NPC Expert Class, upgrade?


General Discussion (Prerelease)


Does anyone know of any d20 product that presents an NPC Expert class that can be used as more active PC type class? I am looking for PC version of the Expert that can hold its own while adventuring with the basic 11 PFB core classes, without having to take a level in another class to remain competitive?

With all the additional core and expanded classes that have come out over the last 5+ years, there must be something that can match that description. :)


George Velez wrote:

Does anyone know of any d20 product that presents an NPC Expert class that can be used as more active PC type class? I am looking for PC version of the Expert that can hold its own while adventuring with the basic 11 PFB core classes, without having to take a level in another class to remain competitive?

With all the additional core and expanded classes that have come out over the last 5+ years, there must be something that can match that description. :)

Well,

It's hard to answer that without knowing exactly what you are looking for in an 'Expert'. It's kind of a slippery concept unless it's nailed to the table with a few 9 Penny fact nails.

However, having said that, if you have access to it, the Factotum in WoTC's Dungeonscape might work for you. Sort of a cross between a rogue, a sorcerer, and a sage. They take a shotgun approach to special abilities. They arent' better than anyone at anything, but usually end up better than most at doing lots of different things (if that makes sense).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Since an expert is basically just a character with lots of skills, I'd suggest that any of the base classes with lots of skills (notably: bard, ranger, or rogue) works fine as is as an "upgrade" for the expert class. In fact, the Bard works particularly well at this, especially if you tweak the Bardic Performance abilities to work off of a Craft or Profession or Knowledge skill, and adjust his spells as necessary.

Shadow Lodge

If you can locate the DragonLance War of the Lance Book, they have the perfect thing for you.

It is a base class called the Master, which can focus into different areas like "sage", "smithy", "jewler", or whatever. It is not super-simple and not too complicated.

I'm not sure if I can post any mechanics on it for you or not though.


There is Experts v.3.5 by Skirmisher publishing.

It has piqued my interest from time to time, but never enogh to actually buy it. So, unfortunately, I can't really tell you anything about it.


Thanks for the quick replies everyone, very helpful. :)

In regards with the posts above:

-What I was trying to say was I am looking for and “adventuring expert” that could stay single class and keep up with the other PCs, without having to multiclass.

-Yes I was considering having a “skill monkey” do the role of the expert, with the GM (me) allowing flexibility in talking knowledge and craft skills as needed, that is one of the options I was considering.

-I actually DO have the DL book you are referring to, but since it has been over a year since I last even SEEN my DL books, I had forgotten all about the Master class. Need to go take another look at it (War of the Lance Sourcebook I belive).

-Experts 3.5? (reading the link…)

• The Specialist, a new basic character class that players can use to create versatile "adventuring Experts" of any sort

LOL! What are the chances of finding exactly what you are looking for in less than 1 hour? (Grin)

I goggled “reviews on Experts v.3.5” and got some links to some review on Amazon.com, DriveTru and En World, and the overwhelming majority of reviewers give it 4.5-5/5 stars ratings! AND I just bought one on Ebay for a sweet price!

Thanks for the help guys, you made my night! :)

Grand Lodge

Another option to to look at Unearthed Arcana and it's alternate three core classes.

These cores can be used to create a custom class that will do exactly what you want.

The Expert can be found on d20SRD.org

personally, I love the idea of starting a game with these three classes only. Play to level 5, then choose a normal class to branch into for the next 5-7 levels, then pick a Prestige Class for the last levels in the campaign. Sort of a Beginning, Advanced, Prestige approach to the game. Add in Epic and you have a 4 tier game with definite progressions of power.

I have not tried it yet, but someday I will.


Arcana Evolved's Akashic might be something for you to look into.

But what's wrong with simply going rogue or bard? Change the flavour to suit your needs. If you just want the skill part, go with rogue and talk the GM into giving you everything as class skills, as well as the bard's bardic knowledge and loremaster abilities (and jack of all trades. Give up, say, sneak attack for it.


