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

[Scars Unseen]

Looks more like a DCC campaign because that system specializes in 0-Level to Hero-Level. Exactly the way you plan to do it, as well.

Well, that was the push I needed to go ahead and add DCC to my collection. Just ordered the First Time Fan Kit as well as the Lankhmar box set and Dungeon Denizens book.

 

[Hriston]

That's why the original name and name in the title is

The Adventurer Class​

A class that can encompass the farmer who learned on the fly, the baker who is secretly a reincarnation of a hero, or a urchin born under a special sign and watched over by a minor god.

Okay, but in the title you say outright and in the OP imply the "Adventurer" class is meant to represent "the Everyman" by which I assumed you meant the Everyman stock character archetype. Maybe you meant something else. I don't know. Of the concepts you've described here, only the first seems like it could be an everyman, so I would guess you're going for something much broader.

As for Adventurer, it seems inaccurate, or at least overly broad. I mean, all the PHB classes are adventurers, so wouldn't a better name for this class be Non-adventurer since it is explicitly not them? Or, if the idea is to distinguish the class from the professional adventuring classes by its lack of training, you could call it the "Amateur Adventurer" or just the "Amateur".

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, but in the title you say outright and in the OP imply the "Adventurer" class is meant to represent "the Everyman" by which I assumed you meant the Everyman stock character archetype. Maybe you meant something else. I don't know. Of the concepts you've described here, only the first seems like it could be an everyman, so I would guess you're going for something much broader.

As for Adventurer, it seems inaccurate, or at least overly broad. I mean, all the PHB classes are adventurers, so wouldn't a better name for this class be Non-adventurer since it is explicitly not them? Or, if the idea is to distinguish the class from the professional adventuring classes by its lack of training, you could call it the "Amateur Adventurer" or just the "Amateur".

The real issue is there is no word for someone who "learns on the field". A person who enters dungeoneering with little training and either picks up informal knowledge from the experience, bits and pieces of aptitudes from allies and locations, hondles their natural talents via hard work, or relies on unbelievable skill via luck or blessing.

So I used a generic name

 

[Theory of Games]

When you think about it, The Everyman is a bad concept.

"Class" is equivalent to a character's profession: what they do for a living. Fighter's fight. Thieves steal. Clerics pray, heal and fight. Mages use magic. It's what they do and their capabilities allow them to survive dungeons and slay dragons.

But the Everyman is a nobody. A 0-level commoner who won't survive dungeons or slay dragons. A party of Everymen would be commoners with pitchforks and torches, which is no match for the traditional D&D party described above.

You could create the class, but why? There isn't a niche for it. Other than this thread, I haven't seen D&D gamers asking for a "commoner class". What the character could do (which isn't much) is easily covered by the real characters. It's like in the cowboy films where there were cowboy gunslingers and then there was "Cookie", the old fella who made chili for the wagon train. Cookie is an NPC not a PC adventurer.

Frodo and Will Ohmsford and Luke Skywalker are all 1st-level characters. They suck at what they do, but, get better as the story goes along. Kinda like D&D characters.

 

[Remathilis]

When you think about it, The Everyman is a bad concept.

"Class" is equivalent to a character's profession: what they do for a living. Fighter's fight. Thieves steal. Clerics pray, heal and fight. Mages use magic. It's what they do and their capabilities allow them to survive dungeons and slay dragons.

But the Everyman is a nobody. A 0-level commoner who won't survive dungeons or slay dragons. A party of Everymen would be commoners with pitchforks and torches, which is no match for the traditional D&D party described above.

You could create the class, but why? There isn't a niche for it. Other than this thread, I haven't seen D&D gamers asking for a "commoner class". What the character could do (which isn't much) is easily covered by the real characters. It's like in the cowboy films where there were cowboy gunslingers and then there was "Cookie", the old fella who made chili for the wagon train. Cookie is an NPC not a PC adventurer.

Frodo and Will Ohmsford and Luke Skywalker are all 1st-level characters. They suck at what they do, but, get better as the story goes along. Kinda like D&D characters.

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I think it's good to break it down into two elements which are getting conflates.

