One cripples the Witch-King of Angmar, another slays the spawn of a Maiar or at least cripples them with what should be a mortal wound and we never hear from them again, the third tanks a hit from a troll and manages to be the only bearer of the Ring to resist it's corruption while in Mordor while the last gets a kill-assist on Gandalf.
It is worth noting that, with the exception of surviving the Ring’s corruption, Tolkien explicitly is clear that none of the Hobbits are anything special—they just happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right tool.
Merry is only able to wound the Witch-King because he happens to be holding a weapon from the Barrow Downs capable of inflicting the wound. Tolkien is again clear that Pippen’s blade from the Barrow Downs is the reason he is able to pierce the troll’s hide.
Tolkien is very clear that Sam is not the one who inflicts the wound on Shelob—Shelob and Sting are. Sting, being an elvish blade, is capable of piercing her hide—but the strength behind the wound comes from Shelob herself, whose mass does all the work as she attacks Sam and in so doing impales herself upon Sting.
Frodo takes a hit from a troll, but only because he happens to be wearing armor which can take the hit. Much like a Commoner could survive a hit from a troll if they were wearing Armor of Invulnerability, Frodo survives because of his gear, not any particular strength.
This mediocrity and “heroism by pure happenstance” is extremely important to Tolkien’s thesis. Tolkien was influenced by two primary factors—his encyclopaedic knowledge of myth and the horrors he faced in the trenches of the First World War. Tolkien knew better than most that legends and myth are made up of your big, flashy heroes—your Aragorns and Éowyns—but that victory cannot ever truly be accomplished without the regular commoner who manages to rise to the occasion while not actually being anything special themselves. When writing his works, he wanted to create a legend that not only featured your traditional legendary hero—he wanted a legend that featured and honoured the many men who history and myth tend to forget.
Which, again, I why the hobbits are very likely commoners throughout the majority of the book (the Scouring of the Shire showing how Merry and Pippen have grown, though Tolkien is pretty clear to show most of that is in appearance—physical growth and fancy armor and personality, not necessarily combat prowess). Treating them as commoners and not as PCs more accurately represents what Tolkien was explicitly trying to do with the Hobbits—to show that the “Player Characters” might be the flashy heroes, but wars are not won by flashy heroes alone.
One cripples the Witch-King of Angmar, another slays the spawn of a Maiar or at least cripples them with what should be a mortal wound and we never hear from them again, the third tanks a hit from a troll and manages to be the only bearer of the Ring to resist it's corruption while in Mordor while the last gets a kill-assist on Gandalf.
It is worth noting that, with the exception of surviving the Ring’s corruption, Tolkien explicitly is clear that none of the Hobbits are anything special—they just happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right tool.
Merry is only able to wound the Witch-King because he happens to be holding a weapon from the Barrow Downs capable of inflicting the wound. Tolkien is again clear that Pippen’s blade from the Barrow Downs is the reason he is able to pierce the troll’s hide.
Tolkien is very clear that Sam is not the one who inflicts the wound on Shelob—Shelob and Sting are. Sting, being an elvish blade, is capable of piercing her hide—but the strength behind the wound comes from Shelob herself, whose mass does all the work as she attacks Sam and in so doing impales herself upon Sting.
Frodo takes a hit from a troll, but only because he happens to be wearing armor which can take the hit. Much like a Commoner could survive a hit from a troll if they were wearing Armor of Invulnerability, Frodo survives because of his gear, not any particular strength.
This mediocrity and “heroism by pure happenstance” is extremely important to Tolkien’s thesis. Tolkien was influenced by two primary factors—his encyclopaedic knowledge of myth and the horrors he faced in the trenches of the First World War. Tolkien knew better than most that legends and myth are made up of your big, flashy heroes—your Aragorns and Éowyns—but that victory cannot ever truly be accomplished without the regular commoner who manages to rise to the occasion while not actually being anything special themselves. When writing his works, he wanted to create a legend that not only featured your traditional legendary hero—he wanted a legend that featured and honoured the many men who history and myth tend to forget.
Which, again, I why the hobbits are very likely commoners throughout the majority of the book (the Scouring of the Shire showing how Merry and Pippen have grown, though Tolkien is pretty clear to show most of that is in appearance—physical growth and fancy armor and personality, not necessarily combat prowess). Treating them as commoners and not as PCs more accurately represents what Tolkien was explicitly trying to do with the Hobbits—to show that the “Player Characters” might be the flashy heroes, but wars are not won by flashy heroes alone.
Entire books have been written on this subject, but Tolkien's rejection of the kind of heroism represented by Arthurian chivalric traditions in no way meant he rejected the idea of heroes or heroism
The hobbits may be "heroes by happenstance" but they are absolutely heroes, and discover resources and courage within themselves they didn't know were there until they undertook their quest -- which, in D&D terms, pretty explicitly means they level up
Branding them as mere "commoners" does Tolkien a disservice. In a D&D campaign, commoners don't shake off the enchantment of a powerful undead barrow-wight. Commoners get insta-killed at Weathertop, and again by Shelob's venom
Dismissing all their victories and successes as pure luck, or pure happenstance, seems to miss Tolkien's point completely
The hobbits would have classes and levels. In D&D, humble beginnings are what backgrounds are for
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Athelas would be better handled by Goodberry than Laying on of Hands. I'm not sure Paladin is a good fit since he never Smites, and what is a Paladin that never Smites?
