I never said it wasn't. But you have no proof either way where that ability came from.
If you're approximating him, which yet again is the point of this thread, presumably you wouldn't do so by letting one player at the table be a solar and/or giving them an artifact. And if you want to make him purely be an NPC or DMPC that's a valid (if boring) choice too.
He also was very well educated, particularly with respect to language.
And writing that passage from the perspective of a parochial character who would have as little clue of what actually happened in that scene as you do.
A terrific flash like lightning (why not of lightning, if it was lightning, or even electricity?)
Because it was in a cave and not in the sky
Tolkien wasn't running a D&D session, he was writing a book in the 1930s
He also was very well educated, particularly with respect to language.
Then why do you think he doesn't know the difference between lightning and fire?
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)
A terrific flash like lightning (why not of lightning, if it was lightning, or even electricity?)
Because it was in a cave and not in the sky
Tolkien wasn't running a D&D session, he was writing a book in the 1930s
He also was very well educated, particularly with respect to language.
Then why do you think he doesn't know the difference between lightning and fire?
What is described, to me, reads a lot more like an explosion. Given that Tolkien was deeply impacted by his wartime experiences, I don't think it is a stretch. Probably less of a stretch than him writing 'like lighting and smelling of gunpowder' but actually meaning 'exactly lighting and smelling of ozone'.
"Was Bilbo accurate about it being lightning" is missing the point, as often happens during Middle-Earth nerd-offs. The original point being addressed/refuted was:
Gandalf is not a wizard. What spells does he cast? Speak with butterflies and light? Pyrotechnics at the party?
He produced some kind of flashy AoE that one-shot multiple orcs/goblins. I don't actually care what you decide to call that spell, but it makes him a caster.
And if that ability did come from Narya, that's called a retcon, because when he wrote the Hobbit he hadn't conceived the One Ring or the other Rings of Power yet. Originally, Bilbo's ring was just a magic invisibility ring, a concept going all the way back to Plato if not earlier.
"Was Bilbo accurate about it being lightning" is missing the point, as often happens during Middle-Earth nerd-offs. The original point being addressed/refuted was:
Gandalf is not a wizard. What spells does he cast? Speak with butterflies and light? Pyrotechnics at the party?
He produced some kind of flashy AoE that one-shot multiple orcs/goblins. I don't actually care what you decide to call that spell, but it makes him a caster.
And if that ability did come from Narya, that's called a retcon, because when he wrote the Hobbit he hadn't conceived the One Ring or the other Rings of Power yet. Originally, Bilbo's ring was just a magic invisibility ring, a concept going all the way back to Plato if not earlier.
It isn't missing the point if it turns out to be done via a magic item, which makes it possible to accomplish this display and not be a caster.
Anyway, I have no interest in engaging deeply in this seething debate. LotR fans seem to always think they are the expert after reading the books two or three times, and anyone who challenges that 'expertise' are addressed as drooling, babbling idiots. I am not exactly seeing much to change my mind on that opinion here.
It isn't missing the point if it turns out to be done via a magic item, which makes it possible to accomplish this display and not be a caster.
As the scene was originally written, there was no item. Tolkien wrote his wizard character doing a wizardy thing, as astounding a concept as that might be.
And it is missing the point if you're not trying to translate him to D&D literally. Which we can't do anyway.
It isn't missing the point if it turns out to be done via a magic item, which makes it possible to accomplish this display and not be a caster.
As the scene was originally written, there was no item. Tolkien wrote his wizard character doing a wizardy thing, as astounding a concept as that might be.
And it is missing the point if you're not trying to translate him to D&D literally. Which we can't do anyway.
You are confusing missing the point and not finding your point as concrete as you think it is. Please see my second paragraph. Retcons happen and as pointed out, they did happen in Tolkien's work. Is it not possible that because it is not specifically stated, that multiple interpretations can be valid? It is possible for someone to disagree with you and not be wrong or stupid.
Just thinking out loud, wasn't Ed Greenwood's Elminister a pretty clear Gandalf analog, and basically had significant levels in most classes in a way that would be impossible to translate to 5e. Gandalf was also a hyper capable quasi deus ex machina, so shape him like you want him.
I think it's fine to have varying interpretations of LOTR characters to reflect what different posters took out the books. There's really a lot of fun ideas here, and don't know why this has to be a fight.
