Goodman Games

dear dccers,

I was contemplating this and I have strong reservations about multiclassing in the game. Just think how terrible a Theif/Warrior or a Thief/Wizard would be. A being that has the ability to regenerate Luck with the other classes abilities is too dangerous. Why not use your Luck and make every blow from a fighter a screaming success. Or a Wizard that likes to pump up his magic missile all the time?

Im sure there are other bad combos out there. What would they be?

egads!

dude... you seriously need to stop spamming these forums with all these annoying posts that my 13 yr old would write.
i know by your topics you haven't been gaming long, but for the love of all that's holy to us old guys... ugh.
i love this forum, but weeding through your posts are painful. please ease down a bit, son. you'll get it soon. it's not a topic where you have to out-do everyone or come up with questions that pained most of us years ago. google is a great thing.
please don't take this the wrong way, but it's a bit much... ok?
your enthusiasm is great, but just slow it down a touch.
you're killing us old men

[edit for a typo]

My take on multiclassing is pretty simple: I allow it for solo play or for very small groups, but not for large-group play.

My reasoning is that each character class is designed to fill a particular niche, but if you don't have many characters you may find that certain things don't go well. For example, two fighter characters in a dungeon may get creamed without spellcasting and/or thieving abilities. In such cases, having a fighter/thief and a fighter/wizard might make for a great combo which is more fun to play.

Once you get a decent-sized party you tend to fill up the roles and have less party need for duplication via the multiclass. ("Decent sized" is sort of vague; historically my dividing line tends to be four so you can have a fighter, wizard, thief, and cleric, but DCC also adds the racial classes.) And, as powerful as a fighter/wizard 2nd/2nd might be, a fighter 4th should be equal or better so a stronger party would be filled with single-class characters.

That help?

Bryguy, that is rude no matter how new dark cauliflower is or isn't - and don't presume to talk for all the old guys here, that's rude too.
To finalize that note, maybe he is just really interested and just wants to yak about the game with other people that like it - and don't you dare discourage that, it's the whole reason there is even a forum in the first place - you don't like his threads, that's fine, nobody is forcing you to read them.

On the topic of multi-classing - you can't really say much about the power level of it, or the "bad" combinations until you define both how multi-classing works and what you mean by "bad."

I believe in the idea of multi-classing where a character gives up something significant from their "main" class in order to receive something ever so slightly less significant (less because versatility is significant on its own) from another class - not where the character gets all the benefits of both classes to the same degree that a single-classed character would.

My preferred multi-class design is the one used by the HackMaster RPG - instead of allowing free-range selection of combinations, specific singular classes are built to represent the combination of two compatible classes. So instead of taking levels as a Fighter and levels as a Mage, you just take levels in the Fighter/Mage class which is built specifically to accommodate being decent at both "fighter stuff" and "mage stuff" but not as good at either as a single classed character would be.

In DCC, however, I simply feel that multi-classing is completely unnecessary because each class is so much fun on its own - and able to be capable at "off-class" activities - that the typical reasons for multi-classing are non-existent. There is, for example, no need to take a little warrior class to go along with your wizard class so as to gain the ability to play a character that fights with a sword, wears armor, and still uses spells.

I'm certain that it would create these weird power combos. I agree the classes are fun on their own. Thiefs and Halflings with their abiliy to regenerate Luck makes an uber powerful character. A Cleric/Dwarf or a Cleric/Warrior would create fighters with the ability to regenerate themselves at will(lay on hands)! Just think what would happen if we had a Halfling/Elf combo!

The classes are different enough from Dnd that we have to rethink our approaches to multiclassing. It was probably wisdom that led the DCC maker to not have it in the game.

[puts on mod hat]Bryguy, frustrated or not, that was unnecessarily rude. There are ways to politely express issues with someone's approach to posting.[removes mod hat]

Colin

You can try this if you like: http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2012/1 ... evels.html

RC

I've already stated it before that multiclassing to get the thief luck mechanic is too good for power-gamers to pass up. Using RavenCrow's half levels would be a step in the right direction, effectively making such characters "waste" a level. Or you could make it like old school rules where you lose all the abilities of your old class until you reach equal level in the new.

cthulhudarren wrote:I've already stated it before that multiclassing to get the thief luck mechanic is too good for power-gamers to pass up. Using RavenCrow's half levels would be a step in the right direction, effectively making such characters "waste" a level. Or you could make it like old school rules where you lose all the abilities of your old class until you reach equal level in the new.