Mongoose came out with a hardback book , Ultimate NPCs.
It has a few dozen NPC classes, including expert variants.
As well as 100s of already made npcs.


May I ask why?

Adventurers are all about combat.

It's important to have non-combat skills/utilities, but when the chips are down, and the monsters are rampaging through the adventuring party, being unable to contribute to the combat is a death sentence.

Death sentence for you, and maybe for the whole adventuring party.

If D&D were real, if a bunch of would-be adventurers were really sitting around a tavern looking for a fifth-man, advertising, interviewing, testing each applicant to see what he could do, there is really no chance they would take non-combat expert, with weak HP and weak combat ability (translate to real world terms as fairly wimpy and doesn't know how to fight).

They wouldn't voluntarily accept such a death sentence.

They would keep looking for someone who has the skills they need AND can fight, too.

Or, in a bind, at best they would hire some fighter or barbarian or monk or mage for the fighting, then bring along the wimpy skillful guy at 1/2 share of the loot while they try to train him, teach him weapons, teach him combat techniques, and make him work out and get stronger and tougher too.

Except in D&D, an Expert can't magically gain BAB because some fighter shows him some tricks. He can't magically gain STR because he is forced to do hundreds of push-ups every day.

Instead, in D&D, he multiclasses to fighter, and keeps his wimpy muscles until he gets magic items or that dreadfully slow increment of 1 point every 4 levels (which an expert would probably put into INT anyway, or maybe DEX).

Multiclassing to fighter to represent training in arms means not getting many skills at that level. Doing push-ups all day but still being stuck at an ordinary common STR is unrealistic, but it's D&D.

Meaning, there is no way to turn an Expert into a combat-ready, adventure-worthy teammate.

So why hire him in the first place?

And by the time you take the Expert NPC class and give it more HP, better BAB, and a few combat tricks so he can survive in a fight and help his teammates survive too, you've basically converted it into a rogue, or a ranger, or maybe something more bard-like with some spells, or whatever.

So back to my original question, why would you need an Expert adventuring class?

What would it offer that one of the myriad core classes, or splat classes doesn't already offer?

If you can spell that out for me, I may be able to point out a class that meets your needs. Although, it sounds like you may have already found one anyway.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Adamant Entertainment had an excellent little (and cheap) PDF called Expert Feats that had some really great ideas at boosting the expert with feats to make them truly the expert in their field. You could create a legendary scholar or a renowned blacksmith - just excellent plot points in my opinion.

Unfortunately, it looks like they abandoned OGL with their switch to 4e...


DM_Blake wrote:
So back to my original question, why would you need an Expert adventuring class?

Quick answer?

Because you want a skill monkey that isn't also trained in anatomy/engineering or loud boisterous ways of inspiring your comrades? And as such, would rather those class abilities were replaced with something more useful and appropriate to your character concept?

(As an example, I have a [rarely used] character that is a Historian. I could have taken Rogue, but how does studying the ancient history of the world teach the character about stabbing vitals? I could have taken Bard, but then there is the issue of learning spells [not too hard to explain] and the sudden ability to play music really well. [Character started in 2e, before 3e expanded what a Bard could do, which reminds me... 2e Bard got backstab too.] Sorcerer is just plain wrong, and Wizard might have worked... But not only did I really not want spellcasting, Intelligence wasn't the characters best stat. So Expert it was. Yes, I have a character that has levels of Expert. Am I leet now?)


Disenchanter wrote:
(As an example, I have a [rarely used] character that is a Historian. I could have taken Rogue, but how does studying the ancient history of the world teach the character about stabbing vitals?

Simple. You add "anatomy" as one of the fields he studies (good news, you don't have to spend skill points on this since there is no such skill, so it's just fluff that justifies your Sneak Attack. Further justification is the fact that a historian, really weak at combat, might prefer sneaking up on bad guys from behind and stabbing them where it hurts the most. He may have even studied anatomy just so he could employ this tactic with greater efficacy.

