The Completely Average Fellow

[kpenguin]

Let's say you're a complete average fellow, with a 10 or 11 in every stat. However, despite this, you've decided to take up the path of adventure. Thus, you set out to train. What class should you pick?

[Skjaldbakka]

Monk, obviously :smallwink:


More seriously, I'd probably go Druid. Wildshape can give you good physicals, so while your spellcasting will always lag behind your full potential, you can still contribute pretty well. Because Druids are broken.

Aha! I'm a druid! I don't need good stats! Don't really need feats or magic items, either.

[Zincorium]

Let's say you're a complete average fellow, with a 10 or 11 in every stat. However, despite this, you've decided to take up the path of adventure. Thus, you set out to train. What class should you pick?

Personally, barbarian. No spellcasting stat, full BAB, high natural hit dice, and your rage will allow you to at least be the equal of an orc in combat for five rounds at low levels, after which point it's usually over one way or another.

[Tengu]

One of those options:

Warlock - not really stat-dependant, since it's easy to hit with ranged touch attacks, not all of your powers have save DCs and, being a ranged class, you won't get hit that often.

Druid - getting higher-levels spells will be a pain, but you still have your animal companion and shapeshifting!

ToB classes - cunning use of maneuvers will help you make up for weak stats.

Ah, double-ninja'ed!

[Dhavaer]

Warlock or Warblade. Maybe Binder.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm, interesting. In any earlier editions, you could still play any base class reasonably well; the difference between a Str-10 fighter and a Str-15 fighter wasn't that big (although a Str-18 fighter would outdo both). In third edition, you can't play a spellcaster because you won't get any spells, you can't play a melee combatant because you really need those physical stats, and you can't play a skill monkey because half of your initial skill rating is based on your ability mod, since you're only allowed a +4 from skill points. So you're left with classes with special abilities.

I'd go with warlock, myself. Druid is still a pain until you reach the level where you get wildshaping ability.

[Tengu]

Well, in 3.x the difference between a fighter with 15 str, 12 dex and 14 con and one with straight 11 in each of those stats is 10% greater chance to hit, 2 more damage on each blow (3 with a two-handed weapon), 5% less chance of enemies hitting you, 2 HP more per level, access to feats and some minor stuff. A rather large difference, but the second one is not a total wimp when compared to the first, just worse than him.

And I'm pretty sure the difference between 10 and 18 strength is smaller in 3.x than in AD&D - especially if it happens to be 18/00.

[lord_khaine]

i would also go for a druid, a 11 in wisdom would give you 1st lv spells until lv 4, where you could get your 2nd lvs spells only 1 lv behind scedule.
at lv 5 you get wildshape and are set to go.

and besides this you get a animal companion to help you survive the first couple of levels.

[banjo1985]

Druid gets it for me too, it seems the best way to make the most of a bad deal. A Fighter or Barbarian could also work, they're never going to match a standardly rolled fighter of the same level, but they would just about be able to hold their own against the lower level stuff.

[KIDS]

Some mix of a shapeshifting druid (+4 enhancement to STR in predator form) and later adding Crusader or Warblade for durability/bonus to attacks seems like a good guess to me. Normal druid is better but not likely to live to those higher levels. Otherwise, a warlock is fine too, and a cleric can choose some nasty domains (Hatred, Pride, Destruction) to spam on a lot of attack bonuses that will help him compensate.

[Tengu]

As a normal druid you can always let your animal companion do all the fighting, hiding or using a ranged weapon yourself - survival won't be that hard. At level 1 you should be able to cast level 1 spells, at level 4 - level 2 spells.

[goat]

Sorcerer will work. Assuming 11 in Cha.

You'll get a stat boost at 4th, in time for your second level spells, and by the time you get to 6th, a cloak of charisma could be within your grasp to get your third level spells, at 8th you'll get to 13, meaning you'll be working at 15 cha.

Once you get higher, you should have enough cash for stat boosters to keep casting, you'll just never be uber-powered.


OR, bard. Skills, low level magic, fascinate/suggestion cheese.

[Goff]

Why not a rogue? Skills are your forté, and you get plenty of them from the class, as well as being a passable combatant. There's nothing that'll gimp you about not having one good stat as a rogue, especially at later levels once stat modifiers mean less to skills.

[Kurald Galain]

And I'm pretty sure the difference between 10 and 18 strength is smaller in 3.x than in AD&D - especially if it happens to be 18/00.

You're wrong. 18/00 means +3/+6, as opposed to +4/+4 in 3E - and don't forget that 18/00 is a rare case, and characters are far more likely to fall in the 18/01-18/50 category.

[RTGoodman]

I rolled up a character that was almost that bad (or rather, one character died and the stats for my second-gen character were terrible). As in, I had one decent score (17), and then a bunch of super-low scores (13, 12, 13, 11, 11).

So, I said to myself, what class only needs one stat? Aha - Druid! So that's what I played (and picking Dwarf as my race to get a 14 Con).

