Examples of characters we'd like high level PCs to be comparable to

In the GATG thread there's lots of different examples given of this and that character, but that's not something usually talked about outside of usual martials vs casters debates.

So what are the characters you think high level PCs should be able to emulate?

And more specifically, characters of archetypes 5e strives to emulate but doesn't

As usual it is relative. Consider if I want a high level mage to be a global scale force that can travel anywhere in the planes. They could travel to Avernus and run a campaign to take it over and maintain control. If I want the mage to have that scale and range, then I would want the other high level characters to have similar scale and range. The means may be different but the power would be comparable.

On the other hand if I want a high level mage to warp reality with Wish ...

Or maybe I ban* some spells for a campaign, in order to lower the high level mage to a kingdom scale that can travel anywhere on the globe in a timely manner. (* Alternatively I could just have the campaign stop leveling after the desired level). Then I would want the other high level characters to have a similar kingdom scale force and ability to travel the globe in a timely manner.


Zariel victorious (rather than defeated and fallen) with the ability to create/find portals would be a partial example of something I sometimes want a 20th level Knight or Paladin to be comparable to. Can the character defeat a plague? A famine? Natural disasters happening across the globe while an Elder Evil awakens (specifically the natural disasters part, not the boss fight afterwards)?


D&D is usually good at handling combat scaling (although sometimes it overlooks mobility qualitative scaling and anti-army scaling). So most of the improvement is about out of combat scaling.

I think that the Dragon Slayer mages in Fairy Tail are an appropriate example for high level sorcerers and warlocks specifically. These two are not prepared casters, they don’t need crazy magical reagents for their strongest abilities, they have stronger Short Rest benefits than prepared, full-progression casters… Basically, via metamagic for sorcerers and the build-a-bear approach for Warlocks, you can have a theme/identity for your character. These two are not (generally) Ritual Casters either, just as the Dragon Slayer mages aren’t the sort who prepare delicate solutions to incoming problems; sorcerers and warlocks can be thrown at problems and come out on top.


I think Red X from the first Teen Titans cartoon is a good example of a high level Arcane Trickster rogue, an artificer, or some specific forms of Bard. A focus on disabling spells/gadgets, highly evasive, intelligent, capable of operating alone, competent even if they are stuck in an Anti-Magic bubble due to magic-free skills…


Wolverine is a barbarian. Logan is THE barbarian who can storm a castle single handed without having to sneak. Take the 2013 The Wolverine movie in Japan- robots, advanced weapons, environmental threats… He doesn’t smash the big threats in one hit, he dismantles them after surviving multiple surprise techniques. Some portrayals of Wolverine, like those where he has amnesia, might lead you to think he is a Monk or a Paladin or even a Ranger. I’ll counter with Spider-Man in his Iron Spider suits; those portrayals of Spider-Man are Artificers and Monks. Meanwhile Wolverine does not rely on tools. Frankly I think Barbarians should get Epic Boons automatically at high levels, or gain them temporarily at the cost of a Rage, but oh well.


Arthas Menethil as the Lich King is what I think of for a level 20 to level 25 Paladin/Blackguard. Whereas Clerics have 9th level spells and Divine Intervention, Paladins are defiance incarnate. They are made to cross blades with the commanders of infernal legions, survive drinking cursed soup from a hag’s cauldron, and stand stalwart when a living tornado shreds a cottage around them. Count Dooku could be a level 10 to 13 Paladin I think, seeing as he lacks a number of Monk traits you’d expect from a Jedi.


So Ranger; I can’t name the character, but I have this mental image of a businessman, head of some crew (poachers? Miners? Archeologists?) who wind up in every zone/realm prior to the arrival of the protagonists. Not Ratchet & Clank, no one from World of Warcraft (though they remind me of goblin poachers from WoD), no one from DC Comics… Some sort of colony manager? Deus from Grrl Genius and Vandal Savage fit the attitude I remember… but this is someone who put his money where his mouth is at times of crisis. Any ideas?

Link from Legend of Zelda feels pretty close to what I want from a Ranger, less equipment more spells.

Adora, as She-Ra is pretty close to what I want from paladin.

And weird call, but I feel Inigo Montoya is closest feel to what I want from barbarian rage.

