Thoughts on classes, and a distinct lack of a certain playstyle

[stewstew5]

First off, none of this is a criticism of WotC or D&D 5e, it’s a wonderfully well-crafted game and 98% of the time you can re-fluff something RAW to fit whatever character you want to build.

That being said, there is something distinctly missing from the core rules that should be in them (just in case I find a DM who doesn’t really allow homebrew), and that is being able to play a “commoner”/professional. I desperately want to play a Dragonborn chef on a quest to find rare and expensive ingredients, or a “zoo-to-you” style entertainer who’s in way over their head with this adventuring thing.

While rogue is generally a good choice for this, competence in combat or adventuring as a whole would almost detract from the character. There should be a class option that gets you all the rogue’s skill-based options early on if a bit less powerful, then later levels are less feature heavy and are more for ASI’s and hp.

Of course, this is just me being whiny and self-righteous. I can see many reasons why this isn’t in the game and I don’t think it needs to be amended, but if there is a way to play characters like this, or other characters that are fun because they are funny (Zee Bashew’s Bill Murray wizard, for example), advice on how to make Themis greatly appreciated.

[Rukelnikov]

Check the sidekick classes, specifically the Expert.

[Morty]

D&D has always had a huge blind spot for skilled characters who don't fall into the thief/assassin archetype, but what you're describing is more of a "non-adventurer caught up in adventuring" situation, so not quite the same thing.

[stewstew5]

Check the sidekick classes, specifically the Expert.

Perfect! Exactly what I wanted

[Rukelnikov]

Perfect! Exactly what I wanted

Glad you like it ;)

[MilkmanDanimal]

A system like GURPS/HERO where you do point buy to get exactly what character you want is perfect for this, but D&D is a class-based system where every class is combat-related. It's just how the system is designed. So, while you can try the sidekick route and all, that's not really how D&D was designed. It's at its most fundamental level an old-school hack-and-slash war game that's had all sorts of different concepts bolted on, but, at heart, there's still the underlying Chainmail game behind it all.

So, yeah, D&D's a hard sell for that, as it's pretty far outside its proverbial wheelhouse.

[clash]

Go artificer http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/artificer-revisited) alchemist subclass and use cook's utensils as your spellcasting focus. Focus on buffing and healing with your amazing food.

[Vogie]

Go artificer http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/artificer-revisited) alchemist subclass and use cook's utensils as your spellcasting focus. Focus on buffing and healing with your amazing food.

I love it.

Or, if you want to go the Celebrate chef route, use the Glamour Bard. All of your performances are just you cooking. Song of rest? Snacks of rest. Your Mantle of Inspiration just shows how fast your allies move when you say things like "Who wants some?" or "I have some extra pie"

[nickl_2000]

I love it.

Or, if you want to go the Celebrate chef route, use the Glamour Bard. All of your performances are just you cooking. Song of rest? Snacks of rest. Your Mantle of Inspiration just shows how fast your allies move when you say things like "Who wants some?" or "I have some extra pie"

And vicious mockery is just a whole bunch of Gordon Ramsey impressions?

[Vogie]

And vicious mockery is just a whole bunch of Gordon Ramsey impressions?

Impressions? I'm saying make the Dragonborn legitimately named Gorgon Ramsey

[strangebloke]

Impressions? I'm saying make the Dragonborn legitimately named Gorgon Ramsey

This meat is RAAAWW!!!
*breathes fire on meat*

[Willie the Duck]

While rogue is generally a good choice for this, competence in combat or adventuring as a whole would almost detract from the character. There should be a class option that gets you all the rogue’s skill-based options early on if a bit less powerful, then later levels are less feature heavy and are more for ASI’s and hp.

Of course, this is just me being whiny and self-righteous. I can see many reasons why this isn’t in the game and I don’t think it needs to be amended, but if there is a way to play characters like this, or other characters that are fun because they are funny (Zee Bashew’s Bill Murray wizard, for example), advice on how to make Themis greatly appreciated.

I am glad you understand that the game not including options for making characters where "competence in combat or adventuring as a whole would almost detract from the character" isn't really a knock on it. That is, quite directly, in opposition to the game's goals. 2nd edition and 3rd edition did have ways of making noncombatants (2e in a pretty obscure little blue-bound splatbook), although (outside of their specific proficiency or professional skill) it mostly just gave stats to how well these non-adventurers would fare if forced into the middle of an adventure.