Disenchanter wrote:
I could have taken Bard, but then there is the issue of learning spells [not too hard to explain] and the sudden ability to play music really well.

You're an Expert. Just because you like dusty old history books doesn't mean you can't also like music. In my high school, our music teacher was also a history teacher, and in fact, was my favorite history teacher (the only history class I ever really liked).

As for the spells, well, there cannot be that many libraries in a D&D world. Surely most decent history collections are found in the same libraries where wizards and other spellcasters go to study. Further, I'm sure there is some crossover, especially when studying some of the more esoteric stuff, like planar geography or aberration physiology. It's likely any historian stumbles into magical texts along the way, and not hard to explain developing an interest in such things - particularly if he plans a career as an adventurer.

Disenchanter wrote:
Sorcerer is just plain wrong,

Agreed.

Disenchanter wrote:
and Wizard might have worked... But not only did I really not want spellcasting, Intelligence wasn't the characters best stat.

An unintelligent bookworm historian? Odd...

But wizard wasn't the only choice, clearly.

Disenchanter wrote:
So Expert it was. Yes, I have a character that has levels of Expert. Am I leet now?)

Probably not :)

But it sure would be hard to justify adventuring with this historian guy and giving him a full share of the XP and treasure.

I'm guessing one of your best skills was Bluff, so you could convince an adventuring party to let you tag along?

Rogue: Oh no, we're surrounded by scores of orcs. I fire off a quick shot with my crossbow then drop it and draw my swords.
Fighter: My turn. I take up a front position and hack at an orc, hoping to cleave a 2nd orc.
Mage: I drop a Sleep spell on 4 of them and try to thin their ranks.
Historian: Hey, guys, did you know that 432 years ago, a group of orcs with this same symbol on their shields sacked the Keep of Farragut over on the verge of the Endless Swamp?
DM: Is that your round? A history lesson?
Historian: Well, you don't expect me to fight, do you?
DM: There's a lot of orcs. Your friends need your help...
Historian: Oh, whatever. Fine. I throw my textbook of ancient Myragonian history at the nearst orc. Didn't like that one anyway.
Rogue: Why did we bring this loser?
Fighter: (shrugs)
Mage: No way that only 3 of us can beat this many orcs. I have this scroll of teleport, but it will only save three of us.
Rogue and Fighter in unison: Perfect!
Mage: (casting)
Historian: (looks around for his vanished companions) Uh, guys? Guys?
Scores of Orcs: Looks like historian's back on the menu, boys!
(various chewing and chomping ensues as the credits queue)

I know, I know, that's being overly harsh.

I'm using hyperbole to illustrate the point that Experts are not designed for adventuring.

But evidently you already knew that, which is why you're looking for an evolved expert who is designed for adventuring.

It just seems to me that you're going about it backwards.

Me, I would have examined my character concept and found a real adventuring class that comes closest. Maybe I can justify Sneak Attack better than I can justify spellcasting for my particular historian concept.

Then I would have chatted up my DM and got him to tweak the class a little.

Drop a few skills and replace them with a few knowledge skills.

Maybe lose things like uncanny dodge and rogue talents and try to talk the DM into the bard's Lore ability to replace them.

Keep the most useful combat stuff, like Sneak Attack and Evasion, and work that into my historian's personality. He is weak and afraid to fight, so he lurks around the edge of the battle using his knowledge of anatomy to land a few well-placed blows at just the right moments. His general fear of battle and paranoia keeps him extremely alert and jumpy, just enough so that he can often leap completely away from certain magical effects.

In other words, I would let the character concept begin with a real adventuring class and drive it from there into tweaking that class for my build.

Which seems to me to be worlds more useful than starting with something that is practically useless and trying to build it up into an adventurer.

IMO.


