D&D 5E Mythological Figures: Achilles (5E)

Drizzt

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D is itself an extension of mythology and sometimes it’s a good move for the GM to bring a proper legend into their game. Whether to have an epic NPC make an impact on the plot, slack a few jaws in awe, or just as a lark, this column is bringing you the greatest figures of mythology with statistics for Fifth Edition!...
Bestowed Invulnerability. Achilles mother Thetis dipped him into the River Styx in his infancy, turning his skin nigh-invulnerable. He is immune to sneak attack damage, ignores extra damage from critical hits, and has resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. A creature targeting Achilles' singular point of vulnerability (his left heel) has a -10 penalty on its attack roll, but on a hit the attack deals normal damage (ignoring the immunities and resistances of this feature)...

Wow, that so reminds me of Giants in the Earth back in the day.

 

[pemerton]

Like [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], I was surprised to see such low physical stats. And like [MENTION=6688049]Polyhedral Columbia[/MENTION], I was surprised by the lack of allusion to Achilles's rage.

But anyway, the personality traits seem to be missing. Achilles is a great warrior, but there are other great warriors in the Iliad. What distinguishes literary/mythological peronsalities tends to be their character. As a starting point for Achilles I'll suggest Ideal: Glory; Bond: Patroclus; Flaw: Pride.

 

[Yaarel]

It is always problematic when trying to adapt literary characters to the game, and with a mythological figure, it's especially so, since there is no single source to which one can appeal.

Let's lay out some basics, though:
The Greco-Roman sources for Achilles that survive include Homer (c. 700 BCE, reflecting an earlier oral tradition that preserves details from the Bronze Age) to tragedy (he's a character in Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis, produced in 405 BCE) to Hellenistic works (including Apollonius' Argonautica, where he appears as a baby) to Roman works in Greek (Apollodorus' Library) and Latin (Ovid, Hyginus) that extend into the second century CE. That's 900+ years of history, plus ancient commentators on the lot, and not including lost works throughout that period but which are indirectly attested, that we refer to when we're talking about "the myth" or "the legend". Throughout that time, there is no obligation on any of these creators to adhere to what has gone before, and each will use the character in their own way for their own literary purposes. "The Myth" simply doesn't exist; there is only an ongoing accretion of detail some of which will agree with what's gone before, and some of which won't.

We can't know "the original story" (it predates literacy) and so if we want to speak at all meaningfully about this, we need to pick an author we like.

The OP mentions Homer and the Iliad, but if you're going with that, you find yourself quickly stuck.



Homer doesn't know about the invulnerability. In fact, that detail isn't attested until after the death of Alexander the Great, four centuries later. Some scholars guess it's an earlier tale, but "the legend" and "the myth" simply doesn't support it.

Though not invulnerable, he is able to fight a river and then kill Hector (Iliad 20-22). For Homer, he demonstrates speed ("swift-footed Achilles"), high constitution and strength (he is the single best hand-to-hand fighter at Troy, on either side; so 20 Strength and Constitution?).

In the Odyssey, he is the wisest person Odysseus encounters in the underworld, so we should give him at least a posthumous 18 wisdom.

Vase-painting (and lost tragedies about Palamedes) have him regularly playing tactical board games, which suggests Intelligence. Euripides in the fifth century plays up his Charisma. Etc.

In Homer, he uniquely uses his father's spear (which for some reason only he an use/lift). He doesn't use a bow or a sword (though there is a really good sword scene at the start of the movie Troy).

I understand the desire to stat up mythic figures, but (not to be too much of a pessimist) it's a mug's game, and you can justify almost any decision because the sources simply do not agree with one another.

The same will be true of other figures who are less well attested (Daedalus) or who developed over several hundred years (Lancelot, Robin Hood).

There is not, and cannot be, a right answer.

Yeah, to do a mythologically accurate D&D character, the most important thing is specifying exactly which sources are to be referenced.

 

[jkasonII]

Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

 

[pemerton]

Lancelot seems fairly straightforward combat-stat wise: he's either a fighter or a paladin (depending on what makes sense in your game), of high level (12th to 20th, again depending on what makes sense in your game), with strong physical stats and charisma (18s or 20s depending on what makes sense in your game, maybe 16 DEX if you like).

The personality traits are more interesting.

One version might be Ideal: the Round Table; Bond: King Arthur; Flaw: Love for Guinevere.

Another might be Ideal: Glory; Bond: Guinevere; Flaw: deceiving Arthur.

I think these two different Lancelots could play out in interestingly different ways.

 

[Azzy]

Historically based, but given legendary attributes over time: Zhuge Liang, Guan Yu, Yue Fei, Mu Guiying, Yagyū Jūbei Mitsuyoshi, Hattori Hanzō, Oda Nobunaga...

 

[Desrimal]

Mr. Miyagi

 

[Coroc]

Nah matey, first of all his alignment is chaotic good, or at least neutral good. (He did a lot of lolo Action)

Second, he is not that bright and much more handsome and athletic (He is the strongest of the greek fighters)

so i would rather put his attributes 20 14 18 10 10 16

Longswords did not exist in ancient greece. His main weapon would be a spear. His armor would be bronze breastplate and bronze greaves so a 14.
He definitely had a shield, a bow and javelins for ranged combat and a shortsword as abackup weapon.

Please reread the Ilias Saga if you do not believe me.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] #14 So i did Forget that thing about him being wise in the odissy. Still i believe he achieves this wisdom post mortem. In the iliad he is pictured very impulsive which speaks for low to average scores for int and wisdom. So i think i might correct my above stats to 12 in Int but leave wis at 10. Definitely he has high Charisma though.

 

[Kobold Stew]

[MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] #14 So i did Forget that thing about him being wise in the odissy. Still i believe he achieves this wisdom post mortem.

I don't think that's a thing. IF you want evidence of his wisdom in the Iliad, check his discussion with Priam in book 24. He provides the most meaningful description (within the poem) of how fate works, and how human and divine existence operates.

In the iliad he is pictured very impulsive which speaks for low to average scores for int and wisdom. So i think i might correct my above stats to 12 in Int but leave wis at 10. Definitely he has high Charisma though.

In the Iliad Achilles is the least impulsive person of all the Greeks. Diomedes (book 5 [attacking the gods]) is impulsive. So is Patroclus (books 15-16 [not sticking to the plan, going to the walls]), and Odysseus (Odyssey 8 [throwing the discus], 9 [telling Polyphemus his name], 10 [spending time with Circe], 11 [stupid underworld boasts], 13 [accusing Athena of abandoning him]).

In Iliad 1, he is about to initiate combat (in the process of drawing his sword) but he checks himself (after Athena pulls his hair). He then uses insults instead of combat, and withdraws from fighting, before making a very deliberate decision to return.

But this still misses the larger point: if you are keeping the invulnerability, it's not Homer's Achilles. If it's not Homer's Achilles but only your feelings about Achilles as known through the ages, then you're cherry-picking from over a thousand years of material.