Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Ignimortis]

Well, level 11+ character is much more likely to have access to supernatural resources such as spells (Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon, for example), quite possibly their own, even, so that's one way to acknowledge it by RAW. Class abilities are another way.

All of those are external to most character who aren't Monks and maybe some specific subclasses for other classes (usually dealing with getting spellcasting).

One of the things I did for legendary warriors in any games I DM'd without some sort of Automatic Bonus Progression involved was to make it that anything they could pick up and use as a weapon (even a broken bottle or a chair or a huge rock) became magical and dealt at least longsword damage.

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!

None. And I consider that an issue.

But lets turn that around. Lets say an owlbear wanders into the home of a 12th level wizard. He spent all his spell slots earlier in the day and is just settling down for a nap. What's he going to do, bonk it on the head for 1d8 bludgeoning damage once a round?

Its a silly question, right?

Actually, he's hitting it for 3d10 fire damage every round with his best stat, or whatever offensive cantrip is his go-to.

[Psyren]

Why would a non-EK Fighter leave all his gear downstairs? An adventurer that dumb deserves to exit the lifestyle in dramatic fashion.

[Atranen]

My general idea of how a dragon should function starts at Smaug vs. the entirety of Lonely Mountain dwarves, then Dale, and eventually Lake-town. It is clear that numbers alone cannot win against this sort of creature. And it is also said that Smaug was not the mightiest dragon to ever live, far from it. 5e does not represent the average dragon in a similar way.

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.


When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.


For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.

Yeah, that's a reasonable take on it. Although really with Smaug, it isn't like high level characters have the ability to hurt him and others don't...more like no one can hurt him until the players reveal his hidden weakness. All the characters in the hobbit are under 5th level, with the exception of gandalf (who does not use his full strength ), on a 5e scale.

[Keltest]

Actually, he's hitting it for 3d10 fire damage every round with his best stat, or whatever offensive cantrip is his go-to.

He doesnt have an offensive cantrip. He's a bad adventurer wizard, the same as the fighter who left his sword downstairs, remember?

[Dr.Samurai]

The fighter is in his house. He needs to be fully armed and armored at all times in every room?

[Psyren]

The fighter is in his house. He needs to be fully armed and armored at all times in every room?

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.


When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.

For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

So much more plot armor (HP) than a typical member of their race, can run around killing all day, and can do magic (or near magical) abilities.

Want a lot of archers to be a threat? Stay low level. Give the players feats or whatever every so often as a means of growth.

You don't have to actually level out of your comfort range.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.

For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

So much more plot armor (HP) than a typical member of their race, can run around killing all day, and can do magic (or near magical) abilities.

Want a lot of archers to be a threat? Stay low level. Give the players feats or whatever every so often as a means of growth.

You don't have to actually level out of your comfort range.

Then high-level adventurers don't actually have anything to do (because any other threat is trivial to them and can be handled by lower-power adventurers), and the setting falls entirely apart because they get bored and no one can stop them.

High level adventurers are high-level threats as far as the setting is concerned. A system where only high-level threats can counter high-level threats is a system that cannot have a stable setting. Or cannot have high-level threats. Those are the only options.

[Theodoxus]

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession.

Maybe... but the point is that this edition wasn't supposed to be about needing magic (items) to succeed. That's the whole point behind both Concentration and Attunement. So there's a good chance that said dagger or shortsword are also non-magical. You're just boosting that 1 for a punch to a d3 or d6... still not great.

So, if Fighters sans magic are supposed to be able to compete, they need better tools. I don't see this remaster/upgrade addressing that.

[Psyren]

Maybe... but the point is that this edition wasn't supposed to be about needing magic (items) to succeed. That's the whole point behind both Concentration and Attunement. So there's a good chance that said dagger or shortsword are also non-magical. You're just boosting that 1 for a punch to a d3 or d6... still not great.

So, if Fighters sans magic are supposed to be able to compete, they need better tools. I don't see this remaster/upgrade addressing that.

You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective. 5e Ghosts are only resistant to nonmagical attacks, not immune, so the Fighter with mundane gear still has a chance to destroy or ward it off. If this were 3.5 or earlier and that Fighter left their gear in another room for some foolish reason, they would be deader than disco. (I have no idea what 4e ghosts are like.)

[Atranen]

You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective. 5e Ghosts are only resistant to nonmagical attacks, not immune, so the Fighter with mundane gear still has a chance to destroy or ward it off. If this were 3.5 or earlier and that Fighter left their gear in another room for some foolish reason, they would be deader than disco. (I have no idea what 4e ghosts are like.)

