20th level before his 20th birthday

[Trickstergod]

Oh and, by the by, Alexander the Great was 23 by the time he'd succeeded his father, Philip and was still campaigning until his death at age 33.

So even if you argue that he eventually hit 23, he had a period of some decade or two to hit it.

And for all Arthur's might, he was still outstripped by Lancelot (who, in turn, depending on where you look, was outstripped by Galahad). Not to mention Excalibur helping Arthur out.

And both Alex and Arthur had been training at very young ages, anyway - they didn't just pick up the sword one day and that was that. Both had some of the very best teaches available to them (Aristotle and Merlin respectively). In Arthur's case, Merlin was another avenue of aid and power on top of Excalibur, that would have set him above his peers without needing to be their betters in necessarily battle-prowess or tactics.

Not to mention that level has nothing to do with legend; skill does not equal fame.

Heck, if you want to translate some of D&D over into the real world and the like, keep in mind that some of the miracles most looked upon with awe, reverance and the like could be performed by a 9th level cleric - raise dead and commune. The idea that one needs to be truly, fantastically high in level to do great things that are well known and resound through history is unfounded.

 

[Psion]

Who is this Pug person that keeps being mentioned?

A character from Feist's Riftwar saga.

(Odd, thinking back on how the story went, it sounds very much like he was a sorcerer by 3e parlance, BID).

 

[Farganger]

Ok- since many people brought this up- I'll address it once.


Joan of Arc *talked to God*. Literally. On a regular basis. You have to be pretty high level to commune as often as she did. Factor in her combat abilities, and you have what seems to me a reasonable assumption that she was very high level.

She also pushed the British out of France (mini campaign) winning battle after battle basically reversing the victories of Henry V.

In her Legendary exploits she was the heroine of three Shakespeare plays (Henry VI Parts 1,2 and 3- each of these plays represent numerous battles representing Joan's mystical ability to call down God to turn the tide of battles).

Chuck

I'm glad you're focusing on this side of things! In reading the earlier, "Joan of Arc was 20th level by age 20" postings, I was getting the impression that people thought she was an accomplished fighter. There are no contemporary accounts of her fighting at all, and indeed at her trial she testified that she never fought, saying she preferred to carry her standard into battle rather than a weapon and never killed anyone. She was, of course, wounded a few times, so I'm not slighting her courage!

 

[Vigilance]

Sounds like the exploits of a mid (10th-12th)-level fighter to me.

Uhhuh.

I notice you don't address Arthur.

Now granted, I don't have the "official stats" for Joan of Arc, but in Arthur's case, we have a very clear progression:

Young knight newly crowned almost killed by "rabble knights"

Young king slaying dire bears and wolves in Cameliard. In Cameliard you can't say Arthur was leaning on his more experienced knights either. His more experienced knights had been promised to Ban and Bors of France without whom Arthur could not have fought off the rebellious lords looking to kill the "boy king". Instead we see Arthur leading a ragtag band of young knights to slay dire wolves, dire bears, a barbarian horde AND an invasion by a northern Lord.

Then Arthur slays a giant in single combat.

Now since you mentioned Excalibur, as if Arthur's combat ability was completely dependant on that. He is then kidnapped, dressed in common armor and given a common sword and forced to fight Morgan le Fey's paramour in single combat. Morgan has given Excalibur to the paramour so that she can kill her husband and set him on the throne and be queen.

That's right, Arthur in ordinary equipment beat powerful knight (so he was described) wielding Excalibur.

Now we come to Lancelot- according to some tales a man Arthur beat in single combat to win his loyalty ("I, the best knight in the world bested!")

Then we have that whole war with Rome thing where he killed the demon-giant crossbreeds.


Are you at least willing to admit HE was very high level at a young age? (Slaying dozens of dire wolves, then giants single handedly, then legions of giant-demon crossbreeds are all described in Malory).

Or is NO ONE in legend high level?

I seriously want to know (and this isn't snarkiness). Do you think 20th level characters are the most powerful ever? More powerful than any character that appears in myth or legend?

It sure sounds like it.

Chuck

 

[Trickstergod]

Oh and, sadly, I'd forgotten to put a pertinent point in my last point:

It's rare to find any of those individual's who have the span of their exploits and potential realized within all of a year and before being 20. Perhaps, come the end of the day, Arthur did cap out at 20th. After veritable decades of warfare. Or Alexander the Great could be roughly summed up as a 20th level character - but, again, this was over a period of at least a decade.

I don't mind characters swiftly leveling up - but 1-20 in just a year, nah. Ain't for that.

 

[wingsandsword]

Interesting you mentioned "official" stats for King Arthur, that reminded me that there are actual official (A)D&D stats for him, in the 2nd Edition Legends and Lore book (which I think is available for free download from Wizards, in their older-edition stuff, or at least it was for years). It has versions of all the Arthurian characters. It had Arthur as a dual-classed Bard 5/Paladin 16.

