XP of literary heroes


Conversions

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Every so often you find threads of Make X in Pathfinder or What level is Y? What if there was some different way of equating the real world with PF mechanics to make you experience more grounded?

I thought, the classic heroes in literature keep killing monsters and they should be gaining XP. How much XP have such characters earned and has their power become greater as a result? Do they go on to face CR appropriate enemies?

I am not such an avid reader myself, so I come to these forums, to request XP gains of characters as varied from Hercules to Harry Potter and opinions on this system of judging characters.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I doubt you'll find much help on this forum, as this is a controversial area. Part of the issue is that Pathfinder itself changes radically as characters level.

Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level. He's a gritty, low-level hero who fights gritty, low-level opponents such as orcs. But if you insist that one of the Christ-figured from the most famous fantasy trilogy of all times has to be high level, you might not like that interpretation.

Harry Potter is another one who doesn't actually do anything that flashy; the most high-level spell he uses over the course of his career is probably teleport, but his spell list doesn't correspond in any meaningful way to the D&D spell list. Detect Thoughts is an extremely high-level spell in the Potterverse, fly can't be done at all except with items, and so forth. I don't really see anything that would suggest that the Potterverse contains wizards above roughly 5th level, allowing for spell-level differences.

Hercules, on the other hand, was literally a demi-god; he was combat-effective while still in his cradle, and at one point lifted the entire sky and held it up while Atlas did him a solid. It would be easy to justify not only that he was level 20, but also that he had a huge number of mythic tiers.

My rule of thumb is that the game breaks down into roughly four level tiers;

Level 1-5: gritty, realistic fiction
Level 6-10: action-movie hero levels of realism. A tenth level fighter, for example, can fall from orbit and walk away from it.
Level 11-15: superheroic or animated cartoon
Level 16-20: classical myths

It's also rather rare to see anyone above the gritty-realistic level gain power, because in most fiction, the characters are already as powerful as the plot demands. A few times, you'll see a training montage, but more often it's just "what they do." Hercules doesn't need to work out, since he's already super-strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Orfamay Quest summed it up pretty well. I'd also add that class-level based systems tend to be bad for character conversions anyway, because the segregation of various powers among certain classes at certain levels can wreak havoc on attempting to build a reasonable facsimile of a character that wasn't originally made with those class levels in mind. You'll usually end up with some powers being missing, while other powers that don't reflect the source material end up being part of the build anyway.

The result usually ends up as a character conversion that's only somewhat recognizable, and quite often is sub-par compared to a character of similar level that was made by working with the system, rather than having to fight it to get what you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:

Orfamay Quest summed it up pretty well. I'd also add that class-level based systems tend to be bad for character conversions anyway, because the segregation of various powers among certain classes at certain levels can wreak havoc on attempting to build a reasonable facsimile of a character that wasn't originally made with those class levels in mind. You'll usually end up with some powers being missing, while other powers that don't reflect the source material end up being part of the build anyway.

The result usually ends up as a character conversion that's only somewhat recognizable, and quite often is sub-par compared to a character of similar level that was made by working with the system, rather than having to fight it to get what you want.

.... as was discussed in the article i linked:

Quote:


Authors don’t design their characters around the class progressions of the core D&D classes. Take, for example, a character who can assume an ethereal state without casting a spell. The only way to do that in D&D, using only the core classes, is to be a 19th level monk. But if that’s the only special ability the character in question has, it would be completely nonsensical to model them as a 19th level monk – they don’t have any of the plethora of other abilities such a monk possesses. What you’re looking at is a character with a unique class progression or possibly a prestige class. Or maybe a racial ability.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
.... as was discussed in the article i linked:

I know; I've read that article many times. That's why I brought it up here, since your post didn't otherwise mention it and it's a valid point worth noting (especially for anyone who doesn't want to click the link and read the entire article).


I think literary heroes often go far beyond their CR. Let's go with Harry Potter for example. He took on a giant snake at 12 years old, it's difficult to estimate the Basilisk's CR since it is different from both a giant snake and a basilisk in Pathfinder terms, but it's probably higher than 5. At 12.

Orfamay Quest is right that it is difficult to determine where such characters stand though. Harry might not have the craziest spells at his disposal, but he can also spam them all day with no consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Potter is difficult. I don't think it's all that clear cut. Not only can they spam spells all day. The most powerful wizards could not only teleport, but instakill, torture, mind control, and some weird stuff. Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Grindelwald are all potentially 13th-15th level characters; perhaps higher, it's hard to know. Their DCs are likely quite high.

