So what about the everyman?

[Thunderfoot]

It seems to me that the focus of this upcoming edition is that adventurers are 'heroes' more along the lines of Superman and Batman than Bilbo Baggins and Wil Ohmsford. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I am wondering if the possibility of the everyman hero is going to be a lost part of the history of gaming once the 4e rules are dropped.

I personally like to play and see played the regular Joe rising above adversity to take on a power that is seemingly unstoppable. Yes its cliche, but its what makes fantasy work for me. I guess my biggest fear is that with all of the discussion of changes that have been released so far, I don't see the possibility of the 'common man' doing anything but polishing the boots of Mr. Hero. I realize that for the majority of folks, this isn't a problem, but as someone who has played for years (30 by the time they print 4e) I would hate to think that I would be excluded from a hobby that has sustained me for the vast bulk of my time on earth.

Am I overreacting, or does anyone think that the rules will be as fluid as past editions so that if I need to 'dumb down' the power a bit I'll be able to. I'm getting too old and too busy to keep re-writing the rulebooks to fit my campaigns and I would really like to not have to play multiple systems in order to get the right balance for which I am looking.

If anyone has any resources that point to the opposite or anything along those lines (or if the designers would like to weigh in) I would love the point in the right direction. Thanks.

 

[Cadfan]

In 3e, if you wanted to run an "everyman" type character, what class did you select?

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I think there's a fair degree of misrepresentation of character power based on the previews we've seen. People hear about how all of the classes have unique abilities and jump straight to "Oh, so they're all anime superheroes that have entered the Konami code." But if you look at the previews, the playtest PCs are getting the tar beaten out of them. Most of the playtest reports have included something along the lines of "_____ was on his last legs and hopefully won't ever make that tactical mistake again," if not character death. Consider the Bulette article; the image I get of that is a pair of landsharks leaping above and below ground as the party backs themselves into a circle, hoping to be able to take potshots as the monsters burst uncontrollably from the ground. I don't see Superman punching down walls, taking bullets to the eyeball, and vaporizing foes with his lasers.

Joe Everyman should work, at least in the fantasy sense that Joe Everyman is secretly Joe Lastofhiskindwithhiddenpotential... which is what D&D has modeled best anyway.

 

[Nebulous]

Am I overreacting, or does anyone think that the rules will be as fluid as past editions so that if I need to 'dumb down' the power a bit I'll be able to. I'm getting too old and too busy to keep re-writing the rulebooks to fit my campaigns and I would really like to not have to play multiple systems in order to get the right balance for which I am looking.

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to dumb it down. This is still d20, and it is built on the bones of a system that could be hard to modify if you weren't well acquainted with it. If you could manipulate 3e i think you should be able to handle 4e. I would hope that the DMG has guidelines showing a DM how he can modify a campaign to suit his needs.

 

[Fifth Element]

Am I overreacting...

If you're in the 4E forum and you ask this question, generally the answer is yes.

Seriously, I echo the comments of the above posters. We're only getting snippets, and while they're emphasizing the "coolness" of the new abilities, the PCs aren't generally walking over the opponents. The opponents are getting new abilities as well.

I think 4E will probably support the everyman character as well as any edition of D&D has. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Thunderfoot]

In 3e, if you wanted to run an "everyman" type character, what class did you select?

Kind of my point - the 'Power Creep" (I hate using that term because of the can o' worms it always seems to open) has kind of been killing the possibility for years. However, a fighter, ranger, bard or rogue (or even a sorcerer for that matter) could start as a simple peasant and be guided to glory (though by 4th level they were usually beginning to reach beyond scope.) Which is what I'm afraid of, am I doomed to run characters to 3rd level and then ditch my campaign? If so D&D won't be for me and as a looong time player, that would be more than a little saddening. I love the game and would hate to have to leave it.

What I am trying to find out is if I am forced to find another system or if I can mold the game into what I want. I like D&D, not C&C of LA or one of a myriad of other products. That's my point, I don't want to have to leave, but am I being shown the door as a non-conformist? I really don't want to 'break up' with my game.

(I',m really not trying to be trollish, no really, I'm looking for real answers even if they may not be the ones I want.)

