters would work in their own ways, and probably would better represent how magic tends to work - something woven into what you do (Rangers and Paladins), or a few tricks you've learned on the way (EK, AT). Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate still fit well.
Warlocks are harder to work... except that so totally seems like something Morgoth and Sauron would offer up. One might argue that is exactly what they did (Pact of the Ring? Top level feature: Become Nazgul)

The support for nonmagical activity - including healing - make 5th one of the friendlier editions for getting your Hobbit on.

[eastmabl]

To be fair, I personally think Minions were great because they were able to add a few numbers to small fights that made it feel more interesting and more engaging.

Agreed. Minions are one of the things that 4E got right that didn't migrate to 5E. The result is that there's more book keeping for the DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

If it's set in the Second Age, where Numenoreans were more common and more powerful, 5e's magic use/system might be a better fit. Likewise for the first half of the Third Age when the Arnor and Gondor kingdoms still had not lost so many folk of Numenorean origin. (Yes, I am recalling the I.C.E. and Loremaster books from way back when).

[Randomthom]

The basic concept of minions in 4E was that you had enemies that could still hit the PCs and thus cause them an issue but that went down very easily when targeted.

This is less of a necessity in 5E because of bounded accuracy since you can just use low-level mooks as minions, they still have a good chance of hitting a mid or even a high-level PC unless that PC has heavily optimised their AC.

That's not to say that I don't think 5E has a place for 1hp cannon-fodder mobs. I'd just be more inclined to trust in bounded accuracy first.

[Lines]

Agreed. Minions are one of the things that 4E got right that didn't migrate to 5E. The result is that there's more book keeping for the DM.

I liked 4e for what it was, but minions are hugely verisimilitude breaking. How have they survived up until now if they have 1hp?

[INDYSTAR188]

I liked 4e for what it was, but minions are hugely verisimilitude breaking. How have they survived up until now if they have 1hp?

Hp are just an abstraction, the characters have no notion of the concept. Don't be so literal; minions are great.

[Lines]

Hp are just an abstraction, the characters have no notion of the concept. Don't be so literal; minions are great.

I'd complain, but 4e's the only edition where you could make a reasonable argument that HP is more than just meat.

[Doug Lampert]

Hp are just an abstraction, the characters have no notion of the concept. Don't be so literal; minions are great.

Yep, the abstraction with minions is that they go down to one good hit from a comparable level PC foe, this is also why they took no damage on a miss.

That's not unreasonable, real people go down to one good hit from an armed foe.

And data from actual combat shows that a grazing shot or near miss that DOESN'T take you down typically has minimal or no effect on combat effectiveness.

Minions can be injured, they just don't take any significant injury in combat that doesn't put them down.

It's the guys who can't be killed by a single arrow shot that you need to wonder about breaking verisimilitude. Minions are behaving far more realistically than the guy who takes 7 hits from a battle-axe and then goes down because someone hits him with a feather and he finally "runs out of HP".


I'd complain, but 4e's the only edition where you could make a reasonable argument that HP is more than just meat.

Which is to say that fourth ed is the only edition where the fluff and crunch of HP match to your satisfaction. Because the fluff has always been more than just meat, and the "just meat" argument has always had to ignore the fluff.

[Lines]

Which is to say that fourth ed is the only edition where the fluff and crunch of HP match to your satisfaction. Because the fluff has always been more than just meat, and the "just meat" argument has always had to ignore the fluff.

No, it's pretty clearly just meat in 5e, otherwise things like cure wounds and healing word wouldn't have the effect they do. If you're hit with a firebolt for 8 damage and then someone casts cure wounds on you, you pretty clearly got burned and then had that burn healed - if it was will to fight or whatever, being directly healed wouldn't help, and being resistant to fire damage wouldn't halve the damage you took.

[Kurald Galain]

Which is to say that fourth ed is the only edition where the fluff and crunch of HP match to your satisfaction. Because the fluff has always been more than just meat, and the "just meat" argument has always had to ignore the fluff.
No, Lines is correct. The "just meat" argument is the fluff (and matches the crunch), and the "not just meat" argument is other fluff (that does not match the crunch). This is true in both 3E and 5E, but not in 4E, where morale effects can directly lower and raise hit points.


Anyway, for people that don't like the abstraction of 1hp minions, any creature that has less hit points that the party's minimal damage also works. For example, if your fighter deals 1d10+8 and your wizard's cantrips deal 2d6+7, then anything with less than 10 hit points is a "minion" in that it dies in one hit. Point is, less bookkeeping for the GM.

Of course, what would really help a Helm's Deep scene is mass combat rules.

[Once a Fool]

No, it's pretty clearly just meat in 5e, otherwise things like cure wounds and healing word wouldn't have the effect they do. If you're hit with a firebolt for 8 damage and then someone casts cure wounds on you, you pretty clearly got burned and then had that burn healed - if it was will to fight or whatever, being directly healed wouldn't help, and being resistant to fire damage wouldn't halve the damage you took.

Unless the rate of conversion between meat hp and non-meat hp is variable (with values that, situationally, may equal 100% / 0% and vise versa).

