-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Real world myths and legends: Who's Epic Level?
- Thread starter ColonelHardisson
- Start date
Wolfspider
Explorer
Yeah.
*smiles ruefully*
But it had potential.
Crom and His Devils
First Post
Beowulf *not* outclassed by Sigurd
Beowulf killed his own dragon, but was an old man when he did it. And this was years after swimming the seas in full armour and ripping arms off dastardly varmints.
Beowulf killed his own dragon, but was an old man when he did it. And this was years after swimming the seas in full armour and ripping arms off dastardly varmints.
Oni
First Post
I apologize if I am deviating too much from the topic of the thread.
I just wanted to put in a couple of thoughts regarding scale. When 3E first came out and it was revealed that stats could be raised as a character went up in level, I heard a great many people cry that the game's powerscale was rising. You see for so long people were used to 18-19 being the maximum and in 3E the scale can go a fair ways beyond that. The fact is that the scale has simply changed and one has to get used to it, an 18 in 3E for instance simply doesn't mean what it did in 2nd ed. You can view the epic levels handbook in the same way. If you stop thinking about 20th level as the pinacle of achievement for a character and anything that goes beyond that as excess or breaking a barrier, but rather view it as a point on the path of the characters career it becomes easier to accept I think. Its really a matter of scale. If you fashion a legendary hero on the 20 level scale thats perfectly fine, and there is no reason it shouldn't work in your game, however the epic level rules allow for an alternate approach, it is simply a different tool. And while not every hero from myth and legend need necessarily be described with the epic level rules, there are some who could quite feasibly be described in such a manner.
Hurm, I fear I've not been particularly lucid. Basically what I mean is this, it boils down to how you view the scale of the game. You could make them on the 20 level scale, you could make them on the epic level scale, it is simply a matter of taste, but just because you could create the legendary heroes on one scale doesn't necessarily preclude them from being described with the other. Ultimately the Epic level rules are just another tool for DM's and players to create the stories and situations they enjoy.
I just wanted to put in a couple of thoughts regarding scale. When 3E first came out and it was revealed that stats could be raised as a character went up in level, I heard a great many people cry that the game's powerscale was rising. You see for so long people were used to 18-19 being the maximum and in 3E the scale can go a fair ways beyond that. The fact is that the scale has simply changed and one has to get used to it, an 18 in 3E for instance simply doesn't mean what it did in 2nd ed. You can view the epic levels handbook in the same way. If you stop thinking about 20th level as the pinacle of achievement for a character and anything that goes beyond that as excess or breaking a barrier, but rather view it as a point on the path of the characters career it becomes easier to accept I think. Its really a matter of scale. If you fashion a legendary hero on the 20 level scale thats perfectly fine, and there is no reason it shouldn't work in your game, however the epic level rules allow for an alternate approach, it is simply a different tool. And while not every hero from myth and legend need necessarily be described with the epic level rules, there are some who could quite feasibly be described in such a manner.
Hurm, I fear I've not been particularly lucid. Basically what I mean is this, it boils down to how you view the scale of the game. You could make them on the 20 level scale, you could make them on the epic level scale, it is simply a matter of taste, but just because you could create the legendary heroes on one scale doesn't necessarily preclude them from being described with the other. Ultimately the Epic level rules are just another tool for DM's and players to create the stories and situations they enjoy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real world myths and legends: Who's Epic Level?
Okay, maybe I was a bit snippy before, so maybe I should try to redeem myself by posting something more productive.
A basic problem here is that "epic level" means different things to different people. The forthcoming ELH defines it in straight numeric terms as having character levels in excess of 20, but that just begs the question of what those levels are meant to represent.
Some people are taking the term to mean "plays an epic role in a narrative", which is fair enough -- it's basically what the term would mean outside the D&D context. However, this is a very loose definition, and has just as much to do with the narrative as any intrinsic qualities of the character. By this definition, one could say that Frodo and Sam were "epic level", because they saved the West from the One Ring. However, I don't think anyone would suggest that Frodo and Sam -- however tough and hardy they were -- were really characters who could challenge gods or wield world-cracking powers. As characters, they remain within the realm of mortals -- you can identify with them _as ordinary people_, rather than as demigods.