Or, if you were like me, you would just react to the character as the character is played. Regenerating Luck is no good if you throw them into three adventures in quick succession. Perhaps the gods notice the abuse, and the character's Luck is reduced. Or, if you have a fluid group where each player has multiple characters, the multi-classed character is used solo or with smaller groups of equally-powerful characters.

I would also note that a very high proportion of Appendix N characters seem to have taken a level in Thief.

(shrug)

In my home game, I haven't had a line-up of people willing to trade two levels for a level of Thief yet. As a point of fact, since penning those rules, I have yet to have a single player think that the trade-off is worth it. At least one of those players is pretty good at pulling high-powered combo characters in other systems, and he is pretty leery about the cost. I think that I have cut the cost-vs-benefit ratio pretty near to the skin.

YMMV, though. If they do, simply adjust what the PCs get. "A multi-classed Thief gains the Luck benefits of a Thief with one fewer levels." Done.


RC

Raven_Crowking wrote:You can try this if you like: http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2012/1 ... evels.html

RC

Hey, RC.

That's is wicked cool. And reminds me I need to subscribe to your blog.

...

On an unrelated note, the classes in TATG are wide open for multi-classing. If a group is looking to play something like DCC Conan where you have a Thiefy-Fightery-Castery guy (or gal) without blowing everything up balance-wise... I'd say it will be worth a look.

But, then again, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Smathis, TA is definitely worth looking at in any event!

If one of my players brought this up, my very first question would be, "What archetype or character do you want to build that you cannot express with the core classes?"

I think until that question was answered to my satisfaction, I wouldn't even consider multi-classing. I honestly don't like multiclassing because it's an oxymoron. If you feel restricted by classes, play a game that doesn't use them. If you play a game with classes, why bother with a rule that makes them pointless?

It's one of my biggest gripes about D&D. If they were to announce that 5e would not have classes, there would be a tremendous amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the death of a sacred cow. But if they announced they would not create multi-classing rules so you can essentially ignore class restrictions, those same people would go equally insane with rage.
It's ridiculous. 3rd edition is essentially a classless system, but compared to other classless systems it's restrictive and clunky. (by the way, I don't hate d20 or 3e so put the flamethrowers away).

The point of all this is, what character can't be built with DCC classes?

Dark Lord wrote:The point of all this is, what character can't be built with DCC classes?

It's a different approach, really. The reason TATG classes lend themselves to multi-classing is because they're based on fictional archetypes.

In order to play Bram Stoker's Van Helsing, one only needs to play a Polymath. In order to play Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes, you'd need the Polymath with a bit of the Exotic (for awareness and fighting bits).

Traditional fantasy games don't follow archetypes, really. I mean, you can't model an Errol Flynn character that effectively. He's not really a Thief. He's more of a swashbuckley hero. Which leads people to make *more* classes or try their hand at multi-classing.

If we look at just the second-tier of character classes, we get an idea of what can/can't be modeled after the traditional 4-6 classes... Ranger comes to mind. As does the kung-fu fighting monk.

That's why I went with archetypes instead of character roles or "types". I mean, "Dwarf" is a type of character in Lord of the Rings. Not really an archetype that crosses fictional boundaries.

Archetypes cross-pollinate a little better (at least for TATG). So you could have the Everyman archetype mixed in with a bit of the Polymath to get a "Nancy Drew" sort of character. And an Errol Flynn sort of character is just a straight up Scoundrel. But you could mix that with a bit of the Exotic to get a sort of Drunken Master kung-fu character.

I wouldn't put it past a player to come up with some sort of character concept that transcends the base classes. But if a player and Judge are willing to "reskin" classes, the "Elf" can become a "Ninja" or "Bard" and the "Dwarf" can become a "Viking" or "Barbarian" and the "Halfling" can become an "Everyman". But even then some of the classes, like the Halfling, would have to have core abilities/advantages modified -- likely by abilities possessed by another class or whole hog brand new ones -- which skirts dangerously close to the idea of multi-classing.

