Just recently I read some articles discussing how Argorn might only be 5th level and Gandalf comes in around 7. By the same measure Conan would only be around 10.
Based on this idea and that PCs leave the realm of mere mortal behind at around 6th level, what kind of impact would can 7th level character have on the world? What about 11th? 15th? 17th?
Based on these power levels it makes it a little harder for me to see the 7th level fighter as just bodyguard to some merchant or the 12th level wizard being only 3rd most important wizard in a guild in city other then absalom.
How do you justify people not having heard of these incredible powerful people around the world? How do you explain the explosive growth in power of PCs as they go through an entire AP in what might be less then a 3 months? (carrion crown)
As and aside, what would the levels of different superheros be? I am just throwing it out there but I would guess that superman is 20th level monk.
Sorry for the rant, but this realization made think that the captain of the guard in major city might only be 4th level and the 12th Paladin is superhero covering a whole county instead simple the head of town guard.
Bleach might be a good place to look at levels.
It all depends on the overall power-level of your game.
I prefer a more low-to-mid powered game, where a 10th level character is a Big Deal, an epic achievment worthy of ballads.
Pathfinder (and 3.x) default the game to something else. A slower level advancement rate pushes this default power-level to my preference, where a faster leveling rate makes it more of a super-hero game.
Also, remember that "reality" has little to do with this game. If there are dragons/demons/acids that show damage effects within 6 seconds, there can totally be a PC who goes from a level 1 farmer to a level 15 hero in the course of a season or two.
Of course, this is also coming from a 1st Ed Gamer who played a game for 5 years and went from level 1 to level 7. Talk about earning your way in the world . . . .
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Well from Page 253 of the Inner Sea World Guide:
... Nonetheless, there exist guidelines for how powerful most rulers and heroes and city guards are in the Inner Sea region. The vast majority of humanity are “standard,” ranging in level from 1st to 5th—most with NPC classes like commoner, expert, or warrior (it’s uncommon for a character with only NPC class levels to be above 5th level). A significant number of a nation’s movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are “exceptional,” ranging in level from 6th to 10th. “Powerful” characters, ranging in level from 11th to 15th, are quite rare—typically only a handful of such powerful characters should exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in an adventure. Finally, legendary” characters of 16th or higher level should be exceptionally rare, and when they appear should only do so as part of a specific campaign—all legendary characters should be supported with significant histories and flavor. ...
In practice, the NPCs you will meet in Golarion based supplements tend to be a little bit higher (often quite a bit) then that.
Mathius wrote: Just recently I read some articles discussing how Argorn might only be 5th level and Gandalf comes in around 7. By the same measure Conan would only be around 10.
Based on this idea and that PCs leave the realm of mere mortal behind at around 6th level, what kind of impact would can 7th level character have on the world? What about 11th? 15th? 17th?
Based on these power levels it makes it a little harder for me to see the 7th level fighter as just bodyguard to some merchant or the 12th level wizard being only 3rd most important wizard in a guild in city other then absalom.
Well those three examples are all taken from specifically low-magic and low-level campaigns. I've read that article (or a similar one, I think there are lots), and one of the thing it points out is that orcs are actually a serious threat to adventurers (Boromir) and that Gandalf casts a total of perhaps four spells over the course of the entire LotR trilogy. Similarly, Conan the Cimerrian really only faces humans, animals, vermin, and outsiders (evil) in the course of his entire saga; the only context in which we see magic is in the hands of evil antagonists, and no one has effective damage resistance.
Gandalf was, basically, the world's most powerful wizard. Not a hard task, when you consider there were only five. But that means that if he's only level 7, then there is no 12th level wizard in the world.
So, to cut it short, Golarion isn't Middle Earth and the same standards don't apply. If 12th level wizards exist, Gandalf is nothing special. If 7th level fighters are royal flunkies, Aragorn is probably not a heroic warrior-king.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mathius wrote: Just recently I read some articles discussing how Argorn might only be 5th level and Gandalf comes in around 7. By the same measure Conan would only be around 10.
Based on this idea and that PCs leave the realm of mere mortal behind at around 6th level, what kind of impact would can 7th level character have on the world? What about 11th? 15th? 17th?
Impact is not totally dependent upon level. In most cases it's a matter of being in the right place at the right, (or exceptionally wrong) time. The craven weak rogue who has the very persuasive ear of the King has an impact far and beyond his own personal abilities.
The warrior likewise who saves a destined child, The wizard's apprentice who gets ahold of (or is seized by) a demonic artifact tome, may very well change the course of history.
And similarly the mighty lord or archmage who retreats from the world may have little to no effect for vast stretches of time. And may be very well forgotten by those who once knew him.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathius wrote: Just recently I read some articles discussing how Argorn might only be 5th level and Gandalf comes in around 7. By the same measure Conan would only be around 10.
Based on this idea and that PCs leave the realm of mere mortal behind at around 6th level, what kind of impact would can 7th level character have on the world? What about 11th? 15th? 17th?
I suspect that I've read the articles you're talking about, and the issue here is that they're making a (not inaccurate) comparison between game levels and people in the real world, like you or me, which are fundamentally incompatible with the in-game concepts in most RPG worlds (and certainly in Golarion).
To expound on that, it's a reasonable statement to make that most ordinary people are 1st, maybe 2nd level, and that exceptional people are 3rd, some of the best in the world are 4th, and that truly legendary individuals, who are famous all over the world and will be long remembered, are 5th. The problem is that, in the context of an RPG game world, if you expect your characters to ascend anywhere close to 20th level, then their interactions with "typical" NPCs will soon become incredibly lopsided.
That is, if most people won't ever approach 4th level in their lifetime, having a group of 14th level heroes walk into town is essentially the same as having a group of demigods touch down. They can outfight entire armies single-handedly, cast spells of devastating and complex power, and casually pull off skills - without any magic - that no one else could ever hope to do.
Even if the local populace doesn't immediately realize they're facing a group that's far beyond them in terms of ability, that will quickly become apparent as the PCs do their thing; it's kind of hard to imagine a shopkeeper telling the PCs that he doesn't accept the foreign coins they have, for example, when he's seen them single-handedly stop an army of demons.
Worse, the PCs will very quickly realize that they outclass almost everyone in the world. If the shopkeeper won't accept their business, they have myriad options for changing his mind, one way or another, presuming they don't just decide to kill him and everyone who objects to their killing him, since alignment (and alignment-based class abilities) notwithstanding, there's little substantive penalty for doing so - certainly none that can be effectively enforced in-game by such inconsequentially-weak NPCs.
Now, I'm sure that there'll be people who object to the above paragraph, and can come up with examples and anecdotes about how they've encountered and played low-level NPCs who were pivotal, but these are likely exceptions - instances of someone significantly weaker than not only the PCs but also the default assumption of most background NPCs. When the PCs realize that they have a good ten levels or so on everyone except a handful of legendary figures, that's something else altogether.
That's why the Inner Sea World Guide has that paragraph that Lord Fyre quoted above. The default assumption for how high most NPCs has to be skewed upward quite a bit in order to avoid the aforementioned problems, even if it does take it out of line with what real people could accomplish.
To make a long post short, it's a concession to in-game balance.
I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is not a seventh level character. He gets into a one on one fight with a Balrog (which is a fallen Maiar in Tolkein's mythos - anything from an angel to a demigod, but definitely a being who existed before the creation of the world...). He then shatters the bridge they are both standing on, falls god knows how far into deep, cold water (deep and cold enough to extinguish the balrog's flame). He then pursues said Balrog from the deepest hole in the mountains heart to the peak, fighting all the way. Whereupon the Balrog re-ignites it's flame, but he beats it to death anyways...This does not strike me as the actions of a seventh level anything...
pad300 wrote: I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is not a seventh level character. He gets into a one on one fight with a Balrog (which is a fallen Maiar in Tolkein's mythos - anything from an angel to a demigod, but definitely a being who existed before the creation of the world...). He then shatters the bridge they are both standing on, falls god knows how far into deep, cold water (deep and cold enough to extinguish the balrog's flame). He then pursues said Balrog from the deepest hole in the mountains heart to the peak, fighting all the way. Whereupon the Balrog re-ignites it's flame, but he beats it to death anyways...This does not strike me as the actions of a seventh level anything... You bring up an interesting point. Gandalf was also a Maiar (as were all the wizards), so levels might be irrelevant.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pad300 wrote: I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is not a seventh level character. He gets into a one on one fight with a Balrog (which is a fallen Maiar in Tolkein's mythos - anything from an angel to a demigod, but definitely a being who existed before the creation of the world...). He then shatters the bridge they are both standing on, falls god knows how far into deep, cold water (deep and cold enough to extinguish the balrog's flame). He then pursues said Balrog from the deepest hole in the mountains heart to the peak, fighting all the way. Whereupon the Balrog re-ignites it's flame, but he beats it to death anyways...This does not strike me as the actions of a seventh level anything... You have to keep to consistency on both ends. If Gandalf was only a seventh level magic-user, it also follows that the Balrog himself is something of much lower CR than the Monster Manual Demon Type 6. For that matter the Balrog in question is arguably a creature of much lower CR than Smaug, whom Gandalf refused to face himself and recruited others to do so.
