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

[Micah Sweet]

Warhammer Fantasy?

Fair enough. They do a good job too.

 

[Staffan]

Explains why I played so little of 3e. I never ran into a 6th-Level Commoner

The Sharn sourcebook had an 18th level commoner in it. I can't be hedgehogged to check if they got a full stat block or just a short description. Anyway, as I recall they were a fairly old elf who was the world's best chef, or close to it.

Its only Wizards and Priests that need years of training

Back in 3e, classes were split into three categories on the table for starting age, depending on how much they relied on formal education/training (higher starting age) versus raw talent (lower). As I recall, barbarian and rogue were in the lowest starting age category, wizards and cleric in the highest, and fighters in the middle. This indicates that the fighter is a person who has had lots of formal training via army drills, military academies, or the like.

 

[Hussar]

My point is that the 5th Edition fighter and rogue, especially in 2024, are too skilled and specially trained to "just become".

The fighter would take at least a year of training. And that's the minimum to learn every weapon, every armor, and how to practice every Weapon Mastery. And a fighting style.. And that's just assuming they aren't also training but not applying subclass techniques. An Eldritch Knight, Battle Master, or Rune Knight might be need extra years.

A rogue is looking at at least a few months. More likely a few years unless you are already on the path via a criminal or military background.

A 1st level fighter is the best at fighting of all the classes at that level. He has the most HP, can use the most weapons, by very early days, had weapon specialization, can wear any armor and shields.

At no point in the history of the game has there ever been an "everyman" character class.

If you want an "everyman" character, wouldn't the peasant funnel be the place to start?

 

[Minigiant]

Back in 3e, classes were split into three categories on the table for starting age, depending on how much they relied on formal education/training (higher starting age) versus raw talent (lower). As I recall, barbarian and rogue were in the lowest starting age category, wizards and cleric in the highest, and fighters in the middle. This indicates that the fighter is a person who has had lots of formal training via army drills, military academies, or the like.

I believe in 3e, barbarian, rogue, and sorcerer added 1d4 years to your starting age aa a human.
Fighter, bard, and the half casters were +1d6 or 1d8, I forget which.
And the rest were 2d6.

And that is with the lower learning load and fewer class features of 3rd edition.

A 1st level fighter is the best at fighting of all the classes at that level. He has the most HP, can use the most weapons, by very early days, had weapon specialization, can wear any armor and shields.

At no point in the history of the game has there ever been an "everyman" character class.

If you want an "everyman" character, wouldn't the peasant funnel be the place to start?

The 0e fighter only got weapons and armor. They didn't even get more HP to 1e. Specialization was optional.

The early fighter was so unskilled at first level and the lowest level, getting into the class was barely that much training or requirement.

The 2025 Fighter assumes 3 Weapon Specializations and a Fighting Style Specialization at level 1.

 

[Staffan]

I believe in 3e, barbarian, rogue, and sorcerer added 1d4 years to your starting age aa a human.
Fighter, bard, and the half casters were +1d6 or 1d8, I forget which.
And the rest were 2d6.

Sounds about right, though I can't be bothered to check. I do remember that Eberron's warforged had an interesting twist on the same idea though, with the simple classes being older than the more educated ones. The reasoning was that the more educated ones were later experiments and therefore younger.