Unearthed Arcana: The generic expert got the shaft!

[Particle_Man]

Why don't we compare to the Ranger? Two good saves, same skill points, slightly lower hit dice, more abilities (and more choices). Looks about right.
It's hard to compare to the Rogue, since the Rogue gets only one good Save.

EDIT: You could also create an Expert who takes Skill Focus in something every other level. Not bad.

The ranger also has (minor) spells, proficiency with all martial weapons, shield proficiency, and also has the best BAB. So no, it doesn't look about right to me. The ranger is clearly much better than the expert. The bard is a closer fit, and is also better.

If the expert, with his 7 bonus feats and 7-8 regular feats, takes skill focus every other level, then we are left with a character with very few abilities, aside from being slightly better at certain skills.

The warrior has 4 more bonus feats, and could also take skill focus a lot, I suppose. The warrior has 4 less skills to "max out" if one goes that route, but the BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, better HD, and extra feat should ease the pain somewhat.

Another anti-multi-classing trick (borrowed from elsewhere in the UA book, under a behind the curtain for the injury rules), only allow the +2 good feat bump once (effectively, subtract 2 from each good save for every 1st level class that is not taken at the 1st character level). This puts in a disparity between those who start as expert and multi-class out and those who multiclass in, however. Maybe only take out the extra +2 if it is placed on a save that was already "good". Also, one could simply remove the bonus feats at 1st and 2nd level and just say that a character automatically gets a bonus feat at first and second character level (this only works in a world of only generics). It gives a minor feat boost to the spellcaster.

 

[Li Shenron]

The loss that the expert faces compared to his gains is disproportionate, when compared to the loss the other two generics face when compared to their gains. I think that the generic expert should be improved. Perhaps 2 more skill points/level would solve the problem. What do you think?

How could the loss be so great and yet +2 skill points would solve the problem?
I agree that if it had 8 skill points, it would be quite well in line with the Rogue (although I guess that sneak attack would be a feat for every +1d6, while the Rogue has only a bonus feat every 4 levels and not 2).

To me, these 3 generic classes seem ALL slightly less powerful than PHB core classes, and more flexible at the same time.

The point is that you are not considered to take one of these classes in place of a PHB class, but instead you use ALL of these generic classes in place of ALL the core classes. If you choose to use PHB core classes you have less choice but slightly more power, and the other way around if you build a campaign around these generic classes instead.

edit : just noticed from another thread that there is a feat which gives you +2d6 sneak attack, and further feats which give +3d6 and +4d6

 

[Particle_Man]

Ok, fair enough. Let's compare the generic warrior to the generic expert, and leave the PHB classes alone.

Let's do an "Economy of Feats" comparison between the generic warrior and the generic expert.

First off, the warrior gets 4 more bonus feats.
Second, the warrior has a HD of d10 compared to a HD of d6 for the expert. This is a bit like taking Improved Toughness twice (Complete Warrior) so I will count that as 2 feats.
The warrior BAB ends up as five points higher. I will count that as 5 "Weapon Focus" feats.
The warrior can use shields (1 feat), medium armor (1 feat) and all martial weapons instead of just 1 for the expert (I will give just 1 feat to the warrior for that, but technically it is worth about 20 feats).

On to the expert. The expert has 7 class skills more than the warrior (profession and 6 more). There is a feat on p.81 of UA that lets one translate class 2 skills of one class into class skills of one's current class (permanent class skills) so let's say that getting 2 class skills is worth a feat. That would be 3.5 feats.

In the Book of Exalted Deeds, there is a feat called Nymph's Kiss that lets one get +1 save vs. spells and +1 skill point/level and +1 on CHR checks. Pretty powerful, so let's make a feat that only lets one get +1 skill point/lvl. In that case, the expert has 4 more skill points/level than the warrior, for a total of 4 feats.

What is left? The expert has one extra good save. This makes one save 6 points higher at 20th level, kind of like taking Iron Will (or whatever) three times, so that will be 3 feats.

