Characters you can't stat in 3.5

[Knaight]

There are no rules for pushing or pulling a weight on wheels.

There are rules for pulling weights on surfaces that make it easier to pull them, though rubber wheels full of air on modern tarmac are a lot more convenient than anything likely to show up.

[ryu]

So you admit it's unmodelable? By RAW it doesn't really matter if the weight is on wheels. I could probably figure out the actual force required to do it, but I'm fairly that's still significantly beyond a D&D character's Push/Drag. In any case the point is that there are points where the model is going to break down. Building an academic with no combat skill is one of the most frequently posited cases.

The problem is that it is a model, and it's not even trying to model real life, it's trying to model fantasy literature, which it can do fairly well. But level is a pretty arbitrary thing, and so saying Aragorn is fifth level is disingenuous, saying Aragorn can be modeled as low as fifth level, is not. Although it may be possible to model him even lower than that, with sufficient optimization.




As a note this would require that Mo (a child) has a strength above average for an adult. Which seems unlikely.

Although it's worth noting that this is probably how I would model it, but it is important to note the inaccuracies in the model.

Not as much as you think. Averages are averages not limits. By definition of average large sections of the population surpass said average, and some by pretty noticeable amounts at that. I've known scores of kids capable of feats of strength that put 10 or 11 average to shame.

[AMFV]

Not as much as you think. Averages are averages not limits. By definition of average large sections of the population surpass said average, and some by pretty noticeable amounts at that. I've known scores of kids capable of feats of strength that put 10 or 11 average to shame.

But Mo is a nine year old, and our average 10 strength comes from commoners who do physical labor. Furthermore 10 Strength doesn't really mean anything in a real world context. It doesn't factor in things like how much you, yourself weigh (which is incredibly significant in figuring how much you can lift in the real world). It puts explosive force, and ability to hold in the same exact bin. It's just not the best model, although I don't mind it, but I'm just aware that trying to get accurate real world strength into D&D context isn't exactly efficient.

[georgie_leech]

Not as much as you think. Averages are averages not limits. By definition of average large sections of the population surpass said average, and some by pretty noticeable amounts at that. I've known scores of kids capable of feats of strength that put 10 or 11 average to shame.

Moe is in Grade 1. I would find it exceedingly unlikely he has that great of a Strength score.

[Seppo87]

Anyway, my quote in the first post hasn't yet been disproved.
I never said D&D3.5 was accurate to the point that you never get excess powers, and I never said that changing fluff wasn't allowed.
I said D&D covers a wide array of possibilities and allows you to pick powers from different sources with a high degree of freedom, allowing you to model the gameplay of your character after a concept with good results.
You want to be able to do A? 90% of the time there is a very good approximation of that somewhere in the books.
Your character will reasonably approximate the act of performing "A" where reasonably means other player that know the source can recognize it from the mechanics.
And was the point.

I tried to explain this several time in this thread but apparently it's no longer about what I said, goals keep moving on their own now.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

5th level Venerable Human Expert with 18 starting Intelligence and +1 Intelligence at 4th level. 8 Ranks in Knowledge (Physics), +6 from Intelligence and Skill Focus: Knowledge (Physics). That gives +17 to Knowledge (Physics) checks and he can't fight all that well being an old man and only level 5.

You were saying?

You should dip Commoner 1 for -1 to BAB and all saves.

[Vhaidara]

Moe is in Grade 1. I would find it exceedingly unlikely he has that great of a Strength score.

Also remember that everything we see is through Calvin's eye. As far as Calvin is concerned, that's how hard Moe punched him. The entire series is viewed through the lens of Calvin's imagination.

[ryu]

But Mo is a nine year old, and our average 10 strength comes from commoners who do physical labor. Furthermore 10 Strength doesn't really mean anything in a real world context. It doesn't factor in things like how much you, yourself weigh (which is incredibly significant in figuring how much you can lift in the real world). It puts explosive force, and ability to hold in the same exact bin. It's just not the best model, although I don't mind it, but I'm just aware that trying to get accurate real world strength into D&D context isn't exactly efficient.

Your point? Many of those kids I was talking about were actually under ten while surpassing the average. They grew up to be truly ridiculous examples of the human specimen I'll grant, but it does happen.

