I'm starting a D&D club at my school and I wanted to compose a power-point for teaching new people the basics and...

>Bilbo Baggins above Robin Hood
That doesn't sound right.

Also I can post PDFs of either as needed

Bilbo went on an adventure with trolls and wargs and goblins and freaking red dragon. Robin Hood robbed some aristocrats and warriors to help feed the poor, whose average living expenses were about ~2 gp a day per family.

Yeah, OP, play something fun instead of DnD.

Not Dungeon World, though. That shit's GAY

I'd like to take a look a dungeon world if that's ok. =)

Gandalf is like level 6 at best. He never actually casts anything that strong.

Also, this is a stupid idea, especially if you're playing 3.5

Here we go, buckle up. I'm just gonna swing through 3.5/Pathfinder core classes, because that's usually what most people talk about.

>Barbarian
Alignment: any non-Lawful

Barbarians are outsiders with no real connections to civilized society. They are often proud warriors, and live and die by the sword. The Rage mechanic is the defining feature of Barbarians and it sets them apart from other martial classes. Using this ability, Barbarians get a bonus to damage and health and a reduction in Armor for every round it's active. The duration of this ability and its benefits increase as the Barbarian levels up.

Roleplaying tips: Barbarians are typically depicted as proud warriors from a culture which values martial prowess. They are usually confrontational, superstitious, and easily angered. They often have difficulty understanding or integrating into "civilized" society, hence the alignment restriction.

>Bard
Alignment: any.

Veteran players typically describe the Bard as the "jack-of-all-trades". Their playstyle revolves around a marriage of the "skill monkey" role with that of a spellcaster, with a mix of martial ability thrown in. Bards usually take on the job of the "buffer" character, and focus on putting the party at an advantage (or enemies at a disadvantage) through a variety of magic spells. Out of combat, Bards have a bonus to a variety of Skills typically relating to face character roles like Bluff, Persuade, Perform, Diplomacy, etc. Players who enjoy a character built around helping the party and interacting with NPCs should consider a Bard.

Roleplaying tips: Bards are one of the most thematically diverse classes in the game and there is no set way to play one. Wandering musician, story-telling grifter, stuffy but adventurous scholar; these are all ways you can articulate the Bard's playstyle into a character.

Actually I was going to do 5e, but everyone and their gnarled sour grandma thinks this is a terrible idea with little constructive feedback I guess it's back to the drawing board for what I'm going to do to make this club work.

Shit, if I was running a one-off to introduce complete noobs I'd probably go with Lasers and Feelings or some other one page RPG.

It's enough to get the basic idea of how the games work, and I think that's more valuable than having them sit through a power-point infodump.

Continued:

>Cleric
Alignment: within one step of their Deity's Alignment.

The Cleric is the "holy man" character class. They are magic-users who get their powers from the gods they serve. As such, their Alignments are dictated by the Alignment of their god. A Good-aligned Cleric will not serve an Evil god without changing his Alignment.

They often serve the healer role as they are one of the few classes with access to spells which restore Hit Points. However, the list of spells they can learn is long and varied, ranging from offensive magic to buffs and even summons. They are often capable melee combatants as well, using their spells to significantly increase their damage and toughness during a fight.

Roleplaying tips: Clerics by nature of their class are religious people. This manifests in many different ways, but the important thing to remember is you believe in a god and that god is where you get your powers.

>Druid
Alignment: Any Neutral

Druids are a unique caster class focused on a deep, spiritual connection to the natural world. They are most at home in the wilds, and have the ability to summon a variety of creatures to fight for them. At later levels, they can also transform into animals themselves in order to buff their damage and survivability.

They have access to many of the same spells as the Cleric, including healing ones.

Roleplaying tips: Druids typically live as hermits or in communes. Like Barbarians, they often have difficulty integrating in civilized, industrial society and may even look on those places with disdain or contempt. Above all, Druids are defined by their love for the natural world and the beauty of the wilds.

