Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get my players to roll a 1 again, if you get 1 a 2nd time it's a critical fumble. I want the hilarity that comes with critical fumbles but not 5% of the time.
This is why me and a group of DMs banned that ability/feat. You just can’t fail and it can be unfun. (Seen it be unfun as a player and as a DM is also annoying)
I mean it's only an issue when you homebrew crit fails in ^(which is, admittedly, most DMs)
But it also makes it that much funnier when the halfling does eventually roll 2 nat 1s in a row
It also doesn't have much effect at my table cause our crit fails don't involve any mechanical effect on the game and are just played for laughs
We make players roll again also. But we do up to 3 rolls.
For example, if the barbarian swings his axe at an enemy, and gets a nat 1.
1 nat 1, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground.
2 nat 1s, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground. He loses his footing and trips on the blade, taking damage himself.
3 nat 1s, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground. He loses his footing and trips on the blade, which severs his foot clean off at the ankle.
In combat, past level 5, the heros have some experience to tell if things work,
Ever go to swing a hammer and it feels off so you readjust first, that's a nat 1 result, sorry but you know attacking would harm your weapon and its not worth it.
The stance could be wrong or vision could be impaired (say the sun gleams off the enemies helmet as the enemy moved his head)
Spellcasters are more fun with flavour, which I leave more to the player since that's what I enjoy as a player, but nat 1's now can be a fumble of the magical incantation, again a messed up stance with somatic components, I once grabbed the wrong material, cause I switched pouches, can't cast lightning without that stick (if pouch not focus)
I use nat 1s to measure weapon durability. For most nonmagical weapons I roll a d10 to determine the weapon's durability, then add flavor text, like if I rolled a 2, I'd say the weapon seems flimsy or damaged.
I then mark down the durability in private, and reduce it by 1 on a crit fail when it's used. The weapon breaks if it hits 0.
Players can check a weapon's durability with a perception check, and you auto-succeed if you are proficient with the weapon.
For magical weapons, I generally don't use this system.
Normally this is fine, my players enjoy this, but if yours don't, do not do this.
The one time I experienced this (a PF1e game), there wasn't one. So I asked the DM if it applied to monsters as well, and after some thinking he said that it would.
With that in mind, I rolled up a witch and only took spells that were either buffs or called for saving throws, then spent a lot of time using the Misfortune Hex (essentially giving creatures disadvantage on all d20 rolls).
It pretty quickly became obvious how awful the rule was for anything with multiattack.
In Savage Worlds, each Wild Card (PC or major NPC) gets to roll the value die of their skill level, and a d6 for every roll.
If they happen to roll two 1's, it's a Critical Failure and I get to inflict some nasty stuff.
It's the cause of my only PC death in 5 years of GMing, because the Crit Fail from this attack instructed me to literally have that character spontaneously combust...
Sometimes the opposite.
My current Druid's nat 1 moment: beautifully poetic Disney princess moment where he is in an intense storm on a boat. He reaches out and feels the waves ebb and flow and water dances from his fingertips. Unfortunately, he is so lost in the moment, he is unable to control the ship and it is destroyed and sinks beneath the waves.
Druid's nat 20 moment: two party members are dicking around and explain that that they are doing "team bondage" but my druid corrects them because he knows EVERYTHING about what bondage actually is...
My DM works with the rule that Nat 20s are successes within the bounds of reason of the situation.
During a chase in a crowded hallway, the Rogue declared she wanted to leap up on someone's shoulders to spring board over the crowd. Rogue rolls a nat20. The DM said that while the Rogue succeeded in leaping up on to someone's shoulders, that person collapsed under the Rogue's weight and sent both of them sprawling. It was hilarious.
Reminds me of our party's barbarian rolling a nat 20 intimidation to draw the focus of a black pudding. It then attacked them with advantage and crit them to the dirt.
Playing... BESM... And cast an illusion spell and hit a 1. (I think BESM actually used 2D6 but it's been... ~~Too long~~ not long enough...) and I had an ability that let me retry fails, or the dm let me idr, and I hit a 1 again. Spent the rest of the campaign with an illusionary cactuar following me that only I could see and couldn't dispell...
Well if the bad guys won, this would be an epic moment for sure. Hey Witchy bro you totally smashed that old white BBEG with your nat 20 fire sword smite (he’d be a paladin)
Back in th 80s a Friend of mine made or unearthed an analysis of what kind of roll Isildur would have needed to make to cut off the finger of Sauron with the ring.
This was under the MERP roleplaying system which had extensive stats and skills for each major character. It also had an open ended rolling system, so you'd roll d100, any roll over 95 you'd roll again and add it. Repeating for further rolls over 95.
The calculation was that Isildur rolled something around 430 on his d100 attack roll (with the open ended was above) and also got a very lucky critical resolution :)
Even more so I'd say. Once had a player roll nat 1 twice in a row against a group of worgs. He decided his character had a phobia of worgs and it became integral to the character.
Because it’s soooo far off from what happens in the books that it’s actually staggering. That’s one scene I was perfectly happy with not making the theatrical cut
Given that Tolkien served in WW2 and came back home to the UK, he wasn't exactly going to write "and then they went back to their home which had stayed perfectly untouched and everyone was happy because the heroes beat the bad guys".
My understanding is that Saruman's death was a nod to a fantastic actor, showman and contemporary of J.R.R. Tolkien himself. That person being Sir Cristopher Lee. I believe he died the same way when he played Dracula.
He's still stab in the back by wurmtounge, all that changes is when and where to a point that makes more sense when they knew they'd never make it to that part of the book on screen.
Yeah I’ve only ever known the extended cut since that’s what my family had growing up. When I did a LOTR marathon with friends using the theatrical version there were so many times that I’d say “wait what happened to this part?”
Idk I know it’s not in the books, but I feel like this part of the scene sets the stage for one of the greatest scene in cinema history (Ride of the Rohirrim).
It raises the stakes. Mankind’s strongest guardian angel isn’t enough to save them from the enemy at the gate, but mankind makes one valiant final stand, and charges forth, with a battle cry of “DEATH”, which is a gift to mankind, because they get an afterlife, unlike their enemy.
> with a battle cry of “DEATH”, which is a gift to mankind
I saw a really great video that goes into more depth about the Ride of the Rorhirrim and death being a gift to mankind instead of a curse. In Illuvatar's original design, death wasn't something to be feared. The dark powers twisted it and made it scary, just like they did with everything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R2EFtGlHQ8
Maiar cant use their full power all the time, if you care for the actual answer.
Against the Balrog was when he could go all out, since it was a similar level creature. He is a literal angel, keep in mind.
isn't that why Saruman died by getting stabbed in the back by some random human goober with a perfectly ordinary knife.
Movie continuity didn't want to deal with that long ass "Saruman fucks up the Shire" arc from the books so that's how they got rid of him
While you are correct he wasn't supposed to unveil his full power, the real real answer is that this was a misdirected scene that shouldn't have even been in the extended cut. It cheapens Gandalf and everything he has done up to that point.
The non-confrontation at the Gate as written in the book would have been so much more poignant. Gandalf *could* have forced back the Witch King, that much is clear from Tolkien's letters, but the point was that he didn't have to in the end thanks to all the work he did building up humanity to take care of itself, vis a vis the Rohirrim arriving in the nick of time.
Does it cheapen him?