[AMFV]

Anyway, my quote in the first post hasn't yet been disproved.
I never said D&D3.5 was accurate to the point that you never get excess powers, and I never said that changing fluff wasn't allowed.
I said D&D covers a wide array of possibilities and allows you to pick powers from different sources with a high degree of freedom, allowing you to model the gameplay of your character after a concept with very good results.
You want to be able to do A? 90% of the time there is a very good approximation of that somewhere in the books.
And that's the point.

Definitely but you're not going to be able to say "This is the only way you can model this character", which was what was being said with regards to Aragorn. You can certainly model Aragorn, or Mo, or any character practically, but there's likely to be more than one way to model a character. Furthermore you can set lower bounds based on observable abilities you don't want to do without, certain things become much more difficult at lower level.

I'm not arguing that you can't model most concepts in D&D, rather I'm arguing that to assign a "level" to real life is at best a spurious exercise, levels are arbitrary (for the DM and the worldbuilder) and they can make any level, an average level, or even have huge inconsistencies in levels without necessarily breaking verisimilitude.

Edit: And it's not that the goals moved, it's that you came in when the discussion had shifted and then posted on a point that was at best tangential. I was never arguing that you couldn't model most concepts. I was arguing that saying "I can model Aragorn at level 5" does not equate to "Level five is the highest level a person could model him and nobody could ever model him any higher because that would somehow be wrong, since all characters are always as low level as they possibly could be."

For the fifth level Aragorn to work, we have to assume that the goal in modeling Aragorn is producing him at the lowest level possible, and that may not be a DM's goal, a DM may want to model Aragorn at a higher level so that he can be an impressive NPC to his now 12th level Party, and that's fine, it's not going to be a worse model because the arbitrary level number changes, as a matter of fact, a higher level model opens up many many more options.

[Jormengand]

Edit: Again the thing is that Aragorn doesn't have a level, his level depends on the level of the enemies he's facing.

But Aragorn does things other than fight orcs, and we can tell his level from that.

Which is exactly what the article I cited does.

[AMFV]

But Aragorn does things other than fight orcs, and we can tell his level from that.

Which is exactly what the article I cited does.

Yes, but a 50th level Ranger CAN STILL DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. That model only works if the goal of modelling a character is to introduce them to the campaign world at the lowest level possible, rather than to have them fit whatever narrative role the DM needs. A 50th level Spellless ranger with no AC isn't functionally that much different than a 5th level ranger with no AC, they both have woodsy skills and can hit things.

You are assuming that all characters exist at the lowest level possible to model them, and that simply isn't accurate to what a DM may need.

Edit: Again if I need Aragorn to be a powerful NPC in a campaign that starts at level 10, I can't model him at level 5, because he'd be a laughing stock, if I need Aragorn to be a powerful NPC in a campaign that starts at level 1, then modelling him at level 5 is fine. It's more based around why the DM needs to model the character than anything else.

And again, Aragorn can be modeled many more ways. I actually wouldn't use ranger for Aragorn, I would probably make him a Bard/Warblade mix, since that fits better with his demonstrated abilities (mostly leadership related), and then figure out some way to get the survival skills on him, since we see him mostly as a leader in war rather than as a stalker in the wilderness.

Edit 2: So you're again setting a lower bound. You're saying Aragorn has to be at least fifth level or Aragorn could be no more than fifth level. But you aren't saying (and the article really shouldn't) be saying: Aragorn can be no more than fifth level.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

So stating anything from Cavlin and Hobbes feels kinda wrong since as has already been pointed out the strip happens largely in Calvin's imagination. If Moe can put Calvin through walls then Calvin has to be able to survive getting put through walls on numerous occaisions.

That being said.

Moe
Human Child
Fighter 1 (Dungeon Crasher/Zhentarim Soldier)
Str 10
Martial Study (Charging Minotaur)
His other feat is something that makes him medium.

[AMFV]

So stating anything from Cavlin and Hobbes feels kinda wrong since as has already been pointed out the strip happens largely in Calvin's imagination. If Moe can put Calvin through walls then Calvin has to be able to survive getting put through walls on numerous occaisions.

That being said.

Moe
Human Child
Fighter 1 (Dungeon Crasher/Zhentarim Soldier)
Str 10
Martial Study (Charging Minotaur)
His other feat is something that makes him medium.

His Teacher would probably be a witch with the Slumber Hex... Hobbes is an Animal Companion of some kind, meaning that he'd have to have a class that granted animal companions (there are more options in Pathfinder than in 3.5 at first level). I actually kind of want to run a Calvin and Hobbes based game at some point now... that would be awesome.