I want to see high level benders for each element.
Air - Tenzen
Earth - Toph
Fire - Iroh
Water - Katara

Except each of them would likely acquire access to all forms of sub-bending upon reaching higher levels. I don't think each sub-bending can completely fill enough to be its own sub-class, but it's possible.

Asha'man
Knight Radiant
Mistborn
Thor (marvel)

Note that all of these are typically skilled and powerful at physical combat as well as magical combat. I personally like those kinds of characters, but they should be high level for balance reasons. So that a more powerful/skilled magic only or physical only character could exist, without the split focus. Or an equally powerful/skilled in one only could be lower level.

Beowulf!!! High level fighter or even barb. More even than martial skill, I want high level martial classes to bust out with physical feats beyond mortal comprehension. Swimming miles through a hurricane while slaying sea monsters with a dagger. This is what a level 20 fighter should be able to do. Or even Saitama - a bit exaggerated, but the general concept of nullifying technique or magic with sheer athleticism (I don't need to teleport, I can break the sound barrier with my side-jumps!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldTrees1

As usual it is relative. Consider if I want a high level mage to be a global scale force that can travel anywhere in the planes. They could travel to Avernus and run a campaign to take it over and maintain control. If I want the mage to have that scale and range, then I would want the other high level characters to have similar scale and range. The means may be different but the power would be comparable.

On the other hand if I want a high level mage to warp reality with Wish ...

Or maybe I ban* some spells for a campaign, in order to lower the high level mage to a kingdom scale that can travel anywhere on the globe in a timely manner. (* Alternatively I could just have the campaign stop leveling after the desired level). Then I would want the other high level characters to have a similar kingdom scale force and ability to travel the globe in a timely manner.


Zariel victorious (rather than defeated and fallen) with the ability to create/find portals would be a partial example of something I sometimes want a 20th level Knight or Paladin to be comparable to. Can the character defeat a plague? A famine? Natural disasters happening across the globe while an Elder Evil awakens (specifically the natural disasters part, not the boss fight afterwards)?


D&D is usually good at handling combat scaling (although sometimes it overlooks mobility qualitative scaling and anti-army scaling). So most of the improvement is about out of combat scaling.

---

I'd say its an odd example, because its a CR 26 creature, so the game expects it to be a Deadly x7 challenge to a single lvl 20 character.

Do you mean you'd like lvl 20 paladins to be able to stand up to zariel alone, or to mean they should be capable of doing the things Zariel does, but still remain less powerful overall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilmani

So Ranger; I can’t name the character, but I have this mental image of a businessman, head of some crew (poachers? Miners? Archeologists?) who wind up in every zone/realm prior to the arrival of the protagonists. Not Ratchet & Clank, no one from World of Warcraft (though they remind me of goblin poachers from WoD), no one from DC Comics… Some sort of colony manager? Deus from Grrl Genius and Vandal Savage fit the attitude I remember… but this is someone who put his money where his mouth is at times of crisis. Any ideas?

---

Hmm not really.

My idea of a ranger is more in line with Link or Talion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Link from Legend of Zelda feels pretty close to what I want from a Ranger, less equipment more spells.

---

My first Ranger, which I started playing in 2e, and ended up in the low epics in 3.5 was originally based on Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Adora, as She-Ra is pretty close to what I want from paladin.

---

I've vague memories of her in He-Man from when I was a child, but I'm not really familiar with the character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

And weird call, but I feel Inigo Montoya is closest feel to what I want from barbarian rage.

---

I assume you mean his fight against the 6 fingered man, and I agree that's a cool example of a Dex based rage. However, I don't recall him entering a similar state at any other moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animorte

I want to see high level benders for each element.
Air - Tenzen
Earth - Toph
Fire - Iroh
Water - Katara

Except each of them would likely acquire access to all forms of sub-bending upon reaching higher levels. I don't think each sub-bending can completely fill enough to be its own sub-class, but it's possible.

