Game of Thrones characters

I was having a discussion with my players about how 4e and 5e seem to be a bit too much about maximising the stat bonus and we started to wonder how viable it would be to build the characters from Game of Thrones tv series.

Now admittedly, in a low magic campaign it won't be possible to build magical pcs but we have a lot of fighters and rogues (and non-magical rangers) and very few of them follow the style encouraged by the stat system of maximising your main stat.

I wondered what people's views on character builds were (class (and build), level, stats,and alignment) and whether they would be viable characters in DDN.  If not, what changes could they make to DDN to make the characters more viable?

 PS Avoid spoilers please!
One of our PCs has limped from a leg wound for decades.  We just reduced his run speed slightly.  And we know DDN will have wounds modules so I think this debate might lead us to wander off topic?

In Greyhawk, the majority of the regional leaders were fighters of varying levels albeit some were paladins and some rangers.  When 3e came along, a lot of them were just converted to aristocrats or at least fighters with a level of aristocrat.  In a feudal society, most male leaders would be trained to have a reasonable level of combat prowess (level 4+)

Dragonlance also had a lot of fighters who played differently on ther initial character sheets but in reality probably turned into carbon copies once some magic plate mail and powerful swords turned up in the modules.  I think DDN has more opportunities to build different fighters or at least it will have once they sort out a better way to implement combat dice manoeuvres.

Arya is quite an interesting one.  She is clearly low level but has more skill than a peasant with both bow and rapier.

Arya Fighter Level 1, S8, D15, C12, I14, W10, Ch12, NG

Also, the Dragon article was all over the map: Jon Snow (a 15 year old) is ECL 7, Tyrion Lannister is Aristo 6/Fighter 5 despite having only very recently ever fought in battle, Stannis is a 10th level Paladin (when he's the most archetypal LN I've ever seen in fiction), Dany is a 6th level Sorceror, etc.

Wow, really? Geeze, that's terrible. How the hell do they justify making Stannis Baratheon a Paladin, or Daenerys a Sorceror? I don't seem to recall ever seeing her throw a single spell. And Tyrion? He shouldn't have any PC levels, period. Hell, the Aristocrat NPC class is still too combat oriented for him. His swinging a handaxe a handful of times doesn't equate to PC levels. There's adaptation, and then there's just making up wholly new characters on the spot and slapping pre-existing names on them. They may as well have called those characters Kaiser Soze, Spider-Man, King Arthur, and Madonna, for all the accuracy of those characters.
Also, the Dragon article was all over the map: Jon Snow (a 15 year old) is ECL 7, Tyrion Lannister is Aristo 6/Fighter 5 despite having only very recently ever fought in battle, Stannis is a 10th level Paladin (when he's the most archetypal LN I've ever seen in fiction), Dany is a 6th level Sorceror, etc.

Wow, really? Geeze, that's terrible. How the hell do they justify making Stannis Baratheon a Paladin, or Daenerys a Sorceror? I don't seem to recall ever seeing her throw a single spell. And Tyrion? He shouldn't have any PC levels, period. Hell, the Aristocrat NPC class is still too combat oriented for him. His swinging a handaxe a handful of times doesn't equate to PC levels. Geeze, there's adaptation, and then there's just making up wholly new characters on the spot and slapping pre-existing names on them. They may as well have called those characters Kaiser Soze, Spider-Man, King Arthur, and Madonna, for all the accuracy of those characters.



Yeah, whoever decided on those levels had clearly never watched the show or read the books.
Also, the Dragon article was all over the map: Jon Snow (a 15 year old) is ECL 7, Tyrion Lannister is Aristo 6/Fighter 5 despite having only very recently ever fought in battle, Stannis is a 10th level Paladin (when he's the most archetypal LN I've ever seen in fiction), Dany is a 6th level Sorceror, etc.