Another possible definition of "epic level" is embodying the pinnacle of particular human traits or aspirations. Someone like James Bond, who is the ultimate super-spy, or Superman, who is the ultimate paladin, would be "epic level" in this regard. So would most of the Greek gods, who are basically humans with motivations, strengths and weaknesses extrapolated to the nth degree. This would be more in keeping with my intuitive understanding of what "epic level" means. However, having lots of powers isn't a prerequisite for this sort of thing. Someone like Captain America, for instance, plays much the same role in the Marvel lineup as does Supes in DC -- the ultimate good guy. However, Cap is by any measure a much lower-powered character than Supes. Similarly, while James Bond is an epic spy, a lot of his exploits could arguably be attributed to his having Plot Immunity rather than any intrinsic ability -- the bad guys keep missing him, because that's their job as bad guys, not because he can dodge bullets at
will. It's not James Bond's fault that he appeared in lots of dodgy movies....
Another problem is that, as mentioned previously, the line between high-level D&D and epic-level D&D is blurry. A 20th level character is already capable of feats that would be beyond ordinary people, especially if magic is taken into account (as it should). In your ordinary moderate-level D&D campaign world, such a character could well be "epic" for all intents and purposes.
ColonelHardisson said:
Okay, maybe I was a bit snippy before, so maybe I should try to redeem myself by posting something more productive.
A basic problem here is that "epic level" means different things to different people. The forthcoming ELH defines it in straight numeric terms as having character levels in excess of 20, but that just begs the question of what those levels are meant to represent.
Some people are taking the term to mean "plays an epic role in a narrative", which is fair enough -- it's basically what the term would mean outside the D&D context. However, this is a very loose definition, and has just as much to do with the narrative as any intrinsic qualities of the character. By this definition, one could say that Frodo and Sam were "epic level", because they saved the West from the One Ring. However, I don't think anyone would suggest that Frodo and Sam -- however tough and hardy they were -- were really characters who could challenge gods or wield world-cracking powers. As characters, they remain within the realm of mortals -- you can identify with them _as ordinary people_, rather than as demigods.
Another possible definition of "epic level" is embodying the pinnacle of particular human traits or aspirations. Someone like James Bond, who is the ultimate super-spy, or Superman, who is the ultimate paladin, would be "epic level" in this regard. So would most of the Greek gods, who are basically humans with motivations, strengths and weaknesses extrapolated to the nth degree. This would be more in keeping with my intuitive understanding of what "epic level" means. However, having lots of powers isn't a prerequisite for this sort of thing. Someone like Captain America, for instance, plays much the same role in the Marvel lineup as does Supes in DC -- the ultimate good guy. However, Cap is by any measure a much lower-powered character than Supes. Similarly, while James Bond is an epic spy, a lot of his exploits could arguably be attributed to his having Plot Immunity rather than any intrinsic ability -- the bad guys keep missing him, because that's their job as bad guys, not because he can dodge bullets at
will. It's not James Bond's fault that he appeared in lots of dodgy movies....
Another problem is that, as mentioned previously, the line between high-level D&D and epic-level D&D is blurry. A 20th level character is already capable of feats that would be beyond ordinary people, especially if magic is taken into account (as it should). In your ordinary moderate-level D&D campaign world, such a character could well be "epic" for all intents and purposes.
Re: Re: Re: Real world myths and legends: Who's Epic Level?
I second the Hercules. Odiseus (why use latin speling when you could use greek
) is geek's hero. Always has been. Macho Greeks despised him and comparing somenone to him was by no means a compliment. That said it only goes to show what a genius Homer was in writing an epic about this questionable character.
I agree that most mythological heroes would be semwher on 10-20 level scale in DnD terms, of course if we allow for commesurate increase in magic availability as suggested in DMG. And I claim that there was never a mythological wizard (not talking gods here) that could match up with a 20th level DnD mage.
Merlin ? No way, he still needed Arthur and Co. to fight all the battles he did some auguriing and some weather controll and a small-scale magical items manufacture and a lot of posturing. At best a 7th level druid. A double digit level wizard with a grain of inteligence would have so many contingencies against that Viviane trap that noone would even bother about it.
Baba Yaga ? Some serious items creation here and fairly nice polimorphing abilites, definitivly have fly spell but spells over the 6th level, I think not: 11th level sorceress.