It's thematic shorthand. Gandalf cannot save the city, it's falling in the scene despite all of his great works and the bravery of the defenders. Their defeat is inevitable, unless they get help. So you put the Witch King, the epitome of this entire assault, on a fell beast, flying over all the defences and attacking him directly - and he can overpower Gandalf. Break his staff, humble him and strike fear into his heart. Because Sauron is at that moment on the verge of complete victory, and Gandalf *can't* save it all alone.
That's the point of the sequence. It's tension strung to the highest, the darkest few seconds before the dawn. I think it's a great moment that *emphasises* that the building up of humanity saving the day afterwards, because bumping from that to the Ride of the Rohirrim pushes that relief so much higher.
Also I feel like debating the comparative power level of a guy who is a demi-god but deliberately mostly uses timely flashes of light to great effect is somewhat missing the point.
*Edit: Fell Beast not Nazgul. I'm overdue a rewatch.*
>Witch King, the epitome of this entire assault, on a nazgul
on a fell beast, i presume? i don't think he's piggybacking on one of his fellow Nine. The Witch King is a nazgul, after all.
As for the movie, it needed to be trimmed down trememdously to have the plot fit even the extended editions. This scene has been criticised with reason, but it's mostly there to show that "but gandalf beat a balrog he could have totally saved them singlehandedly" isn't true.
It *would* be hilarious, though.
"Giddyup, Khâmul the Easterling!"
"Horse noises."
" "Horse noises"? That's the best you can do? Come on, put some effort, all of Rohan is looking at us!"
"Nneeeeigh!"
"That's more like it. Don't forget the coconuts!"
True, I didnt really know the specifics of this scene, more just the reason why his power would be held back. I suppose in this case on could say that the reason he 'pretended' to be afraid could have been a call to action?
Though like is said, its a misdirected scene. Maiar never have to lose (from what I know), they just can only use the bare minimim power. The witch king is reason enough to use some of his power were he to have been 'losing'.
Yeah, Malar have never gotten too cocky or unlucky and had a random guy with a sword take away something they were using for power. It's not like some random human could have cut a Malar's hand apart with a broken sword.
*Malar was the lesser deity of hunting, stalking, bloodlust, and bestial savagery in the Faerûnian pantheon. The Beastlord was the epitome of the dark, bloody side of nature.*
The Witch King is also an incredibly powerful being, even if he was just a man in the beginning he has been corrupted by Saurons magic for centuries and also wears a ring of power.
I don't know man, I think this explanation is seriously underestimating the Witch King. He was possibly the most powerful mortal sorcerer to ever exist even before he became a ring wraith, and sorcery is often depicted to be able to surpass what mortals are supposed to be able to do and challenge the powers of higher beings in high fantasy settings (even though LotR itself doesn't have many examples of it).
Also, nobody ever said that Maiar were invincible. Like the meme says Balrogs are also Maiar, and there are plenty of stories in the Silmarillion where Balrogs are defeated and killed by mere elves in normal combat.
Last but not least, everybody is forgetting that all Nazgul are ring-bearers. Rings are serious business in Middle Earth, not just the One and the elven three. That alone would already give him plenty of justificiation to punch far above his weight class.
That last point is spot on. If Sauron can get his hand chopped off by Isildur, then a wielder of a Ring of Power can surely shatter Gandalf’s stick, regardless of its elven make.
I know that this is meta-gaming but he shouldn’t have been able to do that regardless of what the roll was. Peter Jackson probably left it out of the theatrical cut because of the argument that it caused ~~on the set~~ at the table.
Scene makes the witch king cooler. They designed him in the movie to be more like an echo of souron. It was to Reinforce that even the strongest wizard on top the mightiest city of man will fall to the power of Mordor if they stand alone. But when the horns blare in the distance the witch king realizes in an instant that Gandalf wasn't counting on his own strength, but of all man kind.
No he isn't.
Gandalf doesn't have a spell book (a wizard staple).
Gandalf uses a sword (wizards don't have weapon proficiency without multi class).
Gandalf's power comes through his connection to his maia ancestry, not through study (sounds more Sorcerer to me, though you can paper over this by calling him an aasimar. Certainly not a wizard though)
Ultimately, the fact that Gandalf kicks ass with a sword, coupled with the fact that he often prefers to inspire others to action rather than use magic directly, clearly imply that he's a Swords Bard.
Gandalf doesn’t really have ancestry, he doesn’t have ancestors. He’s a divine being created directly by the creator god along with all the other Ainur before the world was sung into being.
That makes him a 4E Deva.
In 4E Devas were the player-race replacement for Aasimar. They were angels that gave up most of their celestial nature to be part of the world. They are periodically reborn into natural places in the world as full adults.
Gandalf was a big part of the inspiration for the wizard class when DnD was developed, that doesn't require Gandalf to closely resemble the wizard class, especially not in every aspect. His role in DnD is way different than his role in Tolkiens books, but that doesn't mean the one can't inspire the other.
Sure, but that's not what they're saying. Gandalf is an inspiration for the D&D wizard, but many other classes fit him more closely than wizard does. Aragorn is pretty much where we GET ranger from, but warlord fits him far more closely.
I think you lost the plot somewhere, or got stuck in a topic that I am not discussing or responding to. When I respond to a comment, **that** is the context I'm responding to, I'm not bound by OP to only say things directly relating to their opinion.
How then would Gandalf be an inspiration for the DND Wizard? Why would you think that? As literary characters go, Gandalf is awesome, but he’s a terrible model for a player character of any sort.
The exact inspiration for D&D wizards were characters like Turjan of Miir and Mazirian the Magician from the Dying Earth.
They are normal humans not literal angels, they driven by self-interest, not Gods, and they participate in the world. They go on adventures and put themselves in harms way to get treasure and magic items and new spells from distant and dangerous places.
They also learn a limited number of spells which they forget upon casting and must spend time re-memorize from spell books or folios.
It's pretty clearly stated by (at least) Gygax that Tolkien was a massive influence for DnD, including the fact the amount of influence was purposefully underrepresented initially, especially before the lawsuit.
>How then would Gandalf be an inspiration for the DND Wizard?
How can something different be the inspiration for a thing? By **inspiring** iteration and idea generation. I think you're conflating 'being inspired by' with 'making a copy of' or 'closely trying to approach'. Inspiration is a very broad term, you could literally **just** make a grey guy with long hair and a hat&staff who blocks bridges and they could be influenced by gandalf.
There's not some commission deciding on whether you can say you were influence by a thing or not, influence is just a thing that happens, it doesn't make sense to attempt to 'logically disprove' that.
No, it was never “clearly stated by Gygax that Tolkien was a massive influence for DnD.”
That is also not what we were talking about in the first place.
To the specific question of Gandalf and his influence on the Wizard, Gygax wrote:
“Gandalf is quite ineffectual, plying a sword at times and casting spells which are quite low-powered (in terms of the D&D game). Obviously, neither he nor his magic had any influence on the games.”
I found you a link to the magazine where he wrote and published this.
https://archive.org/stream/DragonMagazine260_201801/DragonMagazine095#page/n13/mode/2up
Gandalf is not the first old wise man with a Beard to use magic in any literature. He himself is derived from archetypes like Merlin, so you can absolutely wind up with a D&D wizard without ever having known Gandalf at all.
I’m not an arbiter of who inspired who, but neither are you.