I think it's hard to model characters on literary characters unless you're willing to actively limit the characters. You can have them be high level, but don't choose options the characters themselves don't have. PF won't be perfect, but it certainly offers a number of options for creating characters of all sorts.


There's also some really crazy magic they can pull off that Pathfinder casters can't reasonably do. Like a bigass Dome of Force that covers an entire castle and the surrounding grounds. And almost all of their spells are executed with no save (Imperio being the odd rare example of a spell requiring a Will save).

Avada Kedavra alone is pretty insane. Touch attack based save or die spell...without the "save" part. And can apparently be performed by children, as long as they know it.

Potter wizards don't use spell levels, being a wizard is almost like having a ton of in-born at-will spell-like abilities that you have to learn you can actually do first, but can be used infinitely and at always perfect effectiveness for an indefinite period of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On the issue of gaming in the Potterverse, a blog that I like wrote up a two-part series of articles about this. The first deals with the setting's basic assumptions about the magic-using population, while the second deals with how magic works in that setting.


The Pale King wrote:
I think literary heroes often go far beyond their CR. Let's go with Harry Potter for example. He took on a giant snake at 12 years old, it's difficult to estimate the Basilisk's CR since it is different from both a giant snake and a basilisk in Pathfinder terms, but it's probably higher than 5. At 12.

Yes, but he's also got some sort of die-muddling destiny going on, and he's also got powerful allies; in the case of the battle with the basilisk, he had a phoenix and an artifact sword. It's might be fairer to say that the phoenix took on the basilisk and let Harry do the cleaning up once it was crippled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly thought it would be a less subjective method to get a feel for power level in PF, but it seems just as useless as other comparisons. Especially for the two examples I gave.

Perhaps some more tame classic heroes? Odysseus, Perseus, the Fellowship of the Ring, etc?
Just going by Wikipedia, Perseus slew a Medusa (CR7,3200), king (CR14,38400), Cetus (CR13,25600), noble scion? (CR2,600), and then more stuff. It hard to tell what level his career started, since anybody could get away with a coup de grace against any creature, and everything following was a result of him having Medusa's head. But with the XP total of 67800 (assuming Medium track and ignoring the one level at a time rule) he would be 8th.
I don't know where I'm going with this...

And the heroes of myth would, of course, be the survivors of their encounters. Nobody mentions those who died.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Quote:


Authors don’t design their characters around the class progressions of the core D&D classes. Take, for example, a character who can assume an ethereal state without casting a spell. The only way to do that in D&D, using only the core classes, is to be a 19th level monk. But if that’s the only special ability the character in question has, it would be completely nonsensical to model them as a 19th level monk – they don’t have any of the plethora of other abilities such a monk possesses. What you’re looking at is a character with a unique class progression or possibly a prestige class. Or maybe a racial ability.

What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?


Pathfinder is essentially at its heart a level-based wargame.

Story characters generally aren't written to fit a wargaming leveling chassis.

To model story driven characters, you're best looking for a game that's more story driven than mechancis driven, i.e. StoryTeller or Cubicle 7.

If you absolutely MUST go the wargaming route, you'll find easier fits in GURPS.

Silver Crusade

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I doubt you'll find much help on this forum, as this is a controversial area. Part of the issue is that Pathfinder itself changes radically as characters level.

Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

I completely agree that this is a very controversial area.

For example, I think that article is fundamentally flawed in a great many ways.

One major problem is that the pathfinder ruleset does NOT match reality at all well. Most fiction does a better job of matching reality. So fictional characters are all over the map in pathfinder rules. If you take one ability, they're 1st level, another and they're 20th.

One simple example is perception. The -1 per 10 feet is totally and utterly unrealistic outside of a dungeon. So any character who is good at perceiving things just can NOT have their perception measured using Pathfinder rules.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?

I can't speak for the others, but the version of the game that the Dragonlance characters were designed for is so far removed from Pathfinder as to be pretty much the same situation as trying to stat out Gandalf.

And even within that paradigm the literary characters didn't hold up to the game mechanics; Raistlin Majere, the most powerful wizard the world had ever seen, had a 17 Intelligence, which never increased (at least until his 3rd edition incarnation). This made him, as an RPG character, incapable of casting many of the spells he cast in the books - even though the original books were based on game modules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?

Did someone put you under the impression that R.A.Salvatore is rolling dice to determine the plots and outcomes of his novels?

As far as Tracy and Hickman are concerned, after seeing how badly the first Dragonlance novels came out, they flat out admitted that they made the decision to throw the rules under a bus when it came to writing the following ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kogatai Uhaanta wrote:
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?

