Concerning Magic Weapons re The Hobbit only

[machfront]

Okay. So.
Please correct me if I’m wrong…and I’m posting this obviously because I know a number of you know far better than I….

As far as I know, in the text of The Hobbit, all alone, it seems there may just and only be magic weapons made long ago. I don’t recall any inference of possible ‘new’ or contemporary such.
(As opposed to the reforging of Narsil into Aduril in LotR, I mean)

Also, Mithril….so…just and only Dwarfs can and did construct the best armor of all ME, and even then, it’s still wondrous and rare…or is it, actually?… (in LotR it makes a bit more sense….bigger world and time scale….but in a ‘The Hobbit only’ milieu it’s more interesting).

So it seems a world of ‘ancient’ magical weapons and wonders though still a world of ‘magical’….”things”, but not super powerful stuff such as a ‘new’ Black Arrow or Glamdring.

Am I off-base here or missing something?

[premmy]

I think you're overlooking the matter of narrative scope. Strictly speaking about The Hobbit and nothing else, it's true that all magical weapons are very old, but it's also true that the story takes place in a location and a timeframe where and when the characters don't really have a chance to encounter newly made magic weapons. For all we know, the dwarves might still be capable of churning out magic swords and axes in the forges of Erebor (and we know for a fact that dwarves have some sort of magic power, since they lay runes and charms on the troll treasure to make sure it won't be found by anyone else)... only Erebor is inhabited by a dragon, and Bilbo and the narrative focus both leave the place as soon as dwarves start returning. Similarly, King Thranduil's elves very well might make magical bows... only Bilbo and the dwarves never really get on speaking terms with them. And other potential places of magic weapon manufacturing just lie far outside the areas visited in the story.

Another point I'd like to make is that Tolkien's magic, as well just magic in stories and myth in general, is quite unlike D&D magic. D&D magic is, well... not very magical. It's too clean-cut, too orderly, too predictable. The D&D magic blacksmith sets about making a longsword +1, +3 against undead. He reads up on the proper ingredients and rituals needed for a longsword +1, +3 against undead in the Big Book of Magical Weapon Recipes, under the heading "longsword +1, +3 against undead." He follows the instructions, and he predictably ends up with a longsword +1, +3 against undead, which will work exactly like all the other longswords +1, +3 against undead. This is about a magical as producing an M1 Garand on the assembly line. Magic in legend, mythology and Tolkien (deliberately ignoring the elaboration given in other Tolkien works) is much fuzzier, more inexplicable, mysterious, and, well, magical. I imagine that there is recipe for an "arrow of returning" in Middle Earth. Instead, a great fletcher at some point must have set about creating his best arrow ever. He used whatever wood and iron he had not because it was prescribed by some document, but because it was the best he had at hand. He didn't perform preset rituals, he just poured his heart and soul into his creation. And, I imagine, even when it was done, the arrow did not have the power to always be recovered. Instead, it was just given to a great hunter, possibly under special circumstances, and the hunter than just always happened to recover it. Not because some dry and replicable magical formula made it so, but because of fate. D&D can't reflect that.

[Narmer]

It was my posts that prompted the original question. I'm in the process of trying to create a setting inspired by The Hobbit, particularly the 1937 version of it.  I am not using any of Tolkien's other writings as a source.  It is talking about a certain time frame and a certain place.  Actually a fairly large place.  Bilbo traveled almost 1000 miles east/west and the map of the Wilderland looks to be about 600 miles north/south.  That's 600,000 square miles, which is an area somewhat larger than France, Germany and Spain combined.  Although the outside world would impinge on an area this large it wouldn't necessarily make large inroads.  And that suits my purposes well.

What can we tell about magic weapons and armor?  Using only The Hobbit, we don't know if dwarves actually made magic weapons or armor.  The were the best smiths.  Renowned smiths.  They made their living as smiths and by their metal craft and by mining.  They did speak spells over the trolls' trove and made magical toys but there is no mention of magical armor.  Very fine armor, finest in the land, but not magical.  But that was something like 170 years before the events of the book.  The dwarves seem to indicate it is not happening currently.  As a side note,  in the 1937 edition there is no mention of mithril, it was added later in the revised version.  Bilbo was given a coat of mail made of silvered steel.