Wow, really? Geeze, that's terrible. How the hell do they justify making Stannis Baratheon a Paladin, or Daenerys a Sorceror? I don't seem to recall ever seeing her throw a single spell. And Tyrion? He shouldn't have any PC levels, period. Hell, the Aristocrat NPC class is still too combat oriented for him. His swinging a handaxe a handful of times doesn't equate to PC levels. There's adaptation, and then there's just making up wholly new characters on the spot and slapping pre-existing names on them. They may as well have called those characters Kaiser Soze, Spider-Man, King Arthur, and Madonna, for all the accuracy of those characters.



I can see Daenerys as being a sorceror but certainly a low level one.  She can resist heat and cast a version of burning hands via her dragon familiars but that's about as far as it goes.

Having dragon pets isn't the same as casting a Burning Hands spell. As for resisting heat, she survived the flames because it was a one-time magical event, not because Targaryen's have any special immunity to fire. She can get burned up just like any other person.

You don't need a wound system.

Got/ASoIaF is't that different from any other low magic D&D game. The main thing is that PCs and important characters don't get to high levels. Of mid levels. GoF is a close to low magic E6.

You have

Knights  Knight/Fighters
Lords  Noble/Fighters
Hedge Knight BountyHunters/Fighters
Night Watch Ranger Thug,Soilder, Noble, Guide or Knight/Fighter

Commoner Commoner/Rogues

Wildling Warrior Guide/Barbarians
Wilding Warg Guide/Rangers (custom spell list) or Paladin (Oath of Warden, custom spell list)
Wildling Greenseer Priest/Druid

Priests of R'hllor Priest/Monk* (Path of Phoenix) or Fighter
Faceless Men Spy/Rogues
Sorrowful Men GuildThief/Rogues
Bravo Commoner/Fighter

*Alester Sarwyck route

etc etc

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

replying to make thread work.
Probably wouldn't use D&D.  Instead I would use the Fate System.  Between Aspects, the flexibility of the skill system and the consequence system it would be a near perfect fit IMO.

Having dragon pets isn't the same as casting a Burning Hands spell. As for resisting heat, she survived the flames because it was a one-time magical event, not because Targaryen's have any special immunity to fire. She can get burned up just like any other person.




That's not strictly true. 

MINOR SPOILERS
I can think of one scene early in season one where she gets into a steaming hot bath without flinching and another where she picks up hot dragon eggs and doesn't get burned, unlike her handmaiden.  That's three one time magical events? :P  Compare that to her brother, who flinched when hot wax was poured on him by the prostitute.  They were making a subtle point although how far that immunity extends we don't know.

The 2E spell, Bigby's Dextrous digits was replicated in 3E by features of the Arcane Trickster, and in 4E by the Disembodied Hands familar.  There are different ways to represent similar themes so, while I'm not saying that this is the best way to build her (and the DDN sorcerer has not been finalised) it is one possible way to replicate her features.
The tv show is not the same as the novels, and being more comfortable with heat isn't the same as being immune to suffering a horrible, fiery death. George R.R. Martin has explicitly stated that the Targaryens have no immunity to heat or fire. Hell, one of them died from trying to drink wildfire, and a bunch of them burned up in Summerhall. And let's not forget that Viserys died from the heat of that gold poured on him. Daenerys has also burned herself several times later on in the novels. The one and only reason she wasn't burned in that fire was because it was a one-time magical occurence. It's why she waited until after Mirri Maz Duur was burning to death, because she knew that death would pay for life, and that she needed three deaths to hatch those three dragon eggs. Had she entered the fire sooner then she would've been the one who burned to death while Mirri Maz Duur would've ended up the Mother of Dragons.
Here's a bit from a Q&A that he did.




















Granny Do Targaryens become immune to fire once they "bond" to their dragons?
George_RR_Martin Granny, thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wondrous, a miracle. She is called The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold.
Revanshe So she won't be able to do it again?
George_RR_Martin Probably not.
Fair enough - I still haven't read the first novel so I can only apply the evidence from the TV show.

But then the issue is whether being occasionally resistant (not immune) to fire can be replicated in D&D and I think it can, even if that means just being able to cast a resistance cantrip once a day or by granting advantage agaist fire damage and saves.  It may not follow the novels exactly but if you were to play these characters, you wouldn't be playing the novels.

