Was Gandalf Just A 5th Level Magic User?

This article from Dragon Magazine, back in 1977, is likely very familiar to many of you (feel free to yawn - this item isn't for you!) However, there are many newer fans of D&D who don't even remember Dragon Magazine, let alone issues from nearly 40 years ago. In the article, Bill Seligman posits that Gandalf was merely a 5th level magic-user. Given Cubicle 7's recent announcement about an official Middle Earth setting for D&D, it seems like a nostalgia piece worth revisiting.

Some folks I hear discussing this topic these days take the position that Gandalf is actually a paladin. Certainly "wizards" in Tolkien's works aren't the same magic-missile-throwing folks as in regular D&D; in fact there are only five wizards in the whole of Middle Earth - and at least one of them (the 7th Doctor) is very clearly a druid.

What do you think? Is Gandalf a 5th level magic-user? What about in 5th Edition, given the upcoming Middle Earth release? I'm sure Cubicle 7 will tells for certain this summer, but until then...

 

[Celebrim]

Gandalf went toe to toe with a Balrog got to think that shows he was a bit more than 5th level

Again, depends on what stats you use for a Balrog. Sure, if by Balrog you mean the 3.5e D&D Balrog, then Gandalf has to be more than a 5th level wizard. But the 3.5e D&D Balrog is very much an example of the sort of thinking that the original poster is attacking. If we don't inflate the Balrog's abilities, then we don't have to inflate Gandalf's abilities. The 3.5e Balor's abilities were meant to challenge high level D&D characters, not Gandalf, and were inflated from the 3.0e, 2e, and 1e stats of the monster as part of the perpetual power creep that this sort of thinking causes.

Assuming that the Balrog of Moria was a 20HD monster requires us to start assuming things like orcs of Moria were all 4HD, which then means that Sam Gamgee is like a 5th level fighter by Moria, and so on and so forth. It's very much the thinking the original essay is asking you to question.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think? Is Gandalf a 5th level magic-user? What about in 5th Edition, given the upcoming Middle Earth release? I'm sure Cubicle 7 will tells for certain this summer, but until then...

5th level wizards don't generally spontaneously come back from the dead. Or last more than a moment against (in 3e) a CR 20 Balor/Pit Fiend (or, generally, a creature capable of depopulating a major dwarven city on its own). I think that looking merely at the things we can identify as analogous to spells cast really helps us fix the level of the character.

 

[Morrus]

Again, depends on what stats you use for a Balrog. Sure, if by Balrog you mean the 3.5e D&D Balrog, then Gandalf has to be more than a 5th level wizard. But the 3.5e D&D Balrog is very much an example of the sort of thinking that the original poster is attacking. If we don't inflate the Balrog's abilities, then we don't have to inflate Gandalf's abilities. The 3.5e Balor's abilities were meant to challenge high level D&D characters, not Gandalf, and were inflated from the 3.0e, 2e, and 1e stats of the monster as part of the perpetual power creep that this sort of thinking causes.

If we change the game system, we have to change the stats to match it. The discussion doesn't even make sense otherwise - if we're (hypothetically) thinking about his 5E stats, then we need to use a 5E Balrog/Balor. Whether or not the article writer approved of later game systems having different stat scales isn't particularly material to the question of Gandalf's (hypothetical) stats in various editions.

 

[Celebrim]

Didn't we have this conversation fairly recently?

It's one of those ever-green conversation starters.

Like which was the best Star Trek, original, TNG, or DS9?

Does the Balrog have wings?

Which Doctor was the best?

Is Pluto a planet?

DC vs. Marvel?

Star Wars or Star Trek?

Kirk or Picard?

Or, if you want a real flame war, pick a geek book. Is the movie based on it any good?

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

I believe you have this reversed. In D&D, the original flavor text for the Type 6 demon suggested only a few existed. In Tolkien lore, there appear to have been dozens of Balors at one point - part of the ainur vassal host of Morgoth, probably snared from the fire loving host of Aule.

Who knows? Tolkien changed his mind on this, and it's not entirely clear what was 'final'.

In the earliest versions, Balrogs were a 'created race' made by Morgoth [as were the Orcs]; quite numerous - a thousand showed up at one First Age battle - and, while terrifying, quite mortal (dozens died at the Fall of Gondolin).

When Tolkien decided Morgoth shouldn't have the ability to create life, the Orcs became corrupted elves and the Balrogs became fallen Maiar.

At one point in the 50s, Tolkien decided on '3 or at most 7' Balrogs total, but this was never incorporated into any of the 'Silmarillion' texts, so was it his final decision? Who knows?

It's clear from the text that without the ring, he's unable to take the CR 30+ form he'd like to take, and is forced to a more ghostly form.

Sauron is less powerful without the ring, but he has a physical form at the time of LOTR in the books (though not in the movies).

Gollum was tortured by/in front of him, and he refers to Sauron having nine fingers.

Furthermore, Tolkien's Letter 246:

in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.