[Duke of URL]

Bard is probably a good choice, as has been said. Start with 11 CHA, and with level-ups, you still get access to level 6 spells, albeit a few levels late (0th-3rd "on time", 4th one level delayed, 5th two levels delayed, 6th three levels delayed). Most of your abilities are Perform based, not CHA based, so focus on finding Perform-enhancing items, feats, etc. as well as CHA-boosters (which also boost Perform).

[Shas aia Toriia]

Druid is the best, because once you get wildshape, you're set. Take levels in MoMF to offset the lack of spellcasting.

And rtg, nice avatar.

[Person_Man]

Wildshape Ranger (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-ranger). Wildshape will increase your stats. Full BAB, Fast Movement, Favored Enemy, and Evasion will give you an edge in combat. Obviously a full Druid is more powerful, but with a Wildshape Ranger, your Wis can be much lower.

[Machete]

Scout, Ranger, Druid, Fighter, Barbarian.

What about Samurai(complete Adventurer) ,I'm not sure about it but for the stat poor commoner type this doen't seem so bad..

[Spiryt]

What about Samurai(complete Adventurer) ,I'm not sure about it but for the stat poor commoner type this doen't seem so bad..


This is best solution. Samurai won't loose anything. With normal stats he does nothing. With poor stats he still won't do anything.

No class can match it.:smallwink:

P.S. Samurai is in C Warrior, unless we are talking about something else.

[Quietus]

I've got a player who rolled straight 10's, and decided to keep them - he's playing as the "Average Joe" who stumbled into the adventurer lifestyle. To make things that much harder, he's basically running a solo campaign. His first level was Fighter, which worked well for him, and due to a couple of natural 20's on Hide/Move Silently to sneak up on a couple of bandits, he decided to take his second level, when he earned it, in Rogue.

His quest? Make it to the next town, get enough money to buy a diamond ring for the lady he loves, and get back, without getting killed by bandits.

[AtomicKitKat]

Scout, Ranger, Druid, Fighter, Barbarian.

What about Samurai(complete Adventurer) ,I'm not sure about it but for the stat poor commoner type this doen't seem so bad..

Complete Warrior. Suggesting the weakest player-choice class ever for one of the worst stat arrays ever?:smalltongue:

[Tor the Fallen]

Druid, of old age. By 4th level, you've got 14 wisdom, enough to buff yourself with sweet spells.

You get spells, a decent hit die, make up for crap stats with wildshape, and 4 skill points/level.

[Jayabalard]

a bunch of super-low scores (13, 12, 13, 11, 11).Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see how any of those qualify as "super-low". They're average to slightly above average.

[lord_khaine]

no thats a bad idea, the penalty to con will hit you far harder than a minor buff to wisdom is worth.
do remember that your Hp does not change even if your con improves because of wildshaping into something with a better score.

(edit)
ahh, just though of the second best option, being a psion Shaper.
there are a lot of first lv powers that stay effective all the way up, and that doesnt allow a save, like fx astral construct or energy ray.

[Fax Celestis]

Wildshape Ranger (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-ranger). Wildshape will increase your stats. Full BAB, Fast Movement, Favored Enemy, and Evasion will give you an edge in combat. Obviously a full Druid is more powerful, but with a Wildshape Ranger, your Wis can be much lower.

Someone beat me to it.

[earlblue]

Let's say you're a complete average fellow, with a 10 or 11 in every stat. However, despite this, you've decided to take up the path of adventure. Thus, you set out to train. What class should you pick?

Anything that catch my attention at the time I create the character, or that I feel is fun to play. But again, I do that regardless of stats, be they high or low.

I suppose I can try and justify the selection by saying how good or bad it is, but then I will be talking about balances between the classes (which, by the way, is a really, really old topic).

For those who are still debating over class balances - who probably still will till it hit the nth edition - I give you - *drumrolls* - The Generic Class followed by The Generic PRC!

You can select any class, as long as the class is The Generic Class. You can now cast spell, fight and die just like any other class, cause - *drumroll* - they are all The Generic Class.

Every class is balanced against any other class, cause - *drumroll* - they are the The Generic Class.

Next, we will introduce - *drumroll* - The Generic Alignment. You will behave anyway you want, as long as it is within - *drumroll* - The Generic Alignment!

OBeQuiet UWannaBe

[Dubie]

The way I've always looked at things, the Average Fellow will never make an all that great anything. One or two higher stats usualy accompany and adventuring type of any class. Its the Raw Talent that makes you a skilled fighter, rather then the town Warrior. The adventruing Cleric of X rather then the generic acolyte in the church with a few Cure spells. The famed Ranger, who stalks and kills his enemies through all terrain with deadly ease, rather then the generic hunter that picks off a few stray goblins he comes across...I could go on, but I'm sure you all see the trend.

That being said, with Average stats, you could still be any class. You just wont be able to swing your sword as perfectly, or slip out of the shadows and stick your dagger into someones kidney with the same ease. Your spellbook will be much smaller, and the spells not as powerful. You will more then likely come across some magic items, or find a way to utilize buff spells to give you more of an edge, however, you will always be behind the 'average adventurer' of the same level (with the same buffs) with your average joe stats.