MINOR SPOILERS
Can you build a totally non-magical character with three pet baby dragons in DDN?  If not, how can you get closest to that concept?  Familars seem one way - is there another?  It may be that she should just be given a custom feat called Mother of Dragaons that allows her to cast resistance once per day but it's still fun to try and shoe-horn her into D&D.  Think outside the box! 
Targaryen bloodline feat. Just checked the crusades books and for the lowest assumed setting.



AD&D
Treat spells as miracles
Minor spellcasters lose all spellcasting ability.
Wizards do not exist.
Increase casting times of all spells by a factor of 10
Level 6+ spells are miracles and cannot be cast in the normal manner. 

Resurection is a major miracle as well and you only get one attempt at it with around a 30% of pulling it off. 

 So maybe adapt for use in GoT using D&D rules.


 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Dany is just a NPC who instead of taking a PC class, has 3 dragon familiars. A 2 d4 HD humaniod with Noble background and above average Cha with 3 special famaliars.

I always wish D&D had a class which was a noncombatant who started a henchman. The PC would be full of skills and knowledge while his or her loyal henchman is a big tough warrior, a personal magical advisor, or a slick spy. Would work for Dany, Varys, Bran, Rickon, and Tyrion.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Probably wouldn't use D&D.  Instead I would use the Fate System.  Between Aspects, the flexibility of the skill system and the consequence system it would be a near perfect fit IMO.



I might use Pendragon with some of the supplements that handle large scale warfare, statecraft, and stewardship mself. Fate would be workable, though. The biggest problem I see with using D&D is the rapid escalation in hit points, where higher level characters can survive damage that would cripple them. Still...

Starting point, 4e.
Martial power source only by default, other classes require GM permission - I could see the Avenger as a possibility, as one example.
Hit points. Every level after 1st you gain 1 hit point whatever your class is.
No +X items, and we aren't using inherent bonuses either. 

It needs an expansion to cover armies, economies, and politics, frankly.

I will note that there is a Game of Thrones RPG, from Green Ronin. Not D20 any more. Quick-Start rules are here. I don't like it much, but it does exist.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

Their being familiars wouldn't be an accurate representation, either, as she doesn't have total control over them. And they certainly wouldn't count as familiars once they're fully grown. No iteration of D&D has ever had a colossal dragon familiar which can lay waste to whole cities by itself.

Pendragon would also be a good choice. I had it in mind but I completely blanked on the name. 
Their being familiars wouldn't be an accurate representation, either, as she doesn't have total control over them. And they certainly wouldn't count as familiars once they're fully grown. No iteration of D&D has ever had a colossal dragon familiar which can lay waste to whole cities by itself.

Pendragon would also be a good choice. I had it in mind but I completely blanked on the name. 



Yeah I think that's a fair comment but it pre-empts what prestige classes might be available later - although I doubt one that gives you three dragons is likely...

I've never played it like I have total control over my familiar, and in fact it was always a real pain just to keep my cat alive in earlier editions (prior to them popping back into existence after a short rest in 4E and DDN).  Familars usually have personalities and I'm not sure that the dragons should be treated any differently to a pseudodragon familar.  You can even treat them collectively as one entity as far as game mechanics go.

I recall that Tika Waylan was statted out as a thief who changed class to a fighter in the Dragonlance modules.  In the books, I don't recall her doing a single thiefy thing, and I vaguely recall that she had to rely on Tasslehoff to pick a lock in one scene.  She was given thief abilities in the modules because a) it fitted her background, which was edited out of the novels for space and; b) adventuring groups needed thieves in those days.

Thus, I'm not looking for builds that are mechanically identical down to the last detail, just something playable that also captures the spirit of the characters.

I don't see many ideas on the thread so far though!