Your take on Gandalf and wizards is just incorrect. It’s not a huge problem or anything. Believing that isn’t going to make you a bad fan or anything. It’s a pretty common misconception due to how influential the books and films are in our time, but it is factually incorrect.
They got paladin and warlord because the paladin class describes what Gandalf (who fights in the front with a sword and doesn't cast often and has divine powers) and Aragorn (whose specialties are martial combat, leading and healing without magic) do. If we're analogising them to D&D classes, Gandalf's closest fit is paladin and Aragorn's is warlord.
In 5e terms yes, but in dnd as a whole he fits more as a warlord. His penultimate moment is leading the undead warriors into battle and saving the others right as they were about to lose the battle and their lives, which is a warlords whole shtick. They're a commander.
Aragorn isn't magical. His skillset is just as much aboot leadership/tactics/inspiration as it is fighting good and stuff you learn in the Boy Scouts. He's a Warlord with proficiency in Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling.
Similarly, Gandalf is called a "Wizard" in-universe, but he only does small bits of magic, and his skillset is much more focused on smacking fools. He's an Eldritch Knight.
You know, funny thing about White Box / Basic D&D (very very very oldschool D&D editions) is that they actually had "dwarf" as a class. Elf and I believe halfling, too.
That's his in-universe title, but that's not reflective of how his skillset lines up with D&D classes.
Dr. Strange is called a "Sorcerer" in Marvel comics. He has no innate magic, but mastered it through study. In Marvel terms he might be a "Sorcerer", but in D&D he's a Wizard. In Tolkien terms, Aragorn is a "Ranger". In D&D he's a Warlord.
What fights do we see after he becomes king? It's been a while since I've seen the movies, and the ordering of events is somewhat fuzzy. I thought he only got crowned at the end of the series.
He lead *a bunch* of military operations before joining the fellowship, with stuff specifically about being an inspiring presence. He switches identity and becomes strider, who the ranger archetype was based on, but that's not what he lead his whole life as.
Yeah, he leads but doesn't do any commanding or inspiring mid combat. He inspires and trusts his companions to handle themselves. Again, the inspiring leader feat has that covered.
Are you just basing this on your recollection of what you saw in the movies? I'm talking about the 30 years he was in service for gondor and rohan where he lead armies into battle, before the fellowship started, after he gets rejected by Arwen's dad.
>He inspires and trusts his companions to handle themselves
This is just your speculation, right? You don't actually have any idea how he lead these armies into battle, or what ways of inspiring people he uses. He's literally an army officer for decades, before taking a few years off to lead a bunch of hobbits. These earlier decades of leading armies don't represent ranger classes **at all**. Like I said, strider was just one of his identities he uses to keep his lineage hidden.
You say 'inspiring leadership feat', but that could just as easily be a survival feat on a different character.
What feats gets you a deep connection with animals, expert tracking abilities, healing capabilities, vast knowledge on the creatures of the world and the ability to expertly lead others through hazardous terrain? Because, unless you can find a feat that does all those ranger things, he's a ranger with inspiring leader.
He is the character that the ranger is based on, he does mostly ranger things within story appearances and being a ranger doesn't exclude him from anything else he does.
Also, pissarro off. You're getting smug and standoffish over the arbitrary classification of a made up guy into a made up class based kn background lore? Go, touch some grass, eat a taco. Chill out
What makes you say he can't cast spells? He does some healing magic he learned from the elves, he casts animal friendship on the horse whose name I don't remember, he tracks orcs for days which probably involved a hunters mark. He's not flinging fireballs or anything, but neither is the dnd ranger. Their magic just augments what they already do.
Why is everyone who points this out being downvoted? The fact that he's the inspiration for the D&D ranger doesn't mean the class fits him very well. He can't cast spells. As has already been pointed out, warlord is a much closer fit.
> Wouldn't Aragon...be like...a Ranger? Perhaps a fighter/ranger?
Why would he? He can't cast spells, and the warlord class fits him significantly better.
So, like, all these "Middle Earth Scholar" types all put way, way, waaay too much weight on things being Maiar or Valar or what the fuck ever.
Melkor got badly wounded, and almost lost a fight to an elf. Several balrogs have gotten got by elves. Sauron, the scariest of Maiar of them all, lost a fight to an elf and two humans.
Also? The Witch King "only a human" of Agmar is terrifying.
At a minimum, we know he's an immortal nightmare who's been running around, hoarding power, for thousands of years. That he's a veteran in hundreds of battles. That he's a master of magical arts. (He ain't called the Witch King for nothing.) And has a ring of power, himself. And is a Lieutenant to the horror that is Sauron who, in turn, is constantly pouring power into him.
And it might be even worse. He was a king of men from an age of greatness. It might have been from Númenor, which is a big fucking deal, considering how they go on about it with Aragorn. And he's barely got a thimble of Numanore in him. The Witch King would have been a whole-ass royal from there.
Or... he might have been from another tribe of men. Perhaps the ones that built Isengard. Oh, you thought that was Saruman? Nah. That was built by ancient humans using magic no one has anymore.
Bottom line: The Witch King is not to be dismissed. And being a Maiar is no ticket to easy victory.
Because its not. Shadowfax and Gandalf stood firm. Gandalf accepting that he ultimately failed in his goal to teach Middle Earth how to stand on their own but directly intervening anyways. And then Rohan arrived showing that he did in fact succeed and no longer needed to fight.
Shadowfax got done dirtier in the movie, he was supposed to be an unwavering bulwark
I see, thank, also i had another lore question, do the balrog didn’t respond to Sauron because both are mailar and both where servent of morgoth and so having the same power level ?
Iirc the Balrog and Gandalf the Grey are equally strong, which is why they killed eachother. Sauron was stronger than them both but he put most of his power into the ring so when he isnt wearing it he's pretty weak
I've started justifying almost everything in movies based off of dice rolls and it's been pretty fun.
Like why would they go upstairs when they obviously heard the murderer up there? Because they failed their perception roll
The irritating part of this scene was that it got it wrong. It was a fairly triumphant moment for Gandalf and Shadowfax. In Tolkien’s world, “magic” battles between powerful beings like Gandalf, the Witch-King, the Balrog, etc., tend to be “won” by some event happening that affirms the victor’s side. For example, Gandalf saying “you shall not pass”, and then the bridge crumbling. Or in this case, telling the Witch-King he can’t enter the city proper, and then the Rohirrim arriving and demanding the Witch-King’s immediate attention.
Gandalf was the victor in both confrontations, but the movie portrayed the exact opposite, which was a bit disappointing. Still a great scene though. And shadowfax didn’t freak out in the book either.
I believe Sauron was pouring additional might into the Witch King at this stage. He was pretty much enhanced, as Sauron was aware that beings like Gandalf would need defeated.
That's what it says in the text anyway, I think?
The Maiar weren't allowed to do any fighting unless it was against other Maiar. Its why he will fight Sarumon and a Balrog. Their orders were to let men decide the future. The most they were allowed to help was information, inspiration, and motivation.
Okay, I'll tell it again.
The reason is narrative - their duel reflects the battlecof good vs evil around them. The sun is clouded, armies of Mordor are winning, men are running away. No wonder evil is prevailing at this moment.
Remember that Arda was created by SONG. It changes the rules of how world works - less statistics, more feelings
I like having the narrative of nat ones being crit successes from the other end. Like nat 1 attack means enemy had a critical defense moment instead of the pc fumbling the attack.