I think I might actualy try this sometime. It would work realy well with a reluctant hero type of character. All he wants to do is go back home and plow his fathers old field like he did when he was a kid. But it just wasn't to be. The (insert bad guys here) came through, killed raped and pillaged thier way through and salted all the land. Picking up his Grandfathers old rusty sword and ratty old buckler, a throwback from his days in the town militia, he escapes with a couple of passing low level adventurers. Having nowhere else to go, he tags along with the party, intending to leave the party in the next town and get his life back on track. He pickes up a few tricks (gaining a level in whatever class as the party tries to teach him at least enough to not stab himself in the foot) between the escape and the next town. From there, he meets up with the rest of the party, and keeps reluctantly getting pulled along from adventure to adventure...

[Zim]

Rogue sounds like the best option IMO. They get a mountain of SP, class skills that don't rely on attributes, and decent BAB. An average statted human would do well in this class. Kobold, not so much. :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

I think I might actualy try this sometime. It would work realy well with a reluctant hero type of character.

While this is an interesting concept for a character, I believe it wouldn't work overly well with the D&D system. At least, from the books, most campaigns tend to be action- and combat-oriented, and that means that you'll constantly be upstaged by every other character.

[kpenguin]

While this is an interesting concept for a character, I believe it wouldn't work overly well with the D&D system. At least, from the books, most campaigns tend to be action- and combat-oriented, and that means that you'll constantly be upstaged by every other character.

Unless, of course, you have some sort of plot device in your favor.

[Kiero]

Hm, interesting. In any earlier editions, you could still play any base class reasonably well; the difference between a Str-10 fighter and a Str-15 fighter wasn't that big (although a Str-18 fighter would outdo both).

Only because your scores had to be much higher to get bonuses, and there was a massive "neutral" range in the middle.

[Kurald Galain]

Only because your scores had to be much higher to get bonuses, and there was a massive "neutral" range in the middle.

Precisely. Scores were more flavorful, with some bonuses (or penalties) at the extremes. In 3E, scores are almost pure crunch, and therefore pretty much a necessity.

[Dubie]

While this is an interesting concept for a character, I believe it wouldn't work overly well with the D&D system. At least, from the books, most campaigns tend to be action- and combat-oriented, and that means that you'll constantly be upstaged by every other character.

For me, and the groups I usualy play with, there generaly isn't that much upstaging concern. There is usualy alot more role play and not so much dice heavey. Though there is your standard fights usualy every session, there could easily be two or three in a row without drawing a sword. Your only ever being upstaged if you truely resent being a bit of an underdog, or the other players/DM don't let you try and contribute anything. There is always a way to give each character his turn being the party rockstar.

If I was DMing, and had a character such as this in the party, I could base an entire campain just around this characters back story. Your average Joe might not be the master of anything, but when it comes time after the first couple of quests to go avenge his homelands, he'll get his turn to shine in the spotlight.

Also, with the struggles and adaptations he'll have to make, the player will apreciate every little bonus so much more. An minor intelligance bonus goes from "Yay, I get another third level spell..." to "Sweet! I can cast third level spells now!". A little boost in dex goes from "Well, I have max dex for my armour anyway...I'll sell it in the next town and spend the money on booze..." to "Kick @$$! I get +1 AC!"

[RTGoodman]

While this is an interesting concept for a character, I believe it wouldn't work overly well with the D&D system. At least, from the books, most campaigns tend to be action- and combat-oriented, and that means that you'll constantly be upstaged by every other character.

You know how you could make it work? Luck feats. I don't know exactly how powerful or useless they are since I've never played with them, but it only makes sense. If you're an Average Joe in a world of spell-slinging wizards, divinely-inspired clerics, and the like, I think that Luck would probably play a large part in just helping you survive.

Also, there's a PrC for Luck users called Fortune's Friend in Complete Scoundrel. And looking over the prerequisites, it seems that even a human Commoner can qualify after 6th level (silly Commoner BAB), as long as he remembers to max out one skill (probably Profession [sidekick] or something). Of course, if you're not limited to Commoner, then you can still qualify for it, usually more easily.

[elliott20]

ToB it, I'd say.

Why? because ToB initiator levels are not dependant upon your character having a high stat to use the abilities, just the skill ranks to back it up. (And that you can always shore up with magical items and what not)

Granted, you're still not going to be on par against with a better ability array, but I think with that it'll impact it the least.

[Tengu]

Precisely. Scores were more flavorful, with some bonuses (or penalties) at the extremes. In 3E, scores are almost pure crunch, and therefore pretty much a necessity.

You're saying this as if that was a good thing. What is the point of having your character described by several very ooc numbers if those numbers do not mean anything crunch-wise most of the time?

[Skjaldbakka]

Actually, the numbers still mattered, because you often rolled checks against your stats. The goal being to roll under your stat on a d20. So an 11 was 5% better than a 10, even though it is the same in combat.