Edit: The loss of the warlord class might show up as a defecit here since some of the characters who don't appear to have a definable class could scrape by as a lazylord in 4e.
Well, as noted, 4E isn't a very good system at all for Game of Thrones. Daenerys Targaryen, Tyrion Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Sansa Stark, Joffrey Baratheon, etc aren't characters which can be represented by character classes. And of those which can be, they start breaking the world once they hit fourth level or so, nevermind the limitations of the Fighter class and how it doesn't have the necessary skills to represent someone like Jaime Lannister, Oberyn Martell, or Loras Tyrell who was raised in the nobility. Any system to play in that world would be dependent on at least having a non-combat class or two. Again, the 3E NPC classes of Aristocrat and Expert are good for this (I can easily imagine Tyrion a multiclass Aristocrat/Expert, while the Maesters are higher level Experts). And no healing class at all, so the Warlord would be right out in either event.
4E fails because of the problem you run into with level differential.  I wondered if bounded accuracy might help to resolve that problem.

Do you think your issue is that you can't reconcile the roguish characters as being good in a fight and that you are equating hit points to combat skill? 


Hmm, I think its true to say that rogue fits well in that a scheme can give characters extra skills but training in thieves tools and sneak attack is not usually a good fit.


I agree that the npc classes from 3e would be useful if you wanted to build an adventuring NPC with minimal skill though alongside guidance to build non standard npcs whose skills dont match their level. These were just really off the cuff considerations based on the fact that it's hard to assess gradations of stats like Con and Dex. They are just the most common recurring characters but there are loads!


Tyrion Lannister Rog3, Rake (with backstab variant), CG S8, D13, C14, I17, W14, Ch17


Cersei Lannister Rog2, NE, S11, D11, C13, I14, W14, Ch15


Catelyn Stark Rog2, LG, S11, D12, C12, I12, W15, Ch16


Arya Stark Fg1, NG, S8, D16, C12, I14, W10, Ch12


Daenerys Targaryen Sor1, NG, S10, D13, C15, I15, W14. Ch18


Jon Snow Fg3, (plus Rng1 as story progresses) NG, S15, D14, C14, I11, W12, Ch11


Sansa Stark Rog1, LG, S9, D12, C11, I11, W11, Ch14


Theon Greyjoy Fg2, Rog1, N (CN) S13, D15, C14, I10, W9, Ch12


Ser Jorah Mormont Fg4, Rog1, N S16, D11, C15, I14, W16, Ch12


Joffrey Baratheon Rog2, CE, S10, D14, C13, I14, W8, Ch12


Robb Stark Fg4, NG, S14, D14, C15, I12, W14, Ch14


Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish Rog5, N, S13, D14, C12, I16, W15, Ch18


Bran Stark Rog1, LG, S7, D14, C10, I12, W11, Ch12


Jaime Lannister Fg9, LN, S17, D14, C16, I14, W14, Ch16


Sandor 'The Hound' Clegane Fg10, N, S19, D10, C17, I10, W10, Ch8


Tywin Lannister Fg7, LN (LE), S15, D11, C13, I16, W16, Ch15


Lord Varys Rog3, N, S10, D10, C11, I18, W18, Ch13


Samwell Tarly Rog1, LG, S12, D8, C9, I14, W9, Ch10


Bronn Rog7, N, S14, D16, C14, I12, W13, Ch13


Gendry Fg2, NG, S15, D12, C17, I13, W13, Ch13


Shae Rog2, CG, S11, D15, C14, I14, W13, Ch15


Ros Rog1, NG, S11, D11, C13, I14, W12, Ch14


Loras Tyrell Fg7, NG, S13, D14, C16, I13, W12, Ch15


Ned Stark Fg8, LG, S16, D11, C14, I12, W12, Ch14


I think your ability scores are too exaggerated.

Why Littlefinger with Str 13?
13 is already a good above average. He's just a skinny lad, short thin and rather weak. I'd give him no more than 10, maybe even a 9 would be more accurate.

Also, Str 16 is already a very strong person. I think I'd give Str 16 for The Hound and Brienne only. And the only 18 would go for The Mountain.

Ned would probably be a Str 14 and a few others like Jaime, Ser Jorah and Bronn. Characters like Rob and John Snow would be around Str 12-13. They're of pretty average build. And probably gained some strength through training, but they are far from "strong men".