I can't speak for the others, but the version of the game that the Dragonlance characters were designed for is so far removed from Pathfinder as to be pretty much the same situation as trying to stat out Gandalf.

And even within that paradigm the literary characters didn't hold up to the game mechanics; Raistlin Majere, the most powerful wizard the world had ever seen, had a 17 Intelligence, which never increased (at least until his 3rd edition incarnation). This made him, as an RPG character, incapable of casting many of the spells he cast in the books - even though the original books were based on game modules.

Lets not forget Flint with his 7 Int and 18 (!?!) Con.

I have trouble believing he had less smarts than the Kender (Int 9).

The 3.5 Raistlin was probably closer to the book one than the AD&D model in the source book. Perhaps Tracy and Margaret were seers...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While not perfect, I remember from reading a good chunk of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time novels, the characters seemed to "level" over time with Rand facing Trollocs and I think a Myrdrall.....to the forsaken. Egwene...is that her name, goes to Tar Valon and learns magic and progresses from acolyte to accepted to eventually Aes sedai and along the way learns more and more magic.

I also seem to remember in the Shanara series there is some indication of leveling....I think if i remember one of the characters begins with some talent in magic, and grows into his power and becomes a druid.

But yes it is often hard to translate a literary character to a game system. There of course is no way to measure a character's personal growth in a game system where that may be one of the major plot points in a story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?
Did someone put you under the impression that R.A.Salvatore is rolling dice to determine the plots and outcomes of his novels?

Indeed, Salvatore explicitly stated in an interview that his novels DON'T obey game mechanics. He went on to cite a particular example in which a high-level character (I no longer remember which) was killed with a single blow.

In a general sort of way, yes, many fantasy characters advance. I've argued the point in other threads, such as this one. But don't expect it to follow Pathfinder rules. Or to put that another way, don't expect to use Pathfinder rules to create perfect stats for a character of literature.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:


I also seem to remember in the Shanara series there is some indication of leveling....I think if i remember one of the characters begins with some talent in magic, and grows into his power and becomes a druid.

Arguably however there are vast differences between what Shannara calls a Druid and that modeled by D20 or Pathfinder, or even AD+D for that matter.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?

Did someone put you under the impression that R.A.Salvatore is rolling dice to determine the plots and outcomes of his novels?

As far as Tracy and Hickman are concerned, after seeing how badly the first Dragonlance novels came out, they flat out admitted that they made the decision to throw the rules under a bus when it came to writing the following ones.

Brent Weeks does roll by his own admission(he made a choose your own adventure type short for his book tour that involved rolling), but I don't think he follows any rules set.

The problem with equating literary characters and game system characters is escalation, books tend to give MC's more options than firepower, while games like Pathfinder give not only more power but greater CR Enemies that require said power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:


I also seem to remember in the Shanara series there is some indication of leveling....I think if i remember one of the characters begins with some talent in magic, and grows into his power and becomes a druid.

Arguably however there are vast differences between what Shannara calls a Druid and that modeled by D20 or Pathfinder, or even AD+D for that matter.

In truth their druids are closer to a Wizard by another name, and they have all kinds of other casters that end up converting or multi-classing into the order, including Cogline, who starts as some kind of alchemist/druid multiclass.


Orfamay Quest wrote:


Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

Well, for a start, early on in the book, he singlehandedly repelled an assualt by four Nazgûl, including the Witch King, on Weathertop.

The Witch King was statted as a Level 60 Rolemaster character - I've seen it suggested that 2 Rolemaster levels are roughly equivalent to 1 D&D level. But, regardless - that's not a CR5 encounter.

If I remember correctly, Aragorn was statted as a level 28 RM character..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsukiyo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

Well, for a start, early on in the book, he singlehandedly repelled an assualt by four Nazgûl, including the Witch King, on Weathertop.

The Witch King was statted as a Level 60 Rolemaster character - I've seen it suggested that 2 Rolemaster levels are roughly equivalent to 1 D&D level. But, regardless - that's not a CR5 encounter.

If I remember correctly, Aragorn was statted as a level 28 RM character..

The Witch King is probably not a CR5 Encounter. After all, unlike a normal Wraith it likely possesses some class levels. And some magic gear. That would make it approximately CR 8-9, which is about right.

Let's be honest here, Merry (especially Merry) and Eowyn are not level 8+.

Aragorn repelling the Ringwraiths at Weathertop was in PF terms really more some form of Turn Undead equivalent then any real combat ability. He doesn't best them in combat, mostly because at that moment he *can't*. Honestly, the whole thing doesn't really make sense since as the article points, if the Witchking is literally fated to not be able to be killed by a man... why doesn't he just kill them all there? Why does Aragorn waving around fire make any difference at all?

