| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stalwart Defender.
Not sure but if you ask me Orcrist the Goblin Cleaver bears an uncanny resemblance to the falchion portrait in UE, so maybe that would be a start, although I could also see it being a scimitar or elven curveblade.
It's not a two handed weapon, It looks kinda biggish because he's a dwarf. But I'd say it's characteristics suggest scimitar.
the movie makes it that way tho. It wasn't like that until the movie. Orcrist and Glamdring were near twins until the movie.
I dont think there is a reason to give him holy powers, smite, detect evil, etc. If anything Thorin seems most motivated by revenge and righting wrongs to him personally.
Without having the next two movies available, I can only comment on the book ATM, But Thorins decisions and actions that lead the the battle of the five armies are not the behavior of a paladin, nor is even his reasoning, in the movie for going on the quest. It's a quest for gold.
I think the dwarves are in the purest sense, adventurers.
Stalwart defender doesn't fit. Thorin in the movie is very mobile. Not the Stalwarts strong suit.
He leads his dwarves through the wild, he has a higher hate for orcs than most dwarves, displays capacity for two weapon fighting, I think he's a ranger.
Thorin never casts spells. There are three ways to address this, a) a never gets high enough level to have them. b) he's a skirmisher c) in middle earth magic is subtle and casting doesn't "look" like how we normally think of it. Perhaps he just uses spells like longstrider when he runs really fast? and when he gets a second wind, he's used cure light wounds on himself?
There is no evidence for things like Paladin or Stalwart defender. There could be some arguement for fighter, but he displays more characteristics than can be explained with fighter.
I think he's got more skill points that fighter would give you, he's rather multi talented.
I'm going to try and fight out the Battle that didnt happen between the orcs/wargs right before they get to Rivendell to see if I can win with the dwarves. Kind of a "what if" they did fight it out.
The build I'm using for Thorin is going to be a Ranger Level 3. I'm stating Orcrist as a +1 Goblin and Orc Bane sword (they races are the same thing in middle earth)
In the book, the orcs were goblins, which would make the Wargs just wolves. An easy battle with 15 good guys. It's not the orcs that will make the battle hard, but using Giant wolves (Cr 2) or Dire Wolves (Cr 3) that is going to make it nasty.
I would make him a Ranger 1 or Ranger 2 with at least 1 Level of Fighter...
I would make him a Ranger 1 or Ranger 2 with at least 1 Level of Fighter...
why mutliclass him? are you thinking because he will (likely) wear heavy armor in the battle of the five armies at the end?
Im not seeing the reason to multi class?
Thorin in the book is pretty mobile too. Definitely not a Stalwart.
I haven't seen the movie, but he's famous for using an improvised club in place of a shield during the last major battle of the goblin wars. This is, of course, impossible in PF. There is no general parry mechanic. It does, however, demonstrate he was using a shield before it was broken.
If he's a ranger he must have been at least level 2 at the time. He cannot still be level 2 at the time of the quest for Erebor.
I'd use an unmounted cavalier archetype myself I think. There isn't actually one appropriate, but the class skills are right and it's a martial class. Fili and Balin are the likely rangers from what I remember, or at least the guys with survival maxed.
WHY cavalier?
and why do you think the passing of 140 years of doing nothing but smithing, and building homes is going to raise his level? Time doesnt give you more levels, otherwise elves would be the most powerful race because of how long they live and you'd never have a first level elf, since they start at 110 years old.
Thorin is the leader of the dwarven company, not only be birth right, be he is clearly 'the best' of them, So not matter what he is going to have more levels than the rest.
He doesn't need tactician to tell the other dwarves to 'close ranks' but I have been toying ith the idea that maybe the group shares teamwork feats?
But there are several tactics a group can utilize (like grouping together to not get flanked) that dot require something like tactician to execute.
By that logic then:
There are no Expert as they are only doing their day job.
There are no Warriors because they only have trained.
There are no Wizards because they have only studied.
I am saying he is Multiclassed because that is the way to get his basic Abilities in Pathfinder.
Favoured Enemy: Orcs
Wild Empathy
Track
Bravery +1
4 Feats
BAB +3
FORT +5
REF +2
WILL +0
Favoured Enemy: Orc
Track
Wild Empathy
Endurance
Favoured Terrain:
3 Feats
BAB +3
FORT +3
REF +3
WILL +0
Armour Training 1
Bravery +1
4 Feats
BAB +3
FORT +3
REF +1
WILL +1
Ranger1/Fighter2 gives you the most versatility and is excellent for building him. At least going by the book.
you dont need that many feats to build him
TWF , Power attack, Cleave.
