[4e] Lawyer template (not a joke)

[Stanlee]

Okay, so I convinced my wife to try and play a game with me and the guys. She knows nothng about D&D so I wanted to keep it simple. She wants to be a "normal person who has no powers". I mentioned she can be a Bard so that way she will mainly talk to people and support others. She said, no, she just wants to be normal. I informed her that she needed a class. She said she wants to be a lawyer. I know most of you are thinking, since when is being a lawyer normal. She is in law school and still has faith in our legal system, God bless her. I know I have my work cut out for me but I was wondering is there is a non-evil class template out there for a lawyer. She is awsome at negotiating, its her RL job, so I would like her to play that role in the group. Any suggestions?

[MeeposFire]

tiefling slayer? She could go with cha basic attacks by using wrath of the crimson legion feat. This would require a paladin multiclass (call it lawful lawyer training). You can also use this feat to pick up diplomancy.

Then she has a class with minimum power use and can have high cha.

Alternately she could go knight with a similar build which is probably better since you could defend the people in court and on the battlefield.

[Kylarra]

Pacifist Cleric might work-ish.

[Zeofar]

A normal person with no powers is just that: a normal person with no powers. She doesn't "need" a class as you told her. Let her take mundane feats and a few trained skills and give her no class abilities. What's to worry about?

[MeeposFire]

I would imagine if she was actually playing she would want to be able to do something while playing.

[Zeofar]

In a game that focuses on combat and dungeon delving and basically says "wing it" for everything else, being what she wants to be doesn't mesh with the always being useful. I imagine that if being a fighter or a ranger was mundane enough for her, then this wouldn't have been posted. You can't get much more mundane than that without taking away the special class abilities. I'm not saying that the choice is inherently wrong, but that's just about the long and short of it. If she doesn't want to be a fighter or a bard, then I doubt "you can smite enemies using your powers of law" is going to fulfill the level of mundane which she seeks.

[kyoryu]

Human fighter, that follows the law, and then goes and hunts down lawbreakers? Substitute fighter for ranger/rogue as appropriate.

[Tengu_temp]

All martial classes are normal. Their "powers" are combat techniques and tactical tricks, not something supernatural.

Honestly, I don't think if your wife would want to play 4e. This game assumes that everyone is useful in combat any any out of combat skills are just the icing on the cake. Play D20 Modern or something.

[Raging Gene Ray]

It sounds like she should be playing either an Expert or an Aristocrat. Those are perfect for what she wants to do. It sounds like she doesn't want to do combat AT ALL, or bother acquiring magic items and keep track of what they can do. Which begs the question of how you got her to agree to this in the first place.

I agree that 4e doesn't sound like her thing.

[MeeposFire]

Oh ya a thief might be her thing. They really only do basic attacks and they are the best at skills. Might not like the sound of that though...

[Tiki Snakes]

Rogue? Sure, there are class features, but she doesn't have powers per say. Good focus on social skills and knowledge, a nice suit, and you've got pretty acceptable non-magical lawyer.

You could arguably do something similar with Warlord, using a lazylord build. She has no powers, she just begs other people to hit the bad people for her? I'd prefer rogue personally.

[Safety Sword]

"normal person who has no powers".

Obligatory Monk joke.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Er... why are you getting her to play 4E? It really doesn't sound like she's interested in it.

Find out what kind of fiction she likes to read and run a rules-lite system within that genre. She'll enjoy it more, and might be willing to branch out into other systems.

Or roll up a skillmonkey CHA Rogue and let her know that she can let someone else run him whenever you get into combat if she'd like. That way she can take a break from the table and catch up on her classwork or whatever while the rest of you do something she likely has no interest in.

...yeah, what's the real deal here? :smallconfused:

[pasko77]

Obligatory Monk joke.

This had me laugh :)
well played!

[Aron Times]

Playing a "normal" person in D&D is like not playing a vampire in Vampire: The Requiem. D&D assumes that the PCs are adventurers, while Vampire assumes that the PCs are vampires. A normal person with no powers has no business being in an adventuring party, and would simply be a liability.

You might want to tell her that there's no penalty for being a lawyer and having powers. A character's class does not completely define her career; you could be a wizard who works as a lawyer specializing in magical cases, or perhaps a fighter/lawyer focusing on military law.

[Sipex]

Agreed, then let her take social skills as class skills.

[Barstro]

She can be a Shaman. The spirit companion can be altered to be the US Constitution protecting the party around it.