LazarX wrote: pad300 wrote: I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is not a seventh level character. He gets into a one on one fight with a Balrog (which is a fallen Maiar in Tolkein's mythos - anything from an angel to a demigod, but definitely a being who existed before the creation of the world...). He then shatters the bridge they are both standing on, falls god knows how far into deep, cold water (deep and cold enough to extinguish the balrog's flame). He then pursues said Balrog from the deepest hole in the mountains heart to the peak, fighting all the way. Whereupon the Balrog re-ignites it's flame, but he beats it to death anyways...This does not strike me as the actions of a seventh level anything... You have to keep to consistency on both ends. If Gandalf was only a seventh level magic-user, it also follows that the Balrog himself is something of much lower CR than the Monster Manual Demon Type 6. For that matter the Balrog in question is arguably a creature of much lower CR than Smaug, whom Gandalf refused to face himself and recruited others to do so. Yes, let's keep consistency. The Balrog is a Maiar . Fallen but a Maiar. A being of DIVINE origin that in Tolkien's mythos participated in the creation of the world. As I said, winning a fight with a Balrog is a big deal.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pad300 wrote: LazarX wrote: pad300 wrote: I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is not a seventh level character. He gets into a one on one fight with a Balrog (which is a fallen Maiar in Tolkein's mythos - anything from an angel to a demigod, but definitely a being who existed before the creation of the world...). He then shatters the bridge they are both standing on, falls god knows how far into deep, cold water (deep and cold enough to extinguish the balrog's flame). He then pursues said Balrog from the deepest hole in the mountains heart to the peak, fighting all the way. Whereupon the Balrog re-ignites it's flame, but he beats it to death anyways...This does not strike me as the actions of a seventh level anything... You have to keep to consistency on both ends. If Gandalf was only a seventh level magic-user, it also follows that the Balrog himself is something of much lower CR than the Monster Manual Demon Type 6. For that matter the Balrog in question is arguably a creature of much lower CR than Smaug, whom Gandalf refused to face himself and recruited others to do so. Yes, let's keep consistency. The Balrog is a Maiar . Fallen but a Maiar. A being of DIVINE origin that in Tolkien's mythos participated in the creation of the world. As I said, winning a fight with a Balrog is a big deal. pad300, you make some good points, but let's draw some distinctions.
The best way to figure out a character's "level" in Pathfinder (or any other d20 System game) is to look at what they do (and, to an extent, what they cannot do) and put that at the lowest level of power that can be "reasonably" accomplished in the game system. (For more on this topic, I recommend this excellent essay.)
I put "reasonably" in quotation marks because there are always going to be some points of debate, largely because literary creations have narrative fiat that a game system won't be subject to - it's possible that the protagonists in a given literary sequence are scoring critical hits with every attack, for instance, but we can't make that assumption in translating them to the game world.
(The issue of translation also brings up the sticky wicket that some minor points have to be overlooked in making a conversion, simply because demanding complete fidelity means getting hung up on some class ability that a character of that level should have but never displays, or vice versa.)
Given that, you brought up some noteworthy points in your first post about what Gandalf and the Balrog actually did. However, pointing out issues of "divine origin" and "existing since before/participating in the creation of the world" have little practical context; there's simply no real measure for how this translates to personal ability. In Pathfinder terms, many Outsiders - purely as an example - can be reasonably stated as being so old as to predate the world. Likewise, the issue of how the Maiar participated in creating Arda (e.g. singing the song of Eru) is so nebulous as to be meaningless.
Given that, let's look at converting Gandalf, and by extension the Balrog, over to the d20 System. Even better, let's look at an article that already has (using a point-buy class system - one which is, by the by, fully compatible with Pathfinder):
Quote: When you do things like this, it’s always best to look at the original source material, rather than getting caught up in enthusiasm. I understand the temptation to make Gandalf an archmage of vast power, and the Balrog a nigh-unstoppable monster – I loved Tolkien’s works too – but that really isn’t the way he wrote them.
Tolkien’s Middle-Earth was magic-poor. When you came right down to it, Gandalf – one of the Istari, and one of the most powerful mages in the world - mostly played minor tricks with smoke and fire. He made a few small explosions, some flaming pinecones, a blinding flash or two, and played with smoke rings (hardly a major spell, and probably just Prestidigitation). He tricked some trolls with Ventriloquism, Spoke with Animals, cast a Light spell and a Hold Portal spell in the mines of Moria, caused an arrow to burst into flame (possibly just a dramatic form of Block/Missile, rather than a spell, although it might have been Protection from Arrows), recalled Theoden to sanity (probably Dispel Magic or Remove Curse if it was actually anything more than a good Diplomacy skill check), broke a stone bridge he was standing on (Stone Shape), used Suggestion to keep his friends from attacking him thinking he was Sarumon, cast Hold Person on Wormtongue, and engaged in a bit of mind-to-mind communication (Message).
Of course, he also held the Ring of Fire, which may have helped out a bit with the fire tricks. (It might have been quite a lot of help if we count it as being a Ring of Fire Elemental Command).
Really, he never did much of anything magical which would have exceeded third or fourth level as a d20 spell, if that. No Flight, no Teleport, no Polymorph Self, no Passwall, no Flesh to Stone – and, for that matter, no major healing or Raise Dead.
He did stand up to a Balrog in hand-to-hand, albeit while wielding a magical sword (which shattered the Balrog’s sword) – but that’s hardly a demonstration of wizardly power. For that matter, Tolkien’s Balrogs were big and powerful – but there’s not much indication of them having any magical powers beyond some personal enhancement, their innate tricks with fire (which a Ring of Fire Elemental Command would have made Gandalf virtually immune to) and the ability to counter Gandalfs Hold Portal spell (either Dispel Magic or just hitting it really hard). Rather dramatically, the door broke – and the chamber collapsed – rather than the door simply opening (a possible argument for the “hitting it really hard” theory). Of course, the place was none too stable anyway. We’ll get back to the Balrog a bit later – but there’s no indication that they’re all that powerful either.
Gandalf did survive an extremely long fall – but it was into deep water, and people in the real world have been known to do that without benefit of any special powers at all. Want to say he had some sort of charm which reduced falling damage? It would probably need a longer duration than Feather Fall, but reducing instead of negating damage would justify a considerably longer duration. We’ll stick with the druidical theme and call it “Catfall” – level one again, and a pretty reasonable spell to have ready going into what was basically a gigantic dungeon.
With that said, we can thus make a case regarding the Balrog:
Quote: As noted earlier, Tolkien’s Balrogs are were strong and powerful, wielded tolerably potent flame-effects in personal combat, and were either strong enough, or had enough ability to resist or dispel magic, to burst a magically-locked heavy stone door. They may or may not have actually been “large” creatures, but it’s a fair enough guess. They certainly weren’t colossal things that could have squashed the entire fellowship by falling on them, despite the movie.
Of course, Gandalf killed one single-handed – albeit after a lengthy battle – and plenty of them died in the Silmarillion. Various elven heroes took them out, and at times the elves fought them by the swarm. They were lesser foes than dragons, although they were “cloaked in darkness and terrifying”.
While there are one or two places in the Silmarillion where Balrogs “passed over” a land, there’s no indication that the phrase means more than when I “pass over” a road – and there are several instances of them dying when cast down from a height. The Balrog in Moria may have had a shadow about it that “reached out like two vast wings” – but it leaped a fissure rather than flying across it. Balrogs don’t fly. When slain, they do not return. They do not wield any direct external magics greater than Gandalfs – which, as shown earlier, are not all that potent by d20 standards.
Still, they are easily capable of dominating swarms of Orcs, are more than a match for a party of low-level adventurers, and have spawned many terrifying legends amongst the normal – first and second level – population.
That still wouldn’t be that much to go on – except that we’ve got a reasonable conversion for Gandalf to refer to. Since he turned out to be level eight, it seems reasonable that his apparently near-equal opponent should also be level eight. Gandalf may have been weary when they fought – but that doesn’t really translate into d20, just as there are no penalties in d20 for wounds.
That does seem to sum it up fairly accurately.
Razmiran may be a good place to look. He's 19th level and successfully masquerades as a god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
I think we can also posit that more than one "Golarion" can exist.
The Core Book has three different XP Level progression tables -- this dramatically affects how often characters, NPC or PC, will level up. Couldn't this imply multiple Core worlds, some with more high level characters -- with faster progressions -- than others. There's also, of course, different point-buy options for Ability Scores. Not to mention availability of magic items (which are needed to defeat higher CRs).
Essentially none of you will play in my Pathfinder world where higher level NPCs are more common but PCs have slow level progression. There Razmiran is considerably more than 19th level and Ability Scores are very high all around.
But that's not your Pathfinder world.
So I argue there's more than one.
And one interpretation is insufficient.
W E Ray wrote: Razmiran may be a good place to look. He's 19th level and successfully masquerades as a god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
I think we can also posit that more than one "Golarion" can exist.
The Core Book has three different XP Level progression tables -- this dramatically affects how often characters, NPC or PC, will level up. Couldn't this imply multiple Core worlds, some with more high level characters -- with faster progressions -- than others. There's also, of course, different point-buy options for Ability Scores. Not to mention availability of magic items (which are needed to defeat higher CRs).
Essentially none of you will play in my Pathfinder world where higher level NPCs are more common but PCs have slow level progression. There Razmiran is considerably more than 19th level and Ability Scores are very high all around.
But that's not your Pathfinder world.
So I argue there's more than one.
And one interpretation is insufficient.
This is where the concept of 'downtime' and 'growing old' can influence the game play itself.
Look at Odysseus, a great hero before the Trojan War, fights in it and devises the plan to win it. Then there is the Odyssey with all its travails: sirens, suitors, circe, cyclops, scylla/carybdis, lotus eaters, etc When he comes back he is an old man, massively powerful still (strong enough to draw the great bow) and noteable in a world of gods and heroes (and with magic users). Regardless of xp progression THIS IS A HERO and a high level character to boot.
A better comparison to make in the context of an RPG than Tolkien I find (much as I love L.O.T.R.) - your players are heroes - make them earn that through epic deeds.
A possible better framing for the forum question might be (In your game) what do the challenges different level characters face mean?
Alzrius wrote:
pad300, you make some good points, but let's draw some distinctions.