DM_Blake wrote:
But it sure would be hard to justify adventuring with this historian guy and giving him a full share of the XP and treasure.

Not any harder than all the other metagaming justifications we make to keep a party together when they really shouldn't stay together. I hardly doubt my group is the only one that makes groups with very little consistency other than the players wish to keep playing and don't want to change characters.


Disenchanter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
But it sure would be hard to justify adventuring with this historian guy and giving him a full share of the XP and treasure.
Not any harder than all the other metagaming justifications we make to keep a party together when they really shouldn't stay together. I hardly doubt my group is the only one that makes groups with very little consistency other than the players wish to keep playing and don't want to change characters.

I hear that.

My favorite thing (voice dripping with sarcasm) is when one player insists on running his character "true to his beliefs" and throws a fit about another character, one that eventually devolvs into "you go or I go" and sometimes ends in blows.

It's usually a paladin, ousting a rogue or other evil and/or unlawful individual over an ethical dispute.

I hate hate hate that.

So yeah, I totally get the metagamey junk justifications we make to keep impractical parties together.

But there is a wall of disbelief that is (usually) spongey and flexible about ideological differences, but is (usually) solid as a rock when it comes to suicide vs. survival.

Goofy reasons for a paladin to group with a rogue is spongey ideology.

Goofy reasons for any adventurer to drag along a non-combat helpless expert on a life-or-death adventurer is crumbling away at that rock-solid wall of disbelief.


Disenchanter wrote:
But not only did I really not want spellcasting, Intelligence wasn't the characters best stat.

And he was a historian? I can see that.

"Well, long ago, I forget how long, there was this really big island. They have a name for that sort of thing, which slipped my mind. Condiment, I think. No, wait, that's something naughty!

Anyway, on this island, there lived those really powerful wossnames. They had some power, I don't remember what it was, but it was big. And they were snotty about it, so their benni-... bane.... the things who gave them their magic, some eely things, or something like that, anyway they live in water, and have a really complicated name, they took the Moonstone from out of the dark wallpaper and did for those arrogant jerks.

And then it got dark, and those green monsters - orbs? - came from somewhere I swear I knew yesterday, and did bad things.

And that's the story of.... what was I talking again?"


DM_Blake wrote:
Goofy reasons for any adventurer to drag along a non-combat helpless expert on a life-or-death adventurer is crumbling away at that rock-solid wall of disbelief.

But you are still stuck on the idea that Experts are helpless.

This doesn't have to be true.

Rogue BAB and armor proficiencies, Wizard/Sorcerer Saves,... Why is the Expert so helpless? At least they don't have the Fighters' crappy Will save[/sarcasm], or are so horribly broken as Clerics and Druids[/sarcasm], or are stuck with Flurry of Misses like the Monk[/sarcasm].

In fact, then tend to be less "helpless" than a Bard in combat since they can actually perform actions other than perform[/more sarcasm].

EDIT: I am also bemused how two people have taken "Intelligence wasn't his best stat" to mean he was a dumbass. I mean, it couldn't possibly mean that 2+Int mod was less than the base skill points of an Expert could it? No, what was I thinking. How could I ever think that the internets wouldn't see through my clever ploy...


Disenchanter wrote:
EDIT: I am also bemused how two people have taken "Intelligence wasn't his best stat" to mean he was a dumbass. I mean, it couldn't possibly mean that 2+Int mod was less than the base skill points of an Expert could it? No, what was I thinking. How could I ever think that the internets wouldn't see through my clever ploy...

No, no, no.

I read what you said. And I know that "wasn't his best stat" is a far cry from "was his worst stat".

The whole "unintelligent bookworm historian" was a jibe.

My bad. I lacked the forsight to make liberal use of [/sarcasm] to make that point abundantly clear. [/sarcasm]

:)


Disenchanter wrote:

But you are still stuck on the idea that Experts are helpless.

This doesn't have to be true.

But they are.

They get mediocre BAB, light armor, only one good Save out of three, mediocre HP.