Couldn't she just be a lawful/good version of Kobota?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Obligatory Monk joke.
Nope, this is 4E. Monks have Super-Special Psychic Powers now. :smallannoyed:

As to the rest...

OBJECTION! (Phoenix Wright fans?)

Your Honor, it's entirely possible that this calls for a completely different Roleplaying Game! While it is true that D&D is the classic go-to staple for countless generations of gamers, it may not be as appealing to a would-be lawyer. Perhaps something with a much stronger social component to it?

I don't even think that rules-lite has to be the path you take. Just make sure that whatever game you choose has a sizeable social conflict component. I've heard, for instance, that Legend of the Five Rings has a spot for this. In fact, the Courtier (a diplomat/politician type) is an explicit character type. You could have a party, for instance, with a couple bushi (warriors) alongside a courtier, with the bushi protecting the courtier, in exchange for the courtier handling diplomatic things for them.

[AtwasAwamps]

Honestly, this is just not going to work. I cannot think of a way to pull this off.

The conceit of 4e is that you are heroes right from the get-go. At level one, you guys are badass. And I don’t just mean ‘you have a d8 while they have a d4’. You ROCK. You can beat up your average town guard with one hand tied behind your back. That’s level ONE of 4e. If she wants to be a totally mundane person, well, that won’t work here.

Just a thought, but…she may be playing a bit of a passive aggressive card, here. She’s agreed to play, but doesn’t want to adapt her ideas to the game and is forcing you into an impossible task, possibly to get you to give up and leave her alone.

I say come to her with the following:

“Beloved/Popsy/Sweetynookums/Honeybunnikins/Chesty, what you are asking for doesn’t quite work in this game. I know you want to play a lawyer, but ‘not having powers’ isn’t really how this game works. It won’t be fun for you to play and I really don’t want you to have a bad time with your first game. Why don’t we build you a character that’s negotiation and social skill oriented, but still has the ability to participate in combat situations. There’s a number of things we can do to set you up so that you don’t feel like your throwing magical spells or superpowers around and we can fluff everything to work the way YOU want it to. Okay, Beloved/Popsy/Sweetynookums/Honeybunnikins/Chesty? I love you so much. Let me massage your feet.”

Then set her up with a lazy lord build and the appropriate class skills/backgrounds/feats. She’s not using magic, she’s just yelling at people.

Oh, and massage her feet. Never promise a woman a foot massage without following through. Dangerous.

[Ozymandias]

Human fighter, that follows the law, and then goes and hunts down lawbreakers? Substitute fighter for ranger/rogue as appropriate.

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

She wants to play an attorney, not a detective/vigilante.

[Zeofar]

Find out what kind of fiction she likes to read and run a rules-lite system within that genre. She'll enjoy it more, and might be willing to branch out into other systems.




Your Honor, it's entirely possible that this calls for a completely different Roleplaying Game! While it is true that D&D is the classic go-to staple for countless generations of gamers, it may not be as appealing to a would-be lawyer. Perhaps something with a much stronger social component to it?

I don't even think that rules-lite has to be the path you take. Just make sure that whatever game you choose has a sizeable social conflict component.

Ditto on the second one. I don't get why rules-lite is automatically the answer just because she wants to play someone mundane. By the "rules-lite" logic, she could just stick with 4e since everything not involving combat is incredibly "rules-lite." There are many games that have plenty of complex, fully-developed rules that allow someone to be mundane. Heck, even 3.5 would work, at least far better than 4e does.

Anyhow, The simple fact is that 4e is not geared toward this mentality, and, as many people have said before, plays more like an MMORPG than a modern pen-and-paper roleplaying game: if you're not beating up monsters, you can pretty much make up whatever you want. To me, that doesn't give much satisfaction unless I actually want to play a freeform game (or know in advance that there are little to no rules regarding out-of-combat interaction or abilities), which we can't really assume here. There's nothing to suggest that she wants freeform or rules-lite, only that she wants to play a completely mundane character.

[Stanlee]

Oh, and massage her feet. Never promise a woman a foot massage without following through. Dangerous.

I am pretty sure this is how I convinced her in the first place, lol.

What it is I always jokingly said she should play with us, it would be fun. She does not have lots of social time outside of her schoolwork and her full time job so I think she just wants to get involved in something I do. She watches CSPAN for fun, she needs my help.

I will look at the lazy warlord path, God knows she loves to tell me what to do all the time. I got her to play 'Munchkin Booty' and now its her favorite game so I think she it willing to try new things. I may make a dork out of her yet...

