I stumbled along this thread on RPG.net:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?614708...hrough-Mirkwood

The summary is that paths through the Mirkwood are at x3 travel time, yet the Elf Path explicitly is enchanted to resist overgrowth. How is it not faster to travel the Elf Path as opposed to trudging through the forrest?

It's a good discussion, and I have mixed feelings on the matter. What does this community think?

I don't think it's a matter of whether it's faster, or not. Certainly, it is.

It's a matter of being allowed to use it, by the elves. Which few people will get permission to do. And which doing without their permission is a good way to get yourself filled with arrows.

That's not quite right - the company in the hobbit used the elf path, and the elves didn't kill them. It even seems to me that the dwarves only were captured by them because they left the path and disturbed the elves in the woods.
Also, it's obviously quite easy to enter the path from the western end, and Gandalf, who should know, advised the Dwarves to use it, so he at least didn't think that the elves would attack anyone who uses the path without permission.
Finally, there might be elves among the PCs, who would probably allowed to take their fellowship along on the elf path.

So the question stands and remains relevant.

I would just treat it as a road.

I was the one who posted that question on RPG.net, while I was waiting for my account here to be activated. Anyways, here are the relevant details:

--LMB p. 32, the Terrain Difficulty table lists the travel modifier for a Severe difficulty at x3 (which is what northern Mirkwood as a whole is). On that same table, it clearly states that "any road or path in Mirkwood" is set at a severe difficulty as well.

--A journey calculated using the hex map and the x3 modifier is consistent with the time it took for Bilbo and the Dwarves to traverse the Elf-path (laid out very well in Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle Earth).

--The fact that it takes just as much time to use the Elf-path, which is enchanted to resist growth, as it does the surrounding forest, quite frankly doesn't make much sense.

--In light of the above, either the Elf-path should take less time or bushwhacking through Mirkwood should take more. Given that Bilbo and the Dwarves averaged about 6.7 miles per day on the Elf-path, my own experience traveling both in the backcountry and on trails tells me that the Elf-path should be quicker. The obvious problem with this is that it contradicts our most important primary source, The Hobbit!

--Did Tolkien "screw up" his reckoning of the distance or the travel time? Or did he intend the oppressive nature of Mirkwood to weigh the heroes down so much that they really did only manage to go 6.7 miles per day? If the latter, shouldn't bushwhacking through Mirkwood cause the heroes to suffer from cumulative delays due to the Shadow's presence and the rougher terrain? Again, the two routes simply should not take the same amount of time.

As far as I can tell there's really no easy answer given the evidence. Also, if paths through Mirkwood are just as bad as bushwhacking, why would the Elves or the Woodmen even make them? The only explanation I've come up with is that the forest itself specifically targets those who travel on paths (think the Hobbits journey through the Old Forest, constantly being led toward the Withywindle). Though why this would be is beyond me, and furthermore why the Elvenking's magic doesn't prevent it like it does the encroaching vegetation is also a mystery.

Something else to consider here - should an attempted bushwhack through Mirkwood simply result in the heroes becoming irrevocably lost? Bilbo and the Dwarves were warned that this very thing would happen, in which case cumulative penalties for bushwhacking + the Shadow would be a moot point, because you simply cannot travel through Mirkwood if you don't use a path.

But wait! The Elves in The Hobbit seem to run around off the path just fine! Clearly an Elven PC should be able to do the same! And what about the Woodmen, who also enter the forest itself (indeed, Woodland Hall is within the borders of Mirkwood).

Clearly Tolkien was employing a narrative device here, and his thoughts were that Mirkwood affects outsiders differently than it does Elves. Of course that's really tough to reconcile in a game that assumes Elves and Woodmen might be traveling with Dwarves and Hobbits (something I doubt very much that Tolkien himself had in mind!).

I am most interested in this thread as my PCs just traveled from the Lonely Mountain to Rhosgobel, partly ON the Elf Path. In addition to an Elf in their party, they bore a letter from King Dain identifying them as Royal Emissaries and which requested Elven cooperation and their unimpeded travel on King Thranduil's road. The total trip, by may calculations, took them 53 days. I missed the x3 multiplier somehow ... probably because I was using the online journey calculator instead of consulting the rulebooks (NOT a condemnation, btw ... that calculator is a godsend!). My interest stems from the possibility that their trip took MUCH longer! Two of their group, the Beorning and Hobbit, were quite tired by the journey's end and looking forward to some well-deserved rest (i.e., a Fellowship Phase). PLEASE continue the conversation(s) and sage input ... I am eager with anticipation!