Certain games can make being a gourmet chef or Korean War surgeon interesting, but D&D would be starting from square one trying to do so.

[strangebloke]

I am glad you understand that the game not including options for making characters where "competence in combat or adventuring as a whole would almost detract from the character" isn't really a knock on it. That is, quite directly, in opposition to the game's goals. 2nd edition and 3rd edition did have ways of making noncombatants (2e in a pretty obscure little blue-bound splatbook), although (outside of their specific proficiency or professional skill) it mostly just gave stats to how well these non-adventurers would fare if forced into the middle of an adventure.

Certain games can make being a gourmet chef or Korean War surgeon interesting, but D&D would be starting from square one trying to do so.

100%

For stuff like this, you have to play a support class and then refluff everything. A buff-focused cleric whose 'rituals' are actually quickly-cooked meals. Prayer of Healing? More like Steak of healing. This level of refluffing obviously leads to silly situations. And then in combat, of course, you're still a badass with a mace and shield.

There's also the aforementioned glamor bard.

The easiest things to refluff are 'healer' and 'inspiring leader' IMO. and then you have the gourmand feat, of course. Between this and song of rest, its very possible to make a 'cook' who is the ultimate out-of-combat healer, assuming that healing spirit is banned.

[manyslayer]

Impressions? I'm saying make the Dragonborn legitimately named Gorgon Ramsey

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/83/43/738343aae7e4be6aa5556723f847b406.jpg

[Aquillion]

Bard is a good option for "generally skilled." Remember that you don't have to define your performance as musical - the "ultimate chef" who performs via cooking works well for them, too. Refluff your spells as being done via secret recipes. Your inspiration could be you tossing people snacks or the amazing food you gave them giving them an additional boost. And so on.

[Bjarkmundur]

This is the exact thread I needed to save a character I just scrapped a couple of weels back! The sidekick options are basically my favourite PCs of all time! :)

[Rockphed]

I think selling a non-adventurer-on-an-adventure is more about roleplaying than stats. That said, picking a class that can offer support without having to actually engage in melee combat probably helps sell it. If this were 3rd edition, I would suggest getting an animal companion or mount and having that do the fighting. As is, maybe convince your DM to let you get an NPC-class upgraded animal as your main pet and let it do the fighting while you cower/shout orders at it.

[Crgaston]

I mean, you could be a Rogue who fights with a club... no Sneak Attack damage.

[Pex]

A system like GURPS/HERO where you do point buy to get exactly what character you want is perfect for this, but D&D is a class-based system where every class is combat-related. It's just how the system is designed. So, while you can try the sidekick route and all, that's not really how D&D was designed. It's at its most fundamental level an old-school hack-and-slash war game that's had all sorts of different concepts bolted on, but, at heart, there's still the underlying Chainmail game behind it all.

So, yeah, D&D's a hard sell for that, as it's pretty far outside its proverbial wheelhouse.

Put another way if harsher sounding, if your character idea cannot work in D&D then play a game system where it does and don't blame D&D for not conforming to your idea.

Clarification: My words, not a reflection of Milkman.

[mephnick]

Put another way if harsher sounding, if your character idea cannot work in D&D then play a game system where it does and don't blame D&D for not conforming to your idea.

Add "campaign idea" and "playstyle" to that and staple it to the cover of every DMG.

[Pex]

Add "campaign idea" and "playstyle" to that and staple it to the cover of every DMG.

***nods***

[Knaight]

On the one hand, I'm very on board with treating D&D as a very specific game that does very specific things. On the other hand if that's going to work D&D needs to stop pretending it's the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy, and start actually acknowledging the specialization.

You shouldn't be using a screwdriver for much besides turning screws (though there are other niche applications), but if a manufacturer decides to advertise their screwdriver as the universal tool that replaces all others it's at least somewhat on the manufacturer when people have trouble using said screwdriver for things it's bad at.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the one hand, I'm very on board with treating D&D as a very specific game that does very specific things. On the other hand if that's going to work D&D needs to stop pretending it's the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy, and start actually acknowledging the specialization.


Uh, I see no evidence that 5e D&D has any pretensions of being the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy. Not in the marketing, not in the books, not in the developer statements.

[Unoriginal]

OP, I found a Kickstarter for a book to add a craftsman playstyle to 5e. Would you want the link?