The only characters described as actually being really strong in the books are The Hound, Brienne and of course The Mountain being of unparalleled strength compared to all other characters.


Remember that the average person in D&D has 10-11 in all scores. That's the "normal" of a common person, not a weak score.

Well, there's plenty of ability scores in there which I do agree. But it seems you exaggerated too much on overall to make them look more awesome just because they're main characters. I don't think it really fits the decription of ASOIAF characters.

Shae, for example, you gave them a whole lot of high scores. She's just a commoner, a wench with nothing very much going on for her besides being charismatic and a little manipulative. I'd agree with that Charisma 15 for her, and maybe above-average Int of 13 or so. But other then that she's just a plain commoner. Everything else should be round 9-11.

Do you think your issue is that you can't reconcile the roguish characters as being good in a fight and that you are equating hit points to combat skill?

Nope. More hit points is fine to represent luck in surviving situations in which other characters would get killed. What I'm equating to combat skill is their attack bonus, which IS a measure of their combat skill, not to mention Sneak Attack. There's no way that Tyrion has a better attack bonus than even the newest of knights.

I also have a problem with all the PC classes. Again, most of these characters are not going to have adventuring classes. You're certainly not going to have all these Rogue's with sneak attacks and all that. Cersei has demonstrated zero ability in delivering literal sneak attacks with a knife or with any other weapon. Nor has Tyrion. Someone like the Red Viper has shown that ability, but not those two. Adventuring classes just do not do a good job of describing characters like Tyrion or Cersei. And Daenerys is certainly not a Sorcerer. She has never once cast any spells or shown any ability to cast spells.

Which goes back to what I've been saying from the start. D&D is just not well suited for modeling the world of ASOIAF. 5E's a little better at it than 4E with its Bounded Accuracy, Backgrounds, and skill selection being independent of class, but it's far from being perfect. At the very least it needs NPC classes like those from 3E, and that's just a start.
The Rogue of a few playtests back would be better for GoT.

If Rogues didn't start with +1 base attack and didn't automatically gain Sneak Attack (and could get a henchmen or more "skill" bonus), then rogues could handle all those nonadventure noncombat ASoIaF characters.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The Rogue of a few playtests back would be better for GoT. If Rogues didn't start with +1 base attack and didn't automatically gain Sneak Attack (and could get a henchmen or more "skill" bonus), then rogues could handle all those nonadventure noncombat ASoIaF characters.



What would be necessary is some kind of Expert class. No Attack Bonus at all. Instead the class gets a bonus to skills. By 20th Level they'll have +3 or +5 to skills and still no Attack Bonus. Or maybe the class may choose between the two. Either A) Gaining a Skill Bonus which caps out at +5 at 20th Level, or an Attack Bonus that caps out at +3 at 20th Level, to account for Nobles who've had some combat training, but who'll never be as good at it as Fighters. Variants of some Rogue Schemes would also be nice, so long as they were simply skill bonuses and had no combat application, and so on. Then you could apply some Backgrounds to that and depending on your background you're either a Noble, a Maester, or something else. Basically a non-combat skill monkey class which has some options to be able to gain combat ability, but which allows a player to forego combat ability entirely and focus solely on non-combat abilities.

I think your ability scores are too exaggerated.

Why Littlefinger with Str 13?
13 is already a good above average. He's just a skinny lad, short thin and rather weak. I'd give him no more than 10, maybe even a 9 would be more accurate.

Also, Str 16 is already a very strong person. I think I'd give Str 16 for The Hound and Brienne only. And the only 18 would go for The Mountain.

Ned would probably be a Str 14 and a few others like Jaime, Ser Jorah and Bronn. Characters like Rob and John Snow would be around Str 12-13. They're of pretty average build. And probably gained some strength through training, but they are far from "strong men".

The only characters described as actually being really strong in the books are The Hound, Brienne and of course The Mountain being of unparalleled strength compared to all other characters.


Remember that the average person in D&D has 10-11 in all scores. That's the "normal" of a common person, not a weak score.

