So, when I first encountered the Warlock in 2014, I was enthused that we had a Class that could be used to make an Elric-like character.
Elric, of course, is the seminal fantasy antihero, penned by Michael Moorecock. He was seen as the antidote to Conan, in that he began as an Emperor of a long lived, corrupt and degenerate Melnibonéan Empire and ends up losing everything, including his friends, family and lovers....and in fact, destroying his entire world. He is a weakling albino, who sustains himself with herbalist drugs and magical pacts with chaos demons and other extra-dimensional beings. One of his pacts is with a sentient and malevolent sword, Stormbringer that drinks the souls of his victims and empowers Elric through bloodthirsty frenzies. While not evil (like many in his family are), he is a doomed figure and, ultimately, an archetypal force of balance between Law and Chaos. He has ‘Eternal Champion’ aliases across the multiverse.
So, how best to build him?
Basically, he is a Pact of the Sword Warlock, with a Noble background but I’d also take a level of Fighter in order to gain armour proficiency. That said, he’d be a weak Fighter and probably have low Strength and Constitution. Melniboneans are not Human really, although you could use that to build - or use a Dark Elf as a facsimile of them. Using a Human would give a useful extra Origin Feat though.
How would you do it? Up to Level 5 say, level by level?
That said, you're not going to get something that much like him. Book (as I recall -- it's been a... couple of years) Elric had to frequently negotiate with the powers that he dealt with to make things happen. This works great in novels, but not so much in a game like D&D, where players want their powers to be predictable. (There's other problems, I'm sure, but that's the biggie.)
Like many characters inspired by books, there would have to be a long discussion with the DM to make things fit. IIRC Elric would almost have to be a Warlock with a Fiend Patron (actually several patrons but that's part of the discussion with the DM), with dips into Fighter (for proficiencies and Two-Weapon fighting), Ranger (specifically Beast Master because of his cat), and Rogue (for skills, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action).
All this being said, if the DM is okay with it, and if you're okay with someone INSPIRED by Elric but not actually him (because the sword is OP), then it can be done. However, don't be disappointed when your vision isn't as good in actual play as the character in the book.
The challenge of Elric is his early level sorcerous powers... he is certainly not limited to pact magic and he has learned a lot of names of extraplanar beings. Sure he has a pact with a god of Chaos, which works sometimes. Once he has power he is actually a very good swordsman and is able to use more powerful spells. If you stopped there he would be hard to build and powerful, but that ignores riding dragons and the entire aspect of the eternal champion. Tis best to let him live in the books and not try to recreate him unless you are the DM and handwaving a lot of things and then you shouldn't be running him as a player in a campaign. You'd be better off trying to bring Dvim Tvar or Rackhir to life!
Like many characters inspired by books, there would have to be a long discussion with the DM to make things fit. IIRC Elric would almost have to be a Warlock with a Fiend Patron (actually several patrons but that's part of the discussion with the DM), with dips into Fighter (for proficiencies and Two-Weapon fighting), Ranger (specifically Beast Master because of his cat), and Rogue (for skills, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action).
All this being said, if the DM is okay with it, and if you're okay with someone INSPIRED by Elric but not actually him (because the sword is OP), then it can be done. However, don't be disappointed when your vision isn't as good in actual play as the character in the book.
You are conflating Drizzt Do'Urden and Elric of Melniboné.
Elric—from the imagination of Michael Moorcook—predominantly wields a greatsword. One that is sentient. Not twin scimitars. And has no feline companion. Not like Drizzt does.
Elric is described in the source material as both a sorcerer and a warrior.
In the first printing of Deities & Demigods, Elric was written up as a multi-classing 10th-level cleric, 5th-level druid, 15th-level fighter, 19th-level magic-user, 10th-level illusionist, and 10th-level assassin.
I think you would be best to start out designing his insanely powerful artifact weapon, +3 life stealing haste vorpal greatsword that grants the user prof with greatswords and makes their Str and Con a 20 for starters.
Elric is described in the source material as both a sorcerer and a warrior.
In the first printing of Deities & Demigods, Elric was written up as a multi-classing 10th-level cleric, 5th-level druid, 15th-level fighter, 19th-level magic-user, 10th-level illusionist, and 10th-level assassin.
That's a 69th-level character!
And that's a pretty silly interpretation, created by trying to fit a fictional character into a game system that can't express them. (I'd assume the approach was "give him the ability to do everything he did in the books".)
