Aragorn

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gotta be a Slayer, right?

And yes, I mean the one from the movies. Though from what I understand, the representation was fairly close to what was in the books.  
My usual take is Warlord, MC Ranger (for Nature training).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree. While a capable fighter, archer and tracker - Aragorn, particularly by the end of the series, is much more of a leader.

An article I read awhile back made the argument that based on his exploits and stated in 3.x, Aragorn would have been something like a Rgr1/Ftr1/Pal3.   
Let's look at Aragorn's abilities as described in the book:


  1. He was an accomplished sneak, able to move silently and open locks with ease.

  2. He was able to accomplish great feats of healing, although not in the same league as Elrond in that regard. 

  3. His skills in the outdoors were such that he was the actual prototype of the D&D ranger class.

  4. He was unmatched in skill with sword and dagger (he fought off five Nazgul with nothing but a sword and a flaming torch)

  5. He was able to inspire such great loyalty, that even the dead followed him.

  6. His willpower and mental toughness was the equal of Sauron, an actual demigod.

  7. He composed and performed poetry and songs that gained the admiration of the most skilled artists of the elves.


I'm sure there's more.  But so far that's a pretty impressive list of skills from a variety of D&D classes. It's hard to think of a build of Aragorn that doesn't start with ranger as a primary class and include bard, no matter which version of D&D you are playing. In 3.5 I'd expect to throw in at least a level of rogue.

As far as the "leader" role is concerned, certainly Aragorn was a leader, but he was a ranger first and foremost. Because of all the different aspects of his character, I'm not sure you can actually create a legitimate 4e version of him.
My usual take is Warlord, MC Ranger (for Nature training).



This is the way I go for Aragorn though I also take a background to add Stealth to my list of trained skills. I wouldn't worry about the stuff on brassbaboon's list. It's not hard to do. For example:

1. My background suggestion took care of it and a decent Dex score and half your level to the check would let an experienced character like Aragorn pick an easy level 2 or 3 lock.

2. The Warlord class already covers this.

3. The MC Ranger feat already covers this with training in Nature.

4. He used a sword two-handed most of the time we see him in the novels or movies. Basic training in martial weapons covers this.

5. This is a plot point, the result of the successful completion of a quest. The dead only followed him so they could get their curse lifted.

6. He was high level, probably low epic by the end. This puts him on par with a demigod.

7. A background consideration, a nice little note in your backstory that never comes up in the game.
My usual take is Warlord, MC Ranger (for Nature training).



This works perfectly... even the fine art of dwarf throwing in the movies. He isnt even a two weapon fighter sorry guys no reason to do heavy on the ranger bit.

What kind of ritual magics would you expect a warlord to know (take ritual training feat and get them loyal dead ) - sure having the resource level (minions) he did is something achieved as part of his epic destiny.

The Creative Character Collection has a version of Aragorn warlord/mc ranger but it does way more ranger than needed...giving him the mcpp.

I have considered a Ranger: Versatile Fighting Style to allow a straight ranger to use a bastard sword or even long sword as though it were a  dual weapon when used two handed in place of the +1 but havent really tried it out.

The rangers were actually a long lived race - basically kin to half elf.  
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 Because of all the different aspects of his character, I'm not sure you can actually create a legitimate 4e version of him.



Yeah, most video game, film or literature characters are all but impossible to replicate because they are not created in the mind set that balance, rules, etc exist. If someone comes to me wanting to make a characters like <        >, I find it best to simply identify what trait they are connecting with most and move from there.

 Because of all the different aspects of his character, I'm not sure you can actually create a legitimate 4e version of him.



Yeah, most video game, film or literature characters are all but impossible to replicate because they are not created in the mind set that balance, rules, etc exist. If someone comes to me wanting to make a characters like <        >, I find it best to simply identify what trait they are connecting with most and move from there.




