PDA

View Full Version : I don't like factotums



Samb
2009-08-18, 11:33 AM
I like playing the skill monkey/glass cannon. My first PC was a rogue and that is usually what I play if given a choice. I took a look at dungoenscape and factotum, and I can see that it is a great class mechanicly even superior to a rogue but I hate the fluff.

Basically, you play a nerd. A no talent nerd that learns how to fight from books rather than experience, or an imitator of magic users. I mean how lame is that? I don't really care if you work good on paper, if you suck fluff wise then why would I bother?

Could someone please give me another perpective on factotums? I would like to love them like I do rogues?

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 11:38 AM
Two words: Indiana Jones.

Keld Denar
2009-08-18, 11:39 AM
What if you like a guy who knows how to do a lot of stuff (skill oriented) who isn't a scroundrelly scoundrel? What if being a dashing knave isn't your goal?

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean no one else does either.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-18, 11:41 AM
Could someone please give me another perpective on factotums? I would like to love them like I do rogues?
Well, they're one of the few classes in 3E that is designed entirely from a mechanical perspective (as opposed to a fluff perspective) and as a result the fluff can be considered somewhat lacking. Essentially, the class can do pretty much anything because it's "just that cool", even if nothing else in the world works that way.

Hawriel
2009-08-18, 11:42 AM
Two words: Indiana Jones.

two more

Angus MacGyver

Eldariel
2009-08-18, 11:43 AM
Huh? You play a Jack-Of-All-Trades. Think "Do-It-Yourself-Man"; you play a guy who can do anything instead of just fighting or just healing or just turning undead. You're basically playing a Rogue who just so happens to know everything else too. Really, two things:
1) Why are you associating a class in a fantasy game with "nerd"? The word doesn't exist in the game. It's been pioneered in 1950s.
2) Is being a "nerd" really a bad thing? One could make a case for Wizards being "nerds" and I don't see anyone complaining.

Really, it's a smart character capable of picking up anything easily, the most adaptible and versatile class in the game. Play it as such.

Draz74
2009-08-18, 11:50 AM
My favorite Factotum thinks he's a Ranger. No, seriously.

Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Survival, Heal, Knowledge (nature), etc., all on the class skill list. Take 'em.

Pick "Arcane" Dilettante spells that are also on the Ranger spell list, or at least wouldn't be out-of-place thematically on a Ranger. My "Ranger" is very pious, so he considers his spells and many of his other Inspiration-based abilities to be gifts of the goddess Ehlonna.

Take normal Archery feats (and Darkstalker, the skillmonkey's favorite feat ever) instead of taking powerful-but-boring Font of Inspiration time after time.

Don't like Rangers? No problem. Factotum can fill many other concepts; you just have to be careful, again, with the spells you select for Arcane Dilettante. Self buffs, especially Heroics, are often un-flashy enough to fit almost any flavor.

The other Factotum concept I really want to try out is a Factotum who thinks he's a Swashbuckler. Cunning Insight damage boosts are pretty darn powerful on a critical hit, so a Keen Rapier or whatever has nice synergy. And what other class gives you access to all acrobatic skills and all social skills (including Perform, Knowledge (nobility & royalty), and Disguise, which seem very swashbuckler-ish to me (Scarlet Pimpenel anyone?))? None, AFAIK (even the actual Swashbuckler class somehow misses some key ones).

SilveryCord
2009-08-18, 12:08 PM
Factotums are know-it-alls who always like to bring up pointless facts ("Hey guyz, did you know that the sky is blue because the light refracts from particles in the atmosphere and..."), always thinks he's the best at everything (even though he usually isn't), and generally has a anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better attitude. His friend the wizard shows off his arcane might in an encounter, wisking through his spellbook and then blasting all of the enemies away with a Fireball? The next day, the factotum has his own spellbook, and he's trying to do the same--albeit in a cheap, hacky way. The factotum isn't a god fearing man, but when he's in danger, you can bet he's going to be praying to baby jesus to get him out of it (Opportunistic Piety--he doesn't care about religion except when it serves him.)

Not all characters with class levels are that way, to be sure, but the iconic factotum is somewhat of a tool. In a good way. (?)

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-18, 12:08 PM
Well, they're one of the few classes in 3E that is designed entirely from a mechanical perspective (as opposed to a fluff perspective) and as a result the fluff can be considered somewhat lacking....

I know of no support for that proposition nor does it seem supported by the class itself. It seems far more likely that someone said, "I want to play Indiana Jones/MacGyver/a true jack of all trades whose knack includes magic/a person who has these life-saving bursts of insight" than someone saying, "I want to cram a bunch of newly created mechanics into a single class to mimic other classes and we'll figure out why he can do that later."

Doc Roc
2009-08-18, 12:11 PM
I know of no support for that proposition nor does it seem supported by the class itself. It seems far more likely that someone said, "I want to play Indiana Jones/MacGyver/a true jack of all trades whose knack includes magic/a person who has these life-saving bursts of insight" than someone saying, "I want to cram a bunch of newly created mechanics into a single class to mimic other classes and we'll figure out why he can do that later."

I'm going to respectfully disagree and suggest that it was someone sitting down and saying:

What Would Harrison Ford Do?

Then handing their vagrant scribblings over to a skilled designer with a strongly gamist perspective.

Keld Denar
2009-08-18, 12:17 PM
And, as with everything else, flavor is the most mutable thing in a character. Like Radiant Servant, but not playing in a setting with Pelor? Radiant Servant of Lathander. Radiant Servant of Apollo. Just plain Radiant Servant. Whatever. I've heard people say they don't like Crusaders because they can't get past the whole "flash of divine insight" thing. So....call it something else. Call it the adapting to changing, chaotic combat and diversifying your tactics to keep foes from reading your tactics or whatever else you can think of. Its just that easy.

PS, Roland, you need to change your description from Gunslinger to Fishslinger in the Playground in light of that new(old) avatar. Unless, of course, the fish is also a gun, which would be seriously sweet.

SilveryCord
2009-08-18, 12:18 PM
Factotum is a flavorful class, but Eberron is also a flavorful setting. In general, the line between 'dungeonpunk' and 'based on mechanics' isn't well recognizable, and can be a bit blurry in D&D. Remember that older versions of D&D had adventurer geared shops deep in dungeons ruled by evil overlords :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 12:24 PM
I know of no support for that proposition nor does it seem supported by the class itself. It seems far more likely that someone said, "I want to play Indiana Jones/MacGyver/a true jack of all trades whose knack includes magic/a person who has these life-saving bursts of insight" than someone saying, "I want to cram a bunch of newly created mechanics into a single class to mimic other classes and we'll figure out why he can do that later."

Why not ask our very own Giant, Richard Burlew? He co-wrote this class, after all.

Draz74
2009-08-18, 12:26 PM
Why not ask our very own Giant, Richard Burlew? He co-wrote this class, after all.

He co-wrote the book, but IIRC he's stated that he actually had very little to do with the Factotum class itself.

SilveryCord
2009-08-18, 12:27 PM
Why not ask our very own Giant, Richard Burlew? He co-wrote this class, after all.

He did?! *Cracks open Dungeonscape* wow, he did! I never knew that. What other books has he designed on? Now I'm going to have to check everything... His work is always really good.

kpenguin
2009-08-18, 12:29 PM
Rich's game design credits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Burlew#Game_Design_Credits)

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 12:34 PM
He co-wrote the book, but IIRC he's stated that he actually had very little to do with the Factotum class itself.

Yes, but he obviously had some input on this class (and I'm pretty sure he was impressed by it), so he should know more about the backstage than us in this case.

Zeta Kai
2009-08-18, 12:40 PM
I'm surprised no one has made a Boomtown Rats reference yet. I must be getting old. :smallsigh:

Sanguine
2009-08-18, 12:41 PM
I'm surprised no one has made a Boomtown Rats reference yet. I must be getting old. :smallsigh:

What's Boomtown Rats?

Blackfang108
2009-08-18, 12:43 PM
A no talent nerd that learns how to fight from books rather than experience, or an imitator of magic users.

What.

No-Talent?

You have PLENTY of talent as a Factotum.

You're not imitating, you're SUCCESSFULLY imitating.

RTGoodman
2009-08-18, 12:50 PM
Basically, you play a nerd. A no talent nerd that learns how to fight from books rather than experience, or an imitator of magic users. I mean how lame is that? I don't really care if you work good on paper, if you suck fluff wise then why would I bother?

You mean, what basically ALL of us D&D nerds would be were we transported into a game world? :smalltongue:


I personally like the class. To me, it's THE class for playing the stereotypical bad-ass normal. Really, as a Factotum, you're running on luck and your wits alone. You pick up a few tricks along the way, like how to make undead flee and how to use a few spells here and there, but essentialyl, you're just some guy. And I like that.

Jalor
2009-08-18, 12:51 PM
Basically, you play a nerd. A no talent nerd that learns how to fight from books rather than experience, or an imitator of magic users. I mean how lame is that? I don't really care if you work good on paper, if you suck fluff wise then why would I bother?

Have you ever seen the TV show Firefly, or watched the movie Serenity? If you haven't, my example won't make much sense. But if you have... (Serenity spoilers)In Firefly and Serenity, River Tam is a genius. She is also insane, but that's beside the point. Every now and then she does something incredibly badass and turns out to actually be a psychic, and a carefully engineered human killing machine. In an episode of the show, she kills several redshirts with no-look shots while pinned down. She did this because she won initiative with Brains Over Brawn and spent inspiration points to land the hits. In the first half-hour of the movie, she beats up everyone in a bar by spending inspiration points to get extra standard actions and land powerful hits every time. She never gets hit because she's over 16th level and gets Int to AC.

In the climax of the movie, she fights a massive number of Reavers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)). The fight is off screen, which is why we don't see her using Opportunistic Piety to heal the few wounds she takes. Most of the Reavers dropped before their turns came up, and she has so many Fonts of Inspiration she actually equaled the Reavers in the action economy. Even then, they need natural 20s to hit her because she keeps spending inspiration points to add her Int to her AC twice. Maybe she has the Kung-Fu Genius feat and a Monk's belt we don't know about.

Sure, she's badass because of her psychic foresight, but that's easy to refluff. Psionic powers are weaker than spells, so any reasonable DM would let you take powers instead of spells for Arcane Dilettante. Also, take Wild Talent and, I don't know, Up The Walls or something. Now you're River Tam and can run up walls.

kamikasei
2009-08-18, 01:01 PM
I'm surprised no one has made a Boomtown Rats reference yet. I must be getting old. :smallsigh:

Tell me why (I don't like Factotums)?

Doesn't scan.

Kzickas
2009-08-18, 01:05 PM
she's over 16th level


no way she is

ritztastic
2009-08-18, 01:07 PM
Stuff about River Tam

That is exactly of whom I think when I think "Factotum." She does everything well, even if it's her first time doing that particular thing. Play a violin? Give her 6 seconds to test the notes first. Fly a spaceship? Let her glance over the controls for a second or two.

And that's not even considering her fighting prowess. She exemplifies why Font of Inspiration should be very heavily abused by Factoti. Factotums? I prefer Factoti.

Prime32
2009-08-18, 01:08 PM
I think a good example of a factotum is Zelgadis Greywords from Slayers (though he would also have ranger levels, possibly with Sword of the Arcane Order feat). Sword-fighting? Easy. Magic? Easy. Cartography? Easy.

sonofzeal
2009-08-18, 01:09 PM
Factotums do imitate a lot. Consider, though, that they're (by a substantial margin) the best out-of-the-box acrobats in the entire game. Brains Over Brawn isn't copying anyone else, it's exceeding them. Ninjas, who are supposed to be the acrobatic ones, can't keep up with Brains Over Brawn (especially since it adds to initiative), let alone what happens when you stack Cunning Knowledge on there and Cunning Surge your way to victory.

Could a Wizard do it better? Maybe, at high enough level. But if you want to try to get some David Belle going, you're going to need some Factotum.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-18, 01:16 PM
New potential Factotum: Michael Weston(Burn Notice). Specialize in hitting people hard when they're unprepared before they can hit you, know how to do anything(just not as well as someone spec'd in it), and live through everything only because you're so smart.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-18, 01:17 PM
Have you ever seen the TV show Firefly, or watched the movie Serenity?
Yes, but I see no big overlap in what River can do and what a factotum does. For instance, the fac has social abilities, River does not. River can take down a roomfull of heavily armed reavers without being harmed at all, and a factotum cannot. River is not a factotum, and for that matter neither is Indiana (since, among other things, he can't cast spells).

I think a closer match to the factotum would be Nakor from the Krondor books, or Richard from the Sword of Truth, or perhaps Gregory Deegan.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-18, 01:18 PM
Factotums? STUDY A BOOK? Don't be silly.

A factotum watches a mountain climber struggles his way up.
A factotum stands aside as a swordsman pulls off a difficult technique.
A factotum ducks out of the way of a fireball.

And then he says

"Hm. Looks simple enough"

and does all of them at once, perfectly.


EDIT: Fiery Climb-Slash is a very deadly technique.

Samb
2009-08-18, 01:19 PM
Ahh Indiana Jones. Doesn't really jive with western fantasy, but then again niether does jiajutsu focus, anything to make factomums better than rogues I guess is okay. MacGuyver and Indiana Jones are great characters but in D&D I'm not sure they fit.

The mechanics of factotum are very nerdy. Don't fault me for getting that impression. Brains over brawn? Sounds like a nerd with an inferioity complex. The "cunning" features are all INT based and even the picture has some factotum reading a book.
I am a nerd and I certainly don't want to play one in my fantasy life. If I wanted to play someone that read a lot of books I'd play a Mage.

I've played several rogues and have been a shadey merc, dashing womonizer, cowardly cutthroat, common buglar, street thug and various combinations of each. Factotums I can't find one angle that really appeals to me.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-18, 01:20 PM
Ahh Indiana Jones. Doesn't really jive with western fantasy, but then again niether does jiajutsu focus, anything to make factomums better than rogues I guess is okay. MacGuyver and Indiana Jones are great characters but in D&D I'm not sure they fit.

The mechanics of factotum are very nerdy. Don't fault me for getting that impression. Brains over brawn? Sounds like a nerd with an inferioity complex. The "cunning" features are all INT based and even the picture has some factotum reading a book.
I am a nerd and I certainly don't want to play one in my fantasy life. If I wanted to play someone that read a lot of books I'd play a Mage.

The factotum in the picture was only looking at the book to laugh at how outdated and ridiculous an idea "learning" is. The factotum never learns. He just knows.

RTGoodman
2009-08-18, 01:22 PM
The factotum never learns. He just knows.

I sense a meme in the making...

Tengu_temp
2009-08-18, 01:28 PM
River is not a factotum, and for that matter neither is Indiana (since, among other things, he can't cast spells).


Neither does Aragorn, yet his DND representation is almost always a ranger.

Draz74
2009-08-18, 01:29 PM
Ahh Indiana Jones. Doesn't really jive with western fantasy, but then again niether does jiajutsu focus, anything to make factomums better than rogues I guess is okay. MacGuyver and Indiana Jones are great characters but in D&D I'm not sure they fit.
No, but you can put the same personalities into more fantasy-friendly characters.


The "cunning" features are all INT based
Not true at all. Cunning Insight and Cunning Defense are INT-based. Cunning Knowledge, Cunning Surge, Cunning Breach, Cunning Strike (useless), Cunning Dodge, and Cunning Brilliance are NOT.


I've played several rogues and have been a shadey merc, dashing womonizer, cowardly cutthroat, common buglar, street thug and various combinations of each. Factotums I can't find one angle that really appeals to me.

Did you read my post about Ranger or Swashbuckling factotums? Besides, Factotum works just fine for Shady Merc, Dashing Womanizer, or Common Burglar. (Not so much for Cowardly Cutthroat or Street Thug -- those need Sneak Attack.)

EDIT:

Neither does Aragorn, yet his DND representation is almost always a ranger.
Actually, I'd say a number of things Aragorn does in the books are spellcasting ... just re-fluffed to be less "obvious" and flashy than most people imagine D&D magic. Especially when he's healing. (Athelas = material component?)

Kurald Galain
2009-08-18, 01:30 PM
Come to think of it, the best example of a factotum in fiction is probably Casey Carlyle, from the movie Ice Princess...

Kurald Galain
2009-08-18, 01:32 PM
Neither does Aragorn, yet his DND representation is almost always a ranger.
Aragorn is an 1st edition ranger (and for what it's worth, he does do the occasional healing magic in LOTR). The 3rd- and 4th edition rangers appear to be based on Drizz't instead.

Vortling
2009-08-18, 01:37 PM
Ahh Indiana Jones. Doesn't really jive with western fantasy, but then again niether does jiajutsu focus, anything to make factomums better than rogues I guess is okay. MacGuyver and Indiana Jones are great characters but in D&D I'm not sure they fit.

The mechanics of factotum are very nerdy. Don't fault me for getting that impression. Brains over brawn? Sounds like a nerd with an inferioity complex. The "cunning" features are all INT based and even the picture has some factotum reading a book.
I am a nerd and I certainly don't want to play one in my fantasy life. If I wanted to play someone that read a lot of books I'd play a Mage.

I've played several rogues and have been a shadey merc, dashing womonizer, cowardly cutthroat, common buglar, street thug and various combinations of each. Factotums I can't find one angle that really appeals to me.

Anything you can do with a rogue you can do with a factotum. In short they're rogues on steriods. Really, the factotum is the ultimate mind over matter character. He doesn't win because he's stronger than you, he wins because he fights smarter. Also, since when did cunning become nerdy? When I see cunning I think of canny heroes who don't fall for the BBEG's schemes because they see right through them, or the dashing quick-witted swashbuckler who always has a quip ready, not a bookish nerd.

However in the end there isn't anything I can say to you to change your mind if you don't let go of your preconceptions of the factotum as nerdy, instead of the amazing jack-of-all-trades class it is.

Demons_eye
2009-08-18, 01:38 PM
I thought Brains of Brawn was some thing like "Ok this is a gravel hill so if I want to climb it right I will have to keep my footing like this.

Belobog
2009-08-18, 02:19 PM
Not really a voucher for or against the class, but whenever I think of the Factotum, I always think of Odysseus. Not in ability, maybe, but certainly in attitude.

boomwolf
2009-08-18, 02:23 PM
I kina liked them.

