Relative power of NPC classes.

[Salindurthas]

So I was looking at the NPC* classes and noticed two obvious things:

1. They are clearly weaker than regular PC classes.
2. Commoner is clearly the worst (minimum skills, BAB saves, everything)

Some questions then popped into my head.
How do these weak classes compare to each other?
I'd clearly identified Commoner to be the weakest, but was Expert better than Aristocrat?
Were Adept (for spells) and Warrior (for full BAB) the only classes that were almost worthwhile?

And so I ask you, what do you think? If you were forced to play one of these classes, which would you consider?
What buffs would the Aristocrat# need for you to pick it over a Warrior†, and vice versa?

*The list of classes is in blue font on the right side of the linked page.
# † Replace these two classes with any pair you feel appropriate.

[Salindurthas]

Oh, when answering this question, do note that the Adept does not have the "Cantrips" or "Orisons" class feature, so they can't cast their 0-level spells as much as they like.

[Kimera757]

Salindurthas wrote:

So I was looking at the NPC* classes and noticed two obvious things:

1. They are clearly weaker than regular PC classes.
2. Commoner is clearly the worst (minimum skills, BAB saves, everything)

Some questions then popped into my head.
How do these weak classes compare to each other?
I'd clearly identified Commoner to be the weakest, but was Expert better than Aristocrat?

For an adventuring party, an aristocrat is better. They have social skills (handy for non-combat, or occasionally in combat) and they can fight pretty effectively.

Experts have more skills period (they can choose social skills though) but they don't have weapon or armor proficiencies. Short of using Use Magic Device, they're pretty useless in combat. Note that, other than being able to choose any skill they want, experts have no special skill-based powers. They don't have any ability to, say, get a +5 bonus to a skill once per day, or reroll a skill check once per day.

Quote:

Were Adept (for spells) and Warrior (for full BAB) the only classes that were almost worthwhile?

I think you could make a case for aristocrats, if only because they have way more skills than warriors.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I have actually seen people play experts, adepts, and aristocrats as the first part of a build for RP reasons. If done carefully, it did not seem to give them any significant long term weakening of the PC. All 3 of those seem at least potentially worth while to me.

[Salindurthas]

@Kimera

Yeah Aristocrat is ok at combat. Compared to the Warrior they have:
3/4BAB vs full BAB,
d8 instead of a d10 hit die, and
different save distribution.
They have the same weapon/armour proficiencies.
Not too big a hit for those extra skill points and class skills.

You say the Expert is useless in combat due to lack of proficiencies, but maybe we can cover that with races? An Elf can use Longbows, for example. Get a bunch of Dexterity for ranged attacks and choose all the Dex skills. Experts are, after all, the only ones who can get Disable Device and Acrobatics as class skills, which are useful for adventuring.
(Hehe, the lack of armour proficiencies "won't matter" because this guy stays at range anyway!)

----------
EDIT:
@Kydeem
I guess Aristocrat and Warrior have those proficiencies, and Aristocrat and Expert get some class skills. This could make them not too punishing to take a level in.

[SiuoL]

For expert, I made this bluff, stealth, escape artist-ish character with high str and dex that focus on either stealth grapple or sniping with Stingchuck. It was not bad I think