Perhaps later he would pick up the goblin hewer chain.
It's even dubious if he actually has TWF, I see him carry an axe and sword in each hand, but i dont see him fight that way (that i can recall)
I think a lot of the dwarves attacks in the move can be explained with power attack, cleave, goblin hewer.
So some of the more useful dwarves might need fighter 2 or several levels in an NPC class to get enough feats.
With Ranger 2, Thorin can get TWF without needing the high dex.
With a 15 PB, avoiding and excessively high dex will likely be needed to make his character as well.
a 15 Dex would take 7 points. that's half his points. Figure in a 14 strength, now you are down to 3 points left to spend. Ranger gives him the TWF without the Dex and I think is the way to do it.
Don't give him fighter just to cheese in a feat.
If anything give him a higher level?
Do you need ranger 6 to build him?
I dont think so, not yet. We need to see the other movies to see if he pulls off something more that would suggest it.
In the books, I cant see him having a reason to get past Ranger 3. And I doubt he's more than that at the start of the movie. By the end of Unexpected Journey, perhaps he's gotten to 4th, but we will need to wait to see Desolation of smaug to tell.
At this point Jackson as gone into movie sensationalism and brought the characters well beyond their book abilities. Which is cool, I always hated the helpless dwarves with no weapons.
True... Maybe Ranger2/Fighter1 would fit better. I am saying Fighter more for the FORT boost.
You know the other thing to think about is, a lot of the goblins end up trying to attack unarmed, grappling. grabbing, biting. Not too many of them are armed, so extra attacks seen are AoOs adding in cleave makes for what looks like a lot of attacks.
When fighting the Warg you see bahavior that looks more like 1-8 damage and a single attack in 6 seconds, stuff you would see from a 1-3 level party.
Goblins are way weaker than orcs, the cleave. goblin hewer (which wouldn't work against orcs) and AoOs (all the orcs are armed) make the dwarves look way more heroic in the goblin fight scene vs, confrontations with orcs, which brings back around the lower level theory, with just some key feats.
The question is are Goblins going to be renamed Orcs or actual Pathfinder Goblins?
well in the movie, there is a clear difference between Azog and his crew (orcs) and the Goblins of the misty mountains, so I'd say its safe to say they are different races, or breeds of the same race.
Tolkien originally intended there to be smaller or lesser goblins and greater or larger goblins, which he was going to call hobgoblins until he discovered that would be a mistake because hob is a prefix meaning smaller or lesser. He instead called them orcs. But in many places the terms seem to be interchangable.
But there is evidence he was thinking about separate characteristics between the two.
the only discrepancy is in pathfinder, the races are distinctly different and not the same at all, so a goblin bane weapon wouldnt work on orcs, and orc favored enemy wouldnt work on goblins. where as in 1E 'goblinoids' referred to hobgoblins, orcs, goblins, bugbears and I think something else.... IDR.
I would say the disparity could be described as Azog being Taller & Stronger.
Maybe just have them modified orcs.
but the goblins in the caves were so different than the orcs, and whats the deal with the uber tiny one riding that cable chair? what was that a goblin baby?
I would say they have encountered the problem Ogres have.
ahaha inbreeding? Hilarious!
ALL hail Zog the goblin warrior!!
Thorin whispering to Dwalin <dude he's 9 inches tall>
Dwalin <I'll take him, you get the 149 on the left>
TL; DR
Did you have a look at the old MERP books Lords of ME Vol. 3? To me, nothing beats these old tomes in precision/ truthfulness to the original.
There (page 57), he is statted up as a lvl 27 fighter/warrior.
A guide for a rough conversion from MERP's d100 to a d20 system is provided at the beginning of the book.
Orcrist is described as a +30 (would be +6) magic elven broadsword.
Ruyan.
Maybe a level or two in noble?
As pointed out in the other thread. Thorin has been a warrior of some sort for over 100 years by the time of the hobbit. He's not a low level anything at that point.
As for the sword, it's stated that it's killed 100s or 1000s of goblins, so much so that the 'race' can identify it at a glance. I don't think a weapon of that level is a +1 sword. I'd stat it out as a high level magical item. As for it's usage. Thorin uses it both as a one handed sword, with his axe in the other hand,(Above ground when they're being chased by the Orc pack and Radagast is doin' his rabbit thing) and as a two handed sword.(In the goblin chase scene, he's seen using it with two hands and doing a lot of spin moves with it) So 'technically' in game terms, it'd be a Hand and a half/Bastard sword, wouldn't it?