I'd agree with you if not for the following quote: "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known." Aragorn's skill could heal those wounded by the witch king, which implies more power than a goodberry. Also if we stretch the definition a little, one could argue that Aragorn was smiting things left and right with his fancy broken sword in the Tolkienesque low-magic way. I'd say a crown paladin fits the proud-to-a-fault Aragorn thematically. But I could give on this point.
All the Hobbits are heroic, just not necessarily frontline fighter style in every instance. One cripples the Witch-King of Angmar, another slays the spawn of a Maiar or at least cripples them with what should be a mortal wound and we never hear from them again, the third tanks a hit from a troll and manages to be the only bearer of the Ring to resist it's corruption while in Mordor while the last gets a kill-assist on Gandalf.
In all seriousness though, the only one who doesn't jump to mind as having heroic deeds is Pippin. I mean two between them managed to cripple or kill a half-Maiar as well as the greatest wraith to ever exist - the only heroic deed we see match either of these is Gandalf slaying Durin's Bane, while being a Maiar himself and dies doing it.
The Hobbits put men like Boromir and Faramir to shame. Even Aragorn, who'd be accused of being a Mary-Sue if the book weren't so old, doesn't match these.
On the other hand... Merry landed an extremely lucky hit, which broke his own weapon and arm, due to the weight of prophecy. Pippin does what to who? What's a half-maiar? Okay, he manages to get the lucky blow on a troll, which promptly falls on him, ending his role in the final battle. Frodo gets himself stabbed, bashed, captured, etc and was lucky enough to have worn his uncle's armor when he got shivved by an orc bad enough to have otherwise been insta-fragged. He's a classic commoner, and in fact this status is almost essential to the plot. Sam, the gardener, gets one good solid lucky swing at Shelob with the aid of two powerful magic items (well, at least for the power level of Middle Earth) and the DM subsequently ruled that shelob just ran away.
I'd say that what ties the hobbits together is their incredible luck and courage, which is given by the base halfling race. If any of them have PC levels, I'd mayyyybe say it'd be Sam. But even then, what class features does he have? Remember, a first-level fighter gets a fighting style. Which hobbit has enough skill in combat to have trained in a fighting style? No way they come close to having the skills of even a basic soldier in the Gondorian army, who would be represented by an NPC block.
There's one exception I'd make. By the end of the RotK, when the hobbits return to the shire and get into it with the severely weakened, staff-less Saruman, they may have earned a single level in... something.
Boromir and Faramir have years of experience in both combat and leadership. Aragorn's lived it up with the elves, hunted Gollum, and developed a keen set of skills that border on supernatural. No comparison. You could argue that the men have done fewer heroic deeds, fair enough, but levels come down to experience and skill, not just luck IMO.
Thank you for attending my Ted talk.
P.S. I really don't take this very serously. All in good fun, yeah?
Yup! Just some good old fashioned nerding! Nobody is going into this to hurt feelings. I think that honestly, Rathkryn’s idea that Pippin is a bard seems the most plausible. You could build a low level bard that uses spells without visual effects, such as charm person and bane, which would help to explain some of his apparent “luck”. Just a thought. You could even give him college of swords, to explain how his martial prowess is better than the rest of the hobbits, except maybe Merry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbithole, and that means comfort.”
Branding them as mere "commoners" does Tolkien a disservice. In a D&D campaign, commoners don't shake off the enchantment of a powerful undead barrow-wight. Commoners get insta-killed at Weathertop, and again by Shelob's venom
Dismissing all their victories and successes as pure luck, or pure happenstance, seems to miss Tolkien's point completely
Nobody is doing Tolkien a disservice.
In my view, his point was that the most heroic courage is that exhibited by those with the least power. Sam got lucky when he shanked shelob, but his courage was what propelled him to try and rescue Frodo. Merry got lucky when he shivved the witch king, but his courage allowed him to give it a go. That makes them heroes, but doesn't necessarily mean they would have class levels.
Your examples kinda make our point. Frodo did get one-shotted by shelob, it just wasn't a deadly poison it used. He also did get one-shotted at weathertop, and Aragorn used his lay on hands to kill the poison (IMO). And the barrow wights were shooed off by deus ex machina Tom Bombadil, right?
Branding them as mere "commoners" does Tolkien a disservice. In a D&D campaign, commoners don't shake off the enchantment of a powerful undead barrow-wight. Commoners get insta-killed at Weathertop, and again by Shelob's venom
Dismissing all their victories and successes as pure luck, or pure happenstance, seems to miss Tolkien's point completely
Nobody is doing Tolkien a disservice.