Well, there's plenty of ability scores in there which I do agree. But it seems you exaggerated too much on overall to make them look more awesome just because they're main characters. I don't think it really fits the decription of ASOIAF characters.

Shae, for example, you gave them a whole lot of high scores. She's just a commoner, a wench with nothing very much going on for her besides being charismatic and a little manipulative. I'd agree with that Charisma 15 for her, and maybe above-average Int of 13 or so. But other then that she's just a plain commoner. Everything else should be round 9-11.



I was basing the stats largely on the height, builds, and muscle bulk of the actors, how lithe they are, how precisely they move, and how fast they move when under pressure.  Shae is fast and lithe - far more so than many of the other characters.  Ros is more like a normal person but yeah, it's entirely a question of opinion and i knocked these up really, really quickly - lol.  Aiden Quinn is not that skinny and is not that short so he may not be a perfect representation of the character from the books but that's what it's based on.  Also D&D does not recognise the gender divide so you have to compare the men to the men and the women to the women.

Plus 20 is the new 18.  What may have been 16 in 1e could well be 20 in DDN.  It's tricky to be sure.

I'm sticking with Daenerys Targaryen as a caster who can cast resist heat and burning hands (through her dragons).  It's not perfect (especially as we have no idea what DDN sorcerers are going to turn out like) but it's a start.  Treating them as familars who can cast the spell through their location preserves the concept of the mistress of dragons without simply shrugging and saying it can't be done in DDN.

Darn, did I leave Brienne off the list?  I might go for Fg6-8, LG, S17 or18, D12, C16, I9, W13, Ch8?  She is probably the closest thing we have to a paladin but, like the rangers, the spells become a problem very quickly.

 Daenerys Targaryen is a level 3 or 4 aristocrat, the mountain could have 20 strength and may be level 8, Ned may have been level 10 or so and died to a CDG attack because he was helpless.

 Most of them would not be above level 6.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


You are right in that! 20 is the new 18.

Guess I was basing my assumptions on the old scores.
It's unclear to me too if the new up-to-20 range means that each point means less than before, or if 18 is still the old 18 and they just want characters to go slightly beyond human standards... more "super-heroic" or something.

Since 3e humans have been capable of being pretty much as strong as Ogres without any magic (level bonuses). So go figure. Tongue Out

If the former is correct then I guess 16 could be the new 14 or something like that.


Still, I think 10-11 is still the human average. So unless a character in the story demonstrates at some point that he would have a higher ability (some feat of dexterity he does, or a demonstration of high intelligence, etc) I'd probably stick with them being around 10-11.


And Littlefinger?
Come oooooooooon... That actor is so tiny he looks like he'd lose a Strength contest to a doorknob.
lol
I say Str 9 or 10 to him! 
Very few character would be over level 5. Even the lord, knights, and nobles would barely pass level 5 or 6.

Barristan Selmy, Jeor Mormont, and some of the Maesters would have over 9 HD but an age penalty rule would nerf them and dropping their HP down substantially.

The character seem very strong only because they mostly fight generic Human Warriors and Commoners with various equipment.

When 90% of your enemies have under 12 HP and you deal 2d8+Str on hit with expertise dice...

But nonadventurer classes, a "pet" class, or a noncombat rogue subclass would be needed  for a lot of characters.


Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I'm sticking with Daenerys Targaryen as a caster who can cast resist heat and burning hands (through her dragons). It's not perfect (especially as we have no idea what DDN sorcerers are going to turn out like) but it's a start. Treating them as familars who can cast the spell through their location preserves the concept of the mistress of dragons without simply shrugging and saying it can't be done in DDN.

Orrrr... how about she's just a regular human woman who has three dragons who hang around with her? You don't need to be a Sorcerer with a horse familiar to have a human with a horse. You don't need to be a Sorcerer with a dog familiar to have a human with a pet dog. Likewise, you don't have to make Daenerys a class which doesn't represent her in the slightest in order for her to have three dragons. She just has them. If Brienne casting Paladin spells is problematic, then Daenerys throwing around Magic Missiles, having three familiars (capable of laying waste to armies, no less), and casting Mage Armor is far more problematic. And once again, she's not resistant to fire.
I'm sticking with Daenerys Targaryen as a caster who can cast resist heat and burning hands (through her dragons). It's not perfect (especially as we have no idea what DDN sorcerers are going to turn out like) but it's a start. Treating them as familars who can cast the spell through their location preserves the concept of the mistress of dragons without simply shrugging and saying it can't be done in DDN.

