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

[Minigiant]

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?

 

[Yaarel]

I feel every "class" by definition is something for players to play.

Nonplayer characters dont need classes because they use different rules, namely statblocks.

If a class exists at all, it must be balanced and comparable with other player classes. These are definitely not "everyfolks".

 

[Yaarel]

If wanting to play a less powerful character, I suggest "level zero". In other words, use the mechanics from the Origin section, including species, abilities, skills, tool, languages, and feat. This is before one has gained levels in a class.

I havent done this yet for 5.24. It seems to me, ...

A background character can have 5 hit points plus Constitution.

So, a level 0 character with Constitution +0, has 5 hit points. When becoming a level 1 Wizard, the character total number of hit points equal to 5 (level 0) + 4 (≈ d6 hit dice of Wizard). At level 2, this becomes a total 13 hit points (5 + 4 + 4).

Level 0 is mainly adventures that explore the 5e skill checks to overcome noncombat encounters.

But if combat happens, they can normally be nonlethal and result in unconsciousness, such as picking fights.

If Level 0 is for fragile lethal combat, probably every character can choose one Simple Weapon to be proficient in. The proficiency bonus at Level 0, should probably be +1. But characters can add their Str or Dex depending on the weapon.

All of the above is easy to do, and is a great way to gently introduce D&D mechanics to new players, or for experienced players who love the zero to hero experience.


The following requires more caution, about how to do it in a balanced way. I would love for level 0 to offer a choice among a Martial Weapon, Light Armor, Shield, and a Cantrip. Maybe it be some kind of pointbuy, or offer several assemblages to choose from. This choice during level 0, would then replace the "CORE TRAITS" of each class. Namely: Skill Proficiencies, Weapon Proficiencies, Armor Training, plus Cantrip, slot 1 spell, and similar initial mechanics. So it is possible a Level 1 Wizard might start off with a Longsword, or using a Shield, but have one less cantrip. A Level 1 Fighter might happen to know how to do a cantrip, but only has proficiency with one Martial Weapon rather than all of them. Or perhaps casts Mage Armor but lacks training with Heavy Armor. This kind of realtime customization while playing level 0, would require careful design to make it work well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Beyond "being more general than a well-trained warrior", what is the class fantasy you want to capture? In less technical terms: what does the generic "everyman class" do? What is it supposed to feel like to be a Generic Everyman Class? (Hereafter, GEC.) What is its raison d'être?

Unless and until you articulate that, it's going to be impossible to talk about designing a new class, of any sort, generic or otherwise. The class fantasy sets the parameters for what kinds of design goals are potentially worth pursuit. Your chosen design goals can then guide you to possible mechanical elements to fulfill them (and away from those you're confident wouldn't). That's the iterative loop of game design in a class-based system: choose a class fantasy, define design goals which are in keeping with that fantasy, build and test (and test and test and test and...) mechanics. If the mechanics hit a dead end, go back a step and review your design goals. If the design goals repeatedly fail to work, review the class fantasy--and possibly reject it if it just isn't working out. (Lamentably, that sometimes happens, but I don't think it's a major risk in most cases.)

Thus far, you've articulated a lot of unorganized design goals, mostly centered on possible subclasses and growth potential, with the extremely nebulous and largely non-informative class fantasy of "being maximally generic", supplemented by the slightly less nebulous but still not very informative "being pushed into adventure when unready" and "learning from others around them".

So: Give me the elevator pitch. 3-6 sentences (preferably more sentences only if there are rather short ones). Succinctly summarize. Things like what it's supposed to feel like to play, or what priorities it gives the player while playing it, or how the thematics are meant to draw the player into a particular experience. If possible, keep it light on mechanics, this is much higher-level than mechanics.

Giving two examples from existing 5e (one which I think was done quite well, the other which I think was done quite poorly):

A Warlock gains magical power through some kind of transaction or agreement with a powerful being, a Patron--often dangerous or manipulative, but not necessarily evil. As their power is defined by what their Patron agrees to give, the Warlock has many different possible powers, but each individual Warlock must carefully choose what power they wish to wield. Due to their unique magical source, the Warlock tends toward consistent, reliable effects augmented with a few punchy, powerful things--but they must regularly commune to remain at peak effectiveness.

The Warlock in 5e is among the best-designed of all its classes, particularly because (the whole "resting isn't well-handled" thing aside) it actually forces some genuine, serious choices. It may not be precisely where I would want it to be, but it is genuinely a smart concept executed relatively well within the limits of the system it's manifested in.

And now for...the other one.