---

I'm not that familiar with ATLAB, can't those archetypes be emulated with Sorcerer or warlock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tanarii

Asha'man
Knight Radiant
Mistborn
Thor (marvel)

Note that all of these are typically skilled and powerful at physical combat as well as magical combat. I personally like those kinds of characters, but they should be high level for balance reasons. So that a more powerful/skilled magic only or physical only character could exist, without the split focus. Or an equally powerful/skilled in one only could be lower level.

---

I'm unfamiliar with the first 3.

On marvel Thor, I think MCU pre Ragnarok Thor I could see as a T4 or "low epic" character, post Ragnarok it's definitely in the "epic tier" (more powerful than what I'd expect from a T4 character), and comics Thor I'd consider demigod level at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

Beowulf!!! High level fighter or even barb. More even than martial skill, I want high level martial classes to bust out with physical feats beyond mortal comprehension. Swimming miles through a hurricane while slaying sea monsters with a dagger. This is what a level 20 fighter should be able to do. Or even Saitama - a bit exaggerated, but the general concept of nullifying technique or magic with sheer athleticism (I don't need to teleport, I can break the sound barrier with my side-jumps!)

---

Beowulf I can definitely see as a T4 character.

Saitama though, is at least 1 tier removed from what I want T4 characters to be like (not up to date with manga, but I heard they went all DBZ, in which case its probably farther removed).

While reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen series I felt like the Bridgeburners should be possible as D&D characters. There's a wide variety of power levels in the series and ways to express them. Similar to D&D's goals. Oh. Brys specifically is a weirdly cool fighter. But the key is that the skill difference is shown. (It's been some years since I read the series though.)

In D&D 5e, a fighter doesn't seem that better of a swordsman than a barbarian. You get more attacks, but in the end both are making attacks to deal damage by rolling a couple of attack and damage rolls. It feels similar to me. In this book series the differences between Karsa Orlong, a blatant high level barbarian (though a lot of it is from racial bonuses? Eh, close enough) and Brys the master swordsman are clear from the way they fight.

I disagree with the premise of this thread. The character made in a D&D game is a self contained character whose story and abilities and exploits are unique to the game and to the campaign that it is in. That's the whole point, and has been since the game was introduced.
The point isn't to mimic other stories and other characters - but to make choices and dare greatly in the course of living the adventuring life such that when one retires or dies, the stories told of that character's various accomplishments are their own story.
Each character may be somewhat inspired by Fafhrd or Boromir, but they are explicitly NOT Fafhrd nor Boromir.
It's a unique fictional character, and the story is what happened along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

I disagree with the premise of this thread. The character made in a D&D game is a self contained character whose story and abilities and exploits are unique to the game and to the campaign that it is in. That's the whole point, and has been since the game was introduced.
The point isn't to mimic other stories and other characters - but to make choices and dare greatly in the course of living the adventuring life such that when one retires or dies, the stories told of that character's various accomplishments are their own story.
Each character may be somewhat inspired by Fafhrd or Boromir, but they are explicitly NOT Fafhrd nor Boromir.
It's a unique fictional character, and the story is what happened along the way.

---

You have my +1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

I'm unfamiliar with the first 3.

---

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time
Brandon Sanderson's Way of Kings
Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn

That'd be the best fantasy author of the 1990s and the best fantasy author of the 2010s. And so far 2020s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

I disagree with the premise of this thread. The character made in a D&D game is a self contained character whose story and abilities and exploits are unique to the game and to the campaign that it is in. That's the whole point, and has been since the game was introduced.
The point isn't to mimic other stories and other characters - but to make choices and dare greatly in the course of living the adventuring life such that when one retires or dies, the stories told of that character's various accomplishments are their own story.
Each character may be somewhat inspired by Fafhrd or Boromir, but they are explicitly NOT Fafhrd nor Boromir.
It's a unique fictional character, and the story is what happened along the way.

---

You seem to misunderstand the premise. I'm not saying the character should try to emulate being X. Rather, the character should be capable of doing things of a scale comparable to the things that X does.