Factotum is the "I can do that" guy. he looks at something and goes "Pufffft. I can do that.", and when somebody says prove it, he makes a perfect performance, without any training or serious study.

You could argue the same that chameleon are copy-cats, but that's their thing, they realise they are crappy at everything-so they copy everyone else! and I mean EVERYONE, AT ONCE.
A chameleon wont cast a 9th level arcane spell, but a wizard wont cast a 7th level divine spell, nor hit well in combat, and heck no change his physical abilities on day-to-day (or faster) basis.

Typewriter
2009-08-18, 02:32 PM
I'm going to respectfully disagree and suggest that it was someone sitting down and saying:

What Would Harrison Ford Do?


Shoot first?

chiasaur11
2009-08-18, 02:41 PM
Not really a voucher for or against the class, but whenever I think of the Factotum, I always think of Odysseus. Not in ability, maybe, but certainly in attitude.

Heh.

Sounds about right.

Person_Man
2009-08-18, 02:44 PM
I personally love the class. It's the center of one of my favorite builds of all time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5266526), both in terms of fluff and crunch. (Though after some play testing I've since revised the build to Factotum 8/Master of Masks 1/Warblade 11. With Brains Over Brawn (Int to Str and Dex checks), Cunning Surge, proficiency with every exotic weapon, manuevers, stances, Battle Cunning, and a ton of useful Skills and Skill Tricks, it truly rocks in terms of sheer flexibility and action advantage).

Jalor
2009-08-18, 02:48 PM
Yes, but I see no big overlap in what River can do and what a factotum does. For instance, the fac has social abilities, River does not. River can take down a roomfull of heavily armed reavers without being harmed at all, and a factotum cannot. River is not a factotum, and for that matter neither is Indiana (since, among other things, he can't cast spells.
The book itself calls Indy the quintessential factotum, comparing his skill at gunplay to the factotum's magic. River could've had social abilities, but she used her skill points on thinks like Autohypnosis, Iaijutsu Focus, and Knowledges rather than social skills. She DID once spend an inspiration point for a bonus to Intimidate on-camera; remember when she met Badger in Shindig?


New potential Factotum: Michael Weston(Burn Notice). Specialize in hitting people hard when they're unprepared before they can hit you, know how to do anything(just not as well as someone spec'd in it), and live through everything only because you're so smart.
Almost mentioned him in my post, but I decided to focus on River instead.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-18, 02:53 PM
The book itself calls Indy the quintessential factotum
Yeah, and so? Some books also call Gandalf the quintessential wizard. That doesn't change the fact that what Gandalf (or River) does bears little resemblance to what a D&D wizard (or factotum) does. It's a little something called "marketing" :smalltongue:

Jalor
2009-08-18, 02:58 PM
Yeah, and so? Some books also call Gandalf the quintessential wizard. That doesn't change the fact that what Gandalf (or River) does bears little resemblance to what a D&D wizard (or factotum) does. It's a little something called "marketing" :smalltongue:

Barring the clearly specified exception of magic/the gun, what makes Indy not a factotum?

Korivan
2009-08-18, 03:02 PM
:smallcool::smallcool::smallcool::smallcool::small cool::smallcool::smallcool::smallcool:
Two words: Indiana Jones.

Ravens_cry
2009-08-18, 03:10 PM
Ranma Saotome would be like a factotum, but with Martial Arts. He picks up weird and obscure techniques with ease and often figures out an improvement while at it.
That's an interesting idea, or at least I think it is, having various aspects of martial arts be skills, and with different DC to accomplish various feats of fu within those skills, both preset ones, and those decided by the DM for more original moves.
Don't want to drag this off topic, it's just an idea that rattled around in my head and I had to spit it out.

Eldariel
2009-08-18, 03:34 PM
Ranma Saotome would be like a factotum, but with Martial Arts. He picks up weird and obscure techniques with ease and often figures out an improvement while at it.
That's an interesting idea, or at least I think it is, having various aspects of martial arts be skills, and with different DC to accomplish various feats of fu within those skills, both preset ones, and those decided by the DM for more original moves.
Don't want to drag this off topic, it's just an idea that rattled around in my head and I had to spit it out.

That's actually really simple to implement into the Factotum; replace Arcane Dilettante with some easily variable ToB martial maneuver progression.

AshDesert
2009-08-18, 03:57 PM
I really like the Factotum's versatility. They really are the guy who stands there, watching you attempt to do something while saying snarky comments. After you finally explode at them and tell them try, they do it perfectly, the first time. In a way, they're kind of like a really good natural athlete, who can just watch someone play a sport and then do pretty darn well at it with minimal training. Except, you know, with magic. And being sneaky. And climbing, and shooting a bow, and convincing the shopkeep to pay a few extra gp for that greatsword, among other things.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-18, 04:04 PM
I really like the Factotum's versatility. They really are the guy who stands there, watching you attempt to do something while saying snarky comments. After you finally explode at them and tell them try, they do it perfectly, the first time. In a way, they're kind of like a really good natural athlete, who can just watch someone play a sport and then do pretty darn well at it with minimal training. Except, you know, with magic. And being sneaky. And climbing, and shooting a bow, and convincing the shopkeep to pay a few extra gp for that greatsword, among other things.

...mary sue? >_>

Um, joke, really. But I must say, some of these pro-factotum arguments are really rather not inspiring. Mechanically, they sound very much a good thing, but no, the fluff does not inspire me either. This is an acceptable state of affairs, as long as the DM in question is flexible on fluff, say I.

FMArthur
2009-08-18, 07:23 PM
A factotum is a very smart guy who can actually put his incredible brains to use at any task. Technique rules power, and this is the only class focused solely on that concept that isn't a full caster. That's all. He isn't using his mind to force his sword arm to swing harder, he's using his mind to keep superior combat awareness and take advantage of opportunities properly. He studies a wizard for a long time, and comes away knowing the right gestures and words to produce a similar (if not entirely equivalent) effect.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-18, 07:40 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned The_Librarian: Quest for the Spear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Librarian:_Quest_for_the_Spear). Come on, admit it, you saw it, you liked it...

Zeta Kai
2009-08-18, 07:54 PM
According to the Alexandrian (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-03.html), Aragorn is a Ranger 1/Fighter 1/Paladin 3.


That gives you the tracking, lay on hands, and quantifies his ineffable ability to instill courage in those around him. Use one of the feat selections for Skill Focus (Survival) and you’re still left with another three feat selections for the final tweaking.

Samb
2009-08-18, 08:18 PM
...mary sue? >_>

Um, joke, really. But I must say, some of these pro-factotum arguments are really rather not inspiring.
wow Mary sue was exactly what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. YKTTW moments for me.

Sorry but I have to say I am unmoved. All of you have to stop telling me how great they perform (I've read JaronK making love to it many times already) and give me some fluff I can really sink my teeth into.

Someone said the factotum was that know-it-all in the group that needed to explain why the sky was blue. That fits them but doesn't exactly endear me to them. Maybe all the tflame wars.....er I mean "debate" about them on BG forums has poisoned my mind to or I'm just a self hating nerd.

I want to use them, but yet I hate the fluff. I feel like I have failed min/maxing due to my dislike of this class.

Yukitsu
2009-08-18, 08:24 PM
I wasn't really aware classes had fluff. To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather make my own character concept and find the abilities to match the fluff that I've created.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-18, 08:24 PM
I want to use them, but yet I hate the fluff.

...so change the damned fluff. Changing fluff is easy. Changing mechanics are hard. Maybe he's someone who occasionally attunes himself to the Divine. Maybe he's Action Man and can perfectly see the most optimal course of action in the space of an instant. Maybe he's from tha futuaaaaaar/from spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace and has weird bionic implants. Maybe he's prescient. WHO KNOWS.

chiasaur11
2009-08-18, 08:44 PM
...so change the damned fluff. Changing fluff is easy. Changing mechanics are hard. Maybe he's someone who occasionally attunes himself to the Divine. Maybe he's Action Man and can perfectly see the most optimal course of action in the space of an instant. Maybe he's from tha futuaaaaaar/from spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace and has weird bionic implants. Maybe he's prescient. WHO KNOWS.

Maybe he's Batman.

Frosty
2009-08-18, 08:52 PM
I really like the Factotum's versatility. They really are the guy who stands there, watching you attempt to do something while saying snarky comments. After you finally explode at them and tell them try, they do it perfectly, the first time. In a way, they're kind of like a really good natural athlete, who can just watch someone play a sport and then do pretty darn well at it with minimal training. Except, you know, with magic. And being sneaky. And climbing, and shooting a bow, and convincing the shopkeep to pay a few extra gp for that greatsword, among other things.

So...Haruhi Suzumiya is a Factotum with goobles of Font of Inspirations?

Bob the Urgh
2009-08-18, 09:11 PM
I don't like factotums either, all they do is copy. And they do not do as good of a job as the other classes. They copy abilities, but the abilities are weaker. How dare you compare Harrison Ford to any class!

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-18, 09:15 PM
...so change the damned fluff. Changing fluff is easy. Changing mechanics are hard. Maybe he's someone who occasionally attunes himself to the Divine. Maybe he's Action Man and can perfectly see the most optimal course of action in the space of an instant. Maybe he's from tha futuaaaaaar/from spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace and has weird bionic implants. Maybe he's prescient. WHO KNOWS.


Facttogoth.

Everyone knows there are things Man Was Not Meant To Understand. The Facttogoth also knows this, and has noticed that whatever it was he wasn't meant to Understand, it is almost invariably quite impressive. Thus the facttogoth strives to use his vast intellect to carry himself away from the small, brightly lit island of sanity and towards the murky depths of the unknowable.

A facttogoth, over time, will begin to achieve inhuman deeds. He may suddenly perform many actions at the same time, climb faster than his muscles should allow, or strike with incredible force. As a facttogoth progresses away from reality, he is less contained by it and may more and more openly defy the laws of nature.

Each level, a facttogoth becomes paler, and at tenth level develops small gills and a distinctly odd aroma.

Geddoe
2009-08-18, 09:18 PM
I still like the rogue better myself, especially with a sublime way variant, but I am thinking of playing factotum in my next game.

Zeta Kai
2009-08-18, 10:07 PM
Okay, I can't take it anymore...


(Tell me why!)
Don't like factotums.
(Tell me why!)
Don't like factotums.
(Tell me why!)
Don't like factotums.
I wanna shoo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oot the whole day down!
:biggrin:

Alleine
2009-08-18, 10:12 PM
...so change the damned fluff. Changing fluff is easy.

+1

Seriously. If you had wanted people to give you new fluff you should have said so more clearly. You can also do it yourself. Just take a character idea you like and *BAM* ignore the factotum fluff. To be honest I never noticed the factotum fluff.

Don't make him follow people around learning from them if you don't want to. Just say that your character is sort of a drifter who never sets his mind on anything. He got training as a guardsmen once, got bored, tried to learn magic, got bored, joined a church, got bored, etc. And though he never stuck to just one thing his travels have brought all that knowledge into a cohesive whole and he draws from all of it, practicing a little bit of each daily.

Was that so hard?

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-18, 10:45 PM
Sorry but I have to say I am unmoved. All of you have to stop telling me how great they perform (I've read JaronK making love to it many times already) and give me some fluff I can really sink my teeth into.

Odd...I believe that the fluff of being the completely official, completely legal jack-of-all-trades adventurer was enough fluff. At least, that sold me.

Mostly, I see odd that most people in here indicate how the Factotum got its abilities, and apparently it fell into deaf ears. Factotum (ironically, a real term if Wiki is reliable enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factotum)...) learn through experience: they see and practice a bit of fencing, know most common prayers, and so forth. When they use opportunistic piety, they aren't doing it because they're ordained clerics, but because they know how to work a bit of the cleric juju and improvise with it. I find that a reasonable Factotum would be the Lazarillo de Tormes, who pretty much spent his whole lifetime working with diverse people, between them a clergyman, a squire, and so forth.

Then again, the Lazarillo makes for a really awesome Rogue too. Depends on how you see the character.


Someone said the factotum was that know-it-all in the group that needed to explain why the sky was blue. That fits them but doesn't exactly endear me to them. Maybe all the tflame wars.....er I mean "debate" about them on BG forums has poisoned my mind to or I'm just a self hating nerd.

I want to use them, but yet I hate the fluff. I feel like I have failed min/maxing due to my dislike of this class.

Oh, certainly not. Factotum isn't for everyone: those who like being specialists find the Factotum to be a bit hindering when compared to the real deal. I mean, about 7 spells of different levels, each cast once per day isn't as much as having a full-fledged arcanist lopping spells here and there. It's mostly geared for those who want to make jacks-of-all-trades, and it certainly plays the part. Even if they know how to fight better than a wizard, or cast more spells than a Fighter would, or supplement the Cleric on their work, or supplement the Rogue on their skill proficiencies, they won't master them all, Font of Inspiration be damned. Factotum/Chameleon, on the other hand, makes for a much better universal dabbler, but even they have some troubles; they don't get the best divine or arcane spells, nor the huge amount of feats, nor the proper amount of sneak attack and additive dice to damage. They're best to serve their own niche (being a better Mystic Theurge, or duking it out with the Artificer on the creation of magic items, or having the list of skills a Rogue would just dream of)

I personally love the Factotum, because I usually love playing "hybrid" classes (Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Duskblade, Hexblade, Psychic Warrior, and so forth), and I find the class as one that allows me to contribute to the party when they find themselves missing an important part. If they miss a Wizard, I won't be the ultimate Wizard, but I might as well do a better wand-wielder than a Rogue. If a Rogue is missing, I probably have the necessary skills and wands to cover his or her spot. If a Fighter is missing...tough luck, probably a Cleric is better on that one, but hey, at least I can work better than a Swashbuckler! And let's not get started with the Cleric: I can heal a bit, but it's not something that I can spam all day. So, as you can notice, it's not the end-all be-all of classes, but it fills the non-specialist niche I seek perfectly; hence, why I love the class.

In your case, you should find out what mechanically drives you off from the class, because I feel it's a mechanical aspect what drives you off. Mostly, the "can do almost everything, it feels like a Bard, yuck I hate Bards get them off me!"

Also, if you say you're a "self-hating nerd", what are you doing in this spot? That's a pretty odd contradiction. It's...like a self-hating jock, who plays sports because he's skilled and because he wants to be popular but doesn't like sports at all.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-18, 10:50 PM
Facttogoth.

Everyone knows there are things Man Was Not Meant To Understand. The Facttogoth also knows this, and has noticed that whatever it was he wasn't meant to Understand, it is almost invariably quite impressive. Thus the facttogoth strives to use his vast intellect to carry himself away from the small, brightly lit island of sanity and towards the murky depths of the unknowable.

A facttogoth, over time, will begin to achieve inhuman deeds. He may suddenly perform many actions at the same time, climb faster than his muscles should allow, or strike with incredible force. As a facttogoth progresses away from reality, he is less contained by it and may more and more openly defy the laws of nature.

Each level, a facttogoth becomes paler, and at tenth level develops small gills and a distinctly odd aroma.

Inspired

Geniuses, inventors, and artisans speak of the 'divine spark of inspiration'. Inspired know of this, for they have firsthand dealings with such on a near-daily basis.

An Inspired occasionally receives bursts of inspiration (from the divine, his subconscious, or otherwise) which he can utilize to often turn the tides in his favor. Whether it be overcoming a physical obstacle by outsmarting it or by using his superior intellect to crush his foes, an inspired relies nearly entirely on his intelligence for everything he does.

Over time, an inspired gains the ability to tap into the fabled muse and deal with raw potential in intself--he may tap into the well of inspiration to accomplish superhuman feats or even to borrow the inspiration of another walk of life for a short while.

PonceAlyosha
2009-08-18, 11:24 PM
Inspired

Geniuses, inventors, and artisans speak of the 'divine spark of inspiration'. Inspired know of this, for they have firsthand dealings with such on a near-daily basis.

An Inspired occasionally receives bursts of inspiration (from the divine, his subconscious, or otherwise) which he can utilize to often turn the tides in his favor. Whether it be overcoming a physical obstacle by outsmarting it or by using his superior intellect to crush his foes, an inspired relies nearly entirely on his intelligence for everything he does.

Over time, an inspired gains the ability to tap into the fabled muse and deal with raw potential in intself--he may tap into the well of inspiration to accomplish superhuman feats or even to borrow the inspiration of another walk of life for a short while.

I know it's totally not how you meant Inspired, but the idea of a Quori-slash-Inspired Factotum intrigues me. That'd be nice fluff, they steal their knowledge from the dreams of others, picking up the skills of the party via proximity during sleep.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-19, 06:30 AM
I know it's totally not how you meant Inspired, but the idea of a Quori-slash-Inspired Factotum intrigues me. That'd be nice fluff, they steal their knowledge from the dreams of others, picking up the skills of the party via proximity during sleep.

Combine that fluff with mine.

They FEAST UPON THE INNOCENT SANITY OF THEIR COMRADES. Dreams are like cotton candy to them.

chiasaur11
2009-08-19, 09:53 AM
Combine that fluff with mine.

They FEAST UPON THE INNOCENT SANITY OF THEIR COMRADES. Dreams are like cotton candy to them.

Do spare wrapped dreams let them recover from death?

oxinabox
2009-08-19, 10:11 AM
{SCRUBED} Double post/ CUT OFF

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-19, 10:17 AM
And the hardest build to play i ca

This is where you lose me.

oxinabox
2009-08-19, 10:20 AM
when i think of two things:
A incredbly broken factotum that useds Wand of damage INT, to drive everything into commas.
And used Inspiration to keep doing that in one round till everyithing might as well have been dead.

And the hardest build to play i can imagine:
Factotum 10/Chamilean 10
You can do everything twice.

Set
2009-08-19, 10:31 AM
I don't much care for the Factotum as a class, but if I wanted to play one, I'd consider fluff like the following;

Ancestral Speaker. The PC is a tribal shaman, descended from a long line of great warriors, clever scoundrels, wise women who spoke for the gods and dangerous sorcerers. The abilities represent a childhood spent listening to the tales of ancestors long deceased, and benefiting from their spiritual tutelage. With effort, the ancestral speaker can channel the spirit of a particular ancestor, tapping into that ancestors arcane, divine or martial talents to enhance their own.

