XP of literary heroes


Conversions

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

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

And even then, it was still able to take Harry out (even if it was taken out in the process); he was dying before Fawkes cried on his wound. That's further grist for the "low-level characters" mill.


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

TSR also threw players under the bus with those first modules. Hard to build a campaign around pre-generated characters who die trying to climb down a chain. Especially since clerical magic was severely gimped at the beginning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What would you stat Rand al'Thor at? He kinda sorta levels up throughout the books. I'm thinking a kineticist and/or magus.

EDIT: or Vladimir Taltos? (assasin / witch / rogue?)
or Quick Ben? (that one will hurt your head, he is so many layers of gestalt)
Arya Stark? (rogue / swashbuckler?)
Kvothe? (bard / magus?)
Kaladin? (magus kineticist again)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
Fawkes blinded the Basilisk by pecking out its eyes.
M1k31 wrote:
the phoenix did however perform a called shot or two on it's eyes.

et al

I finally looked it up, and all of you are right. I stand corrected. (I should have known better than to trust my memory of a book more than a decade after reading it!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Fawkes blinded the Basilisk by pecking out its eyes.
M1k31 wrote:
the phoenix did however perform a called shot or two on it's eyes.

et al

I finally looked it up, and all of you are right. I stand corrected. (I should have known better than to trust my memory of a book more than a decade after reading it!)

No worries. I lucked out and happened to be working from home on a slow day with the books nearby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ridiculon wrote:

What would you stat Rand al'Thor at? He kinda sorta levels up throughout the books. I'm thinking a kineticist and/or magus.

EDIT: or Vladimir Taltos? (assasin / witch / rogue?)
or Quick Ben? (that one will hurt your head, he is so many layers of gestalt)
Arya Stark? (rogue / swashbuckler?)
Kvothe? (bard / magus?)
Kaladin? (magus kineticist again)

This is my biggest problem with trying to stat up characters from books in D&D/Pathfinder, the whole class system doesn't always work well or fit.

For Rand al'Thor I would honestly just use the D&D 3.0 Wheel of Time book to create his character. It definitely needs some fleshing out with regards to weaves and powers but I like the overall approach.


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.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
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.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

Care to explain? Especially about what you find toxic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
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.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

I consider Ruby from RWBY to be a level 12 Psychic Warrior/Warmind. She does plenty of things that are more impressive then Aragorn and is putting it mildly, the superior fighter of the two. Which is why it's important to calibrate your expectations. Ruby is not level 5 because she can actually pull off impressive martial maneuvers that someone like Aragorn is completely incapable of.

(As a side note, I consider Zeus a Level 13 Druid with some Mythic Ranks backing him and yes I think Ruby stands a fairly good chance against him despite his godhood.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

Well, I disagree vehemently. A "ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20" should be doing a lot of over-the-top action hero stuff, and even a 20th level trapper ranger should have a lot of magical toys that let him do all sorts of high-level stuff, as well as a lot of crazy, action-hero combat feats.

Just a few examples from the Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship had to walk from Rivendell to Mordor, because no one had access to any sort of transportation magic. They were worried about being spotted by spies when they camped. When they tried to cross the pass at Caradhras, they were stopped by a snowstorm, instead of simply using some sort of mass feather step to get over it. The chasm in Moria was a challenge because they had to run across a narrow bridge to cross it.

Even a 10th level trapper ranger would not be inconvenienced by the sort of normal travel hazards that you and I would be stopped by -- and that the Fellowship was stopped by.

As to the scale being toxic to the game, I also disagree vehemently. It's an accurate description of what kind of things will actually challenge a typical party at a given level. If you put a 20' wide chasm across the dungeon floor in a third level dungeon, that's a major barrier that may take an hour of table-time to figure out how to cross. At 10th level, everyone simply zaps across it. At 16th level, everyone asks "why are we following the damn dungeon anyway?" and walks through the living rock directly to the BBEG unless you've created something to prevent that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

AS far as i can tell the highest CR thing Aragorn and co fought (discounting the Balrog) was a CR 9 Mumakil. And even then i'm not sure if the word fight could be used to describe Legolas' shenanigains.

Even the Ghost warriors he fought would only be CR 5's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the Balrog is being brought up, and while I disagree that it shares the same power as the Balor, this would be a good stand in for it (at least the film version).