So, the advantages of the warrior over the expert are 4 + 2 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 14 feats.
The advantages of the expert over the warrior are 3.5 + 4 + 3 = 10.5 feats.

So by the feat economy, the warrior has 3.5 more feats than the expert, and I feel that I was being generous to the expert here. In order to be at par, the expert would need about 4 more skill points/level, or else 3 more skill points/level and 2 more class skills. (I am rounding the 1/2 of the experts 3.5 class skill feats down since no one cares much about profession, I imagine). Another alternative, I suppose, is to apply the warrior feat progression to the expert, but that brings the classes too close together, IMHO.

I have no idea how to measure the "economy of feats" of the generic spellcaster, because I don't know how to calculate how many feats the spellcasting ability is worth. But the generic warrior outclasses the generic expert, unless the expert's skill points/level is increased to 10 (I was conservative in an earlier post when I said that they should be 8). This would seem to be about right. If the warrior is "almost" a fighter, and the spellcaster is "almost" a sorceror, then the expert should be "almost" a rogue, and the extra skill points makes up for the fact that there are no skills that the spellcaster or warrior cannot take that the expert can, and no "rogue" abilities that the spellcaster or warrior cannot take that the expert can. If the rogue is the skill monkey of the regular classes, then to have a skill monkey in the generics, one needs to beef up the skill points, because there is no other positive distinction between the expert and the other two or three generics.

Note also that the divine spellcaster can turn undead (1 feat), the arcane spellcaster can get a familiar (1 feat), but the divine spellcaster can cast spells in armor (although she doesn't have armor proficiencies). If that ability is worth anything, then the divine spellcaster outclasses the arcane spellcaster. Personally, I would make the penalty apply across the board.

 

[Frostmarrow]

So now that you've made your point what do you suggest?

+ Up the HD to a d8
+ Up the skillpoints to 8
+ 1 Martial Weapon
+ Skill Mastery, Opportunist, Slippery Mind and Roll with Punches to list of class abilities that can be taken. With high prerequisites. F'rex: Skill Mastery requiring 4 ranks in Concentration and Balance.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Ok, fair enough. Let's compare the generic warrior to the generic expert, and leave the PHB classes alone.

Let's do an "Economy of Feats" comparison between the generic warrior and the generic expert.

First off, the warrior gets 4 more bonus feats.
Second, the warrior has a HD of d10 compared to a HD of d6 for the expert. This is a bit like taking Improved Toughness twice (Complete Warrior) so I will count that as 2 feats.
The warrior BAB ends up as five points higher. I will count that as 5 "Weapon Focus" feats.
The warrior can use shields (1 feat), medium armor (1 feat) and all martial weapons instead of just 1 for the expert (I will give just 1 feat to the warrior for that, but technically it is worth about 20 feats).

On to the expert. The expert has 7 class skills more than the warrior (profession and 6 more). There is a feat on p.81 of UA that lets one translate class 2 skills of one class into class skills of one's current class (permanent class skills) so let's say that getting 2 class skills is worth a feat. That would be 3.5 feats.

In the Book of Exalted Deeds, there is a feat called Nymph's Kiss that lets one get +1 save vs. spells and +1 skill point/level and +1 on CHR checks. Pretty powerful, so let's make a feat that only lets one get +1 skill point/lvl. In that case, the expert has 4 more skill points/level than the warrior, for a total of 4 feats.

What is left? The expert has one extra good save. This makes one save 6 points higher at 20th level, kind of like taking Iron Will (or whatever) three times, so that will be 3 feats.

So, the advantages of the warrior over the expert are 4 + 2 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 14 feats.
The advantages of the expert over the warrior are 3.5 + 4 + 3 = 10.5 feats.

So by the feat economy, the warrior has 3.5 more feats than the expert, and I feel that I was being generous to the expert here. In order to be at par, the expert would need about 4 more skill points/level, or else 3 more skill points/level and 2 more class skills. (I am rounding the 1/2 of the experts 3.5 class skill feats down since no one cares much about profession, I imagine). Another alternative, I suppose, is to apply the warrior feat progression to the expert, but that brings the classes too close together, IMHO.