Tried to upload it to anonfiles, but it failed, hope this link works:
anonfiles com /file/cb4d69431f41741edfec9d3d2547509d

While it's not amazing I feel like it's pretty decent if you're running for "normal" people who aren't very crunch-minded, but you still want to run something resembling DnD

This user speaks the truth. Use Lasers and Feelings for your first meeting, maybe the first couple till people get a hang of it, cause it's dead simple. Pic Related

Continued:

>Fighter
Alignment: any

Fighters are the warrior class of D&D. They are built around playing a wide variety of combat roles. To do this, they have access to the most amount of Combat Feats in the game, and a skilled and experienced player uses this to tailor the class to their gameplay experience.

Roleplaying Tips: Fighters rival Rogues and Bards as the most thematically diverse class. You can play them in any way you want, provided the GM allows it. Honorable knights, cunning archers, unscrupulous mercenaries; these are all in line with the class's identity.

>Monk
Alignment: any Lawful.

Monks a spiritual martial class which typically use martial arts as their primary means of combat. They almost always adhere to a spiritual religion or code of conduct, and hone their bodies into living weapons. Players who enjoy a more exotic twist on martial tropes or who like the idea of playing a spiritual warrior may feel drawn to the Monk class.

Roleplaying Tips: remember Monks are martial artists, so think of character personalities who match with this. They can be disciplined masters of their arts or even just skill boxers or pugilists. They are also often deeply spiritual, feeling a connection to the natural energies of the world.

"Minor angel" is level 6 to you, eh?

Divinity in Tolkien can't lift a candle to basic wizards in DnD. Amazing. Tolkienfags are a mess.

Yeah, but who would have kicked who's ass?

Hood > Baggins, any day, any time.

Gandalf was also not a D&D wizard.

Also, in a similar vein to dungeon world, Fellowship seems pretty cool, though I haven't ran it myself.

Essentially it works by having the party essentially be the Fellowship from LOTR with each player being The Elf or The Dwarf or The Halfling or whatever. The cool part is that it's up to the players to define their race, as they are playing their representatives. So the guy playing The Elf gets to decide what Elves are like, and is the go-to guy whenever questions about Elves come up, which takes a lot of creative weight off of the GM. The GM also has a character, The Overlord, who is the Big Bad Evil Guy the Fellowship is fighting.

Its also a bit more structured than Dungeon World and has more room for intraparty conflict, but in a fun way.

Though it must be said that the art in the book is pretty much 60-70% tumblr tier, whether or not that's a problem for you, and while it takes part of the responsibility for worldbuilding off the GM's back, it does require you to think on your feet.

Here's a link:
dropbox.com/s/tieqpurzsq0t56v/Fellowship.zip?dl=0

>So the guy playing The Elf gets to decide what Elves are like, and is the go-to guy whenever questions about Elves come up, which takes a lot of creative weight off of the GM.

That sounds terrible. Players cannot be trusted with that shit. I'd trust maybe 1 in 20 players to not derp things up or metagame like crazy using that type of mechanic.

Continued:

>Paladin
Alignment: Lawful Good

Paladins are the hero class; the Knight in Shining Armor. They are holy warriors dedicated to fighting Evil, protecting the innocent, and upholding a just Rule of Law. They have two defining class features: Detect Evil and Smite Evil. The former is an ability which allows them to sense Evil's presence in an area. The latter gives a bonus to attack and damage rolls against an Evil opponent for one attack. As the Paladin levels up, this bonus increases and the Paladin can do it more often.

Paladins are sworn to a rigid moral code of conduct and faith. Paladins who deviate from this code and fail to uphold Law and Good can fall. They lose their abilities as a Paladin and if what they do is especially heinous, they can potentially become a Blackguard or Anti-Paladin.

Roleplaying Tips: Paladins are professional good guys, and always strive to do the right thing. Keep that in mind while playing. A Paladin has two primary "jobs": protect people in need, and punish Evildoers for their deeds.

>Ranger
Alignment: Any

Rangers are trailblazers and hunters. Like druids, they often feel more at home in the wilds. They typically focus on dual-wielding melee weapons or wielding a bow. They have several distinguishing class features. Their most obvious is their Favored Enemy ability. The Ranger chooses a type of enemy he particularly enjoys hunting and gets a bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and several skills against that type of enemy. As the Ranger levels up, he can increase his bonuses against his Favored Enemy as well as choose new Favored Enemies. The Ranger also gets a bonus to tracking and can roll to change a wild animal's attitude towards him.