D&D is its own specific genre, with some very baked-in assumptions about how things work, and few if any fictional characters designed outside the genre are going to work within it. And I'm pretty sure that even the ones designed for the D&D fiction turn out to be a stretch -- the needs of drama and the needs of a game system are fundamentally incompatible.
5e at least provides a class framework for making an Elricish character, but ultimately you need the same thing you'd need in any edition -- a GM who's willing to play your patrons as jerks who are heavily into yanking your chain.
Most of Moorcock's eternal champions were not "human" in the classic sense, Elric being very Elvin looking. I would use Shadar-Kai as they have the guant paleness to match.
Like many characters inspired by books, there would have to be a long discussion with the DM to make things fit. IIRC Elric would almost have to be a Warlock with a Fiend Patron (actually several patrons but that's part of the discussion with the DM), with dips into Fighter (for proficiencies and Two-Weapon fighting), Ranger (specifically Beast Master because of his cat), and Rogue (for skills, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action).
All this being said, if the DM is okay with it, and if you're okay with someone INSPIRED by Elric but not actually him (because the sword is OP), then it can be done. However, don't be disappointed when your vision isn't as good in actual play as the character in the book.
Ironically the Blackrazor is loosely based on Stormbringer.
And that's a pretty silly interpretation, created by trying to fit a fictional character into a game system that can't express them. (I'd assume the approach was "give him the ability to do everything he did in the books".)
D&D is its own specific genre, with some very baked-in assumptions about how things work, and few if any fictional characters designed outside the genre are going to work within it. And I'm pretty sure that even the ones designed for the D&D fiction turn out to be a stretch -- the needs of drama and the needs of a game system are fundamentally incompatible.
5e at least provides a class framework for making an Elricish character, but ultimately you need the same thing you'd need in any edition -- a GM who's willing to play your patrons as jerks who are heavily into yanking your chain.
Any "Elric-ish" character made with 5E as written is going to be a poor imitation of who the character is. There are better games out there to get you there. Chaosium's Stormbringer among them.
D&D's "own specific genre"? The creators of the game were originally inspired by Moorock and other S&S authors. Moocock's mark on the game remains in the form of Alignment and elsewhere in the lore. Leiber's and Howard's in its treatment of the "thief" or "rogue" and of carousing. Vance's on magic is now gone. But it was a staple of the game for well over twenty years.
The needs of drama are met the moment rules become secondary to play. D&D is a game. Games have rules. But we are talking about a role-playing game. And the number one rule has always been that the rules are only there to inform decisions. They can be ignored or changed at will. Campaigns that lasted or that have lasted years—even decades—are a thing. Do you think their players are strictly playing within the confines of the rules? Their characters only ever doing things their respective lists of skills tell them they can do? These are often players whose characters manage guilds or even kingdoms. Whose words and actions shape their campaign's worlds. These are games very much about drama. Just because many a modern gamer like many a modern video gamer can't wait to kill the thing in the next room and gives little thought to the broader world in which the game takes place and the dramas that unfold within it doesn't mean everyone plays that way. I play at tables at which characters spend more time parlaying with others than they do fighting with them. You might not enjoy this style of play. But many do. Typically those of us who have little to no interest in video games. And who came to the hobby via a love of the fiction that inspired it.
And that's a pretty silly interpretation, created by trying to fit a fictional character into a game system that can't express them. (I'd assume the approach was "give him the ability to do everything he did in the books".)
D&D is its own specific genre, with some very baked-in assumptions about how things work, and few if any fictional characters designed outside the genre are going to work within it. And I'm pretty sure that even the ones designed for the D&D fiction turn out to be a stretch -- the needs of drama and the needs of a game system are fundamentally incompatible.
5e at least provides a class framework for making an Elricish character, but ultimately you need the same thing you'd need in any edition -- a GM who's willing to play your patrons as jerks who are heavily into yanking your chain.
Any "Elric-ish" character made with 5E as written is going to be a poor imitation of who the character is. There are better games out there to get you there. Chaosium's Stormbringer among them.
Well, yes. (Well, maybe on Stormbringer. Never played or read it. But certainly other systems can do it better.)
D&D's "own specific genre"? The creators of the game were originally inspired by Moorock and other S&S authors. Moocock's mark on the game remains in the form of Alignment and elsewhere in the lore. Leiber's and Howard's in its treatment of the "thief" or "rogue" and of carousing. Vance's on magic is now gone. But it was a staple of the game for well over twenty years.