For the record, I'm not a fan of multi-classing. Never have been. The multi-classing in TATG is more of a side-effect of how the classes and their abilities are built. A happy accident, as it were. Not intentionally designed.

Dark Lord wrote:If one of my players brought this up, my very first question would be, "What archetype or character do you want to build that you cannot express with the core classes?"

Adding classes or multiclassing options simply adds granularity to the character building process. DCC starts with 7 classes, or seven different sets of building blocks you can build your characters from. You can probably get close enough to most character archetypes with that.

If you add more classes, including multiclassing options, you refine the granularity. Inasmuch as the character building rules define a character (this is another topic in itself, I won't go into that here), having multiclassing IMO does not allow you to build something that you could not build with the original 7, but it allows you to build something that is less coarse in some instances. A human sword-wielding magic-user would be an example: you could pick one or more levels in warrior for the weapon proficiency and then other levels in wizard for spellcasting.

I think until that question was answered to my satisfaction, I wouldn't even consider multi-classing. I honestly don't like multiclassing because it's an oxymoron. If you feel restricted by classes, play a game that doesn't use them. If you play a game with classes, why bother with a rule that makes them pointless?

There are shades of grey between the original classes in any game being "the best" character building principle for that game and classes being pointless if multiclassing is used.

It's one of my biggest gripes about D&D. If they were to announce that 5e would not have classes, there would be a tremendous amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the death of a sacred cow. But if they announced they would not create multi-classing rules so you can essentially ignore class restrictions, those same people would go equally insane with rage.
It's ridiculous.

I won't comment in this thread on why I believe people rage about D&D. But I'll say that to me, it's not really related to the question of whether multiclassing should be used or not, in D&D, DCC or any other RPG.

3rd edition is essentially a classless system, but compared to other classless systems it's restrictive and clunky. (by the way, I don't hate d20 or 3e so put the flamethrowers away).

The 3E method gave a lot of leeway to character building by providing building blocks, a bit like legos. Now, of course, plasticine (classless systems) allows much more leeway in making anything than legos do. However, a lot of people still prefer legos. Why don't they all opt for the totally free strutureless building paste? Because building blocks are fun in their own way to these people. It allows them to use pre-formated shapes (class options) that have been designed to fit well with others. It helps people get to where they want. It provides some predictacle options to play around with and try to fit with others, like a puzzle.

I'm not saying that multiclassing should or should not be a part of DCC, just that I find it totally unsurprising that some players would want to include it as a house rule. I don't think I would share your approach to a player asking me to multiclass in DCC, of asking them back how their character concept could not fit into one of the original 7 classes, because to me this is not the point of multiclassing as stated above. These players are looking for some granularity in their character building process.

My reservation to changing any part of the game, be it multiclassing, race-as-class, spells being memorized, etc..., is that to me, there is an amorphous feel to a game that stems from the entirety of its ruleset and fluff. If I like the game, I'm reluctant to change things for fear of somehow affecting the magic. Of course, a single house rule of limited impact is unlikely to dramatically affect the game, but allowing houserules is a path that I often do not want to thread (but usually end up doing when I've played a game sufficiently).

All this being said, multiclassing is something that I'm envisioning as possible and will probably discuss with my players. If after discussing a consensus or near-consensus surfaces, we'll probably follow that. Raven Crowking's house rule is the one that feels the most balanced, among the suggestions I've seen up to now.

Skyscraper wrote:A human sword-wielding magic-user would be an example: you could pick one or more levels in warrior for the weapon proficiency and then other levels in wizard for spellcasting.

Wizards can use swords in DCC. So you have already failed to answer the question. And "sword weilding magic-user" isn't a character. That's a build, and I don't have builds, I have characters.

3rd edition is essentially a classless system, but compared to other classless systems it's restrictive and clunky. (by the way, I don't hate d20 or 3e so put the flamethrowers away).

The 3E method gave a lot of leeway to character building by providing building blocks, a bit like legos. Now, of course, plasticine (classless systems) allows much more leeway in making anything than legos do. However, a lot of people still prefer legos. Why don't they all opt for the totally free strutureless building paste? Because building blocks are fun in their own way to these people. It allows them to use pre-formated shapes (class options) that have been designed to fit well with others. It helps people get to where they want. It provides some predictacle options to play around with and try to fit with others, like a puzzle.