[Vhaidara]

Susie is a ghoul.

EDIT: And Hobbes is an OP familiar granted for badass purposes.

[Arbane]

His Teacher would probably be a witch with the Slumber Hex... Hobbes is an Animal Companion of some kind, meaning that he'd have to have a class that granted animal companions (there are more options in Pathfinder than in 3.5 at first level). I actually kind of want to run a Calvin and Hobbes based game at some point now... that would be awesome.

Monsters and Other Childish Things might be a better fit.

[AMFV]

Monsters and Other Childish Things might be a better fit.

Probably, but we're trying to make things fit in 3.5, that's the game here isn't it?

Edit: I'd actually be pretty tempted to model Calvin and Hobbes at a fairly high level, since his imaginary flights of fancy tend to be quite high powered: Teleporting Through Time, Shapechanging, that sort of thing. I'd make his parents unstatted entities like the Lady of Pain. But that would just be to preserve the kind of ridiculous feel, it'd certainly be possible to model it lower.

Edit 2: Although almost all of that comes from an item. So I'm thinking something like a Factotutum (that would account for his bizarre array of skills), with a high UMD score to use the item of Shapechange (the Transmogrifer), Cloning (The Duplicator) or Teleport Through Time (the Time Machine) then he'd take Improved Familiar and Obtain Familiar for Hobbes.

We could probably also model him with a Pathfinder Summoner, which would be the most awesome Pathfinder Summoner Concept ever... and I mean ever.

[Jormengand]

Yes, but a 50th level Ranger CAN STILL DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. That model only works if the goal of modelling a character is to introduce them to the campaign world at the lowest level possible, rather than to have them fit whatever narrative role the DM needs. A 50th level Spellless ranger with no AC isn't functionally that much different than a 5th level ranger with no AC, they both have woodsy skills and can hit things.

You are assuming that all characters exist at the lowest level possible to model them, and that simply isn't accurate to what a DM may need.

Edit: Again if I need Aragorn to be a powerful NPC in a campaign that starts at level 10, I can't model him at level 5, because he'd be a laughing stock, if I need Aragorn to be a powerful NPC in a campaign that starts at level 1, then modelling him at level 5 is fine. It's more based around why the DM needs to model the character than anything else.

And again, Aragorn can be modeled many more ways. I actually wouldn't use ranger for Aragorn, I would probably make him a Bard/Warblade mix, since that fits better with his demonstrated abilities (mostly leadership related), and then figure out some way to get the survival skills on him, since we see him mostly as a leader in war rather than as a stalker in the wilderness.

Edit 2: So you're again setting a lower bound. You're saying Aragorn has to be at least fifth level or Aragorn could be no more than fifth level. But you aren't saying (and the article really shouldn't) be saying: Aragorn can be no more than fifth level.

And here, we go back to what the article has to say about Conan.

"The problem with having false expectations about what “Strength 20” or “15th level” really means is that it creates a dissonance between what the rules allow characters to do and what you think characters should be able to do. For example, if you think that Conan should be modeled as a 25th level character, then you’re going to be constantly frustrated when the system treats him as a demigod and allows him to do all sorts of insanely powerful things that the literary Conan was never capable of. From there it’s a pretty short step to making pronouncements like “D&D can’t do Conan” (or Lankhmar or Elric or whatever)."

Replace all instances of Conan with Aragorn, and you'll see what I mean. At 50th level, you're going to have 17 feats, most of them epic, most of them completely unnecessary, and most of them representing things that Aragorn either specifically couldn't do or would clearly have done if he'd been capable of it.

I mean, saying "You can stat Aragorn as 50th level if you stat orcs at 40th" is like saying "You can stat Jormengand as a 50th-level character if you stat other humans as 40th." Yes, but you're going to be consistently disappointed by D&D's handling of Jormengand where putting even half as many skill points as she's allowed to in Heal makes her go from being "Qualified First Aider" to "God of healing." You're going to be disappointed when the system gives her a metric boopton of feats that it makes no sense that she could have, when the system means that she knows utterly everything there is to know. Jormengand is clearly a 1st-level or possibly 2nd-level character and you have no business statting her up as an epic character because you will be forced to make her capable of things that she's not capable of. You'll take away her ability to fail.