It does have all those influences, and more. But that doesn't mean it's in the same genre. If you try to make a D&D game that resembles those influences, it's going to come out very poorly.
Of course, "genre" is at least three separate but related concepts in a trenchcoat.
Genre can be a setting. (Fantasy, SF, modern-day)
Genre can be a set of storytelling conventions (Mystery, romance)
Genre can be mood or tone (Noir, cozy, horror)
And, of course, because categorizing real things doesn't work, these are all fuzzy and overlapping and bleeding into each other.
D&D is a genre primarily in the sense of being storytelling conventions. Because it's a game, and because of the sort of game it is, there are narrative elements that are favored, and some that don't work. (For instance: the dramatic duel to the death one sees in westerns and samurai dramas just doesn't work in D&D. The combat rules don't allow for it.)
It's also a genre in setting details. Those are more changeable, but you can still change enough of them that it's not D&D anymore, even if it's still fantasy.
The needs of drama are met the moment rules become secondary to play. D&D is a game. Games have rules. But we are talking about a role-playing game. And the number one rule has always been that the rules are only there to inform decisions. They can be ignored or changed at will. Campaigns that lasted or that have lasted years—even decades—are a thing. Do you think their players are strictly playing within the confines of the rules? Their characters only ever doing things their respective lists of skills tell them they can do? These are often players whose characters manage guilds or even kingdoms. Whose words and actions shape their campaign's worlds. These are games very much about drama. Just because many a modern gamer like many a modern video gamer can't wait to kill the thing in the next room and gives little thought to the broader world in which the game takes place and the dramas that unfold within it doesn't mean everyone plays that way. I play at tables at which characters spend more time parlaying with others than they do fighting with them. You might not enjoy this style of play. But many do. Typically those of us who have little to no interest in video games. And who came to the hobby via a love of the fiction that inspired it.
I understand that this straw man is your personal hobbyhorse, but it's not what I was talking about.
One of the basic things of drama is that a character's capabilities are ultimately subservient to the needs of the story. If the narrative needs them to lose, they will lose, even though they will later, without any upgrade to their abilities, defeat the same foe. That's not a healthy way to run a game. Also, since D&D is a group activity, nobody should be the main character all the time, and any sort of character whose concept means they need to suck up a lot of airtime isn't going to fly. (For instance: Elric, with his regular need to negotiate with his sword and his patrons. Twiddling your thumbs while the person playing the albino drama queen has yet another solo RP session with the DM right before or during the climactic confrontation doesn't sound like a good time.)
The existence of any game mechanics also limits what you can do. The "duel to the death" scenario above? You could make up a mechanic to avoid the slog of draining the opponent's hit points, but it's difficult to impossible to make it satisfying. If there's a randomizer, then it all comes down to the toss of a coin. If it's based purely on inherent skill, then it's foreordained. Is it possible to thread that needle? Yes, but not with the scaffolding that any D&D gives you. Which is fine. The possibility of sudden death balanced on a knife-edge isn't D&D's thing. (If that were the kind of gameplay you wanted, you'd be better served by a game with stake-setting conflict resolution systems. One could play the hell out of it in Polaris.)
(For instance: the dramatic duel to the death one sees in westerns and samurai dramas just doesn't work in D&D. The combat rules don't allow for it.)
How so? Why is a "dramatic duel to the death" simply not achievable? In some editions and iterations of the game there is no "slog" to drain Hit Points because some editions and iterations don't suffer from the Hit Point bloat 5E does and using any one of these it would be as simple as the first of the two combatants to be reduced to 0 Hit Points. (-4 or fewer Hit Points is instant death at my table.) Sometimes all that takes is a single blow. Perhaps two melee combatants adequately armored or capably dextrous are going to see a bit of that to and fro take place. The absence of attacks of opportunity in earlier versions of D&D also means this might be the case with one duelist maybe withdrawing here and there. But all it takes is a hit and a critical one in particular and someone has won that duel and with a single blow. So maybe that's not a D&D problem but a 5E as written problem.
I am currently playing in a long-term heavily modified 5E campaign in which at one point one of the characters had to fight an opponent in a duel to the death to win control of its horde and at another point my own had to to fight a creature in an arena in what was essentially a duel to the death. Just what about these "did not work" and made the whole experience so "unsatisfying" when these were the most dramatic and most rewarding and memorable moments in their respective sessions? That character of mine came close to dying in its very first encounter in the game but a critical hit against its opponent turned the tide. That's the nature of the game.