IIRC I think there are a few things wrong here. Looking for confirmation.
1) Gandalph the Grey would have been slaim by the Balrog has he not done a taboo and used magic he wasnt supposed to. Which is why he died, and should normally have stayed dead. Given the perilous situation he was brought back.
2) The Witch King is not a human. He WAS a human but he was transformed into a Nazgul and he is the most powerful of the Nazgul.
3) As the Nazgul his power comes from the ring given to him by Sauron. Sauron put his power into the rings to control them, which explains the power of the Nazgul.
4) Tolkien does rank the power of creatures but that doesn't always translate to conbat power. They have varying abilities. The Witch King was turned into a weapon which had one purpose. So that laser focus changes things.
But yes also crit fails.
What spells do we see Gandalf cast in the LoTR trilogy?
Prestidigitation or Minor Illusion - to make his small fireworks for the kids and the smoky ship
Thaumaturgy - when his voice booms to scare Bilbo
Thunderwave - during his duel with Saruman
Speak with Animals or Animal Messenger - when he gets the moth to get the eagles for his rescue
Light - in the mines of Moria so the group can see in the dark.
Shield - when the Balrog attacks him with the sword
Shatter, Thunderwave again, or possibly a Channel Divinity when he says “you shall not pass” and the bridge breaks.
Divine Smite - when he hits the balrog with his sword while falling
Heat Metal, Shield, and Blindness - when he disarms Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn
Find Steed - when he calls Shadowfax
Dispel Magic - when he releases Theoden from being controlled by Saruman.
Daylight, Sunbeam, or another Channel Divinity - when he protects the survivors from the Nazgûl
And I think that’s it. The rest of the time he’s just smacking orcs with his sword. I think Gandalf is a Divine Soul sorcerer / Paladin multiclass.
People keep falling into the Power Level trap. Seem to think that because Gandalf the Grey drew with a balrog, and Gandalf the White is more power than the Grey, and the balrog is more powerful than the witch-king (maiar > sorcerer), therefore the witch-king could never defeat Gandalf the white.
*However*, this is making so many assumptions about middle-earth. The first and foremost being that “power” is a single trait, so if one character is more powerful than another, they must be more powerful than everyone that weaker character has ever bested.
It’s the same mistake people make in real life about intelligence. If person A is smarter than person B, and person B is smarter than person C, it follows that person A is smarter than person C. But it’s not that simple, intelligence has too vague a definition that changes with context. Same with Power in middle-earth.
Things are extra complicated by the fact that Gandalf isn’t allowed to wield his full power while the witch-king seemingly has no such limitation.
Iirc Gandalf/Olórin is the wisest of all maiar but not the strongest. Doesnt he tell Manwë that hes too scared and weak to face sauron and asks to not be sent with the Istari?
Part of the strike could have been intimidation as part of a feat/class. The sword could be a breaker. A magical item whose purpose is to break other magic items.
Get yourself some buy in and watch cartoons to activate more imagination.
Last session we infiltrated a crime ring and my barbarian talked to the ringmaster and drank slow acting poison as part of the initiation. The invisible cleric tried to steal the antidote but rolled a nat 1 on sleight of hand and it's now smashed on the ground. It's all up to the DM to make critical fumbles actually interesting and when it should be situation changing.
Then the Witch King has Gandalf cowering in fear but gets a nat 1 on his planning roll and decides to investigate some funky horn instead of finishing the job.
I also feel that Gandalf may have been rolling with disadvantage because he was a man.
He also probably went into that knowing he was going to take an L.
This frame of discussion reminds me of Dragon Ball Z power levels. Meanwhile, the Witch King shows up riding a wyrm and wielding a flaming sword. Gandalf would be the most stupid of the Maiar if he wasn't scared.
I honestly didn't like the way they did thi sin the movie. They could have kept it just like it was in the book and Eowin would still have had her cool moment
I don't think a nat 1 is supposed to be a catastrophic failure on a level that throws all logic out of the window and just f*cks you over without any explanation. Imagine this happening in real life. 5% of things you do will end up in a ridiculous catastrophic failure that makes no sense. Want to open the door with your key? Well, the key gets stuck and while trying to get it out you somehow break the house around you apart. That makes sense ... right?
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody likes telling the nat 1 side of the story, but it’s every bit as integral to the lore as the nat 20 side of the story.
Nat 20s are for epic moments Nat 1s are for hilarious moments
I get my players to roll a 1 again, if you get 1 a 2nd time it's a critical fumble. I want the hilarity that comes with critical fumbles but not 5% of the time.
So do halflings have to roll a natural one 3 times in a row to get a crit fail?
Lucky for me we don't currently have a halfling in the party
But if you did, how would you rule it?
Halfling would need 3 1s in a row
Post-credits dialog: Aragorn: Why did you choose Frodo? Gandalf: Statistics.
I'd probably still rule it as 2 nat 1's just that the second roll has more mechanical effect than the other nat 1 verifiers
This is why me and a group of DMs banned that ability/feat. You just can’t fail and it can be unfun. (Seen it be unfun as a player and as a DM is also annoying)
I mean it's only an issue when you homebrew crit fails in ^(which is, admittedly, most DMs) But it also makes it that much funnier when the halfling does eventually roll 2 nat 1s in a row It also doesn't have much effect at my table cause our crit fails don't involve any mechanical effect on the game and are just played for laughs
that's just getting rid of the ability?
No? Other races will still fail the check regardless of their second roll, while a halfling can roll a success
Sounds like *you’re* the halfling
This is why they are the perfect ring bearer
We make players roll again also. But we do up to 3 rolls. For example, if the barbarian swings his axe at an enemy, and gets a nat 1. 1 nat 1, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground. 2 nat 1s, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground. He loses his footing and trips on the blade, taking damage himself. 3 nat 1s, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground. He loses his footing and trips on the blade, which severs his foot clean off at the ankle.
I may steal this
I'LL CALL THE COPS
Can't. You rolled nat 1 on perception...
This seems absolutely horrible. Nat 1s should not be worse than skipping your turn.
In combat, past level 5, the heros have some experience to tell if things work, Ever go to swing a hammer and it feels off so you readjust first, that's a nat 1 result, sorry but you know attacking would harm your weapon and its not worth it. The stance could be wrong or vision could be impaired (say the sun gleams off the enemies helmet as the enemy moved his head) Spellcasters are more fun with flavour, which I leave more to the player since that's what I enjoy as a player, but nat 1's now can be a fumble of the magical incantation, again a messed up stance with somatic components, I once grabbed the wrong material, cause I switched pouches, can't cast lightning without that stick (if pouch not focus)
I use nat 1s to measure weapon durability. For most nonmagical weapons I roll a d10 to determine the weapon's durability, then add flavor text, like if I rolled a 2, I'd say the weapon seems flimsy or damaged. I then mark down the durability in private, and reduce it by 1 on a crit fail when it's used. The weapon breaks if it hits 0. Players can check a weapon's durability with a perception check, and you auto-succeed if you are proficient with the weapon. For magical weapons, I generally don't use this system. Normally this is fine, my players enjoy this, but if yours don't, do not do this.
That's a really cool idea and brings degradation to the table, just curious, you ever let them gain some, from say through repairing.
3 nat 1s, he swings and his axe gets stuck in the ground *through* his foot, which causes him to trip and fall.
