PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Beguilers, Factotums: why play a Rogue?



Thurbane
2008-12-23, 12:13 AM
Just curious - between Beguilers and Factotums, is there any real reason to play a Rogue? Is sneak attack and 2 extra skill points a level enough to make them viable? PrCs?

RTGoodman
2008-12-23, 12:28 AM
Well, sometimes you just want to be the normal, non-magical thief. Beguiler may make the Rogue "unnecessary," but it also has things that not everyone wants (i.e., spells). Factotums are harder to justify not using, but I think it comes down to a real flavor difference - Factotums can very literally do anything, and sometimes you just don't want to deal with turning undead, casting spells, duplicating other classes' abilities, adding sneak attack, and generally just doing whatever you want.

Also, some DMs just don't allow PHB2, Dungeonscape, and/or other sources. :smallwink:

Curmudgeon
2008-12-23, 06:08 AM
The thing is, you can make a Rogue who's always got something to do, in or out of combat. That, to me, is worth more than having the "best" archer (who's just scenery the rest of the time) or the "best" melee fighter (ditto). I'd much rather play all the time than be awesome 10% of the time. Rogues have all the necessary skills to acquire more of what they need (magical gear, that is), so they don't need to be limited to the same budget that their friends are.

You can create any sort of Rogue you want. You can make a specialized archer Rogue. You can make a specialized melee Rogue. Both of these are geared to cranking out more damage via sneak attack. You can make a non-ToB battle tactician with Ambush feats. And of course you can make a skill monkey.

While Rogues have gotten short shrift compared to other core classes with multiclass feats, there are at least some options there, and none for the Factotum or Beguiler. Ascetic Rogue combines Rogue and Monk levels. Daring Outlaw combines Rogue and Swashbuckler levels. Swift Ambusher combines Rogue and Scout levels (but only for skirmish damage, not sneak attack). The best of these is Sacred Outlaw (Dragon # 357), which combines Rogue and Cleric levels for undead turning and sneak attack dice; with that feat Rogue and Cloistered Cleric (6 skill points/level!) makes a great pairing.

Eldariel
2008-12-23, 06:12 AM
The argument for Rogues:
They get the most skillpoints. Plain and simple. Also, Skill Mastery and the highest Sneak Attack (through Penetrating Strike and Darkstalker, usable against unconventional opponents too) are nothing to sneer at. No, they aren't as amazingly made as Factotums, but it's still in the upper end of the core class spectrum as far as good class design goes.

It's REALLY clear that the class design has gotten better over 3.5 though; PHBII & ToB stuff simply put the horrors of the PHB classes (Does the word "Monk" mean anything to you?) into distant past. Blah, if only WoTC admitted that yes, they sucked, and remade the PHB, it'd be a friggin' bliss. I guess that's up to the end users now though.

Malacode
2008-12-23, 06:23 AM
Well, there's always the flavour. Sure, from a purely mechanical point of view, Factorums and Beguilers have a few destinct advantages over your vanilla Rogue. But what if you don't want spells? What if you dislike certain elements of fluff within those classes? What if you actually like the rogue class *gasp!*. The game isn't just about making characters effective, it's about having fun....

Telonius
2008-12-23, 09:28 AM
Unfortunately I still don't have Dungeonscape (though Christmas is coming, along with much-needed Barnes and Noble gift cards). I can't compare Rogue to Factotum.

Assuming Factotum can't get sneak attack, Rogue does have some options available to it that neither Factotum or Beguiler does. There are several status-dealing feats from Complete Scoundrel that rely on Sneak Attack (or Sudden Strike) - Deafening Strike, Throat Punch, Head Shot, Hamstring, Eldritch Erosion, and Disemboweling Strike are some of the better ones.

Staggering Strike, from Complete Adventurer, is another nice one. It does target Fort saves (typically a monster's best save), but if it doesn't make its save, it's only making either a move or an attack the next turn.

Telling Blow, also from CAdv, is another one that depends on Sneak Attack - no Rogue with a high critical threat range should be without it. Go TWF tree, pick up one level of Master of Masks for Gladiator, get yourself a Keen Rapier and a Keen Kukri for your off-hand, and go to town.

Savvy Rogue plus the Crippling Strike ability is terrific - nobody's immune to it. As long as the Rogue would have been granted a sneak attack, the foe is losing 2 points of strength. And that's damage, too, not penalty; no lower limit of 1 Str like Ray of Enfeeblement.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 09:39 AM
I thought that in some errata it was stated that factotums gained extra d6 to damage by spending more IP's, cant rememer where and how many

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-23, 09:55 AM
It's REALLY clear that the class design has gotten better over 3.5 though; PHBII & ToB stuff simply put the horrors of the PHB classes (Does the word "Monk" mean anything to you?) into distant past. Blah, if only WoTC admitted that yes, they sucked, and remade the PHB, it'd be a friggin' bliss. I guess that's up to the end users now though.