They failed at that objective. "You are at half effectiveness (or worse) against the majority of high powered enemies" means that you do need magic items. If your fighter doesn't have a magic weapon at high levels, the party has to either 1) waste spells (and valuable concentration slots) or 2) accept your significantly diminished utility. I can say from experience, if you show up to a Tier 3 or 4 (or even 2) AL table without a magic weapon, people will laugh at you. And be a bit put out that they have to carry your dead weight all night.

Technically you don't "need" it in the sense that you don't "need" more than 1 hit point, but it's so impactful as to be mandatory for high level play.

[Trask]

For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

5th-level? Really? Considering how fast you get to 5th level and how its only 1/4 of the total levels of the game, 5th-level is the time when characters should break bounded accuracy?

The specter of that "Gandalf is a 5th-level magic user" meme is going to haunt us forever isn't it?

[Atranen]

5th-level? Really? Considering how fast you get to 5th level and how its only 1/4 of the total levels of the game, 5th-level is the time when characters should break bounded accuracy?

The specter of that "Gandalf is a 5th-level magic user" meme is going to haunt us forever isn't it?

It's true. All of it



Ok, maybe it is a little exaggerated. But the same point has been made for 3.5, and I think the general structure of the argument still holds, if not all the specifics. The LotR characters (Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, the Hobbits) are all Tier 1. Past that, you're transitioning into a different kind of story.

[Psyren]

They failed at that objective. "You are at half effectiveness (or worse) against the majority of high powered enemies" means that you do need magic items. If your fighter doesn't have a magic weapon at high levels, the party has to either 1) waste spells (and valuable concentration slots) or 2) accept your significantly diminished utility. I can say from experience, if you show up to a Tier 3 or 4 (or even 2) AL table without a magic weapon, people will laugh at you. And be a bit put out that they have to carry your dead weight all night.

Technically you don't "need" it in the sense that you don't "need" more than 1 hit point, but it's so impactful as to be mandatory for high level play.

I'm not at all saying that you should go on a Tier 3 adventure with purely mundane equipment. But if you're caught off guard by a ghost in your room in 5e with your magic equipment downstairs, that's not an automatic death sentence the way it would be in 3.5, 2e or 1e either.

[Trask]

It's true. All of it



Ok, maybe it is a little exaggerated. But the same point has been made for 3.5, and I think the general structure of the argument still holds, if not all the specifics. The LotR characters (Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, the Hobbits) are all Tier 1. Past that, you're transitioning into a different kind of story.

I disagree completely, except for the hobbits. Aragorn & co. could easily be high tier characters that spend most of the story fighting low level enemies. Tolkien is elusive about battle-specifics, but one gets the sense that they slay dozens and dozens of orcs and never suffer any major wounds or casualties, except for Boromir, who alone killed basically a small army of them by himself.

If you pit a 20th level fighter with no magic items against 100 orcs, the orcs will win. Not so in 3.P

Once magic gets involved its not even worth discussing because the way D&D approaches magic is peculiar only to itself.

But the reason I take umbrage is because to my mind, the whole concept of "bounded accuracy" is one of the most innovative and laudable pieces of Fifth Ed's design philosophy, especially coming from years of 3.P. It has let me run campaigns of far better consistency, challenge, and fun all while being easier for me as a Dungeon Master. I can actually do a "evil monsters are invading the land, 1-12 campaign" without having to add class levels and build unique orc "bosses" and use wonky mob rules. I can just have players fight literally, fricken 25 centaurs raiding a gnomish tinker camp in a wide open desert plain with trained wyverns flying overhead, a few stegosaurus battle-beasts in the mix and have a totally epic fight for 12th level characters.

[Atranen]

I'm not at all saying that you should go on a Tier 3 adventure with purely mundane equipment. But if you're caught off guard by a ghost in your room in 5e with your magic equipment downstairs, that's not an automatic death sentence the way it would be in 3.5, 2e or 1e either.

I was responding to this claim:

You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective.

"magic items mean less in 5e than in 3.5" may be true. But that is distinct from "you don't need magic items in 5e".

Incidentally, I've only played 1e a couple times, and BG1/2 for 2e. But my impression from retro clones which I've played more extensively is that magic items are less necessary, because 'resistance to nonmagic xyz' is not as widespread. Or rather, when those immunities do exist, there is typically an in-universe way around it (figure out there is a hole in the dragon's armor!) rather than a "you must be this tall to ride" gating the adventure.

It could just be the lower power level of those games, and YMMV.