Now, converting those 2nd Edition class levels to 3e, you get (ex) Bard 2/Paladin 16, and incidentally, Merlin is listed as Wizard 17/Druid 14, which in 3e would be a 22nd level low-end epic character, sounds like a Wizard 5/Druid 5/Mystic Theurge 12 to me in 3.5. They were giving just average non-roundtable knights being in the 8th to 12th level range, with the Knights of the Round being anywhere from 12th to 18th level (with Sir Tristam being 19th level after multiclassing).

Just to quote a prior designer's "Official" viewpoint on the issue (and offer a basic translation to 3e).

For an 18th level Arthur-in-his-prime. Not 20th level, but certainly close.

 

[Vigilance]

Oh and, sadly, I'd forgotten to put a pertinent point in my last point:

It's rare to find any of those individual's who have the span of their exploits and potential realized within all of a year and before being 20. Perhaps, come the end of the day, Arthur did cap out at 20th. After veritable decades of warfare. Or Alexander the Great could be roughly summed up as a 20th level character - but, again, this was over a period of at least a decade.

I don't mind characters swiftly leveling up - but 1-20 in just a year, nah. Ain't for that.

Very incorrect assumption on your part.

All the events I mentioned are in Book 1 of Morte d'arthur. Meaning the story was LESS THAN HALF OVER. Book II focuses less on Arthur and more on the other knights, the grail quest and the affair of Lancelot and Quinevere.

Arthur doesn't do all these things over the course of a long and slow career. You should think of book one as the life of Arthur and book 2 as the death of everything he built.

But he BUILDS it as a young man.

20? Maybe not. But now you're quibbling. You've gone from "he was 8th level tops!" to "he was at least twenty FOUR when he hit 20th level".

Chuck

 

[Crothian]

I'm really curious how people can even argue the level of real life and fictional people who do not obey the laws of the RPG universe. Joan of Arc could have the "Talk to God" Template, or are people also saying the Joan of Arcadia, the 16 year old star if the show on Friday nights, is also a very high level character even though she hasn't lead armies?

 

[Vigilance]

Interesting you mentioned "official" stats for King Arthur, that reminded me that there are actual official (A)D&D stats for him, in the 2nd Edition Legends and Lore book (which I think is available for free download from Wizards, in their older-edition stuff, or at least it was for years). It has versions of all the Arthurian characters. It had Arthur as a dual-classed Bard 5/Paladin 16.

Now, converting those 2nd Edition class levels to 3e, you get (ex) Bard 2/Paladin 16, and incidentally, Merlin is listed as Wizard 17/Druid 14, which in 3e would be a 22nd level low-end epic character, sounds like a Wizard 5/Druid 5/Mystic Theurge 12 to me in 3.5. They were giving just average non-roundtable knights being in the 8th to 12th level range, with the Knights of the Round being anywhere from 12th to 18th level (with Sir Tristam being 19th level after multiclassing).

Just to quote a prior designer's "Official" viewpoint on the issue (and offer a basic translation to 3e).

For an 18th level Arthur-in-his-prime. Not 20th level, but certainly close.

Well, I think its fair to point out that I wrote the only 3rd edition D&D stats for Arthur that I know of (Legends of Excalibur) and statted him at 25th level for the peak of his career.

I'd also like to point out to the people who think I am talking about RAPID level advancement that Arthur begins his adventure as a squire and squires tended to be 13-16 years of age.

But that wasn't the question as I understood it. The question was 20 levels in 20 years. Arthur, at age 20, had been adventuring for 4-7 years.

However, that question somehow became "Arthur? nah he wasn't all that. A 5th level character could have killed a bunch of battle-hardened veteran barons, reunited his father's old battle hardened knights, killed a bunch of dire wolves, bears, giants, and giant-demon crossbreeds then conquered all of Europe including the mighty Roman legions".

Color me skeptical

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Oh and, by the by, Alexander the Great was 23 by the time he'd succeeded his father, Philip and was still campaigning until his death at age 33.

So even if you argue that he eventually hit 23, he had a period of some decade or two to hit it.

Right, but again you aren't looking at the story from Chapter 1

Philip began the conquests Alexander completed while Alexendar was still a young man. Alexander served as a general in these campaigns and was considered by classical scholars to be the finest cavalry commander of Philip's armies leading many devastating campaigns that broke the back of Philip's enemies.

He also had already served a lengthy apprenticeship studying combat and statesmanship under the best warriors and scholars in the land.

He didn't walk out of prep school and start adventuring. When the actual story about HIM begins with Philip's death he was already a seasoned military commander with numerous victories (again leading from the front) under his belt.

Chuck