Roleplaying tips: Rangers are often loners and explorers, who team up with other adventurers in order to achieve some kind of goal. They can have a wide range of motivations for helping the party or spurring into action.

Gandalf also smashed a Balrog in h2h combat.

Regardless of tg's salty consensus, 5e is pretty streamlined for new players, tbqh pham

Gandalf Solos a Balrog, which in DnD would be a Balor Demon. Balors are usually an even match for a party of 4 lvl 18-20s. Gandalf > lvl 20 he is just also a stoner who forgets to prep his spells for the day and misses a lot of sessions

Hood doesnt have a ring that makes him invisible

Well again, I am making recommendations for games to run for non-crunchy people, who in my experience tend to just go with whats fun, rather than whats the most mechanically beneficial.

That said, the savvy GM can work with a Metagamer. Like if Legolas went around saying that the Elves were the best speshul snowflakes would that not say more about the Elves' self-perception than anything?

Looks like someone hasnt read the Simarillion...

Nah don't have time, too busy rolling up literally anyone but Gandalf the gay.

Not op, but loving these btw. Don't stop.

Neither does Bilbo a lot of the time. But if we start adding magic items into the mix too then things get silly. Rose Tyler with the Hand of Omega becomes an epic-level wizard, etc.

Do 5e DnD. Easiest for new players to wrap their head around. You dont need a powerpoint to introduce them. Just have a session where you briefly explain what the game is like, you guys character build character and decide on the kind of game you would all like to play (or just throw them right into baby's first module)

That is what I did, worked perfectly. just make sure to sprinkle in a bit of everything (rp, combat, looting, haggleing, maybe a trapped door or chest)

>I know nothing about Tolkienverse yet I think I am an authority in it

Ignore the bitching 3aboos.
5e is pretty good.

Continued:

>Rogue
Alignment: any

Rogues are a class built around face rolls, deception, and subtlety. They have the most amount of starting skill points and class skills in the game, and as such typically fill the "skill monkey" role. They can use these skills to fill a variety of niches ranging from party face to burglary expert.

Combatwise, Rogues have the Sneak Attack ability. This adds extra dice to the Rogue's damage rolls against an unaware target, and as the Rogue levels up they get more extra dice to the roll.

Roleplaying Tips: Rogues are an exceptionally diverse class and like Fighters are not really limited to any one roleplaying capacity. Spies, Thieves, Assassins, Investigators, Archaeologists; Rogues can fit almost any character archetype with a little creativity from the player.

>Sorcerer
Alignment: any

Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who get their abilities from latent magical talent. They are functionally similar to Wizards, but focus on casting a smaller list of spells more often than a Wizard can. They are often seen as a "stepping stone" class for players interested in playing a magic user but not yet comfortable with the complexities of the Wizard class.

Sorcerers do not have to prepare spells in advance, but they have less variety in the spells they can cast than most other caster classes.

Roleplaying Tips: Sorcerers typically get their powers from their bloodline, a stroke of luck, or divine/diabolical intervention. They are often undisciplined in their magic, and many become drunk with power or afraid of their abilities. Others often mistrust them, sometimes for good reason.

Bilbo is really more of a bard than a rogue. guy talked his way out of most of his problems rather than hidey-shanky. Even played word games with a dragon, def a bard

Concluded:

>Wizard
Alignment: any

Wizards are powerful magic-users who unlocked a plethora of spells and abilities through intense study. Arguably one of the most powerful classes in the game, Wizards are also one of the most complex. They start the game very weak and work their way up to a massive amount of available and often incredibly strong spells.

New players should be careful about choosing to play a Wizard or any other kind of spellcaster. D&D's Vancian magic system means caster players need to constantly keep track of their spells. Inexperienced players can find this overwhelming and may bog down the game if they can't keep up.

Roleplaying Tips: Wizards are talented and intelligent magic users. However, how responsible they are with that power is up to the player. A common joke is they have no sense of right or wrong, as their intellect and abilities effectively alienate them from most normal human concerns. This is of course one way to play the class, but a wizened mentor figure or a helpful comrade who just wants to do the right thing is just as valid a playstyle.