I'm very confused as to the portrayal of some here of Thorin and crew as a group of level one adventurers just sitting down to start out on their first adventure. I mean, they might have that mental image in their heads but it's not how they're portrayed in the movie at all. Nor the books.
I guess if that's the mental image you have you can try and stat them out as level 1 or 2 fighters, but it doesn't make sense to me. These guys were in -wars- over 100 years previous to the hobbit. Wars where 100s if not 1000s fell in battle and these guys lived. Not for hiding in the rear with the gear either. They were front line.
I'd put them at a pretty high level. (( Kili, Fili and Ori a bit lower, medium level)). It's not like they have to start out 1 or 2 and end up 15 at the end of the movies/book. They've been 'active' in wars and such for over 100 years. They could start out at a high level and just not 'gain' all that much during the adventure.
So 'technically' in game terms, it'd be a Hand and a half/Bastard sword, wouldn't it?
It could just as easily be a longsword.
how much experience is an orc worth?
1000 orcs die, 600 dwarves survive. You would have to spread the 1000 orcs worth of experience between the 600 surviving dwarves. Not a fast way to level up.
I fought in battles in the army, am i gaining more experience by virtue of time passing now that I am out and not fighting?
Elves learn how to use a sword and fight and dont gain any experience and start just as raw at level 1 , at the age of 100+ years old as a 21 year old human. So tell me again how time matters in levels.
How often do you see super high level magic items get handed out for doing nothing in a battle. A battle where you are supposedly a super high level fighter, surrounded by other super high level fighters and can't beat three troll/ogres whatever they are.
In the books they dont even fight back, how does this make them super duper powerful again?
The dwarves in The Hobbit are widely diverse in their combat experience and skills, in both the book and the movie.
Thorin and the elder dwarves were warriors. Kili, Fili and the younger dwarves were mostly tinkerers, blacksmiths and toymakers.
Bilbo was definitely first level.
So the party had a huge range of difference in combat experience. Thorin might well be a level 7 dwarven fighter, or even higher, but Fili and Kili are unlikely to be any higher than level 2 or 3.
Multiple critics /reviewers describe the dwarves in the book as "bumbling". the adventures they face on the way to lonely mountain are largely beyond their ability to handle (running away from giant spiders screaming anyone?)
these aren't the exploits of powerful experienced adventurers.
If you are making the dwarves range in level from 7-2 in PC classes, how do you explain all the bad guys they fight? Is every goblin a level 2 warrior? All the orcs are rangers and cavaliers? the Ogre/troll things also have levels to balance it out?
Either way you put it, the bad guys out there are more powerful than the good guys, so why give the good guys free fanboy gear and levels, instead of just allowing them to be the base.
the encounters make sense when you say they couldnt beat it because they werent experienced enough.
The more you pump up your base back up singers (like ori dori nori) the more fantastic, by comparison creatures like the ring wraiths need to be, and by the time you have pumped them up so much, their interactions with weaker peoples don't wash out....
ORcs and goblins are by far the most common monster in ME. a Goblin/orc bane sword is nothing to sneer at as 'not good enough' in a world where, there aren't dozens of such weapons written about. So far, we only know about three.
It would be cool to hear the story of how they all got in that troll hoarde at once tho.
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde (along with Sting) is, frankly, one of the least believable things in several thousand words of fantastic stories. The major difference between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is that "The Hobbit" is sort of a high magic, high fantasy realm, while Lord of the Rings is more low magic, low fantasy. Tolkien himself, in interviews, described how he had to intentionally tone things down for LoTR so that "normal" people (like Frodo) could actually be relevant.
"The Hobbit" is a fairy tale designed to entertain Tolkien's children.
"The Lord of the Rings" is a complex social commentary and morality play designed to advance Tolkien's ideas about religion, morality and his view of the value of common decency in a world dominated by weapons of horrible power.
That's not my opinion, that's basically paraphrasing Tolkien's own words.
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde is "plausible" in "The Hobbit". In LotR it's ludicrous to presume such wondrous swords would be found in such lowly station. Nowhere in the entire length of LotR do you see anything like such an embarrassment of riches falling into the hands of the heroes. Again, that's deliberate.