That would be true if there weren't a dozen other games out there that do away with classes and offer just as much, actually usually more, simplicity. There's a huge amount of system mastery involved in 3rd edition D&D. Other systems Savage Worlds, Runequst etc, have more freedom and less complexity.
And I don't really know anyone that uses plasticine and legos to achieve the same desired effect. I have never seen anyone convert an action figure, or build a green for a miniature with legos. Likwise, I don't know anyone that will use plasticine to make a toy ambulance with their kids.
If 3rd edition did away with classes, they could turn most class features into feats and simply let players choose feats as they wish. That would be the same amount of granularity you're talking about, without the cumbersome clunk that comes with multiclassing. There's no reason to have classes, if you're going to make a rule that allows people to ignore classes. As I said, I enjoy 3rd edition, and it's got some great aspects and...contrary to what you wrote and as I already stated...I am in no way hating on the system or raging about it. I am stating a fact. A big part of that game is based on multiclassing, and breaking apart the classes. IMO it's a fine idea, but one that is unnecessary if you just get rid of classes altogether.

I'm not saying that multiclassing should or should not be a part of DCC, just that I find it totally unsurprising that some players would want to include it as a house rule. I don't think I would share your approach to a player asking me to multiclass in DCC, of asking them back how their character concept could not fit into one of the original 7 classes, because to me this is not the point of multiclassing as stated above. These players are looking for some granularity in their character building process.

I have been gaming for 30 years. I have never had somebody ask about multiclassing for any reason other power gaming. I have gamed with the best and the worst players, and I have never had somebody tell me how they needed to be able to multiclass because some aspect of the rules couldn't adequately represent their character's personality, background, motivations or even lifestyle. Sorry, that's a nice sounding idea, but the truth is that most of the time it comes down to numbers, not character representation. Even your example was "a sword wielding wizard." Aside from the fact that that is possible without multiclassing, that's an indication that the player wants to make up for his character's lack of martial talent. Instead of playing a character with flaws and interesting aspects, it's about plugging holes.

Tell me...was Gandalf a "Fighter/Mage"? Surely he must have been to carry a sword around be able to fight in melee?

Dark Lord wrote:Tell me...was Gandalf a "Fighter/Mage"? Surely he must have been to carry a sword around be able to fight in melee?

Well... Fighter/Mage would not only explain why he could use a sword. But it would also explain why one of the biggest bangs in his bag of tricks is a Light spell.

We all know if Gandalf hadn't wasted all that XP on multi-classing into Fighter he could've just used a Fly spell to drop Frodo into Mount Doom with the ring. One book, one movie. One sad, toasty hobbit.

So you have already failed to answer the question.

No, I've answered. I said: you can do any archetypical character with DCC's original 7 classes.

The 3E method gave a lot of leeway to character building by providing building blocks, a bit like legos. Now, of course, plasticine (classless systems) allows much more leeway in making anything than legos do. However, a lot of people still prefer legos. Why don't they all opt for the totally free strutureless building paste? Because building blocks are fun in their own way to these people. It allows them to use pre-formated shapes (class options) that have been designed to fit well with others. It helps people get to where they want. It provides some predictacle options to play around with and try to fit with others, like a puzzle.

That would be true if there weren't a dozen other games out there that do away with classes and offer just as much, actually usually more, simplicity. There's a huge amount of system mastery involved in 3rd edition D&D.

Sure. I'm not saying that 3E is simple or is not simple. I'm adressing how it handles multiclassing.

And I don't really know anyone that uses plasticine and legos to achieve the same desired effect.

Really?

If 3rd edition did away with classes, they could turn most class features into feats and simply let players choose feats as they wish. That would be the same amount of granularity you're talking about, without the cumbersome clunk that comes with multiclassing.

I don't disagree with you. Multiclassing however offers some types of building blocks that could be surmised as being made of pre-assembled smaller blocks (feats).

There's no reason to have classes, if you're going to make a rule that allows people to ignore classes.