Taker of Skulls. Anyone who has ever cast Speak With Dead knows that a spiritual shadow or echo of the departed remains in their bones. The Taker of Skulls has learned to tap into this spiritual remnant, to channel the arcane, divine or martial talents of these departed souls. As levels increase, the Taker of Skulls can tap into and channel the powers of even more potent spiritual residues. A necromantic opportunist, the Taker of Skulls is marked by an unwholesome fascination with the skills and talents of those they encounter, particularly of those who end up dead...

The Vorpal Tribble
2009-08-19, 10:36 AM
If it's not been mentioned, a psionicist type would be great for this. You have such things as telepathy and the ability to read the history out of the very stones... and that's just 1st level. Go Factotum afterwards.

I rewrite the fluff of almost everything, so if it stinks, redo it.

Then again, some are beyond repair. I'm looking at YOU flayerspawn psychic!

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-19, 10:43 AM
when i think of two things:
A incredbly broken factotum that useds Wand of damage INT, to drive everything into commas.
And used Inspiration to keep doing that in one round till everyithing might as well have been dead.

And the hardest build to play i can imagine:
Factotum 10/Chamilean 10
You can do everything twice.

One of those is easily avoided through 2 spells or Mind Affecting immunity. The latter doesn't compare to a Spell-to-Power Erudite, GOD Wizard, or Artificer. All three of those have a much higher learning curve than your two examples.

Factotum's got a few kinks, but it isn't broken.

Emy
2009-08-19, 11:19 AM
drive everything into commas.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



And the hardest build to play i can imagine:
Factotum 10/Chamilean 10
You can do everything twice.

That's completely absurd. Factotum 8 or 11. Definitely not 10. Factotum 11/Chameleon 9 is the simplest version of this.

AstralFire
2009-08-19, 11:30 AM
I don't care for factotums either.

Same reason I don't like prepared casters with a big list, Chameleons.

I want to specialize in something, I want my character to specialize in something, not have a big blank slate of 'whatever I feel like doing right now'.

Xenogears
2009-08-19, 11:32 AM
[QUOTE=Set;6755023Ancestral Speaker. The PC is a tribal shaman, descended from a long line of great warriors, clever scoundrels, wise women who spoke for the gods and dangerous sorcerers. The abilities represent a childhood spent listening to the tales of ancestors long deceased, and benefiting from their spiritual tutelage. With effort, the ancestral speaker can channel the spirit of a particular ancestor, tapping into that ancestors arcane, divine or martial talents to enhance their own.
[/QUOTE]

I like that fluff.

AstralFire
2009-08-19, 11:34 AM
It -is- good fluff, I must admit.

paddyfool
2009-08-19, 11:42 AM
Maybe he's Batman.

I'd rather think of him as Victor Von Doom, although arguably a stronger case could also be made for Artificer here (ditto Reed Richards).

A couple of better fits, albeit less well known, would be Taskmaster (Factotum/Chameleon) and Amadeus Cho (straight Fac). Come to think of it, that would be kind of an interesting vs... I think the DC equivalent of Taskmaster, Prometheus (not sure which was first) would also work as Fac/Cham, although I'm not quite so familiar with him. A case could also be made for John Constantine, since he really doesn't do that much magic (the comic version, not the cr****y movie on), possibly with some sort of spellcasting PrC or multiclass.

Outside of comics, you'd have:
- Col John "Hannibal" Smith
- Gandalf (see Constantine)
- Jack Bauer
- Dr House
- The Doctor
etc.

Think "smart guys that are just that good at lots of things". It's not that hard.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-19, 11:48 AM
I'd rather think of him as Victor Von Doom, although arguably a stronger case could also be made for Artificer here (ditto Reed Richards).

A couple of better fits, albeit less well known, would be Taskmaster (Factotum/Chameleon) and Amadeus Cho (straight Fac). Come to think of it, that would be kind of an interesting vs... I think the DC equivalent of Taskmaster, Prometheus (not sure which was first) would also work as Fac/Cham, although I'm not quite so familiar with him. A case could also be made for John Constantine, since he really doesn't do that much magic (the comic version, not the cr****y movie on), possibly with some sort of spellcasting PrC or multiclass.

Outside of comics, you'd have:
- Col John "Hannibal" Smith
- Gandalf (see Constantine)
- Jack Bauer
- Dr House
- The Doctor
etc.

Think "smart guys that are just that good at lots of things". It's not that hard.

Does B. A. Baracus have some kind of reverse Brains over Brawn ability where he can substitute his Str in for Int when he needs to make a Mechanics check? :smalltongue:

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-08-19, 11:52 AM
Another idea:

The Lucky B-

Sure, he's bright chap and picks up the basics of any skill in a fraction of the time it takes most, but that can hardly be enough right? Right. But when you combine broad base of general knowledge, a knack for learning things on the fly with an almost supernatural amount of luck, well, you can do almost anything, can't you?

Alternatively: Mommy was a Rogue, Daddy was a Bard. After their epic adventure involving the defeat of a massively powerful Lich, they retired, got married and had a kid. The kid was brought up and taught all the tricks of his parent's trades and when the parent's adventuring buddies (a Human Fighter, and Elven Wizard and a Dwarven Cleric) visited, they also taught the kid the basics of each of their trades.

Fastforward a few years and you have a Factotum :smallbiggrin:

OMG PONIES
2009-08-19, 12:22 PM
I know it doesn't mesh with a medieval fantasy world, but I would consider Neo to be a factotum, just able to download any necessary information in a moment's time.

I once played a factotum who was a freed slave; he had gathered life experience in servitude to a wizard, a bard, and a warblade.

Also, her name escapes me at the moment, but what about the one girl from Heroes (I don't know if she's in it after Season 1). Micah's cousin, I think, she can watch anything once and it's then programmed into her muscle memory.

RTGoodman
2009-08-19, 12:27 PM
Does B. A. Baracus have some kind of reverse Brains over Brawn ability where he can substitute his Str in for Int when he needs to make a Mechanics check? :smalltongue:

I kinda want to stat up a B.A. Baracus monster now. I don't know what it'll do yet, but his signature attack will be Pity the Fool (Ex). :smalltongue:

Korivan
2009-08-19, 02:13 PM
Ya know, its threads like these that slowed me down from switching from 2nd to 3rd. All I saw was the "do anything and everything in one round", and "X class sucks because it doesnt specialize in magic." Thankfully, my group and I ignored those statements in the end and used old school style with new school rules. The end result, a diverse and fun loving group not trying to optimise or powergame to the point of "a bajilion damage in one round". Now thats not saying we don't optimise, but the focus is gameplay, experimintation, role-playing. Its actually fun to play a jack-of-all-trades character because you can be whatever you want however you want. Describing a class as nerd, or bookworm only is either taking what the source books mention only adding nothing of your own, or, not using your imagination to come up with a better backstory.
But hey, not every class is for everyone. I don't like playing druids, artificers, clerics, or rouges, but hey, nothing wrong with that. And before anyone throws a brick at me for saying that, I dont care about a tier system somebody came up with on thier spare time. It's a nice reference point but do your own experimintation, as the swingers say "variety is the spice of life baby". Well thats enough ranting for me, just gotta say, love factotums.

mint
2009-08-19, 02:49 PM
Someone on these forums had a concept I was totally going to steal, i think it was a factotum as a robot (warforged).
Inspiration points would sort of be CPU, boosting skill checks would be running programs.
Turn undead = "negative energy counter-measure protocol #4" and so on.


I am completely enamoured with River Tam as a factotum now though. That's excellent.

Yukitsu
2009-08-19, 02:55 PM
I kinda want to stat up a B.A. Baracus monster now. I don't know what it'll do yet, but his signature attack will be Pity the Fool (Ex). :smalltongue:

Statting something implies it can be fought and beat.

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-19, 03:09 PM
I don't like factotums either, all they do is copy. And they do not do as good of a job as the other classes. They copy abilities, but the abilities are weaker. How dare you compare Harrison Ford to any class!

Um, that's the point of being a Jack of All Trades. Good at everything, but a master at none of it. He's able to pick up the slack for anyone for anyone for a short period of time, but isn't able to outright replace every member of the party (CoDzilla, I'm looking at you).

Of course the masters are going to be masters at their specific trade. That's why they are called masters. You dislike the class because it's being exactly what it is supposed to be? Circular Logic gets you no where.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-19, 03:16 PM
I kinda want to stat up a B.A. Baracus monster now. I don't know what it'll do yet, but his signature attack will be Pity the Fool (Ex). :smalltongue:

Remember that he can only deal nonlethal damage.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-19, 03:26 PM
That's completely absurd. Factotum 8 or 11. Definitely not 10. Factotum 11/Chameleon 9 is the simplest version of this.

I'd still go for Chameleon 10. Perhaps work it as the old Haberdash build and add a level of Master of Masks, and make it a Changeling for goodness sakes. That way, aside from the Gladiator mask (and have access to all Exotic weapons), I can get another mask (I'm all for Faceless, or nearly unlimited Nondetection), and I still get an extraofficial CL 9th for in case I need to make my own exotic weapons with all that crunchy goodness, by taking the floating bonus feat for Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Of course, after dealing with how I can get my hands on a Thought Bottle.

Also, for a more complex build that can technically do EVERYTHING:
Factotum 9/Chameleon 10, with the feats Hidden Talent, Bind Vestige, Martial Study and Martial Stance, as well as the feats that grant you an essentia pool and a Truename ability. Sure, not as good as the original (except for Truenaming: you can actually do it even better than the original, even if it's just for one ability), but you can use it to infiltrate nearly anywhere.

Best part is to use the floating feat for some of the nifty tricks (such as shaping a Soulmeld with the Shape Soulmeld feat, then keeping it even as the feat changes, or getting Assume Supernatural Ability after preparing Polymorph/Shapechange, or getting the improved versions of those feats) It's not gamebreaking, but it certainly lends to the feel of almost literally doing everything.

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 03:41 PM
You dislike the class because it's being exactly what it is supposed to be? Circular Logic gets you no where.

That's not circular logic, at all.

I don't like widgets with wockets.
This widget has a wocket.
.:Therefore, _______

Can you fill in the conclusion to this modus ponens??

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-19, 03:50 PM
That's not circular logic, at all.

I don't like widgets with wockets.
This widget has a wocket.
.:Therefore, _______

Can you fill in the conclusion to this modus ponens??

Ok, you made your point. But he did commit some kind of logical fallacy. It's been a while since I took Creative Thinking, so I'm a little rusty here.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-19, 03:50 PM
I don't like Factotums because they aren't that good, and they are the only class in all of 3.5 that force me to define when exactly discreet encounters begin and end.

Also, they force me to houserule their primary ability, because if you don't, the actual rules for inspiration make between "absolutely no" and "negative" sense.

EDIT: No he didn't commit any logical fallacy, he just doesn't like things that you like.

"I don't like chocolate cake."
"But this chocolate cake is way better than that other chocolate cake that is too chocolaty (Cleric), or that not chocolaty enough one (Bard)."
"I still don't like chocolate cake."

Chocolate cake=jack of all trades.

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-19, 03:55 PM
I don't like Factotums because they aren't that good, and they are the only class in all of 3.5 that force me to define when exactly discreet encounters begin and end.

Also, they force me to houserule their primary ability, because if you don't, the actual rules for inspiration make between "absolutely no" and "negative" sense.

Wha??? Where doesn't the ability make sense? They get X points at the start of the encounter (going by the Bo9S' definition an Encounter is fairly easy to define, though I've all ready presented my idea of what an encounter is), and can spend points at will to get certain effects.

And Factotums are Tier 3 for a reason. 7th level spell access aside, they are easily better Skill Monkeys than a Rogue. Combat-wise, you just use Iaijutsu Focus with Gnome Quickrazors and play like a CAdv Ninja.


EDIT: No he didn't commit any logical fallacy, he just doesn't like things that you like.

"I don't like chocolate cake."
"But this chocolate cake is way better than that other chocolate cake that is too chocolaty (Cleric), or that not chocolaty enough one (Bard)."
"I still don't like chocolate cake."

Chocolate cake=jack of all trades.

He said he dislikes the class because of what they do, and said that all they do is copy. He then says that the class can't even do that as effectively as the original (Fact: the class is able to duplicate Ex abilities under 19th level exactly as the original class, if only for a few minutes/day). He misrepresents the class' abilities and says they suck because of it.

Using your Chocolate Cake metaphor, he's effectively saying he doesn't like the Factotum's chocolate cake because it isn't as chocolatey as the Cleric's or any other class', not that he doesn't like chocolate cake period.

Sounds like a Straw Man variant.

Draz74
2009-08-19, 03:56 PM
I don't like Factotums because they aren't that good, and they are the only class in all of 3.5 that force me to define when exactly discreet encounters begin and end.

Also, they force me to houserule their primary ability, because if you don't, the actual rules for inspiration make between "absolutely no" and "negative" sense.

At some point, one of the WotC designer guys clarified the Factotum's RAI intentions on the Gleemax forums. Essentially it was that the Factotum can recharge his Inspiration points anytime he can rest peacefully for 1 minute.

You're right that it's not written clearly in the actual book. Neither is Arcane Dilettante or Cunning Strike or ... you get the idea. The class definitely could have used more editing. But some of the ideas in it are awesome.

Eldariel
2009-08-19, 04:05 PM
At some point, one of the WotC designer guys clarified the Factotum's RAI intentions on the Gleemax forums. Essentially it was that the Factotum can recharge his Inspiration points anytime he can rest peacefully for 1 minute.

You're right that it's not written clearly in the actual book. Neither is Arcane Dilettante or Cunning Strike or ... you get the idea. The class definitely could have used more editing. But some of the ideas in it are awesome.

Same goes for ToB frankly; there's very little writing for the out-of-combat using of maneuvers, what constitutes an "encounter" and so on. Really, that's a whole lot of 4e terminology being used in 3.5 shell where "encounter" for example is not defined at all.

Then you also have Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics as examples of "Wops, we don't really know what our own rules do!" However, those are easy enough to rule on your own outside the rule set; one minute recharge for per encounter-stuff and common sense to the poorly written issues and you're done, left with two awesome systems in an awesome supersystem.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-19, 04:07 PM
Wha??? Where doesn't the ability make sense? They get X points at the start of the encounter (going by the Bo9S' definition an Encounter is fairly easy to define, though I've all ready presented my idea of what an encounter is), and can spend points at will to get certain effects.

I'll look at ToB's definition, but I like those classes because they operate great without me having ever known that definition.

Also, the part that doesn't make sense is:

An encounter starts!
Factotum gains 6 inspiration.
Factotum spends 4 Inspiration.
Encounter ends.

How much Inspiration does Factotum have? 0? Sucks to be him when he wants to add his Factotum level to his search check, or you know, cast an out of combat spell. 2? Well that's great for him when he starts a new encounter and has 8 inspiration, and then 10, and then 12, and eventually he decides to nova his accumulating extras against the big bad.

Particularly bad when you have to basically decided to either not define traps as encounters, because if you do it just means any time you have a trap he gets double inspiration for the next encounter. But then it means if he did want to add his level, he might not be able to.

See how "He gains inspiration" is a terrible design flaw that forces me to come up with a wording that works?


Combat-wise, you just use Iaijutsu Focus with Gnome Quickrazors and play like a CAdv Ninja.

I do not have either of those things, nor do my players.


However, those are easy enough to rule on your own outside the rule set; one minute recharge for per encounter-stuff...

That's not even a houserule (well it is, but only because it's different then the actual out of combat use of maneuvers) They have explicit rules on how to change maneuvers and ready maneuvers in the rules for each class.

Jalor
2009-08-19, 04:16 PM
If it's not been mentioned, a psionicist type would be great for this. You have such things as telepathy and the ability to read the history out of the very stones... and that's just 1st level. Go Factotum afterwards.

River freakin' Tam. In this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY9r0fzUcBE), she manifests the Psionic equivalent of Detect Thoughts, then spends an inspiration point on the Bluff check.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-19, 04:23 PM
I'll look at ToB's definition, but I like those classes because they operate great without me having ever known that definition.

Also, the part that doesn't make sense is:

An encounter starts!
Factotum gains 6 inspiration.
Factotum spends 4 Inspiration.
Encounter ends.

How much Inspiration does Factotum have? 0? Sucks to be him when he wants to add his Factotum level to his search check, or you know, cast an out of combat spell. 2? Well that's great for him when he starts a new encounter and has 8 inspiration, and then 10, and then 12, and eventually he decides to nova his accumulating extras against the big bad.

Particularly bad when you have to basically decided to either not define traps as encounters, because if you do it just means any time you have a trap he gets double inspiration for the next encounter. But then it means if he did want to add his level, he might not be able to.

See how "He gains inspiration" is a terrible design flaw that forces me to come up with a wording that works?

Hmm, shouldn't it be:

An encounter starts!
Factotum gains 6 inspiration.
Factotum spends 4 Inspiration.
Encounter ends. Factotum retains 2 points.

An(other) encounter starts!
Clean slate: Factotum has 0 points.
Factotum gains 6 inspiration.

...or something along those lines. You keep your inspiration points out of battle until a new encounter, where you get a fresh new pool of maneuvers. Otherwise, you could theoretically have thousands of inspiration points simply by not spending them and holding them until later. Which is a bad move for the Factotum, but still reasonable.

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 04:24 PM
Ok, you made your point. But he did commit some kind of logical fallacy. It's been a while since I took Creative Thinking, so I'm a little rusty here.

There was no formal logical fallacy. The form of his argument is valid. It may be an unsound argument, as far as common gamist assumptions go, but that has no bearing on the underlying form of his argument.


Sounds like a Straw Man variant.

Reads more like a modus ponens.

Drevius
2009-08-19, 04:28 PM
Gotta say, I love factotums. Not because you get to play McGyver or that they do everything if need be, but that they are so damn rugged and durable no matter the race or circumstances of the campaign. My halfling factotum survived 4 that's right 4 TPK aside from him the entire group was wiped 4 times, this is partly due to poor party cohesion and largely overpowering encounters. My factotum was also ruled that he was so "overpowered" as a class that his inspiration was PER DAY!!! I had only taken font of inspiration a few times and then branched out to a few metamagics due to the inspiration limitations. my occular spell rays devastated encounters sapping int from things that had little of it to begin with or taking out the strength of the feeble enemy wizard etc. This guy could even break out of jails of increasing ridiculousness with two simple things, the spell mount and a dagger hidden well er.... you don't want to know. All in all I am quite smitten with the class.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-19, 04:32 PM
He said he dislikes the class because of what they do, and said that all they do is copy. He then says that the class can't even do that as effectively as the original (Fact: the class is able to duplicate Ex abilities under 19th level exactly as the original class, if only for a few minutes/day). He misrepresents the class' abilities and says they suck because of it.