Yeah, that's why there's never any agreement on a D&D version of Gandalf, Merlin, Elric or any other literary figure. If you wanna claim a warlord is a perfect fit for Aragorn, go right ahead. Don't expect me to agree with you.

Not that it matters. Just have fun.
 Because of all the different aspects of his character, I'm not sure you can actually create a legitimate 4e version of him.



Yeah, most video game, film or literature characters are all but impossible to replicate because they are not created in the mind set that balance, rules, etc exist. If someone comes to me wanting to make a characters like <        >, I find it best to simply identify what trait they are connecting with most and move from there.




Yeah, that's why there's never any agreement on a D&D version of Gandalf, Merlin, Elric or any other literary figure. If you wanna claim a warlord is a perfect fit for Aragorn, go right ahead. Don't expect me to agree with you.

Not that it matters. Just have fun.



To me there are several valid versions of many characters and its what aspects of those characters the player wants to emphasize which can make it perfect for them. ;p

For instance I seen a Valorous Bard version of Aragorn that was interesting. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



To me there are several valid versions of many characters and its what aspects of those characters the player wants to emphasize which can make it perfect for them. ;p

For instance I seen a Valorous Bard version of Aragorn that was interesting. 



I think this just hammers home my point. The idea that there are "several valid versions" of Aragorn just proves that there isn't ONE. But there actually WAS only one Aragorn. To say that every player in the world can make an Aragorn that fits their own interpretation is exactly the same thing as saying there is no valid interpretation.

But if it makes you happy to think you've nailed it in your own mind. Knock yourself out. 


To me there are several valid versions of many characters and its what aspects of those characters the player wants to emphasize which can make it perfect for them. ;p

For instance I seen a Valorous Bard version of Aragorn that was interesting. 



I think this just hammers home my point. The idea that there are "several valid versions" of Aragorn just proves that there isn't ONE. But there actually WAS only one Aragorn. To say that every player in the world can make an Aragorn that fits their own interpretation is exactly the same thing as saying there is no valid interpretation. . 



There may be NO one true wayist obligatorial perfect way of making character X but that is as much because every character in literature has as many ways of interpreting it as people who read it (there wasnt one Aragorn - each reader brought there own).. it is not a statement about the game having limitations on character design.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I agree that it's all in the individual's interpretation as well as the game mechanics of whether or not one can make a comfortable clone of a beloved fictional character. D&D by its nature does not have the intricate detailing of certain other RPGs such as Rolemaster or Champions, and with 4.0's new strategy constructs of encounter and daily powers, it's even more unlikely that one could make a respectable PC Aragorn or any other LotR (maybe ironically even Dragonlance) character.

Conversely, many years ago I was surprised to find that I was able to make what I considered a near-perfect replica of Indiana Jones using the Dr. Who character creation rules, right down to archaeology proficiency, ancient languages, bullwhip skill, horsemanship, brawling and pretty much anything else I could remember from the movies represented in the system.

Generalized descriptions can be an enabler... realizing you dont need a skill or class specifically titled archaeaologist for instance helps... try seeing the combo of history and dungeoneering and the right backgrounds.

Also think of it as the character lending meaning to the skills. A knight with nature skill is getting horse, hound hawk and hunting... It is not the same as a pirate with the same skill who is getting weather navigation and similar (background is used as a modifier for difficulty in doing things with a skill too)

 and with 4.0's new strategy constructs of encounter and daily powers, it's even more unlikely that one could make a respectable PC Aragorn or any other LotR (maybe ironically even Dragonlance) character. 


Individual feature moves or happenings in a movie so to speak are not "the character" but sure can be used to create the connection. For instance gliding down the palisades on a borrowed shield like Legaolos did in the movie or stabbing and killing one enemy with an arrow and firing the arrow on the next guy right away... yup they can be signature moves (and are very much available in 4th edition) ... and not happen every scene (or worse 3.x style every attack) or some are only likely every few scenes that is what encounter powers and dailies create. Point is they enhance not detract in invoking characters. Now boring repetitive only one move is worth anything because I am fighting to keep up with the wizards and pump all my feats in to that move .... well now that detracts!