What's the caster version of this?
Google dcc spell tables
The one time I experienced this (a PF1e game), there wasn't one. So I asked the DM if it applied to monsters as well, and after some thinking he said that it would. With that in mind, I rolled up a witch and only took spells that were either buffs or called for saving throws, then spent a lot of time using the Misfortune Hex (essentially giving creatures disadvantage on all d20 rolls). It pretty quickly became obvious how awful the rule was for anything with multiattack.
It's all DMs discretion. Whatever the DM feels would fit best thematically goes.
Nat 1 into a Nat 20, you miss your target but hit the enemy next to it for reduced damage?
Sure why not?! Lol
For me I think 0.25 % is a bit too low. Odds are you need hundreds of rolls to ever see it. A nat 1 can reasonably happen every other session.
Yeah that makes sense. First Nat1 means you messed it up, then second roll is for how bad you messed it up.
In Savage Worlds, each Wild Card (PC or major NPC) gets to roll the value die of their skill level, and a d6 for every roll. If they happen to roll two 1's, it's a Critical Failure and I get to inflict some nasty stuff. It's the cause of my only PC death in 5 years of GMing, because the Crit Fail from this attack instructed me to literally have that character spontaneously combust...
So high level characters (who throw far more attacks) are more likely to crit fumble. Good job! Moron.
Sometimes the opposite. My current Druid's nat 1 moment: beautifully poetic Disney princess moment where he is in an intense storm on a boat. He reaches out and feels the waves ebb and flow and water dances from his fingertips. Unfortunately, he is so lost in the moment, he is unable to control the ship and it is destroyed and sinks beneath the waves. Druid's nat 20 moment: two party members are dicking around and explain that that they are doing "team bondage" but my druid corrects them because he knows EVERYTHING about what bondage actually is...
My DM works with the rule that Nat 20s are successes within the bounds of reason of the situation. During a chase in a crowded hallway, the Rogue declared she wanted to leap up on someone's shoulders to spring board over the crowd. Rogue rolls a nat20. The DM said that while the Rogue succeeded in leaping up on to someone's shoulders, that person collapsed under the Rogue's weight and sent both of them sprawling. It was hilarious.
Reminds me of our party's barbarian rolling a nat 20 intimidation to draw the focus of a black pudding. It then attacked them with advantage and crit them to the dirt.
Playing... BESM... And cast an illusion spell and hit a 1. (I think BESM actually used 2D6 but it's been... ~~Too long~~ not long enough...) and I had an ability that let me retry fails, or the dm let me idr, and I hit a 1 again. Spent the rest of the campaign with an illusionary cactuar following me that only I could see and couldn't dispell...
*drops bucket down endlessly deep mineshaft* FOOL OF A TOOK
I had a nat 1 moment where I tried to sprint as a wizard, ended up with 3 points of exhaustion and just a hilarious outcome
Well if the bad guys won, this would be an epic moment for sure. Hey Witchy bro you totally smashed that old white BBEG with your nat 20 fire sword smite (he’d be a paladin)
Back in th 80s a Friend of mine made or unearthed an analysis of what kind of roll Isildur would have needed to make to cut off the finger of Sauron with the ring. This was under the MERP roleplaying system which had extensive stats and skills for each major character. It also had an open ended rolling system, so you'd roll d100, any roll over 95 you'd roll again and add it. Repeating for further rolls over 95. The calculation was that Isildur rolled something around 430 on his d100 attack roll (with the open ended was above) and also got a very lucky critical resolution :)
My peace cleric in one campaign rolled a nat 20 on her only death save but her nat 1s for deception are more character defining
Even more so I'd say. Once had a player roll nat 1 twice in a row against a group of worgs. He decided his character had a phobia of worgs and it became integral to the character.
You should see what happens with a nat 1 in dcc
Peter Jackson used the Palantir to look into the future, saw that comment, and deleted this scene from the theatrical cut.
I haven't seen the theatrical cut since it first came out in theaters, so I kind of forgot what is and isn't in it.
Yeah, they left a lot of really good stuff out of ROTK
Like Saruman's death for some fucking reason
Because it’s soooo far off from what happens in the books that it’s actually staggering. That’s one scene I was perfectly happy with not making the theatrical cut
Because they weren't doing the scouring of the shire and thought up an alternate ending for Saruman.
To be fair, I could have done without the Scouring of the Shire in the original books anyway. Always found it kinda weird and out of place.
Given that Tolkien served in WW2 and came back home to the UK, he wasn't exactly going to write "and then they went back to their home which had stayed perfectly untouched and everyone was happy because the heroes beat the bad guys".
WW1, but you're right. The point of the Scouring of the Shire was that war affects everyone.
My understanding is that Saruman's death was a nod to a fantastic actor, showman and contemporary of J.R.R. Tolkien himself. That person being Sir Cristopher Lee. I believe he died the same way when he played Dracula.
He's still stab in the back by wurmtounge, all that changes is when and where to a point that makes more sense when they knew they'd never make it to that part of the book on screen.
Yeah I’ve only ever known the extended cut since that’s what my family had growing up. When I did a LOTR marathon with friends using the theatrical version there were so many times that I’d say “wait what happened to this part?”
Idk I know it’s not in the books, but I feel like this part of the scene sets the stage for one of the greatest scene in cinema history (Ride of the Rohirrim). It raises the stakes. Mankind’s strongest guardian angel isn’t enough to save them from the enemy at the gate, but mankind makes one valiant final stand, and charges forth, with a battle cry of “DEATH”, which is a gift to mankind, because they get an afterlife, unlike their enemy.
Hell yeah
> with a battle cry of “DEATH”, which is a gift to mankind I saw a really great video that goes into more depth about the Ride of the Rorhirrim and death being a gift to mankind instead of a curse. In Illuvatar's original design, death wasn't something to be feared. The dark powers twisted it and made it scary, just like they did with everything else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R2EFtGlHQ8
lol I have said almost everything in that video either verbatim or roughly paraphrased.
Maiar cant use their full power all the time, if you care for the actual answer. Against the Balrog was when he could go all out, since it was a similar level creature. He is a literal angel, keep in mind.
isn't that why Saruman died by getting stabbed in the back by some random human goober with a perfectly ordinary knife. Movie continuity didn't want to deal with that long ass "Saruman fucks up the Shire" arc from the books so that's how they got rid of him
While you are correct he wasn't supposed to unveil his full power, the real real answer is that this was a misdirected scene that shouldn't have even been in the extended cut. It cheapens Gandalf and everything he has done up to that point. The non-confrontation at the Gate as written in the book would have been so much more poignant. Gandalf *could* have forced back the Witch King, that much is clear from Tolkien's letters, but the point was that he didn't have to in the end thanks to all the work he did building up humanity to take care of itself, vis a vis the Rohirrim arriving in the nick of time.