Man if I had more motivation (and a better memory of LotR), I'd just sit down and stat out the thing so people aren't confused. It'd make a good E6 campaign anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
In truth their druids are closer to a Wizard by another name, and they have all kinds of other casters that end up converting or multi-classing into the order, including Cogline, who starts as some kind of alchemist/druid multiclass.

For the record, 3rd edition had (in Dragon magazine) the Elder Druid prestige class, which attempted to model several of their abilities (Druid fire, the Sleep, and so on). It also included rules for a number of individuals and items within the world of Shannara, including what is flat-out the single most broken artifact ever: the Black Elfstone.

Which was basically SR 40, energy drain on target when used, stole any supernatural or spell-like abilities the target had, along with any magic item enchantments, and gave them to the user. Permanently. You had to make a DC 20-25 Will save or go insane, and that was it for downsides.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the general point, I'd say that a fair portion of fantasy characters (especially non-casters) work fine in an E6 to E8 or so campaign. And the Pathfinder Tales novels actually do a pretty good job of reflecting the system.

Other stuff? Usually not very closely aligned.

Anzyr wrote:
The Witch King is probably not a CR5 Encounter. After all, unlike a normal Wraith it likely possesses some class levels. And some magic gear. That would make it approximately CR 8-9, which is about right.

That's probably fair. That'd still leave the encounter at CR 10 or so minimum. Which, to me indicates a level more like 6 or 7. But yeah, he's not super high level or anything.

Anzyr wrote:
Let's be honest here, Merry (especially Merry) and Eowyn are not level 8+.

No, but it was the two of them, plus earlier Theoden (who's gotta be 5th or 6th level, if Old). And they might easily be 4th or 5th level by that point.

Anzyr wrote:
Aragorn repelling the Ringwraiths at Weathertop was in PF terms really more some form of Turn Undead equivalent then any real combat ability. He doesn't best them in combat, mostly because at that moment he *can't*. Honestly, the whole thing doesn't really make sense since as the article points, if the Witchking is literally fated to not be able to be killed by a man... why doesn't he just kill them all there? Why does Aragorn waving around fire make any difference at all?

Fire is one of their banes. And not being able to be killed isn't quite the same as not being able to be dispersed and made useless, when you're a body-less spirit. He was much more...corporeal, and thus more vulnerable to some things but less vulnerable to others during the later battle where he was slain.

Anzyr wrote:
Man if I had more motivation (and a better memory of LotR), I'd just sit down and stat out the thing so people aren't confused. It'd make a good E6 campaign anyway.

Yeah, that'd be interesting.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:


I also seem to remember in the Shanara series there is some indication of leveling....I think if i remember one of the characters begins with some talent in magic, and grows into his power and becomes a druid.

Arguably however there are vast differences between what Shannara calls a Druid and that modeled by D20 or Pathfinder, or even AD+D for that matter.

True enough there are lots of differences between a "Vancian" wizard in PF and the druid of the Shannara books.

For example Druid Fire in a PF game would need most likely a " uses per day" that increases as the Shannara druid levels. I think there was a Dragon Magazine #286 that has a prestige class for a druid.

And in the books, the druid gets to use his druid fire as often as the plot needs him to.

It is difficult to translate a character directly from a book to the Pathfinder game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kogatai Uhaanta wrote:
00iCon wrote:


What about the characters that do have to use those rules, at least as a guideline? Does Drizzt level at the same rate as everyone? Settings like FR, Dragonlance, other stuff I also haven't gotten around to reading?

I can't speak for the others, but the version of the game that the Dragonlance characters were designed for is so far removed from Pathfinder as to be pretty much the same situation as trying to stat out Gandalf.

And even within that paradigm the literary characters didn't hold up to the game mechanics; Raistlin Majere, the most powerful wizard the world had ever seen, had a 17 Intelligence, which never increased (at least until his 3rd edition incarnation). This made him, as an RPG character, incapable of casting many of the spells he cast in the books - even though the original books were based on game modules.

The stats for Dragonlance are all over the place. Raistlin had 17 Int as you say, but also was so weak he had to be carried yet with an okay 10 Con.

The worst is that Tasselhoff has a positive Cha. He certainly does not, vile little klepto.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Tsukiyo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Aragorn, son of Arathorn, later to be King Elessar, for example, never does anything that would suggest he's any higher than about 5th level.

Well, for a start, early on in the book, he singlehandedly repelled an assualt by four Nazgûl, including the Witch King, on Weathertop.