Galadriel ? Master craftsman of items (learned from Kelebrimbor), other than that most magic spent on preserving Lorien. Fine and good but equivalent to what DnD wise ? Other than that does some serius prophesisng and creates "continous light" item with "turn undead" feautures and a "nature's blessing" item. Generously, 9th level wizard.
Gandalf ? Any wizard who fails to have fly spell memorized when spell-lunking either does not have it or is dumb. In conjuction with the fact that the most powerfull thing ever we see him cast is a flame-sphere I would say 4th level wizard with severely depleted list (and possibly a highish level fighter as he can use sword to some effect and has plenty of HP)
If you want a wizard of level higher then 11 but still bellow 14th-15th mark you have to go to the Arabian Myths but even there those wizards more often then not turn to be jinn or half-jinn.
Fighters you can find in myth that go to 20th level and possibly even a bit beyond (altrugh they tend to get deified as they do so.) Hercules, Gilgamesh, CuChulain are probably the only ones from the "Classical" mythologies and that only towards the very end of their careers. Athenians would probably add Theseus. Sigurd s cool but not 20th+ level cool. If we say that a Dragon is a DnD Dragon, mature adult say, and stupid enough to go mano-a-mano even properly equiped 15th level shold be able to chop him into bits. Beowulf is probably 12th level or so with *realy* good physical stats. Arthur I don't think so. I do not recall stories o him singlehandedly defeating hundereds and hundreds of enemy footmen. (As a matter of fact the English King much more likely to qualify for the Epic is Richard Lionheart based on the stories of his exploits in palestine...)
S'mon said:
I second the Hercules. Odiseus (why use latin speling when you could use greek
) is geek's hero. Always has been. Macho Greeks despised him and comparing somenone to him was by no means a compliment. That said it only goes to show what a genius Homer was in writing an epic about this questionable character.I agree that most mythological heroes would be semwher on 10-20 level scale in DnD terms, of course if we allow for commesurate increase in magic availability as suggested in DMG. And I claim that there was never a mythological wizard (not talking gods here) that could match up with a 20th level DnD mage.
Merlin ? No way, he still needed Arthur and Co. to fight all the battles he did some auguriing and some weather controll and a small-scale magical items manufacture and a lot of posturing. At best a 7th level druid. A double digit level wizard with a grain of inteligence would have so many contingencies against that Viviane trap that noone would even bother about it.
Baba Yaga ? Some serious items creation here and fairly nice polimorphing abilites, definitivly have fly spell but spells over the 6th level, I think not: 11th level sorceress.
Galadriel ? Master craftsman of items (learned from Kelebrimbor), other than that most magic spent on preserving Lorien. Fine and good but equivalent to what DnD wise ? Other than that does some serius prophesisng and creates "continous light" item with "turn undead" feautures and a "nature's blessing" item. Generously, 9th level wizard.
Gandalf ? Any wizard who fails to have fly spell memorized when spell-lunking either does not have it or is dumb. In conjuction with the fact that the most powerfull thing ever we see him cast is a flame-sphere I would say 4th level wizard with severely depleted list (and possibly a highish level fighter as he can use sword to some effect and has plenty of HP)
If you want a wizard of level higher then 11 but still bellow 14th-15th mark you have to go to the Arabian Myths but even there those wizards more often then not turn to be jinn or half-jinn.
Fighters you can find in myth that go to 20th level and possibly even a bit beyond (altrugh they tend to get deified as they do so.) Hercules, Gilgamesh, CuChulain are probably the only ones from the "Classical" mythologies and that only towards the very end of their careers. Athenians would probably add Theseus. Sigurd s cool but not 20th+ level cool. If we say that a Dragon is a DnD Dragon, mature adult say, and stupid enough to go mano-a-mano even properly equiped 15th level shold be able to chop him into bits. Beowulf is probably 12th level or so with *realy* good physical stats. Arthur I don't think so. I do not recall stories o him singlehandedly defeating hundereds and hundreds of enemy footmen. (As a matter of fact the English King much more likely to qualify for the Epic is Richard Lionheart based on the stories of his exploits in palestine...)
jollyninja
First Post
yeah, richard the lionheart is definitley the most epic of english kings, when your force is outnumbered 10 to 1 and the other army refuses to attack because they are afraid of you, that's freaking epic. and that's just one of his many exploits. nobody was willing to fight him personally because he killed so many.
Similar Threads