In the case of healing, some of that variation may be reflected not only in the quality of the healing (that is, some could be non-meat healing), but also in the variable die roll(s), rather than the healee's hp (that is, perhaps it healed less than maximum because it only healed the meat-wounds).

Resistance is even easier to visualize; there is nothing in the trait that mandates that all of the half damage resisted is all meat or all non-meat damage (even when it is psychic). The proportion could really be anything.

Put another way: if you think that mechanics such as healing and resistance are not abstracted to include non-meat healing, naturally, you ought to conclude that hit points are similarly not so. But those assumptions are just that: assumptions.

[Malifice]

No, Lines is correct. The "just meat" argument is the fluff (and matches the crunch), and the "not just meat" argument is other fluff (that does not match the crunch). This is true in both 3E and 5E, but not in 4E, where morale effects can directly lower and raise hit points.

From the PHB (Hit points):

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

So by RAW and RAI Hit points are not 'just meat'. They're expressly endurance, resolve, willpower and luck. A combination of physical endurance and pain tolerance, with an element of mental resolve and even luck to avoid or reduce the physical damage from a hit.

By RAW they expressly increase according to fighting skill (warrior types get more) proportional to combat experience (experience level).

Cure wounds might mend minor wounds and grazes, but second wind and hit dice expenditure represent you taking a breather, refocusing and firming your resolve, or even just counting your lucky stars youre still alive.

Theyre an intentional abstraction. If you want to treat them as hulk points and treat 'hit point reduction' as meaning exclusively 'physical injury' in your games, go right agead, but its not an accurate representation of what the rules say they are.

Sometimes reduction in hit points is your armor luckily deflecting the blow, or the axe being parried at the last minute (by virtue of your luck or skill at fighting and combat experience). Sometimes it represents a physical wound. Nothing that cant be resolved without narration.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was hoping that maybe we could get back to talking about Middle Earth settings for 5e and not have yet another edition war.

Perhaps this is a vain hope.

[Kurald Galain]

From the PHB (Hit points):
Yeah, yeah, we know. There is one line of text that suggests it might not be just meat, and that is why we keep having this debate every month. However, all the other fluff text, as well as every actual rule, suggests that hit points are meat.

[Malifice]

Yeah, yeah, we know. There is one line of text that suggests it might not be just meat, and that is why we keep having this debate every month. However, all the other fluff text, as well as every actual rule, suggests that hit points are meat.

No, the other fluff text suggests nothing that contradicts that line of what Hit Points represent. When I look in the PHB for what Hit Points are, under the section entitled 'Hit Points' it tells me that they are resolve, physcial endurance and luck.

Cure wounds [the example you gave above] certainly doesnt. The spell just states it restores hit points. When cast [I imagine] it closes over any minor scratches and even occasionally mortal wounds [this being its obvious effects that probably led to its name]. It would also [in game] likely reinvigorate the characters resolve to get back in the fight and restore a portion of his luck.

Seeing as hit points by RAW = at least an element of Luck, I assure you I can narrate almost any loss as a 'lucky contrivance saves your life'.

When a 10th level fighter get clobbered for 40 points of damage from a 2 tonne axe of a frost giant, swung with the force of a large sedan travelling at 60mph, its narrated as him using his experience as a warrior (high hit point total) to dodge the majority of the force of the blow at the last minute (using his resolve and luck), causing the earth shattering blow to glance off his breastplate, leaving a scratch on the armor and leaving a nasty bruise (physical toughness). A 1st level fighter in the same situation is not as lucky, nor as experienced a warrioras our tenth level hero, and gets cut in half and instantly killed.

You know how in Predator when Jessie Ventura gets shot by the Predators shoulder cannon and gets a hole punched through his chest, and later when Arnie gets shot by the same cannon and only gets a graze on his shoulder and keeps going? That.

Theyre an abstraction. Not an objective measure of a mans meat.

Anyways, back to ME in 5E.

[HoarsHalberd]

Yeah, yeah, we know. There is one line of text that suggests it might not be just meat, and that is why we keep having this debate every month. However, all the other fluff text, as well as every actual rule, suggests that hit points are meat.

You claimed -every- actual rule suggests hit points are meat. The fact a 1hp char and a full hp char has the same chance to perform any task determined that was a lie. But seriously, if you want to have this discussion, start the five hundredth thread on it and discuss it there.

I concur that middle earth works far too differently in terms of magic. There are a huge numbers of means of getting small amounts of casting that are beyond what middle earth's active magic can do. Whereas LOTR's less active magic, the king's touch, every other herb, wards being very very common and every blade forged by a race having a glamour on it don't mesh with 5e's idea of low magic either.

[Kurald Galain]

Whereas LOTR's less active magic, the king's touch, every other herb, wards being very very common and every blade forged by a race having a glamour on it don't mesh with 5e's idea of low magic either.

The fact that the only non-magical class is the barbarian determines that that's a lie :smallamused:

[KorvinStarmast]

The fact that the only non-magical class is the barbarian determines that that's a lie :smallamused:How are the Champion and Battlemaster magical? (I get the EK, yeah, classic Fighter/Magic user combo). How are Rogue Thief and Rogue Assassin magical? (Use of wands at higher levels? That's a Grey Mouser nod anyway ... )

[eastmabl]

I liked 4e for what it was, but minions are hugely verisimilitude breaking. How have they survived up until now if they have 1hp?