It's all mediocre. Or worse.

Only a couple classes in the game have that many liabilities.

But that's only the beginning.

The classes with the most liabilities, in fact, only two of them that match the Expert's liabilities, are the sorcerer and the wizard.

But I don't see experts with bloodlines, familiars, school powers, or the all-important fireballs (et. al.).

In return, Experts make great historians.

If you had to choose between a feeble old man (or a feeble young elf, etc.) who can recite all the names of all the dwarven kings from the beginning of time, or a feeble old man who can fry the enemies in their boots, who would you adventure with?

And if the answer is the historian, then you're only saying that because you already have a full adventuring group, fully proficient with all the firepower you think you'll ever need, and so you drag along the know-it-all Expert in case he knows something you don't.

And on the off chance he lives long enough to put that knowlege to use.


DM_Blake wrote:
They get mediocre BAB, light armor, only one good Save out of three, mediocre HP.

So, by this measure, Rogues are helpless and mediocre. Well, if they can't use their sneak attack - such as solo or versus opponents that can resist or are immune?

I don't buy it. I don't buy that your locked in expectation of an Expert being feeble makes the class or any practitioner of the class helpless.

While the genre isn't fantasy by any stretch of the imagination, I'd expect Indiana Jones to be an Expert class. Sure, he would be hard pressed against a Sorcerer without his revolver, but he is far from feeble.

Or are you going to regale me with what class Indiana Jones really is?


Barbarian, clearly. ;)


Disenchanter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
They get mediocre BAB, light armor, only one good Save out of three, mediocre HP.
So, by this measure, Rogues are helpless and mediocre. Well, if they can't use their sneak attack - such as solo or versus opponents that can resist or are immune?

I do believe I said "This is only the beginning" and proceeded to demonstrate how class features, such as spellcasting, make classes with these kinds of weaknesses useful

Experts don't get any class feature.

You're right, other than having a different primary save, rogues and experts have the same core stats. Same BAB, same HP, same Saves. They are proficient with the same armor and mostly the same weapons, though a slight advantage goes to rogues in the weapons.

But that's where the expert ends.

No trapfinding, no sneak attack, no evasion, no uncanny dodge, no rogue talents, no trap sense.

Rogues even get 2 more skill points than experts.

The problem isn't that experts lack the BAB, HP, or Saves to be a contributer to adventurer-style combat.

It's that they lack everything else. It's those other things that let all the adventurer blow away the orcs.

While the expert just wishes he could be that cool.

Disenchanter wrote:
I don't buy it. I don't buy that your locked in expectation of an Expert being feeble makes the class or any practitioner of the class helpless.

I will concede, I thought their HP was lower than a d8.

But as I said, it isn't their core numerical features that make them unsuitable for adventuring.

It's the lack of all the other class features that all the advernture-classes get.

Rogues don't contribute to combat with their BAB. They contribute with with their sneak attack, and their BAB is just a vehicle for deciding whether their combat capabilities hit this round or not.

Experts don't contribute to combat with their BAB either. They contribute with, well, with not much of anything, and their BAB is just a vehicle for deciding whether their absent combat abilities might have hit this round or not, if they had any combat abilities.

Disenchanter wrote:
While the genre isn't fantasy by any stretch of the imagination, I'd expect Indiana Jones to be an Expert class. Sure, he would be hard pressed against a Sorcerer without his revolver, but he is far from feeble.

Oooh, I love Indiana Jones. Big big fan.

But he's not an expert. No sir. Although, maybe. Just maybe he might have started out as one before he multiclassed into something more adventure-worthy.

You know who is an expert in the Indiana Jones films?

Marcus Brody. Remember him? Indy's friend?

This quote from The Last Crusade will help:

Indy: He's got a two day head start on you, which is more than he needs. Brody's got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, he speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom, he'll blend in, disappear, you'll never see him again. With any luck, he's got the grail already.
(Cut to Marcus Brody, wandering lost in a dusty village, a worried look on his face)
Brody: Does anybody here speak English?