I disagree completely, except for the hobbits. Aragorn & co. could easily be high tier characters that spend most of the story fighting low level enemies. Tolkien is elusive about battle-specifics, but one gets the sense that they slay dozens and dozens of orcs and never suffer any major wounds or casualties, except for Boromir, who alone killed basically a small army of them by himself.

If you pit a 20th level fighter with no magic items against 100 orcs, the orcs will win. Not so in 3.P

Once magic gets involved its not even worth discussing because the way D&D approaches magic is idiosyncratic to itself.

I recall there are numbers in the Helm's Deep section, at least. 39 for Gimli vs 40 for Legolas, or something? It has been a while. (A Tier 3 character, felling 1.5-2 a round, would exceed those substantially, imo).

That's a ton to take on in single combat, but not so much to take on one at a time, or from a safe distance, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

I can't think of any actions they take that stand out as 'a Tier 3 character did this'. They are fearful of a Cave Troll, which I'd peg at like a CR 5; that wouldn't be the case for a Tier 3 party, which could kill it in one round.

(I suppose your cave troll may be CR 12 or whatever )

But the reason I take umbrage is because to my mind, the whole concept of "bounded accuracy" is one of the most innovative and laudable pieces of Fifth Ed's design philosophy, especially coming from years of 3.P. It has let me run campaigns of far better consistency, challenge, and fun all while being easier for me as a Dungeon Master. I can actually do a "evil monsters are invading the land, 1-12 campaign" without having to add class levels and build unique orc "bosses" and use wonky mob rules. I can just have players fight literally, fricken 25 centaurs raiding a gnomish tinker camp in a wide open desert plain with trained wyverns flying overhead, a few stegosaurus battle-beasts in the mix and have a totally epic fight for 12th level characters.

Strongly agree!

[Psyren]

I was responding to this claim:



"magic items mean less in 5e than in 3.5" may be true. But that is distinct from "you don't need magic items in 5e".

You don't. Being laughed at, while undesirable (and indicative of a table you're likely better off not playing at, if that's their approach rather than handing you a magic weapon or buff), is fatal to neither you nor your character.

Incidentally, I've only played 1e a couple times, and BG1/2 for 2e. But my impression from retro clones which I've played more extensively is that magic items are less necessary, because 'resistance to nonmagic xyz' is not as widespread. Or rather, when those immunities do exist, there is typically an in-universe way around it (figure out there is a hole in the dragon's armor!) rather than a "you must be this tall to ride" gating the adventure.

It could just be the lower power level of those games, and YMMV.

Again, 4e might have changed this, but Ghosts are definitely immune to mundane physical damage in 3.5 and earlier while they are definitely not in 5e. I was addressing the example directly.

[Trask]

I recall there are numbers in the Helm's Deep section, at least. 39 for Gimli vs 40 for Legolas, or something? It has been a while. (A Tier 3 character, felling 1.5-2 a round, would exceed those substantially, imo).

That's a ton to take on in single combat, but not so much to take on one at a time, or from a safe distance, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

I can't think of any actions they take that stand out as 'a Tier 3 character did this'. They are fearful of a Cave Troll, which I'd peg at like a CR 5; that wouldn't be the case for a Tier 3 party, which could kill it in one round.

(I suppose your cave troll may be CR 12 or whatever )

Perhaps. I think the best evidence for them to be higher level is the fact that they never seem to sustain any real injuries. I may have overstated my case with the 20th level fighter comparison , but lets afford the Chieftan of the Dunedain the honor of 9th level at least! As for the cave troll, I personally imagine them more on the "huge" side in D&D parlance. So maybe a hill or stone giant? But now I'm getting into the same kinds of misguided comparisons I typically don't like.

[Atranen]

Perhaps. I think the best evidence for them to be higher level is the fact that they never seem to sustain any real injuries. I may have overstated my case with the 20th level fighter comparison , but lets afford the Chieftan of the Dunedain the honor of 9th level at least! As for the cave troll, I personally imagine them more on the "huge" side in D&D parlance. So maybe a hill or stone giant? But now I'm getting into the same kinds of misguided comparisons I typically don't like.

Hill Giant was the one I had in mind, as they're CR 5 in 5e. I recently ran an encounter where the opponents were a Hill Giant and a dozen orcs, vs the PCs (4 level 3s) and 10 militia soldiers they got from a local town (guard statblock with leather armor). The Hill Giant had quality armor (IIRC, AC = 16?) for narrative reasons.

They ended up losing half of their militia, but none of the PCs went down.

It's not a dead ringer, but, similar enough to 9 fellowship members (1 level N, 4 level 4s, and 4 level 1s) for me to find it plausible.