HP are an abstraction. Against lower level players, they would have HP. Because the players are more powerful, these monsters are mere minions and can be disposed of more handily.


I was hoping that maybe we could get back to talking about Middle Earth settings for 5e and not have yet another edition war.

Perhaps this is a vain hope.

Sorry about poking the edition war button.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorry about poking the edition war button.In your defense, some folks are locked and loaded for such a thing, it seems, and need little excuse to commence.

[INDYSTAR188]

I love Druids in any form, do you think as written the class 'fits' into a Middle Earth campaign? Was Aragorn more than a single-classed Ranger? Was Gandalf a light Cleric without armor?

[Malifice]

I love Druids in any form, do you think as written the class 'fits' into a Middle Earth campaign? Was Aragorn more than a single-classed Ranger? Was Gandalf a light Cleric without armor?

Pretty solid argument that Radaghast is a Druid.

Gandalf is a Lore bard with a few Paladin levels. Fits the fluff to a tee.

[Joe the Rat]

The fact that the only non-magical class is the barbarian determines that that's a lie :smallamused:

Ritual spell casting Totem Barbarian says hi.

[Sigreid]

Eh, I can do without Middle Earth. Don't care for it personally.

[INDYSTAR188]

Pretty solid argument that Radaghast is a Druid.

Gandalf is a Lore bard with a few Paladin levels. Fits the fluff to a tee.

The thing is theres only him and Bombadil that seem 'druid-like'. One is a maiar (spelling?), the other some form of nature spirit (or something similar). They feel like NPC's more than player options. Whereas ranger, fighter, rogue are all pretty clearly represented by the 'normal' inhabitants of Middle Earth.

[Kurald Galain]

The thing is theres only him and Bombadil that seem 'druid-like'. One is a maiar (spelling?), the other some form of nature spirit (or something similar). They feel like NPC's more than player options. Whereas ranger, fighter, rogue are all pretty clearly represented by the 'normal' inhabitants of Middle Earth.

Yes.

The thing with Gandalf is that he's introduced as a Wizard. He's consistently called Wizard in the books and movies, he looks like the archetypical Wizard, and he's been one of the model roles for the Wizard class when D&D was first designed. So claiming that "well technically he fits better as <some obscure multiclass combination>" isn't likely to fly well with most players or writers.

[INDYSTAR188]

Yes.

The thing with Gandalf is that he's introduced as a Wizard. He's consistently called Wizard in the books and movies, he looks like the archetypical Wizard, and he's been one of the model roles for the Wizard class when D&D was first designed. So claiming that "well technically he fits better as <some obscure multiclass combination>" isn't likely to fly well with most players or writers.

I'm specifically speaking of druids, Tom Bombadil, and Radaghast. I think Gandalf feels like a wizard in all the aspects you claim, just not a D&D wizard. I agree tho, most folks would do their best to shoehorn him into the wizard class even though all they really need is a class that feels right and the title 'Wizard'.

[Finieous]

They need to design their own races/subraces, backgrounds, classes/subclasses, magic system, and bestiary. Other than that, it can just be setting fluff...

[obryn]

By default, D&D in general is a terrible fit for an LotR-like game. (Notably, The One Ring, which is also by Cubicle 7, is fantastic at this.)

So it will probably be a way to play D&D with Middle-Earth trappings, much like MERP let you play Rolemaster with Middle-Earth trappings.

[Regitnui]

Looking at the overall history of Middle Earth, we have a high magic, if not-especially D&D friendly, setting in the Ages of the Moon and First Age where the supernatural elements gradually drain away until we're left with our own world. By the Fourth Age (end of RotK), all the major magical powers have left; the craftmaster dwarves, normal humans and disappearing hobbits are all that's left. The dwarves go deeper and deeper and never come back up, the hobbits fade from people's sight, and the mortal humans are all that remains.

Pretty clearly, we need to focus on the First Age, and then remove gnomes, dragonborn and tieflings. Half-orcs become monsters, reduce the dragon varieties to red, silvergrey and black, take out the concept of the underdark... Sigh. D&D's come such a long way since the days of LotR fan work, hasn't it?


In your defense, some folks are locked and loaded for such a thing, it seems, and need little excuse to commence.

No need to tell me twice. Contradict some people on 5e being it's own thing and wham!

[hymer]

The thing is theres only [Radagast] and Bombadil that seem 'druid-like'.

Beorn lives surrounded by beasts that serve him lovingly, and whom he speaks to. He can turn into a bear.
The Drúedain are 'woodcrafty beyond compare', and use magic to make primitive stone statues come alive or to see through their eyes.
Ents speak with trees and can cause some of them to rouse themselves and fight ferociously.

I think there are some beings out there that smack of druidism. :smallsmile: I don't think it would be hard to fit some druid-like stuff into most Elvish cultures extant east of the Sea by late Third Age, either.

[Regitnui]

Beorn lives surrounded by beasts that serve him lovingly, and whom he speaks to. He can turn into a bear.
The Drúedain are 'woodcrafty beyond compare', and use magic to make primitive stone statues come alive or to see through their eyes.
Ents speak with trees and can cause some of them to rouse themselves and fight ferociously.