Anyway...
Going with my general idea that Gandalf himself is probably no higher than ninth level (and that's quite a stretch based on what he actually did), Aragorn is probably around seventh and Thorin probably around fifth at most.
The rest of the dwarves probably range from "expert" to level 2 or 3.
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde (along with Sting) is, frankly, one of the least believable things in several thousand words of fantastic stories. The major difference between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is that "The Hobbit" is sort of a high magic, high fantasy realm, while Lord of the Rings is more low magic, low fantasy. Tolkien himself, in interviews, described how he had to intentionally tone things down for LoTR so that "normal" people (like Frodo) could actually be relevant.
"The Hobbit" is a fairy tale designed to entertain Tolkien's children.
"The Lord of the Rings" is a complex social commentary and morality play designed to advance Tolkien's ideas about religion, morality and his view of the value of common decency in a world dominated by weapons of horrible power.
That's not my opinion, that's basically paraphrasing Tolkien's own words.
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde is "plausible" in "The Hobbit". In LotR it's ludicrous to presume such wondrous swords would be found in such lowly station. Nowhere in the entire length of LotR do you see anything like such an embarrassment of riches falling into the hands of the heroes. Again, that's deliberate.
Anyway...
Going with my general idea that Gandalf himself is probably no higher than ninth level (and that's quite a stretch based on what he actually did), Aragorn is probably around seventh and Thorin probably around fifth at most.
The rest of the dwarves probably range from "expert" to level 2 or 3.
I could stomach that, explains "troll" fight better, and others like it. WBL is more on par.... Kinda sucks the fellowship didnt find something good in moria tho. Guess they didnt have much time to loot huh?
ME has long been the inspiration for E6 games.
Arg... I used "horde" instead of "hoard" twice... I hate that!
Contributor
|
The troll hoard is near to Rivendell, a major Elvish settlement, and near the location where one of Aragorn's grandfathers (Arador) was slain by Trolls (the Ettenmoors), as well as near a major highway, albeit less travelled in the late Third Age. There's some evidence the Dunedain lived in southern Rhudaur at the time of the Hobbit (from Tolkien's own writings). Hence, there are a number of ways a couple of nice swords from Gondolin could have ended up in a troll hoard. Trolls are very long lived, and even if stupid, are pretty dangerous after dark; one lucky encounter with a travelling elf-lord or a Dunedain princeling and there you are...
Thus I don't see this as a unbelievable coincidence.
my apple does all sorts of stuff I cant use half the RPG words I would normally, I hate this autocorrect, does anyone know how to change it or turn it off?
But dont worry, we were just wondering what colour the hoarde was?
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde is "plausible" in "The Hobbit". In LotR it's ludicrous to presume such wondrous swords would be found in such lowly station. Nowhere in the entire length of LotR do you see anything like such an embarrassment of riches falling into the hands of the heroes. Again, that's deliberate.
Anyway...
There are the cache of Numenorean blades that that theiving bunch of little scrotes half-inches from the Barrow Downs (although they had much more reason for being there).
Considering how badly elves and men managed their fall from grace, its not *that* unreasonable that some nifty kit would be lying around ere and there. Err, like, *ahem* at the bottom of a river, for example...
The barrow downs were burial chambers, many real-world warriors were buried with their weapons. Thorin was buried with Orcrist. Plus the downs are infested not with trolls, but wights, which are a completely different kettle of fish. Finally, the blades the hobbits found at the barrow wights were human made and other than being able to damage undead flesh, had no other known magical properties, and certainly weren't famous enough to have NAMES known by their enemies hundreds of years after their disappearance.
Anyway, rationalize it however you like. The bottom line is that throughout the entirety of Tolkien's writings, Glamdring and Orcrist are among the most powerful swords ever made (One of them was the personal sword of the King of Gondolin). Throughout the entirety of the history of Tolkien's world, no treasure trove ever discovered, not even SMAUG's treasure trove, had two, much less THREE such weapons.
And yet we are to believe that three trolls managed to somehow acquire them. Three trolls who were defeated simply by fooling them into staying up until the sun came up.
As I said, there is probably no other single thing less plausible in the entirety of the books.
The bottom line is that throughout the entirety of Tolkien's writings, Glamdring and Orcrist are among the most powerful swords ever made.
I beg to differ. While powerful, the weapons forged by Feanor, his sons or Eöl (Anglachel, Anguirel) exceeded them by far.