@OldTrees1 gives an example here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldTrees1

Zariel victorious (rather than defeated and fallen) with the ability to create/find portals would be a partial example of something I sometimes want a 20th level Knight or Paladin to be comparable to. Can the character defeat a plague? A famine? Natural disasters happening across the globe while an Elder Evil awakens (specifically the natural disasters part, not the boss fight afterwards)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

I disagree with the premise of this thread. The character made in a D&D game is a self contained character whose story and abilities and exploits are unique to the game and to the campaign that it is in. That's the whole point, and has been since the game was introduced.
The point isn't to mimic other stories and other characters - but to make choices and dare greatly in the course of living the adventuring life such that when one retires or dies, the stories told of that character's various accomplishments are their own story.
Each character may be somewhat inspired by Fafhrd or Boromir, but they are explicitly NOT Fafhrd nor Boromir.
It's a unique fictional character, and the story is what happened along the way.

---

I think the premise of the thread may have taken the turn you disagree with, but I don't think it's closed from the direction you gave an excellent example of.

I've been inspired many times by other sources. In fact, my first character I ever made (in 3.5e) was an Elf Bard, modeled after Kvothe.

I completely agree that just because you want something to be comparable to or resemble something that already exists, you are still free to make your own story. You can go your own direction and learn your own things along the way. I struggle to see where that was presented so clearly for you to feel this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

You seem to misunderstand the premise. I'm not saying the character should try to emulate being X. Rather, the character should be capable of doing things of a scale comparable to the things that X does.

@OldTrees1 gives an example here:

---

You mean generally cause extra cinematic property damage while basically punching each other in the face in a treadmill[1] sort of way?

I've read tons of fantasy fiction. And generally, it falls into one of two categories (or maybe both).

1. MORE NUMBERS. Bigger, flashier "powers", but everyone else scales up. So all you get is narrated property damage and Big Awesome Things...that don't actually matter at all as far as the story goes. They fundamentally interact with the world in the same way everyone else does, just with more purple prose attached. And everyone ignores the fact that they're walking disaster zones unless the fiction happens to be a deconstruction of that trope, in which case the effect is maximized and everything else falls apart.
2. Speed of the plot powers. In these works, the protagonists (and villains) have exactly the powers they need to make things dramatic. And two depictions of them may vary 100%. If the story needs them to fall prey to a relatively simple villain, they will. If it needs them to beat unconquerable odds, they will.

Neither of those are actually useful for a TTRPG, at least if you want some semblance of a consistent world. Case 1 can work...but it's kinda pointless in my mind. It's the route both 3e and 4e took--amp up the numbers and the flashiness (ok, in 3e only the favored few got that, but...) but fundamentally don't change anything. Sure, you're FIGHTING IN THE CLOUDS at high levels or maybe throwing down with a notional god...but in the end, it's exactly the same sort of thing you were doing at level 1. Just with fancier descriptions and more numbers to track. Only enemies right at your own power band are relevant--everything else is either a bystander or a scene dressing (because either they'll evaporate or will one-shot you).

Case 2 only works in authored fiction. In a TTRPG it's railroading, hard.

Instead, look at what the rest of the system supports. And I'll say it's really nothing like any of the characters mentioned, except maybe Link. Except for a couple broken spells (almost all of which are wizard ones), everyone has 2-4 Special Things. But they're all personal scale, limited use things that are (and shouldn't be) encounter-enders or world-shaking abilities. Enemies (are supposed to) stay relevant longer at both ends--you can punch well above your level AND be threatened by things below your level. Or at least that's the design. You're mortals all along, never demigod class, never "reshaping reality on a whim". Sure, you can move fast at high levels. But that's only as good as the plot/world allows.

[1] superheroes and supervillains can all take all the damage any of them dish out, despite that being absurd on its face. And in fact, the amount of damage they can take and deal is exactly determined by the needs of the plot, not any kind of fixed, mechanizable scale.

I don't have specific tiers in mind necessarily, but generally speaking I think the mid-high level characters should be able to accomplish with personal power what leaders of real-world modern countries can accomplish via the workforces, technology, military, and economic networks available to them. Or at least, if a real-world country can accomplish something, I wouldn't say it should be out of scope for something that could reasonably be expected to be achieved. In addition to that, character archetypes should have things which go beyond that boundary even at mid-level (and not just in fluff ways like 'well the real world doesn't have magic, so done' but in qualitative ways like making death reversible) - basically things that make the fantasy world and fantasy societies fundamentally have different orders and truths than the real world.