It's not ignoring classes. Ignoring classes in 3E would be freely picking abilities without any class boundary. That's not what they did. They provided packages that are what each class gets at each level, and when you pick a level of one class, you get that package. It might not be your preferred way to play, you can call it clunky, but it is not "ignoring classes", as you suggest.

As I said, I enjoy 3rd edition, and it's got some great aspects and...contrary to what you wrote and as I already stated...

I did not write or suggest you hate 3E. I simply said I did not wish to discuss why people rage about D&D.

I am in no way hating on the system or raging about it. I am stating a fact. A big part of that game is based on multiclassing, and breaking apart the classes. IMO it's a fine idea, but one that is unnecessary if you just get rid of classes altogether.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

And I agree with you inasmuch as we can change "a bit part of the game is based on multiclassing" to "a big part of character building is based on multiclassing". I assume this is what you meant, although perhaps for you character building is a big part of the game, in which case you initial statement would be correct. My experience of 3E, fairly extensive, is that multiclassing was not a big part of the game (we role-play a lot, thus character builds mattered to a limited extent), and was at most a moderate part of character building - in my groups most PCs and NPCs were single-class.

I have never had somebody ask about multiclassing for any reason other power gaming. I have gamed with the best and the worst players, and I have never had somebody tell me how they needed to be able to multiclass because some aspect of the rules couldn't adequately represent their character's personality, background, motivations or even lifestyle. Sorry, that's a nice sounding idea, but the truth is that most of the time it comes down to numbers, not character representation. Even your example was "a sword wielding wizard." Aside from the fact that that is possible without multiclassing, that's an indication that the player wants to make up for his character's lack of martial talent. Instead of playing a character with flaws and interesting aspects, it's about plugging holes.

Ah, powergaming... Spend enough time in a thread discussing RPGs, and you eventually get to one person bringing powergaming up

The DCC game is about numbers to some extent. Otherwise, you play a game without dice and without a PC sheet, without damage and without hit points. There are bunches out there, take a pick. DCC, and D&D before that (DCC is a self-proclaimed offshoot of OD&D and of 3E), rely on dice and numbers to resolve a bunch of stuff, including battles. Sure, you can say that you have a non-powergaming approach, as do I; but in the end, the numbers are there. It's a relative question, really, I say I'm not a powergamer because I do not seek to optimize the numbers on my PC sheet. Nor do I ignore them, because I can't. I need the numbers to play. If you simply want to tell a story with no die, no numbers, another system is more appropriate.

Does that mean that anyone choosing to multiclass is powergaming? I disagree with your conclusion here, as I do not think so. If what you say is true, than anyone choosing to fight with a weapon he is proficient with, as opposed to a weapon that would look good or fit is character concept better, is powergaming; anyone choosing to let the thief unlock a door is powergaming; anyone making any choice based on numbers or capacity to accomplish something per game rules is a powergamer. In a game about numbers, this is likely to include, well, everyone to the last.

Tell me...was Gandalf a "Fighter/Mage"? Surely he must have been to carry a sword around be able to fight in melee?

Sigh. How would you portray a ninja in DCC? (Include any ninja name reference here, since you seem to want names.) A thief? That's probably what I'd do. Don't you think however that a ninja class would better fit your character concept?

What would you do if you wanted to play Gandalf in DCC? Play a wizard who wields a sword? That's what I'd do. Don't you think however that DCC might not protray Gandalf very faithfully?

As I said, DCC allows for any artchetype to be represented. However, some other classes, or perhaps a multiclass approach, might be even better to let you approach your character concept as you want.

If I interpret your post properly, you're thinking: "this is powergaming! It's simply a question of numbers, and not of story!" Well, again, if it's only story you want, don't play a game with numbers. I do improv, I'm part of a theater and I do a couple of plays per year, I do evenings of role-play with friends that include no dice or numbers (no "goal" in many instances, we simply play out roles), I do murder dinner parties, etc... I consider myself to have a relatively broad spectrum of role-play experiences in games and in freestyle. I respect DCC, 3E, D&D and the other RPGs I've played for what they are: games, that include numbers. And choices the player needs to make according to those numbers.