The same goes for Aragorn. A 50th-level character would easily have passed the relatively trivial check to stabilise the dying Boromir. A 5th-level character could not necessarily (though it's quite possible that a 5th-level character built to optimise heal could) and that's precisely why Aragorn fails.

You can tell what skills he must have ranks in to succeed, and also how many ranks he must not have to fail. And because we know that Aragorn isn't skilled at UMD, or tumble, or Knowledge (Arcana), and he also isn't a god of healing, we have to ask where those skill points went. Of course, they didn't go anywhere because Aragorn never had those skills.

[AMFV]

The same goes for Aragorn. A 50th-level character would easily have passed the relatively trivial check to stabilise the dying Boromir. A 5th-level character could not necessarily (though it's quite possible that a 5th-level character built to optimise heal could) and that's precisely why Aragorn fails.

You can tell what skills he must have ranks in to succeed, and also how many ranks he must not have to fail. And because we know that Aragorn isn't skilled at UMD, or tumble, or Knowledge (Arcana), and he also isn't a god of healing, we have to ask where those skill points went. Of course, they didn't go anywhere because Aragorn never had those skills.

Well we don't know what happened to Boromir, the Orcs could have poisoned arrows (in fact this is mentioned several times). Aragorn meets Boromirafter he's already effectively dead. The point is that we don't know the circumstances. Furthermore a model is going to have some breaks with reality. Death and dying is one thing that D&D models horribly in comparison with reality. Maybe Aragorn put a lot of skill points into knowledge skills that aren't related. Maybe he has maxed ride. After all he might not necessarily be a Ranger.

The problem is that the article is insisting that only one model for a character is acceptable. If you'd search for the Author's later discussion of it, as I suggested. You'd see that what he had intended was to inspire people to have more epic adventures at lower level. Which is entirely reasonable.

Lastly, we don't know if Aragorn can tumble, or Use Magic Devices, or if he has knowledge of Magic, for all we know he could do all three, we've never seen him attempt them. Aragorn did not as far as we know even attempt to stabilize Boromir, in fact I've just read the book, and Aragorn didn't attempt it, so he could have had the heal check, and (for story reasons) not made the attempt.

PS: Just reread the Chapter, Aragorn talked to Boromir and made no attempt to heal him, that we observe.

Edit: What I'm saying is that the author of the Alexandrian was trying to say (in my opinion terribly and poorly), that the story should not be a slave to levels, but that the levels should be a slave to narrative. It's possible to run a campaign of gritty intrigue at level 6, I've seen it done, and probably even much higher than that, if you can optimize your enemies correctly. It's possible to run high fantasy as low as level 5.

The problem with all of this modeling argument is that Aragorn is not a D&D character, LoTR is not D&D, we're constructing a model, and we should construct said model however it is most beneficial for us to do so. There should not be arbitrary limit on levels for any particular experience, because D&D can model many similar experiences at different levels.

Edit 2: I'm saying that Aragorn could be modeled at 50th level, if there was a need for it, if that fit what I was looking for with Aragorn in the narrative, that's what should decide character's level, the narrative of the DM. It's the same reason I'd want Calvin and Hobbes at high level, because I think that'd be more fun for them narratively even though it'd be absurd since it's not realistic, but then again neither is Calvin and Hobbes.

We could certainly model Aragorn at level 5, or we could model him at level 20, if the only inconsistency you can find is that he didn't make a heal check, then we have issues. In fact, if we suppose that Athelas is a magic plant, then it is quite possible that he used UMD rather than heal, and since he had no magic plants about, that's why he was unable to heal Boromir.

Edit 3: And for the final issue, we could model Aragorn as a fighter (makes sense since he has no AC and never casts spells), he has cross-class ranks in Knowledge (Nature) to find Athelas, but no cross-class ranks in heal.

[Jormengand]

Edit 2: I'm saying that Aragorn could be modeled at 50th level, if there was a need for it, if that fit what I was looking for with Aragorn in the narrative, that's what should decide character's level, the narrative of the DM.

Again, what I'm saying is that the end result of that is that you could have Aragorn being capable of things that the literary...

Hey, I have an idea! If Aragorn is 50th level, then we can assume that Denethor is too, right? Or, he's at least 40th. Whatever.