Among max level characters, (to my tastes) there should be paths to be able to transcend even that rubric and go into mythological stuff like drinking oceans or creating worlds from nothing. But that transition shouldn't necessarily just be a matter of getting more levels but instead require the character to do things and interface with the power structures of the world - kill a god and take its power, perform a working in stopped time during the conjunction of the planes, etc kinds of things. Those are things that in some sense should remain as motivations or aspirations even for max level characters - but achievable ones. And that kind of side path should exist in some form at all levels, so that there is an in-setting logic for someone who wishes to be more powerful to be able to reason about how to achieve that in-fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NichG

I don't have specific tiers in mind necessarily, but generally speaking I think the mid-high level characters should be able to accomplish with personal power what leaders of real-world modern countries can accomplish via the workforces, technology, military, and economic networks available to them. Or at least, if a real-world country can accomplish something, I wouldn't say it should be out of scope for something that could reasonably be expected to be achieved. In addition to that, character archetypes should have things which go beyond that boundary even at mid-level (and not just in fluff ways like 'well the real world doesn't have magic, so done' but in qualitative ways like making death reversible) - basically things that make the fantasy world and fantasy societies fundamentally have different orders and truths than the real world.

Among max level characters, (to my tastes) there should be paths to be able to transcend even that rubric and go into mythological stuff like drinking oceans or creating worlds from nothing. But that transition shouldn't necessarily just be a matter of getting more levels but instead require the character to do things and interface with the power structures of the world - kill a god and take its power, perform a working in stopped time during the conjunction of the planes, etc kinds of things. Those are things that in some sense should remain as motivations or aspirations even for max level characters - but achievable ones. And that kind of side path should exist in some form at all levels, so that there is an in-setting logic for someone who wishes to be more powerful to be able to reason about how to achieve that in-fiction.

---

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time. Personal power is fundamentally not able to be projected like authority can. No individual can create a modern pencil by themselves, and that's one of the simplest things.

And personally, that kind of "high power" thing just makes coherent settings impossible. Because if high level PCs can trivially reshape the world as we know it, then the world must be in constant chaos. Unless the PCs are the only people to have ever reached those power levels, in which case they can't be challenged. Or there already are people of that scale who prevent changes from happening...in which case you don't have that power. Neither option is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

I'd say its an odd example, because its a CR 26 creature, so the game expects it to be a Deadly x7 challenge to a single lvl 20 character.

Do you mean you'd like lvl 20 paladins to be able to stand up to zariel alone, or to mean they should be capable of doing the things Zariel does, but still remain less powerful overall?

---

I said "As usual it is relative." because my expectations for a high level character tend to be tied to my expectations for the high level mages but abstracted to the point that it is relevant for all the high level characters in that paradigm.

If I want a high level mage to be a global scale force that can travel anywhere in the planes:
Then I want a lvl 20 paladin to be comparable to a victorious Zariel. The Paladin can travel anywhere on the planes (Avernus is somewhere) and be a global scale force (conquering a layer is an example of a global scale force).

If I expect a high level mage to be comparable to a character outperforming Zariel's failure, then I expect a high level knight to be comparable to a character outperforming Zariel's failure. (Notably CR only weakly correlates with the scale at which an NPC can impact the world.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time. Personal power is fundamentally not able to be projected like authority can. No individual can create a modern pencil by themselves, and that's one of the simplest things.

And personally, that kind of "high power" thing just makes coherent settings impossible. Because if high level PCs can trivially reshape the world as we know it, then the world must be in constant chaos. Unless the PCs are the only people to have ever reached those power levels, in which case they can't be challenged. Or there already are people of that scale who prevent changes from happening...in which case you don't have that power. Neither option is good.

---

I mean, this gets into a whole 'philosophy of fantasy vs sci-fi' thing. Fantasy to me is basically a call to the idea of 'what if the whims and motives and decisions and quests of individuals actually had the power to determine the direction of the world?'. This goes with magic as personal power that someone can reach for on their own, and which belongs wholly to them once attained, and which is fundamentally individual-scale in its psychology and ways of action, as opposed to more science/tech things. Even without magic, the call back to ideas like monarchy with individual decision-makers at the top with little accountability as a fantasy trope resonates with that idea.