Using your Chocolate Cake metaphor, he's effectively saying he doesn't like the Factotum's chocolate cake because it isn't as chocolatey as the Cleric's or any other class', not that he doesn't like chocolate cake period.

Sounds like a Straw Man variant.

No, he said he doesn't like Factotums because he doesn't like jacks of all trades, the fact that jacks of all trades are not specialists, just like the factotum, is just a function of them being Jacks of all trades, being a Sorcerer for a few minutes a day at 19th level is obviously and unquestionably worse Sorcelating than an actual Sorcerer. Especially at levels 1-18.

I didn't see him misrepresent the class abilities, or even say they suck, just that they A) aren't as good as other classes at the things they do (Which they obviously shouldn't be and aren't) and B) he does not like them because of that.

Your entire argument comes down to the presumption that he is wrong to dislike something. If his argument was that they are a terrible class, that would be one thing, that isn't. He said he doesn't like them, he then clarified why he doesn't like them. Apparently, he wouldn't mind a Cleric because Clerics are better at the things they do, whatever.

Using my Chocolate cake metaphor, chocolate cake means "Doing lots of things." So He actually doesn't like Chocolate. To make an analogy you can't twist: He doesn't like Neapolitan Ice Cream. He doesn't like it. Doesn't matter if this is the best Neapolitan in the world, if he only wants to eat one flavor of ice cream, he's not going to like it.

oxinabox
2009-08-19, 06:39 PM
Ancestral Speaker. The PC is a tribal shaman, descended from a long line of great warriors, clever scoundrels, wise women who spoke for the gods and dangerous sorcerers. The abilities represent a childhood spent listening to the tales of ancestors long deceased, and benefiting from their spiritual tutelage. With effort, the ancestral speaker can channel the spirit of a particular ancestor, tapping into that ancestors arcane, divine or martial talents to enhance their own.

I also like this Fluff alot.
With abit of mechanical change to the factotum, it would be perfect
either speak to dead 3/day (or spend a Insp point)
is there contact ancestor? ifs once perday at the cost of an ispiration point

oxinabox
2009-08-19, 06:41 PM
One of those is easily avoided through 2 spells or Mind Affecting immunity.
Factotum's got a few kinks, but it isn't broken.
Yeas but how many monsters have those spells?
admittedly many have mindaffecting imunity, but most of those have too higher in for this to work great anyway

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-19, 09:34 PM
But hey, not every class is for everyone. I don't like playing druids, artificers, clerics, or rouges, but hey, nothing wrong with that. And before anyone throws a brick at me for saying that, I dont care about a tier system somebody came up with on thier spare time. It's a nice reference point but do your own experimintation, as the swingers say "variety is the spice of life baby". Well thats enough ranting for me, just gotta say, love factotums.The tier system wa intended as an aid for DMs. It's supposed to show which classes will outshine each other given basic optimization and otherwise equal circumstances, so that DMs can keep all of the party participating on a similar level. It's to enable roleplay, not optimization.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 02:50 AM
Outside of comics, you'd have:
- Col John "Hannibal" Smith
- Gandalf (see Constantine)
- Jack Bauer
- Dr House
- The Doctor
etc.
While there are plenty of archetypical characters in fiction that are "just smart", the point where a character gets to add his intelligence mod to athletics checks is really where he stops being an archetype and starts being a purely mechanical game construct.

It's essentially a 4E class in a 3E system. Whether that fits in your game world really depends on your game world.

And no, Sinfire, a difference of opinion is not a fallacy.

Hijax
2009-08-20, 06:54 AM
River is not a factotum, and for that matter neither is Indiana (since, among other things, he can't cast spells).

Thats in no way an argument. The world of indiana jones is supposed to be, you know, low-magic. in dnd, everybody at least knows that magic exists and some of the things it can do. In the real world(which Indiana Jones mostly operates in an edited copy of), its mostly discarded as superstitious(though we do see proof that supernatural stuff exists). it wouldn't make sense for Indy to have spells, because nobody has spells, or even magic, except age-old artifacts. If i was to translate Indy to dnd, he would be a fatotum/lasher

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 07:06 AM
it wouldn't make sense for Indy to have spells, because nobody has spells, or even magic, except age-old artifacts.

Two words: Mola Ram.

(also, plenty of other examples in e.g. the comic book series)

--

It's very simple: (1) factota can, mechanically, use magic; (2) Indiana Jones cannot use magic; therefore (3) Indiana Jones is not a factotum. Modus Tollens ftw.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-20, 08:16 AM
While there are plenty of archetypical characters in fiction that are "just smart", the point where a character gets to add his intelligence mod to athletics checks is really where he stops being an archetype and starts being a purely mechanical game construct.

What, you've never seen or heard of someone do a better long jump or pole vault or whatever because he knows the proper technique (Int) and not because he's particularly strong (Str) or fast (Dex)? Heck, most of pole vaulting/discus throwing/etc. does in fact rely more on knowledge of technique than power.

If adding Int to physical skill checks is "just a game construct" then I suppose the monk isn't an archetype because he can add Wis to AC, and the paladin isn't an archetype because he can add Cha to saves. What's that, you say? Their use of Wis and Cha are meant to represent things other than plain ol' perceptiveness or force of personality, so the given ability score is just what fits best mechanically? Well, there you go. Same with the factotum.


It's very simple: (1) factota can, mechanically, use magic; (2) Indiana Jones cannot use magic; therefore (3) Indiana Jones is not a factotum. Modus Tollens ftw.

It's very simple:
Factota can, mechanically, use magic.
Magic can, flavor-wise, be refluffed to something else.
The Ex/Sp/Su designation and their mechanical differences don't matter in a world without dispelling and antimagic.
From (1) and (2), a factotum using magic does not necessarily have to appear to be using magic from a flavor perspective (haste being an adrenalin rush, etc.)
From (2) and (3), magic refluffed to something else is indistinguishable from that something else until and unless someone tries to get rid of it.
From (4) and (5), it's entirely possible that Indiana Jones is using what would, if converted to the D&D system, be magic. Ignoring wounds that would cripple another man? Opportunistic piety. Latching onto a bar with his whip, when wrapping it around like that is normally impossible? Animate rope. And so on.
No, you can't directly translate Indy to D&D perfectly, but if you do, factotum matches what he can do a fair bit better than the rogue does.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 08:39 AM
What, you've never seen or heard of someone do a better long jump or pole vault or whatever because he knows the proper technique (Int) and not because he's particularly strong (Str) or fast (Dex)?
Based on that logic, Frodo is a druid, Aragorn is a wizard, and Einstein would hold the world record for pole vaulting.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-20, 08:53 AM
It's very simple: (1) factota can, mechanically, use magic; (2) Indiana Jones cannot use magic; therefore (3) Indiana Jones is not a factotum. Modus Tollens ftw.

Um...I dunno, I think that logic does not allow for variations.

(1) Factotum can, mechanically, use magic. And other abilities, as well.
(2) Indy can't use magic because: (a) the world where Indy resides does not believe in magic, per se, as real, and (b) were it so, Indy wouldn't use it because he's just that awesome.
(3) Factotum don't have to use magic.

By (1) and (2), you could argue Indy couldn't be a Factotum, since there's no incidence of Indy using magic. The corollary (3) makes the statement "Indy can be a factotum" true, since you don't have to use magic to be properly called a Factotum. The ability to do darn near everything, though, has precedence over the lack of magic, and the definition of a Factotum goes closer to "do darn near everything" than "cast magic". That would apply perfectly to Cleric or Wizard, but not Factotum.

And, as far as I can see it, Indy can do near darn everything. Harrison Ford can, through his characterizations, do darn near everything. Han Solo is a Scoundrel from Star Wars and anything against the contrary deserves a boot to the face.

Besides, Kurald, what about Emotional Quotient the multiple types of intelligence? You can be intelligent without being apt at arithmetic/logic...

Geddoe
2009-08-20, 09:03 AM
Think "smart guys that are just that good at lots of things". It's not that hard.

I think your definition is too simple. Jack Bauer isn't necessarily great at a lot of things, he just happens to be exceptionally good at what the show is about: mainly kicking butt, toughing it out and torturing people. He is a special-ops trained combatant that is also good at interrogation(in the world of the show). That is part of his problem with himself, he only seems to be good for what he does on the show.

If we are talking character they play on tv, then obviously the character Mr. Perfect is a factotum.

paddyfool
2009-08-20, 09:16 AM
OK, he was a weak example. The rest fit, though (particularly Amadeus Cho and the Doctor, who really do seem to be able to add their Int to other stuff; besides, the Doctor wrote the book on flashes of insight).

quick_comment
2009-08-20, 10:05 AM
How about the guy from psych? He is able to add his intelligence to all sorts of stuff.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-20, 10:16 AM
Based on that logic, Frodo is a druid, Aragorn is a wizard, and Einstein would hold the world record for pole vaulting.

Not at all: X -> Y does not imply Y -> X. It is possible and common to condense real-world aptitudes into ability scores, because there are only 6 abilities; generalizing abilities to real-world aptitudes is more problematic and generally not possible. If you want to mechanically represent "zen attack-deflecting awesomeness" with an ability score, Wisdom is the closest and only real match, but having a high Wisdom does not innately grant zen awesomeness (since if it did, Wis to AC would be part of Wis and not a class feature); Frodo, for instance, wouldn't be a divine caster just because he uses Wisdom, but if he were in fact a divine caster he would need to use Wisdom.

Likewise, technique being more important than strength does not mean strength is not important, as Int > Str says nothing about minima or maxima; it simply means that, given the same strength, the person with better technique will win--and Einstein may have the Int, but I doubt he had the Str. This is why Int is added to Str with Brains Over Brawn instead of replacing it. Of course, technique is also represented by skill ranks, so it muddies the Int/Str issue a bit, but the same scenario occurs there: Two characters with, say, Str 14 will perform about the same; give one of them 4 ranks in Jump and one 0 ranks in jump, the former will perform better.

SilveryCord
2009-08-20, 11:33 AM
While there are plenty of archetypical characters in fiction that are "just smart", the point where a character gets to add his intelligence mod to athletics checks is really where he stops being an archetype and starts being a purely mechanical game construct.

It's essentially a 4E class in a 3E system. Whether that fits in your game world really depends on your game world.

And no, Sinfire, a difference of opinion is not a fallacy.

If it was, say, charisma, it wouldn't make sense (Unless it was a Supernatural ability and translated your force of personality to a magic advantage), but intelligence can make total sense. Ever heard of working smarter, not harder? For example, during a swim check, he uses his intelligence to figure out the currents of the water and the most optimal way to travel with it. That justification doesn't really work when your intelligence modifier is, say, +7, but NOTHING makes sense in DnD when an ability score is over 22. And keep in mind, if you're a super nerd with no ranks in swim and a bad penalty (in other words, if you're carrying ANYTHING), that flash of inspiration on how to handle the currents will only bring you back to a base level of swimming.

Murdim
2009-08-20, 01:38 PM
What, you've never seen or heard of someone do a better long jump or pole vault or whatever because he knows the proper technique (Int) and not because he's particularly strong (Str) or fast (Dex)? Heck, most of pole vaulting/discus throwing/etc. does in fact rely more on knowledge of technique than power.While this logic is true in the absolute, it still doesn't really justify the existence of the Brains over brawn feature. After all, there's already a fundamental game mechanism which simulates the fact that an intelligent individual can defeat more athletic opponents in a physical event thanks to his skill superiority. Isn't that exactly what the "X + Int mod" number of skill points at each level means fluffwise ? Then, what is the actual meaning of Brains over brawns, and why does it apply to things that have absolutely nothing to do with Intelligence like raw physical prowess (Str checks), and why does it let optimally skilled weaklings beat equally optimally skilled but way more muscular people in swimming, climbing and jumping ?

Brains over Brawn is one of the few things that bugs me in a class I otherwise find interessant and well thought-out. I would remove it, replace it with a Int-to-init feature, and give the Factotum 2 more skill points per level. Another one would be Cunning Knowledge, which could have been a wonderful, awe-inspiring and very fluff-y "light bulb moment" if it wasn't both so overuseable and overused in a simple day for rather trivial occasions, and so unimpressive at lower levels. Adding class level + 5 to any skill check 1/day would be way less powerful, but also way more fun.

tbarrie
2009-08-20, 02:28 PM
And that's not even considering her fighting prowess. She exemplifies why Font of Inspiration should be very heavily abused by Factoti. Factotums? I prefer Factoti.

Factota.

...I mean, not really, of course. But it makes for a better Fake Latin plural. Under standard Fake Latin conventions, "factoti" would be the plural of "factotus", not "factotum".

Talya
2009-08-20, 02:30 PM
I want to specialize in something, I want my character to specialize in something, not have a big blank slate of 'whatever I feel like doing right now'.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. ~Robert A. Heinlein

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 02:36 PM
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. ~Robert A. Heinlein

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.

Talya
2009-08-20, 02:38 PM
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.

Quotes are relevant. You can make a brilliant argument, but because you said it, it doesn't matter. Someone like Heinlein could argue "That's just stupid," and it would instantly become sage wisdom.

Nobody cares what you are I have to say, at least not until they read our books. Much better to quote someone credible.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-20, 02:39 PM
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.

Quod sum eris.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 02:49 PM
Quotes are relevant. You can make a brilliant argument, but because you said it, it doesn't matter. Someone like Heinlein could argue "That's just stupid," and it would instantly become sage wisdom.

Nobody cares what you are I have to say, at least not until they read our books. Much better to quote someone credible.

You can quote all you want; it does not change the fact that I find a class who works on the principle of "I am really smart and can thus figure out how to emulate someone else's moving their fists really fast... once per day!" often difficult to explain in-universe (that burst of controlled genius was so mentally taxing I can only perform it once a day; I need to go lie down for eight hours before I can mentally handle the sheer awesome of punching really fast again), and uncomfortably bland in large part due to the fact that it is extremely broad in coverage. It is, mechanically, the best 'blanket' representation in D&D for dilettante adventurers - but considering its competition, that doesn't count for much. Nor can it cover the fact that I enjoy having set abilities and limitations and working around them, and dislike picking an entire new mental arsenal at will every morning as a concept.

River Tam is the only person cited that I know of and feel comfortable calling a factotum, and she is brain damaged.

No amount of quoting from Heinlein or whoever you want will make that sound like a character I feel comfortable basing a concept around.

And just for irony, let me counter with quoting someone I respect significantly more than Heinlein:
Only by strict specialization can the scientific worker become fully conscious, for once and perhaps never again in his lifetime, that he has achieved something that will endure. A really definitive and good accomplishment is today always a specialized act. ~ Max Weber

quick_comment
2009-08-20, 03:05 PM
Superman is probably also a factotum, although keyed off con or something instead of int. (Seriously, look at the ridiculous things he does. He can do super weaving for god's sake!)

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 03:12 PM
Superman is probably also a factotum, although keyed off con or something instead of int. (Seriously, look at the ridiculous things he does. He can do super weaving for god's sake!)

Superman's abilities post-crisis do not vary significantly; anything he does is an application or an exaggeration of something within his core powerset. Nothing he does is tied to casting magic (indeed, he's not at full invulnerability against it), nor with turning undead. Considering that these are major class features for the factotum, I consider filing Superman under 'factotum' to make as much sense as trying to represent Kazuma Kuwabara (http://yuyuhakusho.wikia.com/wiki/Kazuma_Kuwabara) as a Wilder who rarely casts an actual power, but Wild Surges buffs and hopes for a Surging Euphoria. It roughly can represent the character when you're following specific rules and not making good use of all of your class abilities, and might make for a good homage, but it is not the character.

paddyfool
2009-08-20, 03:23 PM
Heck, I wouldn't want to play a factotum all the time. But somehow, having the option to roleplay a character in such a hidebound world who doesn't have to navigate around nearly so many obstacles to creativity as everyone else is just... shiny.



River Tam is the only person cited that I know of and feel comfortable calling a factotum, and she is brain damaged.


Personally, I still think the Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(Doctor_Who)) (whom you must have at least heard of) and Amadeus Cho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_Cho) are better, but that's just me.

Looking at the Wikipedia article for polymaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath) suggests quite a few further individuals of broad-spectrum genius, both real and fictional, from Imhotep (the villain in the Mummy was based loosely on a real person) and Leonardo da Vinci to Sherlock Holmes, Beast (X-men), and Adrian Veidt.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 03:29 PM
Polymath geniuses are not synonymous with factotums, who work on a mechanic that at times more resembles Charisma's usual implementations than intelligence.

paddyfool
2009-08-20, 03:33 PM
Not synonymous, no. But a factotum is easily the best mechanic to represent a polymath genius in all of D&D.

SilveryCord
2009-08-20, 03:38 PM
Isn't that exactly what the "X + Int mod" number of skill points at each level means fluffwise ? Then, what is the actual meaning of Brains over brawns, and why does it apply to things that have absolutely nothing to do with Intelligence like raw physical prowess (Str checks), and why does it let optimally skilled weaklings beat equally optimally skilled but way more muscular people in swimming, climbing and jumping ?

equally optimally skilled
They are apparently not equally optimally skilled; one of them has been trained in the ways of the factotum and the other is not. It isn't the factotum's fault that the other guy hasn't been trained in the ways of the factotum, which include the knowledge of how to quickly apply flashes of insight to even physical tasks. Hopefully, the other guy's levels in whatever class he is in gives him other benefits. Maybe he has a level in the Didgeridoo Stairmaster Climbing Initiate prestige class, which lets him take 15 on Climb checks.
This is the 'in system' justification, and it makes just as much sense as anything in 3.5, but if I had written the system you wouldn't take ranks in things like climbing and swimming anyway, because it doesn't even make sense that a level 20 strong man might be absurdly good at Intimidating, with 23 ranks, but only a basic swimmer, with maybe a +5 bonus to swimming. I still don't see an issue with the Brains over Brawns class feature. In martial arts, a 140 pound black belt can easily take down an untrained 240 pound guy.