On the one hand, I'm very on board with treating D&D as a very specific game that does very specific things. On the other hand if that's going to work D&D needs to stop pretending it's the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy, and start actually acknowledging the specialization.

5e does that. This is not 3.X. and its hopes of being an universal system.

[Agent-KI7KO]

I second using sidekicks. A refluffled level 20 mule in full plate barding and multiattack is hilarious to watch in combat.

In your case I’d take a commoner as the base, or at best a standard PC, with 9 or 18 pointbuy.

[mephnick]

Uh, I see no evidence that 5e D&D has any pretensions of being the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy. Not in the marketing, not in the books, not in the developer statements.

Pretty much. If you read the back of the PHB the description of the system is about exploring dangerous places and killing monsters.

But I think it HAS partly been marketed as a universal fantasy system and the developers/fanbase kind of perpetuate it with this modern "always say yes/fun is all that matters" crap that gets passed off as advice these days.

I'd love Crawford or someone to come out and say "Nah guys, this system is just about exploring demonic forests and kill****ing monsters, don't @ me with your political warfare ****."

But that will never happen because the idea that DnD is for every game sells copies.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the one hand, I'm very on board with treating D&D as a very specific game that does very specific things. On the other hand if that's going to work D&D needs to stop pretending it's the generic fantasy game that does all fantasy, and start actually acknowledging the specialization.

You shouldn't be using a screwdriver for much besides turning screws (though there are other niche applications), but if a manufacturer decides to advertise their screwdriver as the universal tool that replaces all others it's at least somewhat on the manufacturer when people have trouble using said screwdriver for things it's bad at.

I'm not sure if that's 5e's fault, or the fault of a chunk of the playerbase carrying on the aspirations of previous editions.

Once in a while it even feels like 5e might be be trying too hard in the other direction.

[Max_Killjoy]

First off, none of this is a criticism of WotC or D&D 5e, it’s a wonderfully well-crafted game and 98% of the time you can re-fluff something RAW to fit whatever character you want to build.

That being said, there is something distinctly missing from the core rules that should be in them (just in case I find a DM who doesn’t really allow homebrew), and that is being able to play a “commoner”/professional. I desperately want to play a Dragonborn chef on a quest to find rare and expensive ingredients, or a “zoo-to-you” style entertainer who’s in way over their head with this adventuring thing.

While rogue is generally a good choice for this, competence in combat or adventuring as a whole would almost detract from the character. There should be a class option that gets you all the rogue’s skill-based options early on if a bit less powerful, then later levels are less feature heavy and are more for ASI’s and hp.

Of course, this is just me being whiny and self-righteous. I can see many reasons why this isn’t in the game and I don’t think it needs to be amended, but if there is a way to play characters like this, or other characters that are fun because they are funny (Zee Bashew’s Bill Murray wizard, for example), advice on how to make Themis greatly appreciated.


This works as a starting concept, at 1st level. But as the characters gain experience, most of the rest of the "party" is going to want to know why they're dragging around this character who can barely even defend themselves and hasn't developed any adventuring competence.

What you're describing is what I've sometimes termed "wanting to play an NPC".

There are campaigns and systems where that sort of character isn't an NPC, but in a fantasy-genre adventuring game it is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pretty much. If you read the back of the PHB the description of the system is about exploring dangerous places and killing monsters.

But I think it HAS partly been marketed as a universal fantasy system and the developers/fanbase kind of perpetuate it with this modern "always say yes/fun is all that matters" crap that gets passed off as advice these days.

I'd love Crawford or someone to come out and say "Nah guys, this system is just about exploring demonic forests and kill****ing monsters, don't @ me with your political warfare ****."

But that will never happen because the idea that DnD is for every game sells copies.

See--I don't see it as only about "exploring dangerous places and killing monsters", but it's certainly not universal. Politics is ok, in the service of adventuring. But it is a long way from the old days. 5e has moved away from the pure dungeon/hex crawls and the "loot everything" mentality. There is a strong expectation of at least arc-based narrative continuity, with PCs acting as key players with identities that go beyond "faceless, nameless murder hobo #23."

3e is the only edition I'm aware of that was marketed as "universal", and then only in the context of the d20 system, which 3e was (technically) only an implementation. Neither 4e nor 5e have been marketed that way, nor is that the expectation I get from new players, most of whom are completely unfamiliar with TTRPGs as a whole.

There seem to be a lot of people who hold grudges against D&D in general on this forum. I get a strong sense of hipster "popular == bad" mentality sometimes. Has little to do with actual fact, just animosity built up over the years.