The best way to figure out a character's "level" in Pathfinder (or any other d20 System game) is to look at what they do (and, to an extent, what they cannot do) and put that at the lowest level of power that can be "reasonably" accomplished in the game system. (For more on this topic, I recommend this excellent essay.)
I put "reasonably" in quotation marks because there are always going to be some points of debate, largely because...
Your argument seems a might circular.
"That still wouldn’t be that much to go on – except that we’ve got a reasonable conversion for Gandalf to refer to."
Gandalf isn't that impressive, because what he does isn't that impressive, so if Gandalf kills a balrog 1 on 1, well then killing a balrog isn't that impressive, so Gandalf's not that impressive...
I will note that said Balrog, without minions, chased an entire dwarven nation out of Moria.
Wikipedia wrote: The Dwarves attempted to fight the Balrog, but its power was far too great. Despite their efforts to hold Khazad-dûm against it, King Náin and many other Dwarves were killed and the survivors were forced to flee. This disaster also reached the Silvan Elves of Lórien, many of whom also fled the "Nameless Terror"[44] (it was not recognized as a Balrog at the time). The Elves called the place Moria, the "Black Pit"[46] or "Black Chasm"[47] (though the name Moria also appears on the West Gate of Moria, constructed thousands of years earlier in the Second Age).
For another 500 years, Moria was left to the Balrog; though according to Unfinished Tales, Orcs crept in almost immediately after the Dwarves were driven out
What you just described gets settled by a patrol of 30 odd dwarven warriors with heavy crossbows, armor piercing quarrels and two-handed axes... Or if worst comes to worst, you trap it with a deliberate cave-in or two.
You might also remember said dwarven nation was led by Durin, reincarnation of the legendary dwarven leader, and his line was known to hold a major artifact (one of the seven dwarven rings).
For another comparison, consider that Sauron, the 2nd biggest bad-guy in Tolkien's mythos, was another fallen Maiar: "In his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aulë".
No, I think balrogs, and Durin's Bane in particular, were pretty big bad-asses.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pad300 wrote: Your argument seems a might circular.
"That still wouldn’t be that much to go on – except that we’ve got a reasonable conversion for Gandalf to refer to."
Gandalf isn't that impressive, because what he does isn't that impressive, so if Gandalf kills a balrog 1 on 1, well then killing a balrog isn't that impressive, so Gandalf's not that impressive...
It's not circular; you're misrepresenting it.
We're able to generate a fairly clear level of power for Gandalf based on his deeds in the novels. We do the same for the Balrog, but given that it has much less development (being only "on screen" for a short time) we also make a comparative analysis of it compared to Gandalf.
Hence, the entire second part of what you describe as a circle (e.g. "so if Gandalf kills a balrog 1 on 1, well then killing a balrog isn't that impressive, so Gandalf's not that impressive...") is not part of the original argument concerning Gandalf's level of power. We're using Gandalf's degree of power to help figure out what the Balrog can do; we're not using the Balrog's level of power to help figure out what Gandalf can do (because what he can do is already shown), though it does give him cause to showcase some of his powers (which, as listed above, aren't that impressive).
pad300" wrote: I will note that said Balrog, without minions, chased an entire dwarven nation out of Moria. I will likewise note that the population of the "nation" is unspecified, along with noting that we're talking about a level eight creature versus a population that is level one, two at most. Given that fighting the Balrog was clearly beyond them, it's not surprising that they fled in advance.
pad300 wrote: What you just described gets settled by a patrol of 30 odd dwarven warriors with heavy crossbows, armor piercing quarrels and two-handed axes... Or if worst comes to worst, you trap it with a deliberate cave-in or two.
You might also remember said dwarven nation was led by Durin, reincarnation of the legendary dwarven leader, and his line was known to hold a major artifact (one of the seven dwarven rings).
The build for the Balrog in the article linked to above gives it a fairly high AC, a small amount of fast healing, and damage reduction (all of which are in line with a level eight creature). The thirty dwarves you described are all first level, have mundane (e.g. non-magical, non-masterwork) crossbows, quarrels ("armor-piercing" is irrelevant in Pathfinder, since all weapons are potentially "armor-piercing"), and axes...of course they're going to be killed to the man.
Likewise, the issue of a controlled cave-in might have been a good idea - after all, knocking it off a bridge was an effective way to remove it as an immediate threat - but you're suggesting that they tried it and it didn't work, which doesn't pass the test of "comes from the source material."
Similarly, your description of Durin is another instance of adding power where the source material doesn't suggest it. There's nothing about Durin the Deathless (the first Durin) that's particularly exceptional, save that he was considered to be a patriarch of the dwarven race, and lived to an exceptional age. Likewise, Durin VI is called that because he resembles Durin I in appearance, and has some of his memories, nothing more.
This is the same way that you call Durin's ring a major artifact; Gandalf also had a ring, so I'm not sure what you think that proves.
pad300 wrote: For another comparison, consider that Sauron, the 2nd biggest bad-guy in Tolkien's mythos, was another fallen Maiar: "In his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aulë". Again, I'm not sure what you think this proves, except that there were degrees of power among the Maiar (just as with other celestial beings; hence why Melkor was able to stand against the combined might of the Valar before one particular Valar (Tulkas) was able to defeat him in battle).
pad300 wrote: No, I think balrogs, and Durin's Bane in particular, were pretty big bad-asses. No doubt they were, but you're forgetting that this is comparative; they're bad-asses compared to a world of first- and second-level people. The powers they exhibit don't put them in double-digit levels.
I know that it's easy to fall into the trap of equating "they're a major force in their world" with "they're a major force in any world," but that's pretty clearly not the case if we try to look at some objective benchmarks.
Actually, you're making the classic mistake of assuming that the spells Gandalf did cast were representative of the spells he COULD cast. For example, in the last game I played with my wizard he cast no spell over 4th level- yet he was 18th the level.
There's also the fact that Gandalf had to be very cautious in any magic he cast, in that magic was a beacon to Sauron. He may well have had access to higher level spells that he did not dare cast.
In any case, Gandalf doesn't even seem like a wizard to me- he more resembles a high-level bard, one with a hefty racial modifier.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ericthetolle wrote: Actually, you're making the classic mistake of assuming that the spells Gandalf did cast were representative of the spells he COULD cast. For example, in the last game I played with my wizard he cast no spell over 4th level- yet he was 18th the level. That's not a mistake; that's the correct way to analyze a character. Saying "he probably had access to much stronger magic, but didn't ever show it in any of the literature" is a supposition with nothing to back it up.
ericthetolle wrote: There's also the fact that Gandalf had to be very cautious in any magic he cast, in that magic was a beacon to Sauron. He may well have had access to higher level spells that he did not dare cast. Can you cite a source for this? I'm not familiar with where it says that anything short of the Ring (possibly notwithstanding the palantir, since that can accidentally contact him) acts as a beacon for Sauron.
I get tired of people putting down Boromir because he was slain by "orcs". He was a great war captain and descended from the Dunedain. In any campain I would run he would be at least a level 10 fighter.
to quote from Fellowship:
"Then Boromir had come leaping through the trees. He had made them fight. He slew many of them and the rest fled. But they had not gone far on the way back when they were attacked again, by a hundred Orcs at least, some of them very large, and they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir. Boromir had blown his great horn till the woods rang, and at first the Orcs had been dismayed and had drawn back; but when no answer but the echoes came, they had attacked more fiercely than ever."
And these were not common orcs, but rather Urak-Hai, and he killed many of them. It took over a 100 of them attacking at once to bring him down. The movies shows him slain by 3 arrows, the book notes he was slain by "many" arrows. So I don't buy into the low power rating school. If Boromir can take on over 100 orcs and buy time for Frodo and sam to make a clean getaway, then Aragorn who is much older and seasoned than Boromir, and Gandalf who is a lesser Maiar, have to be of significantly higher level.
Anyone that ever played ICE's middle earth role playing game has come against the whole, Gandalf never threw a fireball in the hobbit when he could have so he was a weakling compared to our characters..It was explained in that setting and I am sure they took this somewhere from Tolkien that both Sauron and the white council were holding back power because they didn't want to act to early and reveal themself. Why else did Sauron pretend to be the Necromancer of Dol Goulder for decades..he was forced to abandon that disguise and declare himself only because the white council finally moved against him, and only did so because Gandalf personally went into southern mirkwood during the Hobbit.
Saraumun was supposed to be the flashier wizard, as befits the "white" title, Gandalf was supposed to be the stealhier wizard, hence the "grey". When Gandalf becomes the "white", the gloves come off and he reveals himself fully to Sauran by breaking saramuns staff.
Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but my read is that something like the balrog is terrifying and even Aragaon with Anduril in hand would not have faired well against him.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Black Dougal wrote: I get tired of people putting down Boromir because he was slain by "orcs". He was a great war captain and descended from the Dunedain. In any campain I would run he would be at least a level 10 fighter. Bear in mind that this is a fairly pleasant debate we're having, and not an argument. No one is saying anyone's opinion is wrong (though we can try and find fault with each other's logic - ideally without any vitriol), and no one is attacking anyone else.
Having said that, it's worth noting that, in attempting to ascertain what level Tolkien's characters would be in the d20 System, it's best to go by what they're able to do, and what they cannot do, rather than putting assumptions onto them via their rank (and, where there's no clear equivalent for doing so, their race).
For example, Boromir's rank is of little help determining his level, and his having Dunedain ancestry is similarly of no particular help.
Insofar as his level, let's take a look:
Black Dougal wrote: to quote from Fellowship:
"Then Boromir had come leaping through the trees. He had made them fight. He slew many of them and the rest fled. But they had not gone far on the way back when they were attacked again, by a hundred Orcs at least, some of them very large, and they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir. Boromir had blown his great horn till the woods rang, and at first the Orcs had been dismayed and had drawn back; but when no answer but the echoes came, they had attacked more fiercely than ever."