From a standpoint of someone who has never done any of this before I am sure it is intimidating trying to explain it all so it is easy for her to resort to "normal". As long as I can find a role she will be comfortable in then she may branch out as time goes on. The campaign I will be DMing will have some ingesting Role Play aspects which would be interesting for the other guys to have a new person with a different approach to things. But I want her to be productive in combat, as most of you have said, its a core aspect of what a D&D hero is.

[kyoryu]

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

She wants to play an attorney, not a detective/vigilante.

I know. I'm desperately trying to find anything in D&D that would actually work.

I AM THE LAW.

[AtwasAwamps]

I think a lazy warlord would be right up her alley, then. If you don’t know about it, the “Lazylord” build is essentially a character that takes no actions on their own. Utilizing either Tactical or Resourceful presence, you take advantage of the warlord’s abilities to make others take actions. In combat, she can basically act as the group’s strategist/commander. She basically can set herself up to almost never roll a die if she doesn’t want to. Plus, she’ll have high INT and CHA, making her ideal for social situations. Give her some extra skill training if you need to, but you’ll have a potent build that gets her to be a neat social character with strong combat applications that’ll never feel left out.

[MeeposFire]

With lazy warlords I like to use a swordmage multiclass to get intelligent blade master so that I have effective melee and ranged basic attacks. you never know when you may not have any help around.

[Balain]

I didn't read all the posts but honestly I would say don't have her play. From what I read she doesn't seem all that keen to actually play. Why get someone to play that is not all that into it?

[mootoall]

Hmm, perhaps ... Exalted?

[Mando Knight]

Hmm, perhaps ... Exalted?
I was considering recommending that... just to show how idiotic it is to want to be a normal mortal.

[Kylarra]

Well, there's always WoD too. XD If you want more modern screwed-ness... She could play Hunter!

[JeenLeen]

I'm not familiar with 4E, but I assume there are no NPC classes like 3.5's Warrior, Expert, etc. Expert sounds like a good class, that or Aristocrat.

Taking a class that is not overtly supernatural, like Rogue or Fighter, and either refluffing the abilities or just removing the more supernatural ones (perhaps making up ACFs or adding more skill points in exchange) to make the character mundane. Or homebrew something using the recommendations folk have posted.

If she truly wants to be a purely mundane human, well, playing a minion makes one useless in combat and would almost certainty give a new player a bad experience.

[true_shinken]

There is no way to play a normal person in 4e. Unless you don't use PC rules for them or homebrew everything.
4e is simply not made for this. Period.

[Kaeso]

I know this isn't 4e, but if she wants to be a "normal" lawyer so badly, maybe DnD 4e is the wrong game? Maybe she'd be better of playing D20 modern as either a smart hero or a charismatic hero?

As you suggested in your first post yeah, the bard is the closest thing to a lawyer in DnD. Perhaps you could refluff it into a diplomat? Diplomats are more or less experts in interstate treaties (which is basically international law).

[tcrudisi]

A normal person with no powers has no business being in an adventuring party, and would simply be a liability.

I think this is the crux of the problem. First, OP, I'll second playing d20 modern or WoD (and I'm a strongly biased 4e supporter). However, if 4e it must be, then the trick is to find a way to integrate her without her being a liability.

She wants NO powers. As such, I'll assume that workarounds like Bard and Warlord are unnaceptable. Yes, the Warlord can just direct everyone else to do something and the Bard can literally infuse her litagating words with such impact that even the bad guys must admit "Guilty - and I accept your death penalty!" as their final words. But, she doesn't want that. So, what can we do?

I'm going to assume that she's not the only player. If she is, well, it would be easy (/snicker) enough to create a class that has "powers" designed to stop combat from happening. Basically they force the bad guys into social situations; an area where she excels. Instead, count her as a sorcerer without any powers. This is for feats, defenses and hp. For skills, give her 5 (like the Rogue) and 1 (for human).

If there are other players, they may not be agreeable to this. Heck, combat can be lots of fun. So you need to find a way to balance combat and roleplaying, while giving her something to do in combat. I would suggest making her somebody important. Not "I'm a king" important, but more like, "I'm the top legal expert and one of the top advisers to the king" important. And she's been asked to go on this diplomatic mission. She's been assigned 4 bodyguards (the players). The catch? This mission is extremely important. More than one nation does not want to see it succeed. They will stop at nothing to end the threat. The bad guys don't care about the bodyguards, they care about her. Her job is to try and stay alive during combats. This should not be "every attack is focused on her", but she should get the impression that they all want her dead. She should run around and actively have to make various skill checks (perhaps puzzles) to find safety every time they are ambushed.