Oh 
And  Indiana Jones is quite buildable...

Generalized skills allow generalized capability and being adaptable a feature of the Action hero especially the era of hero exemplified by Jones
 

Show

Indiana Jones, level 6
Human, Rogue
Build: Trickster Rogue
Rogue Tactics: Artful Dodger
Rogue: Sharpshooter Talent
Sharpshooter Talent: Sharpshooter Talent (Crossbow) - reflabored to pistols
Noble Scion Benefit: History
Background: Archaeologist, Occupation - Scholar, Explorer/Guide, Noble Scion (Noble Scion Benefit)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 10, Dex 19, Int 17, Wis 10, Cha 12.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 12.

AC: 17 Fort: 14 Reflex: 20 Will: 15
HP: 47 Surges: 6 Surge Value: 11
TRAINED SKILLS
Streetwise +9, Stealth +12, Thievery +12, History +13, Dungeoneering +8, Athletics +8, Acrobatics +12
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +8, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Endurance +5, Heal +5, Insight +5, Intimidate +6, Nature +5, Perception +5, Religion +8
FEATS
Human: Whip TrainingLevel 1: Linguist
Level 2: Skill Swap
Level 4: Whip Novice
Level 6: Jack of All Trades
POWERS
Bonus At-Will Power: Gloaming Cut
Rogue at-will 1: Preparatory Shot
Rogue at-will 1: Probing Strike
Skill Swap: City Dweller
Rogue encounter 1: Unbalancing Shot
Rogue daily 1: Confounding Attack
Rogue utility 2: Fast Hands
Rogue encounter 3: Trickster's Blade (retrained to Whip Snare at Whip Novice)
Rogue daily 5: Hobble
Rogue utility 6: Perfect Balance
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Garth, heh, you are stretching things to the point of absurdity to be able to claim to be making your point. Taking your approach I could make a "valid" copy of anyone using any rules from any system.

As I said, if it makes you feel better to think you've created a "valid" representation of a beloved literary figure because you can stretch "history and dungeoneering" into "archaeology" and other such contortions... knock yourself out. But you ain't convincing me. 
 because you can stretch "history and dungeoneering" into "archaeology" and other such contortions... knock yourself out. But you ain't convincing me. 


So you are calling yourself inflexible? I didnt do any contortion not intended or real bending at all. The skills used in the adventure in 4th edition are not the hyper specific ones you are thinking of ...  these are skills directed towards overcoming adventure challenges and are intended to be adaptable and not nailed down. IF you can look at skill challenges and have any other conclusion I think you are being deceptive. As I said in combination with background it can work well. DMs are still allowed to decide something isnt a challenge for instance based on a background or situation. The parts of Archaeology that are generally useful for adventuring and which are generally going to involve dice rolling and resolution of conflict those are indeed inside other skills (the two most prominent in this instance are probably "history and dungeoneering" )

You do not seem to understand the meaning of valid .... two valid arguments can reach differing conclusions... and frequently will ... because they start with differing premises.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

My usual take is Warlord, MC Ranger (for Nature training).



This is the way I go for Aragorn though I also take a background to add Stealth to my list of trained skills. I wouldn't worry about the stuff on brassbaboon's list. It's not hard to do. For example:

1. My background suggestion took care of it and a decent Dex score and half your level to the check would let an experienced character like Aragorn pick an easy level 2 or 3 lock.

2. The Warlord class already covers this.

3. The MC Ranger feat already covers this with training in Nature.

4. He used a sword two-handed most of the time we see him in the novels or movies. Basic training in martial weapons covers this.

5. This is a plot point, the result of the successful completion of a quest. The dead only followed him so they could get their curse lifted.