"The possibility of sudden death balanced on a knife-edge isn't D&D's thing"? There are adventure modules in which one foolish decision can spell instant death. So many of your arguments about what D&D is or what it can and can't do or against the drama possible at our tables come down to mere opinion stated as if these were practically divine revelation. People have been playing for decades using playstyles that don't match your own personal preferences in case you need to be reminded.
As was pointed out before: campaigns have lasted years and even decades with domain management taking the place of the characters doing what they were doing ten levels ago only fighting bigger and badder things. The game grows terribly boring for those of us who play for the wonder of it all if the characters just do the same thing over and over again only at increasing difficultly. That is just one of the many things that makes the current version of the game play more like an old video game that just gets harder and harder to perform what is only a marginally different task.
(For instance: the dramatic duel to the death one sees in westerns and samurai dramas just doesn't work in D&D. The combat rules don't allow for it.)
How so? Why is a "dramatic duel to the death" simply not achievable? In some editions and iterations of the game there is no "slog" to drain Hit Points because some editions and iterations don't suffer from the Hit Point bloat 5E does and using any one of these it would be as simple as the first of the two combatants to be reduced to 0 Hit Points. (-4 or fewer Hit Points is instant death at my table.) And two melee combatants adequately armored or capably dextrous are going to see a lot of that to and fro take place. The absence of attacks of opportunity also made it easier to simulate this to and fro.
Not "any duel to the death". A specific type of duel to the death.
The two gunfighters pace off. They turn and fire, once, virtually simultaneously. One of them falls.
The two master swordsmen face each other, their hands on the hilts of their katanas. Neither moves. A crane rises from the water in the background and flies away. Suddenly, there is a burst of motion and steel as they pass each other. One falls, spurting blood. The other sheathes his blade in a smooth motion and walks away, not even looking back.
The sudden burst of violence ending in death. You can't do that in D&D, any D&D, except at the lowest levels. The rules not only don't allow it, they're designed not to.
And that is fine, even good.
Hit points serve a game design purpose. They allow the players to engage in combat without worrying too much that one random hit will kill them.
In exchange, you close off some storytelling tropes. So it goes.
D&D also can't do the Princess Bride/Star Wars "two duelists attempt to penetrate each others' defenses until one of them finally errs" duel, either. (You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.) Any duel to the death in D&D is going to be on the lines of "two foes beat on each other until one prevails". Which is a fine trope, used in many stories. It's more exciting when it's being done with film cuts and makeup, instead of many, many, die rolls. But again, the needs of games and the needs of cinema/comics/writing are different.
As was pointed out before: campaigns have lasted years and even decades with domain management taking the place of the characters doing what they were doing ten levels ago only fighting bigger and badder things.
Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion of D&D's limits in representing fictional characters.
(For instance: the dramatic duel to the death one sees in westerns and samurai dramas just doesn't work in D&D. The combat rules don't allow for it.)
How so? Why is a "dramatic duel to the death" simply not achievable? In some editions and iterations of the game there is no "slog" to drain Hit Points because some editions and iterations don't suffer from the Hit Point bloat 5E does and using any one of these it would be as simple as the first of the two combatants to be reduced to 0 Hit Points. (-4 or fewer Hit Points is instant death at my table.) And two melee combatants adequately armored or capably dextrous are going to see a lot of that to and fro take place. The absence of attacks of opportunity also made it easier to simulate this to and fro.
Not "any duel to the death". A specific type of duel to the death.
The two gunfighters pace off. They turn and fire, once, virtually simultaneously. One of them falls.
The two master swordsmen face each other, their hands on the hilts of their katanas. Neither moves. A crane rises from the water in the background and flies away. Suddenly, there is a burst of motion and steel as they pass each other. One falls, spurting blood. The other sheathes his blade in a smooth motion and walks away, not even looking back.
The sudden burst of violence ending in death. You can't do that in D&D, any D&D, except at the lowest levels. The rules not only don't allow it, they're designed not to.
And that is fine, even good.
Hit points serve a game design purpose. They allow the players to engage in combat without worrying too much that one random hit will kill them.
In exchange, you close off some storytelling tropes. So it goes.
D&D also can't do the Princess Bride/Star Wars "two duelists attempt to penetrate each others' defenses until one of them finally errs" duel, either. (You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.) Any duel to the death in D&D is going to be on the lines of "two foes beat on each other until one prevails". Which is a fine trope, used in many stories. It's more exciting when it's being done with film cuts and makeup, instead of many, many, die rolls. But again, the needs of games and the needs of cinema/comics/writing are different.
