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

[TwoSix]

Kind of a joke-class, but definitely playable.

The Commoner Class by laserllama

The Commoner Class by laserllama - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

 

[Yaarel]

I somehow think the Paladin class can add an "Oath of the Everyone". The class already dabbles competently in a little bit of everything, but the "smites" can reflavor humorously, and so on.

 

[ezo]

The fighter is no longer the Everyman.

Was it ever???

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.

Just who are these "professional looters" the baker is following into the dungeon and why did the baker go?? What did they do: throw muffins at the undead they met?

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.

This margin has been practically non-existant from the beginning, and quickly disappeared.

There's a reason why AD&D had 0-level humanoids, for instance.

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.

Really? How? Probably is some Dragon Magazine issue I would guess??

I mean yes the AD&D fighter is more "simple" feature-wise than 5E, for example, but even the AD&D fighter had 4 weapons and all armor (if they could afford it). The secondary skills and later non-weapon proficiencies often filled in the "before" time for the PC.

So I wondered, should this base concept be pulled out of the fighter and solidified as its own class.

What "base concept"? The tradesperson? Merchant? Farmer? and all the rest of the non-adventures which backgrounds, etc. represent? I still disagree wht Fighter ever represented these concepts.

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?

My thoughts are a few:

Introduce 0-level again with a bit of XP to reach 1st and then pick up an adventurer class.
Use sidekicks to represent these concepts (with or without 0-level).
Use non-heroic classes (similar to sidekicks) from prior editions.
Use any or all of the above to develop something of your own.

But I guess I would ask why? Do you want a 15th-level Expert (Baker) PC?

The whole point of having commoners is to not do this sort of thing, so what is your goal and why are you doing it?

 

[SkidAce]

Kind of a joke-class, but definitely playable.

The Commoner Class by laserllama

The Commoner Class by laserllama - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

Thats actually fantastic, if you need a "special" commoner to journey with the group. And if I limit it to 3-5th level for NPCs its perfect.

 

[Umbran]

... why did the baker go??

He needed the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold so the witch next door would remove the curse upon his house and he and his wife could have children.

 

[Pedantic]

I'd focus on flexibility, and reactive abilities. The everyman fantasy is mostly about surviving when you shouldn't, paper with having narrative events compare to give you a chance to succeed/grow.

I'd want to avoid giving this class traditionally structured abilities, instead letting them make choices at the last minute. Things like letting them pick skill proficiencies mid encounter, pools of points you can spend for extra attacks, extra damage, rerolls, and so on.

I think the big marquee feature I'd lean in on is modified multiclassing, maybe even forced multiclassing, topping the class out at level 5. I think I'd do something like "when you take a level in a different class, you may exchange a level of Adventurer for another level in that class," so by 10th level, you'll have covered entirely to a "trained" class to represent your growth/learning.

 

[Minigiant]

Was it ever???

It was in the beginning.

Since the original game any PC who didn't roll horrible strength qualified to be a fighter.

In many forms of old school play where you would send a ton of commoners, experts, and professionals in the dungeon, many of those who would survive and get experience would come out as fighters.

What "base concept"? The tradesperson? Merchant? Farmer? and all the rest of the non-adventures which backgrounds, etc. represent? I still disagree wht Fighter ever represented these concepts

There are many stories of members of adventuring groups who aren't hardened warriors nor master mages but just dabble in whatever weapon, spell and armor they find or purchase and mostly rely on luck, destiny, toughness, ingenuity, experience, or overspecialization to contribute to the group.

 

[Pedantic]

Actually, if this was a temporary class you eventually replace, it would be a great model for stat fixing, if you wanted to use rolled ability scores. Write in some ability score increases that are capped based on the standard array, so you can spend a few levels building into a Cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd focus on flexibility, and reactive abilities. The everyman fantasy is mostly about surviving when you shouldn't, paper with having narrative events compare to give you a chance to succeed/grow.

I'd want to avoid giving this class traditionally structured abilities, instead letting them make choices at the last minute. Things like letting them pick skill proficiencies mid encounter, pools of points you can spend for extra attacks, extra damage, rerolls, and so on.

I think the big marquee feature I'd lean in on is modified multiclassing, maybe even forced multiclassing, topping the class out at level 5. I think I'd do something like "when you take a level in a different class, you may exchange a level of Adventurer for another level in that class," so by 10th level, you'll have covered entirely to a "trained" class to represent your growth/learning.

That's kinda how I would do it.

1. Some kind of "when you die" feature like @Yaarel said
2. Give them some kind of point system that they can spend in the middle of adventures or combat to temporarily give them a bonus to damage, skills, AC
3. Some kind of innate multiclassing that allows the class to learn from party members (and monsters as subclass).

 

[ezo]

It was in the beginning.

How?

Since the original game any PC who didn't roll horrible strength qualified to be a fighter.

And any PC who didn't roll horrible intelligence could be a magic-user, no horrible dexterity a thief, and no horrible wisdom a cleric.

Fighter really wasn't the "everymans" class in any way. I really don't know where you got that from.

In many forms of old school play where you would send a ton of commoners, experts, and professionals in the dungeon, many of those who would survive and get experience would come out as fighters.

Never in my experience. Why would they come out fighters?

Hirelings (even expert ones) didn't level and rarely, if ever, went on adventures. They were more used around town/base-camp/stronghold. These were 0-level creatures.

Henchmen, however, did and had classes and levels already, nearly always 1st level. Higher level PCs (6th+) might get a 2nd-level henchmen and very high level (11+) might even attract a 3rd-level henchmen! Since they already had levels and classes, they didn't "come out as fighters" either (unless they went in as one... or were human and the DM chose to have them dual class already... I suppose that could happen...).

There are many stories of members of adventuring groups who aren't hardened warriors nor master mages but just dabble in whatever weapon, spell and armor they find or purchase and mostly rely on luck, destiny, toughness, ingenuity, experience, or overspecialization to contribute to the group.

Certainly, those are the low level PCs. Is a 1st-level fighter a "hardened warrior" or a 1st-level wizard a "master mage"??? Of course not!

PCs at low levels rely on luck, ingenuity, etc. to survive lower levels. It isn't until tier 2 in 5E a PC might even start to begin considering themselves any sort of "hardened" or "master" anything.