D&D 5E (2014) Would a "lucky guy" class fit your setting?

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't see this as a class. I see it as purely flavour text.

Take any class, give them any combination of abilities and then describe them as never training and with all of their successes being due to luck. Bang, lucky guy archetype fulfilled.

The base state of an adventurer is that they succeed at things. The 'lucky guy' archetype is purely the addition of 'despite being bad at everything' to the end of that. There is no mechanical change needed for that. It's the same as 'because I was trained by an ancient order' or 'because I learned to survive in the wilds' or 'because my world needs me'.

I think most D&D players would be a little bit underwhelmed if you took the fighter class, described them as not using arms or armor and all their successes being due to magic, and called that a wizard. Yes, the base state of an adventurer is that they succeed at things. But we have a class system on the assumption that different adventurers succeed at things in noticeably different ways.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think most D&D players would be a little bit underwhelmed if you took the fighter class, described them as not using arms or armor and all their successes being due to magic, and called that a wizard. Yes, the base state of an adventurer is that they succeed at things. But we have a class system on the assumption that different adventurers succeed at things in noticeably different ways.

But the point of the lucky guy isn't that he succeeds in a different way: he succeeds the same way, but without training. It's literally just a different backstory. Read through the thread: the abilities suggested are just die roll changes, literally the least flavorful thing that exists.

 

[smcmike]

I thought about trying this sort of background in 3.5 by refluffing a bunch of Wilder abilities as luck or destiny or whatever. I think using Charisma as the key "luck" stat works pretty well - the Everyman hero is just sort of blessed with good looks and things breaking his way. A sorcerer could be played this way, perhaps. If you wanted to avoid spellcasting, maybe some spin off of a paladin, granting charisma to unarmored AC. One of the key characteristics of an everyman hero is he is very hard to hit for no discernible reason.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Read through the thread: the abilities suggested are just die roll changes, literally the least flavorful thing that exists.

Oh?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh?

Lucky number is the only one that's not just modifying rolls or providing access to things already in the game, and even that's pretty yawneriffic.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Lucky number is the only one that's not just modifying rolls or providing access to things already in the game, and even that's pretty yawneriffic.

You say all suggested abilities are die manipulation, I show you that some are not, and you dismiss them as "yawneriffic". But dismissing them doesn't salvage your original claim. My point stands: there are different and unique things you can do with the luck theme. And yes, there will be some die manipulation. It's a mechanic that elegantly represents probability warping, and has long been used as such in D&D. Complaining that it's present is like complaining that the fighter gets extra attacks to represent martial skill.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You say all suggested abilities are die manipulation, I show you that some are not, and you dismiss them as "yawneriffic".

Ok, let's elaborate yawneriffic: the only new mechanic you present (lucky number) will have an impact upon the game that will in all likelihood not be noticed in any way other than the DM pointing it out.

But dismissing them doesn't salvage your original claim. My point stands: there are different and unique things you can do with the luck theme. And yes, there will be some die manipulation. It's a mechanic that elegantly represents probability warping, and has long been used as such in D&D. Complaining that it's present is like complaining that the fighter gets extra attacks to represent martial skill.

While it's true that the flavour text for the fighter suggests that martial skill is the root of their extra attacks: the important thing is that it causes them to hit things more.

Hey! My particular brand of lucky guy hits things more! And survives stuff more!

Well my brand is likeable, and occasionally hits things for catastrophic damage! And has a knack of hitting a lock just right and opening it!

And that's the thing: the lucky guy is far from a coherent archetype. And the end result of the lucky guy's luck? Indistinguishable from the effects of having a bonus on a die, or casting low level spells.

I've yet to see anything concerning what the lucky guy achieves that makes him anything other than another class with a slightly different description and forced mechanics for mechanic's sake.

 

[empireofchaos]

And that's the thing: the lucky guy is far from a coherent archetype.

Yeah, that seems a bit ill-considered. As a coherent literary, mythological, and folklore archetype, the "lucky guy" has a better claim than at least half the classes in the current edition of the game. All the fairy tales about fools, younger sons (Puss in Boots), 7th sons of 7th sons, god's fools, jesters - even the Tarot Deck has one - you can't get much more archetypal than that. Can't recall so many stories about oh - druids, barbarians, paladins, rangers, etc., etc.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yeah, that seems a bit ill-considered. As a coherent literary, mythological, and folklore archetype, the "lucky guy" has a better claim than at least half the classes in the current edition of the game. All the fairy tales about fools, younger sons (Puss in Boots), 7th sons of 7th sons, god's fools, jesters - even the Tarot Deck has one - you can't get much more archetypal than that. Can't recall so many stories about oh - druids, barbarians, paladins, rangers, etc., etc.

All but puss in boots are not lucky: they're examples of the trickster. They're no more lucky than any other hero of lore. They get their way by guile, although others consider them foolish. And d&d doesn't have a trickster class. It has various classes that suit being tricksters, sure, but the proof is in the role-playing.

Puss in boots' protagonist is the cat, and again, he's the trickster. I guess you could say the master is very lucky indeed, but imagine playing that one out from the point of view of the master? "Ok, I do what the cat says, again" "now you are king!"

 

[empireofchaos]

All but puss in boots are not lucky: they're examples of the trickster. "

I was referring to the third son who inherits Puss rather than Puss himself. Does he simply just do what Puss says? It's a matter of perspective - does the warlock simply do what the patron says? And the animals in these fool stories act in the capacity of the patron. In some of them, the agency of the fool is much more evident. Emelya the Fool gets his powers from a magical pike, which he releases (note the similarity - the third son in Puss similarly saves the cat's life by deciding [agency!] not to drown him) - and then he lies about on the stove and refuses to obey any commands by authority figures (from his sisters-in-law to the Tsar himself). A "reasonable" person would have eaten the pike or drowned the cat - but the fool has uncanny insight that most of us don't. It is their standing outside of social norms that allows them to "think outside the box" and act in ways that shook up the social order. Hence I think your distinction between the fool and the trickster (which, as you correctly point out, the game also lacks) is overstated. The fool at court (the jester) could criticize the ruler when others couldn't and get away with it, because he drew on a greater power from outside society. Same with the majnoon (holy fool) in the Muslim world - their gifts came from God. The whole point of the fool narratives is that the fool succeeds for reasons that seem to make no sense to most others, but they succeed nevertheless, and you can't argue with success. These are paradigmatic stories in many cultures that problematize link between skill, hard work, and success (especially in highly inegalitarian societies), and therefore bear great role-playing potential.