Edit: ALSO, remember that factotum comes from Dungeonscape, a book all about dungeonpunk. It is supposed to be kind of chunky and mechanical, and that's a *good thing*. Take a look at Eberron.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 03:42 PM
In martial arts, a 140 pound black belt can easily take down an untrained 240 pound guy.

In sparring, maybe.

I've seen a very graceful, technically proficient and very beautiful third degree blackbelt go down to a much more sturdily built and physically adept yellow belt in FFA; some good early blows, but as soon as the heavier man lunged at the first and brought him down to the ground, didn't mean much.

Skill can't overcome drastic differences of musculature and mass, not ceteris paribus. Now, in D&D they can, and I can buy it; but don't try to extend that to the real world.


Edit: ALSO, remember that factotum comes from Dungeonscape, a book all about dungeonpunk. It is supposed to be kind of chunky and mechanical, and that's a *good thing*. Take a look at Eberron.

I love Eberron and I don't see what it has to do with the price of tea in China here.

Set
2009-08-20, 03:49 PM
I am completely enamoured with River Tam as a factotum now though. That's excellent.

Indeed, the idea of a Factotum as tapping into memories and abilities of other people, whether through having a bunch of other people's memories tapped into their heads or some magical/psychic variation on multiple personality disorder would be neat.

Or one could go all 'Akashic record' on the concept and have the Factotum tap into some pseudo-Jungian collective consciousness something or other.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-20, 03:51 PM
Indeed, the idea of a Factotum as tapping into memories and abilities of other people, whether through having a bunch of other people's memories tapped into their heads or some magical/psychic variation on multiple personality disorder would be neat.

Or one could go all 'Akashic record' on the concept and have the Factotum tap into some pseudo-Jungian collective consciousness something or other.

I have seen the light! Factotums are D&D Bene Gesserit!

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 03:55 PM
See that, that I can buy with a per day restriction on abilities much easier.

Everyone and their mother being a factotum just because the class is mechanically better than previous skilled dilettante classes, even when certain major class features just would not get used ever by these characters... that bugs me.

SilveryCord
2009-08-20, 04:01 PM
I love Eberron and I don't see what it has to do with the price of tea in China here.
Well, think of Eberron as being built directly on 3.x's rules, and not on the classic D&D archetype itself. Eberron has artificers, which are entirely centered on the new kind of magic item crafting. Eberron has Deathless, good undead, which are sort of an excuse to cut off old style D&D necromancy-is-evil ties, House Kundarak is a setting explanation for having a video game style bank available, etc. I see the factotum as riffing on a lot of D&D mechanics to create a cool skillmonkey dungeoneer class. It may be very mechanical based, but the flavor certainly isn't stupid or nonexistant, in other words, which is how I see eberron.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 04:06 PM
Well, think of Eberron as being built directly on 3.x's rules, and not on the classic D&D archetype itself. Eberron has artificers, which are entirely centered on the new kind of magic item crafting. Eberron has Deathless, good undead, which are sort of an excuse to cut off old style D&D necromancy-is-evil ties, House Kundarak is a setting explanation for having a video game style bank available, etc. I see the factotum as riffing on a lot of D&D mechanics to create a cool skillmonkey dungeoneer class. It may be very mechanical based, but the flavor certainly isn't stupid or nonexistant, in other words, which is how I see eberron.

I see.

The difference is that I enjoy taking the silliness available at low levels and using that to facilitate a new kind of society which provides greater internal consistency. I don't enjoy mechanics based purely on being good mechanics. The factotum exists in an awkward place especially because how it deals with magic isn't particularly consistent with either the classic Vancian system or the modern power model. You can make flavor for it to work, as has been demonstrated a few times, but ultimately I don't like variable per day mechanics.

archerpwr
2009-08-20, 04:12 PM
The tier system wa intended as an aid for DMs. It's supposed to show which classes will outshine each other given basic optimization and otherwise equal circumstances, so that DMs can keep all of the party participating on a similar level. It's to enable roleplay, not optimization.

Read this:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50101

It's really quite a good explanation.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-20, 06:04 PM
See that, that I can buy with a per day restriction on abilities much easier.

One note--the majority of the factotum's abilities are per-encounter, not per day; the inherently magical ones are per-day (as they imitate abilities which are usually per-day), and one or two others are per-day purely for balance reasons, but most of their tricks can be done over and over each day fairly easily.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-20, 06:07 PM
One note--the majority of the factotum's abilities are per-encounter, not per day; the inherently magical ones are per-day (as they imitate abilities which are usually per-day), and one or two others are per-day purely for balance reasons, but most of their tricks can be done over and over each day fairly easily.

I think the skill check one is the stupidest per day limitation. "You can only be good at hiding once per day! Nope, sorry, you can"'t be good at two traps in a row, haha!"

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 06:11 PM
One note--the majority of the factotum's abilities are per-encounter, not per day; the inherently magical ones are per-day (as they imitate abilities which are usually per-day), and one or two others are per-day purely for balance reasons, but most of their tricks can be done over and over each day fairly easily.

I know. Still makes it hard to square away in my head, as those per-day abilities are pretty important to the class.

9mm
2009-08-20, 06:24 PM
*wanders in*
Indy Jones used magic at the end of "The Temple of Doom."
*wanders out*

Xenogears
2009-08-20, 08:58 PM
Brains over Brawn is one of the few things that bugs me in a class I otherwise find interessant and well thought-out. I would remove it, replace it with a Int-to-init feature, and give the Factotum 2 more skill points per level.

I think a better way to represent their ability to be good at everything would be to replace Brains over Brawn with the ability to change the normal max skil ranks with character level plus (half int bonus: minumum 3).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-20, 09:36 PM
I know. Still makes it hard to square away in my head, as those per-day abilities are pretty important to the class.

Well, the add-Int-to-X abilities are more so. I do agree that the per-day skill thing should work multiple times per day or just use inspiration points--maybe adding +1/4 level?--but I can at least see why they'd want to limit the ability as written.

Myrmex
2009-08-20, 10:18 PM
You can quote all you want; it does not change the fact that I find a class who works on the principle of "I am really smart and can thus figure out how to emulate someone else's moving their fists really fast... once per day!" often difficult to explain in-universe (that burst of controlled genius was so mentally taxing I can only perform it once a day; I need to go lie down for eight hours before I can mentally handle the sheer awesome of punching really fast again)

Do you also not like Sorcerers, Psions, Wilders, Psychic Warriors, Barbarians, Wizards, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Archivists, Artificers, Favored Souls, Hexblades, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and, well, anything else that's not a fighter?

I've always imagined the 1/day skill thing to be due to a sort of luckiness of the environment- only so many times are you going to be able to think yourself out of a situation. If the factotum had more support, I bet there would be a feat that let you do that more often per day.


River Tam is the only person cited that I know of and feel comfortable calling a factotum, and she is brain damaged.

Not Indiana Jones or that guy Harrison Ford played where he was falsely accused of killing his wife?


Only by strict specialization can the scientific worker become fully conscious, for once and perhaps never again in his lifetime, that he has achieved something that will endure. A really definitive and good accomplishment is today always a specialized act. ~ Max Weber

Pfff. He's from the 19th century. Science is all about interdisciplinary collaboration now.


YRiver is not a factotum, and for that matter neither is Indiana (since, among other things, he can't cast spells).


I think that's what the spells are supposed to mimic- his 6 shooter.


Based on that logic, Frodo is a druid, Aragorn is a wizard, and Einstein would hold the world record for pole vaulting.

You ever hear of sports science? There's all sorts of stuff they use int to figure out, then teach athletes. And the athletes then have to train their body to use those particular techniques.


While this logic is true in the absolute, it still doesn't really justify the existence of the Brains over brawn feature. After all, there's already a fundamental game mechanism which simulates the fact that an intelligent individual can defeat more athletic opponents in a physical event thanks to his skill superiority. Isn't that exactly what the "X + Int mod" number of skill points at each level means fluffwise ? Then, what is the actual meaning of Brains over brawns, and why does it apply to things that have absolutely nothing to do with Intelligence like raw physical prowess (Str checks), and why does it let optimally skilled weaklings beat equally optimally skilled but way more muscular people in swimming, climbing and jumping ?

Brains over Brawn is one of the few things that bugs me in a class I otherwise find interessant and well thought-out. I would remove it, replace it with a Int-to-init feature, and give the Factotum 2 more skill points per level. Another one would be Cunning Knowledge, which could have been a wonderful, awe-inspiring and very fluff-y "light bulb moment" if it wasn't both so overuseable and overused in a simple day for rather trivial occasions, and so unimpressive at lower levels. Adding class level + 5 to any skill check 1/day would be way less powerful, but also way more fun.

It's not that he's skillful (well trained), it's that he has a totally novel approach to something that other characters don't see or take. I try to roleplay using those features by coming up with clever ways to get that bonus on stuff.

Also note that as a dex check, initiative already gets int to it, and then again if the factotum chooses to spend an inspiration point.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 10:25 PM
Do you also not like Sorcerers, Psions, Wilders, Psychic Warriors, Barbarians, Wizards, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Archivists, Artificers, Favored Souls, Hexblades, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and, well, anything else that's not a fighter?

I've always imagined the 1/day skill thing to be due to a sort of luckiness of the environment- only so many times are you going to be able to think yourself out of a situation. If the factotum had more support, I bet there would be a feat that let you do that more often per day.

1) I said 'variable' 1/day abilities. As in, what that 1/day ability is.
2) Vancian prepared casters can die.
3) Unless it's a Wizard actually fluffed and flavored as a Vancian caster, meaning no reserve feat stupidity.


Not Indiana Jones or that guy Harrison Ford played where he was falsely accused of killing his wife?

Nope. None of the factotum's supernatural abilities apply well to the character, and as I said with Superman, this is a case when you're saying that the factotum works when you bind up and ignore some of its major class features - and if you ignore enough class features, a lot of classes can work to represent a lot of characters.

The factotum is very firmly rooted in the D&D world and the disconnect is about as bad as using a Sorcerer to represent Harry Potter.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-20, 11:44 PM
Pfff. He's from the 19th century. Science is all about interdisciplinary collaboration now.

No it's really not. And it never has been. Specialization is what made humans great, and it's what continues to do so.

Yes, String Theorists totally get together with Quantum Physicists and argue about stuff, but they still don't incorporate biology or chemistry into their work at all, or even more traditional physics disciplines like Thermodynamics outside of the general stuff. And they only get together because one person is totally incapable of having all the available knowledge about even that one subset of physics.

Sure, Molecular Evolutionary Biologists and 'just' Evolutionary Biologists coordinate. They still don't ask Chemists or Physicists anything.

Every great act is still a specialized one, and always will be, take Heinlein's own list.

"be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly."

Some of those are just minor things that you can learn, but still waste your time to learn, like changing a diaper, butcher a hog, conn a ship, balance accounts, pitch manure, cook a tasty meal.

Others are just vague statements that don't actually mean much of anything 'comfort the dying' (I question why anyone would actually need to do this), take orders (whoopde do), give orders (should they be good orders?), cooperate, act alone, analyze a new problem, die gallantly.

But let's look at some of those that are specialized tasks: designing a building, plan an invasion, write a sonnet, build a wall, set a bone, solve equations, program a computer, 'fight efficiently' (This probably belongs in category two).

You might be able to do all of those things, for a given value of do, but quality actually matters. Setting a bone is a simple medical task, but are the people who specialize in medicine (you know, those icky doctors and surgeons) to be put upon for having spent to much time learning their craft and not enough learning military tactics? Computer programming? Sonnet writing?

I want the wall of my house built by someone who spends 8 hours a day every day building walls, I want architects to have spent years at a time where half their waking moments were spent learning about architecture, and I want my computer programmers and military strategists to have a similar degree of time commitment.

Turing, Shakespeare, Patton, Sun Tzu, Schroedinger, these are not people who could do lots of things, and yet, I challenge anyone at all who can program a computer to search a table, design a building, accurately explain what Schroedinger's equation describes without help, and draw up battle plans that conform to West Points minimum standards for excellence detailing their strategy for The First Bull Run to write a sonnet that will ever show up in any English Curriculum for any class ever.

The fact of the matter is that specialization is a requirement for quality, and Heinlein demonstrates this by being a pretty good writer and a mediocre political theorist and a terrible mathematician, military strategist, architect, sonnet writer, and computer programmer.

Ramza00
2009-08-20, 11:57 PM
One of those is easily avoided through 2 spells or Mind Affecting immunity. The latter doesn't compare to a Spell-to-Power Erudite, GOD Wizard, or Artificer. All three of those have a much higher learning curve than your two examples.

Factotum's got a few kinks, but it isn't broken.

Factotum 8/Master Thrower 3 (going on Master Thrower 5 followed by more Factotum)

Master Thrower Tricks being Double Toss and Palm Throw, which combine with quick draw allows you to draw and throw 4 daggers as a single standard action.

Now do to Factotum getting Int to Initative as well as Dex due to Brain Over Brawn the Factotum has a very good chance of going first. Thus he will probably catch his enemies flat footed. Since his enemies are flat footed and he is throwing a melee weapon, he gets iiajutsu on those 4 dagger throws. If he doesn't kill all his enemies in the first standard action he spends another 3 inspiration points to do it again, and again, and again.

chiasaur11
2009-08-21, 12:01 AM
No it's really not. And it never has been. Specialization is what made humans great, and it's what continues to do so.

Yes, String Theorists totally get together with Quantum Physicists and argue about stuff, but they still don't incorporate biology or chemistry into their work at all, or even more traditional physics disciplines like Thermodynamics outside of the general stuff. And they only get together because one person is totally incapable of having all the available knowledge about even that one subset of physics.

Sure, Molecular Evolutionary Biologists and 'just' Evolutionary Biologists coordinate. They still don't ask Chemists or Physicists anything.

Every great act is still a specialized one, and always will be, take Heinlein's own list.

"be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly."

Some of those are just minor things that you can learn, but still waste your time to learn, like changing a diaper, butcher a hog, conn a ship, balance accounts, pitch manure, cook a tasty meal.

Others are just vague statements that don't actually mean much of anything 'comfort the dying' (I question why anyone would actually need to do this), take orders (whoopde do), give orders (should they be good orders?), cooperate, act alone, analyze a new problem, die gallantly.

But let's look at some of those that are specialized tasks: designing a building, plan an invasion, write a sonnet, build a wall, set a bone, solve equations, program a computer, 'fight efficiently' (This probably belongs in category two).

You might be able to do all of those things, for a given value of do, but quality actually matters. Setting a bone is a simple medical task, but are the people who specialize in medicine (you know, those icky doctors and surgeons) to be put upon for having spent to much time learning their craft and not enough learning military tactics? Computer programming? Sonnet writing?

I want the wall of my house built by someone who spends 8 hours a day every day building walls, I want architects to have spent years at a time where half their waking moments were spent learning about architecture, and I want my computer programmers and military strategists to have a similar degree of time commitment.

Turing, Shakespeare, Patton, Sun Tzu, Schroedinger, these are not people who could do lots of things, and yet, I challenge anyone at all who can program a computer to search a table, design a building, accurately explain what Schroedinger's equation describes without help, and draw up battle plans that conform to West Points minimum standards for excellence detailing their strategy for The First Bull Run to write a sonnet that will ever show up in any English Curriculum for any class ever.

The fact of the matter is that specialization is a requirement for quality, and Heinlein demonstrates this by being a pretty good writer and a mediocre political theorist and a terrible mathematician, military strategist, architect, sonnet writer, and computer programmer.

On the other hand:

Jimmy Stewart.
Actor and war hero.

Richard Feynman:
Bong player, painter, raconteur, teacher, and co creator of the atomic bomb.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-21, 12:04 AM
I think I saw Iaijuitsu Focus mentioned a while back. I would like to point out that it's from a 3.0 setting specific book that says
"Material in this book is designed for an oriental setting, and may not be compatible with more standard dungeons and dragons games."

It also doesn't work on thrown attacks, only on melee ones.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 12:09 AM
It also doesn't work on thrown attacks, only on melee ones. I believe I saw mention of an IF + Thrown weapon tactic earlier.

Iaijutsu Focus is keyed off drawing a melee weapon, it never states it is required to use that melee weapon in a melee attack. You draw the dagger from its sheath with quickdraw and throw it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-21, 12:09 AM
Iaijutsu Focus is keyed off drawing a melee weapon, it never states it is required to use that melee weapon in a melee attack. You draw the dagger from its sheath with quickdraw and throw it.

Would you care to provide the full text of IF for our pursual, then?

Connington
2009-08-21, 12:10 AM
Taking any specific aspect of a class that a character doesn't have, or a vice versa, and saying it makes the whole comparison invalid is rather small minded.

Yes, Indy never cast any spells. That's one class feature, and not the most important one. Other than that, he's a model of the class. A factotum is supposed to represent what you would expect of an intelligent professional adventurer in a DnD world. That includes picking up some magic. Indy lives more or less in the real world, where you can't just "pick up" magic. It's just a class variant, like the spelless rangers and paladins out of Complete Warrior.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 12:15 AM
Would you care to provide the full text of IF for our pursual, then?

From Page 58 and 59 from Oriental Adventures (a 3.0 book that was updated to 3.5 in dragon 318 if I recall)

New Skill Iaijutsu Focus (Cha)
Use this skill to gather your personal energy (ki) in an iaijutsu duel .
Check: If you attack a flat-footed opponent immediately after drawing a melee weapon, you can deal extra damage, based on the result of an Iaijutsu Focus check. In addition, if you and your opponent both agree to participate in a formal iaijutsu duel, your Iaijutsu Focus check replaces your initiative check for the ensuing combat. In an iaijutsu duel (see Chapter 6), you and your opponent make opposed Iaijutsu Focus checks, and the winner accumulates extra damage dice according to the accompanying table.
You can also use Iaijutsu Focus in preparation for striking an inanimate object, assuming no distractions . Your extra damage is halved, just like your ordinary damage. This is the technique martial artists use to shatter objects.

Now there is more text being a table showing if you make X result with your Iaijutsu check you do X damage. I am not going to post that for it is too much work and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:17 AM
Taking any specific aspect of a class that a character doesn't have, or a vice versa, and saying it makes the whole comparison invalid is rather small minded.