Other idea, Gandalf a Savant as presented in Dragon for AD&D back in 1988. His big think is knowledge both in a tactical situation as well as a capacity to provide learned counsel. And sure give him sword proficiency.
I'd say Merry on this return would sure be a template for the Halfling Defender also appearing in Dragon back in the AD&D era.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You are confusing missing the point and not finding your point as concrete as you think it is. Please see my second paragraph. Retcons happen and as pointed out, they did happen in Tolkien's work. Is it not possible that because it is not specifically stated, that multiple interpretations can be valid? It is possible for someone to disagree with you and not be wrong or stupid.
I never called anyone "stupid," please don't put words in my mouth. And your point cuts both ways - if you want your Gandalf to be a paladin or a fighter with a magic ring that's fine, but that doesn't make the "wizard with innate magic" interpretation of him wrong either.
There is direct no real life equivalent to a firebolt. The closest to that instantaneous a bolt of light and energy is lightning. Hence, lightning-like, but not actual lightning.
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make now. If you're translating that scene in the cave into D&D terms, he definitely wasn't using fire bolt
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)
There is direct no real life equivalent to a firebolt. The closest to that instantaneous a bolt of light and energy is lightning. Hence, lightning-like, but not actual lightning.
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make now. If you're translating that scene in the cave into D&D terms, he definitely wasn't using fire bolt
Agreed. If we’re still pounding out the idea he used something lightning adjacent, instead of the flash being a thematic element and not the actual spell, my best guess would be eldritch blast .
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.”
There is direct no real life equivalent to a firebolt. The closest to that instantaneous a bolt of light and energy is lightning. Hence, lightning-like, but not actual lightning.
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make now. If you're translating that scene in the cave into D&D terms, he definitely wasn't using fire bolt
I said "A firebolt. As in an instantaneous burst of fire, which was not necessarily a firebolt spell.
"Gandalf managed to get away by some magic art that caused a terrific flash, smelled like gunpowder and killed several goblins."
Would you prefer Burning Hands? It might even have been actually gunpowder based, for all we know, and the goblins were really killed by shrapnel. Fireworks and gunpowder seem to be known technologies (despite a complete lack of mention of gunpowder weapons other than a bomb) and Gandalf can enhance / control the explosions they create (as evidenced by his doing so for entertainment purposes at parties in Hobbiton). Fireworks definitely cause flashes of light that may or may not linger, yet are combustion based, not electricity based.
When you're posting on a D&D forum in a discussion about whether a literary character is a wizard or not and what spell he might be casting in a particular scene, you probably shouldn't use the names of actual D&D spells if you aren't, y'know, referring to those spells
And no, burning hands wouldn't look "like lightning" either
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)
How would any of these spells effect several targets?
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.”
How would any of these spells effect several targets?
Lightning Bolt and Burning Hands both have area of effects, and are capable of hitting multiple targets. They'd both be reasonably likely to kill any Goblins caught in it - although Burning Hands would probably spare those that made the Spell Save, for what it's worth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Regardless, you are not exactly making a case for him being a wizard, here.
I already said I would make him an NPC. But if it really matters to you whether Gandalf was a wizard or not, Tolkien settled the matter a number of times over:
With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard’s knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. ‘Fly, you fools!’ he cried, and was gone.
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)
"Attributable" means "logically explainable by." Something does not need to be overtly stated to be a logical conclusion. It does not say anything about Gandalf doing anything resembling formal casting of anything, either. Thus that 'no proof' thing goes both ways, especially since later in the Silmarillion, Tolkien reveals Gandalf's true nature.
So you agree that making him a wizard is a viable D&D interpretation then? Since there's no proof of what exactly he did or didn't do, or whether it came from an item or not?
When writing, whether for a book or for an RPG campaign, anything not yet revealed is fair game. It is only a retcon if something overtly stated is changed later without adequate explanation.
No writer or DM is required to write everything into their first book or campaign. They are not required to explain everything up front and if readers or players come to conclusions that later are proven false, then they came to conclusions that are later proven false.
It has to be something actually written to be able to be retconned. It is like saying that every plot twist is a retcon since, ideally, it is believable but you didn't see it coming.
Except he's on record as saying he hadn't come up with the Rings until after the Hobbit. So clearly he did not originally write that scene with Narya in mind, thus the interpretation of Gandalf as an innate spellcaster is a valid one.