Aragorn falls a short distance, into water. It's possible he's taking, like, 7d6, 8d6 damage? You can imagine a 5th-level character surviving that (I didn't take the time to measure the cliff he falls off, but it's a case of "Legolas sees a river at the bottom of it" not "Legolas can't actually see the bottom of it because it's so far down", and we get some idea of how big the cliff is).

Denethor jumps off Minas Tirith, while on fire. We're not sure how many rounds he's on fire, but let's say 5. That's half a minute, we're probably taking a high estimate.

After falling 200 feet (if he even falls that far - again, I didn't measure Minas Tirith), Denethor hits terminal velocity, so he's only taking 20d6 bludgeoning and 5d6 fire damage. However, he still dies. RIP.

How many hit points does Denethor have? Well, it's entirely possible that he has low hit points, but he's not pictured as being frail exactly. I'm going to say that Denethor is an Aristocrat 40. (I'd probably make him Aristocrat 2, or perhaps 3, but that's kind of the point). Even with 8 CON, he's got 120 hit points and would have to be really, really unlucky (taking pretty much maximum damage from the fire and the fall, on every die) to get killed by that. Gandalf would certainly be unable to proclaim "So passes Denethor, son of Exellion" before he even hits the ground.

If Denethor is on fire for 5 rounds, that means he's taking about 17-18 damage, so... well, it's possible that he rolled low, that he's not on fire for quite as long, he's actually got a CON bonus, or that he's a bit higher level than I said I thought he was, but I'd say that it's entirely possible that he'd survive long enough to fall off the edge, and entirely certain that Gandalf would be able to make smug comments in the knowledge that no-one could survive that fall.

Also, before you mention Moria, Gandalf is a wiz... well, probably more like sorcerer, but it's entirely possible that he has, I dunno, Feather Fall? And as for the Balrog, it's entirely possible that it's actually the Balrog who is lower lever than the Balor stats that 3.5 gives us, rather than Gandalf who is stronger. Or maybe it was badly damaged from the fall and Gandalf wasn't. In any case, it's clear that Gandalf doesn't have all his cards on the table, so we don't even know what level he actually is.

Like I said, if you're going to stat them up at high levels, you're going to have to be prepared for them to do things they just couldn't do in the film (Yes, I'm using the film because it's been over 10 years since I read the book, but the point stands).

[AMFV]

Again, what I'm saying is that the end result of that is that you could have Aragorn being capable of things that the literary...

Hey, I have an idea! If Aragorn is 50th level, then we can assume that Denethor is too, right? Or, he's at least 40th. Whatever.

Aragorn falls a short distance, into water. It's possible he's taking, like, 7d6, 8d6 damage? You can imagine a 5th-level character surviving that (I didn't take the time to measure the cliff he falls off, but it's a case of "Legolas sees a river at the bottom of it" not "Legolas can't actually see the bottom of it because it's so far down", and we get some idea of how big the cliff is).

Denethor jumps off Minas Tirith, while on fire. We're not sure how many rounds he's on fire, but let's say 5. That's half a minute, we're probably taking a high estimate.

After falling 200 feet (if he even falls that far - again, I didn't measure Minas Tirith), Denethor hits terminal velocity, so he's only taking 20d6 bludgeoning and 5d6 fire damage. However, he still dies. RIP.

How many hit points does Denethor have? Well, it's entirely possible that he has low hit points, but he's not pictured as being frail exactly. I'm going to say that Denethor is an Aristocrat 40. (I'd probably make him Aristocrat 2, or perhaps 3, but that's kind of the point). Even with 8 CON, he's got 120 hit points and would have to be really, really unlucky (taking pretty much maximum damage from the fire and the fall, on every die) to get killed by that. Gandalf would certainly be unable to proclaim "So passes Denethor, son of Exellion" before he even hits the ground.

If Denethor is on fire for 5 rounds, that means he's taking about 17-18 damage, so... well, it's possible that he rolled low, that he's not on fire for quite as long, he's actually got a CON bonus, or that he's a bit higher level than I said I thought he was, but I'd say that it's entirely possible that he'd survive long enough to fall off the edge, and entirely certain that Gandalf would be able to make smug comments in the knowledge that no-one could survive that fall.

He doused himself in oil, possibly magical oil, we have no idea what the effects of that oil would be. Certainly there are many alchemical substances in D&D that increase the damage fire does to a character. So it's possible that the extra damage was done as a result of the oil rather than of the fire itself. Lastly Denethor was struggling with Sauron over the Palintir, which is something that may very well have had Con drain involved, as messing about with Dark Entities tends to in LoTR.