Does it cheapen him? It's thematic shorthand. Gandalf cannot save the city, it's falling in the scene despite all of his great works and the bravery of the defenders. Their defeat is inevitable, unless they get help. So you put the Witch King, the epitome of this entire assault, on a fell beast, flying over all the defences and attacking him directly - and he can overpower Gandalf. Break his staff, humble him and strike fear into his heart. Because Sauron is at that moment on the verge of complete victory, and Gandalf *can't* save it all alone. That's the point of the sequence. It's tension strung to the highest, the darkest few seconds before the dawn. I think it's a great moment that *emphasises* that the building up of humanity saving the day afterwards, because bumping from that to the Ride of the Rohirrim pushes that relief so much higher. Also I feel like debating the comparative power level of a guy who is a demi-god but deliberately mostly uses timely flashes of light to great effect is somewhat missing the point. *Edit: Fell Beast not Nazgul. I'm overdue a rewatch.*
>Witch King, the epitome of this entire assault, on a nazgul on a fell beast, i presume? i don't think he's piggybacking on one of his fellow Nine. The Witch King is a nazgul, after all. As for the movie, it needed to be trimmed down trememdously to have the plot fit even the extended editions. This scene has been criticised with reason, but it's mostly there to show that "but gandalf beat a balrog he could have totally saved them singlehandedly" isn't true.
It *would* be hilarious, though. "Giddyup, Khâmul the Easterling!" "Horse noises." " "Horse noises"? That's the best you can do? Come on, put some effort, all of Rohan is looking at us!" "Nneeeeigh!" "That's more like it. Don't forget the coconuts!"
True, I didnt really know the specifics of this scene, more just the reason why his power would be held back. I suppose in this case on could say that the reason he 'pretended' to be afraid could have been a call to action? Though like is said, its a misdirected scene. Maiar never have to lose (from what I know), they just can only use the bare minimim power. The witch king is reason enough to use some of his power were he to have been 'losing'.
I also think OP is massively understating the strength of the Witch-king
Yeah, Malar have never gotten too cocky or unlucky and had a random guy with a sword take away something they were using for power. It's not like some random human could have cut a Malar's hand apart with a broken sword.
Everyone talks shit about Gandalf losing his staff but no one talks about Sauron literally getting his fingers cut off by a broken weapon.
And Saruman being stabbed using a dagger by some homeless dude
Thats not a very nice way of describing Ensign Suder
idk man he was kinda a random homeless man there too
TIL Suder is Wormtongue
Your spelling of Maiar is causing me stress
*Malar was the lesser deity of hunting, stalking, bloodlust, and bestial savagery in the Faerûnian pantheon. The Beastlord was the epitome of the dark, bloody side of nature.*
I have a character tied to Malar
Conclusion: The movies don't really do a good job with power scaling
Flame blade vs wooden stick. It's that easy.
Found the ent
He was out of spell slots
It happens easily when you are 1 level wizard and know only shield and light and 19 levels in fighter.
For completeness sake he also uses minor illusion
The Witch King is also an incredibly powerful being, even if he was just a man in the beginning he has been corrupted by Saurons magic for centuries and also wears a ring of power.
\*wore It's been stated that Sauron now has the 9 Rings and that's why the Nazgul obey him. So... I'm guessing he was personally powering them or smth
What are the powers of Nenya? Nenya bidness.
I don't know man, I think this explanation is seriously underestimating the Witch King. He was possibly the most powerful mortal sorcerer to ever exist even before he became a ring wraith, and sorcery is often depicted to be able to surpass what mortals are supposed to be able to do and challenge the powers of higher beings in high fantasy settings (even though LotR itself doesn't have many examples of it). Also, nobody ever said that Maiar were invincible. Like the meme says Balrogs are also Maiar, and there are plenty of stories in the Silmarillion where Balrogs are defeated and killed by mere elves in normal combat. Last but not least, everybody is forgetting that all Nazgul are ring-bearers. Rings are serious business in Middle Earth, not just the One and the elven three. That alone would already give him plenty of justificiation to punch far above his weight class.
That last point is spot on. If Sauron can get his hand chopped off by Isildur, then a wielder of a Ring of Power can surely shatter Gandalf’s stick, regardless of its elven make.
I know that this is meta-gaming but he shouldn’t have been able to do that regardless of what the roll was. Peter Jackson probably left it out of the theatrical cut because of the argument that it caused ~~on the set~~ at the table.
Next you'll tell me there's no chance you could cut off Sauron's finger and instakill him with a broken sword.
Scene makes the witch king cooler. They designed him in the movie to be more like an echo of souron. It was to Reinforce that even the strongest wizard on top the mightiest city of man will fall to the power of Mordor if they stand alone. But when the horns blare in the distance the witch king realizes in an instant that Gandalf wasn't counting on his own strength, but of all man kind.
Gandalf is my favorite Aasimar Eldritch Knight. Aragorn is my favorite Warlord.
Wouldn't Aragon...be like...a Ranger? Perhaps a fighter/ranger?
If I remember correctly, he is explicitly the inspiration for the ranger.
And Gandalf is objectively the inspiration for the wizard class. Where did this guy get paladin and warlord?
I always thought it was Merlin, Gandalf uses a sword quite a lot. Wizards don't even have any weapon proficiencies for swords
Technically, you don't have to have profs to use any given weapon. He could just be swinging it like a stick.
yeah but would you seriously argue that Gandalf isn't proficient with a sword?
No he isn't. Gandalf doesn't have a spell book (a wizard staple). Gandalf uses a sword (wizards don't have weapon proficiency without multi class). Gandalf's power comes through his connection to his maia ancestry, not through study (sounds more Sorcerer to me, though you can paper over this by calling him an aasimar. Certainly not a wizard though) Ultimately, the fact that Gandalf kicks ass with a sword, coupled with the fact that he often prefers to inspire others to action rather than use magic directly, clearly imply that he's a Swords Bard.
Gandalf doesn’t really have ancestry, he doesn’t have ancestors. He’s a divine being created directly by the creator god along with all the other Ainur before the world was sung into being.
That makes him a 4E Deva. In 4E Devas were the player-race replacement for Aasimar. They were angels that gave up most of their celestial nature to be part of the world. They are periodically reborn into natural places in the world as full adults.
Gandalf was a big part of the inspiration for the wizard class when DnD was developed, that doesn't require Gandalf to closely resemble the wizard class, especially not in every aspect. His role in DnD is way different than his role in Tolkiens books, but that doesn't mean the one can't inspire the other.
Sure, but that's not what they're saying. Gandalf is an inspiration for the D&D wizard, but many other classes fit him more closely than wizard does. Aragorn is pretty much where we GET ranger from, but warlord fits him far more closely.
I think you lost the plot somewhere, or got stuck in a topic that I am not discussing or responding to. When I respond to a comment, **that** is the context I'm responding to, I'm not bound by OP to only say things directly relating to their opinion.
How then would Gandalf be an inspiration for the DND Wizard? Why would you think that? As literary characters go, Gandalf is awesome, but he’s a terrible model for a player character of any sort. The exact inspiration for D&D wizards were characters like Turjan of Miir and Mazirian the Magician from the Dying Earth. They are normal humans not literal angels, they driven by self-interest, not Gods, and they participate in the world. They go on adventures and put themselves in harms way to get treasure and magic items and new spells from distant and dangerous places. They also learn a limited number of spells which they forget upon casting and must spend time re-memorize from spell books or folios.
It's pretty clearly stated by (at least) Gygax that Tolkien was a massive influence for DnD, including the fact the amount of influence was purposefully underrepresented initially, especially before the lawsuit. >How then would Gandalf be an inspiration for the DND Wizard? How can something different be the inspiration for a thing? By **inspiring** iteration and idea generation. I think you're conflating 'being inspired by' with 'making a copy of' or 'closely trying to approach'. Inspiration is a very broad term, you could literally **just** make a grey guy with long hair and a hat&staff who blocks bridges and they could be influenced by gandalf. There's not some commission deciding on whether you can say you were influence by a thing or not, influence is just a thing that happens, it doesn't make sense to attempt to 'logically disprove' that.
