Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

---

This.

No one expects to play the literal Aragorn or Legolas. You don't play the book stories. You play the book theme. Thinking about what classes the characters are at what level is just a fun thought exercise to chat with your friends and/or strangers on the internet. They are not and never meant to be definitive canon. No one expects to play a fictional character literally, just the archetype.

However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM.

---

Not everyone cares about fidelity to this degree, including the designers. And that's a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

---

Exactly. This soft loop of characters informing game informing characters has gotten us some really fun things. Naked barbarians and multishot archers are cool regardless of realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

I've always seen Aragorn Legolas and Gimli being around lvl 9, maybe a bit higher. Gandalf is a DMPC, but if you want to assign him an estimate level, Gandalf the Gray would be around CR 19 (solo'd a Balrog in a double KO), Gandalf the white would be in the epics.

---

Interesting! Balrogs being CR 20 seems too high imo. Why do you place Gandalf so high? He doesn't use many magical abilities that demand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

You can try, but the outcome is fundamentally arbitrary. Basically, your input assumptions about those characters and the transformation determine your outputs, not anything about either the system or the actual inputs.

---

No, it isn't. Your input assumptions are not arbitrary. "Orcs are CR20" and "orcs are CR1" are not equally defensible assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

And anyone can try anything, but it doesn't mean that the system should be defined by those attempts. And that's the important thing. The only way to define an acceptable power level or what an acceptable character or an acceptable story is in a D&D context is internally, with reference to the other things the system gives you and the (arbitrary) designer choices.

---

No one is arguing anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

A system could be designed to replicate arbitrary (limited or not) fictional characters. Sure. There are many of those that try to do so. BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM. Nor does it attempt to be. D&D replicates D&D characters and stories. That's all. Anything else is possible, but not supported. And the difference, when talking about system design, is critical. No one can stop you from using a pitchfork as a shovel. But the manufacturer or retailer is in no way suggesting that you should do so--that's not a supported use.

---

Also, not something anyone is arguing. No one has said "WotC suggests you make Aragorn like this".

D&D replicates some fictional characters better than others. It does Aragorn better than Batman. It does Conan better than Darth Vader. And certain level ranges match those characters better than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

No one expects to play the literal Aragorn or Legolas. You don't play the book stories. You play the book theme. Thinking about what classes the characters are at what level is just a fun thought exercise to chat with your friends and/or strangers on the internet. They are not and never meant to be definitive canon. No one expects to play a fictional character literally, just the archetype.

However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

---

Yeah, agree with all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atranen

No one is arguing anything of the sort.

Also, not something anyone is arguing. No one has said "WotC suggests you make Aragorn like this".

---

This entire sub-thread started off exactly as an attempt to say that bounded accuracy should/should not apply beyond level X/at all because LotR characters were level X....that's exactly trying to define D&D system assumptions by reference to an external fictional source via translating them.

That's what I'm objecting to--it's entirely 100% a non sequitor. It's a bad argument whatever it's deployed for. Arguments about bounded accuracy based on the high-level stories can be ok, but are fundamentally taste-based and thus subjective. Arguments that because Aragorn was level X... are never useful for telling anyone about anything D&D related.

Anyone can say "I created an Aragorn expy by...". Sure. That may be fun for some people. But doing so tells us nothing about Aragorn or what is acceptable in D&D at a system level; only in what you can torture the system into allowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

This entire sub-thread started off exactly as an attempt to say that bounded accuracy should/should not apply beyond level X/at all because LotR characters were level X....that's exactly trying to define D&D system assumptions by reference to an external fictional source via translating them.

---

That's not my reading of the discussion. The argument was that bounded accuracy should break past 5 because characters are no longer mortals at that point, then trask brought in the gandalf article, then I mentioned the Alexandrian one, and we moved to "what level is character X"...but no one ever said "bounded accuracy should stop at 5 because in Lord of the rings"...

The arguments are not "because aragorn was level x, the system should work like y". They are "if you want to replicate aragorn in 5e, you should use level y".

let me know what I'm missing. Feel like there are separate conversations here.