The Witch King was statted as a Level 60 Rolemaster character - I've seen it suggested that 2 Rolemaster levels are roughly equivalent to 1 D&D level. But, regardless - that's not a CR5 encounter.

If I remember correctly, Aragorn was statted as a level 28 RM character..

The Witch King is probably not a CR5 Encounter. After all, unlike a normal Wraith it likely possesses some class levels. And some magic gear. That would make it approximately CR 8-9, which is about right.

Let's be honest here, Merry (especially Merry) and Eowyn are not level 8+.

Aragorn repelling the Ringwraiths at Weathertop was in PF terms really more some form of Turn Undead equivalent then any real combat ability. He doesn't best them in combat, mostly because at that moment he *can't*. Honestly, the whole thing doesn't really make sense since as the article points, if the Witchking is literally fated to not be able to be killed by a man... why doesn't he just kill them all there? Why does Aragorn waving around fire make any difference at all?

Man if I had more motivation (and a better memory of LotR), I'd just sit down and stat out the thing so people aren't confused. It'd make a good E6 campaign anyway.

I think people over-simplify the encounter and treat it like a straight up fight between Aragorn and the wraiths. I'm sure the Ring Wraiths original plan was to walk up, kill them all, and take the ring. However, there was a lot about the situation they hadn't planned on or anticipated. First, the group was prepared for them with a rather large bonfire and remember, the wraiths are weaker in light than in the dark, hence the reason Sauron later sends great clouds to cover the world. Second, all of the hobbits were armed with essentially minor to major artifact weapons. The barrow weapons being specifically made to fight the Witch King and his armies. Third, the wraiths were not at full power at this point and were intentionally trying to keep a low profile because Sauron wasn't ready to start his war. Fourth, both Frodo and Aragorn speak, essentially words of warding/power at the wraiths. As Aragorn says, the name of Elbereth was probably the most powerful counter-measure they employed as it inflicts pain on them to hear the name spoken. Lastly, once they stab Frodo with the dagger, why stick around to fight when you don't have to? Now, if this was an encounter between just Aragorn and the fully powered Ring Wraiths and Witch King from the end of the book, then they would have mopped the floor with him. Even fully powered Gandalf was barely a match for the Witch King.

As for Merry and Eowyn, keep in mind that Merry is wielding a magical dagger specifically designed to kill the Witch King. They state that his stabbing the Witch King in the leg with a Dagger of Westernesse broke the spells of protection surrounding the Witch King.

Essentially, killing the big bad uber powerful undead is possible for low level characters when you have the specific McGuffin needed to kill them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings is a perfect example of what happens when you take low level characters and give them artifacts and/or powerful magic items. There are artifact rings (Bilbo/Frodo/Sam and Gandalf), magic/artifact swords (pretty much all of them except Legolas and Gimli), magic/legendary armor, magic cloaks, vials of magic, and lots of other stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

My rule of thumb is that the game breaks down into roughly four level tiers;

Level 1-5: gritty, realistic fiction
Level 6-10: action-movie hero levels of realism. A tenth level fighter, for example, can fall from orbit and walk away from it.
Level 11-15: superheroic or animated cartoon
Level 16-20: classical myths

This is really subjective, not that you're wrong, it probably matches quite closely with the intent of the rules. However, that isn't how I run things in my games.

On my scale levels 1-5 are reasonable levels for most people to have. In fact most people can expect to reach level 5 over the course of their career. After level 5 you're looking at people that are really excelling and a step above the norm in skill and ability, at least at lower levels though they aren't what I would call rare. On this scale level 1 is basically equivalent to a kid fresh out of high school with no real experience. But if you look around in life you would definitely know some level 6 characters and most likely a few level 7 and 8 characters.

I really come at it from this perspective because I work in a field where I do get to see people grow and develop, improve and become better with experience almost on a daily basis. Limiting everyone but the most awesome badasses to level 1 characters or even just level 1 to 5 doesn't fit the kind of development I see people make in life. People have experience and they have levels because they grow and get better through life.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hark wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

My rule of thumb is that the game breaks down into roughly four level tiers;

Level 1-5: gritty, realistic fiction
Level 6-10: action-movie hero levels of realism. A tenth level fighter, for example, can fall from orbit and walk away from it.
Level 11-15: superheroic or animated cartoon
Level 16-20: classical myths

This is really subjective, not that you're wrong, it probably matches quite closely with the intent of the rules. However, that isn't how I run things in my games.