Orrrr... how about she's just a regular human woman who has three dragons who hang around with her? You don't need to be a Sorcerer with a horse familiar to have a human with a horse. You don't need to be a Sorcerer with a dog familiar to have a human with a pet dog. Likewise, you don't have to make Daenerys a class which doesn't represent her in the slightest in order for her to have three dragons. She just has them. If Brienne casting Paladin spells is problematic, then Daenerys throwing around Magic Missiles, having three familiars (capable of laying waste to armies, no less), and casting Mage Armor is far more problematic. And once again, she's not resistant to fire.



She only has Resistance (fire) and Burning Hands - I don't know where she'd get magic missile from?  And as I said before the familiars would mechanically be treated as one entity on the board.  They might affect her interactions depending on how those she's talking to view dragons - that in itself has a massive mechanical effect in game.  Everything else would be fluff.  I certainly would not allow her to take another level of sorcerer though

I'm just not sure if npc classes are that necessary when you can just build them as a 'monster.'  I can see some merit in having commoners, warriors and experts with progression tables but generally, with flat attack progression, I'm not sure how necessary they would be overall.  Sages would just have 1d6 hp and whatever lore skills you decide.  Henchmen really will be redshirts in DDN.

I would love to see a warlord class though.  I think that some scenes could play out with their healing ability (like a rousing speech) but mostly it would be through enabling.

Very few character would be over level 5. Even the lord, knights, and nobles would barely pass level 5 or 6.

Barristan Selmy, Jeor Mormont, and some of the Maesters would have over 9 HD but an age penalty rule would nerf them and dropping their HP down substantially.

The character seem very strong only because they mostly fight generic Human Warriors and Commoners with various equipment.

When 90% of your enemies have under 12 HP and you deal 2d8+Str on hit with expertise dice...

But nonadventurer classes, a "pet" class, or a noncombat rogue subclass would be needed  for a lot of characters.





Yeah - watching GoT does make me think age penalties should be brought back!  If it's so wrong why does it feel so right?
If you're designing her as a monster then there's no need for a PC class, anyway. Just give her the stats and skills she should have and have her always accompanied by three dragons. There's certainly no need to overly complicate things by unnecessarily making her a Sorceror and then treating her three dragon pets as a single familiar or whatever else if building her as a monster is an option.

The idea, though, is to be able to create characters which can represent them, otherwise what's the point of this conversation if everyone is going to be built like a monster? And what's the point of converting them to PC's if you're going to slap ill fitting classes on them which don't represent their abilities in the slightest? So yes, to be able to build characters who reflect them, you do need some of those NPC classes, like Aristocrat, Warrior, and Expert.
 The Dragons like her because she is their mother. They are like loyal dogs who are a bit smarter.

 In TSR era D&D you could have a Dragon becuase the dragon likes you no class feature needed. I think in BECM you could even subdue them.
 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

If you're designing her as a monster then there's no need for a PC class, anyway. Just give her the stats and skills she should have and have her always accompanied by three dragons. There's certainly no need to overly complicate things by unnecessarily making her a Sorceror and then treating her three dragon pets as a single familiar or whatever else if building her as a monster is an option.

The idea, though, is to be able to create characters which can represent them, otherwise what's the point of this conversation if everyone is going to be built like a monster? And what's the point of converting them to PC's if you're going to slap ill fitting classes on them which don't represent their abilities in the slightest? So yes, to be able to build characters who reflect them, you do need some of those NPC classes, like Aristocrat, Warrior, and Expert.