6. He was high level, probably low epic by the end. This puts him on par with a demigod.

7. A background consideration, a nice little note in your backstory that never comes up in the game.



Strong points all around.... The ones most likely to shout you cant... seem to understand the system the least.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



Strong points all around.... The ones most likely to shout you cant... seem to understand the system the least.



LOL, if anything the one's most likely to shout "you can" seem to understand the CHARACTER the least. But as I said, if it makes you feel all smug and superior, go ahead and believe you can reproduce Aragorn in 4e rules by creating a warlord multiclassed with ranger. Then you can reproduce Merlin as a Druid multiclassed as wizard, and Gilgamesh as a barbarian multiclassed with bard.. or whatever nonsense you want to claim reproduces the complex, multi-talented literary character to a T. It's no skin off my nose. 


Strong points all around.... The ones most likely to shout you cant... seem to understand the system the least.



LOL, if anything the one's most likely to shout "you can" seem to understand the CHARACTER the least.



Most elements of character are crafted in the imagination of the reader and authors vary there take from one go to the next of many characters... if you somehow let that imagination float out your ear between reading of the characters and playing an imagination game that is pretty sad. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



Most elements of character are crafted in the imagination of the reader and authors vary there take from one go to the next of many characters... if you somehow let that imagination float out your ear between reading of the characters and playing an imagination game that is pretty sad. 



It is my general observation that the ones who resort to personal insults are generally the ones losing the argument. Thanks for making that obvious to everyone.


Most elements of character are crafted in the imagination of the reader and authors vary there take from one go to the next of many characters... if you somehow let that imagination float out your ear between reading of the characters and playing an imagination game that is pretty sad. 



It is my general observation that the ones who resort to personal insults are generally the ones losing the argument. Thanks for making that obvious to everyone.



Are you insulted?  I certainly said .. If you do let your imagination fail in that way it is sad. Requiring things to be nailed down when they aren't even that way in the original context seems like a serious failure on your part not the games combine that with fundamental lack of understanding on how much the game leaves open for that imaginations power.... and I am left saying you are fighting for it not to work.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



Are you insulted?  I certainly said .. If you do let your imagination fail in that way it is sad. Requiring things to be nailed down when they aren't even that way in the original context seems like a serious failure on your part not the games combine that with fundamental lack of understanding on how much the game leaves open for that imaginations power.... and I am left saying you are fighting for it not to work.



Well, and this part: "let that imagination float out your ear.."

Look, you and I just have different understandings of what it means to say "valid" and "character" and "imagination." That's all. As I said, if it makes you feel good to say you've created Aragorn using the 4e rules, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.

Your entire argument boils down to something like "I can use the rules to approximate some caricature of Aragorn and then I'll use my imagination to convince myself that I'm playing Aragorn."

Fine. Have fun. 


Are you insulted?  I certainly said .. If you do let your imagination fail in that way it is sad. Requiring things to be nailed down when they aren't even that way in the original context seems like a serious failure on your part not the games combine that with fundamental lack of understanding on how much the game leaves open for that imaginations power.... and I am left saying you are fighting for it not to work.



Well, and this part: "let that imagination float out your ear.."

Look, you and I just have different understandings of what it means to say "valid" and "character" and "imagination."


you may have to scrap your dictionary. It seems to have mixed up valid with one true way for which there is no other and imagination seems to have forgotten its about taking inspiration for instance from written sources (or game mechanics) and bringing images to life in your mind.

As I said, if it makes you feel good to say you've created Aragorn using the 4e rules, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.


If your goal is to have the world agree on anything you are bound to failure.... the only person in this case for whom it needs to fit is the player and that is where the word valid comes in.

Not sure what makes you think a character design would need be a caricature? Perhaps you are unaware of the flexibility....
I can hybrid 2 classes together and multiclass in to another one and after backgrounds have access to the entire skill list and use abilities that enable any or even all of the combat roles and vary them over the course of the characters career.