And these were not common orcs, but rather Urak-Hai, and he killed many of them. It took over a 100 of them attacking at once to bring him down. The movies shows him slain by 3 arrows, the book notes he was slain by "many" arrows. So I don't buy into the low power rating school. If Boromir can take on over 100 orcs and buy time for Frodo and sam to make a clean getaway, then Aragorn who is much older and seasoned than Boromir, and Gandalf who is a lesser Maiar, have to be of significantly higher level.
I may need to go check my copies, but I thought that was from the beginning of The Two Towers. Also, that's what's being relayed after the fact by Pippin, which introduces an element of an unreliable narrator.
Beyond that, let's examine the issue of the orcs. The "common" orcs in Tolkien's world are short, weak creatures who take penalties in sunlight, and are interchangeably called goblins; this is useful, as they're fairly close to standard d20/Pathfinder goblins, who are CR 1/3 in Pathfinder.
Given that, we can perhaps more closely associate the uruk-hai with d20/Pathfinder orcs (or perhaps half-orcs), as they're taller, stronger, and have less susceptibility to sunlight. In that regard, what's more notable are the changes to racial ability scores; their class levels remain the same, as does their Challenge Rating.
Likewise, in the next paragraph Boromir is stated to have killed "at least" twenty of them before he was brought down - he didn't "take on" over one hundred orcs; rather, he drew their attention to him (blowing the Horn of Gondor) and tried to rally the Fellowship while he defended Merry and Pippin (a task that he ultimately died trying, and failing, to do).
Given that, it seems reasonable to put Boromir as being fourth level or so.
Black Dougal wrote: Anyone that ever played ICE's middle earth role playing game has come against the whole, Gandalf never threw a fireball in the hobbit when he could have so he was a weakling compared to our characters..It was explained in that setting and I am sure they took this somewhere from Tolkien that both Sauron and the white council were holding back power because they didn't want to act to early and reveal themself. Why else did Sauron pretend to be the Necromancer of Dol Goulder for decades..he was forced to abandon that disguise and declare himself only because the white council finally moved against him, and only did so because Gandalf personally went into southern mirkwood during the Hobbit. I haven't played the ICE Middle Earth RPG, but that's not relevant since we're going directly to the source material (the literature) and trying to use the relevant parts of it to put together a picture of the d20 stats of its characters.
The issues for the various power players of the setting to act with subtlety and disguise are largely explained as being for political purposes. Sauron puts on various guises for the purpose of putting people at ease and not presenting himself as a known enemy that would cause his foes to rapidly mobilize, hence why he presents himself under different names at different times (e.g. Annatar, Lord of Gifts).
Black Dougal wrote: Saraumun was supposed to be the flashier wizard, as befits the "white" title, Gandalf was supposed to be the stealhier wizard, hence the "grey". When Gandalf becomes the "white", the gloves come off and he reveals himself fully to Sauran by breaking saramuns staff. There's merit in the idea that the color of the Robes among the Istari denotes their relative areas of control (and possibly their power). However, Gandalf's return as Gandalf the White doesn't seem to have given him any new abilities so much as it does improve his existing ones; that's probably more of a template than anything else.
Black Dougal wrote: Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but my read is that something like the balrog is terrifying and even Aragaon with Anduril in hand would not have faired well against him. See above regarding the Balrog.
Alzrius wrote: ericthetolle wrote: Actually, you're making the classic mistake of assuming that the spells Gandalf did cast were representative of the spells he COULD cast. For example, in the last game I played with my wizard he cast no spell over 4th level- yet he was 18th the level. That's not a mistake; that's the correct way to analyze a character. Saying "he probably had access to much stronger magic, but didn't ever show it in any of the literature" is a supposition with nothing to back it up.
ericthetolle wrote: There's also the fact that Gandalf had to be very cautious in any magic he cast, in that magic was a beacon to Sauron. He may well have had access to higher level spells that he did not dare cast. Can you cite a source for this? I'm not familiar with where it says that anything short of the Ring (possibly notwithstanding the palantir, since that can accidentally contact him) acts as a beacon for Sauron. In the section where the Fellowship are attempting the high pass of Caradhras and the snows stop them Gandalf has to light a fire using his magic. By doing so he says something along the lines of "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin."
This is why using magic is hazardous for him.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
strayshift wrote: Alzrius wrote: ericthetolle wrote: Actually, you're making the classic mistake of assuming that the spells Gandalf did cast were representative of the spells he COULD cast. For example, in the last game I played with my wizard he cast no spell over 4th level- yet he was 18th the level. That's not a mistake; that's the correct way to analyze a character. Saying "he probably had access to much stronger magic, but didn't ever show it in any of the literature" is a supposition with nothing to back it up.
ericthetolle wrote: There's also the fact that Gandalf had to be very cautious in any magic he cast, in that magic was a beacon to Sauron. He may well have had access to higher level spells that he did not dare cast. Can you cite a source for this? I'm not familiar with where it says that anything short of the Ring (possibly notwithstanding the palantir, since that can accidentally contact him) acts as a beacon for Sauron. In the section where the Fellowship are attempting the high pass of Caradhras and the snows stop them Gandalf has to light a fire using his magic. By doing so he says something along the lines of "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin."
This is why using magic is hazardous for him. Or that he's just lit a fire at the top of a very high peak, and so is easily visible (particularly since there's no other way to get a fire going in such a place but with magic). He's certainly not worried about signaling with magic at other times.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LoTR is not PF; Gandalf is not a PF wizard. You can't sensibly correlate the two to find a level, just as real life can't be expressed in levels. Classes and levels are a clumsy abstraction designed to produce a good game, not an accurate description of real life or any other unreal life outside a hamfisted D&D fanfic. So that sort of argument gets us nowhere.
But back to the OP's point: the existence of substantial monsters like Linnorms, dragons, giants, aboleths and even ogres means that there are a significant number of characters of at least 8th level kicking around. Without them, half of civilisation would be rolled over in a moment. If we take Golarion's equivalent of Conan (supposedly 10th level, but the greatest fighter in history) as the highest we'd ever see, much of the world simply doesn't make sense.
Alzrius wrote:
Or that he's just lit a fire at the top of a very high peak, and so is easily visible (particularly since there's no other way to get a fire going in such a place but with magic). He's certainly not worried about signaling with magic at other times.
No. First of all, Gandalf had no issue with the rest of the Fellowship trying to light a fire; he stepped in only after they had failed.
Second, I think you overestimate how far a campfire is visible. Rivendell was, as per Tolkien's timeline, a three week journey from Caradras, probably more than three hundred miles away.
Third, why would he have written "Gandalf is here" instead of "someone with a tinder box is here"?
Black Dougal wrote: I get tired of people putting down Boromir because he was slain by "orcs". He was a great war captain and descended from the Dunedain. In any campain I would run he would be at least a level 10 fighter. Neither promotion nor lineage give class levels. I doubt Boromir was born at third level...
Quote:
And these were not common orcs, but rather Urak-Hai, and he killed many of them. It took over a 100 of them attacking at once to bring him down. The movies shows him slain by 3 arrows, the book notes he was slain by "many" arrows. So I don't buy into the low power rating school. If Boromir can take on over 100 orcs and buy time for Frodo and sam to make a clean getaway, then Aragorn who is much older and seasoned than Boromir, and Gandalf who is a lesser Maiar, have to be of significantly higher level.
Well, in PF orcs can only hit AC 21 or higher on a natural twenty; 100 orcs therefore means five hits per round, but that's true against an ac of 50 as well. I'm not seeing how 100 orcs could all attack at once, and I'm also not seeing why AC 21 means level 10. Doing the CR math; 3 orcs are CR 1, 6 are CR 3, 12 are CR 5, 24 are CR 7, 48 are CR 9, and 100 are about CR 11. A 10th level fighter standing alone would be CR 9, so he should have accounted for half the orcs by himself.
Quote:
Anyone that ever played ICE's middle earth role playing game has come against the whole, Gandalf never threw a fireball in the hobbit when he could have so he was a weakling compared to our characters..It was explained in that setting and I am sure they took this somewhere from Tolkien that both Sauron and the white council were holding back power because they didn't want to act to early and reveal themself. Why else did Sauron pretend to be the Necromancer of Dol Goulder for decades..he was forced to abandon that disguise and declare himself only because the white council finally moved against him, and only did so because Gandalf personally went into southern mirkwood during the Hobbit.
This, again, is the "well, Sauron is indefinably badass, so everyone who opposed him must also be indefinably badass as well" argument. It's just as valid to argue that Sauron was only a CR 6 encounter himself, which would still have been badass in comparison to a 4th level ranger.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote: No. First of all, Gandalf had no issue with the rest of the Fellowship trying to light a fire; he stepped in only after they had failed. Yes. In fact, Gandalf had no issue with lighting a fire at all, since he was willing to do so himself. He knew that doing so was vital in that situation, hence why he stepped in without hesitation when it became evident that it couldn't be done normally.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Second, I think you overestimate how far a campfire is visible. Rivendell was, as per Tolkien's timeline, a three week journey from Caradras, probably more than three hundred miles away. That estimation of distance depends on how far they traveled in a day, which isn't specified that I recall. Likewise, I think you underestimate how far a fire at that elevation can be seen.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Third, why would he have written "Gandalf is here" instead of "someone with a tinder box is here"? Because it's not that hard to realize that sustaining a fire at that elevation (with the lack of fuel) and in that environment (heavy wind and a lot of snow that would melt and quench the flames) would require magic. Given that a number of people already know of the Company's journey, it's not that hard to put two and two together.