Here's a telling set of quotes from the introduction to the PHB:



The adventure is the heart of the game, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. An adventure might be created by the Dungeon Master or purchased off the shelf, tweaked and modified to suit the DM's needs and desires. In either case, an adventure features a fantastic setting, whether it's an underground dungeon, a crumbling castle, a stretch of wilderness, or a bustling city. It features a rich cast of characters: the adventurers created and played by the other players at the table, as well as nonplayer characters (the NPCs). Those characters might be patrons, allies, enemies, hirelings, or just background extras in an adventure. Often, one of the NPCs is a villain whose agenda drives much of an adventure's action.

Over the course of their adventures, the characters are confronted by a variety of creatures, objects and situations that they must deal with in some way. Sometimes the adventurers and other creatures do their best to kill or capture each other in combat. At other times, the adventurers talk to another creature (or even a magical object) with a goal in mind. And often, the adventurers spend time trying to solve a puzzle, bypass an obstacle, find something hidden, or unravel the current situation. Meanwhile, the adventurers explore the world, making decisions about which way to travel and what they'll do next.

...Usually, the end of an adventure is marked by the adventurers heading back to civilization to rest and enjoy the spoils of their labors.

But that's not the end of the story....A campaign is the whole [TV] series--a string of adventures joined together, with a consistent group of adventurers following the narrative from start to finish.


So yes, adventuring (going places, doing things, fighting/negotiating with creatures) is the core. But there's more than just this. There are narrative threads that link all these pieces together into a unified whole. It's also clear that the pseudo-troupe play (having a stable of characters rotate in and out) of earlier editions is less central to this edition. It's also very clear (to me) that the biggest single demand of the PCs is that they are adventurers first and foremost. Whoever the character was before the adventure began, that life is over. Now they're an adventurer, with all that that entails.

Classes are for adventurers, not NPCs (unless those NPCs are also adventurers). There is no expectation or design consideration for playing as a "Joe Average" accidental adventurer. Even a level 1 character is trained and equipped for this life. You're not a commoner, you're an adventurer.


I'm not sure if that's 5e's fault, or the fault of a chunk of the playerbase carrying on the aspirations of previous editions.

Once in a while it even feels like 5e might be be trying too hard in the other direction.

In my opinion, 5e is marketed and designed as the "reunion tour" or "best parts" version of D&D. Take everything that worked (in the designers' opinion) and blend it together with a large dose of more modern design, while keeping the feel of D&D. The biggest complaint about 4e was that it didn't feel like D&D. 5e is (partially) a reaction to that. Most of the publications and marketing follows two fronts:

* To new people: Come adventure with us! Be a hero who fights monsters and explores unknown lands with your boon companions!
* To players of previous editions: Here's all the iconic D&D parts you've loved. Come meet the classic monsters, spells, maps, adventures, and NPCs, all updated for a more comfortable play experience. It's D&D re-imagined. 100% D&D, 100% better (I'll leave it up to the individual to decide if that's true or not, but that's the marketing).

Yes, this does mean that it's more narrow than some earlier editions which tried to model the whole world in the system. For good reason, in my opinion, and the system is much more coherent for that. It paints with broad strokes, dragging in archetypes (yes, I know you don't like that) from popular culture and from popular imaginings/fiction and clothes them in D&D colors. Hence, the Samurai fighter-subclass is not based on real-world samurai but on fictional/popular-culture samurai. But then heavily changed to fit the D&D mold. Same with the druid (who is a D&D druid through and through, rather than a "real-world" druid base). Same with the cleric and the rogue.

[Samayu]

This works as a starting concept, at 1st level. But as the characters gain experience, most of the rest of the "party" is going to want to know why they're dragging around this character who can barely even defend themselves and hasn't developed any adventuring competence.


That's the thing. At first level, everyone is an adventurer wannabe. Except OP's character. So... level zero? But tagging along with the real adventurers, you learn enough to gain a level. Maybe a rogue because you're good with your hands, or a ranger because you're hunting for food. So from there out, you're just a level behind everyone else because you started at level zero instead of one. I mean, you're going to gain levels unless you really try to avoid learning stuff. Avoid joining the combats or exploration or dealing with NPC's. But that's tough to pull off. After a while, you're a cook who's good with a frying pan in more ways than one.