As was pointed out before: campaigns have lasted years and even decades with domain management taking the place of the characters doing what they were doing ten levels ago only fighting bigger and badder things.
Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion of D&D's limits in representing fictional characters.
Such a duel is perfectly achievable in a game in which your character or its opponent can potentially die from a single blow. Your having added "except at the lowest levels" to the equation only shows the further shortcomings of the Hit Point bloat that comes with the power creep that has come with every new edition. I think it's sad that in 5E as written practically no character but for those at the lowest levels can ever be like the aforementioned champion who goes toe to toe with an opponent and risks its own life doing so. 5E looks and feels and plays like a superhero power fantasy. But it's not then really a game of "heroes" is it? There is nothing heroic about the virtual immunity afforded characters in 5E. It's the D&D equivalent of punching and kicking imaginary monsters only doing so in the shadow of your mother where you're always out of harm's reach. If death is not a very real possibility then you are exponentially less heroic than those who risk their lives in real life to save those of others.
(You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.)
Hit Points are such an abstraction as far as combat goes that you'd be lying if you insisted you knew precisely what they represent beyond how they are vaguely defined. The 5E PHB says they represent "durability, the will to live, and luck."
If losing Hit Points means one's character is being "beat on" and literally taking damage from "wounds" then the game is one that I would consider to be of terrible game design. A character so injured it is a mere Hit Point away from 0 then just brushes itself off at the end of combat when any threat has been dispatched as if nothing happened? Gets a good night's rest and is just "magically" healed without any magical healing? Many are the games that do combat infinitely better than D&D. And this is just one reason why that is the case.
Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion of D&D's limits in representing fictional characters.
Because here and elsewhere you act as if D&D is little more than a combat simulator. Even though it has been so much more and was even before their were rules for much else. It is a game that for the most part is played using theater of the mind. It can be whatever you want it to be. And your every gatekeeper-ish post in which you act as if people are playing it "wrong" if they get it to do what you say it "can't" do won't ever change that.
Not "any duel to the death". A specific type of duel to the death.
The two master swordsmen face each other, their hands on the hilts of their katanas. Neither moves. A crane rises from the water in the background and flies away. Suddenly, there is a burst of motion and steel as they pass each other. One falls, spurting blood. The other sheathes his blade in a smooth motion and walks away, not even looking back.
The sudden burst of violence ending in death. You can't do that in D&D, any D&D, except at the lowest levels. The rules not only don't allow it, they're designed not to.
Such a duel is perfectly achievable in a game in which your character or its opponent can potentially die from a single blow.
Very true. But that isn't D&D, and never has been. In Basic D&D, your average 2nd-level fighter would have 9 HP if they had no Con bonus. That's still within the range of a single weapon strike. Barely (11 damage is probably the cap, if you've got 18 str and a 1d8 weapon). By the time you're anything that could be described as a "master swordsman", you cannot be one-shot.
(You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.)
Hit Points are such an abstraction as far as combat goes that you'd be lying if you insisted you knew precisely what they represent beyond how they are vaguely defined. The 5E PHB says they represent "durability, the will to live, and luck."
Hit points are so abstracted that the only thing the represent is "hit points". Durability and luck don't get you very far when you fall 200 feet, or tank a red dragon's breath.
In actual play, nobody (or near enough so) plays them that way in combat. Narratively, when you get hit, you get hit. It's not "you parry just in time, take ten damage".
They don't make sense from a narrative perspective, just from a game-design one. They exist to make characters non-brittle. If you think about them too hard, they're nonsense, but they work. But they set some of the narrative conventions of the game. Everybody is durable. Fights take time and effort.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, when I first encountered the Warlock in 2014, I was enthused that we had a Class that could be used to make an Elric-like character.
Elric, of course, is the seminal fantasy antihero, penned by Michael Moorecock. He was seen as the antidote to Conan, in that he began as an Emperor of a long lived, corrupt and degenerate Melnibonéan Empire and ends up losing everything, including his friends, family and lovers....and in fact, destroying his entire world. He is a weakling albino, who sustains himself with herbalist drugs and magical pacts with chaos demons and other extra-dimensional beings. One of his pacts is with a sentient and malevolent sword, Stormbringer that drinks the souls of his victims and empowers Elric through bloodthirsty frenzies. While not evil (like many in his family are), he is a doomed figure and, ultimately, an archetypal force of balance between Law and Chaos. He has ‘Eternal Champion’ aliases across the multiverse.