This also doesn't explain the total absence of concern that anyone has in any other part of any other book that magic will somehow reveal their presence, save for the normal means of detection.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Well, in PF orcs can only hit AC 21 or higher on a natural twenty; 100 orcs therefore means five hits per round, but that's true against an ac of 50 as well. I'm not seeing how 100 orcs could all attack at once, and I'm also not seeing why AC 21 means level 10. Doing the CR math; 3 orcs are CR 1, 6 are CR 3, 12 are CR 5, 24 are CR 7, 48 are CR 9, and 100 are about CR 11. A 10th level fighter standing alone would be CR 9, so he should have accounted for half the orcs by himself. ... and would have gotten no exp for them, per Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, p. 399. ;P
Is any of this really relevant though? The original question asked by the OP was "What do the different levels mean in the context of Golarion?" (note: not Hyboria, not Middle Earth, etc.) By that measure, the only "official" answer is the one I quoted from the Inner Sea World Guide, p. 253.
So I don't understand what we are actually discussing at this point. So discussion of "What level is X?" are only really possible for books deliberately based on D&D/Pathfinder. So "What level is Tanis Half-Elven?", may be an answerable question; but, "What level the Lythande?" is not so much.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The question of the OP comes back to the general question "Can we compare persons from literature with really high-level characters?"
And I think it is exceedingly difficult to do that with what we assume to be good comparisons from most fantasy films and books. At least I've never seen a movie where the characters held and maintained such power as a level 18 party would.
The question is: Why? The best answer I have figured out is that a.) people want to root for the underdog, and a almost demi-god like group of people is anything but that and b.) there is almost nothing left to relate to in such a group of persons. They can literally bring people back from the dead, teleport everywhere, wreak untold destruction and deform the borders of reality in a multitude of other ways.
In a way, I think that this is also the cause why they grounded Neo in Matrix 2 and 3, because he already had reached maximum level at the end of the first movie.
Alzrius wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: No. First of all, Gandalf had no issue with the rest of the Fellowship trying to light a fire; he stepped in only after they had failed. Yes. In fact, Gandalf had no issue with lighting a fire at all, since he was willing to do so himself. He knew that doing so was vital in that situation, hence why he stepped in without hesitation when it became evident that it couldn't be done normally. Which, in turn, suggests that the fire itself wasn't a problem. If a Gimli-lit fire isn't an issue, why is a Gandalf-lit one?
Quote:
Orfamay Quest wrote: Second, I think you overestimate how far a campfire is visible. Rivendell was, as per Tolkien's timeline, a three week journey from Caradras, probably more than three hundred miles away. That estimation of distance depends on how far they traveled in a day, which isn't specified that I recall. Likewise, I think you underestimate how far a fire at that elevation can be seen.
No, but we can work it out for ourselves. Travel per day following forest tracks is about 24 miles per day, times twenty days is 480 miles as per Pathfinder rules. Half that (trackless terrain) is 240 miles, but I assume Aragorn was pretty good at finding trails.
Those are also pretty accurate numbers for medieval armies, so unless you're proposing something radically different about Middle-Earth, 300 miles is probably a reasonable estimate for the distance to Rivendell.
Quote:
This also doesn't explain the total absence of concern that anyone has in any other part of any other book that magic will somehow reveal their presence, save for the normal means of detection.
That's because there's more or less a total absence of other spells cast by Gandalf in any other book, except in combat in front of Minas Tirith where Gandalf's presence was not only not a secret, but a deliberate decoy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
magnuskn wrote:
The question is: Why? The best answer I have figured out is that a.) people want to root for the underdog, and a almost demi-god like group of people is anything but that and b.) there is almost nothing left to relate to in such a group of persons. They can literally bring people back from the dead, teleport everywhere, wreak untold destruction and deform the borders of reality in a multitude of other ways.
You're also looking at 30+ years of power creep in the D&D series.
Most fantasy literature, especially pre-1970s literature, starts from a fairly mundane baseline and introduces magic only slowly. There's no expectation of magic at all, and so anything magical is showy and impressive, no matter how minor in D&D terms it is.
In the Hobbit, we have a cursed ring of invisibility (it doesn't work well, you still cast a shadow, for dramatic purposes) and three swords that cast light. Gandalf is capable of speaking to obviously supernatural eagles, Beorn can transform himself into a bear, and we see the magic flaming pinecones used against the goblins of the Misty Mountains.
But the ability to turn into a bear at all is sufficiently magical for 1000+ years of Nordic tales; you don't need additional abilities to be a powerful wizard. It's only when I'm playing a druid who can already turn into a bear that the GM needs some other power to challenge the powerful wizard. A mundane begets a powerful wizard, a powerful wizard begets (for narrative reasons) a really powerful wizard, and a really powerful wizard begets Elminister.
Golarion needs to be a place in which I can adventure multiple quests that may span years. This means I need to have something that challenges not only the person I am today, but the person I will become five levels from now. Or fifteen. Or however many the game master allows --- but if I'm designing a commercial product, I want it to be as long-term useful as possible so people buy it.
Hence a world that supports 20 levels and APs that go up to 15 or so over six months of game play. It's hard to support six months of game play in LotR, which is why LotR games have never been long-term favorites in any group I've experienced.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote: Alzrius wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: No. First of all, Gandalf had no issue with the rest of the Fellowship trying to light a fire; he stepped in only after they had failed. Yes. In fact, Gandalf had no issue with lighting a fire at all, since he was willing to do so himself. He knew that doing so was vital in that situation, hence why he stepped in without hesitation when it became evident that it couldn't be done normally. Which, in turn, suggests that the fire itself wasn't a problem. If a Gimli-lit fire isn't an issue, why is a Gandalf-lit one? It wasn't that the fire wasn't a problem; it was that the more important problem was with staying warm in a freezing environment. It was a problem because Gandalf knew that the presence of a successful fire signaled their position, and that he was with them, since there was no other way to have a sustained fire in that environment.
Quote: Quote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Second, I think you overestimate how far a campfire is visible. Rivendell was, as per Tolkien's timeline, a three week journey from Caradras, probably more than three hundred miles away. That estimation of distance depends on how far they traveled in a day, which isn't specified that I recall. Likewise, I think you underestimate how far a fire at that elevation can be seen.
No, but we can work it out for ourselves. Travel per day following forest tracks is about 24 miles per day, times twenty days is 480 miles as per Pathfinder rules. Half that (trackless terrain) is 240 miles, but I assume Aragorn was pretty good at finding trails.
Those are also pretty accurate numbers for medieval armies, so unless you're proposing something radically different about Middle-Earth, 300 miles is probably a reasonable estimate for the distance to Rivendell.
Let's go over this in closer detail.
First, tracking is likely not a factor here. The use of the Survival skill is to find and follow creature tracks, not to locate existing trails. Ergo, issues with tracking aren't part of the equation here.
Second, the party moves at the speed of its slowest members, which is 20 ft. per round for the hobbits. That's a per-day speed of sixteen miles, which over the course of twenty days is 320 miles. So far so good.
However, this ignores the effect of terrain. Moving through forest terrain means dealing with undergrowth, which for light undergrowth costs 2 squares of movement per 1 square moved, effectively halving their speed (two squares per round, since they're moving at the speed of the hobbits). Heavy undergrowth is worse, costing 4 squares of movement for 1 square moved, effectively reducing them to five feet per round.
Given that five feet per round is only 4 miles per day, and 10 feet per round is 8 miles per day, that's far slower than your original estimate would suggest.
Of course, there's no way of knowing just how much of the journey was in conditions that impeded their movement, but clearly some of it was, so there's a reasonable basis for saying that their rate of travel, and thus the distance from one place to another, is less than you supposed.
Quote: Quote: This also doesn't explain the total absence of concern that anyone has in any other part of any other book that magic will somehow reveal their presence, save for the normal means of detection. That's because there's more or less a total absence of other spells cast by Gandalf in any other book, except in combat in front of Minas Tirith where Gandalf's presence was not only not a secret, but a deliberate decoy.
Incorrect. Take, for instance, when Gandalf is attacked by the Ring-Wraiths at Weathertop: “such light and flame cannot have been seen on Weathertop since the war-beacons of old”.
After having rejoined the group when they fled from the Ring-Wraiths (with Glorfindel) to Rivendell, Gandalf mentions in regards to Frodo (who had been stabbed at that point by the Witch-King), “it has not been hard to read his mind and memory.”
On the way to Moria, Gandalf sets some trees on fire to frighten the wargs that attack them. This is a particularly odd time to use magic if doing so would make them detectable, since it would clearly signal the change in their course.
These are just a few instances, but there are others, even if they are for relatively small uses of magic by Pathfinder standards.
Back to the OP's question, instead of the reference that started it...
I would say the amount of power in Golarion is a bit higher than you assume. For PFS, the heads of the factions are all between level 10 and 13 (though I think one might have been level 9). These people are meant to be very impressive and well-known, being the representatives of a faction in an organization that spans most of the world. Not many people surpass them.
However, that is certainly not to say nobody surpasses them. None of these people are actually leaders of an organization of their own--each answers to multiple people above them. The Decemivrate, who are not given stat blocks (that I know of, though I have not seen through the Eyes of the Ten scenarios) due to their secrecy, are assumed to be significantly more powerful than the venture-captains including the faction leaders. In addition, the faction leaders also answer to someone else--for any of the nation-based factions it would be the head of their government (although it's very possible they don't answer directly to them, meaning there is a superior of their superiors), while the rest are less clear, but Silver Crusade and Szarni also work outside of the Pathfinder Society, the faction leaders just being their representative. The exception would be Grand Master Torch who, as far as we know, doesn't answer to anyone.