This isn't as cogent as I normally try to be, but time has overtaken me.
I'll post anyway, to share my thoughts so far.

Hmm. I'm undecided on the density of the vegetation. There's Tolkien's own words in those quotes there, as against the idea of the canopy being so thick and the forest floor so lightless that there's very little growth in the understorey (as I seem to recall it's called). Tolkien's own picture -- even if it was repurposed from Taur-nu-Fuin in Beleriand -- supports the latter version. So it arguably wouldn't be such a struggle to make your way along an off-road route.

As far as basic topography goes, the Elf-path probably follows the optimal route: taking the easiest lie of the land except where that would take it on too much of a detour.

I thought I remembered John Rateliff going into some detail in The History of The Hobbit as to Tolkien's casting and recasting of the journey times, as the plot revolves so critically around calendrical events, and the journey times and resting-ups (Fellowship Phases!) had to be made to fit this. 20 minutes' flipping hasn't got me very far, except to find that Durin's Day shifted between being the first new moon of autumn and the last in order to fit the other 'facts' of the journey...
It's legitimate to take as canon whatever the book says, and join with Tolkien in the exercise of elucidating the whys and wherefores within the logic of Middle-earth. This is my preferred approach to the 'game' of Middle-earth interpretation. But equally, if we know it's all a bit arbitrary -- moreso in TH than in LotR -- then LMs could be perfectly justified in not considering this to be strong evidence. Like alien270 queries, maybe Tolkien "screwed up". ;-)

I'd guess that other paths within Mirkwood might be x3 journey time, but that this one should be the exception to the rule. And of course travelling through Mirkwood using nothing better than dead reckoning should have at least as bad a multiplier, even if TOR didn't state it because no one should be so crazy as to even attempt it...

For the 'game' of interpretation, I haven't thought hard, and don't feel strongly about this idea, but it has a certain appeal:
Maybe the magic of the Elf-path messes with the heads/hearts/senses-of-the-passage-of-time of people who use it without permission. This would normally be bad and to be avoided, but if that's the price to pay for getting a route on which it's safe to camp without being attacked by spiders every night, then it's worthwhile...
(Hmm. That doesn't make it better than going around the Grey Mountain Narrows...?)

Cheers,
--Os.

I think the easiest way to make the path seem like it's more beneficial to use than not is to simply go with the default that it is "known" to the user (or elf guide/scout that permits the group access) and thus the "LORE" check at the beginning of a journey is more likely to provide some measure of reduced difficulty in said journey.

If this by way of math winds up being a few days shorter as Alien put it - in comparison to a strict reading the Hobbit - then this is because Gandalf (or any other who knew the path) wasn't there to truly guide them to help their Lore check succeed prior to traversing it.

I'm willing to wager that had the company had a return journey through the forest using the same path their return trip would probably have been slightly easier and quicker having had the knowledge or guide from the elven king himself.

Maybe Elves and Woodmen are able to travel through Mirkwood easier, simply because they are more familiar with it rather than because they are Elves and Woodmen (they get a free Attribute Bonus on their Lore test before the journey). In game terms however, that only means they can shave a day off the total journey. Not much of a bonus considering the overall time it will take.

Based on the concerns here, I would say that they are similar to the angst about travelling by boat downstream on the Anduin and foot travel being equal. The concerns sounds legitimate and the Loremaster could simply apply a x2 multiplier on the Elf-path, instead of x3 to remedy this.

Another way of looking at it, however, would be to say that it takes just as long to travel the Elf-path as moving through the woods by cold calculation, but, taking the Elf-path is sure, more comfortable to sleep on, and there is NO chance for the Guide to fail! When the Loremaster rolls a 1-3 on the Feat die to determine a Hazard episode, the Guide is selected and there is NO EFFECT.

This could be the start of some unique 'Location Qualities' that can be identified, affecting travel and Hazard episodes in some way.

True. But it's 1 day per member that makes that check (is it not). Could be 4, 5, or 6 days off. Or in the cast of The Hobbit - 14!


Just saying.


I'd say the best bet would be to give an ad hoc 2.5x vs 3x for the terrain being preferable. That accumulating w/ any Lore check based time discounts could save a week or more.