I have no idea how to measure the "economy of feats" of the generic spellcaster, because I don't know how to calculate how many feats the spellcasting ability is worth. But the generic warrior outclasses the generic expert, unless the expert's skill points/level is increased to 10 (I was conservative in an earlier post when I said that they should be 8). This would seem to be about right. If the warrior is "almost" a fighter, and the spellcaster is "almost" a sorceror, then the expert should be "almost" a rogue, and the extra skill points makes up for the fact that there are no skills that the spellcaster or warrior cannot take that the expert can, and no "rogue" abilities that the spellcaster or warrior cannot take that the expert can. If the rogue is the skill monkey of the regular classes, then to have a skill monkey in the generics, one needs to beef up the skill points, because there is no other positive distinction between the expert and the other two or three generics.

Note also that the divine spellcaster can turn undead (1 feat), the arcane spellcaster can get a familiar (1 feat), but the divine spellcaster can cast spells in armor (although she doesn't have armor proficiencies). If that ability is worth anything, then the divine spellcaster outclasses the arcane spellcaster. Personally, I would make the penalty apply across the board.

I went for a walk and also had some soup. The weather here is apalling. Wet and almost sub-zero degrees. In any event the walk got me thinking. There is one thing you neglected to account for in your feat economy study. -Synergy bonuses.

As an Expert gets 4 more skills than the Warrior he could put those skills to good use. Take for instance a Warrior who goes for the Sneak Attack ability. He'll have to invest his lot into Hide and Move Silently which won't grant him any synergy bonus by second level. An Expert who does the same will have the opportunity to also pick Bluff*, Diplomacy, Jump and Sense Motive for a total of +6 to various skills. +6 Skillpoints is worth 2 feats.

Moreover, over the course of the career the Expert will only have to raise two more skills to 5 ranks in order to get the extra +4 synergy bonus (to two different skills). Which will account for the last missing 1.5 feats. With careful planning it's possible to milk even more with this trick.

Granted, the Warrior can try the same thing but it will take a lot longer to get results on account of the low number of class skills.

* In fact the Bluff skill grants synergy to no less than three different skills all by itself. However, since this option is open to the Warrior as well I only count it as one +2 in this case.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've made another study. Let's say you want to build a tumbling, sneak attacking, greatsword-wielder and can't decide whether you're going to be a Warrior or an Expert. I've made two stat-blocks for either option. One at 1st level and one at 2nd:

Warrior: Generic Warrior1; Medium Human; HD1d10+1; hp 11; Init +2 (dex +2); Spd 30 ft.; AC 15 (+3 masterwork studded leather, +2 dex); Atks +4 melee (2d6+3, masterwork greatsword); SV Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +0; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8. Skills: Hide +6, Jump +6, Move Silently +6, Tumble +6. Feats: All simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor, shields, Power Attack, Dodge. Special Features: Sneak Attack +2d6.

Expert: Generic Expert1; Medium Human; HD1d6+1; hp 7; Init +2 (dex +2); Spd 30 ft.; AC 15 (+3 masterwork studded leather, +2 dex); Atks +3 melee (2d6+3, masterwork greatsword); SV Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8. Skills: Balance +6, Bluff +3, Diplomacy +3, Disguise +3, Hide +6, Move Silently +6, Jump +6, Tumble +6. Feats: All simple wepons and greatsword, light armor, Power Attack, Dodge. Special Features: Sneak Attack +2d6.

At this point the warrior has better BAB (1), better damage while power attacking (+2), and more hitpoints (4). The warrior also has some, at this point, redundant weapon and armor proficiencies.

The expert has better reflex saves (+2) and the skills Balance, Bluff, Diplomacy and Disguise (4*4 ranks).