On my scale levels 1-5 are reasonable levels for most people to have. In fact most people can expect to reach level 5 over the course of their career. After level 5 you're looking at people that are really excelling and a step above the norm in skill and ability, at least at lower levels though they aren't what I would call rare. On this scale level 1 is basically equivalent to a kid fresh out of high school with no real experience. But if you look around in life you would definitely know some level 6 characters and most likely a few level 7 and 8 characters.

Well, obviously our opinions can differ. But, seriously.... how the HELL do you know what level people are in the real world?

Do you know anyone capable of casting fourth level spells? I certainly don't. Almost everyone I know, and probably you as well, is a non-magical NPC class, mostly likely (in our high-tech society) an expert of some sort.

Now, let's look at what experts can do. My citation from earlier discusses this at some length. A first level expert can easily get a +10 modifier -- +1 for an appropriate skill rank, +3 for being a class skill, +3 for the Skill Focus feat (which is very common, esp. for humans), +2 for attributes, and +2 for circumstance bonus, like having access to reference materials. [That actually totals +11].

Let's look at this for a moment. According to the definition of knowledge skills:

Quote:
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

Our hypothetical first level experts can take 10 and answer any basic question in their field and many of the "really tough questions." By taking 20, which is simply to say, working on it for a while, our first level experts can answer the hardest question defined by the rules.

Perform has similar text:

Quote:
DC 20: Great performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 3d10 sp/day. In time, you may be invited to join a professional troupe and may develop a regional reputation.

Any interested kid fresh out of high school can become a professional actor or guitarist by taking 10?

... and let's look at craft. To craft a "complex or superior item" takes DC 20, which again a first level character can do by taking 10. Even the craft DC for a masterwork item is only DC 20. That's also the craft DC for making a "masterwork" item, the key to becoming a "master" craftsman (which is a thing in the real world). Easily doable if someone wants to work on it, but definitely not the sort of thing you become straight out of high school.

The citation discusses the high end at some length, too. The author modeled Einstein as a 5th level character and showed how he could make DC 40+ checks within his understanding of physics.

I'd suggest, based on this kind of analysis, that almost everyone you deal with professionally is a second-level character, and that third level or higher characters are remarkable in the real world. I'm not sure what you think the people you're dealing with can do that a first or second level character can't do, but I'd love to hear about it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, obviously our opinions can differ. But, seriously.... how the HELL do you know what level people are in the real world?

No, I run a fantasy world. My point was that people grow and level 1 should be everyone's starting point not where they live their whole life. I like granularity, I also don't care for low level play but that doesn't have so much to do with the decision.

My choice of scaling was fairly arbitrary, though there was sound logic to it. I asked myself, "What should any reasonably competent professional be able to accomplish based on their class?" Most classes proved to not have a terribly solid benchmark to work with and were thus rejected for determining a solid mark of professional competence. Turns out it was the Wizard that sets our benchmark. When I asked myself what the iconic abilities of a Wizard that I expect any professional Wizard I might encounter should have they pretty much all fell within the Level 3 spell range, fireball being a big one. Similarly, Level 4 spells looked to be the much more advanced abilities I would start looking for in a Wizard of exceptional skill. No other class offered nearly as solid a point of reference so Wizard became my standard.

I then followed with, well if any reasonably competent professional Wizard should be level 5 then it is safe to assume that reasonably competent professionals of any class should be level 5.

Some weird stuff happens as you pointed out, but overall I find it more satisfying to have people vary in skill and competence and for a new untrained guard to be less skilled and competent than his supervisor that has been at it for 5 years and a 20 year veteran guard to be even better at the job.

Also worth noting, I think that the typical person does more multi-classing than focusing on a Single Class. Skill diversity is a far more common trait in everyday life that extreme levels of skill because not everyone is an adventurer.


Hark wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, obviously our opinions can differ. But, seriously.... how the HELL do you know what level people are in the real world?
No, I run a fantasy world. My point was that people grow and level 1 should be everyone's starting point not where they live their whole life.

Shrug. [Citation needed.] Most people do, in fact, spend their entire life confined by the laws of physics. If your benchmark for what people should realistically be able to do is a fireball-throwing wizard,.....

Quote:
But if you look around in life you would definitely know some level 6 characters and most likely a few level 7 and 8 characters.

... meaning, I know a number of people who can cast not only fireball, but dimension door?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if DCs changed much between 3.5 and Pathfinder but in 3rd edition I think the DCs were designed with the assumption that skill ranks would be spread around to multiple skills instead of maxed out. In 3.0/3.5 a commoner would have 8 ranks at first level which they could spread around to be proficient in lots of things but not hyper-focused (which matches up with most people in real life). A 1st level commoner with a single rank in Craft would need high quality tools, assistants, and high quality materials to be able to get enough bonuses to routinely make masterwork items. Which makes sense when you think about history and reality. Most craftsmen had apprentices and assistants to help with their work. For the commoner who focused in just one or two skills they would be really good at that one thing but not be able to do anything else.