So, how best to build him?
Basically, he is a Pact of the Sword Warlock, with a Noble background but I’d also take a level of Fighter in order to gain armour proficiency. That said, he’d be a weak Fighter and probably have low Strength and Constitution. Melniboneans are not Human really, although you could use that to build - or use a Dark Elf as a facsimile of them. Using a Human would give a useful extra Origin Feat though.
How would you do it? Up to Level 5 say, level by level?
Hexblade is pretty much the Elric Patron.
That said, you're not going to get something that much like him. Book (as I recall -- it's been a... couple of years) Elric had to frequently negotiate with the powers that he dealt with to make things happen. This works great in novels, but not so much in a game like D&D, where players want their powers to be predictable. (There's other problems, I'm sure, but that's the biggie.)
Sorry. Just to qualify this a bit - build Elric with just the rules provided in the core Players’ Handbook.
Beyond this, I just happen to think that Hexblades are overpowered and the whole ‘Raven Queen’ back story gets in the way.
I think I would make a fiend pact warlock with pact of the blade and a minor fighter splash. Probably a Shadar-Kai elf.
Like many characters inspired by books, there would have to be a long discussion with the DM to make things fit. IIRC Elric would almost have to be a Warlock with a Fiend Patron (actually several patrons but that's part of the discussion with the DM), with dips into Fighter (for proficiencies and Two-Weapon fighting), Ranger (specifically Beast Master because of his cat), and Rogue (for skills, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action).
All this being said, if the DM is okay with it, and if you're okay with someone INSPIRED by Elric but not actually him (because the sword is OP), then it can be done. However, don't be disappointed when your vision isn't as good in actual play as the character in the book.
The challenge of Elric is his early level sorcerous powers... he is certainly not limited to pact magic and he has learned a lot of names of extraplanar beings. Sure he has a pact with a god of Chaos, which works sometimes. Once he has power he is actually a very good swordsman and is able to use more powerful spells. If you stopped there he would be hard to build and powerful, but that ignores riding dragons and the entire aspect of the eternal champion. Tis best to let him live in the books and not try to recreate him unless you are the DM and handwaving a lot of things and then you shouldn't be running him as a player in a campaign. You'd be better off trying to bring Dvim Tvar or Rackhir to life!
You are conflating Drizzt Do'Urden and Elric of Melniboné.
Elric—from the imagination of Michael Moorcook—predominantly wields a greatsword. One that is sentient. Not twin scimitars. And has no feline companion. Not like Drizzt does.
Elric is described in the source material as both a sorcerer and a warrior.
In the first printing of Deities & Demigods, Elric was written up as a multi-classing 10th-level cleric, 5th-level druid, 15th-level fighter, 19th-level magic-user, 10th-level illusionist, and 10th-level assassin.
That's a 69th-level character!
I think you would be best to start out designing his insanely powerful artifact weapon, +3 life stealing haste vorpal greatsword that grants the user prof with greatswords and makes their Str and Con a 20 for starters.
And that's a pretty silly interpretation, created by trying to fit a fictional character into a game system that can't express them. (I'd assume the approach was "give him the ability to do everything he did in the books".)
D&D is its own specific genre, with some very baked-in assumptions about how things work, and few if any fictional characters designed outside the genre are going to work within it. And I'm pretty sure that even the ones designed for the D&D fiction turn out to be a stretch -- the needs of drama and the needs of a game system are fundamentally incompatible.
5e at least provides a class framework for making an Elricish character, but ultimately you need the same thing you'd need in any edition -- a GM who's willing to play your patrons as jerks who are heavily into yanking your chain.
Pro tip: Don't post without coffee! You're absolutely right!
Most of Moorcock's eternal champions were not "human" in the classic sense, Elric being very Elvin looking. I would use Shadar-Kai as they have the guant paleness to match.
My take on the character used standard array. In 2024 rules to wield a greatsword you need a min 13 str. https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/134546085
Ironically the Blackrazor is loosely based on Stormbringer.
Any "Elric-ish" character made with 5E as written is going to be a poor imitation of who the character is. There are better games out there to get you there. Chaosium's Stormbringer among them.
D&D's "own specific genre"? The creators of the game were originally inspired by Moorock and other S&S authors. Moocock's mark on the game remains in the form of Alignment and elsewhere in the lore. Leiber's and Howard's in its treatment of the "thief" or "rogue" and of carousing. Vance's on magic is now gone. But it was a staple of the game for well over twenty years.