Also, before you mention Moria, Gandalf is a wiz... well, probably more like sorcerer, but it's entirely possible that he has, I dunno, Feather Fall? And as for the Balrog, it's entirely possible that it's actually the Balrog who is lower lever than the Balor stats that 3.5 gives us, rather than Gandalf who is stronger. Or maybe it was badly damaged from the fall and Gandalf wasn't. In any case, it's clear that Gandalf doesn't have all his cards on the table, so we don't even know what level he actually is.

Like I said, if you're going to stat them up at high levels, you're going to have to be prepared for them to do things they just couldn't do in the film (Yes, I'm using the film because it's been over 10 years since I read the book, but the point stands).

The point is that you can't base a model on "I didn't see him do this" because that gets absurd. I've never seen Aragorn with an Animal Companion, so he can't be a level 5 ranger. I've never seen him detect evil (so no more levels of Paladin, silly Alexandrian Author). I've never seen him Smite Evil for that matter. So we can't use any levels of Paladin.

So if we're going by, "He can't do anything not observed" we already can't even use the build the guy in the Alexandrian Article showed. A model is going to necessarily have issues, but these aren't major issues, and could be overcome by very slight handwaving.

As I said, let's stat him as a 10th level fighter. He has cross-class ranks in Survival, and in Knowledge (Nature). So most of his abilities consist of him being able to fight better, theoretically we could make him a very high level fighter without us ever expecting him to have any ranks in heal (since fighters have few skill points). And he wouldn't be capable of anything we didn't see.

Again, the model isn't going to work every time, but a low level model breaks down as well. Beorn for example was able to turn into a Bear that is pretty clearly described as larger than Huge (the limit for Polymorph) and that takes some shapechanging abuse. So we're looking at an ability that wouldn't come online till the mid-low teens (with Bear Warrior). The problem is that players rarely ask about missing abilities, there are lots of ways to avoid having a particular skill.

Edit: The lower level model also breaks down pretty catastrophically when trying to model Smaug being killed in a single shot. Typically the way that can be done is with Maiming strike and Charisma damage, but that's not really all that attainable by level 5.

[Jormengand]

The point is that you can't base a model on "I didn't see him do this" because that gets absurd. I've never seen Aragorn with an Animal Companion, so he can't be a level 5 ranger.

More "Aragorn would be bloody stupid not to be using some of these abilities if he had them."

And anyway, the point isn't even about Aragorn and Denethor specifically (Magic oil is kind of a cop-out, and I think you know it). How many times in films do people die by getting burned (by non-magical fire), falling off cliffs, getting hit by lightning, having something fall on them, or other things which don't scale with level because they don't have levels? Yeah, quite a lot. Any time any of those things happens, they provide an indicator of what level everyone is. Every time "The best [X] in the world" performs a skill check, it provides an indicator of what level everyone is. As I've said countless times, you're going to end up with them being capable of things that they are categorically not capable of doing.

Also, Gandalf didn't see Denethor pour oil on himself, IIRC, so his smug "So passes Denethor" statement is still unfounded if Denethor isn't a sensible level. He can't know that Denethor used +10 oil of burniness, but what he does know is that Denethor jumped hundreds of feet to his death, and he knows that because Denethor isn't a nigh-on deity.

[AMFV]

More "Aragorn would be bloody stupid not to be using some of these abilities if he had them."

And anyway, the point isn't even about Aragorn and Denethor specifically (Magic oil is kind of a cop-out, and I think you know it). How many times in films do people die by getting burned (by non-magical fire), falling off cliffs, getting hit by lightning, having something fall on them, or other things which don't scale with level because they don't have levels? Yeah, quite a lot. Any time any of those things happens, they provide an indicator of what level everyone is. Every time "The best [X] in the world" performs a skill check, it provides an indicator of what level everyone is. As I've said countless times, you're going to end up with them being capable of things that they are categorically not capable of doing.

Also, Gandalf didn't see Denethor pour oil on himself, IIRC, so his smug "So passes Denethor" statement is still unfounded if Denethor isn't a sensible level. He can't know that Denethor used +10 oil of burniness, but what he does know is that Denethor jumped hundreds of feet to his death, and he knows that because Denethor isn't a nigh-on deity.