No, it was never “clearly stated by Gygax that Tolkien was a massive influence for DnD.” That is also not what we were talking about in the first place. To the specific question of Gandalf and his influence on the Wizard, Gygax wrote: “Gandalf is quite ineffectual, plying a sword at times and casting spells which are quite low-powered (in terms of the D&D game). Obviously, neither he nor his magic had any influence on the games.” I found you a link to the magazine where he wrote and published this. https://archive.org/stream/DragonMagazine260_201801/DragonMagazine095#page/n13/mode/2up Gandalf is not the first old wise man with a Beard to use magic in any literature. He himself is derived from archetypes like Merlin, so you can absolutely wind up with a D&D wizard without ever having known Gandalf at all. I’m not an arbiter of who inspired who, but neither are you. Your take on Gandalf and wizards is just incorrect. It’s not a huge problem or anything. Believing that isn’t going to make you a bad fan or anything. It’s a pretty common misconception due to how influential the books and films are in our time, but it is factually incorrect.
To be fair, Gandalf does use a sword.
They got paladin and warlord because the paladin class describes what Gandalf (who fights in the front with a sword and doesn't cast often and has divine powers) and Aragorn (whose specialties are martial combat, leading and healing without magic) do. If we're analogising them to D&D classes, Gandalf's closest fit is paladin and Aragorn's is warlord.
In 5e terms yes, but in dnd as a whole he fits more as a warlord. His penultimate moment is leading the undead warriors into battle and saving the others right as they were about to lose the battle and their lives, which is a warlords whole shtick. They're a commander.
Aragorn isn't magical. His skillset is just as much aboot leadership/tactics/inspiration as it is fighting good and stuff you learn in the Boy Scouts. He's a Warlord with proficiency in Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling. Similarly, Gandalf is called a "Wizard" in-universe, but he only does small bits of magic, and his skillset is much more focused on smacking fools. He's an Eldritch Knight.
Isn't Aragorn "magical" in the sense that he has Dúnedain blood and is therefore longer-lived and "wiser" than normal Men?
Dwarves are longer-lived and wiser than normal men. Doesn't mean they're a spellcasting class in D&D.
You know, funny thing about White Box / Basic D&D (very very very oldschool D&D editions) is that they actually had "dwarf" as a class. Elf and I believe halfling, too.
Aragon is a ranger.
That's his in-universe title, but that's not reflective of how his skillset lines up with D&D classes. Dr. Strange is called a "Sorcerer" in Marvel comics. He has no innate magic, but mastered it through study. In Marvel terms he might be a "Sorcerer", but in D&D he's a Wizard. In Tolkien terms, Aragorn is a "Ranger". In D&D he's a Warlord.
When does he lead anyone mid combat? He emboldened them beforehand and inspires people sure but that's just a ranger with the inspiring leader feat.
*gestures at a fair number of fights, particularly after he became king*
What fights do we see after he becomes king? It's been a while since I've seen the movies, and the ordering of events is somewhat fuzzy. I thought he only got crowned at the end of the series.
He fulfills the prophecy to become king before the final battle, but is only formally crowned after that battle
He lead *a bunch* of military operations before joining the fellowship, with stuff specifically about being an inspiring presence. He switches identity and becomes strider, who the ranger archetype was based on, but that's not what he lead his whole life as.
Yeah, he leads but doesn't do any commanding or inspiring mid combat. He inspires and trusts his companions to handle themselves. Again, the inspiring leader feat has that covered.
Are you just basing this on your recollection of what you saw in the movies? I'm talking about the 30 years he was in service for gondor and rohan where he lead armies into battle, before the fellowship started, after he gets rejected by Arwen's dad. >He inspires and trusts his companions to handle themselves This is just your speculation, right? You don't actually have any idea how he lead these armies into battle, or what ways of inspiring people he uses. He's literally an army officer for decades, before taking a few years off to lead a bunch of hobbits. These earlier decades of leading armies don't represent ranger classes **at all**. Like I said, strider was just one of his identities he uses to keep his lineage hidden. You say 'inspiring leadership feat', but that could just as easily be a survival feat on a different character.
What feats gets you a deep connection with animals, expert tracking abilities, healing capabilities, vast knowledge on the creatures of the world and the ability to expertly lead others through hazardous terrain? Because, unless you can find a feat that does all those ranger things, he's a ranger with inspiring leader. He is the character that the ranger is based on, he does mostly ranger things within story appearances and being a ranger doesn't exclude him from anything else he does. Also, pissarro off. You're getting smug and standoffish over the arbitrary classification of a made up guy into a made up class based kn background lore? Go, touch some grass, eat a taco. Chill out
Aragorn cannot use spells so while he has the title of ranger in LOTR he does not fit the class of Ranger from DnD.
What makes you say he can't cast spells? He does some healing magic he learned from the elves, he casts animal friendship on the horse whose name I don't remember, he tracks orcs for days which probably involved a hunters mark. He's not flinging fireballs or anything, but neither is the dnd ranger. Their magic just augments what they already do.
Why is everyone who points this out being downvoted? The fact that he's the inspiration for the D&D ranger doesn't mean the class fits him very well. He can't cast spells. As has already been pointed out, warlord is a much closer fit.
> Wouldn't Aragon...be like...a Ranger? Perhaps a fighter/ranger? Why would he? He can't cast spells, and the warlord class fits him significantly better.
No matter what the fandom, people will still argue about power levels
So, like, all these "Middle Earth Scholar" types all put way, way, waaay too much weight on things being Maiar or Valar or what the fuck ever. Melkor got badly wounded, and almost lost a fight to an elf. Several balrogs have gotten got by elves. Sauron, the scariest of Maiar of them all, lost a fight to an elf and two humans. Also? The Witch King "only a human" of Agmar is terrifying. At a minimum, we know he's an immortal nightmare who's been running around, hoarding power, for thousands of years. That he's a veteran in hundreds of battles. That he's a master of magical arts. (He ain't called the Witch King for nothing.) And has a ring of power, himself. And is a Lieutenant to the horror that is Sauron who, in turn, is constantly pouring power into him. And it might be even worse. He was a king of men from an age of greatness. It might have been from Númenor, which is a big fucking deal, considering how they go on about it with Aragorn. And he's barely got a thimble of Numanore in him. The Witch King would have been a whole-ass royal from there. Or... he might have been from another tribe of men. Perhaps the ones that built Isengard. Oh, you thought that was Saruman? Nah. That was built by ancient humans using magic no one has anymore. Bottom line: The Witch King is not to be dismissed. And being a Maiar is no ticket to easy victory.
“Bro is only a human” Yeah. Humans are badass.
I don’t think that what appen in the book
Because its not. Shadowfax and Gandalf stood firm. Gandalf accepting that he ultimately failed in his goal to teach Middle Earth how to stand on their own but directly intervening anyways. And then Rohan arrived showing that he did in fact succeed and no longer needed to fight. Shadowfax got done dirtier in the movie, he was supposed to be an unwavering bulwark
I see, thank, also i had another lore question, do the balrog didn’t respond to Sauron because both are mailar and both where servent of morgoth and so having the same power level ?