 I could use that outline mentioned warlord multiclass ranger to build a character that is most definitely not going to feel like Aragorn.. I could build such a character so she never makes an attack of her own and in context she scrambles and hides behind allies, shouts oh my god whild pointing at enemies and acts like bait and so on, entirely based on power selection and presentation... she can dump stat the classes normal main attribute and any of the mental stats can be made to be forefront or used in supplemental fashions and used to better represent "ahem" this character.

On the other hand I could build him so he is a perceptive nature savvy fore front leader and capable archer with rituals tied to kingship and who communicates with his allies via runes and like the dalesmans rumors of the rangers was able to send messages via animals or learn from them things about the environment and who is fighting with himself over whether to follow that epic destiny of his.

OR

I could get all wrapped up in the fact that there is no race that is an exact representation of the Dunedain whose lifespans are 300 plus years... they occupy the same concept space I feel as the half-elf does in 4th edition and that is probably how I would build a ranger.


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

LOL Garth, it sure seems important to you to convince yourself that you can create Aragorn in 4e rules. Tongue out 

Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Slap some caricature together with a dash of nature, a chunk of sneak, some two-handed sword and a sprinkling of leadership, make him a half-elf, and call him Aragorn. Then you can reuse the same build but make him human and call him Faramir! It's a double win!

I don't care. I'm done with this.
It is my general observation that the ones who resort to personal insults are generally the ones losing the argument. Thanks for making that obvious to everyone.



Interesting.

Bear in mind that this is just personal observation here, but I find (in most recent years) that most people assume they can "win" by claiming to be offended, and often do so when they're unable to provide another rational argument. 

As to the actual subject at hand...

Using history and dungeoneering as an archaological substitute is valid.

You have picked up knowledge and skills related to dungeoneering, including finding your way through dungeon complexes, navigating winding caverns, recognizing dungeon hazards, and foraging for food in the Underdark.
    If you have selected this skill as a trained skill, your knowledge represents formalized study or extensive experience, and you have a better chance of knowing esoteric information in this field. Also, those trained in the skill can identify creatures of the Far Realm that lair and hunt in dungeons and underground settings.

and
You have picked up knowledge related to the history of a region and beyond, including the chronological record of significant events and an explanation of their causes. This includes information pertaining to royalty and other leaders, wars, legends, significant personalities, laws, customs, traditions, and memorable events.
    If you have selected this skill as a trained skill, your knowledge represents academic study, either formalized or as a hobby, and you have a better chance of knowing esoteric information in this field.

Actually, I'd say just plain ol' History would work, although I can see many cases where dungeoneering would actually be pretty useful in the field.

Half-Elf seems like a valid choice for the mechanical bits--I think something you're forgetting Mr. Baboon, is that the fluff and mechanics are not as tightly wound and bound as you assume.

+2 Con, +2 Wisdom seems acceptable, Diplomacy and insight bonuses, check.  Taking feats from either race seems pretty workable, and my only real tough decision would be whether to choose Dilettante or Knack for Success. 

I don't agree that Faramir would be a human version of the same character--I'm not even sure I'd use "human" to build him, as there's no real mechanical reason to do so.  Remember, the fluff in 4e is nice in many cases (although not in all) but its not binding or constrictive.  Don't like crystal people? (Shardminds) No problem.  Label them as silly, redescribe them and use the stats as something else.    I think they'd make a great playable version of a larva mage myself.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play. It's my blog, yo.
I don't care. I'm done with this.



Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago.  I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.
I don't care. I'm done with this.



Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago.  I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.


Yeah, it's funny how a little common sense and reality can spoil all kinds of fun. But don't worry, I won't spoil any more, it is a fantasy game after all.
I don't care. I'm done with this.



Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago.  I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.


Yeah, it's funny how a little common sense and reality can spoil all kinds of fun. But don't worry, I won't spoil any more, it is a fantasy game after all.



A game's mechanics are only as limited as you want them to be. Instead of taking a "No you can't" attitude, why aren't you figuring out ways to make it so? If you feel another system does a better job, say so and post the build. Saying it's impossible is a copout.