The published adventure paths also give some indication of power levels in the world. Most end at about level 15 (give or take a level or two depending on the specific AP), and by that point the characters are usually legendary--often becoming leaders of a country. Looking at other NPCs in the adventure paths--I'll use Skull and Shackles because it's what I have...
So you can see that by early teens you have significant pull in entire nations, while mid- to -high teens are generally rulers of nations. And as posted above, at 19th level Razmiran not only rules a nation but is able to convince many that he is a god.
The assumption for the world of Golarion seems to assume there is nobody above 20th level (except for deities, who defy such concepts as "levels"), and I have yet to see anyone at level 20. Also, anyone who sees combat regularly is likely to be much higher in level than anyone who does not.
a level 7 character is likely a local hero or captain of the guard in a small town, though in a large city they would likely be overshadowed, limiting their range of influence to say, the city's fighter's/thieve's/mage's guild. At level 11, one's influence probably stretches out so that most people in a large city know who you are, and your exploits may be known across the nation but not as the "greatest there ever was."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"Neither promotion nor lineage give class levels. I doubt Boromir was born at third level... "
Ok, if we have to nit pick such things, as I guess we need to do such we are talking specifically about levels, then yes lineage would not add to levels. But, in keeping with how ICE trated the Dunedain, they would get significant stat bonuses.
At the very least, using the Azlant stats mods of +2 to every ability, plus age categories as half elfs, but retaining the human bonus feat and skills bonus. Plus as a Noble give him *3 resources per a typical PC of his level..
I am happy to go along with the argument that these guys don't have high levels, but they woudl have kick ass gear.
Case in point, Gandlaf's Glamdring would be a +5 flaming holy orc bane long sword
Anduril is a +5 Holy Keen flaming Bastard sword
Sting is a +3 keen orc bane shortsword
Frodo's mithril shirt is a +4 mithril shirt of medium fortification
I am so 1st edition old school I don't have a problem with a 3rd level halfling rogue walking around with that kind of gear..
Black Dougal wrote: Sting is a +3 keen orc bane shortsword
Frodo's mithril shirt is a +4 mithril shirt of medium fortification
I am so 1st edition old school I don't have a problem with a 3rd level halfling rogue walking around with that kind of gear..
Thank you so much. If one of the "nowadays' players are so entitled" crowd ever whines again, I will point him to your post so that he can have a good view of what the old times were really like :-))
For sure..Module I2, for levels 5-7, has a +4 defender and a ring of wishes in it
Module -I3 - I5 , also for levels 5- 7, is practically dripping in librams of +1 wizard level book, as well as a +5 shield as a potential reward
Ed Greenwoods Halls of evening star for levels 1 has a luck blade witha wish in it
Module L1 levels 2-4 secret of bone hill I believe has a deck on many things
One thing I hated about 3rd edition was the lost chances for "Lottery" treasure finds.
Nothing like a 2nd level mage running around with a staff of power..unbalanced yes, but good Dms rolled with the punches
sorry, now way off OP
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote:
Let's go over this in closer detail.
Let's not and go back to the original quote:
"I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.".
It is not a line of sight issue with the firelight; the Anduin is on the other side of the Mountains of Moria... which they are well below in elevation, having not attempted the pass yet.
Alzrius wrote: strayshift wrote: Alzrius wrote: ericthetolle wrote: Actually, you're making the classic mistake of assuming that the spells Gandalf did cast were representative of the spells he COULD cast. For example, in the last game I played with my wizard he cast no spell over 4th level- yet he was 18th the level. That's not a mistake; that's the correct way to analyze a character. Saying "he probably had access to much stronger magic, but didn't ever show it in any of the literature" is a supposition with nothing to back it up.
ericthetolle wrote: There's also the fact that Gandalf had to be very cautious in any magic he cast, in that magic was a beacon to Sauron. He may well have had access to higher level spells that he did not dare cast. Can you cite a source for this? I'm not familiar with where it says that anything short of the Ring (possibly notwithstanding the palantir, since that can accidentally contact him) acts as a beacon for Sauron. In the section where the Fellowship are attempting the high pass of Caradhras and the snows stop them Gandalf has to light a fire using his magic. By doing so he says something along the lines of "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin."
This is why using magic is hazardous for him. Or that he's just lit a fire at the top of a very high peak, and so is easily visible (particularly since there's no other way to get a fire going in such a place but with magic). He's certainly not worried about signaling with magic at other times. Not during a huge snow storm it isn't and certainly not over hundreds of miles.
Regarding power vis. a vis. world - it isn't a simple linear equation (sorry to any mathematicians for the misuse of that term). A lot depends upon an individual/factions willingness and ability to coordinate the use of what power they do have.
E.g. In my campaign (currently 5th and 6th level characters) when I design a dungeon/encounter I have an 'alarm-plan' the pcs know when it all kicks off there will be a dungeon wide response (usually staggered as different groups of enemies prepare/organise etc). This means that in my game the players don't fight monsters piecemeal or go through a dungeon 1 room at a time. It also means I need FEWER high level monsters to really challenge the party. The pc experience progression is slower and relatively speaking to the number of gaming sessions, magic is rarer (lower level monsters having fewer high level items of power) ergo a lower level of 'magic' in the campaign.
I take a lot of time and care to design encounters so they are a challenge - I accept that is made easier knowing the characters I am writing for but as a DM I would say if you can challenge your party with goblins and orc level encounters with only the occasional 'real nasty' that makes the real nasties much more special.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pad300 wrote: Let's not and go back to the original quote: Sure, but the relevant details still stand.
pad300 wrote: "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.".
It is not a line of sight issue with the firelight; the Anduin is on the other side of the Mountains of Moria... which they are well below in elevation, having not attempted the pass yet.
You need to brush up on your Middle Earth geography. The Mountains of Moria are three great (e.g. tallest) peaks of the Misty Mountains - those being Celebdil, Fanuidhol, and Caradhras; the latter of which the Fellowship is already scaling when the issue of the fire occurs. Your statement of them being "below in elevation" of the Mountains when they're already high along one is paradoxical, and thus incorrect.
It's not a line of sight "issue" because there is no problem with their line of sight.
strayshift wrote: Not during a huge snow storm it isn't and certainly not over hundreds of miles. As noted previously, the issue of how many miles they've traveled is ambiguous at best. Likewise, a fire can be seen through a snowstorm, and certainly the higher its elevation the greater the distance it can be seen (in the film, this is the same issue with the fire the hobbits light at Amon Sul).
It's worth noting that people who believe that Gandalf's casting a spell somehow in-and-of-itself alerts other magical forces (presumably Saruman and Sauron) have yet to posit any other affirmative evidence of this. Certainly there's plenty else to disprove it, such as the examples I posted above.
For another one, Gandalf has no fear of using his staff to conjure a light while in Moria, which would surely act as a constant beacon of their location is using magic gave off some sort of detectable emanation.
Alzrius wrote: pad300 wrote: Let's not and go back to the original quote: Sure, but the relevant details still stand.
pad300 wrote: "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.".
It is not a line of sight issue with the firelight; the Anduin is on the other side of the Mountains of Moria... which they are well below in elevation, having not attempted the pass yet.
You need to brush up on your Middle Earth geography. The Mountains of Moria are three great (e.g. tallest) peaks of the Misty Mountains - those being Celebdil, Fanuidhol, and Caradhras; the latter of which the Fellowship is already scaling when the issue of the fire occurs. Your statement of them being "below in elevation" of the Mountains when they're already high along one is paradoxical, and thus incorrect.
It's not a line of sight "issue" because there is no problem with their line of sight.
strayshift wrote: Not during a huge snow storm it isn't and certainly not over hundreds of miles. As noted previously, the issue of how many miles they've traveled is ambiguous at best. Likewise, a fire can be seen through a snowstorm, and certainly the higher its elevation the greater the distance it can be seen (in the film, this is the same issue with the fire the hobbits light at Amon Sul).
It's worth noting that people who believe that Gandalf's casting a spell somehow in-and-of-itself alerts other magical forces (presumably Saruman and Sauron) have yet to posit any other affirmative evidence of this. Certainly there's plenty else to disprove it, such as the examples I posted above.
For another one, Gandalf has no fear of using his staff to conjure a light while in Moria, which would surely act as a constant beacon of their location is using magic gave off some sort of detectable emanation. The Mouths of the Anduin are hundreds of miles to the south, beyond the White Mountains of Gondor (in the film the mountains with the beacons on them that are lit to summon the Riders of Rohan to defend Minas Tirith).
You are correct this is not a line of sight issue, however Gandalf's statement is clearly articulating that his magical 'signature' will be visible over a vast area.
The implication for a low fantasy setting, that bad guys can detect when pc mages use magic, would be an interesting one to explore in a restricted magic game however. (Yes that was an attempt to bring this back on thread!)
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
strayshift wrote: The Mouths of the Anduin are hundreds of miles to the south, beyond the White Mountains of Gondor (in the film the mountains with the beacons on them that are lit to summon the Riders of Rohan to defend Minas Tirith). The "Mouths" with a capital M, yes (Ethir Anduin), but Gandalf notably does not capitalize the "M" there, which suggests that he's speaking of other tributaries that feed the river (if not using hyperbole, which is more likely).
strayshift wrote: You are correct this is not a line of sight issue, however Gandalf's statement is clearly articulating that his magical 'signature' will be visible over a vast area. You're incorrect in stating that there's any element of a magical signature, however. Let's look at the full quote (emphasis mine):
Quote: At last reluctantly Gandalf himself took a hand. Picking up a f+%++$ he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command, naur an edraith ammen! he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great sprout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and spluttered.
'If there is any to see, then I at least am revealed to them,' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.'