But, yeah, a lot of variables, there is no proof here. I think 'Aragorn is 9th level' is a defensible position. Mostly I like the argument that he could be only 4 to help reframe expectations for low level play. At AL tables, people often get this idea that their Tier 1 characters are weaklings or 'apprentices' who can't tie their own shoes. But in-universe, they're capable of some mighty deeds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. So any comparisons there trying to tease out "what level was Aragorn" or such are just fatally flawed and meaningless and tell nothing about anyone but the one making the comparison.

Levels should be defined in terms of system-internal comparisons only. Definitionally, a level X party is one that can overcome a level X challenge. What's a level X challenge? Could be whatever the system designers say it should be. Level 1 could be "golden age superman" and level 20 "literal gods". Or level 1 could be "peasant" and level 20 could be "slightly stronger peasant." There's nothing intrinsic here to bind those, only choice by designers.

How common are high-CR threats? That's a setting choice. But whatever you choose, bounded accuracy says that the setting can remain stable and doesn't need to go down the Old Woman who Swallowed a Fly route of infinite "need to have an adventuring party to fight the last adventuring party" regress. Without bounded accuracy, you need a constant stable of high-power NPCs to balance those high-power monsters...and then you run into all the issues with such things, specifically that your setting stops making sense to anyone who thinks about it for a second. 3e FR was exactly this. As is the MCU (from a non-D&D perspective).

[Atranen]

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. So any comparisons there trying to tease out "what level was Aragorn" or such are just fatally flawed and meaningless and tell nothing about anyone but the one making the comparison.

Levels should be defined in terms of system-internal comparisons only. Definitionally, a level X party is one that can overcome a level X challenge. What's a level X challenge? Could be whatever the system designers say it should be. Level 1 could be "golden age superman" and level 20 "literal gods". Or level 1 could be "peasant" and level 20 could be "slightly stronger peasant." There's nothing intrinsic here to bind those, only choice by designers.

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Now, you could say "all the orcs are 15th level orcs, all the Rohirrim are 17th level cavalry, and therefore Theoden must be a level 22 fighter in order to lead them". (And the falling damage is scaled up, accordingly!) That's internally consistent.

But, it violates Occam's razor.

Also, while systems can define levels differently, but it's reasonable to assume that things like 'orcs' in D&D, inspired by the 'orcs' in Tolkien, are roughly similar power levels.

[Batcathat]

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Different stories can have very different assumptions though. For example, in D&D becoming more powerful also means you're becoming a lot better at taking damage, but that's not always (or even usually, I think) the case. Yes, we could argue for the rest of the thread exactly what HP represents, but "can take more damage" is usually at least part of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Now, you could say "all the orcs are 15th level orcs, all the Rohirrim are 17th level cavalry, and therefore Theoden must be a level 22 fighter in order to lead them". (And the falling damage is scaled up, accordingly!) That's internally consistent.

But, it violates Occam's razor.

Also, while systems can define levels differently, but it's reasonable to assume that things like 'orcs' in D&D, inspired by the 'orcs' in Tolkien, are roughly similar power levels.

No, I'm saying that only internal consistency matters. Tolkien's characters exist in their context, which can't be translated into a D&D context without losing all the important stuff. You simply cannot compare their deeds to what a D&D character can do and get any useful information out of the comparison. It's a type error. Like comparing the number literal 3 and the string literal "apple".

The underlying assumptions make a huge difference, and are irreconcilably different.

You can abstract out a lot and compare stories, but that doesn't mean that Aragorn is a level X D&D character or that talking about him in those terms adds anything to a conversation.

And the D&D orcs that were inspired by Tolkiens orcs
* were inspired basically in name and vague facial aesthetics only (little to no other details actually are or have ever been the same)
* deviated in power level starting in AD&D and have drifted obscenely far.

And Tolkien's orcs weren't exactly detailed in any detail! So you get out exactly what you put in, nothing else.

[Atranen]

Different stories can have very different assumptions though. For example, in D&D becoming more powerful also means you're becoming a lot better at taking damage, but that's not always (or even usually, I think) the case. Yes, we could argue for the rest of the thread exactly what HP represents, but "can take more damage" is usually at least part of it.

Yeah. The magic system in Lord of the Rings is also quite different than d&d. I think that's important to keep in mind, but doesn't make the comparison useless.

No, I'm saying that only internal consistency matters. Tolkien's characters exist in their context, which can't be translated into a D&D context without losing all the important stuff. You simply cannot compare their deeds to what a D&D character can do and get any useful information out of the comparison. It's a type error. Like comparing the number literal 3 and the string literal "apple".