Throw in a lot of social situations where her skills come into play. They get lost and must seek help; they have to take refuge from the weather; she is recognized by some commoners who once went to court and ask her to make rulings in the community -- all her decisions then give bonuses or penalties (or just different bonuses) for a while. Perhaps she rules in favor of the cattle farmer instead of the tomato planter. Due to his happiness, he gives the players an oxen to help carry their materials. All endurance checks made in the wilderness are now at a +2 bonus. If she helps the tomato planter, he has nothing to offer except his and his son's hospitality. His son lives a couple of days away. They get an automatic success in the Nature skill to seek shelter during the bad weather.

Of course, then a minor noble comes to her seeking her help. He knows of the quest she is on (whether he really wants her to succeed, your choice). His daughter has been kidnapped for ransom. He is willing to pay, but this gang has a reputation for not bringing back the child alive. He believes that her way with words may convince them to bring her back alive. Feed her information about how valuable the daughter is to the community. Have the bandits (surprisingly) value her for something other than the ransom. The ransom was really a ruse (perhaps they value her for her beauty and the fact that all their women are sterile for some reason; at this point, we might want to make the "kid" really a young adult, heh). She must convince the kidnappers that they have done more harm than good and find an equitable situation for the bandits as well.

Basically, lots of social situations. The other players can always contribute, but the main focus should be on the lawyer. This way, even though she's a non-combatant, she's a valuable member of the team.

Anyway, good luck.

[true_shinken]

Actually, the thought of a caster who constantly yells "Objection!" as he counterspells is very amusing. :smallamused:

[Safety Sword]

Actually, the thought of a caster who constantly yells "Objection!" as he counterspells is very amusing. :smallamused:

For about the first 5 times until it becomes obnoxious.

[drawingfreak]

Hmm...*considers homebrewing a class built entirely with Utilities*
I'm thinking a Psionic source based Controller/Defender. Powers would all be against the target's Will Defense and will only cause status effects.

Another 4e alternative: Burning Wheel. Look into the Duel of Wits mechanics for argument "battles"!

[Kaww]

From my personal experience - you shouldn't talk people into playing. This has disaster written all over it. If it were noncombat oriented system it might work, emphasis on might. But this way ether she will be bored in combat situations or you will be bored when she does the 'lawyering'.

NPC class (aristocrat/expert) with skills: knowledge history, knowledge nobility and profession lawyer might do the trick.

EDIT: Also social skills would be useful.

[Kurald Galain]

Here's a thought. Have her read OOTS and point out that Haley and Belkar are the stereotypical adventuring party, and how "well" Celia fits in with that. And Celia actually has powers in addition to being a lawyer.

[Loren]

a normal person? how about an NPC? It would be pretty easy to pull something out of the monster manual that would be easy to play. It would get her sitting at the table at least (different people come into the game in different ways).

I agree with Kaww here. If my wife was saying something like this I'd take it as a red flag. People play heroic adventures to be heros. If she doesn't want to buy into the paradigm it's best not to sell it to her. Let her watch her CSPAN if that makes her happy.

If she really does want to play there are a couple ways to bring a player in. Give them a choice so that it fits the way they want to learn. Option one is providing characters and letting them play. This gives them a chance to experience the game before making their own characters. The key here is providing a range of characters for them to choose from so that they aren't being forced down one path (if your spouce is at all like mine you never want to try to force something one her). The alternative is to slowly walk them through the character building process. Set aside a couple of hours for this as they need to learn the game at the sametime. The character builder can help out, but it can also swamp a new player in options. You may want to consider just providing a PHB and doing it by hand to limit options and make the process tangible.
Either way you go, encouragement is critical. There is alot of info to take in, process, and make decisions on. Let her know she is doing a good job and when you want to correct her suggest what information she should be considering when making a decision instead of bluntly telling her she's wrong.

---
edit, what is the deffinition of "no powers" does this mean she is familiar with the mechanics and does not want that aspect of the game, or does it mean she doesn't want super powers?
----
have you considered the Red Box? it starts with a plain individual and works them into a proto-hero through a choose-your-own adventure style book. This would let here start as a normal person and have her inner hero emerge.