[Rockphed]

This works as a starting concept, at 1st level. But as the characters gain experience, most of the rest of the "party" is going to want to know why they're dragging around this character who can barely even defend themselves and hasn't developed any adventuring competence.

What you're describing is what I've sometimes termed "wanting to play an NPC".

There are campaigns and systems where that sort of character isn't an NPC, but in a fantasy-genre adventuring game it is.

As I said, being someone who is ill-equipped to deal with adventuring life is a roleplay problem, not a stats problem. If your group is willing to go along with your character contributing in combat by doing things other than fighting, you will probably do fine. I don't know 5th edition well enough to actually comment on how to go about being useless in the face of danger and still have fun (aside from advising against taking a melee build). If nothing else, roleplaying your actions as being the hapless result of your panic, fear, or inattentiveness could probably be fun, especially if the DM is willing to play along.

All that said, nothing I have seen about 5th edition implies that it is a well designed system for non-combat characters. If you as a player don't want to participate in combat at all, then this is not the game system for your needs. I think purposefully gimping your character's combat prowess is a good way to generate resentment and ill-will with the other players in your group.

[OverLordOcelot]

A system like GURPS/HERO where you do point buy to get exactly what character you want is perfect for this, but D&D is a class-based system where every class is combat-related.

My experience with GURPS and HERO is that they're theoretically open-ended classless systems, but the game breaks if you actually play them that way. What you actually have to do is put a restriction on what you can spend points on, how many points you can spend (and how many you can spend as you level up), what abilities you can take together, and so on. You end up having to build what is basically a class and level system, even if the more 'enthusiastic' proponents of the game absolutely won't call it that.

[OverLordOcelot]

That being said, there is something distinctly missing from the core rules that should be in them (just in case I find a DM who doesn’t really allow homebrew), and that is being able to play a “commoner”/professional. I desperately want to play a Dragonborn chef on a quest to find rare and expensive ingredients, or a “zoo-to-you” style entertainer who’s in way over their head with this adventuring thing.

If you want to play an incompetent adventurer, just take any class and don't use your adventuring abilities. Like play a bard for all the proficiencies you want, then waste spell slots and carry a weapon you're not proficient in. I would most likely not want to be in a game with you, and as a DM would consider you a deliberately disruptive player though, as you're wanting to show up and make other players carry you instead of contributing to the party overcoming challenges. The idea that 'good roleplaying' is synonymous with 'bad at overcoming challenges, especially combat in-game' holds zero water with me.

[Max_Killjoy]

My experience with GURPS and HERO is that they're theoretically open-ended classless systems, but the game breaks if you actually play them that way. What you actually have to do is put a restriction on what you can spend points on, how many points you can spend (and how many you can spend as you level up), what abilities you can take together, and so on. You end up having to build what is basically a class and level system, even if the more 'enthusiastic' proponents of the game absolutely won't call it that.

That's not how it ever worked for me. The specifics of character creation needed for gameplay within a setting never amounted to anything like classes, or levels.

Of course, someone calling any restriction on builds a "class and level system", and all character progression "leveling up", should probably clue me in on what sort of discussion this would be, so whatever.

[loki_ragnarock]

My experience with GURPS and HERO is that they're theoretically open-ended classless systems, but the game breaks if you actually play them that way. What you actually have to do is put a restriction on what you can spend points on, how many points you can spend (and how many you can spend as you level up), what abilities you can take together, and so on. You end up having to build what is basically a class and level system, even if the more 'enthusiastic' proponents of the game absolutely won't call it that.

Agreed, to a point. GURPS specifically requires whoever wants to run a game to curate it to the point that just picking up a more specialized system will be less work for everyone involved. Even being a person familiar with GURPS isn't particularly useful as a player in a game when you have to cross reference against that level of curation; you are effectively learning a new system all over again, based on the game before you. Whether that's a strength or a hinderance depends on how much fine tuning you want to put into it.
Without the curation it's a hot mess that makes RIFTS look... well, like a comparable hot mess.

That said, while most campaigns aren't themed in such a way as to accentuate the commoner, D&D can be used for it. When people try to say "you can't use D&D for that," I look at all the things D&D has been used for in the past; post apocalypse fantasy, spacefaring fantasy, the wonderful weirdness of planeswalking. You can use it for anything you're willing to fluff into it, it turns out.