So don't bother with the other 19. Tell them to fuck off, like all GMs should, until they get better.

>and JESUS
youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5LY4Mz15o&feature=youtu.be&t=3m11s

>implying Bards have a monopoly on speechcraft and wordplay

Rogues can roll Bluff and Persuasion just as well as Bards can. Also Bilbo doesn't ever use any kind of magic like Bards typically do.

The Ring doesn't count because it's a magic item.

>Also Bilbo doesn't ever use any kind of magic like Bards typically do

Bards typically spin magic into their words and songs and their magic usually has social use. if his bluff was high enough he could convince everyone, including the reader that he never used magic.

I think he is closer to a bard than a rogue for sure. He is kinda fat and stout, not exactly agile and definately not a good fighter. Frodo would be a better rogue than bilbo as frodo actually shanks guys. Just my opinion, if I had to place bilbo into any DnD class. He accomplished more with words than he ever did with anything else

>He is kinda fat and stout, not exactly agile and definately not a good fighter.
>Frodo would be a better rogue than bilbo as frodo actually shanks guys

"Shanking" enemies has dick all to do with being a Rogue. Same goes for tumbling and flipping around.

You understand Agent Mulder and Indiana Jones would be Rogues if they were rewritten as fantasy characters, right? Michael Weston? Ray Reddington? There's more ways to play the class than some leather-clad ponce who jumps out of the shadows with two daggers in his hands.

Should probably elaborate. Sneak Attack does have to do with Rogueishness, but being "fat and stout" doesn't automatically make that implausible. It's just a fighting style with revolves around hitting someone who isn't paying attention to you.

You don't need to be Ezio to get a Sneak Attack on someone.

>There's more ways to play the class
Also what I am saying. It is just that sneak attack is an integral part of the rogue class, getting the drop on someone and/or exploiting their weaknesses. In combat rogues tend to be on the front line moving in to flank. I dont remember bilbo doing anything remotely resembling that, but I do remember him talking his way out of some bad situations, then going home and writing an epic. So in my mind, that says Bard a hell of a lot more than Rogue.

It's just a fighting style with revolves around hitting someone who isn't paying attention to you.

>You don't need to be Ezio to get a Sneak Attack on someone.

I dont remember bilbo physically engaging anyone in combat at all. Just running about, annoying the enemy, inspireing his friends and helping where he can.

As far as the argument for him sneaking to make him a rogue, he is only good at sneaking due to being a hobbot. Halflings all have bonus' to sneaking specifically cuz of that description from the books. So if anything, his sneakyness is from a combo of racial bonus' and a magic item (which is not counted amoung his powers)

If I had to rank Bilbo, he would be a lvl 1-3 bard noob who constantly forgets to use his spells with an overly large party of dwarf fighters and a poorly executed DMPC

This.

I've played 5e all of once and I enjoyed it much more than I ever did 3.PF

Which edition are you using? Because it sort of sounds like you're using the absolute worst one for beginners or experts or anyone in between. Like, 4e and 5e already have levels broken into tiers for easy division and earlier editions are less unified about "level" between classes, which is what makes me think you're making this much harder on yourself than you need to.

Also the pop-culture comparison thing is a bad idea. I'm not the first person to say that but it bears repeating.

Well for starters, what edition are you playing? Second off, don't assign fictional characters to classes as you seem to have no idea how to do so, instead just take straight from the Player's Handbook. The Player's Handbook does this shit for you. They give pretty good descriptions at the beginning of each class section that describe the class fantasy pretty well.

Also I would encourage looking at the "Adventurer's League" stuff Wizards puts out. You don't have to use it, but the way they describe things in the basic 20 or so page Player's Guide is a good introduction for people who have never played D&D before.

Oh. Well then why are you doing 1-5, 6-10, etc. instead of the tier divisions already presented in the core rulebook, which also tell you about the power level players can expect at that tier for martial and spellcasting characters? Your job's done for you.

Plus there are backgrounds and the corresponding personality tables for anyone who needs a nudge toward roleplaying.

Rincewind is more like a Rogue masquerading as a Wizard. He's proficient with a number of languages, has a sixth sense when it comes to danger and is probably one of the fastest men in Discworld on foot. The only magic he's ever done himself involved unlocking a door and he seems to have Weapon Proficiency: Sap/Blackjack.