That was a long sidetrack, and back to the question at hand: I consequently don't think that multiclassing is bad/wrong, I don't think it's powergaming, at least no more than the basic 7 classes are. The moment you choose classes, you choose abilities, etc..., you are "powergaming" to some extent. Multiclassing is simply one option along that line that I don't feel it changes the game's place signficantly in the powergaming spectrum.

smathis wrote:We all know if Gandalf hadn't wasted all that XP on multi-classing into Fighter he could've just used a Fly spell to drop Frodo into Mount Doom with the ring. One book, one movie. One sad, toasty hobbit.

Hah! My personal issue with the LotR storyline is the Eagle plot hole: wouldn't it have simply been faster, easier, and safer to approach the Eagles and say, "Hey guys, we need to get this ring and bearer to Mount Doom fast and avoid entanglements, as the fate of all Middle Earth hangs in the balance!" They then could've carried Frodo and the ring aloft, sped to Mt. Doom (flying high enough to avoid attacks from the ground), and Frodo could've dropped the ring into the volcano. If they'd planned it appropriately they could've even likely avoided any flying foes.

Even if they feared to fly too close to Mt. Doom (and face the possibility of fighting Fell Beasts and the Nazgul) they certainly could've flown Frodo and Sam far enough and fast enough to speed events along and avoid many perils on the way.

Of course, that would've made a boring book, but there it is, the big plot hole in the tale.

Colin

Colin wrote:

smathis wrote:We all know if Gandalf hadn't wasted all that XP on multi-classing into Fighter he could've just used a Fly spell to drop Frodo into Mount Doom with the ring. One book, one movie. One sad, toasty hobbit.

Hah! My personal issue with the LotR storyline is the Eagle plot hole: wouldn't it have simply been faster, easier, and safer to approach the Eagles and say, "Hey guys, we need to get this ring and bearer to Mount Doom fast and avoid entanglements, as the fate of all Middle Earth hangs in the balance!" They then could've carried Frodo and the ring aloft, sped to Mt. Doom (flying high enough to avoid attacks from the ground), and Frodo could've dropped the ring into the volcano. If they'd planned it appropriately they could've even likely avoided any flying foes.

Even if they feared to fly too close to Mt. Doom (and face the possibility of fighting Fell Beasts and the Nazgul) they certainly could've flown Frodo and Sam far enough and fast enough to speed events along and avoid many perils on the way.

Of course, that would've made a boring book, but there it is, the big plot hole in the tale.

Colin

Nah.

The Nazgul would have made short work of the eagles prior to the Ring being destroyed, and the Eye of Sauron was watching.

Raven_Crowking wrote:Nah.

The Nazgul would have made short work of the eagles prior to the Ring being destroyed, and the Eye of Sauron was watching.

I dunno, after all, the Nazgul couldn't even deal with a few lowly hobbits on a long walk... A decent plan and blind, and the Eagle carrying Frodo could've made it, I reckon. At the very least he'd have gotten Frodo and Sam a lot closer, sooner. The Eye of Sauron may have been watching, but he was pretty myopic and the Nazgul were pretty rubbish in their efforts too.

Colin

Skyscraper wrote:Sigh. How would you portray a ninja in DCC? (Include any ninja name reference here, since you seem to want names.) A thief? That's probably what I'd do. Don't you think however that a ninja class would better fit your character concept?

Actually, I already, just a few days ago, gave an example on these boards about a player in my games in the days of yore who used the Elf class to make a ninja. I would do the same thing in DCC.
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 263#p95263

Skyscraper wrote:What would you do if you wanted to play Gandalf in DCC? Play a wizard who wields a sword? That's what I'd do. Don't you think however that DCC might not protray Gandalf very faithfully?

And what aspect of Gandalf is not portrayed?

Skyscraper wrote:If I interpret your post properly, you're thinking: "this is powergaming! It's simply a question of numbers, and not of story!"

It's always a pleasure to debate somebody who boils your statements down to strawman hyperbole.

Good day.

Colin wrote:

Raven_Crowking wrote:Nah.

The Nazgul would have made short work of the eagles prior to the Ring being destroyed, and the Eye of Sauron was watching.