In my view, his point was that the most heroic courage is that exhibited by those with the least power. Sam got lucky when he shanked shelob, but his courage was what propelled him to try and rescue Frodo. Merry got lucky when he shivved the witch king, but his courage allowed him to give it a go. That makes them heroes, but doesn't necessarily mean they would have class levels.
Your examples kinda make our point. Frodo did get one-shotted by shelob, it just wasn't a deadly poison it used. He also did get one-shotted at weathertop, and Aragorn used his lay on hands to kill the poison (IMO). And the barrow wights were shooed off by deus ex machina Tom Bombadil, right?
One-shotted is not instant death. Do you really think Shelob or a ring wraith would only be doing 1d8 damage or so?
And Frodo broke the spell of the barrow-wight before calling out for Bombadil
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Branding them as mere "commoners" does Tolkien a disservice. In a D&D campaign, commoners don't shake off the enchantment of a powerful undead barrow-wight. Commoners get insta-killed at Weathertop, and again by Shelob's venom
Dismissing all their victories and successes as pure luck, or pure happenstance, seems to miss Tolkien's point completely
Nobody is doing Tolkien a disservice.
In my view, his point was that the most heroic courage is that exhibited by those with the least power. Sam got lucky when he shanked shelob, but his courage was what propelled him to try and rescue Frodo. Merry got lucky when he shivved the witch king, but his courage allowed him to give it a go. That makes them heroes, but doesn't necessarily mean they would have class levels.
Your examples kinda make our point. Frodo did get one-shotted by shelob, it just wasn't a deadly poison it used. He also did get one-shotted at weathertop, and Aragorn used his lay on hands to kill the poison (IMO). And the barrow wights were shooed off by deus ex machina Tom Bombadil, right?
One-shotted is not instant death. Do you really think Shelob or a ring wraith would only be doing 1d8 damage or so?
And Frodo broke the spell of the barrow-wight before calling out for Bombadil
Both examples you cite were specifically designated as non-lethal attacks. Shelob’s poison is specifically designed to be non-fatal so she can eat her prey alive—not unlike many D&D spiders. When stabbed on Weathertop, the Nazgûl was not trying to inflict a mortal wound—he was trying to turn Frodo into a wraith by embedding a bit of blade into Frodo’s flesh.
You will be hard pressed to find a single instance in the entire series where they take a blow and there isn’t some mitigating factor such as the attack being nonlethal or armor mitigating the blow. The only real one—Pippin has a troll dropped on him and immediately has to make “death saving throws.”
And, to be very clear, saying they are not even a Level 1 adventurer does not mean they are not heroes—in fact, if you look at Tolkien’s clear messaging, he makes it very apparent he thinks they are the true heroes of the story. Their ordinary nature—in fact, their dominative nature—makes their heroism all the more notable.
One cripples the Witch-King of Angmar, another slays the spawn of a Maiar or at least cripples them with what should be a mortal wound and we never hear from them again, the third tanks a hit from a troll and manages to be the only bearer of the Ring to resist it's corruption while in Mordor while the last gets a kill-assist on Gandalf.
It is worth noting that, with the exception of surviving the Ring’s corruption, Tolkien explicitly is clear that none of the Hobbits are anything special—they just happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right tool.
Merry is only able to wound the Witch-King because he happens to be holding a weapon from the Barrow Downs capable of inflicting the wound. Tolkien is again clear that Pippen’s blade from the Barrow Downs is the reason he is able to pierce the troll’s hide.
Tolkien is very clear that Sam is not the one who inflicts the wound on Shelob—Shelob and Sting are. Sting, being an elvish blade, is capable of piercing her hide—but the strength behind the wound comes from Shelob herself, whose mass does all the work as she attacks Sam and in so doing impales herself upon Sting.
Frodo takes a hit from a troll, but only because he happens to be wearing armor which can take the hit. Much like a Commoner could survive a hit from a troll if they were wearing Armor of Invulnerability, Frodo survives because of his gear, not any particular strength.
This mediocrity and “heroism by pure happenstance” is extremely important to Tolkien’s thesis. Tolkien was influenced by two primary factors—his encyclopaedic knowledge of myth and the horrors he faced in the trenches of the First World War. Tolkien knew better than most that legends and myth are made up of your big, flashy heroes—your Aragorns and Éowyns—but that victory cannot ever truly be accomplished without the regular commoner who manages to rise to the occasion while not actually being anything special themselves. When writing his works, he wanted to create a legend that not only featured your traditional legendary hero—he wanted a legend that featured and honoured the many men who history and myth tend to forget.
Which, again, I why the hobbits are very likely commoners throughout the majority of the book (the Scouring of the Shire showing how Merry and Pippen have grown, though Tolkien is pretty clear to show most of that is in appearance—physical growth and fancy armor and personality, not necessarily combat prowess). Treating them as commoners and not as PCs more accurately represents what Tolkien was explicitly trying to do with the Hobbits—to show that the “Player Characters” might be the flashy heroes, but wars are not won by flashy heroes alone.