I think there are some beings out there that smack of druidism. :smallsmile: I don't think it would be hard to fit some druid-like stuff into most Elvish cultures extant east of the Sea by late Third Age, either.

Werebear, gnomes and treants. Although cookies for remembering the Woses.

First Age of the Sun has more magic. Wouldn't First Age of the Sun be an epic setting name, though?

[Kurald Galain]

Looking at the overall history of Middle Earth, we have a high magic, if not-especially D&D friendly, setting in the Ages of the Moon and First Age where the supernatural elements gradually drain away until we're left with our own world
Yes, but it's not really high-magic by D&D standards (e.g. a christmas tree's worth of magic items for all PCs, and spellcasters that throw dozens of high-level spells each day).


Beorn lives surrounded by beasts that serve him lovingly, and whom he speaks to. He can turn into a bear.
Beorn is probably one of the foundations of the first-edition druid class, yes. Radagast... probably has some related knowledges but I don't think he does a whole lot throughout the storyline. Bombadil is just plain weird :smallbiggrin:

Hm, it just strikes me that most powerful beings in LOTR are one-of-a-kind. At least, as far as I know there's not a society of Beorns or a race of Bombadils.

[Joe the Rat]

I'd actually peg him as a Werebear, as he is less in control on certain nights, and is the only serious shapeshifter besides werewolves, though I'm not 100% that the werewolves were shapeshifters rather than big-ass intelligent wolves (man-wolves). My MERP inclination says that it's hereditary, not a class feature.

I can think of one other bit of shapeshifting, but that might simply be disguise.

[hymer]

Werebear, gnomes and treants. Although cookies for remembering the Woses.

Things can be X-like and at the same time Y-like. We were talking about whether there was anything 'druid-like' in Middle-earth. Both abilities associated with druids and the mindset of nature as a force (and something to be cherished and feared both) are there already.


Beorn is probably one of the foundations of the first-edition druid class, yes. Radagast... probably has some related knowledges but I don't think he does a whole lot throughout the storyline. Bombadil is just plain weird :smallbiggrin:

Hm, it just strikes me that most powerful beings in LOTR are one-of-a-kind. At least, as far as I know there's not a society of Beorns or a race of Bombadils.

Beorn fathered the Beornings, a people or tribe. His grandson Grimbeorn the Old is chieftain of the Beornings when the PC party Fellowship of the Ring sets out.
You're right about uniqueness. Character almost is power in LotR. Like you can only make the Silmarils once, or the Two Trees, or the One Ring. And the really powerful beings are rare types. Five Wizards of which three (or four) aren't heard of again, one Balrog left of some very few probably ever exisiting, one really big dragon in the Third Age after which we hear no more of them, rare and dwindling bloodlines produce powerful figures, etc.
Edit: Misremembered. Grimbeorn was the son of Beorn.


I'd actually peg him as a Werebear, as he is less in control on certain nights, and is the only serious shapeshifter besides werewolves, though I'm not 100% that the werewolves were shapeshifters rather than big-ass intelligent wolves (man-wolves). My MERP inclination says that it's hereditary, not a class feature.

I can think of one other bit of shapeshifting, but that might simply be disguise.

Shape Changer is an optional Profession (what D&D calls class) in MERP. Tolkien himself indicated that Beorn was a Man, but obviously something of a magician. If he taught anyone, it seems likely he would keep it in the family, but we don't really know.
Exactly what sort of control Beorn had in bear shape at night is not made clear, but I know of no indication that there were any particular nights it was different from others. He did summon bears and seemed to hold some sort of council with them, which may be the main reason Gandalf suggested Bilbo & Co. stay indoors at night.

[GlenSmash!]

While I haven't played The One Ring, it gets a lot of love for being a really well designed RPG. I've heard the books are truly something to behold and that the mechanics are solid. I personally would love to see that kind of attitude applied to a product compatible with 5e regardless of the setting.

Now in regards to it being a LoTR setting I'm excited for it BECAUSE it is a bad fit for D&D. Do you all realize what we could get out of this? Quality Non magical classes or subclasses! I've there is any hope for a well thought out Spell-less Ranger Cubicle 7 is likely to make it. Not to mention a Warlord, or non magical Bard. If they can make these classes and have them be interesting and remotely balanced with the current 5e classes I will buy the book just for that and maybe not ever play a campaign in Middle Earth.

I think we're going to get more High quality crunch out of this product that anything WoTC is likely to release or anything on DMSGuild.

[DanyBallon]

I'm looking forward to this project, as it would be a good test on how to build a familiar setting from the new SRD. I would be really disappointed, if they try to fit iconic ME character in the actual D&D classes. It would be best if they use the 5e frame to build their own races/classes/archetype, and maybe magic system.

