Author Topic: Low-Power, High Fantasy?  (Read 13864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #60 on: September 16, 2010, 06:35:20 PM »
I've done E6 with no magic at all (slash, items, spells, all of it).

It worked pretty well, but I had to be careful what I threw at the party because of immunities.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

MalcolmSprye

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #61 on: September 16, 2010, 06:57:33 PM »
I have to agree with the people who pointed out that Tolkien's "NPC's" are stronger than the ones in D+D.  Orcs are not supposed to be pushovers. In an even fight between orcs and, say, the village militia, the orcs would wipe the floor with them. The Uruk'hai (the souped up orcs that Saruman bred) , were supposed to be seriously badass, compared to normal orcs.  Boromir fights dozens(I don't have a copy of the book with me at work, but it was alot), slays either a dozen or a Score(20).  He also either has some supernatural fear effect(he blows the horn of Gondor, and they draw back for a bit), or maybe decent ranks in Intimidate.

Then there's Bilbo, Frodo, and the rest of the hobbits.  I think we have to assume that "hobbit" is either a class or has racial HD, because they show remarkable mettle in the department of Saves.  Most obviously will, but also fortitude.  Bilbo carries the Ring for over 60 years.  Judging by Tolkien's writing, the Ring is a corrupting influence, on a sliding scale.  The longer you bear the ring, the more difficult your Save DC is to resist using it, and, ultimately, getting transformed into a wraith.  The ring starts off semi-dormant, so Bilbo and Frodo's checks are probably roughly equivalent.
 So lets look at Frodo:  He carries the Ring from the Shire, all the way to Mount Doom (with a short break where Sam carries it,when he gets stung by Shelob and captured by orcs).  Starting off, it doesn't seem so bad.  Later on, the strain is crushing.  So the DC is going up.  The DC is supposed to have started at a point that was difficult for any human,elf,or wizard in Middle Earth.  So We're probably talking mid-teens to start off, scaling to the low to mid twenties.  Finally: Frodo NEVER fails a save, until the very end, when they're actually at the TOP of the volcano(and he had to make a couple of checks on the way up too!).  Assuming he rolls 11 each time, that sets his Will save somewhere in the low teens(assuming a final DC of, say, 23, at the Crack of Doom).  Neither Frodo nor Bilbo is ridiculously quick witted.  Bilbo is decent, but still runs into trouble against Gollum in the riddle game.  Frodo shows himself to be ok, but not great at thinking on his feet.  So assume a wisdom of 12.  That means that Frodo has somewhere around a +10 to will saves from his hit dice(whether class or racial) and feats.  Ok, he took iron will. That leaves +7 from levels. So, Frodo is like level 10.  Of course, by the end of the

Of course, I made those DC's up, but given that Frodo performs an increasingly hard moral and physical challenge for a year(so moderately tough will and fort saves, increasing to horrendously tough), I don't think they're unreasonable.  He even has sacred vow(to carry and destroy the ring), which ends up in Vow of Nonviolence(and possibly Vow of Peace) by the end of the third book.

Looking at people like Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, I don't even want to go into all of it, but think about this: (again with saves) The three of them march from the falls of Rauaros to the edges of Fangorn forest.  They walk/run for 2 days, resting for a few hours total.  That's some serious forced marching, to the tune of 20+ hours a day. Their Con check DC's(not even fort saves) would be: 12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32, and 34!!!
Sure, they all have Endurance, but thats still ridiculous.  When they tell Eomer, the best warrior among the Rohirrim, where they just came from in two days, he is SERIOUSLY impressed.

I think my point is this: obviously D+D is not meant to model a fantasy world as written by classic authors.  Power levels are all out of whack.  But looking at these guys as level 4's or 5's really can't cover a lot of their feats of heroism.

Just my 2 cents.
Cheers

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2010, 07:16:12 PM »
Minor correction: it's not how long youare in possession of the One Ring, but how long you use it. Bilbo didn't use it that much over that time period (see first chapter of the fellowship, for proof). Nevertheless, he certainly failed his save and was at the least charmed by it, though I personally feel it's more akin to a low ego intelligent item.