I think it would be sufficient to have Sauron in the low 20's to have him capable of daunting pretty much anyone on Middle Earth at the time,

I agree, Sauron is the only 'epic' being in Middle-Earth at the time of LOTR.

with the possible exception of Glorfindel who is probably the highest level character in middle earth other than Sauron.

I'd argue that Galadriel is higher level than Glorfindel. She and Feanor are "the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor".

 

[delericho]

It's one of those ever-green conversation starters.

Yeah, but doesn't it usually take more than two months to cycle around?

 

[Celebrim]

If we change the game system, we have to change the stats to match it. The discussion doesn't even make sense otherwise - if we're (hypothetically) thinking about his 5E stats, then we need to use a 5E Balrog/Balor. Whether or not the article writer approved of later game systems having different stat scales isn't particularly material to the question of Gandalf's (hypothetical) stats in various editions.

Sure. But as the game system evolves away from the source material, we have to acknowledge that parts of it - even those that took a bit of kludging to make work in the source material to begin with - no longer work at all. The 3.5e Balor wasn't altered to make it fit better within the Tolkien legerdemain. By that point, D&D had become self-referential. The stat block was created to serve a purpose within the game itself with no attention being paid even in the imagination of the designer as to whether this Balor was a good fit for the Balrog of Moria that likely originally inspired the concept (ape-like, may have wings, flaming sword, multi-tailed whip, immolates). Arbitrarily trying to fit Gandalf to the 3.5e Balrog and making it the point we take a the fixed frame of reference from which we derive all the rest of stats in Middle Earth makes absolutely no sense. Even within 3.Xe, Gandalf still appears from the text to be not much more than a 6th level Wizard. Why flex Gandalf and everything else around the Balrog, when we could just as easily use that as the fixed point of reference and adjust the Balrog of Moria to scale?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It seems to me that a high level eldritch knight is a good approximation for Gandolf. It would cover the spells he uses and the martial aptitude.

 

[Faenor]

This was published in March, 1977.

The Silmarillion was published in September, 1977.

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Well, a Balor is a Balrog is much the same as saying a Halfling is a Hobbit or a Treant is an Ent. TSR changing the names because they got some nasty letters from some lawyers doesn't really factor in.

And yep, of course the stats changed throughout D&D editions. Which is why you'd need to also change Gandalf's stats through editions.

I agree that, as a rough beginning, it's useful to point out the Tolkienian sources in D&D.

But the Middle-earth "equivalents" (hobbits, dwarves, treants) were flattened and warped as they passed through Gygax's mind. That's fine - they became one more gonzo-ified ingredient in the D&D Multiverse. But they are no longer really Middle-earth in flavor, or in detail.

For example, Gygax got the traits of the three Hobbit breeds mixed up when adapted them for D&D. In Middle-earth, the Stoors are the "Man-friends" and the Harfoots are the "Dwarf-friends". While in D&D, the "Stouts" became the "Dwarf-friends", not the Hairfoots, as would be expected. Since the Harfoots/Hairfoots are the most numerous/ordinary breed in both worlds, D&D depicted them as having an affinity with the most numerous/ordinary race in D&D - humans. But in Middle-earth the Harfoots are the Dwarf-friends.

And the Hobbit racial abilities were never fully translated into the D&D Halfling. Here are a list of Hobbit traits, taken straight from a close reading of the books and JRRT's letters:

• Very Small Physical Power
  
• Nimble and Deft in their Movements
• Inclined to be Fat
• In Touch with Nature; Close Friendship with the Earth
• Skilled in Crafts and Tools
• Quick of Hearing
• Sharp-eyed/Keen-eyed
• Difficult to Daunt
• Difficult to Kill
• Curiously Tough; Tough as Old Tree-Roots; Survive Rough Handling by Grief, Foe, or Weather; Recover Wonderfully from Falls and Bruises
• Free from Ambition
• Free from Greed of Wealth
• Slow to Quarrel
• Hospitable
• Elusiveness; The Art of Disappearing; Hide Easily
• Move Very Quietly
• Doughty at Bay; Amazing and Unexpected Heroism "At a Pinch"
• Handle Arms
• Pretty Fair Shot; Aiming and Throwing; Sure at the Mark (stones, quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins)
• Used to Tunneling
• Sense of Direction Underground
• Work Like Bees
• Fund of Wisdom and Wise Sayings
• Vices of Sloth and Stupidity
• Pettiness; Unimaginative, Parochial
• Blowing Smoke-Rings
• Cooking
• Asking Riddles

Here are the source quotes: https://sites.google.com/site/thereandbackadventure/hobbit-traits

Some of these made it into D&D, but many were overlooked, such as "Sense of Direction Underground."

Unfortunately, many of these traits were never modeled in the Middle-earth RPGs either - MERP, CODA, and TOR.

Another example: The Hobbit text gives the relative speeds of Hobbits, Dwarves, and Goblins:

"poor Bilbo could not possibly go half as fast-dwarves can roll along at a tremendous pace, I can tell you, when they have to [...]
Still goblins go faster than dwarves."

This is not fully modeled in D&D, or in the existing ME RPGs, AFAIK.