Yeah, Brody's the expert.

Disenchanter wrote:
Or are you going to regale me with what class Indiana Jones really is?

I would have, but I rather dislike your tone here, and since you presumed to put words in my mouth, I shall reward that presumption with silence on this matter.

Contributor

DM_Blake wrote:

Oooh, I love Indiana Jones. Big big fan.

But he's not an expert. No sir. Although, maybe. Just maybe he might have started out as one before he multiclassed into something more adventure-worthy.

You know who is an expert in the Indiana Jones films?

Marcus Brody. Remember him? Indy's friend?

This quote from The Last Crusade will help:

Indy: He's got a two day head start on you, which is more than he needs. Brody's got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, he speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom, he'll blend in, disappear, you'll never see him again. With any luck, he's got the grail already.
(Cut to Marcus Brody, wandering lost in a dusty village, a worried look on his face)
Brody: Does anybody here speak English?

Ah, you cut off the quote right before his best line!

Brody: Water? Oh, no thank you, fish make love in it.

Hilarious! Requiescat in pace, Marcus Brody!


DM_Blake wrote:
Yeah, Brody's the expert.

Brody's an expert not the expert.

But why do I bother? After all, you're the Expert on Experts. Correct?


Disenchanter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Yeah, Brody's the expert.

Brody's an expert not the expert.

But why do I bother? After all, you're the Expert on Experts. Correct?

Nah, not really.

I have class abilities too.

:)

Dark Archive

Closest thing I've played to an Expert is a Cloistered Cleric.

It may not fit with the non-spellcasting historian concept, but it's a fairly effective class in it's own right. Brought over to Pathfinder, the addition of a third Domain (Knowledge plus two others) would be fairly nifty as well.

The Expert from Unearthed Arcana, already mentioned upthread, also sounds like a great option.


I've only glanced briefly over the entire thread, but my suggestion would be to simply just add the 'Fighter's Bonus Feat Progression', and allow any feat to be chosen, not just fighter/combat feats.(This would NOT include Armor/Weapon training, just FEATS. After all, the Fighter IS the 'Combat Expert' and you are not trying to steal HIS job.)

So you could then take the dual skill pumpers or skill focus 'whatever' a bunch of times. This would go along way towards making you look really cool when the party has non-combat issues, but you had better 'duck & cover' come time for combat. You won't have any of the class abilities that your BaB/HD bracket would have... no healing, sneak attack, flurry, Marshal Auras, etc.

BUT you WILL be the 'MacGuyver' of adventuring. *cue music*

Another thought is that you could make the Bonus Feats specifically "Skill Focus'", but that seems kind of restrictive IMO.


There is the Savant class from Dragon Magazine compendium that is basically a loremaster, they get a few spells, and some other nifty things- a little of arcane, a little of divine, based on their research. Not very powerful, but at least semi-effective. Might be worth a look-see.

Also, if you take the Knowledge Domain Feat (IIRC) from Complete Champion it gives you a plus to hit and damage against various creatures based on your ranks in knowledge (creature type) is. Such as Knowledge (arcana) vs. Dragons, etc.


Disenchanter wrote:
Or are you going to regale me with what class Indiana Jones really is?

I would say Swashbuckler/Duelist. He has an extreme luck factor and a high intelligence(lots of skills), but still manages to hold his own in a fight both melee & ranged.

He doesn't sing or perform, so Bard is out despite the obvious capacity for Bardic Knowledge and proficiency with a Whip. XD


Krome wrote:
personally, I love the idea of starting a game with these three classes only. Play to level 5, then choose a normal class to branch into for the next 5-7 levels, then pick a Prestige Class for the last levels in the campaign. Sort of a Beginning, Advanced, Prestige approach to the game. Add in Epic and you have a 4 tier game with definite progressions of power.

