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

[Minigiant]

Very true. Some classes are prescriptive (I am a wizard, that is my job) and some are descriptive (I am a treasure acquisition expert, but my class is called rogue by others). And some straddle the line. (I channel divine energy the same as any priest in the seminary, but I'm not a cleric in the sense that they are).

If you are of the opinion that all classes are all prescriptive (that is, fighter is a specific profession) then you need something to represent adventurers that didn't go to fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue etc school. But if you argue some or all classes can be descriptive, the need is much less.

And even if you say the classes are descriptive, you have to design them that way.

3e, 4e, and 5e were designed heavily into single concepts. You couldn't squint and play anything. This is why 3e and 4e bloated with classes and 5e with subclasses. That's why the barbarian and sorcerer even exist.

 

[Remathilis]

And even if you say the classes are descriptive, you have to design them that way.

3e, 4e, and 5e were designed heavily into single concepts. You couldn't squint and play anything. This is why 3e and 4e bloated with classes and 5e with subclasses. That's why the barbarian and sorcerer even exist.

Bear in mind that the difference between prescriptive and descriptive if it is diegetic in the fiction. Bob would call himself a knight, a soldier, a bandit, or a marshal, but at no point would he call himself a "fighter", while Sir Charles would absolutely use the term "paladin" to describe his profession. It doesn't matter if a bandit and a knight have the same fighter chassis*, the point is that Bob wouldn't call "fighter" a profession the same way "paladin" or "ranger" are.

All that said, I don't think you could really do any better in a class-based system with niche protection. Whether fighter is an actual concept in the world or merely a description of the archetype the class is supposed to invoke, It's going to protect to have to fill its niche as the nonmagical combat class. Even in Basic, the fighter isn't able to fill the niche of the smuck commoner who knows a lot about gardening and not war. The only reason it looks like that is the Basic Fighter isn't getting anything new aside from combat # improvements for the majority of its lifetime. The minute you start giving the fighter anything, you begin the process of justifying it. Doesn't matter if its weapon specialization, bonus feats, martial maneuvers, or weapon masteries.

The best way your idea would work is in a classeless system where the Baker starts out spending all his skill points on mundane skills and then as he levels up begins to spend skills on combat or magic or adventuring skills if he wants. Everything else is going to end up with specialists protecting their specialty niches.

 

[Minigiant]

Bear in mind that the difference between prescriptive and descriptive if it is diegetic in the fiction. Bob would call himself a knight, a soldier, a bandit, or a marshal, but at no point would he call himself a "fighter", while Sir Charles would absolutely use the term "paladin" to describe his profession. It doesn't matter if a bandit and a knight have the same fighter chassis*, the point is that Bob wouldn't call "fighter" a profession the same way "paladin" or "ranger" are.

The question is whether Bob say he has Weapon Mastery in longsword, greatswords, and longsword or describe an in world practice that world similar.

The premise is to create a PC who could fill one of the warrior, expert, priest, or mage roles without the years of study or implied mastery the classes assume.

Could a butcher function as an expert or warrior with his towny skills and knowledge of butchery and not Mastery and Expertise? Does he have to be a particularly lucky or blessed butcher to do it? Or could he accelerate his knowledge and learn bits and pieces of different bits of adventuring faster due to the extra space in their head learning Masteries, Expertises, and Cantrips later in levels?

 

[Remathilis]

The question is whether Bob say he has Weapon Mastery in longsword, greatswords, and longsword or describe an in world practice that world similar.

The premise is to create a PC who could fill one of the warrior, expert, priest, or mage roles without the years of study or implied mastery the classes assume.

Could a butcher function as an expert or warrior with his towny skills and knowledge of butchery and not Mastery and Expertise? Does he have to be a particularly lucky or blessed butcher to do it? Or could he accelerate his knowledge and learn bits and pieces of different bits of adventuring faster due to the extra space in their head learning Masteries, Expertises, and Cantrips later in levels?

Let me ask you this question: how do you handle multi-classing? Susie the sorcerer decides to take a level in bard. Where did she learn all the bard abilities from? What if she takes a level in paladin or warlock next? Unless the character was developed her sorcerous talent, then became a musician, and then became the chosen of a god/made a pact with the devil all in the time it took to explore Phandelver, it cannot make any sense. (I see this as a general flaw with multiclassing, btw).

But whatever excuse justifies Susie jumping three classes in three levels justifies the Butcher going from slaughtering hogs to slaughtering goblins. Maybe you justify it in fiction. Or implement mandatory training time. Or you handwave and ignore it. But that's the way the Butcher can become a fighter as well.