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

[Minigiant]

I'll argue it never really worked. Really, the only way such a character could work (barring narrative tricks and meta-currency) is a skill-based system and a game where combat isn't a priority.

It would have worked easier back in older editions were a PC class was only a slight step above an NPC and many NPCs were just low level PCs. A decent Hit die with a basic saving throw in to hit progression and a progression of racial or occupational features would be a great help in a party. B/X race as class was kinda this where every dwarf or halfling you see outside their lands got basic training.

But in Wizards D&D, every PC class in their core books are equivalent to a doctorate in real life. There's a huge gap to fill.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a world of fantasy, prodigies can exist. Reincarnated souls can exist. Memory crystals can exist. Divine uploads can exist. Dream Sanctuaries with super compressed time passage can exist.

In fantasy role-playing, the PCs are not necessarily average joes, they are the heroes of the story so there's no official rule that says they can't be exceptions to the norm of people in the setting.

The paths are limitless if the imagination is unleashed.

Provided there's a story for them to be "heroes" of, an optional feature of fantasy role-playing, far from necessary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It would have worked easier back in older editions were a PC class was only a slight step above an NPC and many NPCs were just low level PCs. A decent Hit die with a basic saving throw in to hit progression and a progression of racial or occupational features would be a great help in a party. B/X race as class was kinda this where every dwarf or halfling you see outside their lands got basic training.

But in Wizards D&D, every PC class in their core books are equivalent to a doctorate in real life. There's a huge gap to fill.

Yup, many things were easier to make logical sense of on the PC front pre-WotC.

 

[Minigiant]

Yup, many things were easier to make logical sense of on the PC front pre-WotC.

It's not that the WOTC side of PCs make less sense.

It's more that it's clear that D&D has been steered by the "Dragonlance PC fan" wing of the community for 25 years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not that the WOTC side of PCs make less sense.

It's more that it's clear that D&D has been steered by the "Dragonlance PC fan" wing of the community for 25 years.

Fair enough, but that mindset didn't force its way into the rules until 3e and WotC.

 

[Hriston]

I think for a PC class to play as an everyman, as distinct from an archetypal hero, it needs to grant abilities that allow the player to counter opposition through ambivalence and avoiding engagement but should also let the player take swift vigorous action reactively to avert disaster only when the situation has become about as dire as possible.

Examples: Charlie Brown, Arthur Dent, Jim Gordon, Jonathan Harker, Marty McFly, Homer Simpson, Hamlet.

 

[James Gasik]

It would have worked easier back in older editions were a PC class was only a slight step above an NPC and many NPCs were just low level PCs. A decent Hit die with a basic saving throw in to hit progression and a progression of racial or occupational features would be a great help in a party. B/X race as class was kinda this where every dwarf or halfling you see outside their lands got basic training.

But in Wizards D&D, every PC class in their core books are equivalent to a doctorate in real life. There's a huge gap to fill.

Also, many NPC's were mid-to-high level PC's as well.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not that the WOTC side of PCs make less sense.

It's more that it's clear that D&D has been steered by the "Dragonlance PC fan" wing of the community for 25 years.

The "Dragonlance PC fan" wing of the community has been the driver of sales of splat books, settings, and adventure paths for 40+ years. They are the reason 2e invested heavily in kits and a multitude of settings. The dungeon crasher/sandbox side never needed (nor wanted) much more than random tables, dungeons and DIY tools. The desire for narrative fulfilling characters is why D&D evolved at all.

Dragonlance PC fans sold books. That's why they have steered the community.

 

[Bae'zel]

In some RPGs, like Break! and Outgunned: Adventure, there's a character "class" that's more of a supportive everyman type (a Sam Gamgee).

It would be interesting if 5e had such a class with "heart" and an almost stubborn loyalty. Lots of practical skills (cooking, mending, socializing etc.) to the point of almost being magical but not blatantly being so.

Abilities like:

• Once per rest can pull out a useful albeit mundane item out of their backpack for free to help overcome a challenge or obstacle
• Can essentially become "invisible" during a combat scene because they're deemed totally unthreatening to the opposition (until they make an attack roll with a frying pan or rolling pin)
• Has improved proficiency with Improvised weapons (said frying pan, wrench or rolling pin)
• bonuses to social encounters with "everyday" folk, kind of like the old Folk Hero Background trait
• can Help as a bonus action in combat (eg shouts "look out!" to the Fighter)

Stuff like that. Could be fun!

 

[Remathilis]

I think for a PC class to play as an everyman, as distinct from an archetypal hero, it needs to grant abilities that allow the player to counter opposition through ambivalence and avoiding engagement but should also let the player take swift vigorous action reactively to avert disaster only when the situation has become about as dire as possible.

Examples: Charlie Brown, Arthur Dent, Jim Gordon, Jonathan Harker, Marty McFly, Homer Simpson, Hamlet.

I saw Wikipedia's article and I would disagree with some of their choices for Everymans. Mostly because there are two different types of Everyman: the side character who provides audience POV (Jim Gordon) and the protagonist who is not special in any way but somehow manages to find themselves in extraordinary situations (Johnathon Harker). I especially would argue Hamlet is not an everyman: he's far too philosophical, cunning, and tragic to represent the everyday person. His flaw is inaction, but he is more than capable of doing what is necessary (hence the tragedy).