[SharkForce]

i couldn't see it working with standard D&D material really being used. yes, gandalf is a wizard. no, he isn't a D&D wizard, especially from the books. neither, for that matter, are any of the other wizards we see particularly (i would say that a middle earth wizard *feels* a heck of a lot more like a D&D druid than a D&D wizard, in terms of what sorts of things they can do; they are much more tied to "natural" forces than the stereotypical D&D wizard). but seriously, when gandalf needs to fight, he mostly pulls out a sword and starts stabbing things. or, you know, calls the eagles. and they fix everything.

but i would be interested at least somewhat to see it adapt the basic 5e framework. i just really don't want it to use any of the classes in the core book. no, not even fighters (though i'm totally ok with them getting inspiration from fighter class features). to feel right, i think it pretty much needs to be redesigned from the ground up using the same principles. i also don't think it should necessarily follow the same balance as regular D&D.

so i guess i'll go with cautiously optimistic?

[Laurefindel]

They say the game will be based of Francesco's work; I wonder how much of TOR will be translated in D&D format.

Classes could be based on TOR's callings (Scholar, Slayer, Treasure Hunter, Wanderer, Warden). Given two of three archetypes each, this would give players a basic but complete selection. Rewards and Virtues are essentially feats.

Skills are a bit harder to translate to the same level of granularity. Explore, Travel and Hunting will probably merge into Survival. I shall miss my Riddle and Courtesy skill.

[Malifice]

The thing with Gandalf is that he's introduced as a Wizard. He's consistently called Wizard in the books and movies, he looks like the archetypical Wizard, and he's been one of the model roles for the Wizard class when D&D was first designed. So claiming that "well technically he fits better as <some obscure multiclass combination>" isn't likely to fly well with most players or writers.

'Wizard' though is his title, not a statement of his class. Its the colloqual name for the 5 'Wizards' who entered ME to combat Sauron (one of whom is almost certainly a Druid, and the other most likely an Enchanment specialist).

Tolkien hd this (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Wizards)to say:

Wizard is a translation of Quenya istar (Sindarin ithron): one of the members of an "order" (as they call it), claiming to possess, and exhibiting, eminent knowledge of the history and nature of the World. The translation (through suitable in its relation to "wise" and other ancient words of knowing, similar to that of istar in Quenya) is not perhaps happy, since Heren Istarion or "Order of Wizards" was quite distinct from "wizards" and "magicians" of later legend; they belonged solely to the Third Age and then departed, and none save maybe Elrond, Círdan and Galadriel discovered of what kind they were or whence they came.

From a mechanical standpoint, he is a Lore Bard. Expertise in persuasion, history, arcana, and inight. Cutting words and inspiration (he's famous for both - scolding people and spurring them into action; its noted in the apocryhpia that his main power was 'inspiring the fires in the hearts of men to action. This power was amplified by the Elven ring of power he wore [Narya from memory]). He is also depicted as knowing a little bit of everything, and is even introduced into the story singing a song (he sings a few), often recites poetry and tidbits of ancient lore.

To your average inhabitant of ME, he's a mysterious 'Wizard'. To someone more knowledgable he is one of THE Wizards, an ancient order who live on ME. To anyone looking at his character sheet, he's a Lore Bard.

He can easily be fluffed from the movies and books as casting fireball [pinecones], lightning bolt [nazgul], light [moria], thaumaturgy [dont mistake me for a conjurer of cheap tricks!], shield [balrog], counterspell and telekinesis [battle with sauroman] summon animal [giant eagles], dispel magic [removing Saurons curse of Theoden] thunderwave [slamming his staff into the ground and knocking back foes], pyrotechnics [fireworks], arcane lock [magically locking the door in moria], detect magic [here is the magic door to Moria], several subtle and potent divination and enchantment effects, summon steed [shadowfax] and others.

He also has a few levels of Paladin. His divine sense allowed him to sense the Balrog before the others. He prefers to use his slots for divine smite [with Glamdring and his staff] instead of on overt shows of magical power.

[SharkForce]

to be clear, nobody cast a spell to open the gates of moria. it was a magic door with a password. if you could have trained bill (their pack horse) to say the right word, with not so much as a shred of magical ability, the gates would have opened. meanwhile, the most powerful spells of opening that gandalf knew did precisely nothing.

[Regitnui]

to be clear, nobody cast a spell to open the gates of moria. it was a magic door with a password. if you could have trained bill (their pack horse) to say the right word, with not so much as a shred of magical ability, the gates would have opened. meanwhile, the most powerful spells of opening that gandalf knew did precisely nothing.

Did gandalf lock the moria door after they escaped from the dweller in the deep?

[Malifice]

to be clear, nobody cast a spell to open the gates of moria. it was a magic door with a password. if you could have trained bill (their pack horse) to say the right word, with not so much as a shred of magical ability, the gates would have opened. meanwhile, the most powerful spells of opening that gandalf knew did precisely nothing.

Gandalf spent an awful lot of time thinking of a spell that did it though. He even monologued about it in the book

He tried to cast something [rapping his staff on the door as he did it] at first but nothing happened. Elven doors are resistant to the [I]Knock spell it seems.

He was able to Arcane lock a door inside the ruins though.

[Knaight]

As for concerns with 5e classes fitting, compatibility pretty much just means they'll be using the same core rules engine. There's no guarantee of class overlap, feat overlap, spell overlap, or even skill overlap. The article at least suggests that they're bringing on people who have made whole games, so the odds for that seem marginally better.