So you want a commoner themed campaign? Cool. Easy. The party is the manservants of the NPC PC that took the Noble (Knight Variant) background who is currently running through Rise of Tiamat. In the background is a party of epic heroes fighting dragon cults to prevent a calamitous return of an ancient evil. But that isn't your story, and that isn't your party. Your story is the cook watching the camp and preparing the meal, and dealing with the complications that come with that. Your story is the major-domo arranging the invitations, managing correspondence, and purchasing, cleaning, and dressing in the appropriate clothing the harried noble hero looking to make allies. Your story isn't interviewing the king, it's conversing with the kitchen staff.


You are classic Jimmy Olsen, friends and servants to classic Superman.


Though, hopefully your noble patron isn't quite that awful.

All you have to do is change the stakes. Let the heroic stuff happen in the background; your noble employer is literally fighting dragons. This helps to emphasize how mundane your occupation is. But, of course, there is the inevitable sorts of adventures that come from being in such close proximity to greatness. Petty plots against your employer abound, and doing the leg work of discovering them is your part and parcel. Particular ingredients might be need some investigating to uncover. Finding exactly the right primrose to complete a garment could be quite an endeavor. Making the social contacts to easily arrange a meeting between nobles might make for a few weeks of activity.

Small things, but small things that measure up to bigger things; a bad meal, an uncomfortable bed roll, an unfashionable outfit, a meeting with someone they are unacquainted, all of these can influence the success of their noble patron. A level of fatigue gained from the pea beneath their mattress could spell the difference between his glorious victory... or a stint of unemployment after he's been eaten.


This could be a fun game, actually. Sundry and Sorcery, a game of enabling heroism.

Mechanically, just be very low level, a max of 2 or 3 for super servants, use the gritty rest variants. Thematically, never directly interface with the world shaking events. Just... be Jimmy Olsen, that rascally scamp.

[Pex]

Agreed, to a point. GURPS specifically requires whoever wants to run a game to curate it to the point that just picking up a more specialized system will be less work for everyone involved. Even being a person familiar with GURPS isn't particularly useful as a player in a game when you have to cross reference against that level of curation; you are effectively learning a new system all over again, based on the game before you. Whether that's a strength or a hinderance depends on how much fine tuning you want to put into it.
Without the curation it's a hot mess that makes RIFTS look... well, like a comparable hot mess.

That said, while most campaigns aren't themed in such a way as to accentuate the commoner, D&D can be used for it. When people try to say "you can't use D&D for that," I look at all the things D&D has been used for in the past; post apocalypse fantasy, spacefaring fantasy, the wonderful weirdness of planeswalking. You can use it for anything you're willing to fluff into it, it turns out.

So you want a commoner themed campaign? Cool. Easy. The party is the manservants of the NPC PC that took the Noble (Knight Variant) background who is currently running through Rise of Tiamat. In the background is a party of epic heroes fighting dragon cults to prevent a calamitous return of an ancient evil. But that isn't your story, and that isn't your party. Your story is the cook watching the camp and preparing the meal, and dealing with the complications that come with that. Your story is the major-domo arranging the invitations, managing correspondence, and purchasing, cleaning, and dressing in the appropriate clothing the harried noble hero looking to make allies. Your story isn't interviewing the king, it's conversing with the kitchen staff.


You are classic Jimmy Olsen, friends and servants to classic Superman.


Though, hopefully your noble patron isn't quite that awful.

All you have to do is change the stakes. Let the heroic stuff happen in the background; your noble employer is literally fighting dragons. This helps to emphasize how mundane your occupation is. But, of course, there is the inevitable sorts of adventures that come from being in such close proximity to greatness. Petty plots against your employer abound, and doing the leg work of discovering them is your part and parcel. Particular ingredients might be need some investigating to uncover. Finding exactly the right primrose to complete a garment could be quite an endeavor. Making the social contacts to easily arrange a meeting between nobles might make for a few weeks of activity.

Small things, but small things that measure up to bigger things; a bad meal, an uncomfortable bed roll, an unfashionable outfit, a meeting with someone they are unacquainted, all of these can influence the success of their noble patron. A level of fatigue gained from the pea beneath their mattress could spell the difference between his glorious victory... or a stint of unemployment after he's been eaten.


This could be a fun game, actually. Sundry and Sorcery, a game of enabling heroism.

Mechanically, just be very low level, a max of 2 or 3 for super servants, use the gritty rest variants. Thematically, never directly interface with the world shaking events. Just... be Jimmy Olsen, that rascally scamp.