How would any of these spells effect several targets?
Lightning Bolt and Burning Hands both have area of effects, and are capable of hitting multiple targets. They'd both be reasonably likely to kill any Goblins caught in it - although Burning Hands would probably spare those that made the Spell Save, for what it's worth.
But even if lightning bolt has area of effect, it goes in a straight line. The goblins came at him from all sides. There’s no way he’s hitting goblins behind him.
Regardless, you are not exactly making a case for him being a wizard, here.
I already said I would make him an NPC. But if it really matters to you whether Gandalf was a wizard or not, Tolkien settled the matter a number of times over:
With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard’s knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. ‘Fly, you fools!’ he cried, and was gone.
For the last time, it doesn’t matter whether he would be better as an npc, the prompt is asking how to make the party’s CHARACTER builds. Class, race/species, background, stats, feats, equipment, all of that.
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.”
You are confusing missing the point and not finding your point as concrete as you think it is. Please see my second paragraph. Retcons happen and as pointed out, they did happen in Tolkien's work. Is it not possible that because it is not specifically stated, that multiple interpretations can be valid? It is possible for someone to disagree with you and not be wrong or stupid.
I never called anyone "stupid," please don't put words in my mouth. And your point cuts both ways - if you want your Gandalf to be a paladin or a fighter with a magic ring that's fine, but that doesn't make the "wizard with innate magic" interpretation of him wrong either.
[REDACTED]
And I never said or implied that Gandalf can’t be a wizard. I think you are confusing my posts with someone else’s. I literally just made my first post last night when you came at me. But moving on to the topic, which was meant to be fun and which I think still can be…
I have seen a few opinions that I have liked so far. I like the NPC/DMPC option, the wizard, and the fighter options. If a fighter, I probably would see him as an Eldritch Knight myself to capture the Gandalf feeling while playing, since magical gear is not something one can count on.
How would any of these spells effect several targets?
Lightning Bolt and Burning Hands both have area of effects, and are capable of hitting multiple targets. They'd both be reasonably likely to kill any Goblins caught in it - although Burning Hands would probably spare those that made the Spell Save, for what it's worth.
But even if lightning bolt has area of effect, it goes in a straight line. The goblins came at him from all sides. There’s no way he’s hitting goblins behind him.
Regardless, you are not exactly making a case for him being a wizard, here.
I already said I would make him an NPC. But if it really matters to you whether Gandalf was a wizard or not, Tolkien settled the matter a number of times over:
With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard’s knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. ‘Fly, you fools!’ he cried, and was gone.
For the last time, it doesn’t matter whether he would be better as an npc, the prompt is asking how to make the party’s CHARACTER builds. Class, race/species, background, stats, feats, equipment, all of that.
Regardless of how little sense that makes for any given character or how poorly that character is emulated?
Yup. That’s the prompt. It’s asking for what character build would best work for Gandalf, not whether or not he should be a pc.
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.”
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never said it wasn't. But you have no proof either way where that ability came from.
If you're approximating him, which yet again is the point of this thread, presumably you wouldn't do so by letting one player at the table be a solar and/or giving them an artifact. And if you want to make him purely be an NPC or DMPC that's a valid (if boring) choice too.
And writing that passage from the perspective of a parochial character who would have as little clue of what actually happened in that scene as you do.
Then why do you think he doesn't know the difference between lightning and fire?
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)
What is described, to me, reads a lot more like an explosion. Given that Tolkien was deeply impacted by his wartime experiences, I don't think it is a stretch. Probably less of a stretch than him writing 'like lighting and smelling of gunpowder' but actually meaning 'exactly lighting and smelling of ozone'.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
"Was Bilbo accurate about it being lightning" is missing the point, as often happens during Middle-Earth nerd-offs. The original point being addressed/refuted was:
He produced some kind of flashy AoE that one-shot multiple orcs/goblins. I don't actually care what you decide to call that spell, but it makes him a caster.
And if that ability did come from Narya, that's called a retcon, because when he wrote the Hobbit he hadn't conceived the One Ring or the other Rings of Power yet. Originally, Bilbo's ring was just a magic invisibility ring, a concept going all the way back to Plato if not earlier.