I do think that bounded accuracy concept lends itself to creating more LotR like stories in D&D, without mention to exact fidelity since we can already see such a thing is impossible. I recall that when D&D 5e Next first came out 3.5 returners were calling it "low-magic" and "gritty". That's kind of an amusing descriptor in hindsight, but from their perspective the game was lower magic, lower fantasy, lower power.

I'm not certain what that all adds to the discussion, but after 5e's explosive rise, and in the face of its successor, I think its worth remembering what it promised to bring that was new and worth keeping.

5e is absolutely lower power and lower magic than 3e and 4e. That doesn't mean much at the end of the day, but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atranen

Interesting! Balrogs being CR 20 seems too high imo. Why do you place Gandalf so high? He doesn't use many magical abilities that demand that.

---

20 may be too high, that's why I said 19, since that's a Balor's CR :P

But if you look at it, what did the Balrog lack that a Balor would have? Death Throes? That's pretty debatable, since almost every time a Balrog is killed it's killer dies too, as was the case with Gandalf the Grey.

The teleport maybe? Well, even if it was capable of teleporting, it would not avail it. It may seem like Gandalf doesn't use much magic, and in large part that's because his "magic" is not usually overt, in that scene for instance, when he states "You cannot pass!", he is determining things, reality will have to accommodate for the fact that Durin's Bane cannot pass that bridge, so even if it was capable of teleporting, he simply cannot pass. If you wanted to have such an effect in DnD as a PC, the closest thing you have is Wish.

I think they must have teleported. I might regret asking this, but how'd they get from the absolute depths of Moria to a high mountainside? (i.e. where the smoting of the ruin took place, or somesuch.)

They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

But it doesn't end it. If you search for monsters that are resistant to bludgeoning currently

---

No, it ends there. This is you moving the goal posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession.

---

I have toyed with the idea that Fighters get to add their proficiency bonus, or half of it, to their AC when they are wearing no armor. Half is probably the better move, but we only had one session where we messed with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindflayer_Inc

For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

---

I'd say about level 10-12. Sixth level spells is where things really shift.

Quote:

---

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

---

Yes, at level 10-12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. That's what I'm objecting to--it's entirely 100% a non sequitor.

---

While I tend to agree, the D&D Ranger was inspired by Aragorn, who can be safely assumed to be an AD&D 1e Ranger Lord (level 11 or 10) ... but then Rangers became a thing in and of themselves in AD&D 2e up til now, particularly as more spells and beast companions were added. Not inherently a bad thing, but it departed its origin. And insofar as the AD&D 1e Ranger Lord, he had a charisma in the 14-16 Range.

As to Gandalf, if one reads the lore he is a Maia, something like an archangel, which maps roughly to D&D 5e Solar or Planetar with the Change Shape ability. But, I've seen some good cases made that he's a high level Aasimar Lore Bard. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

5e is absolutely lower power and lower magic than 3e and 4e.

---

Yay, we agree, but the OP topic is 'who is going to play 5.5' so 3e and 4e don't enter into it.

I am still frustrated that a game of 13th Age that I made a bard for got barely started and then died to the usual RL Scheduling DC being about 35. :smallfurious: I was really looking forward to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

No, it ends there. This is you moving the goal posts.

---

It’s really not.

Resistance to some subtypes of bludgeoning but not others is more complex than resistance to bludgeoning but not force.

You can dislike the change, but it’s not adding to mental overhead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNAProductions

It’s really not.

Resistance to some subtypes of bludgeoning but not others is more complex than resistance to bludgeoning but not force.

You can dislike the change, but it’s not adding to mental overhead.

---

Exactly, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

---

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

---

Yes, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

---

It helps to read the books. :smallcool:

Aside: a fly just landed on the edge of my glass of wine and fell in. He then began swimming in the wine. I killed him with a napkin. Five second rule, still sipping the wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

---

Yep, all the way from the bottom to the top. To quote The Two Towers:

Quote:

---

'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day. In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dûm: too well he knew them all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair.'