Elves made the three blades in the trolls' hoard.  Elrond could identify the two swords and knew their history.  But I don't think the elves were churning out magic swords in the present.  Tolkien liked to mention magic items in The Hobbit.  Magic swords, the magic ring, the magic purse and the magic river for example.  If any of the elves, the king (who was unnamed) in particular, had one it probably would've been mentioned at some point in the battle.  If many of the elves had magic swords it most likely would've been mentioned also.  Goblins didn't like magic swords.

Just focusing on the evidence in The Hobbit and not the masses of other lore can really change things.

If I were to use a D&D like game, one of my top choices would be Swords & Wizardry: FMAG.  It doesn't have rules or guidelines for creating magic items so I would be free to make my own rules.

[Finarvyn]

I think geoffrey has a thread on this somewhere. Or maybe Falconer. I'm sure there was discussion about a 1937-only campaign but I don't have time to look for it at the moment.

[geoffrey]

While not beyond doubt, there does seem to me to be a theme of decline in The Hobbit:

Thorin in chapter I said about his days in the Lonely Mountain before the coming of Smaug: "Altogether those were good days for us, and the poorest of us had money to spend and to lend, and leisure to make beautiful things just for the fun of it, not to speak of the most marvellous and magical toys, the like of which is not to be found in the world now-a-days."

The narrator of the 1937 version of chapter V said, "...Gollum had a ring--a wonderful, beautiful ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages and ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon."

The later revision of that passage recast it as follows: "But who knows how Gollum came by that present, ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world?"

I seem to remember at least one other passage in The Hobbit noting a decline from earlier days, but I am drawing a blank.

[Falconer]

I had a whole forum about it over at K&K, called “The Hobbit Project.” It evolved into a general Tolkien/Middle-earth forum as my headspace moved on, but you can see the older posts have that perspective.

So as I said, my headspace moved on, but one thing I will point out is that Gondolin was not necessarily that long ago within the story of The Hobbit. The goblins still remember it, and Elrond is apparently a Man (albeit Half-elven) and so the story is only a generation or two removed from Gondolin. Also the Elvenking is stated to BE THINGOL, read it carefully (esp. the First Edition).

[Narmer]

Thanks for the tips and pointers!


There is a sense of decline in the books. And emptiness and abandonment. Even in the 1937 edition, before it was spelled out explicitly in the later edition.


1937

Inns were rare and not good, the roads were worse, and there were hills in the distance rising higher and higher. There were castles on some of the hills, and many looked as if they had not been built for any good purpose. Also the weather which had often been as good as May can be, even in tales and legends, took a nasty turn.

Revised edition

Now they had gone on far into the Lone-lands, where there were no people left, no inns, and the roads grew steadily worse. Not far ahead were dreary hills, rising higher and higher, dark with trees. On some of them were old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people. Everything seemed gloomy, for the weather that day had taken a nasty turn. Mostly it had been as good as May can be, even in merry tales, but now it was cold and wet. In the Lone-lands they had been obliged to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry.

And I always assumed the castles were abandoned.

Also, Woodmen were "making their way back into" the valley of the Great River of the Wilderland.  So it was abandoned by men at some point.

I also assumed Gondolin was far in the past.

No matter how many times I read The Hobbit there are always details I miss.  One of the reasons I love it so much.

[Finarvyn]

I would certainly love to see an OD&D sourcebook for the Hobbit, written by the scholars here. I think that a 1937-only Hobbit campaign would be awesome!

[Narmer]

Apr 20, 2023 13:51:23 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I would certainly love to see an OD&D sourcebook for the Hobbit, written by the scholars here. I think that a 1937-only Hobbit campaign would be awesome!

That would be outstanding!

[Narmer]

I've been thinking about Gondolin.  Elrond states that it was destoyed "...many ages ago."  I know "ages" can have different definitions but that quote combined with "...old swords, very old swords..." makes me think in terms of many centuries or a millennium. 

I can't find where the elf-king is named.  Do you happen to remember where?  Other sources seem to think he is unnamed also.  Thanks.