So in some sense, it comes down to 'what if I and my friends could just change the world, right the wrongs, personally?'.

And as far as what the world looks like in that view, yes, you're talking about unstable worlds, but that's sort of the point of high level play to me - you've got characters who do get to make decisions that determine the shape of the world, because the world is able to change in response to the decisions of people. Maybe it changed fifty years or a hundred years or whatever ago as well - a necromancer made an undead army and now entire kingdoms cease to exist, etc. Stability in such a world comes from the same things that make interpersonal relationships stable, as the world in those cases is fundamentally a fractal story about small groups of people deciding things, rather than large-scale social forces, movements, etc.

Anyhow, if a high level character can act as a country would, their ability to reshape the world is not necessarily stronger than a country's ability to reshape the world, and worlds do have countries. But those shapes will be much more fantastical and weird and idiosyncratic, since they represent the whims of one person rather than the consensus of a whole society. Again which works well for a fantasy vibe for me.

I'm down with systems where power gained isn't always personal. AD&D had followers for many classes at Name Level. BECMI Fighters got domains, Clerics got holy orders, Thieves got Guilds, while Wizards got either a Tower with a dungeon under it or to work for Fighters with domains.

I think this thread is very good. If I have the premise correct it should help to fix the problem of the caster at high levels being godly and the level 20 Barbarian being a guy at the gym. When you try to answer what do level twenty versions of each class look like you help to see if each classes paragon could actually be in the same story. How do you find ways to make Batman and Superman be in the same story and feel relevant. I can tell you it’s been done. I can also tell you it’s hard to do well.

All the brothers from Roger Zelazny's "Nine Princes in Amber" series. Some are stronger than others but they all share the ability to travel between planes, strength to lift cars over their heads with ease, have awesome magic powers, and fight dozens of trained soldiers without breaking a sweat, often without even proper fighting equipment.

As a side note, Zelazny's characters and works in particular feel very much like D&D characters to me. High powered chaotic good/neutral types. Not quite antiheroes, but definitely not knights in shining armor. My own experience with the game over dozens of players tells me that the amount of people who actually want to play a dyed-in-the-wool hero are rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time. Personal power is fundamentally not able to be projected like authority can. No individual can create a modern pencil by themselves, and that's one of the simplest things.

And personally, that kind of "high power" thing just makes coherent settings impossible. Because if high level PCs can trivially reshape the world as we know it, then the world must be in constant chaos. Unless the PCs are the only people to have ever reached those power levels, in which case they can't be challenged. Or there already are people of that scale who prevent changes from happening...in which case you don't have that power. Neither option is good.

---

I think that's why in the stereotypical fantasy stories with currently existing high level characters you see the "good" ones are typically motivated by keeping things running in positive directions, only intervening when the "bad" ones have escalated the pace towards their idealized visions.

Powerful characters can shape the worlds in fantasy, those who do so "trivially" and without regard to the larger majority of people who lack such powers often have names like "Vecna", "Sauron", "Thanos" or "Darkseid". They're opposed by people like "Epic Level D&D Party", "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Avengers" and "The Justice League"

Do you see the pattern?

That said, I do understand at least a little bit of your point, even if I don't agree with it. FR often sees a lot of flak for having huge names like Laeral Silverhand and Elminster just sitting around at set pieces while a group of novice adventures bumble their way into success. That's fine though, in my opinion. Your own reasoning is part of why - they can't do it all on their own. Even collectively they can only be so powerful. It would be foolish of them not to rely on potential talents that could grow to be as powerful as them. That, I think, is the real function those sorts of names in fiction should serve and what I believe the point of this thread is trying to communicate.

We play a pretty customized version of FR for our home game, and we're very near the end of our Mad Mage campaign. For years, in and out of game, our characters have grown to a level of power that will allow them to contest who is probably the current most powerful magic wielder in the forgotten realms. If we accepted fantasy as you describe it, this scenario wouldn't exist. Halaster wouldn't be recognized as such a singular dominant force, previously uncontested in strength, and our characters wouldn't have had figures of power to aspire towards.

