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

[TwoSix]

Literature does have such characters. We talk about LotR's hobbits like Samwise mostly surviving through luck and persistence, not training or combat prowess. His skills as a cook and gardener aren't winning him the day. I would argue Tasselhoff is a better example though; the handler class is essentially a kender-everyman class (it takes the main kender racial trait: thief skills and lets him improve them. It's the closest to a kender race-as-class as AD&D would allow). Tass is absolutely not a trained "thief", his abilities are just innate kender curiosity that manifests as thief skills. And while he lacks the full power of a proper Thief (no sneak attack/backstab) he's close enough that he can hang with the other Heroes of the Lance. (At least in AD&D, I could make an argument that the Thief class itself barely hangs with the others, but that's a debate for a different topic).

Tasslehoff is a pretty solid exemplar of the trope. I think another possible framing for an "Everyman" class would be "what would a race-as-class for human look like?"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tasslehoff is a pretty solid exemplar of the trope. I think another possible framing for an "Everyman" class would be "what would a race-as-class for human look like?"

The Basic D&D Halfling class was based on LotR hobbits, and also works for Tasslehoff.

However, it is also very very similar to thief, which evolved into rogue, and still gains plot armor (i.e. hp) as it progresses through the game.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a bad side effect of designing large modules that are supposed to carry you over multiple levels. The timing for the adventure suggests days or weeks, but each chapter or section is its own level. Obviously, WotC's APs are a big factor in this, but I've seen a lot of 3pp modules that fall into the same pacing. To the point you don't get to enjoy the level you're at before you're adding the next one.

I REALLY wish designers would give levels a little more breathing room and maybe scale back the level range of their adventures to make leveling feel worth it rather than what you do at the end of the session.

I think there's several factors at play.

1) The system doesn't incentivize downtime, or give a penalty for not taking it. Which makes the neutral state of play "just keep adventuring".
2) The system doesn't have granular growth of character capability outside of leveling. It should be fairly obvious from several decades of observation that players, in aggregate, don't like to have a lot of sessions where their character growth is stagnant. Which leads to the common paradigm of "let's level every session or two."
3) Without downtime, the only way for a GM to narrate "passage of time" is to do some sort of time skip. But it seems in violation of social contract to elide that time without giving the players some ability to do "something" in that time frame, which just leads to that time also needing to be played out. And thus no time is actually skipped.

 

[Minigiant]

This clarifies things somewhat, but I think calling it the "Everyman" is muddling the conversation. The everyman isn't the lucky guy or the guy protected by fate or the gods. If that's the concept, then I think a better name for the class would be the Serendipitous Fool or Lucky Fool, or maybe just the Fool.

That's why the original name and name in the title is

The Adventurer Class​

A class that can encompass the farmer who learned on the fly, the baker who is secretly a reincarnation of a hero, or a urchin born under a special sign and watched over by a minor god.

 

[Remathilis]

That's why the original name and name in the title is

The Adventurer Class​

A class that can encompass the farmer who learned on the fly, the baker who is secretly a reincarnation of a hero, or a urchin born under a special sign and watched over by a minor god.

I think the Adventurer is worse because it doesn't imply any of that. It implies a character that is good at several things at once. They can fight decent, use a variety of skills, has a mix of languages and survival tools, and probably a smattering of magic. It looks more like a modern day survivalist than an Everyman, and probably would feel like a ranger or rogue hybrid.

As an aside, I'd personally like to see that 'hero with a special power" be used for special powers, not a schlub who manages to blunder though a campaign. If we're going to use unique origin stuff, use it as an excuse to have martials throw mountains and fly, not to let Baker's make skill checks with an extra 1d8 added...

 

[TwoSix]

As an aside, I'd personally like to see that 'hero with a special power" be used for special powers, not a schlub who manages to blunder though a campaign. If we're going to use unique origin stuff, use it as an excuse to have martials throw mountains and fly, not to let Baker's make skill checks with an extra 1d8 added...

This seems like part of the general divide in opinion if classes are more of an occupation or vocation that the character follows through their own volition, or if class is more of a metagame container to hold related character concepts that share a mechanical framework.

And this is a divide that exists within the core classes, sometimes even within concepts for the same class!

 

[Minigiant]

I think the Adventurer is worse because it doesn't imply any of that. It implies a character that is good at several things at once. They can fight decent, use a variety of skills, has a mix of languages and survival tools, and probably a smattering of magic. It looks more like a modern day survivalist than an Everyman, and probably would feel like a ranger or rogue hybrid.

As an aside, I'd personally like to see that 'hero with a special power" be used for special powers, not a schlub who manages to blunder though a campaign. If we're going to use unique origin stuff, use it as an excuse to have martials throw mountains and fly, not to let Baker's make skill checks with an extra 1d8 added...

Both would be a survivalist with an option for a bit of minor skills as they would be learning as they adventure. Both archetypes are coming to adventure "empty-headed" and be absorbing information and skills like a sponge

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

This is a bad side effect of designing large modules that are supposed to carry you over multiple levels. The timing for the adventure suggests days or weeks, but each chapter or section is its own level. Obviously, WotC's APs are a big factor in this, but I've seen a lot of 3pp modules that fall into the same pacing. To the point you don't get to enjoy the level you're at before you're adding the next one.

True.

I REALLY wish designers would give levels a little more breathing room and maybe scale back the level range of their adventures to make leveling feel worth it rather than what you do at the end of the session.

I've seen both sorts of advancement in the same game, especially in the Old Days. A pattern I often saw was rapid leveling up (often 1 level per session) until the characters reached the Levels That Didn't Suck, followed by much slower advancement and a focus on other things. "Now that I'm at a level where I can confidently do Cool Stuff, I'd like to go ahead and enjoy doing that Cool Stuff, without a constant worry-terror about being underpowered."

Now different groups had different views about when the Levels That Didn't Suck began. In addition, some DMs took the view that PCs ought to be kept as desperate underpowered underdogs no matter what their level. Because their favorite stories were about protagonists who were desperate underpowered underdogs, who were sent in as forlorn hopes and were in way over their heads, and who survived and succeeded only by the skin of their teeth and through copious amounts of authorial favor. Characters who had the chops, who were up to the task, and who were actually competent were "Mary Sues" and "Munchkins."

(And to get back to the original thread, "everyman" was used as a common example of those underpowered forlorn-hope characters.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because their favorite stories were about protagonists who were desperate underpowered underdogs, who were sent in as forlorn hopes and were in way over their heads, and who survived and succeeded only by the skin of their teeth and through copious amounts of authorial favor

The trouble with that approach is that those protagonists all wear invisible plot armour, and are therefore fake underdogs.

 

[Remathilis]

This seems like part of the general divide in opinion if classes are more of an occupation or vocation that the character follows through their own volition, or if class is more of a metagame container to hold related character concepts that share a mechanical framework.

And this is a divide that exists within the core classes, sometimes even within concepts for the same class!

Very true. Some classes are prescriptive (I am a wizard, that is my job) and some are descriptive (I am a treasure acquisition expert, but my class is called rogue by others). And some straddle the line. (I channel divine energy the same as any priest in the seminary, but I'm not a cleric in the sense that they are).

If you are of the opinion that all classes are all prescriptive (that is, fighter is a specific profession) then you need something to represent adventurers that didn't go to fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue etc school. But if you argue some or all classes can be descriptive, the need is much less.