[machfront]

Narmer is right. I began this thread due to my interest in his posts on MeWe and pointing to his blog wherein he is interested in a wholly The Hobbit inspired/encapsulated campaign.

I am educated in this thread already. I had no idea the 1937 original edition did not mention Mithril but rather that Bilbo’s armor was mail of “silvered steel”.
Was there any other mention of it being exceptional or such that might lead one to imagine it’s ‘above and beyond’ as we are lead to believe/know with regards to Mithril?

Also, Marv kinda made mention (in a way) of the ol’ beloved thread by Geoffrey brainstorming a Hobbit-only campaign by the constraints of just and only the Holmes rules.
That may be worth taking into consideration and perhaps adding to the conversation, but…I think even Geoffrey would admit, that it was more an exercise in use of extant rules and atmosphere, rather than starting from the point of Hobbit-only campaign and then moving forward from that idea……if I’m makin any sense. Heheh

The point is: Geoffrey had ‘a fun idea’ to use Holmes and Holmes only and it happened ‘pon his fevered brain that it seemed to him to strongly be congruent with a Middle-Earth of a “The Hobbit” variety/milieu, though that wasn’t his initial idea nor thrust. Just a portion of his thought experiment.
Again, it may be worth consideration or ‘brain food’.

[machfront]

Apr 20, 2023 13:51:23 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I would certainly love to see an OD&D sourcebook for the Hobbit, written by the scholars here. I think that a 1937-only Hobbit campaign would be awesome!

Holy PO-TA-TOS, yes!
I’d pay money!

[machfront]

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27128

[Narmer]

Apr 21, 2023 7:19:32 GMT -6 machfront said:

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27128

Thanks for linking that.  When I looked at it I realized I'd read it before.

[tdenmark]

Apr 20, 2023 13:51:23 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I would certainly love to see an OD&D sourcebook for the Hobbit, written by the scholars here. I think that a 1937-only Hobbit campaign would be awesome!

Yes, please.

[machfront]

A Hobbit or LotR supplement (or that that may address both in slight and rules-lite manners, with knowledge of the source material) would be amazing, no matter how simple. Indeed, simple may well be the key.

Our own Jason Vey gifted us the Conan supplement.
Considering the talent, imaginations, and depth of knowledge amongst folk who love OD&D, I’m surprised the like with regards to Tolkien has not already been done (and a Newhon thing too…but that’s me, and lesser, and far easier, heheh).

Though…to be fair, the “Balrogs & Bagginses” and also the Holmes add-on “Drums in the Deep” are worthy entries to this field in various ways.

[Finarvyn]

So I'm sure this has been answered already somewhere, but if I want to buy a facsimile of the 1937 Hobbit (which I believe was done a few years ago) how would I know that it was the correct printing? My local B&N has an interesting light-green hardback Hobbit with some sort of different illustrations than the ones I have on my shelf, but I don't see anything saying it is a special 1937 edition or anything like that.

For the purposes of a project like this, I would want a 1937 version in hand. I heard that the "annotated Hobbit" contains information but it's not really the same as having ONLY the text I want to view.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the "Riddles in the Dark" material, if that is interesting to anyone.
www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

-------------------------------

EDIT: Amazon has this...
www.amazon.com/Hobbit-Facsimile-First-J-Tolkien/dp/0007440839
...except that it LOOKS a lot like others I own already (including one in my boxed set "The History of the Hobbit" so perhaps I own a copy already? (Seems like several printings have a similar cover, including some with a "75 year" sticker. I am assuming that most are the revised version and don't know how to know quickly the correct one. I guess I could compare passages in "Riddles in the Dark" to see what it says.)

Also, going to that Amazon page helped me identify the one at my B&N as "The Hobbit: Illustrated Edition" which is probably not at all what I want. Good to know.

-------------------------------

SECOND EDIT: Based on the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter, it would appear that the Hobbit in the boxed set is a revised version of the book and not the original. Also good to know, but the cover on the book looks JUST LIKE the one in the Amazon entry and I'm hesitant to spend $28 on yet another copy of the same thing.

[geoffrey]

Fin, I am looking at my copy of the facsimile (printed in 2016) of the 1937 The Hobbit. It has an ISBN of 978 0 00 744083 2

That ISBN is your magic number. It looks as though the book in your amazon link has the correct ISBN! If I were you, I would order it with confidence.