The DCs would start to get wonky and not make sense if you go the Pathfinder route and assume everyone is super focused in a smaller number of skills.


Orfamay Quest wrote:


... meaning, I know a number of people who can cast not only fireball, but dimension door?

I did say this was specific to a fantasy world. If you're in a world with wizards and that world's magic works like Pathfinder, sure you probably know people that can cast Dimension Door.

Me, I work with Fighters mostly, if we are going to start using classes to describe life.


You know a lot of people with no practical skills besides fighting?


Sundakan wrote:
You know a lot of people with no practical skills besides fighting?

Ranger might be a better class if not for the magic and nature connections with the class. Fighter works well enough though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slayer seems the perfect fit then. =)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hark wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
You know a lot of people with no practical skills besides fighting?
Ranger might be a better class if not for the magic and nature connections with the class. Fighter works well enough though.

For the record 'non-magical Ranger without the nature connection' rather precisely describes the Slayer Class. So, that's probably what you're looking for.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The jump between 3rd and 4th level spells is seen with Lesser and Regular Metamagic Rods, as there is also a jump from 6 to 7 with Greater; so I'd assume in this fantasy world there are different tiers of magic and the breakpoints.

So its not exactly wacky to say that Fireball is more common than Dimension Door.


Hark wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... meaning, I know a number of people who can cast not only fireball, but dimension door?
I did say this was specific to a fantasy world.

.... which, in turn, means that you're not really interested in the realism question at all. You've basically already said that "basic competence" in your world starts at the level of action-movie hero (fireball throwing wizard), which indeed puts it squarely into what i described the second block as being.

But that's also not what, for example, the world of Lord of the Rings is. Gandalf is arguably the most powerful wizard in the world, but he can't fly, can't throw a fireball, can't teleport or even dimension door, and he's explicitly an angel of the Almighty. We never see anyone other than Gandalf even cast a D&D-style spell.

... which is to day, the whole Lord of the RIngs story is at a completely lower tier than what you consider "basic competence" to be in your fantasy world.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

.... which, in turn, means that you're not really interested in the realism question at all. You've basically already said that "basic competence" in your world starts at the level of action-movie hero (fireball throwing wizard), which indeed puts it squarely into what i described the second block as being.

But that's also not what, for example, the world of Lord of the Rings is. Gandalf is arguably the most powerful wizard in the world, but he can't fly, can't throw a fireball, can't teleport or even dimension door, and he's explicitly an angel of the Almighty. We never see anyone other than Gandalf even cast a D&D-style spell.

... which is to day, the whole Lord of the RIngs story is at a completely lower tier than what you consider "basic competence" to be in your fantasy world.

Different setting, different rules. Gandalf Soloed the Balrog, our Pathfinder equivalent being a Balor. A much better measure of his prowess as a character than comparing him to the Pathfinder Wizard which is a poor representation of his skill set. Something from Occult Adventures would likely be a better fit with its more subtle magic, and Gandalf's own powers largely being metaphysical anyway.

Nothing about level 3 spells requires action-movie hero. In fact Action-Movie hero has nothing to do with abilities or degrees of competence and everything to do with genre. Said level 5 Wizard could easily be a terrified victim in a Lovecraftian horror story. Said level 5 Wizard could even think of himself as an action-movie hero and sling around sling around fireballs with impunity and still be a terrified horror victim and not an action-hero.


Hark wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

.... which, in turn, means that you're not really interested in the realism question at all. You've basically already said that "basic competence" in your world starts at the level of action-movie hero (fireball throwing wizard), which indeed puts it squarely into what i described the second block as being.

But that's also not what, for example, the world of Lord of the Rings is. Gandalf is arguably the most powerful wizard in the world, but he can't fly, can't throw a fireball, can't teleport or even dimension door, and he's explicitly an angel of the Almighty. We never see anyone other than Gandalf even cast a D&D-style spell.

... which is to day, the whole Lord of the RIngs story is at a completely lower tier than what you consider "basic competence" to be in your fantasy world.

Different setting, different rules. Gandalf Soloed the Balrog, our Pathfinder equivalent being a Balor.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Other than a certain amount of similarity in names, we have absolutely no idea of the capacity of a balrog (other than Gandalf's statement that it was too powerful for the rest of the Fellowship to face,.... which given that Frodo is probably a first-level aristocrat, doesn't mean much).

