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

[Minigiant]

In 5E at least this is the background IMO. By the time you get a leveled class, you are beyond basic training. A soldier background is basic training, a fighter is special forces out of commando school

And that's the whole premise of the thread.

Could you make a character class where the PC only went to basic training and an advances more on their background skills and general luck than the training that they went through?

Would you play a class who advances their everyday background skills to fantastic levels and relies more on luck while still keeping up with standard D&D classes in power and contributing to a party?

 

[Theory of Games]

I mean all this class would have is the Luck points. It's perfect for the casual gamer who isn't interested in learning D&D. They just wanna play with their friends. SO they get the Everyperson and they can roll dice and if they fail they can just burn a Luck point and succeed. Auto-success balanced by a limited number of Luck points. Maybe the points refresh after a long rest (all) and some after a short rest?

The key here is this is THE Metacurrency class. No skills. No combat proficiency. No spells. No Feats. Give 'em a pack and a tool kit or dice or something. One weapon they have no skill with.

Just the Class Feature: Luck. That's it ...

 

[Yaarel]

I mean all this class would have is the Luck points. It's perfect for the casual gamer who isn't interested in learning D&D. They just wanna play with their friends. SO they get the Everyperson and they can roll dice and if they fail they can just burn a Luck point and succeed. Auto-success balanced by a limited number of Luck points. Maybe the points refresh after a long rest (all) and some after a short rest?

The key here is this is THE Metacurrency class. No skills. No combat proficiency. No spells. No Feats. Give 'em a pack and a tool kit or dice or something. One weapon they have no skill with.

Just the Class Feature: Luck. That's it ...

I like the concept and the simplicity.

Can you give an example of, say, three turns, for how Luck would work?

 

[ezo]

Exactly

By the time Luke multiclassed to take his first Jedi levels, he was a level 5 farmer faking a pilot who dumped all his luck dice into a planet killing high power construct.

I think the word you're looking for is "Fringer". He was a level 2 Fringer before gaining any levels of Jedi according to the d20 SW game anyway. And it worked well.

Could you make a character class where the PC only went to basic training and an advances more on their background skills and general luck than the training that they went through?

IMO no, or at least it would seem "boring" to many players today.

Would you play a class who advances their everyday background skills to fantastic levels and relies more on luck while still keeping up with standard D&D classes in power and contributing to a party?

Would I? Certainly, because I am more about the adventure than the character when I play. Would most people? Probably not.

Imagine a soldier-background Everyman Class. It gains proficiency bonus like all other classes. It has d10 HD. It has one save to begin with, and picks up another through Resilient maybe? It has two skills, but picks up a few more through the Skilled feat or something. It doesn't gain maneuvers, or second wind, or anything like that.

So what would it gain? How would it keep up with normal classes in power without just becoming another class???

 

[Theory of Games]

I like the concept and the simplicity.

Can you give an example of, say, three turns, for how Luck would work?

Isn't there a Luck feat or - I remember Halflings had some kind of Luck thing? I'm not a 5e spec, but this concept grew on me. If we look at how luck has been handled and balanced for this edition, should be an easy build?

 

[Minigiant]

I think the word you're looking for is "Fringer". He was a level 2 Fringer before gaining any levels of Jedi according to the d20 SW game anyway. And it worked well

That's a fancy sci-fi word for "outskirts farmer".

 

[ezo]

I like the concept and the simplicity.

Can you give an example of, say, three turns, for how Luck would work?

You begin with a number of luck dice equal to proficiecny bonus, which refresh every round.
Your luck dice are based on proficiency dice (d4 to start, d12 at the end).
You can use a luck die to add to damage you roll, and ability check or saving throw you make.
If you have luck left, you can use a luck die to reduce an enemy's attack or ability check against you.
If you have luck left, you can use your reaction to affect an ally.

It is your only feature.

So, level 1 you have two d4 luck dice. On your turn, you make an attack and think it will barely miss, so spend a luck die and add the d4 roll, maybe making it hit. Your enemy attacks and hits, so you spend the d4 to reduce the damage.

Your next turn you get them both back.

By level 17, you have six d12 luck dice.

That's a fancy sci-fi word for "outskirts farmer".

It was a bit more than that.

 

[Theory of Games]

You begin with a number of luck dice equal to proficiecny bonus, which refresh every round.
Your luck dice are based on proficiency dice (d4 to start, d12 at the end).
You can use a luck die to add to damage you roll, and ability check or saving throw you make.
If you have luck left, you can use a luck die to reduce an enemy's attack or ability check against you.
If you have luck left, you can use your reaction to affect an ally.

It is your only feature.

So, level 1 you have two d4 luck dice. On your turn, you make an attack and think it will barely miss, so spend a luck die and add the d4 roll, maybe making it hit. Your enemy attacks and hits, so you spend the d4 to reduce the damage.

Your next turn you get them both back.

By level 17, you have six d12 luck dice.


It was a bit more than that.

d4 definitely seems wimpy especially for a class that only has luck dice. That's why I was thinking "burn a luck point and auto-succeed on the failed roll". Here's the thing: at level 4 they'll have what - two d4 luck dice? Say they fail a roll, then get a 1 on the luck die and still fail? IMO that kind of design fails at FUN. Now the other option: at level 4, 2 luck points. They fail a roll? Burn and WIN!

It's like having pocket aces in Poker: you may not always win, but you win way more often than you lose. This increased chance of success is what makes a useless class appealing.

I'm also thinking of pulling Background skills out for this: the PC has "occupational" skills or hobbies that are vague enough to - in certain situations - cover how the regular skills are used. Like, the PC is a landscaper, so Landscaping can be used for Nature, Survival, Perception, Investigation or whatever the GM allows, right?

 

[ezo]

d4 definitely seems wimpy especially for a class that only has luck dice.

Well, it would have to be playtested, but you would begin with two of them, and get them every single round. That doesn't seem too wimpy IMO but I could be wrong.

 

[Yaarel]

Isn't there a Luck feat or - I remember Halflings had some kind of Luck thing? I'm not a 5e spec, but this concept grew on me. If we look at how luck has been handled and balanced for this edition, should be an easy build?

Sure there is the Lucky feat and the Halfling Luck trait.

These are about d20 success/failure. No surprising events, however.