While I agree with this thematic take, it underscores my previous point about D&D transliteration. There are no mechanical rules for things like Shelob's mass causing her to impale herself irrespective of Frodo's own martial prowess.
There's a reason DM of the Rings ended up making the hobbits NPCs and focusing the action on Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas instead.
When stabbed on Weathertop, the Nazgûl was not trying to inflict a mortal wound—he was trying to turn Frodo into a wraith by embedding a bit of blade into Frodo’s flesh.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately used a morgul knife rather than its sword to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used at different points
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used different points
I mean sure, but this is some really deep pedantry. If your argument is that Frodo must have had the equivalent of PC levels because he didn't die immediately from massive damage, the clear counterargument is that the nazgul used a smaller, less immediately lethal weapon to wound Frodo. The wound was lethal in the sense that it would ultimately lead to Frodo's death, but the strike itself was not. If the nazgul really wanted Frodo dead right away, it could have used its big fancy longsword.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used different points
I mean sure, but this is some really deep pedantry
Nah
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used different points
The wound inflicted was lethal because it would turn Frodo into a wraith, killing everything he was.
From a tactical perspective, the Nazgûl made the correct move. In combat against a foe wielding the very sword which cut down their master, there was no guarantee that killing Frodo on the spot would also give them the ability to recover the Ring from his corpse. Turning him into an asset, however, would have a higher rate of success should they get driven from Weathertop, particularly since the party was on foot and could not reach a healer able to stop the wound before the transformation finished. The only reason their plan failed was that Elrond had sent riders out looking for the company, and one of those riders managed to get to Frodo and return to Rivendell with unprecedented haste.
And I think all of this speaks to PsyrenXY’s point that translating literature to D&D gets a little wonky. Regular people are pretty easy to kill in game, but it turns out regular people in the real world can be pretty good at surviving injuries.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used different points
The wound inflicted was lethal because it would turn Frodo into a wraith, killing everything he was.
You are making this massive leap that the wound was for some reason designed to act slowly that is unsupported by, well, anything.
The nazgul tried to kill Frodo and turn him into a wraith that would have no choice but to bring the Ring back to Sauron. Remember, when Frodo was stabbed he had been compelled to put on the Ring -- had he fallen then and there, the rest of his party wouldn't have ever seen him again. He would have remained invisible to them.
The nazgul failed because they were driven off before they could finish the job, Frodo's will was still strong enough that he was able to remove the Ring before falling unconscious (more evidence that he's a better fit as a leveled character than a commoner with no saving throw bonuses), and because Aragorn's healing abilities were just good enough to keep Frodo alive until they got him more powerful help. That's what the book tells you happened.
Again putting it in D&D terms, what mechanic would you use to mimic that slow fade into wraithdom? The most obvious one would be a daily loss of max HP that Frodo would need something like greater restoration to remove. If he's a commoner, he's dead in a day or two, because his max HP is so low. He lasts, what, nearly two weeks?
Regular people are pretty easy to kill in game, but it turns out regular people in the real world can be pretty good at surviving injuries.
Tolkien's views on the lethality of combat were heavily influenced by his experiences during the war. "Regular people survive pretty well, actually" was definitely not the lesson of the trenches.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not going to continue to argue about weathertop because I don't care it's beside the point. Frodo didn't die because he had plot armor which could plausibly be covered by the halfling lucky trait and DM fiat. Again and again. He never really exhibits skills or training that would be implied by a martial class, nor the magical talent of a spellcaster. Which class would you pin on him?
Also just for the record not having a heroic class =/= being a commoner in the literal sense of that stat block. I would consider Frodo more of a noble.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately switched weapons to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used different points
The wound inflicted was lethal because it would turn Frodo into a wraith, killing everything he was.
From a tactical perspective, the Nazgûl made the correct move. In combat against a foe wielding the very sword which cut down their master, there was no guarantee that killing Frodo on the spot would also give them the ability to recover the Ring from his corpse. Turning him into an asset, however, would have a higher rate of success should they get driven from Weathertop, particularly since the party was on foot and could not reach a healer able to stop the wound before the transformation finished. The only reason their plan failed was that Elrond had sent riders out looking for the company, and one of those riders managed to get to Frodo and return to Rivendell with unprecedented haste.
And I think all of this speaks to PsyrenXY’s point that translating literature to D&D gets a little wonky. Regular people are pretty easy to kill in game, but it turns out regular people in the real world can be pretty good at surviving injuries.
What a fun read of all this banter because some people had decided to try and define classing on the Fellowship... and the last line here in the pull quotes... Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahhaha....
FWIW: The side of this argument that gives classes, in my view, is the correct one.