Wizzard*

Also what the fuck on some of these levels?

Thor would be very much above Moses or Jesus for cleric level. We don't even have indication that Jesus HAS armor proficiency. Also, Gandalf is a straight up force of nature (the exact type of which I forget the name for) but he's definitely not level 15.

Also, let's not forget that he treats a sock with a half-brick in it as if it wasn't an improvised weapon

He's got proficiency with the Armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18).

Thor is an actual god so calling him a cleric is ridiculous.

Also I don't know how anyone can abstract Jesus Christ as a PC and keep a straight face.

No it really isn't.

But neither is handing people premades for a better edition because you have no experienced players to help them get started.

5th Edition is passable at best. Basically, they took everything that was easy/worked out of 3rd edition and combined it with the bits of 4th edition that weren't utterly terrible to make a game that was accessible without being 4th edition.

It really isn't a GOOD game unless one or more of the following are true:

1. Your players are new
2. You are new
3. You and/or your players are lazy

This guy has the right idea. 5th edition is a good intro to DnD but it really is babby edition. If your players can't pay attention long enough to learn a better edition after a game or two of 5th e they probably have a lot more problems as players and you might be better off without them.

I was kinda joking with that bit. Moses would be the only one who you could reliably call a PC out of the 4 that have been mentioned. Unless we're playing Exalted or something.

I always thought Jesus was like the archetypal Favored Soul.

Please do not play D&D.

If you're dead set on D&D, try a retroclone of the TSR Basic/Expert sets. 3rd edition and beyond just teach that role-playing games are all about character building for combat and story/roleplay are largely secondary.
Moldvay Basic, Basic Fantasy RPG, Labyrinth Lord, or even Swords & Wizardry would be a better introduction to PnP than 3.PF or even 5e.

Nigga, I can taste the salt through my computer screen as we speak.

3rd edition is garbage and the only ones who still play it are idiots who are too stubborn to branch out of their comfort zone.

Jesus as He shows up in the Bible is literally God on Earth.

Not him but I play 3e along with Savage Worlds and FATE. Still like 3e.

Cry harder.

I'm not salty. You're the one who started resorting to personal attacks.

I'd like to cite Veeky Forums's frequent assertion that "DnD is bad". I'll agree that any edition has a lot of problems but seriously. If you're holding up 5th edition as some sort of marvel of roleplaying you're the idiot.

Listen to this guy. Go pick up a copy of FATE if you want something easy to get into and quick to play. It's even BETTER for that job than 5th edition.

somewhere between 2nd edition and Pathfinder lies all the best parts of DnD. 5th edition is a nice intro if you're planning on proceeding to one of those other editions but let's be honest, that's all it's really good for.

"Old fat spider spinning in a tree!
Old fat spider can’t see me!
Attercop! Attercop!
Won't you stop,
Stop your spinning and look for me!"

Let's just say that magic works differently in the Hobbit.

Dickriding that hard
Gandalfs like some gmpc, and to say that balrog was solod without environmental hazard is a stretch
Wish is way the fuck out of his league, and only takes one wizard

Wizard 1-5: galdalf the black
Wizard 6-10: galdalf the grey
Wizard 11-15 galdalf the white
Wizard 16-20 gandalf the racist

As someone who has DMed and played for 20+ years, and ran and played in more campaigns of 2e than every other edition put together, its really hard for me to envision just what in the ever loving fuck the appeal of 2e might be over 5e.

Do you just mean the splats? Because 2e does have the most amazing splats of any edition and 5e has nearly none.

If we're just talking the basic package though, 5e >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2e all the way.

The balrog is obviously a balor. I don't think even the most autistic retard could dispute this. We all know what balrogs, halflings, and treants are supposed to be. Lets not pretend to be retarded.

However, assuming 3e, 1 level 20 person could take on a balor, no questions asked. In closed quarters even a melee dude would have no troubles unless he was extremely weak even by the standards of tier 5 (see: Roy Greenhilt).

Gandalf is in all likelihood something along the lines of a planetar (iirc AD&D planetars, or definitely solars at least, could use wizard and druid spells). He was on about the same power level as Sauron or the balrog.