That is how the World of Warcraft D20 PHB rules read. You start out as various classes depending on what you want to take and at 5th level you become said class. I don't remember the specifics, but it was comparable to starting as an Adept and playing that for 5 levels if you wanted to be a Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid.

Grand Lodge

Daniel Moyer wrote:
Krome wrote:
personally, I love the idea of starting a game with these three classes only. Play to level 5, then choose a normal class to branch into for the next 5-7 levels, then pick a Prestige Class for the last levels in the campaign. Sort of a Beginning, Advanced, Prestige approach to the game. Add in Epic and you have a 4 tier game with definite progressions of power.
That is how the World of Warcraft D20 PHB rules read. You start out as various classes depending on what you want to take and at 5th level you become said class. I don't remember the specifics, but it was comparable to starting as an Adept and playing that for 5 levels if you wanted to be a Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid.

I bought the WOW sourcebook, hoping they would change the classes to be like the ones in WOW, and they kept the basic stuff. I was so bummed. Never looked in since then! Maybe I should look again. lol


Why does everything need to have its own base class.

"I have a warrior type, like a fighter, but he only uses two-handed weapons and medium armour, not all the stuff a fighter can do. I need a new base class for that"

There's enough classes in there already that can be an expert. You can modify them if they're not quite what you want. You can ignore class abilities you don't like.

We don't need Complete Historian with three base classes, 27 PrCs, a pantheon, a spell section, a hundred feats and some monsters all geared towards this niche character.

Flexibility. It's what makes 3e strong.


KaeYoss wrote:
We don't need Complete Historian with three base classes, 27 PrCs, a pantheon, a spell section, a hundred feats and some monsters all geared towards this niche character.

Oddly enough, I would probably buy that book, too.

But I am sure that, like half of the 3.x books on my shelf (between core, official, splat, and 3rd party I am nearing 100 books), it would sit there collecting dust and never get used during actual gaming.


DM_Blake wrote:


If you had to choose between a feeble old man (or a feeble young elf, etc.) who can recite all the names of all the dwarven kings from the beginning of time, or a feeble old man who can fry the enemies in their boots, who would you adventure with?

If that feeble old man was the only person who could read and understand the Ancient Tholoffian script, and his knowledge of their history and architecture meant we had a better chance of retrieving the "Tholoffian Sceptre of the Hicklebottoms" from the ancient dread temple. I would take him. Without his expert knowledge we could never even determine what the secret riddle to enter was (though the pictographs did look interesting if only mildly pornographic) let alone answer the riddle.

Now would I want to take the expert on a different adventure after he had helped with this one that was not in his area of expertise? No, but for the right adventure an expert sage can be invaluable.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

What about the Archivist class from Heroes of Horror? This is basically a support kind of character which specializes in knowing stuff (knowledge skills).

The whole class is up on the WotC site.


Once when I wanted to make up an expert-type character I started with an expert, but then switched to rogue. Rogue out-skills the expert and with a reasonable DM you can swap backstabbing for knowledge bonuses and wider range of class skills. Then you're better than a normal NPC expert.


therealthom wrote:
Once when I wanted to make up an expert-type character I started with an expert, but then switched to rogue. Rogue out-skills the expert and with a reasonable DM you can swap backstabbing for knowledge bonuses and wider range of class skills. Then you're better than a normal NPC expert.

Personally, if someone came to me and said: I want to play a rogue, but I want to trade in sneak attack for bardic knowledge, loremaster and jack of all trades, I'd allow it.


KaeYoss wrote:
therealthom wrote:
Once when I wanted to make up an expert-type character I started with an expert, but then switched to rogue. Rogue out-skills the expert and with a reasonable DM you can swap backstabbing for knowledge bonuses and wider range of class skills. Then you're better than a normal NPC expert.
Personally, if someone came to me and said: I want to play a rogue, but I want to trade in sneak attack for bardic knowledge, loremaster and jack of all trades, I'd allow it.