What you describe as "coherent", to me, reads "boring and unexciting". It's also in itself not consistent, unless I'm misinterpreting the bolded section, to suggest that simultaneously that figures can exist to force change but that PC's shouldn't be able to reach a level of power that can force the same change. Why would you say "both are bad" when the solution is for both to be true.

This is all an idealized thought experiment anyway, not necessarily limited to the actual bounds of what a 5e character can actually be, but what you want them to be.

I don't have a particular character I aim for, I go for Archetypes more often. For example, I want my Paladin to be at the very edge of self realized divinity. The very border between what constitutes rising to the celestial realms and serving his God at the pinnacle of human strength but with a spark of power that blends what he could be with what he is. Among mortals he's a paragon of strength and endurance, his abilities could be called otherworldly but he'd tell you he's simply a human who's done his very best in the service of good. All very achievable in 5E, at least at a narrative level, more or less mechanically achievable too with enough epic boons or mark of prestige. I hadn't planned to be so grandiose in goal from the beginning but as we grew stronger it just sort of happened. When you start an adventure scared of a single Behir and you're later making mince meat out of both sides of a battle of the Blood War, your ambitions grow a bit. We killed Klauth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time. Personal power is fundamentally not able to be projected like authority can. No individual can create a modern pencil by themselves, and that's one of the simplest things.

And personally, that kind of "high power" thing just makes coherent settings impossible. Because if high level PCs can trivially reshape the world as we know it, then the world must be in constant chaos. Unless the PCs are the only people to have ever reached those power levels, in which case they can't be challenged. Or there already are people of that scale who prevent changes from happening...in which case you don't have that power. Neither option is good.

---

Yes and no. You're right that a single individual is limited in scale. One person can't be in multiple places at once, though technically I guess a Wizard or Bard could if you run Simulacrum RAW without any limits what so ever. However, these single characters do have enough power that they can basically match most of what a city or more can throw at them. After all, consider how many soldiers would be needed to kill one dragon, compared to a party of 3 to 4 adventurers. Those 3 or 4 adventurers are basically worth that many soldiers.

And I also don't think it makes creating a coherent setting impossible, nor does it mean the world is in constant chaos. Its more along the lines that those massive powers balance each other out. Yeah, the insanely strong, level 20 evil Necromancer can make Thay if they want by wiping out a country and making every citizen into an undead monster. But the second they start doing that on a scale large enough to be noticed, the equally strong Paladin and Cleric put a stop to it before it can become a national problem because they don't want their nation destroyed.

Its similar to how the powers of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos balance each other out in FR. Yeah, each side has a lot of power on their own, but the second they try to wield what power, the other three are probably gonna join forces to keep the status quo. Thus creating a stalemate where those powers can exist in a coherent setting. Of course, once the stalemate ends then all hell will break loose, but that has the making of a campaign right there.

I'd like it if a higher percentage of top-tier martial characters could complete a 5 minute mile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvatarVecna

I'd like it if a higher percentage of top-tier martial characters could complete a 5 minute mile.

---

There are fewer than I expected.

This goal is roughly 105 feet (rounding) per 6 seconds.
Baseline is 60 feet per 6 seconds.
Wood Elf is 70 ft/6s
Barbarian 5 or Mobile is 80 ft/6s
Wood Elf with Mobile is 90 ft/6s
Rogue 2 is 90 ft/6s
Barbarian 5 with Mobile is 100 ft/6s
Wood Elf Rogue 2 is 105 ft/6s
Wood Elf Barbarian 5 with Mobile is 110 ft/6s
Rogue 2 with Mobile is 120 ft/6s
Monk 2 10 is 120 ft/6s
Edit: Monk needs Ki

So ignoring faster species, this is 2 base classes that pass your threshold (and one need a feat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sithlordnergal

Its similar to how the powers of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos balance each other out in FR. Yeah, each side has a lot of power on their own, but the second they try to wield what power, the other three are probably gonna join forces to keep the status quo. Thus creating a stalemate where those powers can exist in a coherent setting. Of course, once the stalemate ends then all hell will break loose, but that has the making of a campaign right there.

---

Depends. A post-apocalyptic wasteland is coherent, sure. Dark Sun, post-cataclysm Dragonlance, or Lord of the Rings are all good examples of why that's inevitable under the "balanced high powers" model, and how it can still be coherent afterwards.