'Long has that been lost,' said Gimli. 'Many have said that it was never made save in legend, but others say that it was destroyed.'

'It was made, and it had not been destroyed,' said Gandalf. 'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak it climbed, ascending in unbroken spiral in many thousand steps, until it issued at last in Durin's Tower carved in the living rock of Zirak-zigil, the pinnacle of the Silvertine.

---

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

---

That's you making up stuff based on a game mechanic that was not invented when Tolkien wrote that book.

I think you forgot your blue text, Psyren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

That's you making up stuff based on a game mechanic that was not invented when Tolkien wrote that book.

---

Teleportation doesn't predate Tolkien?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I think you forgot your blue text, Psyren.

---

I did say I'd regret asking, to be fair.

To respond seriously to your assertion: trivially, yes. If you assume someone can teleport then you can of course take any case of moving from one place to another as evidence of teleportation because it's right there in your premises. "A implies A" isn't a very fruitful argument, though.

I mean, I'm not calling it "evidence," and in fact wasn't being entirely serious - but knew anyway what I'd be getting myself into with Tolkien fans :smalltongue:

Apologies for the digression, back to 5.5. (Or the Ghost subtopic.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

I think they must have teleported. I might regret asking this, but how'd they get from the absolute depths of Moria to a high mountainside? (i.e. where the smoting of the ruin took place, or somesuch.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

---

Yeah, and IIRC they fought for either 3 days or an entire week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

---

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

I did say I'd regret asking, to be fair.

---

I don't think its an offense or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.

---

Interesting - thank you!

(As for Plane Shift, it's in 5e, just higher level than before.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rukelnikov

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.

---

I don't think The Silmarillion is necessarily a useful resource when discussing The Lord of the Rings, at least at the level of specific facts, precisely because of passages like the one in question. It was edited and published posthumously and in any case is better understood as myth than as history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Interesting - thank you!

(As for Plane Shift, it's in 5e, just higher level than before.)

---

I meant Balor's don't get it in 5e. However, I checked and they didn't have it in 3.5 either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurgeh

I don't think The Silmarillion is necessarily a useful resource when discussing The Lord of the Rings, at least at the level of specific facts, precisely because of passages like the one in question. It was edited and published posthumously and in any case is better understood as myth than as history.

---

Yes, I don't know if Tolkien ever put thought into where exactly did they go, but given that the idea of existence outside time (and one can imagine at the very least also outside Arda, if not Ea) is also mentioned shortly after when Gandalf tells them he wandered outside time in roads which he will not tell, I don't think it's stretch to think the idea of different planes of existence was already there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

---

Sure, the book famously is about a wizard and group of furry footed short people teleporting to a volcano to chuck some old jewelry in, and being home in time for tea :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brookshw

Sure, the book famously is about a wizard and group of furry footed short people teleporting to a volcano to chuck some old jewelry in, and being home in time for tea :smallbiggrin:

---

The eagles were busy, and their union rep told Gandalf that no, he doesn't get to put them on an overtime schedule.:smallyuk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

---

Agreed. I don't really give a heck about the standard setting most of the time. Really the only time I did was for AL, and even then it was a lose association. Honestly this game would suffer if a singular setting was enforced for all home games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

Aside: a fly just landed on the edge of my glass of wine and fell in. He then began swimming in the wine. I killed him with a napkin. Five second rule, still sipping the wine.

---

I don't think the five second rule applies here, but it would be a shame for wine to to waste. Proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

The eagles were busy, and their union rep told Gandalf that no, he doesn't get to put them on an overtime schedule.:smallyuk:

---

I mean, Gandalf did say 'Fly, you fools'. It's not quite teleportation, but surely better than walking around Mordor and getting stabbed by a spider...

(Sorry for calling you Shirley, Korvin.)

As for fly in wine - I'm sure the alcohol killed whatever ick the fly was carrying anyway...