Gandalf made the spellcraft check to ID the flames... also of note, in the book he watched Denethor burn.

And Aragorn, the fighter wouldn't have those abilities either. And you still haven't demonstrated when he used detect evil, that would have burn really handy for wormtongue.

Nor have you addressed how a fifth level Bard could kill Smaug in a single shot. Nor how Beorn could change into a gigantic bear, or how Gandalf self resurrected...

See your model is equally inaccurate

[Pan151]

5th level Venerable Human Expert with 18 starting Intelligence and +1 Intelligence at 4th level. 8 Ranks in Knowledge (Physics), +6 from Intelligence and Skill Focus: Knowledge (Physics). That gives +17 to Knowledge (Physics) checks and he can't fight all that well being an old man and only level 5.

You were saying?

And he still has at least 150% more HP than the average 18 year old commoner (assuming the minimum Constitution score of 1), and makes attacks as if he was still 18 years old (+3 BAB negates the -6 to Str/Dex). He might not be able to wrestle with a bear anytime soon, but he can at the very least pick fights with street thugs somewhat comfortably.

You were saying?

[Jormengand]

Gandalf made the spellcraft check to ID the flames... also of note, in the book he watched Denethor burn.

And Aragorn, the fighter wouldn't have those abilities either. And you still haven't demonstrated when he used detect evil, that would have burn really handy for wormtongue.

Nor have you addressed how a fifth level Bard could kill Smaug in a single shot. Nor how Beorn could change into a gigantic bear, or how Gandalf self resurrected...

See your model US also not perfect and. isn't even more accurate it's equally inaccurate

Of course not every model is perfect. The author of the article addresses that with his bit about 19th-level monks. The trouble is, the higher level you go, the more effort you're putting in to restrict your character's versatility. You're deliberately attempting to stop Aragorn from being able to do things because he couldn't do them in the film.

I'm not sure Aragorn got close enough to Grima to Detect his Evil anyway, and in any case because a third of random people are technically evil anyway, it wouldn't necessarily tell him that Grima was evil, only that he was capital-E Evil that doesn't necessarily mean he has an ulterior motive (most evil people are lawful or neutral evil anyway).

Also, Gandalf didn't resurrect? He fought the balrog a while, and finally "Cast his remains upon the mountainside," had a make-over and got a new staff, and appeared in front of Aragorn and co while using Light and Protection From Arrows.

Beorn can't. Bilbo can't. Why? Because D&D is the wrong system. I'm not saying D&D can do everything. I'm saying that you shouldn't try to do D&D by turning exceptional humans into near-enough deities, because then the way the game will play out is nothing like how the film plays out, unless you go to great lengths to reduce your character's capabilities.

[AMFV]

Of course not every model is perfect. The author of the article addresses that with his bit about 19th-level monks. The trouble is, the higher level you go, the more effort you're putting in to restrict your character's versatility. You're deliberately attempting to stop Aragorn from being able to do things because he couldn't do them in the film.

I'm not sure Aragorn got close enough to Grima to Detect his Evil anyway, and in any case because a third of random people are technically evil anyway, it wouldn't necessarily tell him that Grima was evil, only that he was capital-E Evil that doesn't necessarily mean he has an ulterior motive (most evil people are lawful or neutral evil anyway).

Also, Gandalf didn't resurrect? He fought the balrog a while, and finally "Cast his remains upon the mountainside," had a make-over and got a new staff, and appeared in front of Aragorn and co while using Light and Protection From Arrows.

Beorn can't. Bilbo can't. Why? Because D&D is the wrong system. I'm not saying D&D can do everything. I'm saying that you shouldn't try to do D&D by turning exceptional humans into near-enough deities, because then the way the game will play out is nothing like how the film plays out, unless you go to great lengths to reduce your character's capabilities.

Reread the books, Gandalf went to the undying shores and returned, he died. The issue is that the Alexandrian Author doesn't know how to challenge high level parties. As the world grows more dangerous higher level characters are threatened equally.

Also where do you get off criticising my model for inaccuracy when you admit your model is also inaccurate. D&D is not LoTR ans any translation of character or concept is going to have inaccuracies, so use whatever model works with your narrative. You can challenge a high level character as well ad a low level character, that's why you . can advance enemies

[Jormengand]

Reread the books, Gandalf went to the undying shores and returned, he died. The issue is that the Alexandrian Author doesn't know how to challenge high level parties. As the world grows more dangerous higher level characters are threatened equally.

