Unearthed Arcana: The generic expert got the shaft!

[Particle_Man]

Bluff gives synergy benefits to four skills. Sense motive gives synergy benefits to one skill. Jump gives synergy benefits to one skill, but only if one had ranks in tumble. Balance gives no synergy benefits. Yet they all cost the same (1 skill point/rank or 2 skill points/rank). You don't have to spend one or two feats before you can take ranks in bluff, for instance. Now it may be that the phb classes are balanced by determining that certain classes have the "better" skills as class skills. That does not apply to the generics, since they choose their class skills. That is why I argue that the synergy benefits are part of the package of the skill, "paid for" already, as it were, and not an additional cost.

Another point. The average human warrior will have 72 skill points over her 20th level career. If she chooses, she could spend them to get quite a few synergy bonuses (it would be a rare character indeed that could benefit from all 23 skills that give bonuses), and have enough left over for the first sneak attack feat.

But if you want to get into details, remember that the +5 BAB of the warrior is actually better than the 5 weapon focus feats I alloted to her. That +5 applies to all weapons, so unless the expert only ever uses one type of weapon, regardless of found magic weapons, for all meelee and missle combat, and never is forced to fight unarmed, then the warrior gets additional feat-equivalent advantages (weapon focus in the other weapons that the expert uses, effectively).

I find things equalize a bit when I use the Injury rules in UA, since the expert can have the same fort save (which substitutes for hit points) as the warrior. In that case, I would only bump up the expert skill points/level to 8, and leave the class skills/level at 12. But that is also partially due to the fact that the Expert could have a good fort save and a good reflex save, and so can quickly get the evasion feat.

I like the above idea, if you have multi-classing, of removing the bonus feat from the first class level, but perhaps one could give with the other hand by granting a bonus feat for the first character level.

 

[pawsplay]

Kind of like one feat adding one skill point/level, isn't it?

You're missing the point. That Feat only gives you the opportunity to spend your Skill points more efficiently, which you must already have. Going from 2 to 4 to 6 points a level is a lot more of a difference than going from 6 to 8, or 8 to 12. And to continually increase the skill list requires burning more and more Feats.

The Warrior doesn't get as much out of an extra class skill since he doesn't have as many skill points. An Expert doesn't get as much out of another level of Expert as a Warrior does, since he is more Skill-rich anyway.

 

[Particle_Man]

But if the expert (who is more skill rich than the warrior) doesn't get as much of a benefit from increasing the number of skill points/level as the warrior would get, doesn't that mean that, to equalize the classes, I have to give even more skill points/level to the Expert? So that, instead of a +4 skills/level, I should go for, what +6 skills/level (allowing them to max out all their class skills if they don't take craft or profession)?

If the benefit is not linear, then how would one calculate the benefit, in feat equivalents, of having 6 skill points/level and 12 class skills +profession +craft, for a 1st, 10th and 20th level character, vs. having 2 skill points/level and 6 class skills +craft, for a 1st, 10th and 20th level character? Does it actually make up the difference for the benefits the warrior gets over the expert? If not, how many extra skill points/level and/or extra class skills for the expert would make up the difference (assuming that the expert is the skill-monkey of the threesome/foursome), given that there is some sort of diminishing returns in adding class skills and/or skill points?

 

[Particle_Man]

In addition, if I remember correctly, doesn't The Forgotten Realms book have a Cosmopolitan Feat that allows one to make a cross-class skill into a class skill (I think it does more, but don't have the book so don't know for sure)? Taken at character creation, the human Int: 8 forgotten Realms Warrior could in theory start with 5 class skills compared to the standard Expert's 6, and still be ahead by a feat as time goes by (The expert could also get 3 class skills for 3 feats to bump his total up to 9 (if also a human with int:8), but this would cut down on feats, which the expert has less to spend, and besides, if there are diminishing returns, the benefit from 2 to 5 skill points/level would be more than that from 6 to 9, right?). So I still think that the expert got the shaft.

But I eagerly await pawsplay's non-linear calculations. I may still be missing the point, and I would welcome an explanation of how the expert is not worse than the warrior, all things considered.

 

[pawsplay]

There is nothing mysterious about my argument, and you don't need a calculator. Measuring out classes Feat by Feat, point by point, is garbage. Because you don't get a choice, you have three generic classes. I will buy that the Expert gets the shaft if you can show me compelling evidence that no sane player would take this class. Counting virtual Feats and so forth is just a lot of hand-waving.

Does it actually make up the difference for the benefits the warrior gets over the expert?

Since the warrior cannot begin to compete with the expert for skill points, there is no competition.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Well... Pick one:

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, 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, Sneak Attack +2d6.

I find it pretty hard to chose. I think I would go for the Expert but I'm not sure.

 

[Particle_Man]

pawsplay: by that argument, no one could ever compare any of the phb classes against each other unless there was proof that "no sane player takes the class". Yet, in 3.0, the ranger did indeed get the shaft, as did the half-elf and monk and bard. Thus, they were improved in 3.5 as a result of seeing, in playtesting over the 3 years and feedback, that they did, indeed, get shafted. (I'm still uncertain about why the powerful dwarf race was further improved, but there ya go).

But if you don't like the comparison argument, how about the "niche" argument. If there are only 3(4) classes, they each fill a niche. The warrior is the tough guy. The spellcaster(s) is/are the spell guy. What is left for the expert? Well, not rogue abilities, ranger abilities, or bard abilities, since those can be duplicated by the feat-happy warrior. So I would say skills. But if your *only* niche is skills, then you should probably have more of them.