But if you try it without the inevitable destruction, you end up with Forgotten Realms or Mystara. Totally incoherent. Still fun tho, if you can put it aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldTrees1

There are fewer than I expected.

This goal is roughly 105 feet (rounding) per 6 seconds.
Baseline is 60 feet per 6 seconds.
Wood Elf is 70 ft/6s
Barbarian 5 or Mobile is 80 ft/6s
Wood Elf with Mobile is 90 ft/6s
Rogue 2 is 90 ft/6s
Barbarian 5 with Mobile is 100 ft/6s
Wood Elf Rogue 2 is 105 ft/6s
Wood Elf Barbarian 5 with Mobile is 110 ft/6s
Rogue 2 with Mobile is 120 ft/6s
Monk 2 is 120 ft/6s

So ignoring faster species, this is 2 base classes that pass your threshold (and one need a feat).

---

This is all great for 105+ ft/round, and as long as that can be maintained for 5 minutes, that's fine. The race thing you point out is something I also agree with: this is something many human teenagers can do, elves that are faster than humans being able to do it is a gimme. But also, the monk actually can't do it, at least not at such a low level: Monk 2 has 40 ft move speed, which is 80 ft per round if they dash, and 120 ft per round if they double dash. But the monk can only double-dash if they have ki remaining, and they only have 2 ki. Monk 2 goes 120 ft for 2 rounds, and 80 ft for 48 rounds, going a total of 4080 ft...or ~17/22 miles. You need Monk 10 to cross the threshold for an actual 5 minute mile: 50 ft move speed, 10 rounds of double-dash, 40 rounds of dash, for a total of 150x10 + 100x40 = 5500 ft. Without weird races or feats, that's the earliest you can do it, and monk is the only one that can.

Bonus round! Can it be done without ignoring the part in the non-optional Chase rules where you can only dash so many times before you have to start making Con checks vs exhaustion? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Bonus bonus round! Can it be done following the Overland Travel rules? :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

I'm not saying the character should try to emulate being X. Rather, the character should be capable of doing things of a scale comparable to the things that X does.

---

That depends on the campaign, though. Each character is unique to the campaign they are in, and campaigns are not required to go 1-20. Some do, and I can see your point for those that do, certainly. Thanks for the follow up. :smallsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time.

---

Tanarii stole my thunder. I just got Matt Coleville's book for wars and kingdoms ... and I am not sure I am going to use it. Adding another layer of rules is something neither of my tables that I DM for is interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trask

All the brothers from Roger Zelazny's "Nine Princes in Amber" series. Some are stronger than others but they all share the ability to travel between planes, strength to lift cars over their heads with ease, have awesome magic powers, and fight dozens of trained soldiers without breaking a sweat, often without even proper fighting equipment.

As a side note, Zelazny's characters and works in particular feel very much like D&D characters to me. High powered chaotic good/neutral types. Not quite antiheroes, but definitely not knights in shining armor. My own experience with the game over dozens of players tells me that the amount of people who actually want to play a dyed-in-the-wool hero are rare.

---

That's a decent example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I disagree. Personal power is fundamentally limited in a way that national power isn't. It doesn't scale--a single individual can't be in multiple places at the same time. Personal power is fundamentally not able to be projected like authority can. No individual can create a modern pencil by themselves, and that's one of the simplest things.

And personally, that kind of "high power" thing just makes coherent settings impossible. Because if high level PCs can trivially reshape the world as we know it, then the world must be in constant chaos. Unless the PCs are the only people to have ever reached those power levels, in which case they can't be challenged. Or there already are people of that scale who prevent changes from happening...in which case you don't have that power. Neither option is good.

---

My favorite RPG of all time, Aberrant, is all about this, so the concept definitely can make for a working game. Of course, it's far from easy to run a game in a setting where the core concept is a world with no status quo protection and dozens of individuals with the the ability to change things radically, but I've seen it done well enough times that it made for several of my favorite experiences in tabletop. So my answer to the OP's question is "Reed Richards or Tony Stark, but with the option for their inventions to affect normal society."