The needs of drama are met the moment rules become secondary to play. D&D is a game. Games have rules. But we are talking about a role-playing game. And the number one rule has always been that the rules are only there to inform decisions. They can be ignored or changed at will. Campaigns that lasted or that have lasted years—even decades—are a thing. Do you think their players are strictly playing within the confines of the rules? Their characters only ever doing things their respective lists of skills tell them they can do? These are often players whose characters manage guilds or even kingdoms. Whose words and actions shape their campaign's worlds. These are games very much about drama. Just because many a modern gamer like many a modern video gamer can't wait to kill the thing in the next room and gives little thought to the broader world in which the game takes place and the dramas that unfold within it doesn't mean everyone plays that way. I play at tables at which characters spend more time parlaying with others than they do fighting with them. You might not enjoy this style of play. But many do. Typically those of us who have little to no interest in video games. And who came to the hobby via a love of the fiction that inspired it.
Well, yes. (Well, maybe on Stormbringer. Never played or read it. But certainly other systems can do it better.)
It does have all those influences, and more. But that doesn't mean it's in the same genre. If you try to make a D&D game that resembles those influences, it's going to come out very poorly.
Of course, "genre" is at least three separate but related concepts in a trenchcoat.
And, of course, because categorizing real things doesn't work, these are all fuzzy and overlapping and bleeding into each other.
D&D is a genre primarily in the sense of being storytelling conventions. Because it's a game, and because of the sort of game it is, there are narrative elements that are favored, and some that don't work. (For instance: the dramatic duel to the death one sees in westerns and samurai dramas just doesn't work in D&D. The combat rules don't allow for it.)
It's also a genre in setting details. Those are more changeable, but you can still change enough of them that it's not D&D anymore, even if it's still fantasy.
I understand that this straw man is your personal hobbyhorse, but it's not what I was talking about.
One of the basic things of drama is that a character's capabilities are ultimately subservient to the needs of the story. If the narrative needs them to lose, they will lose, even though they will later, without any upgrade to their abilities, defeat the same foe. That's not a healthy way to run a game. Also, since D&D is a group activity, nobody should be the main character all the time, and any sort of character whose concept means they need to suck up a lot of airtime isn't going to fly. (For instance: Elric, with his regular need to negotiate with his sword and his patrons. Twiddling your thumbs while the person playing the albino drama queen has yet another solo RP session with the DM right before or during the climactic confrontation doesn't sound like a good time.)
The existence of any game mechanics also limits what you can do. The "duel to the death" scenario above? You could make up a mechanic to avoid the slog of draining the opponent's hit points, but it's difficult to impossible to make it satisfying. If there's a randomizer, then it all comes down to the toss of a coin. If it's based purely on inherent skill, then it's foreordained. Is it possible to thread that needle? Yes, but not with the scaffolding that any D&D gives you. Which is fine. The possibility of sudden death balanced on a knife-edge isn't D&D's thing. (If that were the kind of gameplay you wanted, you'd be better served by a game with stake-setting conflict resolution systems. One could play the hell out of it in Polaris.)
How so? Why is a "dramatic duel to the death" simply not achievable? In some editions and iterations of the game there is no "slog" to drain Hit Points because some editions and iterations don't suffer from the Hit Point bloat 5E does and using any one of these it would be as simple as the first of the two combatants to be reduced to 0 Hit Points. (-4 or fewer Hit Points is instant death at my table.) Sometimes all that takes is a single blow. Perhaps two melee combatants adequately armored or capably dextrous are going to see a bit of that to and fro take place. The absence of attacks of opportunity in earlier versions of D&D also means this might be the case with one duelist maybe withdrawing here and there. But all it takes is a hit and a critical one in particular and someone has won that duel and with a single blow. So maybe that's not a D&D problem but a 5E as written problem.
I am currently playing in a long-term heavily modified 5E campaign in which at one point one of the characters had to fight an opponent in a duel to the death to win control of its horde and at another point my own had to to fight a creature in an arena in what was essentially a duel to the death. Just what about these "did not work" and made the whole experience so "unsatisfying" when these were the most dramatic and most rewarding and memorable moments in their respective sessions? That character of mine came close to dying in its very first encounter in the game but a critical hit against its opponent turned the tide. That's the nature of the game.
"The possibility of sudden death balanced on a knife-edge isn't D&D's thing"? There are adventure modules in which one foolish decision can spell instant death. So many of your arguments about what D&D is or what it can and can't do or against the drama possible at our tables come down to mere opinion stated as if these were practically divine revelation. People have been playing for decades using playstyles that don't match your own personal preferences in case you need to be reminded.