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>

Joe Everyman should work, at least in the fantasy sense that Joe Everyman is secretly Joe Lastofhiskindwithhiddenpotential... which is what D&D has modeled best anyway.

Thanks.

 

[Uzzy]

Did you ever try using some of the classes presented in the DMG, like the Commoner, Warrior etc? I imagine they would make for good "everyman" type characters, at least at low levels. Though by the very nature of DnD, it's hard to be an everyman when you hit Level 10+.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Kind of my point - the 'Power Creep" (I hate using that term because of the can o' worms it always seems to open) has kind of been killing the possibility for years. However, a fighter, ranger, bard or rogue (or even a sorcerer for that matter) could start as a simple peasant and be guided to glory (though by 4th level they were usually beginning to reach beyond scope.) Which is what I'm afraid of, am I doomed to run characters to 3rd level and then ditch my campaign? If so D&D won't be for me and as a looong time player, that would be more than a little saddening. I love the game and would hate to have to leave it.

If a Fighter is how you model Joe Dirtfarmer learning to adventure, how do you model the wandering swordsman seeking to perfect his art? (The glib answer here is the Warblade, but that kinda isn't the point.) D&D has always been about characters of increasing power; if you want grim-and-gritty swords and sorcery, you're going to have to stick to the levels that are designed with death-by-a-single-arrow in mind. To do otherwise is tantamount to yelling at your hammer for being bad at driving screws.

As you said though, low-levels have traditionally done this sort of game pretty well. Have you considered the possibility of E6 D&D? I can see a similar idea working for 4e as well.

 

[kennew142]

It seems to me that the focus of this upcoming edition is that adventurers are 'heroes' more along the lines of Superman and Batman than Bilbo Baggins and Wil Ohmsford. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I am wondering if the possibility of the everyman hero is going to be a lost part of the history of gaming once the 4e rules are dropped.

I personally like to play and see played the regular Joe rising above adversity to take on a power that is seemingly unstoppable. Yes its cliche, but its what makes fantasy work for me. I guess my biggest fear is that with all of the discussion of changes that have been released so far, I don't see the possibility of the 'common man' doing anything but polishing the boots of Mr. Hero. I realize that for the majority of folks, this isn't a problem, but as someone who has played for years (30 by the time they print 4e) I would hate to think that I would be excluded from a hobby that has sustained me for the vast bulk of my time on earth.

Am I overreacting, or does anyone think that the rules will be as fluid as past editions so that if I need to 'dumb down' the power a bit I'll be able to. I'm getting too old and too busy to keep re-writing the rulebooks to fit my campaigns and I would really like to not have to play multiple systems in order to get the right balance for which I am looking.

If anyone has any resources that point to the opposite or anything along those lines (or if the designers would like to weigh in) I would love the point in the right direction. Thanks.

Nothing I have seen indicates that the characters in 4e are going to be superheroic. Although I might add that fx using characters have always been superheroic, even compared to other characters in the game. If you look at Bo9S, you will note that there are some mystic powers that characters can choose, but it is equally possible to build a character with nothing but innate skill and talents.

It is true that some of the maneuvers allow a character to do much more damage (once per encounter), but this just keeps a martial character on par with the fx characters damagewise. It is best to remember that HP in D&D do not represent just physical toughness. If a fencer hits with his rapier and does 30-50 points of damage, what that really represents is that the character is capable of landing a perfect blow that does significant damage to even a powerful opponent.

This is functionally a lesser version of Bard the Riverman dropping Smaug the Dragon with a single arrow. This increase in damage through talents is due to martial skill, not supernatural ability.

I believe that some people who dislike the idea of the new edition (and also dislike anime) are drawing unwarranted conclusions based on the snippets of information we've seen to convince others that the new edition will be too anime, or too video-gamey. In all fairness, I believe that this is a real concern on their part, and I attach nothing sinister to their motives. I also happen to believe that they are wrong.

IMO, D&D should support anime style and video game style play, but it should also support more traditional high fantasy and low fantasy styles. One of the main differences between me and the detractors is that I've seen nothing to convince me that the latter styles will be disallowed by support for the former.