[rredmond]

Apr 22, 2023 16:18:04 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the "Riddles in the Dark" material, if that is interesting to anyone.
www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

That’s an amazing link thank you!!

[Finarvyn]

Apr 22, 2023 22:24:04 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Fin, I am looking at my copy of the facsimile (printed in 2016) of the 1937 The Hobbit. It has an ISBN of 978 0 00 744083 2

That ISBN is your magic number. It looks as though the book in your amazon link has the correct ISBN! If I were you, I would order it with confidence.

Thank you. Done.

[geoffrey]

Apr 23, 2023 5:11:40 GMT -6 rredmond said:

Apr 22, 2023 16:18:04 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the "Riddles in the Dark" material, if that is interesting to anyone.
www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

That’s an amazing link thank you!!

Indeed. It illustrates how much longer the revised chapter is than the original. For me, a little bit of Gollum goes a long way. The revised chapter goes on too long for me, and Gollum's presence in The Lord of the Rings is agonizing in its endlessness. I much prefer Gollum as a throw-away subterranean monster rather than as a tragic hobbit. I picture Gollum as drawn by Tove Jansson:

[Finarvyn]

For those thinking about doing a "Hobbit only" campaign, you might want to check out the new 5E "The Lord of the Rings" RPG by Free League. I got my physical copy yesterday and finally got around to looking at it today.

** Levels capped at 10.
** Six cultural backgrounds (Hobbit of the Shire, Man of Bree, etc)
** A half dozen or so classes (I forgot to count)
** No spellcasting classes that I can find
** Set in the era of the Hobbit; first sourcebook is the Shire

Feels very much like The Hobbit in a first skim-through.

[bobjester0e]

I happened across a couple of items from Cubicle 7 for 5e: "Adventures in Middle-Earth" Player's Guide and the "Middle Earth Loremaster's Screen".

I *LOVED* this, but when I searched for more items, I sadly discovered that Cubicle 7 no longer held the rights to it, which was picked up by Free League (above).

I may or may not have many C7 related PDFs.

[machfront]

Apr 23, 2023 14:32:15 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

For those thinking about doing a "Hobbit only" campaign, you might want to check out the new 5E "The Lord of the Rings" RPG by Free League. I got my physical copy yesterday and finally got around to looking at it today.

** Levels capped at 10.
** Six cultural backgrounds (Hobbit of the Shire, Man of Bree, etc)
** A half dozen or so classes (I forgot to count)
** No spellcasting classes that I can find
** Set in the era of the Hobbit; first sourcebook is the Shire

Feels very much like The Hobbit in a first skim-through.

I’d like to, but reticent as what kept me from getting the prior edition…. I know zero about 5E…or 4E…and very little about 3E (my group ‘laughed it out of the room’ in the first month or two of its release). So I’ve zero experience of ‘D&D editions past that.

Also….levels are already capped at 10 as far as I understand/wish/prefer, etc.
Besides, regular D&D (play) never ever goes past level 6,7 or 8 anyhow.
So, ‘capped at level 10’ means absolute zero to me.

Six classes? Oh…only as many classes as….one and a half as I already use? Hm.

But, again….I’d doubt I’d even understand what the book would say, as I’d not understand most or all of the terms.

I’d much rather they’d make a wholly rpg-neutral campaign book.

I see I’ll never ever have that, unless someone in old-school fandom makes such….

Besides…I’d find far much more enjoyment, use and inspiration in a 20 page Middle-Earth campaign/gaming book than I’d EVER get from a detailed one of 100 or 400 pages…

[geoffrey]

May 4, 2023 5:54:40 GMT -6 machfront said:

Besides…I’d find far much more enjoyment, use and inspiration in a 20 page Middle-Earth campaign/gaming book than I’d EVER get from a detailed one of 100 or 400 pages…

Yep. The Hobbit is already 300 pages long, and it is the one and only indispensable source for Wilderland. The boredom of a setting book anywhere near as long as The Hobbit would put me into a coma. But a slender one (up to, say, 32 pages) with little or no fat? That'd be gold.