The other side splitting hairs and rebutting every comment, trying to say that the author's intentions for characters in his novel directly translates that since he said the hobbits were not extraordinary they'd be commoners if we stat 'em up in D&D is silliness! SO: If that's the case, then every character in LOTR is a commoner thrust into circumstance. They're all just using tools, potions, and lifelong professional knowledge. Aragorn may be a ranger according to JRRT, but is he a "Ranger" in D&D? Clearly Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli understand how to fight and defend their realms, repping their clans in the big fight, but you and I would do the same, so are they really fighters and such? I'm a graphic designer and a teacher, used to swordfight with live steel in the parks, and I own firearms and was in the Army, but in D&D, I too would be a commoner with a great background and a neat artificer weapon. Right? Lucky if some thug came into my home and I happen to pop a round through his chest?
If life or novels were D&D, we make our characters based on what we do and continue to do, not by how we are defined at the beginning.
My point is all the hobbits were indeed skilled adventurers by the time they return to scour the Shire. Trying to say it was just luck and weapons does insult to JRRT and the idea that people change as clearly was demonstrated by Frodo sailing West because so much had changed. Samwise went up the stairs in Cirith Ungol wearing the shirt, wielding Sting and mustering courage.... with direct intent to do combat - demonstrating clear proficiencies and winning the fight.
I am all for being faithful to JRRT's works in the argument, but the definitions of how to game D&D are informed by the work, not defined by them. We assume if we used these characters in D&D - NPC or not - they'd be playable.
Frodo is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is a Fighter. The One Ring and all it's trappings of power and peril are reserved to the item and its effects.
Sam is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is Paladin. There's an argument for it and there's no reason not to think its valid. I'd do a custom oath for him based on friendship/fellowship/loyalty.
Pippin is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is a Bard. I buy this explanation: "His expert performance during the dinner and his quotable lines indicate a high charisma. And he can fight and sneak as well." In fact, when he volunteers to become a citadel guard, I think he gains a level of Fighter.
Merry is a hobbit in the novels and starts out a Bard like Pippin, but gains a level or two as a Fighter. He gains his Fighter levels hanging out with the Rohirrim.
Gimli is dwarf in the books and when I read dwarves in Tolkien, I never get the impression there's a lot of variances in their male archetypes. In D&D, he's a Fighter. I don't see him as a Barbarian. I agree he is stubborn, but if he wasn't wearing armor, he'd be easier for an enemy to kill and there's not much nature affinity in him.
Legolas is an Elf of Thranduil's line descended of those elves who had never seen the Undying Lands in the books. In D&D, Legolas is a Ranger. I agree with: 'his dual wielding and archery he's what everyone envisions as a Ranger." I'd probably allow him to trade the animal companion for some other ability.
Aragon is the easiest to discern and he is also one amongst these along with Gandalf, who inspires us to make these comparisons in the first place. JRRT tells you he is a ranger, and that he comes from a long line of chieftains descended from kings. But he is also raised in the house of Elrond and that might add other depth. In D&D, he is one of the few that translates well to what our author asserts. He is a Ranger with a Noble background.
Boromir is a soldier in the books who prior to the Council of Elrond, is the captain of the guard in Minas Tirith and ostensibly, the leader of the Gondorian military on the Steward's behalf. In D&D, he is clearly a Fighter. Not much explanation needed.
Finally, JRRT's creation is a low-magic world where magic is more a property of the world and the province of those that make the world.
Gandalf is an Istari and Maiar in the books. He is stated to be a wizard by the other characters who do not know him as a Maiar spirit, although perhaps Galadriel, Cirdan and Elrond do know. In D&D, he would be one of only about 7 wizards in the world. I buy that he is " knowledgeable, learned and intelligent". His ability to fight with a sword is a simple proficiency taken, no need for a new class - he's probably going to be written up in a demigod template of some sort (as I would expect Saruman, Radagast, the two blues <their names escape me at this moment>, Sauron and Tom Bombadil <maybe Tom's not a wizard, but.... maybe>).
Frodo is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is a Fighter. The One Ring and all it's trappings of power and peril are reserved to the item and its effects.
When did Frodo display any real proficiency with a weapon? What's his fighting style? When does he action surge? What archetype would he have adopted?
I am all for being faithful to JRRT's works in the argument, but the definitions of how to game D&D are informed by the work, not defined by them. We assume if we used these characters in D&D - NPC or not - they'd be playable.
These are assumptions that you're making for the sake of discussion. They're valid, but they are not universal.
He never really exhibits skills or training that would be implied by a martial class, nor the magical talent of a spellcaster. Which class would you pin on him?
If you're shoehorning what he does in the book into a D&D class, Scout rogue's probably the easiest fit. I do think you can make an argument for playing him as a Knowledge Domain cleric though -- he knows other languages, has some book skills like History, seems to buff his allies on occasion even if there's no overt "I'm casting bless" involved, and he even tries (if not consciously) to Turn Undead a couple times
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I feel like you didn't pay attention to the book or movie material, or you're rolling crits on splitting hairs, or both. [Edit: Not trying to be "snarky"] Frodo made all sorts of attempts. Did he roll crappy? Maybe. I know that if I did LOTR in 5E, I'm on the side of classing the characters. The rules have famously assumed that each of us will use those that make sense and adapt them to our needs. Perhaps Frodo never develops a coherent fighting style and the DM makes allowances based on arguments for or against solutions made by the player. Perhaps the player comes up with new defensive maneuvers as the fighting style. I say he is a Fighter because he never seems to be much of a Bard like his cousins and doesn't seem to have Sam's convictions. We could make him a Rogue, I could see that, but perhaps his scruples would get in the way of him being a kleptomaniac type. RPGs are wonderful things.