Warrior: Generic Warrior2; Medium Human; HD2d10+2; hp 18; Init +2 (dex +2); Spd 30 ft.; AC 15 (+3 masterwork studded leather, +2 dex); Atks +5 melee (2d6+3, masterwork greatsword); SV Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +0; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8. Skills: Hide +7, Jump +9, Move Silently +7, Tumble +9. Feats: All simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor, shields, Power Attack, Dodge, Mobility. Special Features: Sneak Attack +2d6.

Expert: Generic Expert2; Medium Human; HD2d6+2; hp 12; Init +2 (dex +2); Spd 30 ft.; AC 15 (+3 masterwork studded leather, +2 dex); Atks +4 melee (2d6+3, masterwork greatsword); SV Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +0; Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8. Skills: Balance +9, Bluff +4, Diplomacy +6, Disguise +6, Hide +7, Move Silently +7, Jump +9, Tumble +9. Feats: All simple wepons and greatsword, light armor, Power Attack, Dodge, Mobility. Special Features: Sneak Attack +2d6.

At 2nd level the warrior has better BAB (1), better damage while power attacking (+2), and more hitpoints (6).

The expert has better reflex saves (+3) and the skills Balance, Bluff, Diplomacy and Disguise (4*4 ranks) and +6 synergy bonus to skills.

Their job is to kill stuff and get to the next room.

 

[pawsplay]

The benefits of skills are not linear. d20 is built in with a certain level of scarcity in skill ranks. Those extra 2 skill points and the expanded skill list go a long way for the Expert.

 

[JPL]

Hmm...I dunno how he'd stack up to everyone else, but this is something I'd like to try for my "adventuring sage" PC idea.


Always wanted to try that.

 

[Particle_Man]

Frostmarrow: I disagree that synergy bonuses are an extra benefit. First, they are part of the perks of taking the skill in question. Second, they don't give you freedom of choice in what you get the bonus in (Frex: Knowledge: Religion gives you a bonus to turn undead, not a bonus in anything else you might like -- so if you don't turn undead, you get no bonus at all).

Pawsplay: If the benefit of skill points is not linear then Wotc has a problem in UA. They put in a feat that makes two cross-class skills into class skills on p. 81, with the prereq. that those skills had to have been class skills for one of the classes one has taken. That this feat gives one the ability to change two cross-class skills (or half-skills, since one has to pay two for one to get a rank in the skill) into class skills (or full skills), which means that one feat adds two half-skills. Kind of like one feat adding one skill point/level, isn't it?

Maybe it is just me, but would anyone want to take a -1 to their BAB in exchange for 1 extra skill point/level? How about -2 to one of their saves in exchange for 1 extra skill point/level? I have measured these as about equal but I think that the extra skill point is actually the weak sister of the bunch, not the disproportionately powerful one. Heck, I am tempted to give the Expert 10 skill points/level, and make ALL skills class skills for it (with the restriction that none of the generics can multi-class). Does the Expert suddenly get broken? Not that I can see.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem with the generic expert (GExp) is that any warrior type of character is going to take 2 levels of GExp, to gain the two bonus feats, and then go GWar the rest of the way. I'm not really sure what to do about it, because I really like the gen classes and am already starting to integrate them in my campaign. For some reason, I'm loath to start house-ruling a book of house rules. (Go figure ) The option I'm considering is taking away the first-level feat from all three classes, to discourage cherry-picking. I know I'm going to change the hitpoints slightly, to give GExp more of a bump. I use fixed HP per level in my campaign, so GSpc will get 4, GExp will get 6, and GWar will get 8. Seems more fair.

As to the balance issue, one thing I'm considering is making several more of the class features into Expert-only feats, like familiar and turn undead. I'll probably take some the high level rogue, ranger, and bard abilities and do that. That'll give players looking for a certain nice a reason to take expert. I still think people will, though, I think most campaigns that use a variety of skill checks will find expert being taken pretty regularly. 4 extra maxed out skills is just much too useful to not be taken by characters who need the skills.