We have no data on what is out of Gandalf's league except that he could 1v1 a balor, but die in the process. So he was probably in the level 17-20 range.

>Gandalf Solos a Balrog, which in DnD would be a Balor Demon.

No it wouldn't. D&D has ridiculously inflated power levels for both PCs and monsters; you can't justify one by pointing to the other.

Oh wow, there IS someone retarded enough to be one of the 1% of dumbest people, too stupid or delusional to not know the history of balors. Embarrassing...

I know perfectly well that the LOOK AND FEEL of the balor is cloned from the balrog. What I'm disputing is that the POWER LEVEL of the balor has anything to do with the balrog.

If I write a 600HD tree monster and call it the Eent, this doesn't make Fangorn CR150.

No, but if ents were at the top of the power scale in the setting, second only to unique, named maiar, and were consistently at the top of the power scale in every edition of D&D, then you'd have an argument for them to be at the top of the power scale.

Balrogs are, likewise, in the same league as Gandalf and Sauron, and same class of being. In D&D, they've consistently ranked at among the most powerful of creatures (keeping in mind that the most powerful variety of dragon is taken out in the 1e MM1 by a level 5 part), or at least only a little weaker than demon lords.

And since we know for a fact that most challenges in LotR were just there for the benefit of Gandalf's mortal companions when they were around, I don't see any basis, except faith alone, to think Gandalf was weaker.

Unfortunately, you have nothing.

Not the requester but I appreciate you and all you've done, friend

Sure, balrogs are at the top of the Tolkien power scale. Which caps out rather lower than the D&D power scale (except for Eru, obvs). Consider what happens if you try to run the Bridge of Khazad-Dum encounter with a Balor.

As it approaches, balor begins using its range-1200-feet Telekinesis to start knocking people off bridge. (Quickened, even, so it can do that twice a round and still move closer.) Okay, scratch that ability for derailing. Maybe it just uses its 300-feet-range Firestorm to engulf most of the Fellowship at once?
Gandalf tries to hold off balor while the others run away. Balor greater teleports past him.
Failing that, when Gandalf breaks the bridge, balor laughs because it has fly speed 90ft (maneuverability good, "like a housefly or a hummingbird").

And so on. You have to scratch pretty much everything about the balor that isn't HD or flame aura to make the encounter run anything like the book, and then you really should scratch some HD and make it a lower CR monster in D&D terms.

My position is that Aragorn and Legolas are somewhere around 4-5th level, Gandalf and Balrogs 6-8ish (more like a vrock than a balor), with Sauron topping out at 12 on a good day. Compare: Forge Ring feat requires level 12, where he possibly spent so much experience on the One that he deleveled back to 11 for the rest of the campaign, and Lichdom, which requires caster level 11.

So when OP says:
>Level 11-15: Gandalf?
I'd say that range is more like Sauron to Morgoth.

(Which incidentally covers the much-reiterated complaint of why Gandalf doesn't just teleport the Fellowship and skip all this walking: he's too low level to know teleport at all.)

Did OP ever say what edition this was?

When Veeky Forums says "D&D is bad" it always means "3.PF is bad."

OD&D was clunky but performed its purpose admirably without having any major issues with its rules getting in the way of roleplaying, especially since combat was something that was to be avoided rather than something you did to earn XP.

4e, for all the flak it gets for being a "tabletop MMO" had a lot of interesting concepts that would later be added to 5e. I'd say that of the editions, 4e was the best in terms of tactical combat was concerned and everyone in the party was a part of a team, rather than an individual who just so happened to work with other individuals.

5e took most of the good things about the previous editions and presented them in a way that was familiar while introducing new concepts that didn't change the established formula to a drastic extent like 4e did. Advantage/disadvantage helped to trim the fat of balancing bonuses vs. penalties, classes got paths of progressions that helped to make them more unique, and the backgrounds system, while bare, does help in constructing a general backstory for when you're making a new character quickly.

That and in every version of D&D, sans 3.PF, there isn't necessarily a wrong way to build your character since trap options and ivory tower design were decidedly a cancer that began and ended in 3.PF.

No edition of DnD is good for new players, but 5e is the best.

