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

[Remathilis]

I don't see how it's unhealthy for the game. The game already has a lesser version of it

I just foresee it being a favorite class of Kender players (regardless of if they are playing an actual kender). To be fair though, I think Tasselhoff is the Iconic Everyman character, not Frodo.

What you describe is functionally not much different from a 5e fighter, barbarian, or monk just with a different resource system.

By your own admission, those classes require training. I'm building a class where you bumble through twenty levels using meta currency to keep yourself alive. The character must be able to match the abilities of the other classes or else you're just building an NPC class no one will take.

Or you could go the "Champion" route and give an expanded crit range on attacks and let them crit on skill checks and saving throws.

Or you could just play a Champion Fighter with some different fluffing. Which was always the case. Bob the Baker who stumbled into adventuring and ended up a level 1 fighter in B/X had the same features as Tom the Guard or Susan the Soldier who were also level 1 fighters. It's not like Basic or AD&D made any attempt to differentiate between a character whose background was a commoner and one who was a trained weapon user.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And such an everyman character would be high level and have an appropriate proficiency bonus and HP to reflect that. But even so, they aren't fighters or such unless they multiclass into it.

Why should they not be fighters? They both had military service.

 

[Theory of Games]

But if "Class" = "Profession" = "Trained", how can you have a class that is specifically untrained?

Plus, say a player wants to Multiclass their 5th-level Fighter into the Everyman "class" for the groovy luck/inspiration/destiny points?

It's an odd concept, is all.

 

[CreamCloud0]

@Theory of Games why the laugh on my class outline? genuinely curious.

 

[Theory of Games]

@Theory of Games why the laugh on my class outline? genuinely curious.

The irony? This Everyman concept makes no sense from a design perspective. If "Class" = "Trained Professional".

But, your outline of how the class would work was well done and made me remember that everything in our hobby really doesn't make much sense. I tend to forget that the main focus of ttrpgs is FUN.

Also your Everyman build is kinda OP and I instinctively began reworking it in my head and that's when it all kind of hit me. All I could do is laugh. It wasn't mean-spirited or anything

 

[Remathilis]

Why should they not be fighters? They both had military service.

So honestly, if I were statting up LotR in D&D terms (a fool's errand but hear me out) I'd probably make all the hobbits fighters or fighter/rogues. If you REALLY want to argue it, Frodo could be an NPC statblock. I don't really think there is much necessity for an everyman class in D&D, but I'm playing along with the OP's assumption and that Legolas and Gimli are closer to the traditional D&D Fighter than Merri and Pippin and you would need a new class to represent the latter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The irony? This Everyman concept makes no sense from a design perspective. If "Class" = "Trained Professional".

personally i consider the term 'Class' to be more of an analogue of 'skillset', and while most classes in 5e do seem to come with a heavy implication of professional training* (hence this thread) there is however the sorcerer and warlock also exist as classes who's premise's exist on somewhat of an assumption of zero to minimal training required, in a 'bam, now you've got magic powers babey!' way.

*i do think some of the class' abilities don't rely on having been educated in the field and instead could come more from lived experience and trial and error but that's a similar issues as training in different outfit for the everyman given a similar extended period of learning their abilities which undermines the 'you got thrown into this' aspect of the archetype.

But, your outline of how the class would work was well done and made me remember that everything in our hobby really doesn't make much sense. I tend to forget that the main focus of ttrpgs is FUN.

Also your Everyman build is kinda OP and I instinctively began reworking it in my head and that's when it all kind of hit me. All I could do is laugh. It wasn't mean-spirited or anything

i freely admit i have little sense of balance in designing for this game.

 

[Theory of Games]

personally i consider the term 'Class' to be more of an analogue of 'skillset', and while most classes in 5e do seem to come with a heavy implication of professional training* (hence this thread) there is however the sorcerer and warlock also exist as classes who's premise's exist on somewhat of an assumption of zero to minimal training required, in a 'bam, now you've got magic powers babey!' way.

*i do think some of the class' abilities don't rely on having been educated in the field and instead could come more from lived experience and trial and error but that's a similar issues as training in different outfit for the everyman given a similar extended period of learning their abilities which undermines the 'you got thrown into this' aspect of the archetype.

i freely admit i have little sense of balance in designing for this game.

Well, IMO WotC has little sense of balance in designing D&D. It's been a mess since the 3e changes. Or, maybe not a mess, but definitely an entirely different game.

But, again, I liked your attempt at designing the Everyman and I hope others like where you're going with it. The concept is popular enough to explore.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Level 1: Destiny Points
Your belief in yourself places a special mark on the world. This is represented by Destiny Points. Your GEC level determines the number of points you have, as shown in the Destiny Points column of the GEC Features table.

You can expend these points to enhance or fuel certain GEC features.

You start knowing 2 such features: Defy Death and Lucky Hit, and each of which is detailed below.

Defy Death: When you are reduced to 0 Hit Points but not killed outright, you can spend a Destiny Point and drop to 1d12 Hit Points instead. You cannot exceed your maximum Hit Point total this way.

Lucky Hit: When you hit a creature with an attack and deal damage, you can spend a Destiny Point and gain a 1d12 bonus to the attack’s damage roll,

When you expend a Destiny Point, it is unavailable until you finish a Short or Long Rest, at the end of which you regain all your expended points.

Well that could work theoretically but what has been documented to provide results is a big green gem embedded into one's chest.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, IMO WotC has little sense of balance in designing D&D. It's been a mess since the 3e changes. Or, maybe not a mess, but definitely an entirely different game.

TSR had little sense of balance in AD&D. You can count of three things in life: Death, Taxes, and D&D being unbalanced.