Instead of trying to one-up with negative/detractive content, how about you tell me how you agree to runthe party of real people who come over to your house to play 5E and want to play the Fellowship of the Ring? What' are your "universal" assumptions?
I’ll just leave this here
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=tulok the barbarian lord of the rings
It is worth noting that, with the exception of surviving the Ring’s corruption, Tolkien explicitly is clear that none of the Hobbits are anything special—they just happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right tool.
Merry is only able to wound the Witch-King because he happens to be holding a weapon from the Barrow Downs capable of inflicting the wound. Tolkien is again clear that Pippen’s blade from the Barrow Downs is the reason he is able to pierce the troll’s hide.
Tolkien is very clear that Sam is not the one who inflicts the wound on Shelob—Shelob and Sting are. Sting, being an elvish blade, is capable of piercing her hide—but the strength behind the wound comes from Shelob herself, whose mass does all the work as she attacks Sam and in so doing impales herself upon Sting.
Frodo takes a hit from a troll, but only because he happens to be wearing armor which can take the hit. Much like a Commoner could survive a hit from a troll if they were wearing Armor of Invulnerability, Frodo survives because of his gear, not any particular strength.
This mediocrity and “heroism by pure happenstance” is extremely important to Tolkien’s thesis. Tolkien was influenced by two primary factors—his encyclopaedic knowledge of myth and the horrors he faced in the trenches of the First World War. Tolkien knew better than most that legends and myth are made up of your big, flashy heroes—your Aragorns and Éowyns—but that victory cannot ever truly be accomplished without the regular commoner who manages to rise to the occasion while not actually being anything special themselves. When writing his works, he wanted to create a legend that not only featured your traditional legendary hero—he wanted a legend that featured and honoured the many men who history and myth tend to forget.
Which, again, I why the hobbits are very likely commoners throughout the majority of the book (the Scouring of the Shire showing how Merry and Pippen have grown, though Tolkien is pretty clear to show most of that is in appearance—physical growth and fancy armor and personality, not necessarily combat prowess). Treating them as commoners and not as PCs more accurately represents what Tolkien was explicitly trying to do with the Hobbits—to show that the “Player Characters” might be the flashy heroes, but wars are not won by flashy heroes alone.
Entire books have been written on this subject, but Tolkien's rejection of the kind of heroism represented by Arthurian chivalric traditions in no way meant he rejected the idea of heroes or heroism
The hobbits may be "heroes by happenstance" but they are absolutely heroes, and discover resources and courage within themselves they didn't know were there until they undertook their quest -- which, in D&D terms, pretty explicitly means they level up
Branding them as mere "commoners" does Tolkien a disservice. In a D&D campaign, commoners don't shake off the enchantment of a powerful undead barrow-wight. Commoners get insta-killed at Weathertop, and again by Shelob's venom
Dismissing all their victories and successes as pure luck, or pure happenstance, seems to miss Tolkien's point completely
The hobbits would have classes and levels. In D&D, humble beginnings are what backgrounds are for
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yup! Just some good old fashioned nerding! Nobody is going into this to hurt feelings. I think that honestly, Rathkryn’s idea that Pippin is a bard seems the most plausible. You could build a low level bard that uses spells without visual effects, such as charm person and bane, which would help to explain some of his apparent “luck”. Just a thought. You could even give him college of swords, to explain how his martial prowess is better than the rest of the hobbits, except maybe Merry.
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbithole, and that means comfort.”
Nobody is doing Tolkien a disservice.
In my view, his point was that the most heroic courage is that exhibited by those with the least power. Sam got lucky when he shanked shelob, but his courage was what propelled him to try and rescue Frodo. Merry got lucky when he shivved the witch king, but his courage allowed him to give it a go. That makes them heroes, but doesn't necessarily mean they would have class levels.
Your examples kinda make our point. Frodo did get one-shotted by shelob, it just wasn't a deadly poison it used. He also did get one-shotted at weathertop, and Aragorn used his lay on hands to kill the poison (IMO). And the barrow wights were shooed off by
deus ex machinaTom Bombadil, right?One-shotted is not instant death. Do you really think Shelob or a ring wraith would only be doing 1d8 damage or so?
And Frodo broke the spell of the barrow-wight before calling out for Bombadil
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Both examples you cite were specifically designated as non-lethal attacks. Shelob’s poison is specifically designed to be non-fatal so she can eat her prey alive—not unlike many D&D spiders. When stabbed on Weathertop, the Nazgûl was not trying to inflict a mortal wound—he was trying to turn Frodo into a wraith by embedding a bit of blade into Frodo’s flesh.