A game's mechanics are only as limited as you want them to be. Instead of taking a "No you can't" attitude, why aren't you figuring out ways to make it so? If you feel another system does a better job, say so and post the build. Saying it's impossible is a copout.



Look, I've got no problem with "Let's make the closest approximation to Aragorn as we can." That's fine. Then we can say "My approximation is better because X, Y or Z" and someone else can say "No, mine is better because Q, P, or W!"

When someone says they can reproduce Aragorn, one of the most complex and intriguing characters in the history of literature, and calls it a "valid" version, then I'm gonna roll my eyes.

But fine, I won't roll my eyes publicly anymore. If people want to believe silly fantasies about how a "warlord multiclassed with ranger" faithfully reproduces Aragorn, fine. I'll just let the silly fantasies flow in the future.

Sorry I spoiled anyone's fun. 
Look, I've got no problem with "Let's make the closest approximation to Aragorn as we can." That's fine. Then we can say "My approximation is better because X, Y or Z" and someone else can say "No, mine is better because Q, P, or W!"

When someone says they can reproduce Aragorn, one of the most complex and intriguing characters in the history of literature, and calls it a "valid" version, then I'm gonna roll my eyes.

But fine, I won't roll my eyes publicly anymore. If people want to believe silly fantasies about how a "warlord multiclassed with ranger" faithfully reproduces Aragorn, fine. I'll just let the silly fantasies flow in the future.

Sorry I spoiled anyone's fun. 




Yes you do or you wouldn't have bothered to post so frequently and passionately about your point.

Further, there were two ways that this conversation could have gone, the old high road and low road. Instead of the "Ha, ha, you guys. I think such-and-such-a-build is a much better representation of my beloved Aragorn," you decided to copout by rolling your eyes and putting down other people's honest efforts.

In conclusion, I can't really tell you what I think of that or you since it most likely would violate the COC. With that, I'll leave you with a Glad I Don't Game With You and add you to my very short list of blocked people.

Thank you for that Calamity.

Now I have a question for Mr. Baboon. Sir? How would you percieve making a "valid" Aragorn character if one wished to do so in a game of Dungeouns and Dragons? I am curious what your idea of a "valid" Aragorn is and why you percieve it as a valid point.
"War does not determine who is right, but who is left" -- Bertrand Russell "We can't change who we are, even if we are the biggest mistake we've ever made." -- Sorrow "Know ye not that ye are gods?" -- Hermes Trismegistus With Sorrow I Write, --SW
I agree 100% with the idea baboon puts forth, but man, you're a little abrasive. I see where you're coming from, but you come off like you want to pick a fight, though i don't think that's your intention. I distill my interpretation of your message to, "it can't be done but go ahead, it's a game so do whatever gives the most fun to you." Layasa, I feel he made it rather clear he doesn't feel it's possible to make a "valid" Aragorn PC within the confines of 4e, and I'm not sure I'd use the word valid, but I tend to agree. Back to point at hand, most "main characters" simply aren't balanced nearly enough to be made into proper PC's. More likely a DM could make one and throw it in as an important NPC or boss. There's a difference between making an Aragorn clone, and making a character based off of him. One is possible and the other is not. After reading this, I think I'll try my hand at making a character based off him myself.
I am very sorry if I came off as harsh or abrasive ANGLVDETH. I just wanted to see an example of his "valid" Aragorn character in D&D. I'm certaintly not trying to pick a fight, but attempting to see what his reasoning behind the previous argument has been.
"War does not determine who is right, but who is left" -- Bertrand Russell "We can't change who we are, even if we are the biggest mistake we've ever made." -- Sorrow "Know ye not that ye are gods?" -- Hermes Trismegistus With Sorrow I Write, --SW
I am very sorry if I came off as harsh or abrasive ANGLVDETH. I just wanted to see an example of his "valid" Aragorn character in D&D. I'm certaintly not trying to pick a fight, but attempting to see what his reasoning behind the previous argument has been.

