Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7184967" data-attributes="member: 996">You gotta have something going for you.&nbsp; In 5e, that's either being a badass with a weapon in some way (Extra Attack/Rage/SA), or magic.&nbsp; A 'Folk Hero' fighter or rogue is as close as you can easily come, you're still profoundly exceptional, for some reason you were dedicated to learning a lot more combat skills than the average commoner, but it's remotely plausible.&nbsp; Maybe you were an obsessive hunter, that's why you're so good with a bow, for instance?&nbsp; But, yeah, it's a stretch.&nbsp; In 4e the 'lazy'/'princess' build warlord could be used as a less personally combat-capable character who still contributes to the party, even in combat, more the sidekick, than the 'everyman hero.'&nbsp; Really, though, the fighter in most editions is almost depressingly close to the 'everyman hero' in ability, just without enough of 'The Hero' part.&nbsp; ;(&nbsp;Not really, no.&nbsp; Without class/level, you're nothing in the classic game (well, unless you have some crazy magic item - even then, you're a pop target).&nbsp;Probably the only edition where taking it as litterally as it seems you mean to is remotely viable.&nbsp; A non-adventurer PC in 3e could pick the Aristocrat or Expert NPC class and tag along with a party, keeping up in a very basic way, Commoner would be pushing it (dis-honorary Tier 7?), but at least you'd be leveling.&nbsp; Any other edition, no, take a character class or forget it.&nbsp;A class could totally do it, in 5e, it'd just be a really sucky class. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> But, hey, bounded accuracy, keep on plugg'n...&nbsp;That's not just James Bond, it's heroes in general.&nbsp; And, it's not like it's wildly broken to be suave and broadly competent as well as deadly, either....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7184967, member: 996"] You gotta have something going for you. In 5e, that's either being a badass with a weapon in some way (Extra Attack/Rage/SA), or magic. A 'Folk Hero' fighter or rogue is as close as you can easily come, you're still profoundly exceptional, for some reason you were dedicated to learning a lot more combat skills than the average commoner, but it's remotely plausible. Maybe you were an obsessive hunter, that's why you're so good with a bow, for instance? But, yeah, it's a stretch. In 4e the 'lazy'/'princess' build warlord could be used as a less personally combat-capable character who still contributes to the party, even in combat, more the sidekick, than the 'everyman hero.' Really, though, the fighter in most editions is almost depressingly close to the 'everyman hero' in ability, just without enough of 'The Hero' part. ;( Not really, no. Without class/level, you're nothing in the classic game (well, unless you have some crazy magic item - even then, you're a pop target). Probably the only edition where taking it as litterally as it seems you mean to is remotely viable. A non-adventurer PC in 3e could pick the Aristocrat or Expert NPC class and tag along with a party, keeping up in a very basic way, Commoner would be pushing it (dis-honorary Tier 7?), but at least you'd be leveling. Any other edition, no, take a character class or forget it. A class could totally do it, in 5e, it'd just be a really sucky class. ;) But, hey, bounded accuracy, keep on plugg'n... That's not just James Bond, it's heroes in general. And, it's not like it's wildly broken to be suave and broadly competent as well as deadly, either.... [/QUOTE]

Verification