They did. It's called 4e. They have avoided those pitfalls in 4e. Granted, they found new pitfalls, but no system is completely perfect.

JaxGaret
2008-12-23, 09:56 AM
Rogue vs. Factotum is like Fighter vs. Psychic Warrior. Hear me out here.

Everyone agrees that the PW is better than the Fighter, even though the Fighter has better "fighting" stats - better BAB and more feats. Everyone also agrees that the Factotum is better than the Rogue, even though the Rogue has better "fighting" stats - more, constant SA and usable against normally non-SAable enemies with alternate class features/feats.

The reason for this is essentially that both the Factotum and PW have the ability to nova, the Factotum via IPs and the PW via PPs. However, in situations where the ability to nova is not as useful as having better base fighting capability, the Rogue and Fighter pull even with or even ahead of the other two. But for the most part, PWs and Factotums are better than Fighters and Rogues respectively.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-23, 10:14 AM
I thought the prime ability of the factotum to go nova was based on a rather cheesy Dragon feat that boosts your IP to the stratosphere.

At any rate, the rogue is a class built on the flavor of several classical fantasy archetypes, with mechanics given to match; the factotum is a class built on the mechanic of "being able to do everything", with no real corresponding fluff for why he is able to do all of that. So if you base your character on backstory and pick a class later, choose rogue; if you base your character on abilities and pick a backstory later, choose factotum. Matter of taste, really.

JBento
2008-12-23, 10:18 AM
You may as well ask: [3.5] Full casters: why play anything else?

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 10:22 AM
You may as well ask: [3.5] Full casters: why play anything else?

Or anything else than a druid

JBento
2008-12-23, 10:24 AM
Ah, but that already depends on what materials are available - that gretaly influences the full casters' power hierarchy

Person_Man
2008-12-23, 10:49 AM
It's a good class for new players. Strait forward abilities, lots of Skills, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge (everyone else is screwed, but you're special!)

It's like asking "Why play a Fighter when you could play a Warblade?" We all get that the newer classes are generally more powerful and interesting then the weaker classes. But not everyone is a D&D veteran who hangs out on forums like we do.

Saph
2008-12-23, 10:51 AM
Unfortunately I still don't have Dungeonscape (though Christmas is coming, along with much-needed Barnes and Noble gift cards). I can't compare Rogue to Factotum.

I think this pretty much answers the question.

Dungeonscape is a fairly obscure book. Few people have copies of it. Most DMs won't know the Factotum well enough without homework, which means playing one requires a lot of setup and extra work from the DM.

The Beguiler's better known, due to the PHB II being much more widespread. However, the class is also borderline broken, and just isn't appropriate for many games. And again, while many DMs are familiar with the class, many aren't.

On the other hand, everyone's familiar with the Rogue. And if you're playing in an ordinary-powered game, you can do just fine with a Rogue - they're actually one of the better-balanced and more fun classes out there. Their only weakness is crit immunity, which can be bypassed with a little work.

- Saph

Curmudgeon
2008-12-23, 10:53 AM
I thought that in some errata it was stated that factotums gained extra d6 to damage by spending more IP's, cant rememer where and how many You remember incorrectly. There have been no errata for Dungeonscape, and the sample character (pages 19-20) makes it very clear that Cunning Strike lets you spend only 1 inspiration point for 1d6 sneak attack.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 10:58 AM
It's a good class for new players. Strait forward abilities, lots of Skills, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge (everyone else is screwed, but you're special!)

It's like asking "Why play a Fighter when you could play a Warblade?" We all get that the newer classes are generally more powerful and interesting then the weaker classes. But not everyone is a D&D veteran who hangs out on forums like we do.

So true, my first character was going to be an arcane archer! Thank god for supplements!

EDIT:@^ Then I guess someone in the forum said that.

kalt
2008-12-23, 11:14 AM
for roleplay reasons or lack of books allowed...that's about it.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-23, 11:26 AM
I thought the prime ability of the factotum to go nova was based on a rather cheesy Dragon feat that boosts your IP to the stratosphere.

It's not even a Dragon feat. It's a Web Article feat. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606)

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 11:29 AM
It's not even a Dragon feat. It's a Web Article feat. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606)

Yeah, that's the only reason why my DM allowed me to use FoI's, he hates DrM feats.