Oh yeah - and definitely great decrease in hazards.

If I understand your argument, you're saying that because the canopy is thick then the forest floor should be relatively open, correct? As someone who spends a whole lot of time in the woods, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Shade-tolerant understory vegetation can grow pretty thickly even if there's not too much light getting through; I'm reminded particularly of dense conifer forests that I've been in where a combination of young trees, deadfall, and dense spacing of the trees create a pretty significant impediment to travel despite relatively low light. We know that the Mountains of Mirkwood support a fir forest, which would likely have similar qualities.

In any case, Mirkwood is an old growth forest, and that means that it probably has about as many downed trees as standing trees. Even if the live vegetation isn't terribly thick, you're probably spending a lot of time scrambling over logs or going around them. Art depicting Mirkwood also tends to be loaded with thick tangles of large, above-ground roots (see the cover of the AB).

In short, I think it's extremely unlikely that a cross-country route would be just as easy as a path.

What if there's an Elf in the party? Certainly they would have implicit permission to use the path, so the x3 modifier wouldn't make much sense.

As far as I can remember, The Hobbit describes the Elf-path as being relatively obvious, and as such I doubt there would be much opportunity to get lost or take a shortcut, unless you assume that there are side-paths going off of it (which is certainly isn't unreasonable).

Hmm, qualities are an interesting notion, to be sure. I have to ask, though, why exactly would the Elf-path take just as long to travel as a cross-country route? I just can't reconcile it with my own experience, and that's even before taking into account the Elven-king's magic!

I think the point I'm trying to get at is that I'm strongly considering a house-rule that the Elf-path gets a x1 modifier. Yes, it contradicts The Hobbit, but based on everything we know about it and considering Tolkien's timeline for Bilbo and the Dwarves I'm just going to say that the problem was with that company, and not the Elf-path itself. Maybe Bombur was getting blisters and slowed the group down

Actually, according to the rules in the Adventurer's Book, p. 154, under "Planning Ahead," it is only the best Lore roll, and all failed rolls that are considered (from among all the rolls made by the company). This is evident in the example given as well. It should also be noted that players are NOT required to make the Lore roll during planning. If they choose not to, it can be assumed they will not be giving specific advice during planning and therefore do not run the risk of failing the roll and giving bad suggestions. Because every failed roll is considered and will add an extra day to the journey.

So, maybe the Elf-path has the following Location Qualities:

Magical Path +5*
When negotiating a magical path, heroes can travel an extra 5 miles per day and never get lost. Ignore all Hazard episodes targeting the Guide.
*The strength of the enchantment determines the number of extra miles per day. So, Magical Path +10 means an extra 10 miles per day.

Better Road
A 'better road' improves terrain difficulty by one level.

The first Location Quality gives a boost in speed, while the second improves the terrain difficulty by one level. So, a journey from the Forest Gate to the Elven King's Halls is about 190 miles. Improving from a Severe terrain modifier of x3 to a Hard modifier of x2, the trip will feel like 380 miles. Divide that by 25 miles per day on foot to determine it will take 16 days to complete (before considering Lore rolls during planning).

This means the Dwarves in The Hobbit really screwed up their Lore rolls in the planning and possibly rested often. Or maybe they proceeded slower than usual because of the fantastically frightening sights.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on Feb 29 2012, 10:26 AM

That must have been what I was referencing in my mind - it was PER roll - but failures, not successes.

Thanks.

Magical Path +5 and Better Road would both speed up travel along the path. Even without these qualities there's a good common sense argument for why the Elf-path should be faster. Qualities that justify the slow pace of Thorin and Company were more what I was looking for (to modify your example, Magical Path -5), to stay as true to the source material as possible without saying "Tolkien screwed it up."

But maybe that's just a futile endeavor. Maybe a better way to go would be to exempt the Elf-path from the general rule about slow travel in Mirkwood. This way it would be a little faster than going around Mirkwood to the north, but you'd still have to deal with the fact that you can't leave the trail to hunt without likely getting lost, and water is scarce. Oh yeah, and the Corruption tests, those are nasty too. At least this way it's a tradeoff between a shorter journey or a more convenient journey, because right now avoiding the Elf-path as-written is pretty much a no-brainer.

I'd definitely buy the argument that the Dwarves were just really inefficient and that most adventurers would make better time.