Adventurer class

[Amphimir Míriel]

How about Rogue?

How about Rogue? In 3.5, if you downplay the Sneak Attack and Trapfinding and you emphasize the "skill-monkey" aspect of it... you can model your character almost any way

There are lots of examples of fantasy characters that, while very different from each other, could be successfully model on the rogue class, like Bilbo Baggins, Samuel Vimes, Edmund Blackadder and a long list of etc's

I even met a girl who's character was a high-fantasy equivalent of Nancy Drew...


edit: Oops, Rogue's already mentioned

 

[DM_Blake]

For 4E, it looks as though Fighter is going to be spiced up beyond its 3.X incarnation, what with the whole mugging of knights and all.

If this is indeed the truth, then there should be a replacement to fill the role of generic adventurer. I wouldn't feel as comfortable defaulting a character to Fighter if Fighters were as flavorful as the rest of the classes. The next closest default class would be the Commoner / Aristocrat / Expert trio and I wouldn't care for that either.

So I want to propose to the 4E guys that you add a generic Adventurer class, similar to to the 3.X Fighter or Expert, the generic Call of Cthulhu PC template, or even the d20 Modern base classes.

Example configuration: Medium BAB, d8 hit die, one good save (selectable by the player), 10 selectable class skills, bonus feat slots (assignable to any feat) at 1st level and every odd-numbered level thereafter. Not sure how talents would work.

Naturally the Adventurer should not be so good that it eclipses the 4.0 Fighter (or any other class).

I'm not sure I understand what you want.

The 3.x fighter is not a generic adventurer. He's a generic combatant. He fights well but doesn't do anything else well.

I would define "adventurer" as someone who has the abilities to meet many, preferably most, challenges of an adventure. An adventurer should be able to fight, handle traps, find lairs, cast healing and protective magic, and probably also cast other adventuring magic (light, detect magic, find trap, find the path, knock, etc.).

Fighters don't fit that role.

In fact, no class in the core books fits that role, though bards come fairly close.

Since D&D doesn't provide core classes that do all this stuff, they provide a different mechanic: specialized classes joined together as an adventuring party.

The party consists of several characters. None of them does "it all", but each has a role, and all the roles are covered (if the party is a good one). Gaps might be filled with NPCs if necessary, or magic items if needed.

So, with this mechanic, every class becomes an adventurer, without being a generic adventurer class.

Now, if you want to take 4e, with all its talent trees and character development, and strip that down to create a class like a 3e fighter, or expert, then you're creating a very limited class that can't pull its own weight in the talent-treed 4e adventuring party.

I doubt anyone would want to play that. I wouldn't even suggest it to a new player, because it will take no time at all before he feels like he got robbed when he sees what everyone else can do.

 

[hectorse]

That reeks with "bland" all around it, maybe for NPC's something like the warrior still stands, but for players, I don't believe it holds a candle with the classes we are seeing

 

[Gloombunny]

That reeks with "bland" all around it, maybe for NPC's something like the warrior still stands, but for players, I don't believe it holds a candle with the classes we are seeing

I think the blandness is sort of the point. The idea is to have a class that's very simple, so a new player can pick it up and play without having to make a lot of decisions about what talents or spells to take or whatever.

Ultimately, though, I think that purpose is better served by the GM walking the newbie through character creation and guiding them towards choices that will be simpler in play.

 

[Victim]

I think the blandness is sort of the point. The idea is to have a class that's very simple, so a new player can pick it up and play without having to make a lot of decisions about what talents or spells to take or whatever.

Ultimately, though, I think that purpose is better served by the GM walking the newbie through character creation and guiding them towards choices that will be simpler in play.

I think giving a new player something bland and simple can just as easily be boring for them.

 

[hectorse]

I think the blandness is sort of the point. The idea is to have a class that's very simple, so a new player can pick it up and play without having to make a lot of decisions about what talents or spells to take or whatever.

Ultimately, though, I think that purpose is better served by the GM walking the newbie through character creation and guiding them towards choices that will be simpler in play.

Yet I don't think new players want to be bland. Better have them play a conservative fighter than finding they can't do anything like their other specialized companions

 

[Remathilis]

How about Rogue? In 3.5, if you downplay the Sneak Attack and Trapfinding and you emphasize the "skill-monkey" aspect of it... you can model your character almost any way

There are lots of examples of fantasy characters that, while very different from each other, could be successfully model on the rogue class, like Bilbo Baggins, Samuel Vimes, Edmund Blackadder and a long list of etc's

I even met a girl who's character was a high-fantasy equivalent of Nancy Drew...


edit: Oops, Rogue's already mentioned

Agreed. A customizable rogue (with proper talents) could do what the 3e rogue tried: a skilled PC who is good as some stuff, but not a master of combat or magic.

 

[Mercule]

I think the blandness is sort of the point. The idea is to have a class that's very simple, so a new player can pick it up and play without having to make a lot of decisions about what talents or spells to take or whatever.

Yup. Except that the suggestion isn't bland in the "vanilla ice cream w/o toppings" sense. It's more like "plain yogurt for breakfast". And I think the novice player would quickly come to the same conclusion I did when I tried plain yogurt.

 

[Woas]

I think the Man-at-Arms from Iron Heroes fits the bill.
Much like the fighter the M@A purpose is to get feats, and lots of them. But they also get Wild Card Feats at certain levels that let them pick up needed feats on the fly depending on the situation and then can be reset for another feat the next day. Pretty much an all around "jack of all trades" adventurer type.

 

[The Little Raven]

I think the blandness is sort of the point. The idea is to have a class that's very simple, so a new player can pick it up and play without having to make a lot of decisions about what talents or spells to take or whatever.

Bland is a good word for it... dull and insipid... having little or no distinctive flavor.

A class that is supposed to help new players get into the game by avoiding one of the biggest premises to character creation: choices you can make to make the character different from others? That sounds incredibly lame.