Aaron Whitley wrote:
Care to explain? Especially about what you find toxic?

The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

Anzyr wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
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.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

I consider Ruby from RWBY to be a level 12 Psychic Warrior/Warmind. She does plenty of things that are more impressive then Aragorn and is putting it mildly, the superior fighter of the two. Which is why it's important to calibrate your expectations. Ruby is not level 5 because she can actually pull off impressive martial maneuvers that someone like Aragorn is completely incapable of.

You're kind of proving my point here. You're not representing her as a mundane. The moment you have an impressive character you represent her not as a mundane class but as a psionic class. You're doing this because you can't get that kind of capability out of a fighter or spell-less ranger or rogue of any level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Care to explain? Especially about what you find toxic?
The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

Both wrong. You simply adjust levelling appropriately -- for example, you can play a gritty E6 campaign for as long as you like, or you can simply start characters at 6th level if you don't like the slog.

As for "published D&D content" -- yes, some content as published is gritty, some stuff isn't. You need to pick and choose. But your statement is silly. It's like saying "you cannot watch published movies without porn." Sure you can. Unless you have some completist urge to watch (or play) literally everything, and unless you have unbelievable amounts of free time on your hand, you will need to select what you are interested in. And whatever genre or style you don't like, you don't need to play....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Care to explain? Especially about what you find toxic?

The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

Anzyr wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
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.

Neither does a level 20 trapper or skirmisher ranger. Or even a ridiculously epic ranger 20 fighter 20 swashbuckler 20 rogue 20. Wizards aren't gritty at level 1 and fighters aren't mythic at level 20 and the Alexandrian's scale is toxic to the game.

I consider Ruby from RWBY to be a level 12 Psychic Warrior/Warmind. She does plenty of things that are more impressive then Aragorn and is putting it mildly, the superior fighter of the two. Which is why it's important to calibrate your expectations. Ruby is not level 5 because she can actually pull off impressive martial maneuvers that someone like Aragorn is completely incapable of.
You're kind of proving my point here. You're not representing her as a mundane. The moment you have an impressive character you represent her not as a mundane class but as a psionic class. You're doing this because you can't get that kind of capability out of a fighter or spell-less ranger or rogue of any level.

The alternative being what, that mundane heroes stay mundane while simultaneously fighting demons capable of bench pressing a small moon? That's better and easier to grok?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

That's the game, though. To avoid the forced genre shifts, you need to either stay within a narrow level range, or just play a different game. If you want it to stay gritty, you play E6, and there's also stuff like Boot Hill for that. If you want it to start and stay an action hero, James Bond 007 is a great choice. If you want everyone to be crazy artifact toters, there are things like Exalted.

That's not a bad thing, either. The games that stay within a single genre, almost without exception, model that genre WAY better than GURPS or D&D.

You play D&D or Pathfinder from 1st to 20th if you want to start out as Chris Tucker in Rush Hour, but quickly learn to be John McClane in Die Hard. Then, after a few sequels, you've made a fortune and perfected your Iron Man suit, and after a few Avengers sequels, you're ready to be a god. That's the "genre" it simulates -- the whole gamut of existence in 90 days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
The acceptance of forced genre shifts. You cannot play published D&D content and stay gritty, nor can you play action hero stuff without slogging through grit.

I don't see how you can play the same game at 20th level that you are playing at 1st. A 20th level fighter can fall off a cliff, walk across lava, or fight an army of 10,000 orcs and survive. You can't do that with a 1st level character and that doesn't even take into account the reality shattering possibilities of a 20th level wizard compared to a 1st level wizard.

The game changes as your characters level and I can't see how you get away from that. Sure, things can be difficult, challenging, and life-threatening at level 20, just like level 1, but you're characters aren't facing the same challenges and difficulties that you were facing at level 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is (and I know you know this, but whatever) is that all the classes don't model the same progression.

Fighters basically end at "John McClane on Steroids" whereas the 6-ers end up at about Iron Man and the full casters go from schmoe to nearly a literal deity in the same time frame.

So "staying gritty" or "turning into the Avengers" are different ranges for different classes, which makes it hard to actually stay in a certain "genre" even if you put end caps on the level range.

51 to 68 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.