He's explicitly saying that this is an issue of visibility. This is certainly true since he'd used magic previously (fighting off the Nazgul), and subsequently (Moria), and has no concerns about being revealed.
It's also worth noting that he says "then I at least am revealed to them." Saying "at least" means that there are possibly more that are revealed; those being the other members of the Fellowship - now how would they be revealed by his magically lighting a fire if it was due to his personal "magical signature"?
strayshift wrote: The implication for a low fantasy setting, that bad guys can detect when pc mages use magic, would be an interesting one to explore in a restricted magic game however. (Yes that was an attempt to bring this back on thread!) There is no such implication, save what some people have misinterpreted.
It's notable that there is still no other affirmative evidence of such a thing, and plenty that casts doubt on it; as yet, no one has put forward anything else to suggest that such a "magical signature" exists.
If you want to advance that theory, perhaps you can speak to the previous examples I raised earlier in the thread?
Alzrius wrote: Take, for instance, when Gandalf is attacked by the Ring-Wraiths at Weathertop: “such light and flame cannot have been seen on Weathertop since the war-beacons of old”.
After having rejoined the group when they fled from the Ring-Wraiths (with Glorfindel) to Rivendell, Gandalf mentions in regards to Frodo (who had been stabbed at that point by the Witch-King), “it has not been hard to read his mind and memory.”
On the way to Moria, Gandalf sets some trees on fire to frighten the wargs that attack them. This is a particularly odd time to use magic if doing so would make them detectable, since it would clearly signal the change in their course.
Alzrius wrote: For another one, Gandalf has no fear of using his staff to conjure a light while in Moria, which would surely act as a constant beacon of their location is using magic gave off some sort of detectable emanation. Likewise, the most damning but of evidence for this particular theory is that - in the one case when something does make a person magically detectable (wearing the One Ring) - it's explicitly called out multiple times over the course of the story. If other uses of magic have similar effects, why are they never mentioned?
Finally, as an on-topic note, the 3.5 Wizards of Shadowfell supplement has a base class that can, among other things, detect (powerful) magical spells that are cast.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well those three examples are all taken from specifically low-magic and low-level campaigns. I've read that article (or a similar one, I think there are lots), and one of the thing it points out is that orcs are actually a serious threat to adventurers (Boromir)
In a low magic game (i.e. few spell casters, almost no magic items) couldn't a large number of orcs with missiles be a credible threat to a fairly high level fighter (e.g. 10th). Without magic is such a character likely to have the armor class that common orcs need a "20" to hit him?
Orfamay Quest wrote: and that Gandalf casts a total of perhaps four spells over the course of the entire LotR trilogy. When I read the books a 2nd time, I noticed a few more instances of spell casting, but I agree with your basic point; Gandalf casts far fewer and far less potent spells than a high level D&D/Pathfinder magic user.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Similarly, Conan the Cimerrian really only faces humans, animals, vermin, and outsiders (evil) in the course of his entire saga; the only context in which we see magic is in the hands of evil antagonists, and no one has effective damage resistance.
Well, I'm guessing that Khostral Khel (the demon in an iron golem's body from "The Devil in Iron") had quite a bit of DR. Conan could not even harm him when he had no magic weapon, but when Conan gets a magic sword later in the story he defeats Khostral Khel easily. If we assume that Khostral Khel's combat statistics were those of an iron golem with high INT and no breath weapon, could a 10th level barbarian with a magic sword defeat such a being easily?
I guess my point is that low magic settings are not necessarily low level settings. Its just that higher level characters are a lot less powerful if they're not dripping in magic.
My personal opinion on the matter is based less on what a character can and can't do within the context of a narrative story(which often doesn't mesh well with the combat system of a d20 game), and more on what the author's intent for that character was.
Howard's intent for Conan was, essentially, for him to be the greatest martial warrior within his setting. Now, if you were to just stat up the setting of Howard's Conan, he may well only be a level ten character. Or if you were to bring Conan from Hyboria to Golarion, he may well only be a level ten character. But if you were to simply have Conan in Golarion or a similar high magic/power setting, then he would be towards the upper tier of power; high teens if not a twenty.
Side note, I've always thought Conan better fits with the Fighter class rather than the Barbarian class. Just my opinion.
As for Gandalf, firstly, judging what he "can" do based solely off the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit is somewhat misleading as it's explicitly mentioned in the text that Gandalf and the other wizards are forbidden from using their abilities on Middle Earth. What they're shown doing is not, nor is it meant to be taken as the extent of their abilities.
It also fails to take into account the Silmarillion, which features characters(not Gandalf specifically, granted) performing feats that arguably fall into epic level territory. The Lord of the Rings takes place during a time when magic and great power were leaving the world, but it was not always so.
And again, going back to the intentions here, Tolkien's intentions with Gandalf were for him to be, for all intents and purposes, among the most powerful beings on middle earth. He's limited in the use of that power, yes, but he still has it at his disposal in the most dire circumstances. Were I to simply have Gandalf in Golarion/random high power setting(again, as opposed to statting up Middle Earth specifically or bringing Gandalf to another setting from Middle Earth), I'd make him a level twenty wizard, minimum.
As for the Balrog, without getting into the "wings, no wings, fly, can't fly" debate, consider that Balrogs are the inspiration for Balors. Having a Balrog be weaker than the creature it inspired seems to me somewhat disrespectful. Again, my opinion.
I'll bring up another example; Cthulhu. In his one and only appearance in Lovecraft's mythos, he does absolutely nothing. He rises out of the water, has a steamboat rammed straight through him, and sinks again. Not a particularly impressive display. Yet when statted up under d20 rules, he's a nigh unstoppable 35 terror. Should we deny the same memetic badassery to other fantasy icons?
Alzrius wrote: strayshift wrote: The Mouths of the Anduin are hundreds of miles to the south, beyond the White Mountains of Gondor (in the film the mountains with the beacons on them that are lit to summon the Riders of Rohan to defend Minas Tirith). The "Mouths" with a capital M, yes (Ethir Anduin), but Gandalf notably does not capitalize the "M" there, which suggests that he's speaking of other tributaries that feed the river (if not using hyperbole, which is more likely).
strayshift wrote: You are correct this is not a line of sight issue, however Gandalf's statement is clearly articulating that his magical 'signature' will be visible over a vast area. You're incorrect in stating that there's any element of a magical signature, however. Let's look at the full quote (emphasis mine):
Quote: At last reluctantly Gandalf himself took a hand. Picking up a f%*&*# he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command, naur an edraith ammen! he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great sprout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and spluttered.
'If there is any to see, then I at least am revealed to them,' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.'
He's explicitly saying that this is an issue of visibility. This is certainly true since he'd used magic previously (fighting off the Nazgul), and subsequently (Moria), and has no concerns about being revealed.
It's also worth noting that he says "then I at least am revealed to them." Saying "at least" means that there are possibly more that are revealed; those being the other members of the Fellowship - now how would they be revealed by his magically lighting a fire if it was due to his personal "magical signature"?
strayshift wrote: The implication for a low fantasy setting, that bad guys can detect when pc mages use magic, would be an interesting one to explore in a restricted magic game ... Utterly disagree. Nice to read though that someone can see several hundred miles over two mountain ranges. Shall simply cease to argue against stupidity.
strayshift wrote: Utterly disagree. Nice to read though that someone can see several hundred miles over two mountain ranges. Shall simply cease to argue against stupidity. Seconded.
Alzrius, if you really want Middle Earth Geography lessons, ie how far it is to Rivendell from the attempt at Caradhras pass,
http://lotrproject.com/map/#zoom=3&lat=-1100&lon=1500&layers=BT
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
strayshift wrote: Utterly disagree. Nice to read though that someone can see several hundred miles over two mountain ranges. Shall simply cease to argue against stupidity. pad300 wrote: Seconded. So in other words, you don't have any answer for any of the following:
1) That Gandalf flat-out says that causing a fire will reveal him to any "to see" it.
2) That he indicates that it might reveal others who are there also.
3) That he doesn't seem to be indicating the Mouths of Anduin so much as other non-specific mouths (the difference with the capital versus lowercase "m").
4) That his statement about how far the flame can be seen might be hyperbolic anyway.
5) That there are no other indicators that spellcasting "creates a magical signature" and numerous other indicators that it does not.
...but your response is "oh, he's saying that it can be seen at the literal Ethir Anduin."
Neither of you have any right to suggest that someone other than yourselves is being stupid. You are, however, right to cease posting here if that's the best level of debate you can muster.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
FormerFiend wrote: My personal opinion on the matter is based less on what a character can and can't do within the context of a narrative story(which often doesn't mesh well with the combat system of a d20 game), and more on what the author's intent for that character was. That's a very slippery slope to try and ford. Even presuming the author clearly makes their intent known about the exact nature/degree/"level" of their character's abilities and powers, bringing it into the realm of game stats requires a level of objectivity against what those game stats represent unto themselves.
FormerFiend wrote: Howard's intent for Conan was, essentially, for him to be the greatest martial warrior within his setting. Now, if you were to just stat up the setting of Howard's Conan, he may well only be a level ten character. Or if you were to bring Conan from Hyboria to Golarion, he may well only be a level ten character. But if you were to simply have Conan in Golarion or a similar high magic/power setting, then he would be towards the upper tier of power; high teens if not a twenty. My thinking is that a character's stats should reflect their level of power as best represented in the original material, which means that it reflects the setting their from.
If Conan is the greatest martial character in Hyborea, and that's best represented by his being level ten, if he then somehow wound up on Golarion he's still be level ten - when you move a big fish to a bigger pond, it doesn't grow proportionally to match the new pond; it just has to deal with the proportionally larger fish that live there.
FormerFiend wrote: Side note, I've always thought Conan better fits with the Fighter class rather than the Barbarian class. Just my opinion.