Eldariel
2008-12-23, 11:34 AM
They did. It's called 4e. They have avoided those pitfalls in 4e. Granted, they found new pitfalls, but no system is completely perfect.

Those aren't the same classes as in 3.5. Granted, the idea is there, but the system is completely incompatible; 3.5 and 4.0 are about as similar as CoC and Paranoia. What would've interested me is a 3.5 remake or fix.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-23, 11:59 AM
What would've interested me is a 3.5 remake or fix.

http://www.paizo.com

Vortling
2008-12-23, 12:05 PM
@the OP: For the fun of it. Plus racial rogue substitution levels are sweet.

Eldariel
2008-12-23, 12:12 PM
http://www.paizo.com

Yea, I was just hoping for Wizards to make one; they don't need to worry about copyright and they could've actually implemented ToB into Core.

KevLar
2008-12-23, 12:51 PM
At any rate, the rogue is a class built on the flavor of several classical fantasy archetypes, with mechanics given to match; the factotum is a class built on the mechanic of "being able to do everything", with no real corresponding fluff for why he is able to do all of that.
+1

First of all, any "why play A if B is more powerful?" question annoys me, because it implies (though this may not be always the case, so I'm not accusing the OP, mind you :smallsmile: ) that power is the only goal of role-playing.

Anyway, here's why the Rogue is still my favorite class after all those years (though I'm very very fond of Factotums and Beguilers, too), sorted by importance :

1) Flavor
As Kurald Galain said, the Rogue fits like a glove to a number of delightfully interesting character types. Types for which Factotums and Beguilers either aren't appropriate, or need a roundabout way and serious refluffing. Common thieves, highwaymen, smugglers and the like are pretty obvious. So here is one that, perhaps, you hadn't thought of :

Lower class heroes. Nothing fits a lower class hero (or villain) like the Rogue. And this is greatly supported by the mechanics, which allow the Rogue (and only the Rogue) to go about his business without any resources. No access to spells. No favors from the gods. No nothing. All you have is your wits, your dirty fighting skills, and your feet to swiftly carry you out of harm's way as soon as crap hits the fan.

2) Compatibility
Rogues fit any kind of campaign. If it isn't a generic setting, if it has any sort of distinctiveness or theme, there's a chance that the Factotum or the Beguiler (or ToB characters, or even core classes) might seem out of place. There's no such thing as "out of place" for the Rogue.

3) Mechanics
I honestly can't think of any other class which is, at the same time, so balanced, so easy to play without book-keeping, and so easy to customize if you like rummaging through splatbooks etc. I need less than a couple of minutes to build an effective Rogue. I need much more time to build an effective Beguiler or Factotum. And on the other hand, if I'm in the mood for heavy optimization, I have lots and lots of options.

Zeful
2008-12-23, 01:53 PM
Just curious - between Beguilers and Factotums, is there any real reason to play a Rogue? Is sneak attack and 2 extra skill points a level enough to make them viable? PrCs?

Yes, because there are DMs that don't allow book X for whatever reason (Flavor, Power, Umfamiliarity).

AmberVael
2008-12-23, 03:00 PM
A few thoughts on Rogues, Beguilers, and Factotums... IN COMIC FORM!
For those who know what the hell I'm talking about, it's another emote comic! For those of you who don't, you've missed out! :smalltongue:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/RogueEmote-1.png

Gorbash
2008-12-23, 03:14 PM
It's REALLY clear that the class design has gotten better over 3.5 though; PHBII & ToB stuff simply put the horrors of the PHB classes (Does the word "Monk" mean anything to you?) into distant past. Blah, if only WoTC admitted that yes, they sucked, and remade the PHB, it'd be a friggin' bliss. I guess that's up to the end users now though.

Problem with this is that most people are sceptical about non-core base classes. Most of the people I know who play D&D think that Monk, Fighter, etc are ok classes, and Warblade, Swordsage, Beguilers etc are overpowered.

Or they simply don't care about how powerful they are and they just want to play a Monk.

No matter how many times I tried to explain to them that core classes actually suck and these others are ok, they still think everything non-core is overpowered, stupid, etc.

I just think that some of the classes (Beguiler, for example) are too specialized to be a base class.

JaxGaret
2008-12-23, 03:23 PM
http://www.paizo.com

Doesn't go nearly far enough to be worth the switch IMO.

TempusCCK
2008-12-23, 03:32 PM
Mm, where can I find Penetrating Strike? Playing a Rogue right now and my biggest fear is encountering undead, which is a possibility.