Frodo certainly failed his saves more than once against it while in his posession, and Bilbo had to get wizarded at by Gandalf before he would part with it, against all rationality. That's not the result of successful saves.

Also, the 9 for the numenorians who became the Nazgul were not the same ring as the one carried by Smeagol, bilbo, and frodo. Completely different, actually.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

MalcolmSprye

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2010, 07:29:20 PM »
Minor correction: it's not how long youare in possession of the One Ring, but how long you use it. Bilbo didn't use it that much over that time period (see first chapter of the fellowship, for proof). Nevertheless, he certainly failed his save and was at the least charmed by it, though I personally feel it's more akin to a low ego intelligent item.

Frodo certainly failed his saves more than once against it while in his posession, and Bilbo had to get wizarded at by Gandalf before he would part with it, against all rationality. That's not the result of successful saves.

Also, the 9 for the numenorians who became the Nazgul were not the same ring as the one carried by Smeagol, bilbo, and frodo. Completely different, actually.

Actually, not completely different.  Merely different in degree of power.  The One was simply the master controller ring.

As for length or number of times used: Bilbo used the ring like candy in The Hobbit... and he still used it casually after that. I.e. dodging the Sackville Bagginses.  Frodo, on the other hand, only actually uses the ring a handful of times total: Once in Bree by "accident" (damn intelligent ring), once on Weathertop, once at the Falls of Rauros during his escape in a canoe, and once when he falls to the power of the ring at mount doom.  All along the trip though, the Ring weighs more and more heavily on him.  While use certainly gave you a circumstance penalty :D , the DC's were definitely rising over time(and proximity to the homeland).

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2010, 07:41:05 PM »
Except the 9 were designed to corrupt their wielders,and the One was just a channeled conduit for some of Sauron's power as an insurance policy. Like I said, completely different
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2010, 08:54:02 PM »


Actually, not completely different.  Merely different in degree of power.  The One was simply the master controller ring.




A lot of it also has to do with how much the wearer craves power.  The temptation of greater power is a major theme; power tends to corrupt in the LoTR universe, which is why Gandalf so seldom uses his.  Most of the main baddies in the LoTR universe started off benign and were corrupted by power--Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, et cetera.

It's why Gandalf won't even touch the Ring; it's why Galadriel has to struggle with the temptation.  It's also why Boromir succumbs and Faramir does not. 

I think we can be relatively kind to Frodo, though.  Bilbo had the Ring a lot longer, but when he had it, Sauron wasn't bending all of his will towards getting it back.

MalcolmSprye

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2010, 09:03:34 PM »


Actually, not completely different.  Merely different in degree of power.  The One was simply the master controller ring.




A lot of it also has to do with how much the wearer craves power.  The temptation of greater power is a major theme; power tends to corrupt in the LoTR universe, which is why Gandalf so seldom uses his.  Most of the main baddies in the LoTR universe started off benign and were corrupted by power--Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, et cetera.

It's why Gandalf won't even touch the Ring; it's why Galadriel has to struggle with the temptation.  It's also why Boromir succumbs and Faramir does not. 

I think we can be relatively kind to Frodo, though.  Bilbo had the Ring a lot longer, but when he had it, Sauron wasn't bending all of his will towards getting it back.
Absolutely.  That's why I put them on approximately even footing in my mini-discourse.  The point I was making was that (in D+D terms) each of them made a prolonged series of will saves.  It was a sort of deal where you were screwed either way: if you made your save, the DC of the next was higher. If you failed a save(i.e. gave in to temptation), and used the ring, you'd have penalties(i.e. circumstance penalties) on future checks.  Failing a single save may not kill you (but you will draw the dark one's eye).  Obviously, failing the check at mount doom is really bad.  Thank goodness for Gollum.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2010, 09:51:47 PM »


Actually, not completely different.  Merely different in degree of power.  The One was simply the master controller ring.




A lot of it also has to do with how much the wearer craves power.  The temptation of greater power is a major theme; power tends to corrupt in the LoTR universe, which is why Gandalf so seldom uses his.  Most of the main baddies in the LoTR universe started off benign and were corrupted by power--Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, et cetera.

