D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Dannyalcatraz]

The black arrow was magical, but there's nothing to suggest that it was an arrow of slaying or anything of the sort, as is often suggested.

One could assert that that sequence was the inspiration for D&D’s arrows of slaying, but there’s no clear sign either way. And those who could answer definitively aren’t here.

 

[Dausuul]

We know Tolkien borrowed heavily from existing myth and mythology. In some cases, nearly word for word.
Did you see that list of mythological items I provided earlier? The way Tolkien describes the Black Arrow, and the history behind it, are exactly the same way almost all of those items are described in mythology and folklore.

Tolkien obviously drew heavily on Beowulf for "The Hobbit" -- I mean, Smaug basically is Beowulf's dragon. He flies, he breathes fire, he hoards treasure, he is roused to fury by the theft of a cup from that hoard, and he is slain by piercing his vulnerable belly, by a foe whose home he had incinerated.

So, where can we find a weapon described as having "never failed" in Beowulf?

Its steel edge, hard with bloodshed,
gleamed with a design: poison
twigs entwined. It failed no man
in battle or adventure
or wherever armies gathered.

Why, it's... Hrunting. The sword that accomplishes exactly nothing against Grendel's mother.

Then let's turn to the battle with the dragon. Beowulf brings in another ancient sword with a heroic name, Naegling. It likewise accomplishes more or less nothing, shattering against the dragon's armor. Then Wiglaf steps up and stabs the dragon's belly with a sword which is described merely as "old," and Beowulf finishes off the monster with the knife in his byrnie, which as far as we can tell is just a plain old dagger Beowulf was carrying.

Given that -- as I said -- Smaug is the Beowulf dragon with serial numbers filed off, and given that the vulnerable spot on his belly receives vastly more attention than the arrow which pierces that spot, it's a huge reach to claim that a magic weapon was required to kill Smaug, or that a weapon described with a storied history is necessarily a magical one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It wouldn't have been an ancient dragon, but if you accept that a round of attacks on a single target can be flavoured as single, telling blows, a T4 Paladin willing to spend spell slots can deal a lot of damage in two rounds. Particularly if they get some crits.

1) how much damage a Paladin can do with a pair of successful blows is heavy edition dependent.

2) “spending spell slots” gets is out of the discussion of “mundane” warriors.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One could assert that that sequence was the inspiration for D&D’s arrows of slaying, but there’s no clear sign either way. And those who could answer definitively aren’t here.

Yeah, I would certainly agree with that possibility. All I'm saying is that the black arrow is not itself an arrow of slaying. Everything in Tolkien's passage suggests that Bard made an extremely skilled shot to the heart (possibly aided by the arrow), rather than the arrow having somehow magicked the dragon to death.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's also depicted in almost every rendering as tiny and adorable and probably killable by a toddler with a chocolate bar.

True!

A quick search of paintings and statues showing the conflict typically depict tge dragon anywhere from the size of a large human to slightly larger than St. George’s charger.

Horses can get pretty big, but as compared to adult D&D dragons, they’re bite-sized.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Tolkien obviously drew heavily on Beowulf for "The Hobbit" -- I mean, Smaug basically is Beowulf's dragon. He flies, he breathes fire, he hoards treasure, he is roused to fury by the theft of a cup from that hoard, and he is slain by piercing his vulnerable belly, by a foe whose home he had incinerated.

So, where can we find a weapon described as having "never failed" in Beowulf?

Its steel edge, hard with bloodshed,
gleamed with a design: poison
twigs entwined. It failed no man
in battle or adventure
or wherever armies gathered.

Why, it's... Hrunting. The sword that accomplishes exactly nothing against Grendel's mother.

Then let's turn to the battle with the dragon. Beowulf brings in another ancient sword with a heroic name, Naegling. It likewise accomplishes more or less nothing, shattering against the dragon's armor. Then Wiglaf steps up and stabs the dragon's belly with a sword which is described merely as "old," and Beowulf finishes off the monster with the knife in his byrnie, which as far as we can tell is just a plain old dagger Beowulf was carrying.

Given that -- as I said -- Smaug is the Beowulf dragon with serial numbers filed off, and given that the vulnerable spot on his belly receives vastly more attention than the arrow which pierces that spot, it's a huge reach to claim that a magic weapon was required to kill Smaug, or that a weapon described with a storied history is necessarily a magical one.