That's like saying that Aragorn must be 20th level because he killed all those high-level orcs, and the orcs must be high-level because they were able to put up a fight against Aragorn. There's no actual support for that lovely exercise in question-begging.

Quote:


Said level 5 Wizard could easily be a terrified victim in a Lovecraftian horror story.

You, er, don't read much Lovecraft, do you? When was the last time you saw a Lovecraftian victim cast a fireball?

I'm quite serious. Literally none of this has any actual support other than your own statement that YOU assess basic competence to start at level 5. But in terms of the capacities of a level 5 character as defined in the Pathfinder rules, they're already pretty unrealistic in terms of what they are capable of doing. Which is to say, action-movie hero at the least, and only going up from there.

Sovereign Court

The Pale King wrote:
I think literary heroes often go far beyond their CR. Let's go with Harry Potter for example. He took on a giant snake at 12 years old, it's difficult to estimate the Basilisk's CR since it is different from both a giant snake and a basilisk in Pathfinder terms, but it's probably higher than 5. At 12.

Didn't the phoenix do most of the work? Plus he temporarily had an artifact level sword. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yes, but he's also got some sort of die-muddling destiny going on, and he's also got powerful allies; in the case of the battle with the basilisk, he had a phoenix and an artifact sword. It's might be fairer to say that the phoenix took on the basilisk and let Harry do the cleaning up once it was crippled.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Didn't the phoenix do most of the work? Plus he temporarily had an artifact level sword. :P

Um... I'll give you the sword, but the phoenix didn't fight the basilisk directly. He brought Harry the sword, and when Harry got injured and poisoned in the battle, the phoenix played cleric by saving him. But only Harry did the actual fighting, IIRC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:
The worst is that Tasselhoff has a positive Cha. He certainly does not, vile little klepto.

For more than a quarter century, I have hated what Kender and Tinker Gnomes did to gaming back then. So many people I gamed with in the 1990's wanted to play Kender in non-Krynn adventures and expected every gnome they ran into to be some sort of wannabe mad scientist. The existence of those two races are why I was never interested in playing or running the Dragon Lance series of adventures, though I got roped into playing a couple sessions of book one at one point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Um... I'll give you the sword, but the phoenix didn't fight the basilisk directly. He brought Harry the sword, and when Harry got injured and poisoned in the battle, the phoenix played cleric by saving him. But only Harry did the actual fighting, IIRC.

Fawkes blinded the Basilisk by pecking out its eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yes, but he's also got some sort of die-muddling destiny going on, and he's also got powerful allies; in the case of the battle with the basilisk, he had a phoenix and an artifact sword. It's might be fairer to say that the phoenix took on the basilisk and let Harry do the cleaning up once it was crippled.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Didn't the phoenix do most of the work? Plus he temporarily had an artifact level sword. :P
Um... I'll give you the sword, but the phoenix didn't fight the basilisk directly. He brought Harry the sword, and when Harry got injured and poisoned in the battle, the phoenix played cleric by saving him. But only Harry did the actual fighting, IIRC.

the phoenix did however perform a called shot or two on it's eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Um... I'll give you the sword, but the phoenix didn't fight the basilisk directly. He brought Harry the sword, and when Harry got injured and poisoned in the battle, the phoenix played cleric by saving him. But only Harry did the actual fighting, IIRC.
Fawkes blinded the Basilisk by pecking out its eyes.

Which had the added benefit of removing its ability to turn someone to stone. So at that point the basilisk is essentially a giant venomous snake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Um... I'll give you the sword, but the phoenix didn't fight the basilisk directly. He brought Harry the sword, and when Harry got injured and poisoned in the battle, the phoenix played cleric by saving him. But only Harry did the actual fighting, IIRC.
Fawkes blinded the Basilisk by pecking out its eyes.
Which had the added benefit of removing its ability to turn someone to stone. So at that point the basilisk is essentially a giant venomous snake.

... that can't see, which means (among other things) a 50% miss chance, effectively a -6 to hit, and also -50% on average damage, which means that it's about six challenge ratings lower than it otherwise would be.

Which drops the CR 9 basilisk down to a (post-phoenix) CR 3, well within what we'd expect a low-level wizard with artifact-level toys to be able to take out. And that's assuming that Fawkes didn't manage to inflict any other debuff conditions on it; if it was also staggered somehow, for example, that make it weaker yet.

I stand by my earlier statement that "It might be fairer to say that the phoenix took on the basilisk and let Harry do the cleaning up once it was crippled.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Conversions / XP of literary heroes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.