Yes, Indy never cast any spells. That's one class feature, and not the most important one. Other than that, he's a model of the class. A factotum is supposed to represent what you would expect of an intelligent professional adventurer in a DnD world. That includes picking up some magic. Indy lives more or less in the real world, where you can't just "pick up" magic. It's just a class variant, like the spelless rangers and paladins out of Complete Warrior.

Care to provide the class variant?

Also, it's not the most important one, but it's a damn important one.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 12:21 AM
Interestingly, according to that wording, you would only gain extra damage on one attack of your four knives. Since all other attacks would not be made immediately after drawing a melee weapon.

Also, since I do have Dungeonscape. I can tell you that your level 8 Factotum can only throw eight daggers before it becomes anyone else's turn, since he can only purchase one standard action before having too little inspiration to do so again.

Connington
2009-08-21, 12:24 AM
It's a figurative one, due to the truly unfortunate lack of inter-splatbook cooperation. So in other words, Indy's DM homebrewed him something. Presumably, he trades out arcane power for a gun, beautiful saves, and some special feats for his whip. The point is that "Class X, but with feature Y traded for feature Z" is completely in line with the way the game works.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:27 AM
It's a figurative one, due to the truly unfortunate lack of inter-splatbook cooperation. So in other words, Indy's DM homebrewed him something. Presumably, he trades out arcane power for a gun, beautiful saves, and some special feats for his whip. The point is that "Class X, but with feature Y traded for feature Z" is completely in line with the way the game works.

Yeah, I know it's figurative.

Please explain to me how "Factotum + Class Variant That Does Not Exist" is a stronger argument for that making Indy a member of that class than, say, "Rogue + Class Variants that Do Exist." In fact, not even sure you would need to use any Class Variants. Indy's definitely not a clean fighter. Rogue gets high skills. Rogue can trapfind, and oh boy does Indy do that well. Lots of skill points...

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-21, 12:33 AM
No it's really not. And it never has been. Specialization is what made humans great, and it's what continues to do so.

-snip-

Every great act is still a specialized one, and always will be...

Which is probably the reason why science is stuck doing silly studies such as "the probabilities of surviving a zombie apocalypse". Versatility offers at least one or two things that specialization will never bring, and that's the ability to cover when most needed, or at least knowing who to call. Someone too specialized will probably be unable to solve the most basic solutions to things.


I want the wall of my house built by someone who spends 8 hours a day every day building walls, I want architects to have spent years at a time where half their waking moments were spent learning about architecture, and I want my computer programmers and military strategists to have a similar degree of time commitment.

Then you want a construction worker, not an architect. Architects merely do design, the construction workers are those who actually do the walls. You can't build a house by being, or by merely contracting an architect; however, you can build a house with no architect/civil engineer and a bunch of experienced construction workers, or carpenters, or other kinds of people who deal with mixing cement, placing bricks and fixing bits of wood. And, may I recall, that doesn't take a genius to work.


Turing, Shakespeare, Patton, Sun Tzu, Schroedinger, these are not people who could do lots of things, and yet, I challenge anyone at all who can program a computer to search a table, design a building, accurately explain what Schroedinger's equation describes without help, and draw up battle plans that conform to West Points minimum standards for excellence detailing their strategy for The First Bull Run to write a sonnet that will ever show up in any English Curriculum for any class ever.

You know, for all you speak, you're hurting Michaelangelo. Or Da Vinci. They could do quite a lot of stuff, and try it on their spare time. They were equally as good in anatomy and plastic arts as on engineering. It's a small amount of the population, but it's for some reason they're quite well remembered and considered geniuses of their time.


The fact of the matter is that specialization is a requirement for quality, and Heinlein demonstrates this by being a pretty good writer and a mediocre political theorist and a terrible mathematician, military strategist, architect, sonnet writer, and computer programmer.

A requirement for quality isn't specialization, it's checking that what you did was correct, it's checking back. That's something that both versatile people and specialists can do. What a specialist can do is do things relatively faster (as it knows the tricks and methods to do it), and perhaps serve as a peer of slightly larger knowledge. And yet, someone with an entirely different specialization can find a fault on something that's basically outside their specialization and point that out, mostly because it has an entirely different point of view.

Factotum show what happens when you mix versatility with a hint of inspiration: you can do everything quite decently, not to the degree of a specialist who has trained day and night to do what they desire, but in brief occasions has a flash of inspiration that might have escaped the specialist, if only because of their diversity in talents. They know the basics of both Open Lock, Disable Device, have some nice intelligence, perhaps know bits and pieces of Knowledge (architecture and engineering), some experience...at one occasion, that bulk of knowledge will tell the Factotum "hey, maybe if I do *this*, it might be easier than if I do this", and have a better chance at success. It's a slight spark, one that mechanically represents a one-time spark (for purposes of balance, or else it would be even more broken), but it doesn't have to be specifically that. The specialist will probably rub its head, and say "dang, why I didn't thought of that? Oddly enough, it makes sense", but he or she will know that, after that flash of inspiration, he or she will still do better than the Factotum; on the other hand, having a back-up that at the same time serves as the back-up for others is something any specialist may appreciate.

Just like...oh, I dunno...Industrial Engineers who know the right people to call, because they know bits and pieces of every other engineering? Chemical Engineers who know bits and pieces of other kinds of engineering because, say, they need the machinery to produce their latest design, or the basis to form an efficient conduit for electrolysis, or even the base grasp of structural design to predict the results of X combining with Y?

I'm saying that specialization has it's uses, but it's not the only method to functional science, or functional societies. Versatility has its uses, the most important of them all (at least, in my humble and formulated opinion) is the different point of view that offers looking things from several different perspectives.

Also, as disclaimer, all that I have said from the start to the end is my personal opinion. I have a slight dislike for specialization mostly because of personal feelings, so if it's a bit evident that I defend versatility or that I bash specialty too much, it's mostly because of this. Just a heads-up.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 12:36 AM
Interestingly, according to that wording, you would only gain extra damage on one attack of your four knives. Since all other attacks would not be made immediately after drawing a melee weapon.

Also, since I do have Dungeonscape. I can tell you that your level 8 Factotum can only throw eight daggers before it becomes anyone else's turn, since he can only purchase one standard action before having too little inspiration to do so again.

Each dagger has his own sheath, and the factotum carries more than 4 daggers on him.

And he is able to throw 4 daggers per standard action due to the master thrower abilities.
Palm Throw allows him to hold two small weapons in one hand and throw both of them at the same time.
Double Throw allows him to throw both his left handed weapons as well as his right handed weapons at the same time as one standard action.

Now he is running through daggers quite fast (4 per standard action.) But daggers are cheap and if he has a cleric in his party with greater magic weapon and chain spell it is quite simple to make magic daggers.

(Note instead of 3 levels of Master Thrower you can instead use the feat Manticore Sting, effectively manyshot for thrown weapons such as daggers or darts but you have to be a dwarf or being a changeling and emulate a dwarf, now manticore sting only needs quickdraw, dex, race, and bab thus making it a lot easier to qualify than manyshot.)

Connington
2009-08-21, 12:46 AM
Yeah, I know it's figurative.

Please explain to me how "Factotum + Class Variant That Does Not Exist" is a stronger argument for that making Indy a member of that class than, say, "Rogue + Class Variants that Do Exist." In fact, not even sure you would need to use any Class Variants. Indy's definitely not a clean fighter. Rogue gets high skills. Rogue can trapfind, and oh boy does Indy do that well. Lots of skill points...

Because the fluff and the mechanics suit a Factotum better? Yeah, he doesn't demonstrate arcane abilities, but you don't see him doing that much in the way of sneak attacks either, occasional dirty fighting notwithstanding.

Indy's making it up as he goes style and his occasional goofs fits perfectly with the Factotum's flashes of inspiration, more so than the more consistent and slightly more focused rogues.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:57 AM
Because the fluff and the mechanics suit a Factotum better? Yeah, he doesn't demonstrate arcane abilities, but you don't see him doing that much in the way of sneak attacks either, occasional dirty fighting notwithstanding.

Feints? Various legal abilities that let you switch Sneak Attack for something else and do exist in the game? (For example, getting Fighter feats instead as listed in UA.)


Indy's making it up as he goes style and his occasional goofs fits perfectly with the Factotum's flashes of inspiration, more so than the more consistent and slightly more focused rogues.

I don't even know how you can say that. Factotum 'flashes' of inspiration are highly controlled, whereas rogues are pretty subject to the roll of the dice. I don't think Indy got by on short bursts of figuring out how traps worked, either - that would have gotten him killed. He has his moments of insight, but a Factotum Indy can only trapfind and disable for 10 consecutive rounds a day.

Indiana Jones does not stare at a man and then go "HEY NOW I BE PUNCHING REAL FAST, YES!" Nor does he go "Now I need RAAAAAAGE!" He doesn't spend a whole lot of time emulating special tricks that I can think of at all. I would say his skill set is pretty consistent, in fact. He does study weaknesses, but not in any way that I recall being very consistent with Cunning Breach. My memory could be faulty here, but it seems to me that his fighting style is pretty instinctive and reactive, with the clever bits coming in at the tactical rather than the direct combat level, using the environment to his advantage rather than spying a flaw in someone's martial style.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 01:12 AM
Which is probably the reason why science is stuck doing silly studies such as "the probabilities of surviving a zombie apocalypse". Versatility offers at least one or two things that specialization will never bring, and that's the ability to cover when most needed, or at least knowing who to call. Someone too specialized will probably be unable to solve the most basic solutions to things.

I'm glad you recognize that your personal opinions are involved, because your opinions are bad.

Determining how to deal with a zombie attack is exactly like determining who to deal with a specific virus, and your attacks on specialization and modern science are insulting to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of modern science and how it works.

Specialization is what brings the ability to cover what's needed most. Specialization allows us to have computer engineers designing computers and chemical engineers working petroleum plants and the ability for someone intel to get all of one kind, and exxon the other.

I am a generalist. I know less than specialists about their specialties, and more about everything else. I cannot correct them in areas relating to their specialty just because I have a "different point of view" A different point of view than a quantum physicist makes you incapable of understanding the issue at all, not capable of correcting him. Sure you can fix his typos and formatting, and help his readability, but so can an editor. And they'll do it better than you.

Versatility is a good thing, but in reality, it always always comes at the cost of skill, and in all the things that matter: high level programming, science that discovers or deduces anything at all, ect, that cost is prohibitive, especially since you can actually call up a specialist in whatever other field you might need, and he can contribute more than any generalist ever could.


Also, you missed my point about my walls, I was very clear:

1) I want construction workers building my walls.
2) I want Architects designing my house.

Those are two separate people groups, because construction workers left to their own devices can only mimic an actual architects design, or make their own crappy one. And the would not be able to adapt the design to accommodate for weather, known flood planes, or other local factors, not being specialists at the task.

Similarly, Architects would make terrible construction workers, because they have little to no practice performing the various required actions, and so would nail and entrench and lay bricks shoddily. Because they are not specialists in that field.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 01:15 AM
TL;DR - Specialization works because you always have enough points leftover in generalization for interfacing protocols with people not in your field of study and because the planetary community as a whole is generalist. No need for someone to be a limited microcosm of that. Generalist makes more sense when you are less capable of being able to depend on others.

Polymath geniuses like Feynman are extremely rare and obviously are the best of both worlds but - again - extremely rare.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 01:20 AM
Each dagger has his own sheath, and the factotum carries more than 4 daggers on him.

And he is able to throw 4 daggers per standard action due to the master thrower abilities.
Palm Throw allows him to hold two small weapons in one hand and throw both of them at the same time.
Double Throw allows him to throw both his left handed weapons as well as his right handed weapons at the same time as one standard action.

I know what abilities he is using, my point is that you are not paying strict attention to the wording of the skill and the actions you are performing:

1) Draws dagger
2) Draws dagger
3) Draws dagger
4) Draws dagger
5) Throws daggers making attack role 1
6) attack role 2
7) attack role 3
8) attack role 4

As per the rules on attacks, each attack must happen consecutively after the others, they cannot occur simultaneously. However, because of your abilities, you must draw all four weapons before throwing even one. As such, you are left with throwing only one dagger that is "immediately" after you have drawn a melee weapon, and so only one attack would receive bonus damage.

Also, this is by no means broken, since all you have done is make 4 attacks with an amount of bonus damage (I have no idea how much, so maybe that is an issue) but is not any better than a Rogue who could actually do the same thing but better by throwing with SA and Iajitsu focus (though probably cross class or with a 1 level dip in a class with that as a class skill) in a full attack action which can get many attacks itself, including using dips in master thrower if he felt like it.

Honestly, going first and doing a decent amount of damage is hardly broken. And most classes that do that (Like Barbarians) don't immediately have nothing left.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-21, 01:30 AM
Which is probably the reason why science is stuck doing silly studies such as "the probabilities of surviving a zombie apocalypse".

Hey. HEY.

Zombie apocalypses are serious business.

Myrmex
2009-08-21, 01:48 AM
1) I said 'variable' 1/day abilities. As in, what that 1/day ability is.
2) Vancian prepared casters can die.
3) Unless it's a Wizard actually fluffed and flavored as a Vancian caster, meaning no reserve feat stupidity.

Hahahaha.
What about smite and turning and rage? All 1/day abilities. Or are they not variable?


Nope. None of the factotum's supernatural abilities apply well to the character, and as I said with Superman, this is a case when you're saying that the factotum works when you bind up and ignore some of its major class features - and if you ignore enough class features, a lot of classes can work to represent a lot of characters.

The factotum is very firmly rooted in the D&D world and the disconnect is about as bad as using a Sorcerer to represent Harry Potter.

Uh, limited turning and up to 6 spells per day aren't really the hallmarks of the factotum. Removing them wouldn't really change the core of the class, it may just push them down towards tier 4. I see their implementation more as a necessary part of "being good at everything" when "everything" is in D&D. If you were to do d20 modern, the factotum would work just fine with those abilities removed.

You're getting caught on the details. It's about an approximation of an archetype in a specific setting. If you wanted to mimic a character identically, you could probably do that with a bunch of classes and stuff, but that's not at all what the factotum is about. It's about capturing the essence of the characters Harrison Ford plays. It just so happens that Harrison Ford has never been in a high fantasy situation, but if he was, I bet he could shoot a spell or two.


lots of stuff

Have you ever worked in science? Have you ever worked in a specialized field with non-specialists?

I have, and I do. And I can tell you, things function A LOT better when everyone can speak the same jargon. Heinlein never said that they should be able to do all those things WELL, just that you are capable of doing them. Being able to do something, even if it is not well, gives you a much better capability to do cross-disciplinary stuff.

Your dismissal of genetics, evolution, and chemistry implies that you have no experience in any of the fields. The current cross-talk between chemists, physicists, doctors, evolutionary biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists is extraordinary, and most developments in all those fields wouldn't have been possible without cross-disciplinary stuff. Did you know that the field of statistics was pioneered by geneticists? Or that the best papers in ecology are using physics equations? Or that the null model for a population with an equilibrium gene flow (arguably THE most important equation in population genetics) was only possible due to collaboration between a pure mathematician and a geneticist with a strong statistical background?


I don't even know how you can say that. Factotum 'flashes' of inspiration are highly controlled, whereas rogues are pretty subject to the roll of the dice. I don't think Indy got by on short bursts of figuring out how traps worked, either - that would have gotten him killed. He has his moments of insight, but a Factotum Indy can only trapfind and disable for 10 consecutive rounds a day.

Indiana Jones does not stare at a man and then go "HEY NOW I BE PUNCHING REAL FAST, YES!" Nor does he go "Now I need RAAAAAAGE!" He doesn't spend a whole lot of time emulating special tricks that I can think of at all. I would say his skill set is pretty consistent, in fact. He does study weaknesses, but not in any way that I recall being very consistent with Cunning Breach. My memory could be faulty here, but it seems to me that his fighting style is pretty instinctive and reactive, with the clever bits coming in at the tactical rather than the direct combat level, using the environment to his advantage rather than spying a flaw in someone's martial style.

Actually, Factotum gets trapfinding at level 1. Emulating the ability as a rogue would be a hilarious waste of the ability.

Furthermore, it's the use of inspiration points each combat to either hit, add int to damage, get sneak attack, become harder to hit, etc. that makes him like Indy, not his capstone.


TL;DR - Specialization works because you always have enough points leftover in generalization for interfacing protocols with people not in your field of study and because the planetary community as a whole is generalist. No need for someone to be a limited microcosm of that. Generalist makes more sense when you are less capable of being able to depend on others.

Polymath geniuses like Feynman are extremely rare and obviously are the best of both worlds but - again - extremely rare.

I'd argue that most people are neither generalist nor specialist, but laymen who can't do much of anything.

Connington
2009-08-21, 01:50 AM
One thing that escapes me is how this thread turned into two parallel arguments over the impact of generalization and specialization on society, and the specific character class of Indiana Jones.

In the first case, it's a little mindboggling. Your adventuring party is not a microcosm of humanity. Obviously, society depends on both generalists and specialists, and without both things would get hairy. This doesn't really relate to any critique of the factotum however, unless you want to argue that all generalists are inferior. In that case, it's a fine and dandy opinion, but generalists are also fun to play.

The Indiana Jones thing is more understandable, as it's rooted in the debate over whether the factotum is simply based on fun mechanics, or is a believable abstraction of an existing character type. The problem with making any judgment here is that these character's aren't made with a character class in mind, so any connections to a class carry some ambiguity. There's also the classic fluff/crunch divide

For example, it's pretty obvious that thematically, Indy works better as a Factotum, simply he was used as an archetype by the class's creator. Mechanically, I think Astral has convinced me to lean slightly towards Indy being a rogue, although I'd hardly call foul if someone played him as a factotum. It's a little like the divde between a paladin and a crusader.

However, this is simply one example in a wider debate over the Factotum's ability to accurately model characters, and one that I think clearly swings in the Factotum's favor. To cite a couple of examples, Gandalf has the spells, the melee expertise, the frequent use of skills, and the occasional uses of various class abilities that so frustrate people who try and stat out the Fellowship.

Hiro, the Hacker/Pizza Deliveryboy/Swordsman/Intelligence gatherer is also a Factotum example. I even seem to recall one reference to him just having knacks for picking up things.