I get what you are saying, I just disagree with it. The assumptions are different -- but are they so different as to make comparison useless?

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

That adds something meaningful, because it tells us how we can use the system to construct stories like LotR. If we want something similar, we shouldn't use level 20s.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. The magic system in Lord of the Rings is also quite different than d&d. I think that's important to keep in mind, but doesn't make the comparison useless.


I get what you are saying, I just disagree with it. The assumptions are different -- but are they so different as to make comparison useless?

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

That adds something meaningful, because it tells us how we can use the system to construct stories like LotR. If we want something similar, we shouldn't use level 20s.

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

The characters in Tolkien, as with all pre-written[1] fiction are entirely authorial fiat. They do not map in any regular, repeatable way onto the characters in a collaborative TTRPG setting.

I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

[1] ie the story exists in its entirety at the point at which it is consumed and the authors stand outside the fiction with full control over the characters' actions. This differs fundamentally and intrinsically from a collaborative TTRPG, where individual characters are played by different characters and the success/failure of their actions is influenced by forces other than pure authorial fiat (ie the rules, the other players, etc). Elements from one type cannot be imported meaningfully into the other without stripping away anything other than the bare archetypes common to both and rebuilding from the ground up, a process that necessarily includes copious amounts of free parameters chosen at build time without constraints from the source material.

[Atranen]

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

Disagree. There are better and worse comparison points. Tolkien orcs are clearly not 20th level. 1st level (or CR 1, or 1/2) is a much better estimate.

I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

Are those D&D stories more or less like other types of stories, like LotR? Suppose you have a new player, and you ask what kind of game they are looking for. They say, "I like LotR and want a game like that". Is it useful to compare how similar different level ranges will feel to that experience? I think so.

[Psyren]

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

The characters in Tolkien, as with all pre-written[1] fiction are entirely authorial fiat. They do not map in any regular, repeatable way onto the characters in a collaborative TTRPG setting.

I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

[1] ie the story exists in its entirety at the point at which it is consumed and the authors stand outside the fiction with full control over the characters' actions. This differs fundamentally and intrinsically from a collaborative TTRPG, where individual characters are played by different characters and the success/failure of their actions is influenced by forces other than pure authorial fiat (ie the rules, the other players, etc). Elements from one type cannot be imported meaningfully into the other without stripping away anything other than the bare archetypes common to both and rebuilding from the ground up, a process that necessarily includes copious amounts of free parameters chosen at build time without constraints from the source material.

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

[Rukelnikov]

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

I've always seen Aragorn Legolas and Gimli being around lvl 9, maybe a bit higher. Gandalf is a DMPC, but if you want to assign him an estimate level, Gandalf the Gray would be around CR 19 (solo'd a Balrog in a double KO), Gandalf the white would be in the epics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

You can try, but the outcome is fundamentally arbitrary. Basically, your input assumptions about those characters and the transformation determine your outputs, not anything about either the system or the actual inputs.

And anyone can try anything, but it doesn't mean that the system should be defined by those attempts. And that's the important thing. The only way to define an acceptable power level or what an acceptable character or an acceptable story is in a D&D context is internally, with reference to the other things the system gives you and the (arbitrary) designer choices.

A system could be designed to replicate arbitrary (limited or not) fictional characters. Sure. There are many of those that try to do so. BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM. Nor does it attempt to be. D&D replicates D&D characters and stories. That's all. Anything else is possible, but not supported. And the difference, when talking about system design, is critical. No one can stop you from using a pitchfork as a shovel. But the manufacturer or retailer is in no way suggesting that you should do so--that's not a supported use.

[Theodoxus]

Even the books inspired by and written with D&D characters had to deviate to the point that it's difficult to recreate characters from the stories as PCs - in any edition.
Partly because of the lack of Social and Exploration abilities of PCs; partly because mapping D&D class/race abilities and spells in such a way that when you read it you say 'ah ha! that's a fireball, or cunning action!' it ends up as a boring descriptor. So authors embellish, and then things no longer map 1:1 and people argue about how Fireballs don't do X or cunning action doesn't actually do Y.

Look at Honor Among Thieves and all the creative licenses the producers had to take to make actual game rules look interesting in live action.

Heck, no LARP - from Vampire to SCA to any of the magi-clones like Amtgard can remotely mirror TTRPGs as much as they try. There is too much math and geometry in TTRPGs that just can't translate over to LARPing, at least not without a lot of electronic wizardry or 15 referees per player...

But as long as the table is having fun, recreating their favorite book characters as closely as they can - and internet nerds get to spend hours arguing over the smallest details... well, what's the harm?