Well, he did retcon a bunch of stuff in later printings of The Hobbit to tie it into Lord of the Rings more firmly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It isn't missing the point if it turns out to be done via a magic item, which makes it possible to accomplish this display and not be a caster.
Anyway, I have no interest in engaging deeply in this seething debate. LotR fans seem to always think they are the expert after reading the books two or three times, and anyone who challenges that 'expertise' are addressed as drooling, babbling idiots. I am not exactly seeing much to change my mind on that opinion here.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
As the scene was originally written, there was no item. Tolkien wrote his wizard character doing a wizardy thing, as astounding a concept as that might be.
And it is missing the point if you're not trying to translate him to D&D literally. Which we can't do anyway.
You are confusing missing the point and not finding your point as concrete as you think it is. Please see my second paragraph. Retcons happen and as pointed out, they did happen in Tolkien's work. Is it not possible that because it is not specifically stated, that multiple interpretations can be valid? It is possible for someone to disagree with you and not be wrong or stupid.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Just thinking out loud, wasn't Ed Greenwood's Elminister a pretty clear Gandalf analog, and basically had significant levels in most classes in a way that would be impossible to translate to 5e. Gandalf was also a hyper capable quasi deus ex machina, so shape him like you want him.
I think it's fine to have varying interpretations of LOTR characters to reflect what different posters took out the books. There's really a lot of fun ideas here, and don't know why this has to be a fight.
Other idea, Gandalf a Savant as presented in Dragon for AD&D back in 1988. His big think is knowledge both in a tactical situation as well as a capacity to provide learned counsel. And sure give him sword proficiency.
I'd say Merry on this return would sure be a template for the Halfling Defender also appearing in Dragon back in the AD&D era.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I never called anyone "stupid," please don't put words in my mouth. And your point cuts both ways - if you want your Gandalf to be a paladin or a fighter with a magic ring that's fine, but that doesn't make the "wizard with innate magic" interpretation of him wrong either.
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make now. If you're translating that scene in the cave into D&D terms, he definitely wasn't using fire bolt
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)
If he does use Narya to cast his spells, explain to me what the in game equivalent of that ring would be, without homebrew.
Agreed. If we’re still pounding out the idea he used something lightning adjacent, instead of the flash being a thematic element and not the actual spell, my best guess would be eldritch blast .
“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.”
When you're posting on a D&D forum in a discussion about whether a literary character is a wizard or not and what spell he might be casting in a particular scene, you probably shouldn't use the names of actual D&D spells if you aren't, y'know, referring to those spells
And no, burning hands wouldn't look "like lightning" either
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)
How would any of these spells effect several targets?
“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.”
Lightning Bolt and Burning Hands both have area of effects, and are capable of hitting multiple targets. They'd both be reasonably likely to kill any Goblins caught in it - although Burning Hands would probably spare those that made the Spell Save, for what it's worth.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I already said I would make him an NPC. But if it really matters to you whether Gandalf was a wizard or not, Tolkien settled the matter a number of times over:
With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard’s knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. ‘Fly, you fools!’ he cried, and was gone.
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)
So you agree that making him a wizard is a viable D&D interpretation then? Since there's no proof of what exactly he did or didn't do, or whether it came from an item or not?
Except he's on record as saying he hadn't come up with the Rings until after the Hobbit. So clearly he did not originally write that scene with Narya in mind, thus the interpretation of Gandalf as an innate spellcaster is a valid one.
But even if lightning bolt has area of effect, it goes in a straight line. The goblins came at him from all sides. There’s no way he’s hitting goblins behind him.
For the last time, it doesn’t matter whether he would be better as an npc, the prompt is asking how to make the party’s CHARACTER builds. Class, race/species, background, stats, feats, equipment, all of that.
“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.”
[REDACTED]
And I never said or implied that Gandalf can’t be a wizard. I think you are confusing my posts with someone else’s. I literally just made my first post last night when you came at me. But moving on to the topic, which was meant to be fun and which I think still can be…
I have seen a few opinions that I have liked so far. I like the NPC/DMPC option, the wizard, and the fighter options. If a fighter, I probably would see him as an Eldritch Knight myself to capture the Gandalf feeling while playing, since magical gear is not something one can count on.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yup. That’s the prompt. It’s asking for what character build would best work for Gandalf, not whether or not he should be a pc.
“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.”