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

[GrimCo]

Everyman are pc-s until they get subclass. Lv 1-2 are rookies, not seasoned adventurers. Also, sidekick classes are option and they work pretty good in actual gameplay.

 

[Tonguez]

You can just give a chatacter a background and no class abilities to represent commoners. Giving background feats was nice, limiting the number of backgrounds was dumb

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

I don't think characters like this exist in vanilla 5.5. By which I mean, neither the mechanics nor the assumed fiction supports them. You could use sidekick rules from 5.0, or (my preference) the new Heroic monster rules in Level Up from the Monster Menagerie 2.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Level Up's Wizard class IMO does a much better job with that class fantasy than either 5.0 or 5.5.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Level Up's Wizard class IMO does a much better job with that class fantasy than either 5.0 or 5.5

It's a full class.

It's John the Bakers Boy who follows behind Sir Gary, Reverend Sally, and Harzad the Great. Then later Johnny learns he is a descendant of Samuel Strong, Hero of the Second Empire and his incredible luck is the residual luck is a mixture of blessing of the gods and his strong bloodline causing near misses against him and heart strikes from him. Then when the 4th Empire is crown a new ruler, they all realize Johnny is one of the destined heroes of a prophecy anytimr the Empire is in danger

No months of special swordsmanship training.
No decades of arcane study
No hours of stealth missions

Just learning on the field and lucky hits.

So...the Chosen One? That could work. It would be IMO a very broad class, that regularly pucks options from a menu of class features.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think it could work, but it should probably be a custom homebrew class. Just from the first three pages of comments here, you can already see that different people have different ideas about what an "everyman" is supposed to be, and do, and how. The only way you'll get a satisfying result is to build it yourself.

That said: if I were going to undertake such an endeavor, I would probably do some kind of ability tree like certain video games do. I think that would be the least-frustrating way to handle it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What is your thoughts?

I figured that the rogue was the closest to the "everyman". They didn't fight well, but better than those that deliberately eschewed physical combat. They didn't know any magic, but could, eventually, puzzle out a scroll. It was easy to swap out some abilities for others. So, the dwarven locksmith knows where the traps are and can open any lock, but really isn't that stealthy. They do have a remarkable eye for the value of things, and can tell you the history of nearly any building.

These days, the rogue is a lot more focused and competent. If I was doing it today, I would focus on the "lucky" aspect. They don't have any fighting or magical talent, but survive things that no weaver or glassblower should.

 

[Theory of Games]

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?

This seems to almost always come back to definitions:

Everyman: in D&D terms, it's a term referring to common folk who are NOT adventurers.

Class: in D&D terms, it's a character's profession and adventuring role.

So. Common folk can't have a class. They are what's been referred to in earlier editions as "0-Level NPCs". Like the town guard or a local priest or any of the nobody NPCs who are not and have never been adventurers. Now, if they had been or were adventurers, they would have a class. These are fundamental elements of D&D.

But, a group considering playing a party of common folk could check two sources:

1. 5e's Von Richten's Guide to Ravenloft: it has rules for using "Survivors" (low-powered PCs)
2. AD&D's Treasure Hunt (N4): it has rules for creating 0-Level PCs

 

[Minigiant]

doesn't this latter part kind of retroactively undermine the idea of the character being an everyman? in most of the prior discussions where the fighter is used as the everyman this angle usually got brought up and subsequently pointed out that no, being blessed by gods, being the prophesied hero or part of a special lineage isn't something the everyman archetype has in their back pocket to reveal.

THe Everyman fantasy typically is that if you actually keep going on the adventure, people realize you aren't an Everyman.

The Everyman is a Everyman in Tier 1.

When you hit Tier 2, the Everyman begins to or learns that their font of luck despite little formal training is not mere chance. They are a Prodigy, Inheritor, or a Prophesized Chosen one.

But on the outside they still look and smell like a normal person.

But that normal person just slew a ogre 1v1 with no formal combat training. Just with stuff he picked up watching the party fighter and a little grit.

 

[soviet]

Rolemaster has had this since at least 1984.