Whether the core rules fit or not is a different matter. I'm leaning towards no, though it's a much better fit than previous editions.


It could translate to tabletop well, but not to D&D rules. In order to do the sorts of long, epic slogs like Helm's Deep without wasting everyone's time, you'd have to have rules where heroes fighting against faceless mooks cut through X (which is proportional to level or combat ability) per unit time, at the cost of Y level of fatigue (probably with different fatigue rules than D&D has, though the exhaustion levels of 5e are better than 3.5's approach for this sort of thing).
Either that or you just have mass combat rules.

As for Lord of the Rings translating to tabletop well: it has. The official games are inevitably either just bad or have a really poor setting-rules fit, but then there's Burning Wheel. Burning Wheel is a solid game, and it fits LotR beautifully.

[SharkForce]

Did gandalf lock the moria door after they escaped from the dweller in the deep?

no. the dweller in the deep "locked" the door by burying it under several tons of rubble.

@ malifice: yes. that's what "meanwhile, the most powerful spells of opening that gandalf knew did precisely nothing" means.

[randomodo]

My recollection of The One Ring is that the books are gorgeous, the system mechanics are sound, and I couldn't get my players interested in it at all.

The general consensus after they looked through it (and saw no magic options*) was "So...um...basically everybody's a fighter?"

The default D&D construct has a LOT more magic than you can put into a game and still consider it credibly to be Middle Earth. Lord of the Rings Online pushed things much further than the books in terms of allowing character types that had magical abilities (lorekeeper and minstrel or bard or something I think). I'll be curious to see how they thread the needle.


*There's a tiny amount of magic from Wood Elf characters, iirc. Haven't looked at the books in a couple years.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes.

The thing with Gandalf is that he's introduced as a Wizard. He's consistently called Wizard in the books and movies, he looks like the archetypical Wizard, and he's been one of the model roles for the Wizard class when D&D was first designed. So claiming that "well technically he fits better as <some obscure multiclass combination>" isn't likely to fly well with most players or writers.

For a fun game, what single-classed build fits the character's ability best?
-Gandalf: high hit dice angel... okay, Aasimiar Lore Bard
-Aragorn: Variant Human Hunter Ranger. He at least picked up cure light wounds, and probably has the Duelling Fighting Style.
-Boromir: I'd go for standard Human Fighter, but could be variant human, it doesn't really matter. Personally I'd go for Champion, but could also be Battlemaster.
-Legolas: Wood Elf Fighter (Archery Fighting Style). I can see either Champion or Battlemaster.
-Gimli: Dwarf Fighter (Great Weapon Fighting Style). Not sure about subrace, and again, Champion or Battlemaster.
-Frodo: Halfling Thief Rogue.
-Sam: Halfling Champion Fighter (Duelling Fighting Style).
-Merry: Halfling Thief Rogue?
-Pippin: Halfling Thief Rogue?

That's my view at any rate.


By default, D&D in general is a terrible fit for an LotR-like game. (Notably, The One Ring, which is also by Cubicle 7, is fantastic at this.)

So it will probably be a way to play D&D with Middle-Earth trappings, much like MERP let you play Rolemaster with Middle-Earth trappings.

My theory is this is a trick to move people into playing The One Ring.

I just wonder if I'll still be able to play my acid-throwing Warforged Fighter in Middle Earth.

[hymer]

Did gandalf lock the moria door after they escaped from the dweller in the deep?

I think SharkForce may be conflating with the Chamber of Mazarbul, where Gandalf magically closes and seals the door, and the Balrog wrenches it open with such a powerful counterspell that the room collapses.


My theory is this is a trick to move people into playing The One Ring.

It's obviously a commercial move, and connecting themselves to the current success of 5e makes sense. While I've no doubt they'll be opportunistic about it, I'm not so sure I'd ascribe your suggestion as the main motive. I think the person who got the idea originally was a game designer, fiddling with 5e and wondering if he could use this to play in Middle-earth. Eventually it was pitched to some more in charge business person or persons, and here it was probably pointed out (among other things) that here was the chance to tap into a larger player base - if they didn't leave that unsaid and let the person(s) pitched to feel like they were coming up with this thought on their own.

[Joe the Rat]

It's obviously a commercial move, and connecting themselves to the current success of 5e makes sense. While I've no doubt they'll be opportunistic about it, I'm not so sure I'd ascribe your suggestion as the main motive. I think the person who got the idea originally was a game designer, fiddling with 5e and wondering if he could use this to play in Middle-earth. Eventually it was pitched to some more in charge business person or persons, and here it was probably pointed out (among other things) that here was the chance to tap into a larger player base - if they didn't leave that unsaid and let the person(s) pitched to feel like they were coming up with this thought on their own.

5e is high profile right now, they currently have the property rights, the OGL is out, why not cash in? If I was holding rights to a high profile, much beloved fantasy world, I'd be looking at making a 5e version as well.

...kind of like what people were doing with their "my game, d20 version" stuff (and are doing with their "my game, Savage Worlds version" now).