Seriously though OP, just play Lasers&Feelings or Lady Blackbird or Dungeon World.
We need to collectively stop pushing DnD as an introductory game.

Also, OP's image is shit. Fighter can't 'tank' in any DnD edition except maybe 4e, depending on your definition (they can stop foes moving away from them).

Playing a champion fighter, a beastmaster ranger, a berserker barbarian, or a four elements monk in 5e are all trap options that are worse than the other available ones.

sameguy here -
meant to imply that 5e was the best for NEW PLAYERS, not the best DnD overall.
That would be either 4e DnD if you like crunch and tactics, or some clone of the Rules Cyclopedia if you don't.

Thanks to the wonders of bounded accuracy, even shitty options like those aren't going to gimp you to a tremendous degree.

Though I will admit, there are much better options.

>Which caps out rather lower than the D&D power scale (except for Eru, obvs).

I don't see any basis for that whatsoever. Is this going to turn into a nagging argument about how Valar totes aren't analogs to deities to make the dragons almost beating them seem less impressive, followed by nagging about how Ancalagon was totes weak even though his mass was large enough to collapse a mountai peak, etc?

>Okay, scratch that ability for derailing

What a smart balor, relying on a DC 23 ability against what is either a wizard or outsider when it has six melee-ish attacks with reach, power attack, etc.

>Maybe it just uses its 300-feet-range Firestorm to engulf most of the Fellowship at once?

The balrog seemed primarily interested in its rival.

>Balor greater teleports past him.

Presupposing that Gandalf wasn't its target, and the 'lowly' 7d8+7 1e balor had this ability too. You're wandering away from power level discussion and more into the tangent of "well wizards and demons alike had way more superfluous magic."

>balor laughs because it has fly speed 90ft

Unfortunately, wings don't protect you from falling. Kudos on making me check both the SRD and Rules Compendium.

>you have to scratch pretty much everything about the balor that isn't HD or flame aura to make the encounter run anything like the book,

Nah. When you are a large, BAB +20, str 35, vorpal sword wielding monster against a being that resembles an old man, melee combat is a perfectly rational course of action.

>My position is that Aragorn and Legolas are somewhere around 4-5th level, Gandalf and Balrogs 6-8ish (more like a vrock than a balor), with Sauron topping out at 12 on a good day.

Circular logic is great, isn't it?

>I'd say that range is more like Sauron to Morgoth.

Are you serious? Ancalagon alone is far in excess of any D&D dragon.

>teleport

Read up on the purpose of the Istari, newfriend.

You get fuckin great XP in OD&D for kills. The lowly orc is 100 xp a pop.

>a berserker barbarian,

Okay, fucking HOW is that a "gimp option?" Most classes that get half damage from physical attacks, only get it vs nonmagical ones, and at high levels, they get it at level 3.

Compared to the XP you'd receive for taking shitloads of treasure, 100 xp was peanuts.

Especially since combat was a lot more unforgiving.

Your mindset needs to be that you are selling these newcomers on the game; any education they may receive is incidental to that.

>Especially since combat was a lot more unforgiving.

Eh, we don't have a good comparison point other than that orcs are worth 15-25ish xp, by comparison, in 1e, but the challenge is about the same.

Either way, you generally don't have a means of avoiding fights, and most treasure is in the possession of creatures in any case, and the TSR modules rarely let you avoid fighting.

Maybe what you guys who spread this idea are thinking of is stuff like how in the Caves of Chaos, there are big common areas full of foes with virtually no treasure, but I certainly can't think of cases in TSR modules where you can just plain avoid fighting.

Unless we're talking about the Tomb of Horrors.

Are we still having this argument 30 years later?

>Tolkien balrogs aren't like their D&D analogs, they're just anemic fire elementals
>Tolkien dragons break mountains and threaten gods

You know, sometimes Occam's Razor is better.

Gandalf is like 20+ HD outsider, he's just under explicit orders to not act like it except under exceptional circumstances, such as when facing a balrog.

Maiar aren't minor angels, they're more like demigods.

Reminder trying to assign Gandalf any kind of class level is pointless because Lord of the Rings has virtually nothing in common with D&D aside from the fact you'll find it in the same aisle as the Forgotten Realms books.