You will be hard pressed to find a single instance in the entire series where they take a blow and there isn’t some mitigating factor such as the attack being nonlethal or armor mitigating the blow. The only real one—Pippin has a troll dropped on him and immediately has to make “death saving throws.”
And, to be very clear, saying they are not even a Level 1 adventurer does not mean they are not heroes—in fact, if you look at Tolkien’s clear messaging, he makes it very apparent he thinks they are the true heroes of the story. Their ordinary nature—in fact, their dominative nature—makes their heroism all the more notable.
While I agree with this thematic take, it underscores my previous point about D&D transliteration. There are no mechanical rules for things like Shelob's mass causing her to impale herself irrespective of Frodo's own martial prowess.
There's a reason DM of the Rings ended up making the hobbits NPCs and focusing the action on Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas instead.
"The very powerful undead ringwraith was dealing nonlethal damage to try and turn the very living Frodo into another undead" is quite the pretzel
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean... I'm pretty sure it was right there in the source. The nazgul deliberately used a morgul knife rather than its sword to do so, and gets him in the shoulder.
There's no switching of weapons, IIRC. The nazgul is (in D&D terms) already dual wielding sword and dagger, and the dagger is what he hits with after Frodo slashes at him first
The wound is also described as either 'mortal' or 'lethal', or maybe both terms are used at different points
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean sure, but this is some really deep pedantry. If your argument is that Frodo must have had the equivalent of PC levels because he didn't die immediately from massive damage, the clear counterargument is that the nazgul used a smaller, less immediately lethal weapon to wound Frodo. The wound was lethal in the sense that it would ultimately lead to Frodo's death, but the strike itself was not. If the nazgul really wanted Frodo dead right away, it could have used its big fancy longsword.
Nah
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The wound inflicted was lethal because it would turn Frodo into a wraith, killing everything he was.
From a tactical perspective, the Nazgûl made the correct move. In combat against a foe wielding the very sword which cut down their master, there was no guarantee that killing Frodo on the spot would also give them the ability to recover the Ring from his corpse. Turning him into an asset, however, would have a higher rate of success should they get driven from Weathertop, particularly since the party was on foot and could not reach a healer able to stop the wound before the transformation finished. The only reason their plan failed was that Elrond had sent riders out looking for the company, and one of those riders managed to get to Frodo and return to Rivendell with unprecedented haste.
And I think all of this speaks to PsyrenXY’s point that translating literature to D&D gets a little wonky. Regular people are pretty easy to kill in game, but it turns out regular people in the real world can be pretty good at surviving injuries.
You are making this massive leap that the wound was for some reason designed to act slowly that is unsupported by, well, anything.
The nazgul tried to kill Frodo and turn him into a wraith that would have no choice but to bring the Ring back to Sauron. Remember, when Frodo was stabbed he had been compelled to put on the Ring -- had he fallen then and there, the rest of his party wouldn't have ever seen him again. He would have remained invisible to them.
The nazgul failed because they were driven off before they could finish the job, Frodo's will was still strong enough that he was able to remove the Ring before falling unconscious (more evidence that he's a better fit as a leveled character than a commoner with no saving throw bonuses), and because Aragorn's healing abilities were just good enough to keep Frodo alive until they got him more powerful help. That's what the book tells you happened.
Again putting it in D&D terms, what mechanic would you use to mimic that slow fade into wraithdom? The most obvious one would be a daily loss of max HP that Frodo would need something like greater restoration to remove. If he's a commoner, he's dead in a day or two, because his max HP is so low. He lasts, what, nearly two weeks?
Tolkien's views on the lethality of combat were heavily influenced by his experiences during the war. "Regular people survive pretty well, actually" was definitely not the lesson of the trenches.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not going to continue to argue about weathertop because
I don't careit's beside the point. Frodo didn't die because he had plot armor which could plausibly be covered by the halfling lucky trait and DM fiat. Again and again. He never really exhibits skills or training that would be implied by a martial class, nor the magical talent of a spellcaster. Which class would you pin on him?Also just for the record not having a heroic class =/= being a commoner in the literal sense of that stat block. I would consider Frodo more of a noble.
What a fun read of all this banter because some people had decided to try and define classing on the Fellowship... and the last line here in the pull quotes...
Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahhaha....
FWIW: The side of this argument that gives classes, in my view, is the correct one.
The other side splitting hairs and rebutting every comment, trying to say that the author's intentions for characters in his novel directly translates that since he said the hobbits were not extraordinary they'd be commoners if we stat 'em up in D&D is silliness!
SO:
If that's the case, then every character in LOTR is a commoner thrust into circumstance. They're all just using tools, potions, and lifelong professional knowledge. Aragorn may be a ranger according to JRRT, but is he a "Ranger" in D&D? Clearly Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli understand how to fight and defend their realms, repping their clans in the big fight, but you and I would do the same, so are they really fighters and such?