I can't tell whether you are being earnest or sarcastic.

Good job.

[loki_ragnarock]

I can't tell whether you are being earnest or sarcastic.

Good job.

It's part of my charm.


EDIT
Some would also say it's the extent of my charm.

[Particle_Man]

Another refluff option is the wild magic sorcerer who has no idea why this weird stuff keeps happening around them.

[NovenFromTheSun]

Given how many settings have "if it moves, it probably wants to kill you. If it doesn't, keep an eye out just in case" as a good rule of thumb, I don't think being a commoner and knowing your way around a fight are incompatible.

[Max_Killjoy]

Given how many settings have "if it moves, it probably wants to kill you. If it doesn't, keep an eye out just in case" as a good rule of thumb, I don't think being a commoner and knowing your way around a fight are incompatible.

I don't either.

But when I've played with gamers who openly believe that their current character concept depends on on being useless in a fight, I don't think that everyone agrees with us.

[Rockphed]

I should probably further clarify that "being actively useless in a fight" is a good way to get your character ganked by his comrades or sold into slavery. Responding to all fights by running away terrified is another good way for your companions to work against you. But roleplaying someone who contributes to combat by their panicked or serendipitous actions might just get eye-rolls.

[Aquillion]

I should probably further clarify that "being actively useless in a fight" is a good way to get your character ganked by his comrades or sold into slavery. Responding to all fights by running away terrified is another good way for your companions to work against you. But roleplaying someone who contributes to combat by their panicked or serendipitous actions might just get eye-rolls.I feel like this is another reason to play a Bard, since you can help your party with inspiration and cutting words while roleplaying someone who isn't actually helping at all (ie. the bonuses can seem incidental.)

[Bjarkmundur]

I feel like this is another reason to play a Bard, since you can help your party with inspiration and cutting words while roleplaying someone who isn't actually helping at all (ie. the bonuses can seem incidental.)

Yeah, like the Barbarian's Path of Dumb Luck.

I've seen players roll 2 damage and describe it like they're hacking off limbs. There's no reason a Bard or a Rogue and describe their Sneak Attacks and Sleep spells like being nothing special.

.... But then again I tried that once and got annoyed how much direct impact my character had with his spells.

I'll try again sometime to make a character who affects nothing directly, but gives a lot of bonuses to allies and has tons of out of combat utility (that feels less that magical).

[OverLordOcelot]

That's not how it ever worked for me. The specifics of character creation needed for gameplay within a setting never amounted to anything like classes, or levels.

If you're just doing regular or highly competent humans GURPS handles it OK, but then you're cutting out the 'universal' nature of the game. If you're trying to do supers, space opera, high fantasy or any other relatively high powered game, you end up cutting out lots of 'universal' abilities and making very specific 'templates'. The templates limit how many points you can put into various areas depending on what your specialization is, prevent certain combinations, and limit what other powers you can combine. Similarly with taking HERO system out of the supers genre and into lower-end fantasy or regular humans; you then had to create all kinds of templates that suddenly end up looking very much like character classes since they set your basic progression. If you don't do this, then you end up with parts of the system breaking badly.

Same thing with character progression - when you set something like 'at 250 points, your attack and defense needs to be in this range, and your damage this range, then with each 25 experience points the ranges increase to y and z', you've got a 'leveling up' system even if you don't call the power bands 'levels'. And you've effectively got this system even if the DM just eyeballs it and enforces similar limits without making a formal set of rules.

There are systems that don't require adding 'classes' and 'levels' to work properly, but all the ones that I've seen that do it also don't attempt to be a universal system.


Of course, someone calling any restriction on builds a "class and level system", and all character progression "leveling up", should probably clue me in on what sort of discussion this would be, so whatever.

Good thing no one here claimed something as dumb as that.

[some guy]

OP might be interested in Jez Gordon's Feral rpg (https://www.feralrpg.com/) (80's mutant action mod of 5e). It has a human variant race called the negahero (if you rolled a character with a negative sum of ability modifiers, you get a luck point for every minus) and the nobody background. Not a class, but it might get close to what you're looking for.

[stewstew5]

OP might be interested in Jez Gordon's Feral rpg (https://www.feralrpg.com/) (80's mutant action mod of 5e). It has a human variant race called the negahero (if you rolled a character with a negative sum of ability modifiers, you get a luck point for every minus) and the nobody background. Not a class, but it might get close to what you're looking for.