A Wizard is a master of erudition and scholasticism, whose understanding of the machinery of the universe permits her to pull the levers thereof--that is, hermetic magic. Magic is in everything the Wizard does, and the Wizard accesses it through copious study and analysis, developing esoteric formulae, arcane geometries, or precisely-constructed phrases to bend reality to her will. Though she has sacrificed much of her ability to do any other task, choosing to specialize in "the power to reshape reality itself" means she can still do a great many things...with adequate preparation time.

This is, quite clearly, from both the class descriptions and the ways WotC talk about the class, what they intend for the Wizard to be. Unfortunately, in practice, most of this just isn't true--other than "specializing in rewriting reality makes you stupidly powerful" since that's barely even a specialty. The "scholastic" element of Wizards is almost totally absent, and 5.5e has put only the barest effort into correcting this problem. Most Wizards don't "research" their spells at all, they plagiarize them. (That barest effort, BTW, is that...Wizards now get Expertise with one skill from a fixed list of skills that more or less looks like what 3.x would have called the various specializations of the Knowledge skill: K(Arcana), K(History), etc.) And, to be clear, I don't think the Wizard is a bad class fantasy. I'm simply saying that 5e has almost totally failed to do anything whatever about the Wizard class to make it a researcher or academic, despite the fact that being a researcher AND academic is quite literally the core class fantasy!

Aim for something that is like one of the descriptions above. Then we can talk about design goals that can bring that description to life.

 

[aco175]

The everyman hold the torch. If he survives, he can move on from staff to crossbow. If he survives, you can give him a stat boost every other level. After 5 levels, you can see where he is putting his stat boosts and then add first level multiclassing benefits. Every other level add the next level of the class he chosen. After all this, he still generally stinks but is likely greater than the others in the village.

 

[Minigiant]

: Give me the elevator pitch. 3-6 sentences (preferably more sentences only if there are rather short ones). Succinctly summarize. Things like what it's supposed to feel like to play, or what priorities it gives the player while playing it, or how the thematics are meant to draw the player into a particular experience. If possible, keep it light on mechanics, this is much higher-level than mechanics

The GEC is a survivor and dabbler. Rather than intense training or advanced study, a GEC's adventuring skill is formed by its learned experience added by its fortitude to live through those experiences A GEC might be born lucky under a fortunate star, the subject of a prophecy, the inheritor of a strong bloodline, or even the diamond plucked from a hot tragedy. Due to their hard push into adventure, a GEC's style is simple and not flashy but due to the little tools they have they have more time to hone those few skills and learn some of the aptitudes of those around them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not by Wizards of the Coast.

Let someone release one on DMs Guild if it's needed that badly. Or let the DM who wants it for their game make it themselves.

 

[Yaarel]

The GEC is a survivor and dabbler. Rather than intense training or advanced study, a GEC's adventuring skill is formed by its learned experience added by its fortitude to live through those experiences A GEC might be born lucky under a fortunate star, the subject of a prophecy, the inheritor of a strong bloodline, or even the diamond plucked from a hot tragedy. Due to their hard push into adventure, a GEC's style is simple and not flashy but due to the little tools they have they have more time to hone those few skills and learn some of the aptitudes of those around them.

For the genre, the "everyman" (or everyfolk?) succeeds despite being "average" in every way.

Mechanically, this seems like a class that is entirely about luck, occasionally justified by authenticity, being honest about oneself.

Maybe the halfing (hobbit) was dipping into this lucky trope.

 

[Minigiant]

For the genre, the "everyman" (or everyfolk?) succeeds despite being "average" in every way.

Mechanically, this seems like a class that is entirely about luck, occasionally justified by authenticity, being honest about oneself.

Maybe the halfing (hobbit) was dipping into this lucky trope.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

The stereotypical halfling/hobbit isn't the sneaky death merchant of the 5.5e rogue nor the tough trained murder machine of the 5.5e fighter but that ally who you know can success at that one thing you really need and provides one of your party's roles with decency and simplicity via a fistful of luck.

 

[Laurefindel]

I feel every "class" by definition is something for players to play.

Nonplayer characters dont need classes because they use different rules, namely statblocks.

If a class exists at all, it must be balanced and comparable with other player classes. These are definitely not "everyfolks".

@Minigiant can correct me if I’m wrong, but this class would be meant as a PC class; not a class for NPC.

Ultimately, the question is « if my character’s concept is ‘son of a baker gone on an adventure’, which class fits, now that they’re all represent specialist archetypes each requiring years of training »?

Balance against other classes is not questioned - this class has to compete - but thanks to abilities based on luck and grounded survival instincts/tricks instead of years of training.

Personally, I don’t things such as class is missing. It could be made and someone may do something very exciting with it, but I don’t feel the gap left without it demands a new class. I’m ok with a voluntary distance between fiction and class abilities, and refluff when necessary.