I'm a graphic designer and a teacher, used to swordfight with live steel in the parks, and I own firearms and was in the Army, but in D&D, I too would be a commoner with a great background and a neat artificer weapon. Right? Lucky if some thug came into my home and I happen to pop a round through his chest?
If life or novels were D&D, we make our characters based on what we do and continue to do, not by how we are defined at the beginning.
My point is all the hobbits were indeed skilled adventurers by the time they return to scour the Shire. Trying to say it was just luck and weapons does insult to JRRT and the idea that people change as clearly was demonstrated by Frodo sailing West because so much had changed. Samwise went up the stairs in Cirith Ungol wearing the shirt, wielding Sting and mustering courage.... with direct intent to do combat - demonstrating clear proficiencies and winning the fight.
I am all for being faithful to JRRT's works in the argument, but the definitions of how to game D&D are informed by the work, not defined by them. We assume if we used these characters in D&D - NPC or not - they'd be playable.
Frodo is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is a Fighter. The One Ring and all it's trappings of power and peril are reserved to the item and its effects.
Sam is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is Paladin. There's an argument for it and there's no reason not to think its valid. I'd do a custom oath for him based on friendship/fellowship/loyalty.
Pippin is a hobbit in the novels and in D&D is a Bard. I buy this explanation: "His expert performance during the dinner and his quotable lines indicate a high charisma. And he can fight and sneak as well." In fact, when he volunteers to become a citadel guard, I think he gains a level of Fighter.
Merry is a hobbit in the novels and starts out a Bard like Pippin, but gains a level or two as a Fighter. He gains his Fighter levels hanging out with the Rohirrim.
Gimli is dwarf in the books and when I read dwarves in Tolkien, I never get the impression there's a lot of variances in their male archetypes. In D&D, he's a Fighter. I don't see him as a Barbarian. I agree he is stubborn, but if he wasn't wearing armor, he'd be easier for an enemy to kill and there's not much nature affinity in him.
Legolas is an Elf of Thranduil's line descended of those elves who had never seen the Undying Lands in the books. In D&D, Legolas is a Ranger. I agree with: 'his dual wielding and archery he's what everyone envisions as a Ranger." I'd probably allow him to trade the animal companion for some other ability.
Aragon is the easiest to discern and he is also one amongst these along with Gandalf, who inspires us to make these comparisons in the first place. JRRT tells you he is a ranger, and that he comes from a long line of chieftains descended from kings. But he is also raised in the house of Elrond and that might add other depth. In D&D, he is one of the few that translates well to what our author asserts. He is a Ranger with a Noble background.
Boromir is a soldier in the books who prior to the Council of Elrond, is the captain of the guard in Minas Tirith and ostensibly, the leader of the Gondorian military on the Steward's behalf. In D&D, he is clearly a Fighter. Not much explanation needed.
Finally, JRRT's creation is a low-magic world where magic is more a property of the world and the province of those that make the world.
Gandalf is an Istari and Maiar in the books. He is stated to be a wizard by the other characters who do not know him as a Maiar spirit, although perhaps Galadriel, Cirdan and Elrond do know. In D&D, he would be one of only about 7 wizards in the world. I buy that he is " knowledgeable, learned and intelligent". His ability to fight with a sword is a simple proficiency taken, no need for a new class - he's probably going to be written up in a demigod template of some sort (as I would expect Saruman, Radagast, the two blues <their names escape me at this moment>, Sauron and Tom Bombadil <maybe Tom's not a wizard, but.... maybe>).
Good times.
Happy New Year.
When did Frodo display any real proficiency with a weapon? What's his fighting style? When does he action surge? What archetype would he have adopted?
These are assumptions that you're making for the sake of discussion. They're valid, but they are not universal.
If you're shoehorning what he does in the book into a D&D class, Scout rogue's probably the easiest fit. I do think you can make an argument for playing him as a Knowledge Domain cleric though -- he knows other languages, has some book skills like History, seems to buff his allies on occasion even if there's no overt "I'm casting bless" involved, and he even tries (if not consciously) to Turn Undead a couple times
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Gnomarchy,
I feel like you didn't pay attention to the book or movie material, or you're rolling crits on splitting hairs, or both. [Edit: Not trying to be "snarky"]
Frodo made all sorts of attempts. Did he roll crappy? Maybe.
I know that if I did LOTR in 5E, I'm on the side of classing the characters. The rules have famously assumed that each of us will use those that make sense and adapt them to our needs. Perhaps Frodo never develops a coherent fighting style and the DM makes allowances based on arguments for or against solutions made by the player. Perhaps the player comes up with new defensive maneuvers as the fighting style. I say he is a Fighter because he never seems to be much of a Bard like his cousins and doesn't seem to have Sam's convictions. We could make him a Rogue, I could see that, but perhaps his scruples would get in the way of him being a kleptomaniac type. RPGs are wonderful things.
Instead of trying to one-up with negative/detractive content, how about you tell me how you agree to run the party of real people who come over to your house to play 5E and want to play the Fellowship of the Ring? What' are your "universal" assumptions?