It's why Gandalf won't even touch the Ring; it's why Galadriel has to struggle with the temptation.  It's also why Boromir succumbs and Faramir does not. 

I think we can be relatively kind to Frodo, though.  Bilbo had the Ring a lot longer, but when he had it, Sauron wasn't bending all of his will towards getting it back.
Absolutely.  That's why I put them on approximately even footing in my mini-discourse.  The point I was making was that (in D+D terms) each of them made a prolonged series of will saves.  It was a sort of deal where you were screwed either way: if you made your save, the DC of the next was higher. If you failed a save(i.e. gave in to temptation), and used the ring, you'd have penalties(i.e. circumstance penalties) on future checks.  Failing a single save may not kill you (but you will draw the dark one's eye).  Obviously, failing the check at mount doom is really bad.  Thank goodness for Gollum.
Yay Fist of the Forest Feral Trance bite attacks!
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2010, 09:54:09 PM »
You also have to take into account the fact that 3.5 level doesn't match up with ability.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Shadowhunter

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #69 on: September 17, 2010, 11:08:43 AM »
Reading this topic have convinced me even more that the next time I'm the DM, I'll run a EG8 game.
(Epic Gestalt 8).
[Spoiler]
Quote from: Runestar
the most effective optimization is the one you can actually get away with.  :smirk

Quote from: Vinom
(A group of nerds are called a murder because like crows we are anti-social, like shiny things, and often squack at each other over nothing for hours)

I often have to remind people not to underrate divination.  The ability to effectively metagame without actually metagaming beats the ability to set things on fire more times than not.
[/quote]
[/spoiler]

Binder? You're Welcome

Zceryll makes Binders go from tier 3 to tier 2.
Cagemarrow is a Genius

Before giving the advice that build X would be better of with Fist of the Forest, take a long, good look at Primal Living. Twice.

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #70 on: September 17, 2010, 05:26:04 PM »
5-year old and max Languages ... is kinda an unknown.
Children that age can learn the structure of any language spoken to them, on a consistent basis.
Vocabulary is a different story. Children learn 5 to 10 words a day, from the age of three to the age of eight.
In d&d terms, I'd say mommy language + wetnurse language + nanny language = easy.
That could be three, but probably isn't .  Perhaps a multi-racial town with CG ruler (shrug) ?

Literacy clouds the issue. D&D doesn't really have phonetic scripts.
Native Spanish speakers can't have a Spelling Bee with 7 years, cause everyone would fall asleep first.
But that doesn't mean they fit d&ds version of literate.
1 rank maybe, 5 year olds get a No from me.

Genius 5s have accomplished usually no more school progress, than average kids 2 or 3 years older.
Their Wisdom isn't that great yet either.
Child labor gives at most 1 rank in Profession (as distasteful as this is) , to say 7 or 8 year old.
10 year old in herding cultures, are given charge of the Goats. Child labor yes, normalized.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2010, 12:03:31 PM »
Look at it this way, a kid hadn't spent his skills or feats yet, so thats why he learns fast and varied!
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #72 on: September 18, 2010, 06:22:56 PM »
It is clear to me that LotR simply allows taking 10 on any roll of the dice, period, if you're not in combat or similarly stressful situations. Methinks this eliminates a lot of how ridiculous it is for consistent saves on avoiding the Ring's influence and such things; the DC probably didn't go up very quickly, either, maybe ranging from DC 13 (enough that the average 1st level character, even with a good Will save, would have to roll and would eventually start racking up failures, although a Halfling with a good Will save could make it), up to low 20somethings on the Volcano itself. Throw in some action points that Frodo started spending near the end there, and you're good for that with maybe a 2nd level character.

Uruk-Hai could be level 2 and easily fit their portrayal as superior combatants, especially with some racial bonuses to Str and Con. As for the Con checks; that just tells me the rules for forced marches are out of whack. It probably should be a Fort save, but even so if you allow them to fail 2 rolls (so they're exhausted, which isn't unreasonable if I recall), include Endurance and a high Con for each, then it's plausible for them to make it based on rolling highly. Also action points again; their flavor fits these sorts of things perfectly.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #73 on: September 18, 2010, 06:42:44 PM »


Actually, not completely different.  Merely different in degree of power.  The One was simply the master controller ring.