Another one would be Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth series. Of course, in that case his ability to come up with powers out of nowhere probably has more to do with bad writing.

The point is, that the spirit of the factotum is an old one, and examples of characters that mostly follow the mechanics are more common than allot of classes that don't get much. Any Vancian spellcaster for example.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 02:09 AM
Your dismissal of genetics, evolution, and chemistry implies that you have no experience in any of the fields. The current cross-talk between chemists, physicists, doctors, evolutionary biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists is extraordinary, and most developments in all those fields wouldn't have been possible without cross-disciplinary stuff. Did you know that the field of statistics was pioneered by geneticists? Or that the best papers in ecology are using physics equations? Or that the null model for a population with an equilibrium gene flow (arguably THE most important equation in population genetics) was only possible due to collaboration between a pure mathematician and a geneticist with a strong statistical background?

1) I didn't dismiss any of those things, and for you to say so is both completely nonsensical and insulting.

2) Do you not get that cross talk between two specialists is not evidence in favor of generalization? Yes, someone who can solve complex mathematics and is incapable of speaking english is less useful than someone who can solve math equations slower and speak english. But that has nothing to do with reality where the level of competence required to discuss those aspects of your field that touch on other fields are granted by being a specialist in your field and also a human being.

The fact that ecologists use equations says nothing about the fact that quantum physicists don't do ecology well, and knowledge of it is actual time and energy spent that could have been spent being better at ecology. Yes I know that statistics was pioneered by a non statistician. IE before there could be any specialists in statistics a non statistician pioneered the field. Then other people who came later and had the opportunity to specialize did all sorts of work that he could never have done, because they were specialists.

And why does everyone on this forum resort to "Do you have personal experience with X" as an argument. Yes I have personal experience working in specialized fields as a non specialist, that's my ****ing life. That also has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not people should try to be generalists because specialists know more. If you have mathematician + geneticist you get awesome. If you have half mathematician/half geneticist + half mathematician/half geneticist you get a mediocre waste of time.

paddyfool
2009-08-21, 02:12 AM
A factotum is "one of those guys who's just smart enough to be good at anything he wants to be, fast".

Like a friend of mine who got a PhD in physics from Cambridge, who's represented his country at under-18 basketball (admittedly, being 6'9 helped with that one), who's a past hand at negotiating truckloads of goods through border guards from Africa to China, who went seamlessly from his PhD to being a management consultant, etc.

In a more adventuresome setting, it's someone who applies his smarts to athletic skill checks or combat situations. Like James Bond, a little - consider the chase scene at the opening of Casino Royale where he keeps up with a much faster man through smarts, or any number of fights where he finds a tactical advantage.

To be a factotum is to be a renaissance man. In today's highly specialised world, we have less examples of them, but they are still around.

As for picking up the magic - if you were smart enough, in a D&D world, and were well-trained in applying yourself in versatile ways, you might pick up a little magic use. Just as, in the real world, a renaissance man might know enough medicine to fix himself up on the fly (James Bond, again, admittedly with help, in Casino Royale), or enough mechanics/electronics to disarm a nuclear bomb (James Bond, again, in ... oh, that one with the circus), or whatever other highly specialised skills you think appropriate.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 02:25 AM
The problem with most examples of factotums is that people want factotum to mean: Better than everyone at everything. Which is frankly, stupid. Because a level 10 Factotum is the equal of a level 10 Rogue is the equal of a level ten Wizard (Not really, and we all know that, but the game defines them such)

So if a Factotum is level X, he should be a worse caster than a Wizard (he is) a worse damage dealer than the Barbarian (he is) and a worse skill monkey than the Rogue (he isn't, but it's okay, he's just worse at damage than the rogue).

So being a Factotum does not mean "so smart he can do your thing as well as you." It means "So smart that he can learn to cast spells better than the Rogue and hit the vital spot better than the Wizard."

This is not actually a problem with the Factotum class in mechanics or fluff, just a lot of examples presented of factotums in the world or in media.

Myrmex
2009-08-21, 02:27 AM
1) I didn't dismiss any of those things, and for you to say so is both completely nonsensical and insulting.

2) Do you not get that cross talk between two specialists is not evidence in favor of generalization? Yes, someone who can solve complex mathematics and is incapable of speaking english is less useful than someone who can solve math equations slower and speak english. But that has nothing to do with reality where the level of competence required to discuss those aspects of your field that touch on other fields are granted by being a specialist in your field and also a human being.

The fact that ecologists use equations says nothing about the fact that quantum physicists don't do ecology well, and knowledge of it is actual time and energy spent that could have been spent being better at ecology. Yes I know that statistics was pioneered by a non statistician. IE before there could be any specialists in statistics a non statistician pioneered the field. Then other people who came later and had the opportunity to specialize did all sorts of work that he could never have done, because they were specialists.

And why does everyone on this forum resort to "Do you have personal experience with X" as an argument. Yes I have personal experience working in specialized fields as a non specialist, that's my ****ing life. That also has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not people should try to be generalists because specialists know more. If you have mathematician + geneticist you get awesome. If you have half mathematician/half geneticist + half mathematician/half geneticist you get a mediocre waste of time.

Well, I ask because you seem to dismiss the past 30 year trend in science, that's all.

A geneticist without knowledge of math (let's say hypothetically; geneticists are typically talented with math) trying to talk with a mathematician with no knowledge of genetics would get NO WHERE. There is so much in science where fields full of specialists were totally oblivious to what other fields were doing. If someone had walked across campus to the other department and had said "hey, you should try this model," you could have gotten breakthroughs years in advance. Novel approaches to problems, gained in fields outside of the traditional specialist niche, often provide new insights.

The field of developmental biology is full of this. It is probably the most promising area of research in biology, and it incorporates virtually every field of biology, as well as chemistry, physics, math, and computing.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-21, 02:31 AM
Determining how to deal with a zombie attack is exactly like determining who to deal with a specific virus, and your attacks on specialization and modern science are insulting to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of modern science and how it works.

Including the fact that it would be pointless because of the chances of actually occuring (the zombie attack, not the virus)? Or the fact that too much study may end up backfiring spectacularly (again, with the zombie attack, not epidemiology)?

The reason why I exposed personal opinion was mostly because I needed to expose why I'm unhappy with the asphyxiating push of specialization. I don't attack specialization as worthless, but the idea that specialization is the only way to advance science, or the only possibility. I did exposed points where specialization was favorable, I just also exposed points where versatility is favorable as well.


Specialization is what brings the ability to cover what's needed most. Specialization allows us to have computer engineers designing computers and chemical engineers working petroleum plants and the ability for someone intel to get all of one kind, and exxon the other.

You don't start straight from college with the tools to manage a petroleum plant, even with a specialization; you need experience for that. Doesn't mean you can leave that job and learn the skills at a pharmaceutical, or heck, at a computer production facility. You mostly need the specific skills relative to that job, which are learned by time. That time of experience doesn't limit you to one thing; what limits you is the negativity to learn something new, even if it doesn't have to do with your job.

That doesn't mean specializing is bad, for what it's needed. What's bad is not going further if you have the chance, because you don't have the skills.


I am a generalist. I know less than specialists about their specialties, and more about everything else. I cannot correct them in areas relating to their specialty just because I have a "different point of view" A different point of view than a quantum physicist makes you incapable of understanding the issue at all, not capable of correcting him. Sure you can fix his typos and formatting, and help his readability, but so can an editor. And they'll do it better than you.

Never say never. Just because he's kept in his own little subset of theories doesn't mean you can just pitch ideas gained from...well, the pattern of flowers or a good movie you've seen. Versatility, the ability of a generalist, comes to play when you can actually explain why it's not a bad idea to consider. What are the chances that you know the right word that the editor doesn't, just because it's not familiar with your area of study while you as a generalist do? What are the chances that you can actually make the work of the specialist a bit easier just because you see things on a different way, or well, a different set of ways?


Versatility is a good thing, but in reality, it always always comes at the cost of skill, and in all the things that matter: high level programming, science that discovers or deduces anything at all, ect, that cost is prohibitive, especially since you can actually call up a specialist in whatever other field you might need, and he can contribute more than any generalist ever could.

I wouldn't say prohibitively. Versatile people actually lose (or rather, don't gain) expertise, not skill; you can learn how to program, and heck, perhaps even take your time to learn how to program quite well while at the same time knowing the intricacies of a language, or the way to fix hardware. You won't do it with the same degree of knowledge as an antiviral software programmer, Germanic languages philologist or computer technician, but not at a degree where you effectively can't do it at all.


Also, you missed my point about my walls, I was very clear:

1) I want construction workers building my walls.
2) I want Architects designing my house.

Those are two separate people groups, because construction workers left to their own devices can only mimic an actual architects design, or make their own crappy one. And the would not be able to adapt the design to accommodate for weather, known flood planes, or other local factors, not being specialists at the task.

Similarly, Architects would make terrible construction workers, because they have little to no practice performing the various required actions, and so would nail and entrench and lay bricks shoddily. Because they are not specialists in that field.

Um, mixing some cement and laying bricks right isn't a big science. I don't get why an architect wouldn't do it, other than utter laziness. Or excess of work, but if it's for its own home, I guess he might as well assist a bit. It doesn't take years of experience to learn the basics of construction; only some practice. I can't say the same for a construction worker going the way of an architect, but I can definitely stand for the inverse.

It's like...saying, an entrepreneur won't know how to deliver a pizza right, or outright won't know how to make a pizza. What happens if the only job available is working at a pizza parlor; kill himself because he can't invest on a new enterprise? Or actually get the time to learn how to make a darn pizza and work on that, at least 'til things get better? And an entrepreneur won't lose his entrepreneurial skills because he has to replace his skill set, nor that implies he won't be less skilled than someone that didn't lost his job; actually, it may inspire him to use his talents in a different way. Heck, aiding his own working place to be a bit more successful is right on his area of expertise, so I don't see why he can't use his high-level skills for some low-level requirement.

Also, an Architect wouldn't make a completely effective building, mind you. Just an aesthetically pleasant building. And even then, it requires to know the basics of static and dynamics to design a safe building, but not an earthquake resistant building, or a storm-resistant building.


Hey. HEY.

Zombie apocalypses are serious business.

On a zombie apocalypse, it's actually better to improvise. And actually know a bit of everything.


If you have mathematician + geneticist you get awesome. If you have half mathematician/half geneticist + half mathematician/half geneticist you get a mediocre waste of time.

So wait, two heads don't think better than one? So why Mathematician + Geneticist is awesome, if those are two heads thinking, and two people with different degrees of math and genetics will suck? For starters, they'll actually understand each other, which is a big plus. Second, they can pitch ideas that the other may recognize much faster, since it'll be capable of using a bit more complex formula and terms. Third, what are the chances that they won't complement each other? What are the chances that they can't do more than a pure Mathematician with a Geneticist because they have a better idea of what both are working at?

And remember, 99% high Mathematics and 1% Genetics still makes for part Mathematician/part Genetist.

Jastermereel
2009-08-21, 07:54 AM
I'm glad you recognize that your personal opinions are involved, because your opinions are bad.

You don't have to specialize to have tact or awareness of irony:P


Every great act is still a specialized one, and always will be.

Every great ACT? Sure. Generally thats what acts are. Those who commit those acts don't have to be.

Out of game, a lot of important ones are specialized, but the great ones tend to be the AH-HAH! moments that bring everything together. Every field has its breakthroughs, in the discovery of a new element, the curing of a disease, the development of new materials. However, it is the polymaths, from Archimedes to DaVinci to Fuller, who have broad enough knowledge to span the specializations who can figure things out on a larger scale.

In game, D&D's Factotum isn't really a polymath. He might get a moment of inspiration and see where to hit a foe as a rogue would, but he doesn't know how to do it again and again like a rogue; he simply had a moment of inspiration. He might get a brilliant idea and think how he can hide really well for a round, but you can be sure he won't get that same insight again for a while. While it can do a lot of what others can, it happens like an Archimedes' Eureka moment and you can't count on it happening regularly.

And getting back to that quote of yours, while a Factotum who casts the final spell or strikes the final blow (be it one enhanced by rage or sneak attack or iajitsu focus) that kills the dragon does a specific thing, having the options open by being open to inspiration is what makes it useful.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 08:31 AM
Hahahaha.
What about smite and turning and rage? All 1/day abilities. Or are they not variable?

No. They're not. Ask yourself why from a fluff reason that I wouldn't like Vancian casting and the Factotum's 1/day abilities, but I'm okay with rage, smite, and turning.

The three represent fixed abilities you have to spend resources on adapting into doing something else. The former two change whenever you feel like it.

Talya
2009-08-21, 08:45 AM
Relying on other humans and our civilization's social network is a very risky thing to do. When the inevitable economic/social collapse comes (as it does to every civilization), the specialists are in the worst shape to survive it. If survival through any circumstance is a goal, then adaptability and "generalization" trumps specialism. Which isn't to say you can't be quite good at one thing, so long as you still have the skills and abilities to handle everything else well.

Yes, the specialists tend to make the new breakthroughs in science, but they are few and far between, and benefit from being in the right place at the right time. In the end, when it comes to the important stuff -- survival -- it's the very competent generalists that end up on top.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-21, 08:51 AM
The idea that every fictional character can be attributed to a class is not something I am comfortable with.

Simply put, Indiana Jones is a level something Indiana Jones. That said, I do feel that he fits much better with the rogue class if he was being simulated than with the factotum class, simply because I can see him using any and all of the Rogue's class features without stretching, whereas a good portion of the Factotum's class features do not even fit the setting, let alone does he ever use them.

To my mind, this means two things;
1 - Indiana Jones, if attributed a character class, does not match the Factotum.
2 - In DnD, to play an Indiana Jones type character, Factotum is a perfectly reasonable option in as much as if Indy HAD existed in a fantasy world, perhaps he'd have picked up some more skills.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 09:14 AM
Yes, the specialists tend to make the new breakthroughs in science, but they are few and far between, and benefit from being in the right place at the right time. In the end, when it comes to the important stuff -- survival -- it's the very competent generalists that end up on top.

Ah, yes. Because we should depend on the long-ranging and extremely variable - but nevertheless imminent 'end of a civilization' - as the way to prepare ourselves through life. Considering that we've never really had a civilizational collapse within the age of hyperspecialization, and even earlier collapses are not nearly so Mad Max as we are often led to believe, I'm highly dubious about your claims.

Survival is the mark of a solitary animal. Advancement is the mark of a civilization. Heinlein's maxim is dramatically ironic.


To my mind, this means two things;
1 - Indiana Jones, if attributed a character class, does not match the Factotum.
2 - In DnD, to play an Indiana Jones type character, Factotum is a perfectly reasonable option in as much as if Indy HAD existed in a fantasy world, perhaps he'd have picked up some more skills.

These are two points I agree with particularly well, and I've mentioned that homages can work without having perfectly matched class abilities.

Talya
2009-08-21, 09:19 AM
Ah, yes. Because we should depend on the long-ranging and extremely variable - but nevertheless imminent 'end of a civilization' - as the way to prepare ourselves through life. Considering that we've never really had a civilizational collapse within the age of hyperspecialization, and even earlier collapses are not nearly so Mad Max as we are often led to believe, I'm highly dubious about your claims.

Survival is the mark of a solitary animal. Advancement is the mark of a civilization. Heinlein's maxim is dramatically ironic.


We're better as solitary animals -- individuals -- than collectivist social drones. The priority always needs to be the individual first, society second.

Anyway, you don't need the collapse of an entire civilization to make the generalist reign supreme. As mentioned in my original post, an economic collapse (like the dirty thirties) works fine. (This one is likely to happen in the next five years or so.) Heck, merely finding your field of specialty becoming obsolete (all too common) makes you inferior to a generalist.

kamikasei
2009-08-21, 09:24 AM
We're better as solitary animals -- individuals -- than collectivist social drones.

You're creating a false dichotomy. If humans were better off as solitary animals than as social animals, then you would expect us to all be living in isolation from one another and all tendencies toward community and civilization to have collapsed almost as soon as they started.

"Everyone should be a totally self-sufficient rugged individualist capable of being dropped naked in the middle of an infinite wilderness and not just surviving, but prospering" and "everyone should be a drone who can do only one thing and is helpless and doomed if any part of the structure around him changes" are not the only two options. "Humans are social creatures, no one of which can do everything necessary to his survival unless a) very lucky and b) only looking for a very low standard of living, but our societies work best when not so heavily regimented that they're incapable of responding to change" is another, and has the added benefit of actually resembling reality in any way whatsoever.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 09:25 AM
Anyway, you don't need the collapse of an entire civilization to make the generalist reign supreme. An economic collapse (like the dirty thirties) works fine. (This one is likely to happen in the next five years or so.) Heck, merely finding your field of specialty becoming obsolete (all too common) makes you inferior to a generalist.

The people who survived the best through the Depression were not the unskilled or lightly skilled laborers - generalists - I'm afraid. They were able to use those generalized skills in order to get by, but not to flourish. Nor do fields of specialty become obsolete commonly. When one does, you can usually find a field closely related if you are willing to adapt to that field.

Neither specialization nor generalization will solve for you every problem. Specialists, however, are always more needed.

EDIT: Also, what Kamikasei said.

Jastermereel
2009-08-21, 09:46 AM
Neither specialization nor generalization will solve for you every problem. Specialists, however, are always more needed.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. While there will always be a need for specialists, there is a far far more limited use for "a specialist" than "specialists".

This is especially true in a small group of people. For most specialties, a specialist is far less useful than someone who can do a lot of things. If I'm injured in combat, 99 times out of 100, I'd rather have a guy who is really handy with a first-aid kit than a doctor who knows eyes, feet, or the nervous system really well. Sure, if I'm in a large community where people can afford to get that specific and I have that specific need, I'd go to the specialist, but odds are I'll have already made use of the general guy first.

quick_comment
2009-08-21, 10:00 AM
Civilization exists only because of specialization. Its better to have some people farming and some people making tools for the farmers than for everyone to be farming for themselves and making their own tools.