Geez sry no not what I meant lol, I agree with baboon but think he is coming off a little strong.
 As Angel said, and I thought I made very clear in multiple comments, I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to make a "valid Aragorn" character using the 4e rules. I've stated my reasoning behind it and frankly I think I made the case crystal clear. I believe the same is true for the majority of classical literary figures such as Merlin, Elric, Pug, Donal Graeme, Paul Atreides, etc. etc. etc...

However, I did not intend to cause dissension, my goal was to try to get people to use more accurate language and build the "closest approximation" to Aragorn they could. That is not only more accurate, but it allows for more acceptance of different "versions" of Aragorn without the argument becoming "That's not Aragorn because there's no way that character could sneak through the entire Mines of Moria, unlock any door at will and spirit Gollum away right under the noses of Sauron's hand-picked lieutenants!" One person's interpretation of Aragorn may not involve the character's actual stealthy abilities, another might not involve the character's songwriting and charismatic abilities, etc... Their "approximation" can ignore those areas or consider them "fulfilled" by throwing a point or two of skill in that area, or argue that "archaeology" is covered by having "dungeoneering and history." Fine. But those are approximations of literary characters, and are only "valid" insofar as they support one person's personal, unique interpretation of the character. I use "valid" in a more objective, general and literal sense. That's all.

I already apologized for having ticked some people off. I won't get engaged in these sorts of discussions again. If someone wants to think they can make a "valid" version of Gilgamesh, fine, I certainly won't weigh in again. 
I agree 100% with the idea baboon puts forth, but man, you're a little abrasive. I see where you're coming from, but you come off like you want to pick a fight, though i don't think that's your intention. I distill my interpretation of your message to, "it can't be done but go ahead, it's a game so do whatever gives the most fun to you." Layasa, I feel he made it rather clear he doesn't feel it's possible to make a "valid" Aragorn PC within the confines of 4e, and I'm not sure I'd use the word valid, but I tend to agree. Back to point at hand, most "main characters" simply aren't balanced nearly enough to be made into proper PC's. More likely a DM could make one and throw it in as an important NPC or boss. There's a difference between making an Aragorn clone, and making a character based off of him. One is possible and the other is not. After reading this, I think I'll try my hand at making a character based off him myself.




I agree, his point was fairly clear, I just don't agree with it. What I took umbrage with was the general tone and lack of conversation on his part. We weren't equals debating the finer points of character adaptation to another medium (which is what it is). He came in, said it was impossible and insulted anyone who didn't agree with him.

If he had bothered to ask me, he would have actually found we share some common ground in this. I completely agree that when adapting a character to a medium outside of the original source, certain things are going to be lost in translation. Where we disagree on the matter is in the worth of what is lost in this case (ie adaptation decay).

I think it could have been a great conversation detailing the strengths and weaknesses inherent to adaptations of literary characters into 4E characters. Instead, it is what it is, someone disagreeing and spewing all over the thread.

Brassbaboon, why isn't history a good stand in for archeology, aka the study of historic/prehistoric cultures and people by analysis of their artifacts? Is it just not specific enough for you? Or is it the analysis part at the end? The study of history is pretty clearly represented in the histtory skill to me.

As for Aragon it is worth remembering that he is a high paragon low epic level character in D&D terms and thus good at things like stealth and lockpicking from expierience non seen 1st level Aragon might not have been as good at such things.
Characters currently: Abscense makes the heart grow fonder but the characters disappear.
Brassbaboon, why isn't history a good stand in for archeology, aka the study of historic/prehistoric cultures and people by analysis of their artifacts? Is it just not specific enough for you? Or is it the analysis part at the end? The study of history is pretty clearly represented in the histtory skill to me. As for Aragon it is worth remembering that he is a high paragon low epic level character in D&D terms and thus good at things like stealth and lockpicking from expierience non seen 1st level Aragon might not have been as good at such things.