Now for the dreaded PHB class comparison. Let us assume that the fighter is balanced against the sorceror and rogue.

Now the warrior has less proficiencies than the fighter (no heavy armour or tower shields) but gains flexibility in class skills (the fighter has lousy class skills), good save choice, and feat selection (not restricted to the fighter list of feats). A nice trade of greater flexibility for slightly less power.

The spellcster has a few less spells per day than the sorceror, and no automatic familiar, but gains flexibility in class skills (the sorceror also has lousy class skills), good save choice, extra feats (and not restricted to the wizard feat list, either), and spell selection! Nice to have cure serious wounds and fireball as spells on one's list! Again, a slight loss of spell power, for greater flexibility.

Now the expert has (if compared to the bard), a loss of all bard abilities, and (if compared to the rogue) a loss of all rogue abilities. They get 7 feats to make up for that. But note, that none of the abilities that are bought with the bonus feats can be considered "niche" since they can be bought by the warrior too. Ok, they get 2 good saves of their choice. This is pretty nice, I admit, but not something to build a niche on. So let's look at the skill points. They get 6 class skills (same as the bard, and less than the rogue) and freedom to choose what the class skills are. This is where things break down. The bard and rogue (especially the rogue) had wonderfully good class skill lists already. Thus the expert is losing power and is NOT getting enough flexibility. This is a significant loss in power without a corresponding significant gain in flexibility. Thus, if the expert is to continue to exist as viable (and different from the tough guy and the spell guy), the only thing I can think of is to increase the class skills per level. Then they can be the skill-monkey and fill the skill-monkey niche.

So, if in the phb the figher, sorceror and rogue are about balanced, but in the UA, the warrior and spellcaster lose X to gain Y, while the expert loses X to gain, I dunno, maybe 1/2 Y, then the expert is less viable than the spellcaster or warrior.

I will not say that no sane player will play the expert. Perfectly sane players played the 3.0 ranger. But. The class is still weaker than its 3.0 compatriots.

Another alternative would be to eliminate the "skill monkey" niche entirely and just give 4 extra class skills and 4 extra skill points/level to the other two generics. If one then makes a special deal where a beginning character (only) can trade in 2 feats to have one extra good save, then the generic expert disappears. Is the generic expert missed in such a scenario?

Or, if a party has enough warriors and spellcasters, almost all of the skills can be "covered". Is the expert missed in such a party?

The expert is meant to be either a jack-of-all-trades or a master of some. As it stands they can either be jacks-of-some-trades or masters of a few. There just ain't enough juice in the expert.

I would be curious as to what, besides a poll of everyone who plays with the generics, would convince you that the expert was too weak. But I am trying with various arguments to show that a) They are weaker than their generic kin, b) They lose more compared to their PHB counterparts than their generic kin lose compared to their generic counterparts, c) The expert doesn't fill the only niche left to it well enough, and d) If push comes to shove, a party can exist just fine without a single expert far better than it could without a single spellcaster or without a single warrior. If you don't like any of these arguments, I would welcome a counter-argument that shows that the expert is in fact the equal of the other two generics. An argument that shows that it is impossible to prove who is weaker or stronger won't work. In 3.0, some classes really were weaker that others, and it was not impossible to show that. These weaknesses were flaws in the game that were fixed in 3.5.

Maybe I need UA 1.5 to come out...

Now, my proposed solution would be (if the expert is to remain) to make him the skill monkey he is destined to be. The easiest way to do that is to add 4 skill points/level to the class (or perhaps only 2 skill points/level if you use the injury rules, as the HD difference then disappears). A possible objection is that then the expert gains more skill points than the bard, or even the rogue, the skill-monkey of the PHB. However, the rogue also has a lot of abilities, which the expert cannot duplicate all of with his measly 7 bonus feats (although he can get fairly close). And, since the idea is that the generics will be the only classes, the fact that a class being used (the new improved 10 skill point/lvl expert) has more skill points than a class not being used (the phb rogue) should not be a horrendous issue.

I guess my other question is, if it cannot be shown that one class is more powerful than another, then is it not equally impossible to show that the 10 skill point/level expert would be too powerful, compared to the warrior or spellcaster? Or would you say that, if the expert has 10 skill points/level, no sane player would ever take a spellcaster or warrior?

 

[Particle_Man]

Well... Pick one:

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, 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, Sneak Attack +2d6.

I find it pretty hard to chose. I think I would go for the Expert but I'm not sure.

Assuming I could find better armor, I would go for the warrior. I don't think I would need Diplomacy or Bluff or Disguise as long as someone in the party had it (another more diplomatic warrior, perhaps). Also, as I gained levels, the extra feats would put the warrior further over the top (assuming that neither character multi-classes). The warrior BAB is just too good.

Now, what if your expert had 4 extra skills? Then I would be harder pressed to choose.

 

[Particle_Man]

Addendum: Also note that 12 class skills + profession is not enough to make a jack of all trades. The rogue has almost 30 class skills, and the bard has over 30. That is enough for a jack of all trades. That is why I am tempted to have all skills be class skills for the expert. Note that I would also prohibit multi-classing to eliminate cherry-picking.

 

[Cam Banks]

That is enough for a jack of all trades. That is why I am tempted to have all skills be class skills for the expert.

Well hey, it works for Monte Cook's akashic.

Cheers,
Cam