[Asmodai]

It's obviously a commercial move, and connecting themselves to the current success of 5e makes sense. While I've no doubt they'll be opportunistic about it, I'm not so sure I'd ascribe your suggestion as the main motive. I think the person who got the idea originally was a game designer, fiddling with 5e and wondering if he could use this to play in Middle-earth. Eventually it was pitched to some more in charge business person or persons, and here it was probably pointed out (among other things) that here was the chance to tap into a larger player base - if they didn't leave that unsaid and let the person(s) pitched to feel like they were coming up with this thought on their own.

Cubicle 7 is pretty damn amazing at making fluffy stuff that feels right. I think they're gonna do a good job, and anything that propagates One Ring further is a good thing (even if I prefer their Laundry stuff).

[hymer]

I just want to be clear, here: In business, words like 'opportunistic' and 'commercial' are positive ones. I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong. :smallsmile:

[MrStabby]

For a fun game, what single-classed build fits the character's ability best?
-Gandalf: high hit dice angel... okay, Aasimiar Lore Bard
-Aragorn: Variant Human Hunter Ranger. He at least picked up cure light wounds, and probably has the Duelling Fighting Style.
-Boromir: I'd go for standard Human Fighter, but could be variant human, it doesn't really matter. Personally I'd go for Champion, but could also be Battlemaster.
-Legolas: Wood Elf Fighter (Archery Fighting Style). I can see either Champion or Battlemaster.
-Gimli: Dwarf Fighter (Great Weapon Fighting Style). Not sure about subrace, and again, Champion or Battlemaster.
-Frodo: Halfling Thief Rogue.
-Sam: Halfling Champion Fighter (Duelling Fighting Style).
-Merry: Halfling Thief Rogue?
-Pippin: Halfling Thief Rogue?

That's my view at any rate.



My theory is this is a trick to move people into playing The One Ring.

I just wonder if I'll still be able to play my acid-throwing Warforged Fighter in Middle Earth.


So thinking about the Gandalf being a Wizard by name vs a Wizard by class...

Is there anything to Aragorn being a ranger other than by name? A fighter with the healer feat? Knowledge: History from Noble background?

[Anonymouswizard]

So thinking about the Gandalf being a Wizard by name vs a Wizard by class...

Is there anything to Aragorn being a ranger other than by name? A fighter with the healer feat? Knowledge: History from Noble background?

He seems to know Cure Wounds, as his healing is partially natural, and Ranger is an easy way to get this skill proficiencies. Fighter is just as valid.

[Regitnui]

Is there anything to Aragorn being a ranger other than by name? A fighter with the healer feat? Knowledge: History from Noble background?

Wasn't Aragorn, or at least "Strider", one of the inspirations for rangers in D&D?

[SharkForce]

I think SharkForce may be conflating with the Chamber of Mazarbul, where Gandalf magically closes and seals the door, and the Balrog wrenches it open with such a powerful counterspell that the room collapses.

nope. talking about the doors of durin. nobody in the fellowship uses any magic of any sort to close the doors, the thing in the water smashes and buries the doors, forcing the fellowship to go through to the other end of moria with no option to turn back.

before going through, gandalf attempts to use a variety of opening spells, and none of them work. eventually he figures out that the password is the elvish word for "friend" and they open, but until then, nothing that he tries accomplishes anything at all.

[hymer]

nope.

I see that now. Looking back, it was Regitnui that sparked that thought in me, not you. And he was just asking a question.


Is there anything to Aragorn being a ranger other than by name?

Natural Explorer, I guess, is the best mechanical explanation for Aragorn's ability to travel the land as he does. Other than that, ranger's specifics fit him rather poorly or only sorta-kinda. Rangers, e.g., aren't the best trackers around, unlike Aragorn. And he fights primarily with one melee weapon, not the styles available to Ranger. I guess you could make a case for him having some low level spell access on the healing and some of his feats of personality, but those don't fit the ranger spell list too well. And maybe Favoured Enemy for Orcs, though we have little data for a comparison with fighting other beings.

[MeeposFire]

I see that now. Looking back, it was Regitnui that sparked that thought in me, not you. And he was just asking a question.



Natural Explorer, I guess, is the best mechanical explanation for Aragorn's ability to travel the land as he does. Other than that, ranger's specifics fit him rather poorly or only sorta-kinda. Rangers, e.g., aren't the best trackers around, unlike Aragorn. And he fights primarily with one melee weapon, not the styles available to Ranger. I guess you could make a case for him having some low level spell access on the healing and some of his feats of personality, but those don't fit the ranger spell list too well. And maybe Favoured Enemy for Orcs, though we have little data for a comparison with fighting other beings.

Aragorn was a big inspiration but it has changed over time and it was mashed into D&D abilities rather than making new mechanics that better fit. For example giving rangers spell casting was partially meant to allow them to heal like Aragorn did but of course they used spell casting as D&D tended to do rather than making a mechanic such as closer found to the book.

Other abilities were added later from other sources. Dual wielding being so prominent was due to a later actual D&D character in Drizzt who of course dual wielded scimitars. This was not due to Aragorn.

All the many aspects that got put into the ranger is why its class abilities are all over the place and why it is so hard to come to an agreement of what a ranger should be able to do (outside of giving them variations of abilities they had before in D&D).

[VoxRationis]

Sounds an awful lot like 4e's 'minions' that had only 1 HP a piece...