That's all fine and dandy, but again, you're making someone who is rather weak at combat.

Other than getting a few weapons that an Expert is not proficient with, rogues are just as bad at combat as Experts - if they can't sneak attack.

Personally, if someone came to me and said: I want to play a rogue, but I want to trade in sneak attack for bardic knowledge, loremaster and jack of all trades, I would strongly advise this person to consider keeping sneak attack, basing it on his masterful expertise at anatomy, and dropping some other roguish things, like rogue talents, trap sense, and evasion.


DM_Blake wrote:
and dropping some other roguish things, like rogue talents, trap sense, and evasion.

Hm... Can work, too.

But some of that stuff is quite useful, too: Many of the rogue talents enhance skill use, and evasion has saved many a rogue's butt.

Anyway, I think we've proven that we don't need an expert on steroids, because we already have skill monkey classes and don't need another.


Two things come to mind and both are from Unearthed Arcana supplement rules.

#1, Generic class Expert www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#expert

#2, Rogue Sneak/Fighter-Feat substitution, www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue

In the first case you get to pick and choose from a handful of extra class abilities that the NPC expert does not get (and needs to compete with PC classes). The second is a very easy swap out on the Rogue and makes it a very different kind of class.

Also see Wilderness Rogue which can be used with option #2 to change up the class skills and make it more of an explorer. www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariant WildernessRogue


Disenchanter wrote:

There is Experts v.3.5 by Skirmisher publishing.

It has piqued my interest from time to time, but never enogh to actually buy it. So, unfortunately, I can't really tell you anything about it.

I've purchased the PDF, and just finished going over it.

Pretty good stuff. Not a needed resource, but as the forward by Gary Gygax says "In short, if you are engaged in play of the D20 system based on a fantasy world, you can not pass up this work. Experts is truly a most useful sourcebook for the Game Master and player equally..."


DM_Blake wrote:
May I ask why?

Yes you may! (Grin)

Actually you give very good arguments as to why it’s a bad idea to have an expert along with most adventuring groups, and the various ways you can take existing classes and suit them to do the experts role and still be useful in adventuring/combat. I agree that with some flexibility and creativity a lot of good options are available.
Various people have given lots of good suggestions, and I will look into each of them and see what they have to offer.

What I am looking for is a class that is NOT any of the 11 core classes, that its main role is to be very knowledgeable in areas that is not directly related to combat or adventuring (like many Craft, Profession and Knowledge skills), who can provide the PCs with services/skills/knowledge they need but don’t readily have, and who is more useful in a campaign where the fields of knowledge is so vast that no one class can possible know everything and specialists have arisen in each of those fields of knowledge (not your standard D&D medieval world). Also this should be his primary strength and not need to “dip” or multiclass to be useful and hold his own. Basically I am looking for a NPC Expert +, that won’t drop while accompanying the PCS on their quests/missions, and that is not meant to replace/supplement the role of the adventuring classes.

DM_Blake wrote:
What would it offer that one of the myriad core classes, or splat classes doesn't already offer?

That is the thing, I DON’T know what are all those “myriad core classes” and “splat classes” that are available, as my D&D library is not as extensive as many, and I don’t have access to other players (or groups ) libraries to see what else is out there. That I why I ask here for suggestions. :)

DM_Blake wrote:
Which seems to me to be worlds more useful than starting with something that is practically useless and trying to build it up into an adventurer.

After I re-read my original post, I can see that is exactly what I stated, but not what I was actually trying to say. I hope I was able to express myself more clearly above.

Oh, and sorry for taking so long to respond, been very busy at work lately (and preparing my notes for my upcoming Pathfinder Beta Dragonstar campaign, we start working on the PCs tomorrow).

Off topic question: Where is the best place to share the Campaign Journal of my new campaign, here in the Pathfinder RPG/General Discussion forum or elsewhere?

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / NPC Expert Class, upgrade? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?