Glamdring was originally carried by Turgon during the Wars of Beleriand - details on how it fell into fell hands can be found in the Silmarillion, I'm sure.
Do not forget that the area the trolls are encountered in has been a wilderness for centuries. It's always possible that nobody has gone looking for them/the weapons or encountered them for quite a while (or was able to bear the tale to the next) and trolls are still a force to be reckoned with.
Ruyan.
The bottom line is that throughout the entirety of Tolkien's writings, Glamdring and Orcrist are among the most powerful swords ever made.I beg to differ. While powerful, the weapons forged by Feanor, his sons or Eöl (Anglachel, Anguirel) exceeded them by far.
Glamdring was originally carried by Turgon during the Wars of Beleriand - details on how it fell into fell hands can be found in the Silmarillion, I'm sure.
Do not forget that the area the trolls are encountered in has been a wilderness for centuries. It's always possible that nobody has gone looking for them/the weapons or encountered them for quite a while (or was able to bear the tale to the next) and trolls are still a force to be reckoned with.
Ruyan.
That's why I said "among the most powerful" as opposed to "the most powerful".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glamdring and Orcrist in a troll horde is "plausible" in "The Hobbit". In LotR it's ludicrous to presume such wondrous swords would be found in such lowly station. Nowhere in the entire length of LotR do you see anything like such an embarrassment of riches falling into the hands of the heroes. Again, that's deliberate.
Anyway...
There are the cache of Numenorean blades that that theiving bunch of little scrotes half-inches from the Barrow Downs (although they had much more reason for being there).
Considering how badly elves and men managed their fall from grace, its not *that* unreasonable that some nifty kit would be lying around ere and there. Err, like, *ahem* at the bottom of a river, for example...
The barrow downs were burial chambers, many real-world warriors were buried with their weapons. Thorin was buried with Orcrist. Plus the downs are infested not with trolls, but wights, which are a completely different kettle of fish. Finally, the blades the hobbits found at the barrow wights were human made and other than being able to damage undead flesh, had no other known magical properties, and certainly weren't famous enough to have NAMES known by their enemies hundreds of years after their disappearance.
Anyway, rationalize it however you like. The bottom line is that throughout the entirety of Tolkien's writings, Glamdring and Orcrist are among the most powerful swords ever made (One of them was the personal sword of the King of Gondolin). Throughout the entirety of the history of Tolkien's world, no treasure trove ever discovered, not even SMAUG's treasure trove, had two, much less THREE such weapons.
And yet we are to believe that three trolls managed to somehow acquire them. Three trolls who were defeated simply by fooling them into staying up until the sun came up.
As I said, there is probably no other single thing less plausible in the entirety of the books.
The book addresses it, not that the trolls were so powerful as to have taken them, themselves, but likely that they plundered someone elses lost or stolen plunder.
As for the no other simple thing being less plausible in the entirety of the books..
Are you forgetting the -------------most------------------ powerful magical item in the entire Middle Earth universe, being found, by accident in the dark, by a hobbit, who woke up in goblin tunnels after having been dropped by a dwarf?
My Tolkien-fu is rusty, but I believe that many of the ancient elves handiwork was destroyed by the ravaging, pillaging hordes that overran the elvish cities. Dragons, for example, are mentioned in several places as plundering and carrying off treasures. It could be argued that Glamdring was stolen by a dragon after the fall of Gondolin and that it existed in a dragon hoard until the dragon was killed at which time it would have been picked up by whoever killed the dragon.
But the reality of Tolkien's writings is that there just aren't that many specific magical items mentioned. Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting are mentioned as being "work of the high elves" which implies that there might be many other such blades, but those other blades simply aren't mentioned, nor are they encountered anywhere in middle earth in any of the great battles of the first, second or third ages. Some other specific swords are mentioned, but they have specific abilities (some even talk) but as to the siblings of Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting.... I can't recall any mention of them other than vague suggestions that they are not unique.
We can, I suppose, assume that dragons consumed them, perhaps at the specific request of Sauron or other powerful forces of evil. After all, they were hated items, despised by evil beings other than dragons.
By the time of the Lord of the Rings there are no swords known that are superior to Glamdring or Orcrist. Not even Narsil. Throughout the actual books which describe middle earth to us Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting are unmatched among the swords of kings, stewards or the wise.
And all three were found in the same stinking troll cave.
Sure.
Narsil isnt a more powerful sword?