Except 4e minions are still combatants. Modeling the way fighting orcs is shown in the LotR movies, or even to a lesser extent in the books, is rather like swimming; it's not a problem for short periods, but it makes fighting real enemies more difficult, and if you're forced to do it for too long, you can grow tired and drown.

[Joe the Rat]

Aragorn was a big inspiration but it has changed over time and it was mashed into D&D abilities rather than making new mechanics that better fit. For example giving rangers spell casting was partially meant to allow them to heal like Aragorn did but of course they used spell casting as D&D tended to do rather than making a mechanic such as closer found to the book.

Other abilities were added later from other sources. Dual wielding being so prominent was due to a later actual D&D character in Drizzt who of course dual wielded scimitars. This was not due to Aragorn.

All the many aspects that got put into the ranger is why its class abilities are all over the place and why it is so hard to come to an agreement of what a ranger should be able to do (outside of giving them variations of abilities they had before in D&D).
Original Ranger? Could wear any armor, tracked like a fiend, started spellcasting around 9th level, including druid and magic user spells, and could use standard fighter magic items, plus divination items (*cough* palantir *cough*). That's modeled on Aragorn.
Rangers and Paladins were literally "Fighter Plus" - The only reason to be a 1e Fighter was because you didn't have the stats to be a Ranger or Paladin (or Cavalier).

Mechanically, Aragorn is closer to a Paladin than a Ranger, particularly if you take the "hands of the king" thing literally (it's not that he knew how to use Kingsfoil, it was that he was the one doing it that made it work).

[KorvinStarmast]

Wasn't Aragorn, or at least "Strider", one of the inspirations for rangers in D&D?Yep, see Strategic Review issue number 2.


Rangers and Paladins were literally "Fighter Plus" - The only reason to be a 1e Fighter was because you didn't have the stats to be a Ranger or Paladin (or Cavalier). Bingo. But there was a catch: you had to be one of the good guys or you'd lose the benefits. Alignment penalties for being evil/chaotic were intended to do a variety of things, but part of it boils down to "with great extra powers comes great extra responsibility" or something like that. The original "fighter/spell caster" was the cleric, or the Elf who could opt to play as a fighter/magic user with level restrictions on both.

[Finieous]

Original Ranger? Could wear any armor, tracked like a fiend, started spellcasting around 9th level, including druid and magic user spells, and could use standard fighter magic items, plus divination items (*cough* palantir *cough*). That's modeled on Aragorn.

The "original ranger" was in Strategic Review #2. But if anything, he was even closer to Aragorn than the AD&D conversion. He was explicitly described as similar to paladins. He was human and required to be Lawful, a champion of civilization in the wild, particularly against Chaotic humanoids and "giant-class" races. He couldn't own anything that he couldn't carry. He received some cleric and magic-user spells beginning at 8th level. The change to druidic magic in AD&D, I think, weakened the thematic connection to Aragorn and the Rangers of the North.

[KorvinStarmast]

The "original ranger" was in Strategic Review #2. But if anything, he was even closer to Aragorn than the AD&D conversion.
yes.

He was explicitly described as similar to paladins. He was human and required to be Lawful, a champion of civilization in the wild, particularly against Chaotic humanoids and "giant-class" races.
That carried over into AD&D 1e.

He couldn't own anything that he couldn't carry.
But he could get cool followers.

He received some cleric and magic-user spells beginning at 8th level. The change to druidic magic in AD&D, I think, weakened the thematic connection to Aragorn and the Rangers of the North.
Sort of. Druid came after Ranger in the development timeline, and a lot of Druid spells and Cleric spells overlapped.

The move away from Strider was almost inevitable, given the brouhaha between Tolkien's estate and TSR over the LoTR oopsies in D&D.

[Finieous]

That carried over into AD&D 1e.


If I remember correctly, in AD&D rangers could be half-elves with level limits.



Sort of. Druid came after Ranger in the development timeline, and a lot of Druid spells and Cleric spells overlapped.


It's more the ethos, at least as suggested by the replacement of cleric spells with druid spells. A shift rom "champion of civilization in the wild" to "protector of the wilderness." I may be reading more into it than is really warranted, though I do think it's a real shift that has continued over successive editions.



The move away from Strider was almost inevitable, given the brouhaha between Tolkien's estate and TSR over the LoTR oopsies in D&D.


I agree, and I don't think it was a bad thing. If you want to play your ranger more like Strider, you still can; but you don't have to.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I remember correctly, in AD&D rangers could be half-elves with level limits. 16 or lower strength, 6th, 17 str 7th, 18 str 8th. (PHB table II p. 14 shows that you remembered correctly).

It's more the ethos, at least as suggested by the replacement of cleric spells with druid spells. A shift from "champion of civilization in the wild" to "protector of the wilderness." I may be reading more into it than is really warranted, though I do think it's a real shift that has continued over successive editions.
I think you are right.


If you want to play your ranger more like Strider, you still can; but you don't have to. Just, for the love of all that is ranger, don't play it like Drzzt .... :smallyuk:

Rogers (http://www.fittoprintstore.com/images/rogers%20orderss.bmp)himself would cry.