I'm not so sure about that, really.  Just because he was among the main protagonists of the story doesn't mean he was an epic character.  I don't think I'd give him much past 11th level at the end of the books (original trilogy).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Then were the hobbits minions?

Heck my interpretation was alway that besides Gandalf he was the most expierienced and I wouldn't exactly call Gimli or Legalos 1st level characters either. (Also paragon is worldwide problems and epic is even worse and Sauron in his dark goddyness was somewhere in between a threat to middle earth and a threat to...whatever the tolkien gods were called I can't remember.
Characters currently: Abscense makes the heart grow fonder but the characters disappear.
Then were the hobbits minions? Heck my interpretation was alway that besides Gandalf he was the most expierienced and I wouldn't exactly call Gimli or Legalos 1st level characters either. (Also paragon is worldwide problems and epic is even worse and Sauron in his dark goddyness was somewhere in between a threat to middle earth and a threat to...whatever the tolkien gods were called I can't remember.



Well, minions is a monster mechanic, I'd call them non-combatant NPC plot-device 'here, part of your mission is protecting this idiots who won't do anything but cause problems for you by being inexperienced and stupid'.  Gandalf was similarly an NPC, though an actually useful one.

I'd probably put the rest of them around 3rd to 5th, levelling up to 11th at the endgame.  The whole 'tier to threat level' thing isn't a set in stone rule.  I've had level 4 PCs save the world before.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to make a "valid Aragorn" character using the 4e rules.


I don't know. It seems pretty simple.

This 4e character acts like Aragorn. He swings his sword like Aragorn. If your party halfling gets stabbed somewhere on top of a mountain, he can try to heal you.

How is this difficult to implement? There's going to be many ways you can implement this, and if you've got some imagination it works. Aragorn was a complex character. But mechanically, he was a guy who had a pretty limited skill set. It's not his abilities that really define him. It's that he's the guy the other characters in the party look up to. That doesn't require "Rain of Blows" or "Come and Get It". It requires a creative person running him. Viggo Mortensen did it in the movies. People have done it in RPGs.
Then were the hobbits minions? Heck my interpretation was alway that besides Gandalf he was the most expierienced and I wouldn't exactly call Gimli or Legalos 1st level characters either. (Also paragon is worldwide problems and epic is even worse and Sauron in his dark goddyness was somewhere in between a threat to middle earth and a threat to...whatever the tolkien gods were called I can't remember.



Well, minions is a monster mechanic, I'd call them non-combatant NPC plot-device 'here, part of your mission is protecting this idiots who won't do anything but cause problems for you by being inexperienced and stupid'.  Gandalf was similarly an NPC, though an actually useful one.

I'd probably put the rest of them around 3rd to 5th, levelling up to 11th at the endgame.  The whole 'tier to threat level' thing isn't a set in stone rule.  I've had level 4 PCs save the world before.



I think the whole fellowship could have been one large dysfunctional party in 3.X. the hobits start as pure skill monkeys that eventually gain at least a little combat power. Granted, in the books there is little use for skill based builds, so they seemed pretty useless. But as far as the whole tier thing goes, I'm inclined to agree with the good baron. At Paragon you've been around, and people know of you and have heard stories/songs etc. Epic, and you are a legend that will never die. In this context, seems clear that everyone except perhaps the 3 minor hobits have achieved their "immortality", and they will forever be legends at least in the shire. Well, this was the epic that ushered in a new age... just as all the details of the battle with Sauron and the details of the battle with his master are remembered, I suppose this tale will be preserved as well, granting all the fellowship immortality. Hell, from a more mechanically minded standpoint... Pippen succeeded on a will saving through from Sauron when he touched the seeing stone. If he can prevent one of the most powerful divine beings in existence from dominating him or some such, he must be awfully high lvl...
Sign In to post comments