That's some....speculation. Why would Tolkien base Smaug off of Beowulf's dragon when a closer analogy would be Fafnir? I mean, scholars like Jonathan Evans come right out and says* Smaug was based off of Fafnir. Tolkien said he was inspired by Fafnir. Your entire assumption falls flat.

Also, Naegling doesn't "accomplish nothing, more or less". It wounds the dragon twice (something no other weapon did to that point), and only breaks because Beowulf hits the dragon so hard with it. And again, Hrunting was meant to fail against giants by a whole lot of people who have studied the poem. Not sure why you keep bringing that up when it's been addressed repeatedly, and does not take away from the fact that it was a weapon that guaranteed victory against everything else, and Beowulf still used an ancient powerful sword to kill Grendel's mother.

Also, nothing in your comment disputes the fact that nearly all heroes in mythology and folklore rely on magical items to help them win against the big bad battles.

*"The most important of Smaug’s antecedents was Fafnir, a treasure-hoarding dragon from a Norse epic. Tolkien first ran into Fafnir in a story-book when he was very young, writes literature scholar Jonathan Evans, and the dragon had a profound effect. “I desired dragons with a profound desire,” Tolkien later said. “Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighborhood. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.”

Some of young Tolkien’s first attempts at storytelling, influenced by Fafnir, were about dragons, and the memory of Fafnir was realized in Smaug. Like Smaug, Fafnir has a giant hoard of gold that is his main preoccupation. He also talks, warning the hero Sigurd that taking his hoard of gold will result in trouble. “That same gold which I have owned shall be thy bane too,” Fafnir says."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

so two mundane high level fighters can slay a dragon, fair enough. and is Wiglaf a Party Member, a Hireling or a Class ability?

Wiglaf is a Wægmunding, of the same clan as Beowulf. How closely they’re related is unknown. As I’ve noted, Beowulf has abilities far beyond mundane. As his kin, Wiglaf might also have supernatural abilities, but they’re not in evidence in the poem.

I’ll also note that the dragon slain was “25 alens” long- approximately 50 feet. While clearly a large and dangerous beast, that’s not as big as an adult D&D dragon.

 

[Tonguez]

I disagree. If we’re talking “mundane” warriors, killing with one blow may be a thing…depending on what’s getting killed. There’s an ill-defined line between mundane one-shotting and supernaturally doing likewise.

And to be honest, a lot of heroes of legend were anything but, and many that actually got started out in various editions of D&D were often multiclassed (so not strictly mundane) or considered demigods. Or both.

Beowulf, for instance, exhibited abilities far beyond mere mortals, like being able to hold his breath for hours, and wielding a giant’s sword which was so heavy only the giant was able to lift at all.

St. George, as a Paladin, would also not be mundane in D&D terms.

FWIW, if I think of mundane heroes from mythology, first in my mind is Odysseus. He’s definitely stronger and more accurate than most humans, as evidenced by the archery stunt when he finally gets home, but not so far beyond the pale that those are his most notable traits. It’s his wits that make him stand out among the other legendary Greek warriors.

Beowulf is statted as a high level Barbarian in Mythological Figures (Mike Myler). Str 20 Barbarian gets to rip of arms and weild the super-heavy giant sword

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, I would certainly agree with that possibility. All I'm saying is that the black arrow is not itself an arrow of slaying.

We have no way of knowing what it was, beyond being “magical.”

In the films, the Black Arrow was the last of a particular stash, and there was a prophesy that only one of those arrows could kill Smaug. That parallels the legend of the mistletoe arrow that killed Baldur. It’s not necessarily magical, but it fulfilled a prophecy.

Everything in Tolkien's passage suggests that Bard made an extremely skilled shot to the heart (possibly aided by the arrow), rather than the arrow having somehow magicked the dragon to death.

You probably need both the incredible shot and the correct arrow. A nonmagical arrow/one that didn’t conform to the prophecy might not have worked.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Beowulf is statted as a high level Barbarian in Mythological Figures (Mike Myler).

Could be. I don’t play 5th.

(Which means I also don’t know how “mundane” high level Barbarians are in that edition.)