D&D (2024) Should a general Adventurer class be created to represent the Everyman?

[Guest 7037866]

Maybe Doug is the descendant of Sir Daniel. Maybe he was born under a special star. Maybe Doug accidentally drank from a magic pool as a kid. Maybe Doug is the reincarnation of Tomobomodil. Maybe Doug is just lucky

But to everyone Doug is just some guy who signed up to guard the castle for some coin. Minimal training. Nothing special. Just a peasant who happened to kill some raiders and was rewarded with a permanent job and a suit of half plate.

These two bolded parts seem at odds with each other IMO.

If Doug had any of these things going for him, and people realize Doug is this or that or whatever, then he is no longer "nothing special". He has something going for him which, by default, makes him special.

Now, perhaps when you say Doug is nothing special you mean the same would be true for Andy, Bob, or Charlie? If Andy or Bob or Charlie had killed some raiders, they too would have been rewarded with a job and half-plate?

 

[dave2008]

No

Let's face it

The fighter is no longer the Everyman. The fighter class has represented a well trained hardened warrior for 25 years now. 2024 went even further by giving them Weapon Masteries that enforce that focus and training.

The baker or farmhand who follows the ragtag group of professional looters into a dungeon and survives to return back to town isn't a suddenly proficient with every weapon on the planet and has a internal well of stamina to enact incredible acts of martial skill.

The baker is a lucky survivor.

As the fighter gets more warrior, the rogue gets more tricksy and underhanded, the barbarian gets more primal, the margin for the everyman pushed into adventure and learning on the way is shrinking.

In the older days, you could run these PCs as fighters with alternatives stat spreads as Ability score mattered less and diving deep into martial specialization was optional. Heck you could even give them an XP bonus as they are more emptyheaded in adventuring and would absorb more than the outright trained.

But in a world where the desire is that characters mostly progress in the same speeds and power, this doesn't fit.

So I wondered, should this base concept be pulled out of the fighter and solidified as its own class. Focusing on the characters unique aspect of learning from allies and experience. With each subclass explaining why they survived or progressed be it luck, destiny, prodigy, fortitude, or the sponsoring of a higher or lower power. Such a class could also be a vehicle for some much desired class structures like a simple warrior, a Constitution based PC, or full healer.

What is your thoughts?

No, not as the current game is positioned. IMO, an everyman should be represented by roleplay prior to level 1. So you could play as an everyman (level 0 or similar) and then chose your class when you have gained enough experience.

 

[Minigiant]

These two bolded parts seem at odds with each other IMO.

If Doug had any of these things going for him, and people realize Doug is this or that or whatever, then he is no longer "nothing special". He has something going for him which, by default, makes him special.

Now, perhaps when you say Doug is nothing special you mean the same would be true for Andy, Bob, or Charlie? If Andy or Bob or Charlie had killed some raiders, they too would have been rewarded with a job and half-plate?

Again you are missing the distinction.

Doug is special.
Doug's class isn't special.

Just how a 6' 4" 350lbs muscle man can be special but just be a waiter.

 

[ColinChapman]

Let's face it

The fighter is no longer the Everyman. The fighter class has represented a well trained hardened warrior for 25 years now. 2024 went even further by giving them Weapon Masteries that enforce that focus and training.

The baker or farmhand who follows the ragtag group of professional looters into a dungeon and survives to return back to town isn't a suddenly proficient with every weapon on the planet and has a internal well of stamina to enact incredible acts of martial skill.

What is your thoughts?

I think your use of the "Everyman" moniker is potentially misleading when I think you're more interested in a generalist Adventurer class. Not a specialist in anything inasmuch as they likely possess a broad raft of abilities that enable them to survive in the varied "adventuring environment." Be that dungeon or wilderness. I could be wrong, but that's just my impression.

A class with some fighting ability, reasonable rogue skills (gotta be able to sneak, hide, climb), decent survival and wilderness skills, and a smattering of magic. Likely proficient in lighter armours that do not strongly impede stealth, agility, or the ability to leg it, climb, or swim when needed. Proficient with all basic dungeoneering tools, related weapons, and those weapons most generally useful (whether in close confines underground, in making shelter, and simple hunting). Some arcane knowledge and studiousness, if only to know what to look for and to be able to bring a small selection of useful spells to bear.

So, sounds a good bit like a Ranger, though I can absolutely see how it's not a perfect fit and that the existing subclasses don't really match the vibe you've mentioned.

That's all I really have to offer on the matter though, as I'm not a 5e player. I did once toy with creating a single, generalist Adventurer class for my own RPG, that folks can then lean a little more towards combat, stealth, or magic as they advance, but I didn't go that route in the end.

 

[Minigiant]

No

No, not as the current game is positioned. IMO, an everyman should be represented by roleplay prior to level 1. So you could play as an everyman (level 0 or similar) and then chose your class when you have gained enough experience.

Yes.

They take the Everyman class or the Adventurer class.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Doug's class isn't special.

Then what is the class? Because at this point I am not seeing what the class is supposed to be. Anything you give the class would seem to make it special.

If the luck or whatever belongs to Doug and not the class, then Doug should have whatever he has no matter what class he takes.

 

[ColinChapman]

Then what is the class? Because at this point I am not seeing what the class is supposed to be. Anything you give the class would seem to make it special.

If the luck or whatever belongs to Doug and not the class, then Doug should have whatever he has no matter what class he takes.

Sometimes being second or third best in nearly everything is its own special ability. That's just me hazarding a guess as to what Minigiant is angling for though. It's the old "specialist" vs. "generalist" argument.

 

[Minigiant]

Then what is the class? Because at this point I am not seeing what the class is supposed to be. Anything you give the class would seem to make it special.

If the luck or whatever belongs to Doug and not the class, then Doug should have whatever he has no matter what class he takes.

It's like 5e's sorcery

An innate feature that doesn't come out unless you focus on it at the exclusion of everything else.

It's about training.

The Fighter is a Doctorate in Weaponry
The Everyman/Adventurer is a High School Grad who joined the Fight Club

 

[Guest 7037866]

It's like 5e's sorcery

An innate feature that doesn't come out unless you focus on it at the exclusion of everything else.

It's about training.

The Fighter is a Doctorate in Weaponry
The Everyman/Adventurer is a High School Grad who joined the Fight Club

Again, show me how the class isn't special...

 

[Minigiant]

Again, show me how the class isn't special...

You're looking at as a player. You see the luck points.

The world sees Doug as a farmer who became a castle guard who has terrible fencing form and knows a few weak tricks from his allies that somehow kept him from dying hundred times over.

But when he squares up to an ogre, people say "This guy slew a vampire? THIS GUY?"