Dang that actually sounds great


OP, I found a Kickstarter for a book to add a craftsman playstyle to 5e. Would you want the link?


Drop the link my guy. Sounds full of fun


I think selling a non-adventurer-on-an-adventure is more about roleplaying than stats. That said, picking a class that can offer support without having to actually engage in melee combat probably helps sell it.
that's a very good point, and hence the sidekick Pseudo-player-character class (as suggested by Rukelnikov) is so perfect. They can use the help action as a bonus action, and are very good for a I'm-not-exactly-good-in-combat but-these-people-have-things-figured-out-and-they-like-me sort of character


Put another way if harsher sounding, if your character idea cannot work in D&D then play a game system where it does and don't blame D&D for not conforming to your idea.

Did you read my full post? I say at the start and again at the end that this is in no way a criticism of D&D and I don't blame it for not having this sort of playstyle, I know it's simply not built for that.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you're just doing regular or highly competent humans GURPS handles it OK, but then you're cutting out the 'universal' nature of the game. If you're trying to do supers, space opera, high fantasy or any other relatively high powered game, you end up cutting out lots of 'universal' abilities and making very specific 'templates'. The templates limit how many points you can put into various areas depending on what your specialization is, prevent certain combinations, and limit what other powers you can combine. Similarly with taking HERO system out of the supers genre and into lower-end fantasy or regular humans; you then had to create all kinds of templates that suddenly end up looking very much like character classes since they set your basic progression. If you don't do this, then you end up with parts of the system breaking badly.

Same thing with character progression - when you set something like 'at 250 points, your attack and defense needs to be in this range, and your damage this range, then with each 25 experience points the ranges increase to y and z', you've got a 'leveling up' system even if you don't call the power bands 'levels'. And you've effectively got this system even if the DM just eyeballs it and enforces similar limits without making a formal set of rules.

There are systems that don't require adding 'classes' and 'levels' to work properly, but all the ones that I've seen that do it also don't attempt to be a universal system.


I've used HERO for all sorts of non-superheroic campaigns, very successfully, and not once did it involve a single template, archetype, or "class". Nothing broke, nothing went sideways, nothing went wrong. And every HERO GM I've played with, and I, have always had things like attack, defense, combat values, etc, set as static ranges for the campaign and setting, not things that progress upwards steeply as the characters gain experience -- characters tend to add breadth or fill in holes, not gain a ton in raw combat values.

What you're describing isn't inherent, inevitable, or necessary for HERO -- it's people going into HERO with all the build and progression assumptions that are baked into D&D, treating HERO like D&D, and then getting the mistaken impression, based on what comes out the other end, that the D&D-ish results are inherent and inevitable, when they're simply not.

You're projecting YOUR experience and YOUR needs and YOUR difficulties as universal.



I can't comment on GURPs, I have very little direct experience with it.





Good thing no one here claimed something as dumb as that.


And yet you just did again in the first two paragraphs of your post.

[Sahe]

My girlfriend once played a Changeling Ranger who was a gourmet chef. Her thing was that she hunted dangerous monsters and beasts and then prepared fancy meals from her kills. She was also a show cook and depending on what kind of chef was required she changed to a different of her personas. It was great fun, financed our adventures pretty well and lead to some fun interactions. Granted as a ranger she was a competent hunter and adventurer.

However I have some more ideas on how to make a "commoner" that isn't a burden to the party.

The Utility Wizard:
In a campaign I gave the party a young NPC apprentice Wizard with basically no combat magic. Not even cantrips. She had Utility spells like Identify, Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, etc. In combat she would use the help action or use a spell to create advantageous environment or buff/debuff (for example Levitate an enemy), help the Rogue hide with Minor Illusion, etc. She was an NPC, but built like a PC and could've just as easily been one. She was far from useless and helped enable the players and cover things they couldn't do. She later did learn some combat magic, as she continued travelling with the party and I think if you play a "commoner" that should be your approach as well. Early levels you use mainly buffs/debuffs and Help Action, later on you would naturally seek out to be more proficient in combat.

A lot of the times it just has to do with flavoring. The Smith Barbarian/Fighter will still have a decent Strength and use their hammer in combat. It's less a mechanical as it is a roleplaying issue.

Starting with a 14 in your primary attribute is just fine and not the end of the world. You don't need a min/maxed character to not be a burden to the party.