I thought you were the one who was advocating building her as a monster?  I'm advocating bulding her as a character becase it's a more interesting challenge.  It's not really a challenge if you just say it can't be done.  Maybe we are just arguing round in circles and should probably just agree to disagree.  It's not like we'd ever play these anyway - lol.  I think some of the other charcters - sages and such with no combat application at all are better off being built as monsters.

I do think that pet classes will make it easier to replicate the Starks but I'm interested to see how DDN creates them.  In 3e a druid with a pet was overpowered at low levels.  The action economy of 4e certainly brought them back into balance.   I womder wat DDN will do.  Speaking with animals and the Animal Messenger spells might well be made available via a feat.
 The Dragons like her because she is their mother. They are like loyal dogs who are a bit smarter.

 In TSR era D&D you could have a Dragon becuase the dragon likes you no class feature needed. I think in BECM you could even subdue them.
 



Yeah there were some bonkers rules. At least you couldn't fit a dragon into the average dungeon.  We stuck with mules.  We did have one pc with a silver dragon horse but she didn't actualy know the horse was a dragon.
I thought you were the one who was advocating building her as a monster? I'm advocating bulding her as a character becase it's a more interesting challenge. It's not really a challenge if you just say it can't be done. Maybe we are just arguing round in circles and should probably just agree to disagree. It's not like we'd ever play these anyway - lol. I think some of the other charcters - sages and such with no combat application at all are better off being built as monsters.

Well, what I'm saying is there's no point if the end result has no bearing on the original character. Magic spells don't represent Daenerys anymore than Sneak Attacks represent Cersei or Tyrion. Which is why I'm saying that classes like the NPC classes are needed, or that Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or others like Pendragon are a better system for the world of ASOIAF, because at present they can't be built with 5E rules. That's why I was suggesting an Expert style class. One which is exceptional at skills but which has no combat ability or, if it does, only has the option for combat abilities, and will never be very good at it (certainly not as good as a Fighter or a Rogue). Something like that would do a much better job of recreating Cersei, Tyrion, Daenerys, Qyburn, and more than any of the adventuring classes.
I could see Tyrion having some fighter levels perhas 1 or 2 and maybe half a dozen aristocrat levels.

 Cersie is a pure aristocrat, Daenerys would be a level 1 aristocrat when she married Drogo maybe level 5 or 6 by the time she gets the unsullied.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

There's no way Tyrion would ever have any Fighter levels or even have any Attack Bonus. He's received no training whatsoever in his entire life. Being present during some battles wouldn't make him a Fighter because he wasn't very good at those battles.
There's no way Tyrion would ever have any Fighter levels or even have any Attack Bonus. He's received no training whatsoever in his entire life. Being present during some battles wouldn't make him a Fighter because he wasn't very good at those battles.



He'd have plenty of levels in Aristocrat however.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
There's no way Tyrion would ever have any Fighter levels or even have any Attack Bonus. He's received no training whatsoever in his entire life. Being present during some battles wouldn't make him a Fighter because he wasn't very good at those battles.



He'd have plenty of levels in Aristocrat however.



No he wouldn't. Tyrion is 2 HD max. TV Tyrion is OHKOed like twice already.

DDN  is the best edition for GoT that any other other version of D&D as skills and HD are seperate.  In other editions, you tend to need 30+ HP to be competent at advanced skill checks.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

As others have pointed out, it's a very low-level setting, so he wouldn't need a whole lot of levels. If it were up to me, I'd start him from a base of Level 1 Aristocrat/Level 1 Expert, given how well read and knowledgeable he is. Let's see...

TYRION LANNISTER
Aristocrat 1/Expert 1

STR
7, DEX 12, CON 11, INT 14, WIS 12, CHA 13

HP:
14, AC: 12 (10 + 1 Dex +1 Small), SPEED: 20 feet
BAB: +0, FORT: +0, REF: +1, WILL: +5

Skills:
Bluff +8, Diplomacy +6, Knowledge (Geography) +5, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Local) +5, Knowledge (Nobility) +7, Knowledge (Religion) +5, Perception +8, Ride +4, Sense Motive +8
Feats: Alertness, Deceitful

That's a start, though I don't think he'd need much more.