A lot of it also has to do with how much the wearer craves power.  The temptation of greater power is a major theme; power tends to corrupt in the LoTR universe, which is why Gandalf so seldom uses his.  Most of the main baddies in the LoTR universe started off benign and were corrupted by power--Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, et cetera.

It's why Gandalf won't even touch the Ring; it's why Galadriel has to struggle with the temptation.  It's also why Boromir succumbs and Faramir does not. 

I think we can be relatively kind to Frodo, though.  Bilbo had the Ring a lot longer, but when he had it, Sauron wasn't bending all of his will towards getting it back.

i think caelic nailed it.

i think the rings power is based on desire.
golum desired the ring.

bilbo desired fame or some thing akin to it.

frodo desired to save the world / do good / go home.

gandalf / boromir / aragorn  all had desires outside of those, a wizard is power, a prince will be king.

sam is abit of an exception, i think mostly for story telling than for reason. sams only desire was to help/save frodo, so the ring should not have tugged on him much. it may be that that sams issues were psychological instead of magical.

i think that any of the hobbits could have done the job, its just that frodo was not a very typical hobbit. neither were bilbo or golum.
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #74 on: September 19, 2010, 04:16:21 PM »
I pulled similar shenanigans with a Binder using Naberius at 1st level to seduce the mayor's daughter (tm), telling them that I was the Paladin in our group.  DM rolled for preggers, and yup, it happened.  Then, the Paladin decided to marry her b/c his Int wasn't good enough to figure out that he hadn't done it (also, I Bluffed him to believe it, as well).  And hilarity ensued.  Coo-coo!
:lol Dude... that's... that's... I can't even summarize how funny that is. How could he even think he might have done it? Was he an alcoholic paladin?  :lmao
:p:love:twitch:debate is the part you don't have to deal with; just the fun part.

Lunaramblings

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #75 on: September 19, 2010, 06:24:01 PM »
I think that the issue with using Lord of the Rings as a comparison for 3.5, is that the standards are all over the place. It seems that all of the comparisons that were linked thus far are skewed to the writer's opinion. So, lets compare by making a list of characters and their feats.

Aragorn: A crazy amount of tracking and survival, several mass combats, where he is credited with at least 6+ kills(moria), intimidating Sauron.

Legolas: HELMS DEEP. The contest with Gimli.

Gimli: See above.

Ok, so given the fact that the Urak-Hai are more than typical orcs, I would stat them as similar to Bugbears. Killing 6 in a fight, with out any real injury means that the CR should have been well below the level of the party. So, Aragorn killing 6 of them would be a CR 11 encounter I believe.

Gimli and Legolas demolish a large number as well. I seriously do not see how they would be 3-5th level.

At 3-5th level, the 20ish orcs in Moria + Cave Troll, should have definately killed someone. While you can claim DM fiat, that is dodging the issue. Not to mention the mass combats. Boromir takes out how many Uruk-Hai at the river?

Overall this is really a fruitless debate, 3.5 can be played as High Fantasy, but it requires the DM and the Players to be on board and make appropriate choices.

Also, how would you stat people like Beorn and Tom Bombadil? Clearly Tom was quite powerful by himself.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #76 on: September 19, 2010, 06:26:57 PM »
Beorn is a 3.0 druid with some sort of no-spells ACF.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2010, 06:41:21 PM »
Beorn is a 3.0 druid with some sort of no-spells ACF.

Bombadil is a 3.5 druid of moderate level (7 or 8?) with a restriction that his powers only work in his forest, and he never heard of an Acorn of Far Travel. And he got rid of Wild Shape for its UA ACF, or something.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2010, 07:55:00 PM »
Bombadil is an elan, and since the ring's powers only work on outsiders and humanoids, he can ignore it.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Low-Power, High Fantasy?
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2010, 07:55:53 PM »
Bombadil is an elan, and since the ring's powers only work on outsiders and humanoids, he can ignore it.
Hey-ho merry-do me hearties!
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]