I dunno, after all, the Nazgul couldn't even deal with a few lowly hobbits on a long walk... A decent plan and blind, and the Eagle carrying Frodo could've made it, I reckon. At the very least he'd have gotten Frodo and Sam a lot closer, sooner. The Eye of Sauron may have been watching, but he was pretty myopic and the Nazgul were pretty rubbish in their efforts too.

Colin

We obviously read different books.

Or are you talking about the PJ movies?

Colin wrote:

Raven_Crowking wrote:Nah.

The Nazgul would have made short work of the eagles prior to the Ring being destroyed, and the Eye of Sauron was watching.

I dunno, after all, the Nazgul couldn't even deal with a few lowly hobbits on a long walk... A decent plan and blind, and the Eagle carrying Frodo could've made it, I reckon. At the very least he'd have gotten Frodo and Sam a lot closer, sooner. The Eye of Sauron may have been watching, but he was pretty myopic and the Nazgul were pretty rubbish in their efforts too.

Colin

The key to the plan would be dropping Frodo AND the ring into Mount Doom. Otherwise, there's too great a risk he keeps it and flies off on an Eagle.

That IS a seriously bank Animal Summoning spell though.

smathis wrote:

Colin wrote:

Raven_Crowking wrote:Nah.

The Nazgul would have made short work of the eagles prior to the Ring being destroyed, and the Eye of Sauron was watching.

I dunno, after all, the Nazgul couldn't even deal with a few lowly hobbits on a long walk... A decent plan and blind, and the Eagle carrying Frodo could've made it, I reckon. At the very least he'd have gotten Frodo and Sam a lot closer, sooner. The Eye of Sauron may have been watching, but he was pretty myopic and the Nazgul were pretty rubbish in their efforts too.

Colin

The key to the plan would be dropping Frodo AND the ring into Mount Doom. Otherwise, there's too great a risk he keeps it and flies off on an Eagle.

That IS a seriously bank Animal Summoning spell though.

The important thing is that the Eye of Sauron is not pretty myopic; it finds Frodo swiftly enough in the Shire, easily picks him up again in Bree, catches him on Weathertop (and not due to someone lighting a fire), sends agents against him before they cross into Moria, sends orcs to pick them up on the Anduin, and sends a Nazgul to do the same....that Nazgul is shot down by Legolas, and another is dispatched when Pippin looks into the palantir. Sauron mistakenly thinks that Saruman has caught the ringbearer, and is forcing him to look into the stone in order to torture him. Meanwhile, Frodo is almost discovered by the Dead Marshes, and only the need to dispatch another Nazgul to recover the Ring from Orthanc allows him to escape detection. Thereafter, Aragorn looks into the palantir, and wrests control of it away from Sauron, convincing Sauron that Aragorn now has the Ring. Sauron therefore shifts his gaze to Gondor, and Aragorn's primary duty is to keep the Eye upon him.

Gandalf is worried about starting a fire because it will be noticed and draw the attentions of the Enemy. I cannot imagine a plan involving flying the eagles into Mordor would have stood a snowball's chance in hell.

And even then.....could even the best of eagles have done it? When it came time to tip the Ring into the Cracks of Doom, would an eagle have been able to do so? Or would it, too, have been corrupted by the Ring almost immediately. Go back to The Hobbit and read how Bilbo felt when the Ring played a trick on him, and he thought he had lost it, at the exit to the goblin tunnels. Go back to the Fellowship and read how easily Frodo could cast it away, or put it in the fire, even at the beginning of his ownership. Then read the description of the eagles in The Hobbit, and tell me again that you think this would be a good idea, even if there were no Fell Beasts, no Nazgul, and Sauron was on vacation.

In the end, it is only Sauron's malice, an integral part of the Ring, that defeats the Enemy:

"I did not mean the danger that we all share," said Frodo. "I mean a danger to yourself alone. You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Smeagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Smeagol!"

And, in fact, that is exactly what happens. Gollum's promise binds him, the Ring twists it, and when he violates his oath, it makes him carry out Frodo's command.

Dark Lord wrote:If one of my players brought this up, my very first question would be, "What archetype or character do you want to build that you cannot express with the core classes?"

Conan from the books. Excellent stealth skills and wall climbing, excellent fighter, but not a backstabber.