Coplantor
2008-12-23, 03:35 PM
A few thoughts on Rogues, Beguilers, and Factotums... IN COMIC FORM!
For those who know what the hell I'm talking about, it's another emote comic! For those of you who don't, you've missed out! :smalltongue:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/RogueEmote-1.png

Hahaha, that was genius! Now I feel a little sad for the spellthieves though, they are missing all the spotlight.

Paul H
2008-12-23, 04:00 PM
Hi

1) Rogue has better BAB than Beguilers
2) Fighters & Rogues fit into just about any campaign, in any system
3) You can sneak attack just about anything by casting the right spell (Multiclassing)?
4) Sneaky Rogues get first dibs on treasure.:smalltongue:

I prefer Beguilers because I prefer spellcasters. (Why bother with Fighters when you can Wildshape into a Troll etc)?

Just play what you feel comfortable with

Cheers
Paul H

Thurbane
2008-12-23, 06:25 PM
Heh, I should point out that my initial question is basically rhetorical. My group aren't powergamers - we're barely even optimizers. I was just looking for people to try and make me aware of advantages the Rogue has over the other two classes, that I may have missed. :smallsmile:

Curmudgeon
2008-12-23, 06:30 PM
Mm, where can I find Penetrating Strike? Playing a Rogue right now and my biggest fear is encountering undead, which is a possibility. Penetrating Strike is in Dungeonscape on page 13. This works against all sneak-immune opponents if you can flank them. Complete Champion also has Death's Ruin. This also deals 1/2 normal sneak attack damage, but it only works against undead. However, it works with any attack that would normally qualify for sneak attack.

Temp.
2008-12-23, 07:05 PM
The Beguiler and the Rogue are different classes with slightly different roles: the Rogue is for damage, the Beguiler is for auxilery spellcasting.

The Rogue and Factotum are more closely related. Both represent the same archetype, but they go about it in different ways. The methods used in the Factotum's design feel ugly and artificial to me: per-encounter and per-day mechanics (yes I can justify them, but I'd rather not) a limitless skill list (Iajitsu Focus, UPD and Autohypnosis... totally), inexplicable casting/healing/turning (this is also the main reason I prefer the Scout to Ranger and Fighter to Paladin) and an ridiculous capstone (imitate any class's abilities... it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth).

And familiarity. People know the Rogue. Not so many people know that PC class hidden in that book with the shark that swims in acid.

Draz74
2008-12-24, 12:43 AM
Take my last character -- a dwarven "Engineer." He was a Rogue with a two-level Fighter dip, who used TWF with spiked shield bashing. Other major focuses were architecture and traps (both dismantling and building).

Make him as a Beguiler? Fat chance.

Make him as a Factotum? Maybe, but I'm not sure he would have been any better. Oh, at least Knowledge (architecture and engineering) wouldn't have been cross-class (although my DM didn't mind houseruling that, anyway). But he was primarily a melee warrior in combat, so he didn't have the resources to maximize INT the way Factotums do. (His INT was decent, for skill points/Search checks/DD checks/Craft checks, but it certainly wasn't his primary focus.) And without that uber-INT score, he appreciated having 8 skill points per level rather than 6. Sneak Attack was a major focus, so he wouldn't have wanted to rely on a limited supply of Inspiration Points to gain his bonus damage. Much better to have constant sneak attack (except vs. undead)! And he really just wasn't interested in the magical abilities Factotum would have give him; Evasion and Uncanny Dodge and Skill Mastery were much more tempting abilities for him.

Rogue is a terribly flexible class. Factotum is too, but you can still come up with plenty of character concepts that work better as Rogues. Anyone nonmagical. Anyone whose focus really is sneak attack. Anyone who's supposed to be ridiculously skilled, without being particularly Intelligent.

(Note that in saying Rogue still has its place, I'm not bashing the Factotum; I actually love the class, sans Font of Boringness Inspiration. I'm having great fun right now putting together a 20-level Gnome Factotum build. He doesn't think he's a "Factotum," he thinks he's a Ranger. Rogue wouldn't work so well for this concept.)

Frosty
2008-12-24, 02:22 AM
The Beguiler fits into any any setting where Bards exist, and Beguilers can also be perfectly good for thieves and smugglers (In fact, I'd say Beguilers are *better* smugglers than Rogues)

Straight from the PHB2:

Adaptation
When adapting the Beguiler to your campaign,look at how rogues and bards fit into your game. The beguiler fillsa similar niche, and any organiations that cater to such classes likely prove helpful to beguilers. In a land or kingdom wher emagic is common, beguilers might replace the typical rogue, diplomat, or spy. With their talent for deception, a beguiler might have a reputation similiar to the ninja