1. Is there a desire fit players to play an adventuring non-adventurer type?
2. How does one do that in a way that is fun and not a dead weight?

I will argue there is a small niche community for the former. There was a long standing fad in MMOs to play as non-adventuring characters like shopkeeps, bartenders, and hobos sleeping on bridges (iykyk). And to that, D&D gives players plenty of options: 2e Sages & Specialists, 3e NPC classes, 5e sidekicks. Hell, you can take the common NPC stat block and give it a HD and prof bonus bump every leveling milestone if that's what you want. There are no limits to making a character who is weaker then the current PC classes.
But my guess has been that OP wants the character to be as powerful as your standard class, but not in the same way the others are. They don't actually want to suck, they just want to create the illusion of someone who sucks doing great things regardless. That's the harder nut to crack because you have to design a class with the same power budget as well trained adventurer who never actually learns how to adventure better. (If he did, he would stop being an everyman and just be a late bloomer regular PC). That's hard since the best answers so far has been a PC powered by meta-abilities the player is in full control of, but the character is not. That's hard to design (though not impossible) and requires a lot of understanding from the player.

I agree though it's a lot of work to design a PC power-level NPC.

 

[Theory of Games]

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I think it's good to break it down into two elements which are getting conflates.

1. Is there a desire fit players to play an adventuring non-adventurer type?
2. How does one do that in a way that is fun and not a dead weight?

I laughed at "adventuring non-adventurer type" Sure, you can make it, but I don't get the "why?"

I will argue there is a small niche community for the former. There was a long standing fad in MMOs to play as non-adventuring characters like shopkeeps, bartenders, and hobos sleeping on bridges (iykyk). And to that, D&D gives players plenty of options: 2e Sages & Specialists, 3e NPC classes, 5e sidekicks. Hell, you can take the common NPC stat block and give it a HD and prof bonus bump every leveling milestone if that's what you want. There are no limits to making a character who is weaker then the current PC classes.

The Everyman works for "Can I RP a normal person?" type games perfectly. The problem is when it runs into D&D, where the PCs are NOT normal people. And I get that previous editions did something like the Everyman, but we're talking about the newest edition here.

But my guess has been that OP wants the character to be as powerful as your standard class, but not in the same way the others are. They don't actually want to suck, they just want to create the illusion of someone who sucks doing great things regardless. That's the harder nut to crack because you have to design a class with the same power budget as well trained adventurer who never actually learns how to adventure better. (If he did, he would stop being an everyman and just be a late bloomer regular PC). That's hard since the best answers so far has been a PC powered by meta-abilities the player is in full control of, but the character is not. That's hard to design (though not impossible) and requires a lot of understanding from the player.

I agree though it's a lot of work to design a PC power-level NPC.

It isn't THAT hard though. My example Everyman was a character who relies 100% on Metacurrency (Luck points). I mean that's what it's for across the industry: when PCs fail, using MCs (Bennies, Hero points, Inspiration, whatever) can turn the "ick" into success. D&D 2024 still has Inspiration and bonus dice galore (Guidance for the win!) so we know the impact of MC on gameplay.

Your "problem" is trying to create "balance" between the Everyman and the other classes. I have and will continue to preach that there is no balance in ttrpgs. Definitely not in D&D and LFQW proves it.

Just my 10 cents on it. If I muster up the desire to even run WotC D&D, I'll playtest my Everyman because it could be cool. I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone else comes up with a viable build, as well

 

[Remathilis]

Your "problem" is trying to create "balance" between the Everyman and the other classes. I have and will continue to preach that there is no balance in ttrpgs. Definitely not in D&D and LFQW proves it.

I mean, I don't actually have skin in this fight except for theoretical. If someone came to me and asked to play a Frodo like character, I'd tell them to pick a sidekick class and warn them they are not going to be as good as a full PC class, even the weakest one. Alternatively, I'd tell them to pick a full class and role-play how they want. (I don't have a problem hand waving the training argument to have a fighter who was a farmer be mostly self taught).

I just don't want to create a whole new class whose intentionally designed to suck.

 

[Selvarin]

Sounds like someone wants a polymath.

Well, there's the rogue. And the bard.

Use a feat for extra skills early on and...