Gee i sure would like a summon endless undead 1/day sword....
As for the no other simple thing being less plausible in the entirety of the books..
Are you forgetting the -------------most------------------ powerful magical item in the entire Middle Earth universe, being found, by accident in the dark, by a hobbit, who woke up in goblin tunnels after having been dropped by a dwarf?
Actually Tolkien goes to great lengths to make this as plausible as possible. In fact he makes it a cornerstone of the plot of "Lord of the Rings" itself. He spends a great deal of effort backtracking the history of the ring to make it "plausible".
And in the end he has the ring exert its own will in order to be "found" by Bilbo. Tolkien even has Gandalf suggest that Bilbo being the one to find it was no accident, that Bilbo was "meant to find it" by powers beyond even the knowledge of the wise.
You can't compare the ring's fate to the fate of three blades that, beyond being really cool swords that make people turn their heads and look, have no impact whatsoever to the plot of the books.
Narsil isnt a more powerful sword?
Gee i sure would like a summon endless undead 1/day sword....
Narsil/Anduril had no such power.
Narsil's only power in that regard was that it was the sword that Aragorn's ancestor held, and as such proved to the King of the Undead that Aragorn was who he said he was. Aragorn held that power, not the sword. And that power was not "1/day, summon unlimited undead". It was "summon an undead army ONCE and ONLY ONCE to fight against SAURON." The sword was just a token to prove Aragorn was who he said he was.
Narsil/Anduril's only documented "power" was that as a blade of the Numenorean Kings, it could harm undead flesh, much as the blades Merry, Pippin and Sam carried from the Barrow-Downs.
I would say Bilbo started off as an Aristocrat 1...
Also It was stated MERP's d20 conversion was meant to bring the MERP feel to d20 and wasn't faithful. As d20 had vastly different levels of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Narsil isnt a more powerful sword?
Gee i sure would like a summon endless undead 1/day sword....
Narsil/Anduril had no such power.
Narsil's only power in that regard was that it was the sword that Aragorn's ancestor held, and as such proved to the King of the Undead that Aragorn was who he said he was. Aragorn held that power, not the sword. And that power was not "1/day, summon unlimited undead". It was "summon an undead army ONCE and ONLY ONCE to fight against SAURON." The sword was just a token to prove Aragorn was who he said he was.
Narsil/Anduril's only documented "power" was that as a blade of the Numenorean Kings, it could harm undead flesh, much as the blades Merry, Pippin and Sam carried from the Barrow-Downs.
I still want a sword that summons unlimited undead 1/day...that changes nothing
Anduril cut The One Ring from Sauron's hand.So it was Epic.
The daggers Merry, Pippin and Sam got from the Barrow-downs could have done the same, just as they were able to cut the Witch-king's undead flesh.
Does the fact that such impressive weapons are found, not by one, but by three hobbits, a dwarf and a wizard, in the books not indicate in some manner that such magical weapons are at least some what notall THAT uncommon? Or are we excepting the hand of god in such things? "They were ment to find them" "Fate" and such for our group?
I mean it is a story, if the entire group got killed first encounter out of the gate, it'd be a really short tale. Still, two epic swords and one epic dagger in one cave. Epic daggers/short swords in another location. Both closer to the shire than to the more 'populated' places. Just layin' around in Troll loot or such, does seem to indicate at least in part that they're not 'uncommon'. If you can fall ass backwards and land one.
Personally I think Narsil was another "powerful sword" As to it's exact nature, hard to say. As many people before me have pointed out, Tolkeen was very very vague when it came to 'Magic'. It's there but it's not like it has a nametag most of the time. Less Wizards throwing fire balls and stuff, and more "Oh man I wish we could have saved this rope. It's good rope" then suddenly the rope slips free and falls down to be gathered. Or The Elvish cloaks that turned into awesome cammo, or such. Yes the swords were magical. They were stated to glow when orcs or goblins were close and the two of them were so deadly that all the goblin's knew them by sight. (( and one would think that they hadn't been killing goblins for a while if they were kings blades and stuff that had eventually through some sort of chain of events, ended up in the troll cave to be found. So they were ---so--- legendary that the discription and such of the blades was such a part of goblin culture that they were still known all those years later.))
Elrond is another 'aspect' that's not really CLEARLY Defined. He's not just an elf. He's of a race of elves that bread with the "Heroes" of old that were "Above" Men. He's also 100s of years old. So his abilities are very hard to define.