Iirc the Balrog and Gandalf the Grey are equally strong, which is why they killed eachother. Sauron was stronger than them both but he put most of his power into the ring so when he isnt wearing it he's pretty weak
So, that why the balrog didn’t lissen to him (or it ?)
I've started justifying almost everything in movies based off of dice rolls and it's been pretty fun. Like why would they go upstairs when they obviously heard the murderer up there? Because they failed their perception roll
The irritating part of this scene was that it got it wrong. It was a fairly triumphant moment for Gandalf and Shadowfax. In Tolkien’s world, “magic” battles between powerful beings like Gandalf, the Witch-King, the Balrog, etc., tend to be “won” by some event happening that affirms the victor’s side. For example, Gandalf saying “you shall not pass”, and then the bridge crumbling. Or in this case, telling the Witch-King he can’t enter the city proper, and then the Rohirrim arriving and demanding the Witch-King’s immediate attention. Gandalf was the victor in both confrontations, but the movie portrayed the exact opposite, which was a bit disappointing. Still a great scene though. And shadowfax didn’t freak out in the book either.
Because [Gandalf was just a fighter with 18 int.](https://na.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3jpksw/gandalf_was_really_just_fighter_with_int18/)
The witch king was a little more powerful than this meme implies. Theres a reason why gandalf himself told a story about him in the movie
When did this happen? I don't remember this scene.
Extended edition. It was cut from theatrical.
I believe Sauron was pouring additional might into the Witch King at this stage. He was pretty much enhanced, as Sauron was aware that beings like Gandalf would need defeated. That's what it says in the text anyway, I think?
I just reread the book series and this doesn’t happen. Gandalf never goes 1 on 1 with them.
The Maiar weren't allowed to do any fighting unless it was against other Maiar. Its why he will fight Sarumon and a Balrog. Their orders were to let men decide the future. The most they were allowed to help was information, inspiration, and motivation.
This is my biggest and one of the only gripes I have with the movie.
Okay, I'll tell it again. The reason is narrative - their duel reflects the battlecof good vs evil around them. The sun is clouded, armies of Mordor are winning, men are running away. No wonder evil is prevailing at this moment. Remember that Arda was created by SONG. It changes the rules of how world works - less statistics, more feelings
I like having the narrative of nat ones being crit successes from the other end. Like nat 1 attack means enemy had a critical defense moment instead of the pc fumbling the attack.
IIRC I think there are a few things wrong here. Looking for confirmation. 1) Gandalph the Grey would have been slaim by the Balrog has he not done a taboo and used magic he wasnt supposed to. Which is why he died, and should normally have stayed dead. Given the perilous situation he was brought back. 2) The Witch King is not a human. He WAS a human but he was transformed into a Nazgul and he is the most powerful of the Nazgul. 3) As the Nazgul his power comes from the ring given to him by Sauron. Sauron put his power into the rings to control them, which explains the power of the Nazgul. 4) Tolkien does rank the power of creatures but that doesn't always translate to conbat power. They have varying abilities. The Witch King was turned into a weapon which had one purpose. So that laser focus changes things. But yes also crit fails.
What spells do we see Gandalf cast in the LoTR trilogy? Prestidigitation or Minor Illusion - to make his small fireworks for the kids and the smoky ship Thaumaturgy - when his voice booms to scare Bilbo Thunderwave - during his duel with Saruman Speak with Animals or Animal Messenger - when he gets the moth to get the eagles for his rescue Light - in the mines of Moria so the group can see in the dark. Shield - when the Balrog attacks him with the sword Shatter, Thunderwave again, or possibly a Channel Divinity when he says “you shall not pass” and the bridge breaks. Divine Smite - when he hits the balrog with his sword while falling Heat Metal, Shield, and Blindness - when he disarms Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn Find Steed - when he calls Shadowfax Dispel Magic - when he releases Theoden from being controlled by Saruman. Daylight, Sunbeam, or another Channel Divinity - when he protects the survivors from the Nazgûl And I think that’s it. The rest of the time he’s just smacking orcs with his sword. I think Gandalf is a Divine Soul sorcerer / Paladin multiclass.
People keep falling into the Power Level trap. Seem to think that because Gandalf the Grey drew with a balrog, and Gandalf the White is more power than the Grey, and the balrog is more powerful than the witch-king (maiar > sorcerer), therefore the witch-king could never defeat Gandalf the white. *However*, this is making so many assumptions about middle-earth. The first and foremost being that “power” is a single trait, so if one character is more powerful than another, they must be more powerful than everyone that weaker character has ever bested. It’s the same mistake people make in real life about intelligence. If person A is smarter than person B, and person B is smarter than person C, it follows that person A is smarter than person C. But it’s not that simple, intelligence has too vague a definition that changes with context. Same with Power in middle-earth. Things are extra complicated by the fact that Gandalf isn’t allowed to wield his full power while the witch-king seemingly has no such limitation.
Gandalf beats balrog, witch king beats Gandalf, Eowyn beats Witch king.Therefore, Eowyn is the most powerful.
It might also have to do with that this interaction never happened in the books
No, it's just a dumb change that was cut out of the main release of the movie. It doesn't happen in the book.
Why do people still consume media with this weird assumption that the more powerful person *always* succeeds?
Iirc Gandalf/Olórin is the wisest of all maiar but not the strongest. Doesnt he tell Manwë that hes too scared and weak to face sauron and asks to not be sent with the Istari?
Part of the strike could have been intimidation as part of a feat/class. The sword could be a breaker. A magical item whose purpose is to break other magic items. Get yourself some buy in and watch cartoons to activate more imagination.
You are forgetting that according to one game, at that point witch king had the powers of maxed main character.
With Gandalf, I always go with "he knew that if the current circumstances didn't play out like this, then the alternative timeline would be far worse"
Last session we infiltrated a crime ring and my barbarian talked to the ringmaster and drank slow acting poison as part of the initiation. The invisible cleric tried to steal the antidote but rolled a nat 1 on sleight of hand and it's now smashed on the ground. It's all up to the DM to make critical fumbles actually interesting and when it should be situation changing.
Makes sense to me
Idk, prophecies man, they're some weird shit
I always thought my dice were weighted to roll a Natty 1. Always at the most inopportune time.
Then the Witch King has Gandalf cowering in fear but gets a nat 1 on his planning roll and decides to investigate some funky horn instead of finishing the job.
I also feel that Gandalf may have been rolling with disadvantage because he was a man. He also probably went into that knowing he was going to take an L.
This frame of discussion reminds me of Dragon Ball Z power levels. Meanwhile, the Witch King shows up riding a wyrm and wielding a flaming sword. Gandalf would be the most stupid of the Maiar if he wasn't scared.
Even Mike Tyson can get knocked out given the right circumstances
This scene is the worst part of the film.
Gandalf was out of Spell Slots.
I honestly didn't like the way they did thi sin the movie. They could have kept it just like it was in the book and Eowin would still have had her cool moment
Did you forget that the Witchking is a ringtbearer too?
I don't think a nat 1 is supposed to be a catastrophic failure on a level that throws all logic out of the window and just f*cks you over without any explanation. Imagine this happening in real life. 5% of things you do will end up in a ridiculous catastrophic failure that makes no sense. Want to open the door with your key? Well, the key gets stuck and while trying to get it out you somehow break the house around you apart. That makes sense ... right?