Also where do you get off criticising my model for inaccuracy when you admit your model is also inaccurate. D&D is not LoTR ans any translation of character or concept is going to have inaccuracies, so use whatever model works with your narrative. You can challenge a high level character as well ad a low level character, that's why you . can advance enemies

I imagine the Alexandrian author knows perfectly how to challenge high-level parties, he just also knows how to deal with lower-level parties.

Re-read what I wrote. Your model isn't being criticised because it's a lot more inaccurate than my model. Why? Because in D&D, low levels are designed to emulate realistic people, and epic levels are meant to emulate people who are, or can challenge, gods themselves. Sure, you can use one to emulate the other, but just as if you use D20 modern to emulate one of the D&D settings, it's going to be a lot more inaccurate than it needs to be.

Of course not all models are 100% accurate, but whether a model is 90% accurate or 10% accurate is important, because if it's only 10% accurate it's not a very good model.

[Lord Raziere]

a character you can't stat in DnD 3.5? easy.

a guy with an assault rifle.

3.5 is inherently medieval. it can't do modern tech.

you can't refluff the bow or the crossbow, because DnD 3.5 is too simulationist for that, there are different stats for a short sword and a long sword, something as different as a crossbow and an assault rifle just isn't viable.

while anything from d20 modern is not DnD 3.5 and therefore also not viable. not even in Pathfinder counts, because its technically a separate system, no matter how similar, and only stats out older firearms anyways.

[Vhaidara]

a character you can't stat in DnD 3.5? easy.

a guy with an assault rifle.

3.5 is inherently medieval. it can't do modern tech.

you can't refluff the bow or the crossbow, because DnD 3.5 is too simulationist for that, there are different stats for a short sword and a long sword, something as different as a crossbow and an assault rifle just isn't viable.

while anything from d20 modern is not DnD 3.5 and therefore also not viable. not even in Pathfinder counts, because its technically a separate system, no matter how similar, and only stats out older firearms anyways.

DMG 146, Automatic Rifle.

[AMFV]

I imagine the Alexandrian author knows perfectly how to challenge high-level parties, he just also knows how to deal with lower-level parties.

Re-read what I wrote. Your model isn't being criticised because it's a lot more inaccurate than my model. Why? Because in D&D, low levels are designed to emulate realistic people, and epic levels are meant to emulate people who are, or can challenge, gods themselves. Sure, you can use one to emulate the other, but just as if you use D20 modern to emulate one of the D&D settings, it's going to be a lot more inaccurate than it needs to be.

Of course not all models are 100% accurate, but whether a model is 90% accurate or 10% accurate is important, because if it's only 10% accurate it's not a very good model.

I don't believe it is more inaccurate after all a level 20 fighter Aragorn would work just as well and all of your complaints are easy to address at higher level, while mine, well you didn't address them at all outside of hemming and hawing. Both models work just fine but neither is really superior it just depends on the needs of the DM as I pointed out Aragorn the fighter has no unexplained abilities and Gandalf the Sword of the Arcane Order Paladin can only use fourth level spells and he now has a mount, so more accurate there.

[Qwertystop]

(Googles it)

Oh, nifty. I'd never heard of that one. (The fact I've never heard of it, on a board devoted to minmaxing, makes me suspect it's got some awful drawback.)

I still stand by my general misstatement: there are some character concepts in D&D that are DOIN IT WRONG, and if you try them the game will punish you, especially if you're playing with the kind of powergamers on this board . Something as trivial as 'fighter who uses a longsword and no shield', for example.

The drawback is mostly that there are better ways to get most things that armor can get you. It's not that taking Runesmith is a bad way to get an armored caster - it's that armored casters aren't a high-op idea. Spells and magic items get plenty of AC, and if you really need one of the special abilities you can get the lightest possible armor and add a couple of things (Mithril, Twilight, Feycraft...) to drop the penalty down to zero. I think most of those could also be applied to heavy armor if you wanted to do a Heavy Armor caster without Runesmith, but it'd get a lot more expensive because you'd have to stack more things to bring the penalty down enough, and the non-proficiency penalty would get too big.

But if you can fit in the requirements for Runesmith (the big difficulty is getting the proficieny - probably easiest to just take a level in a gish class that gives it), it's fine.