As for Gandalf, firstly, judging what he "can" do based solely off the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit is somewhat misleading as it's explicitly mentioned in the text that Gandalf and the other wizards are forbidden from using their abilities on Middle Earth. What they're shown doing is not, nor is it meant to be taken as the extent of their abilities.
Can you cite a source for this, please?
FormerFiend wrote: It also fails to take into account the Silmarillion, which features characters(not Gandalf specifically, granted) performing feats that arguably fall into epic level territory. The Lord of the Rings takes place during a time when magic and great power were leaving the world, but it was not always so. While diminishment is a strong theme in Tolkien's works about Middle Earth, looking at a single "snapshot" of a character means taking their abilities as they were at that time - Melkor-Morgoth would clearly have very different stats from his original incarnation to just before his final defeat, since he'd lost so much.
That said, while there might be a few instances of epic-level material (e.g. Melkor breaking the world more than once), most of what's in the Silmarillion seems to be, at most, in the mid-teens or so, I'd say.
FormerFiend wrote: And again, going back to the intentions here, Tolkien's intentions with Gandalf were for him to be, for all intents and purposes, among the most powerful beings on middle earth. He's limited in the use of that power, yes, but he still has it at his disposal in the most dire circumstances. Were I to simply have Gandalf in Golarion/random high power setting(again, as opposed to statting up Middle Earth specifically or bringing Gandalf to another setting from Middle Earth), I'd make him a level twenty... Again, it's dangerous to assume that we know what the author's intentions were; it's best to rely on what they actually wrote, rather than trying to interpret things.
Saying that Gandalf has a hidden reserve of power that he never tapped is extremely iffy, since he apparently wasn't willing to use it at any point (including when the Balrog killed him), which makes it useless in a practical context.
Long story short, stat up characters based on what they do, not what you think the author wanted for them.
Alzrius wrote: FormerFiend wrote: My personal opinion on the matter is based less on what a character can and can't do within the context of a narrative story(which often doesn't mesh well with the combat system of a d20 game), and more on what the author's intent for that character was. That's a very slippery slope to try and ford. Even presuming the author clearly makes their intent known about the exact nature/degree/"level" of their character's abilities and powers, bringing it into the realm of game stats requires a level of objectivity against what those game stats represent unto themselves.
FormerFiend wrote: Howard's intent for Conan was, essentially, for him to be the greatest martial warrior within his setting. Now, if you were to just stat up the setting of Howard's Conan, he may well only be a level ten character. Or if you were to bring Conan from Hyboria to Golarion, he may well only be a level ten character. But if you were to simply have Conan in Golarion or a similar high magic/power setting, then he would be towards the upper tier of power; high teens if not a twenty. My thinking is that a character's stats should reflect their level of power as best represented in the original material, which means that it reflects the setting their from.
If Conan is the greatest martial character in Hyborea, and that's best represented by his being level ten, if he then somehow wound up on Golarion he's still be level ten - when you move a big fish to a bigger pond, it doesn't grow proportionally to match the new pond; it just has to deal with the proportionally larger fish that live there.
FormerFiend wrote: Side note, I've always thought Conan better fits with the Fighter class rather than the Barbarian class. Just my opinion.
As for Gandalf, firstly, judging what he "can" do based solely off the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit is somewhat misleading as it's explicitly mentioned in the text that Gandalf and the other wizards are forbidden from using their
... Long story short, you should stat up characters however you want because it's a game and we're all just trying to have fun. If someone wants to stat up Conan as a 15th level ninja and 5th level bard, that's their prerogative.
Now, again, incase I wasn't clear, if we're saying that Conan's abilities in the short stories best reflect a 10th level fighter/barbarian, which is debatable, but alright, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that, then as I said, if you're stating him up under the assumption that he's on Hyborea or that he's being ported from Hyboria to Golarion(or wherever), then yes, he should stay a tenth level character.
That being said, if you're stating up Conan under the assumption that he's always been on Golarion/whatever high powered world, or were playing Hyborea up as more high powered world, then I'd stat him as somewhere between 18th and 20th level.
As for Gandalf, no, I'm not going to provide exact citation because I don't care enough about this debate to thumb through the whole of the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, the Histories of Middle Earth, and Unfinished Tales to find the page numbers for the dozen or so places it's explicitly pointed out that the Wizards are not allowed to use their full power on Middle Earth. They were sent by the Valar to lead through cunning, wisdom, and inspiration, not to match power with power. That doesn't mean they didn't have considerable power at their disposal; if they didn't, then the order to hold back would have been unnecessary.
As for guessing the author's intent, yes, that can be problematic. Unless it's been explicitly spelt out by the author in one form or another. And fortunately, Howard and Tolkien were rather talkative authors. They wrote several letters, commentaries, and answered several interviews regarding their work and their characters.
There's also a point that intent is, in some cases, obvious. Certain characters are obviously supposed to have a certain amount of gravitas and to command a certain amount of respect. Being that these specific examples are among the land mark, defining characters in fantasy fiction, I think them being adapted into any game should reflect that.
Again, my two cents.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
FormerFiend wrote: Long story short, you should stat up characters however you want because it's a game and we're all just trying to have fun. If someone wants to stat up Conan as a 15th level ninja and 5th level bard, that's their prerogative. No argument there; that part should be understood to the point that it goes without saying.
FormerFiend wrote: Now, again, incase I wasn't clear, if we're saying that Conan's abilities in the short stories best reflect a 10th level fighter/barbarian, which is debatable, but alright, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that, then as I said, if you're stating him up under the assumption that he's on Hyborea or that he's being ported from Hyboria to Golarion(or wherever), then yes, he should stay a tenth level character.
That being said, if you're stating up Conan under the assumption that he's always been on Golarion/whatever high powered world, or were playing Hyborea up as more high powered world, then I'd stat him as somewhere between 18th and 20th level.
The first paragraph here seems to be reiterating the same thing that I was saying previously: that when trying to make game stats for characters from literature (or other media), you want to try and create stats with the most fidelity possible to the source material.
It's the second paragraph where you lose me, mostly because of the implicit assumptions that it presents. It presumes that you know how the author "intended" the character be portrayed in the context of the game world - e.g. that Howard wanted Conan to be the toughest warrior in his world - and that you should work to properly execute this authorial intent when making stats for the character in any other setting.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea per se, but if the goal is to recognizably recreate a given character in a game system, it loses something using this methodology. If making Conan in the Star Wars setting, for instance, you'd need to give him fighting skills (and, by extension, weaponry) to defeat Yoda, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, and pretty much everyone else - while that's a pretty badass image, it's hard to recognize Conan as Conan if he's single-handedly overthrowing the New Jedi Order.
Far better, I think, to stat them up in any system so as to best represent what they can do in the original source material, if only to stop them from being a completely different character that merely happens to have the same name.
FormerFiend wrote: As for Gandalf, no, I'm not going to provide exact citation because I don't care enough about this debate to thumb through the whole of the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, the Histories of Middle Earth, and Unfinished Tales to find the page numbers for the dozen or so places it's explicitly pointed out that the Wizards are not allowed to use their full power on Middle Earth. They were sent by the Valar to lead through cunning, wisdom, and inspiration, not to match power with power. That doesn't mean they didn't have considerable power at their disposal; if they didn't, then the order to hold back would have been unnecessary. That's your prerogative, but if you want to say that the material backs up your point, it's usually bad form to then say that you can't cite where exactly it does that (especially if you then say there's a dozen places that it's made explicit, but can't even loosely reference one).
FormerFiend wrote: As for guessing the author's intent, yes, that can be problematic. Unless it's been explicitly spelt out by the author in one form or another. And fortunately, Howard and Tolkien were rather talkative authors. They wrote several letters, commentaries, and answered several interviews regarding their work and their characters. This goes back to "citing your sources" above; it also goes back to the question of their "intent" needing to be framed by their intent as it pertains to the setting, rather than being of universal intent. If Howard had imagined a high-fantasy setting like Golarion, could it not be said that he wouldn't have had Conan being the mightiest warrior in that world the way he did in Hyborea?
FormerFiend wrote: There's also a point that intent is, in some cases, obvious. Certain characters are obviously supposed to have a certain amount of gravitas and to command a certain amount of respect. Being that these specific examples are among the land mark, defining characters in fantasy fiction, I think them being adapted into any game should reflect that.
Again, my two cents.
I continue to disagree with the implicit assumptions here. While obviously there needs to be some sort of common understanding at the most basic levels for any kind of communication to occur, saying "there's a point where the intent is obvious" is a dangerous claim to make, since such a thing is usually impossible to quantitatively identify (much less get everyone to agree on).
That's without even getting into the idea of what defines a "landmark, defining character" in fantasy fiction.
Likewise, none of that touches the aforementioned idea that the author's intent is framed by the particular setting they set up, and so is (in my mind) deliverately grounded by the author themselves as being particular to that specific setting. Howard never (to my knowledge) indicated that Conan was the strongest fighter anywhere, any-when, in any possible reality or existence, be it real or imagined. He was the best fighter in a very particular time and place, and even then much of that was based on luck and circumstance rather than any particular skill (since there are times when Conan faces some sort of martial setback, needing or electing to flee rather than fight).
That particular stance also makes it relatively impossible to develop any sort of comparative basis between characters (which is one of the high points of using game mechanics to define them), which in turn makes most, if not all, forms of comparison moot. If Siegel and Shuster intended Superman to be the greatest warrior in the world for the DC Universe, and Howard intended Conan to be the greatest warrior for Hyborea, are we then to say that Superman and Conan are of equal combat ability, and a fight between them (in all its glorious fanboy-ism) would thus be a draw?
That's what that sort of thinking seems to lead to, and it doesn't seem correct.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