As was pointed out before: campaigns have lasted years and even decades with domain management taking the place of the characters doing what they were doing ten levels ago only fighting bigger and badder things. The game grows terribly boring for those of us who play for the wonder of it all if the characters just do the same thing over and over again only at increasing difficultly. That is just one of the many things that makes the current version of the game play more like an old video game that just gets harder and harder to perform what is only a marginally different task.
Not "any duel to the death". A specific type of duel to the death.
The two gunfighters pace off. They turn and fire, once, virtually simultaneously. One of them falls.
The two master swordsmen face each other, their hands on the hilts of their katanas. Neither moves. A crane rises from the water in the background and flies away. Suddenly, there is a burst of motion and steel as they pass each other. One falls, spurting blood. The other sheathes his blade in a smooth motion and walks away, not even looking back.
The sudden burst of violence ending in death. You can't do that in D&D, any D&D, except at the lowest levels. The rules not only don't allow it, they're designed not to.
And that is fine, even good.
Hit points serve a game design purpose. They allow the players to engage in combat without worrying too much that one random hit will kill them.
In exchange, you close off some storytelling tropes. So it goes.
D&D also can't do the Princess Bride/Star Wars "two duelists attempt to penetrate each others' defenses until one of them finally errs" duel, either. (You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.) Any duel to the death in D&D is going to be on the lines of "two foes beat on each other until one prevails". Which is a fine trope, used in many stories. It's more exciting when it's being done with film cuts and makeup, instead of many, many, die rolls. But again, the needs of games and the needs of cinema/comics/writing are different.
Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion of D&D's limits in representing fictional characters.
Such a duel is perfectly achievable in a game in which your character or its opponent can potentially die from a single blow. Your having added "except at the lowest levels" to the equation only shows the further shortcomings of the Hit Point bloat that comes with the power creep that has come with every new edition. I think it's sad that in 5E as written practically no character but for those at the lowest levels can ever be like the aforementioned champion who goes toe to toe with an opponent and risks its own life doing so. 5E looks and feels and plays like a superhero power fantasy. But it's not then really a game of "heroes" is it? There is nothing heroic about the virtual immunity afforded characters in 5E. It's the D&D equivalent of punching and kicking imaginary monsters only doing so in the shadow of your mother where you're always out of harm's reach. If death is not a very real possibility then you are exponentially less heroic than those who risk their lives in real life to save those of others.
(You could say that's what HP represent, but you'd be lying.)
Hit Points are such an abstraction as far as combat goes that you'd be lying if you insisted you knew precisely what they represent beyond how they are vaguely defined. The 5E PHB says they represent "durability, the will to live, and luck."
If losing Hit Points means one's character is being "beat on" and literally taking damage from "wounds" then the game is one that I would consider to be of terrible game design. A character so injured it is a mere Hit Point away from 0 then just brushes itself off at the end of combat when any threat has been dispatched as if nothing happened? Gets a good night's rest and is just "magically" healed without any magical healing? Many are the games that do combat infinitely better than D&D. And this is just one reason why that is the case.
Not sure what that's got to do with the discussion of D&D's limits in representing fictional characters.
Because here and elsewhere you act as if D&D is little more than a combat simulator. Even though it has been so much more and was even before their were rules for much else. It is a game that for the most part is played using theater of the mind. It can be whatever you want it to be. And your every gatekeeper-ish post in which you act as if people are playing it "wrong" if they get it to do what you say it "can't" do won't ever change that.
Very true. But that isn't D&D, and never has been. In Basic D&D, your average 2nd-level fighter would have 9 HP if they had no Con bonus. That's still within the range of a single weapon strike. Barely (11 damage is probably the cap, if you've got 18 str and a 1d8 weapon). By the time you're anything that could be described as a "master swordsman", you cannot be one-shot.
Hit points are so abstracted that the only thing the represent is "hit points". Durability and luck don't get you very far when you fall 200 feet, or tank a red dragon's breath.
In actual play, nobody (or near enough so) plays them that way in combat. Narratively, when you get hit, you get hit. It's not "you parry just in time, take ten damage".
They don't make sense from a narrative perspective, just from a game-design one. They exist to make characters non-brittle. If you think about them too hard, they're nonsense, but they work. But they set some of the narrative conventions of the game. Everybody is durable. Fights take time and effort.