Trade results from specialization. People who have a comparative advantage in a good ought to produce more of that good, and trade with people who have comparative advantages in other goods.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 10:08 AM
I know what abilities he is using, my point is that you are not paying strict attention to the wording of the skill and the actions you are performing:

1) Draws dagger
2) Draws dagger
3) Draws dagger
4) Draws dagger
5) Throws daggers making attack role 1
6) attack role 2
7) attack role 3
8) attack role 4

As per the rules on attacks, each attack must happen consecutively after the others, they cannot occur simultaneously. However, because of your abilities, you must draw all four weapons before throwing even one. As such, you are left with throwing only one dagger that is "immediately" after you have drawn a melee weapon, and so only one attack would receive bonus damage.

Also, this is by no means broken, since all you have done is make 4 attacks with an amount of bonus damage (I have no idea how much, so maybe that is an issue) but is not any better than a Rogue who could actually do the same thing but better by throwing with SA and Iajitsu focus (though probably cross class or with a 1 level dip in a class with that as a class skill) in a full attack action which can get many attacks itself, including using dips in master thrower if he felt like it.

Honestly, going first and doing a decent amount of damage is hardly broken. And most classes that do that (Like Barbarians) don't immediately have nothing left.

You made an error in your thought process.

Immediately is not a word defined by wizards in their books. Thus you have to use a common english definiton, and their are multiple definitions for immediately.

1. without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once: Please telephone him immediately.
2. with no object or space intervening.
3. closely: immediately in the vicinity.
4. without intervening medium or agent; concerning or affecting directly.

It is up to the DM to decide which common definition to use, since the term is not defined in the books. (aka rule interpertation.)

Furthermore their are even more rule interpetations, for example using definition 2 or 3, you draw the daggers, and you immediately, with your next action throw the daggers. DND combat is defined in actions not in physical descriptions of the events. "Actions" are the smallest event in DND combat, you don't draw your sword in dnd you take a move action which accomplishes that drawing your sword.

kamikasei
2009-08-21, 10:09 AM
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. While there will always be a need for specialists, there is a far far more limited use for "a specialist" than "specialists".

This is true and a fair point.

Any given individual deciding how much of his resources to invest in a specialized role is gambling on two fronts: that his role will continue to be needed and that his circumstances will not change so drastically that his (perhaps still needed) skills are insufficient to keep him going. The first case is something like a technological change that renders some skill obsolete, the second is something like being stranded out of reach of aid and having to survive until you can return to civilization. Obviously it's in any individual's best interests to be a) adaptable enough to respec in the first case, and b) generally skilled enough to be able to respond to a variety of crisis situations when outside help isn't available in the second case. It's also in any society's interests to have such individuals in plentiful supply so that any upset won't cause massive, crippling ripple effects.

Where Talya seems to me to be going off the rails is in implying (or stating outright) that people should not specialize at all but should invest huge amounts of energy in acquiring all kinds of skills that are only vanishingly likely to be of any use to them. There is such a thing as over-redundancy and paranoia, and giving everyone SAS survival training in place of a trade qualification seems to me like just that.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 10:33 AM
Responding to Keplstrand further

As for your other comment, yes you are doing merely damage but here are the good things that makes it more than a typical barbarian or rogue

1) Each dagger can do up to 9d6 additional damage through Iajitsu Focus. All you have to hit is a skill dc of 50 (easy to do at level 12 or so if your dm allows compontence bonuses items and item familars hard if he does not.) a rogue would be 6d6 sneak attack damage at level 12.

2) A rogue can do the same trick with a bow and many shot, but at level 12 he can only fire 2 arrows instead of the 4 daggers thrown. A rogue can instead take the same master thrower prc but then he will only have 5d6 sneak attack damage.

3) A factotum is much more likely to go first due to having both int and dex (int being the focus skill of a factotum and dex going to be high as well).

4) If the main enemy is not dead the factotum can spend 3 inspiration points to try again. If a factotum spends no feats on fonts of inspiration than he can do 2 standard actions for a total of 8 daggers. If he spends 2 feats he gets 3 standard actions thus 12 daggers, 3 feats 16 daggers, 4 feats 20 daggers, 5 feats 28 daggers

5) He is not limited to 30 ft range like a rogue is due to sneak attack. His standard range is up to 50 feet before the uses of spells or items to boost it further. A simple 1st level wand of hawkeye increases his range by +50%. Gauntlets of Extended Range (MIC) for 2,000 gp makes your range increment double (+100%). Helm of the Hunter (MIC) for 9,000 gp gives you the far shot feat as well as other benefits, thus another +100%. So combine these two cheap effects for a total boost of 250%, or a range increase of feet 125 for a total range of 175 feet.

6) Yes after the first round he loses much of his damage dealing punch, but during that he has hopefully brought down the top baddy (or with enough inspiration the top 3 baddies at least). Thus allowing the rest of his party to mop up effectively. If the enemy wizard is dead, he can't be god, allowing your party wizard to play that role uninhabited.

The only other class that can throw down this kinda of damage easily at range is the artificer. If he is a blastificer/wand adept he is blowing through charges like crazy. Only the ninjaficer can do this kinda damage at range cheaply.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 10:37 AM
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. While there will always be a need for specialists, there is a far far more limited use for "a specialist" than "specialists".

This is especially true in a small group of people. For most specialties, a specialist is far less useful than someone who can do a lot of things. If I'm injured in combat, 99 times out of 100, I'd rather have a guy who is really handy with a first-aid kit than a doctor who knows eyes, feet, or the nervous system really well. Sure, if I'm in a large community where people can afford to get that specific and I have that specific need, I'd go to the specialist, but odds are I'll have already made use of the general guy first.

This is a fair point.

The New Bruceski
2009-08-21, 11:47 AM
Medicine: You need a general practitioner to filter patients, treating the easy ones and referring folks to the proper specialists, even when the person himself might think they need a different specialist (treat the disease, not the symptoms, and all that). There's actually a shortage of them in America right now, and I've seen some reports of the problems caused by it.

Physics: Some of the huge breakthroughs, like quantum theory, came about when someone took equations from two different areas and realized they could be used together. Some areas have gotten so specialized what without a general physicist playing translator people literally cannot understand each other, there are so many unique terms and techniques.

These aren't at the factotum level of "every physicist should be able to treat diabetes with a paperclip" (/hyperbole) but generalization can be important.

hamishspence
2009-08-21, 11:54 AM
yes: I think part of quotes like Heinleins was that people need to be reasonably well rounded- that doesn't rule out specialization, but it does discourage overspecialization- showing no interest in anything but the speciality area.

The "Renaissance Man" as an ideal is an interesting one, even if its not the be-all and end-all.

AstralFire
2009-08-21, 12:02 PM
I have no problem with hybridization (which here I will define as a middle point between generalization and specialization, for my purposes). I reacted because the quote provided to rebut me that got us started on this tangent was a brief and incomplete soundbite in its usage, rather than an argument which addressed my dislike.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-21, 12:37 PM
Responding to Keplstrand further

As for your other comment, yes you are doing merely damage but here are the good things that makes it more than a typical barbarian or rogue

1) Each dagger can do up to 9d6 additional damage through Iajitsu Focus. All you have to hit is a skill dc of 50 (easy to do at level 12 or so if your dm allows compontence bonuses items and item familars hard if he does not.) a rogue would be 6d6 sneak attack damage at level 12.


So if your DM allows custom items and cheese, you're all set?

Then say hello to Raging Frenzied Berserker Heedless Charge Battle Jump Shock Trooper Leap Attack with Valorous Weapon Man. He does more damage than you do. Plus, he has a magic weapon while you're throwing around mundane daggers.

Ramza00
2009-08-21, 12:46 PM
So if your DM allows custom items and cheese, you're all set?

Then say hello to Raging Frenzied Berserker Heedless Charge Battle Jump Shock Trooper Leap Attack with Valorous Weapon Man. He does more damage than you do. Plus, he has a magic weapon while you're throwing around mundane daggers.

Competence Items are custom items but they are not cheese, there are various ones throughout core and mic and the core rules tell you how to price them.

And I am assuming you have a party member who can cast chained greater magic weapon. You will gladly buy his pearl of power so he effectively loses nothing while helping out the party.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-21, 12:50 PM
Competence Items are custom items but they are not cheese, there are various ones throughout core and mic and the core rules tell you how to price them.
Item Familiar. You also mentioned the Item Familiar.


And I am assuming you have a party member who can cast chained greater magic weapon. You will gladly buy his pearl of power so he effectively loses nothing while helping out the party.
Quick question: How much does a pearl of Power of a 7th level spell cost?

The answer may surprise you.

Either way, you'll miss out on nifty enchantments such as Wounding, Holy, etc.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-21, 12:56 PM
Competence Items are custom items but they are not cheese, there are various ones throughout core and mic and the core rules tell you how to price them.

It gives you a guideline for creating them. No, seriously, go read the chapter. It's a guideline, not rules. Any sane DM will look at your zomgwtfiajutsu and tell you "hells to the no".

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 02:09 PM
1) Regarding daggerman:

Yes, if your DM defines it based on action, then you can draw a greatsword and then full attack and get IF on every single attack. That is blatantly not the intent of the rules, so the fact that you draw four daggers then throw four daggers prevents you from getting IF.

Also, the Rogue is not limited to SA. He can also get your IF. Heck, fully 60-75% of your IF check comes from things not related to skill ranks, he can just do slightly less IF (or if custom skill items and item familiar are allowed, the same IF damage) and have sneak attack too. And he can full attack with thrown daggers for like 10-12 daggers. That's just better than you. Because he can also throw 10-12 daggers the next round too.

2) Regarding specialization: I'm not going to individually reply to everything, because their are two pages of it, but:

a) No generalization is not the current trend in Science, cooperation between specialists is. Generalists bring absolutely nothing to the table.

b) Developmental biology is not the most promising field in biology, that just shows you get your biology knowledge from commentators on developmental biology, since not even developmental biologists are brazen enough to claim that.

c) Why does everyone make these incredibly bad false equivalents? Yes all geneticists know math. They don't know as much math as mathematicians, and they don't know crap about writing sonnets. People really do get the competence required to interact with other disciplines by being a specialist. You have to know math to be a geneticist, and you also have to know english and slightly more than basic chemistry.

Anyone in the world who is a specialist can talk to anyone at all who is a specialist in another field and discover if they have something of worth. You don't need to be a generalist to talk to other people. Yes X 100, Y 0 is not useful, all humans by definition have a Y of 10, just from being human. X 90 Y 10 is billions of times better than X 50 Y 50.

Specialization is good. Generalization is objectively bad. Yes, people should have enough comprehension to talk to people from other schools. They already do, being able to talk to mathematicians is a requirement for being a geneticist in the first place.

d) Yes it really does make you a worse X to spend time doing Y. Yes, you can still be a good geneticist who arranges floral patterns. No you can not be a good geneticist who sails/arranges floral patterns/read military history books/writes sonnets/designs buildings.

e) There has never been nor ever will be a complete communications collapse, but if there were, right off the bat 7/8ths of all human beings would need to die, because specialization and communication is the only thing that lets us support 7 billion people. If such an even occurred, there would not be enough food in the world to feed more than 1/8th of the population at absolute best. Planning for the hypothetical disaster is a waste of everyone's time. 7/8ths of our population had better be planning for pre disaster lives, because they aren't going to have post disaster ones.

Also, in the event of this hypothetical event, people with specialized knowledge of farming are going to be worth more than any generalist, since a single person like that can quadruple the number of people a given community can feed.

kjones
2009-08-21, 03:03 PM
Just to put things in perspective, the source of Talya's quote was Lazarus Long, who was very, very old. He had time to learn to do all those things - not everyone does.

Talya
2009-08-21, 04:58 PM
The people who survived the best through the Depression were not the unskilled or lightly skilled laborers - generalists - I'm afraid. They were able to use those generalized skills in order to get by, but not to flourish. Nor do fields of specialty become obsolete commonly. When one does, you can usually find a field closely related if you are willing to adapt to that field.

Neither specialization nor generalization will solve for you every problem. Specialists, however, are always more needed.

EDIT: Also, what Kamikasei said.

Unskilled or lightly skilled laborors are not generalists. They're the D&D equivalent of commoners. As stated above, it's the MacGuyvers, Indianna Joneses, James Bonds, and Michael Westons of fiction that are the generalists. Not the best at anything, but very good at everything. The rugged survivalist who can, for instance, possibly track animals/people, put together their own vehicle, build traps, break into buildings/crack safes, treat injuries at paramedic levels of competence, etc.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-21, 05:03 PM
Remember this show? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pretender_%28TV_series%29) This dude is a factotum.

paddyfool
2009-08-21, 07:53 PM
Specialisation... well, yes. Science definitely runs on it. The old truism of "at the end of a bachelor's you know nothing about everything; at the end of a PhD you know everything about nothing" has some basis in reality at least. And even people who work on bridging disciplines are generally specialists on bridging very specific disciplines.

But what a factotum is is a specialist at being versatile. That's what he/she learns - to improvise, and to apply his/her smarts quickly to a wide range of problems. This isn't easy; hence, no surprise that a fair few of the examples that have been picked (by myself included) have literally superhuman intelligence to do it with (the Doctor, Amadeus Cho, and Veidt). Others, like the James Bonds, have trained themselves in at least the basics of just about everything because in their line of work (OK, it's a fictional version of a more boring, specialised reality), just about anything might come up. Others, like Macgyver and Col. Hannibal Smith, are just extremely gifted at coming up with solutions on-the-fly. All of these fit.

Now, in the modern, post-renaissance, post-enlightenment, real world, what examples are there of factota? Not enough, perhaps (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=206017&sectioncode=26).

Coidzor
2009-08-21, 08:29 PM
Unskilled or lightly skilled laborors are not generalists. They're the D&D equivalent of commoners. As stated above, it's the MacGuyvers, Indianna Joneses, James Bonds, and Michael Westons of fiction that are the generalists. Not the best at anything, but very good at everything. The rugged survivalist who can, for instance, possibly track animals/people, put together their own vehicle, build traps, break into buildings/crack safes, treat injuries at paramedic levels of competence, etc.

Whaddya know... that's roughly the idea I have for my next nietzchean character design...

Doc Roc
2009-08-21, 08:40 PM
Well, I'm just going to weigh in and say that it's unfortunate 339 is down, because there are some excellent examples of the Iaijatsu builds on there, particularly the factotum ones.

The real problem is normally this simple build:
Factotum 8/Iaijatsu Master 5

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 09:30 PM
Well, I'm just going to weigh in and say that it's unfortunate 339 is down, because there are some excellent examples of the Iaijatsu builds on there, particularly the factotum ones.

The real problem is normally this simple build:
Factotum 8/Iaijatsu Master 5

I'm not really seeing it at all since a (Some OA class 1)/Rogue 7/Iaijatsu master 5 would almost certainly do more damage on each attack, and I don't see anything about that build that grants more than 1 attack per standard action, and since you only get 1 standard action more than the other character...

Demons_eye
2009-08-21, 09:33 PM
Item Familiar. You also mentioned the Item Familiar.


Quick question: How much does a pearl of Power of a 7th level spell cost?

The answer may surprise you.

Either way, you'll miss out on nifty enchantments such as Wounding, Holy, etc.

I kinda find this funny because most of the DMs I played with let DDM stuff over Item Familiar/Custom Item.

If its a 9th level cleric just DMM the Chain use a Bead of karma and bam every one has a +3 weapon.

Bead of karma: 20,000, Pearl of Power 4th: 16,000 = 36,000 or 26,000 making it your self.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 09:38 PM
I kinda find this funny because most of the DMs I played with let DDM stuff over Item Familiar/Custom Item.

If its a 9th level cleric just DMM the Chain use a Bead of karma and bam every one has a +3 weapon.

Bead of karma: 20,000, Pearl of Power 4th: 16,000 = 36,000 or 26,000 making it your self.

I think you missed his point. His claim was that custom items and item familiar are cheese, the everyone having magic items isn't that big a deal.

Demons_eye
2009-08-21, 10:16 PM
You missed mine. I was saying DMM is more accepted with DM's I play with then custom items or Item Familiar. I just think Having 12 different spells up all day is more over powered then having a item of spellcraft +30

Emy
2009-08-21, 10:17 PM
5) He is not limited to 30 ft range like a rogue is due to sneak attack. His standard range is up to 50 feet before the uses of spells or items to boost it further. A simple 1st level wand of hawkeye increases his range by +50%. Gauntlets of Extended Range (MIC) for 2,000 gp makes your range increment double (+100%). Helm of the Hunter (MIC) for 9,000 gp gives you the far shot feat as well as other benefits, thus another +100%. So combine these two cheap effects for a total boost of 250%, or a range increase of feet 125 for a total range of 175 feet.


Distance is a real-world value, so it uses actual multiplication rather than D&D math.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 10:25 PM
You missed mine. I was saying DMM is more accepted with DM's I play with then custom items or Item Familiar. I just think Having 12 different spells up all day is more over powered then having a item of spellcraft +30

Well, a +30 spellcraft item leads directly to 12 Persisted spell in some circles.

But it's not +X to skill items that's the problem.

Doc Roc
2009-08-21, 10:31 PM
Font of Inspiration suggests that I get plenty of standard actions.

sofawall
2009-08-21, 10:33 PM
I'm not really seeing it at all since a (Some OA class 1)/Rogue 7/Iaijatsu master 5 would almost certainly do more damage on each attack, and I don't see anything about that build that grants more than 1 attack per standard action, and since you only get 1 standard action more than the other character...

Hee. Hee. Hee Hee Hee.

My 23 (at least?) standard actions disagree with you.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-21, 11:54 PM
So?

How is that problem with Iajitsu focus? Isn't that a problem with FoI cheese?

I mean, with 23 standard actions you can do 1000 damage without IF and that's enough to kill, oh yeah, everything.

Doc Roc
2009-08-22, 12:00 AM
Yes, but this lets you get by with a far more reasonable skill modifier for iaijatsu, meaning in turn greater viability across the board, and many similar advantages. Additionally, more standard actions is good kung-fu. I'm sorry that we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I have no stomach for an argument with you when the rules of the debate are fluid as mercury and just as poisonous.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 12:05 AM
"Factotum is good with iaijutsu."
"Naw, rogues do it better."
"Factotums get more actions for more damage."
"Factotums aren't good, FoI is good."

Hmm... I guess wizards are absolutely awful at battlefield control, it's the spells that are the real problem.

Doc Roc
2009-08-22, 12:10 AM
Hmm... I guess wizards are absolutely awful at battlefield control, it's the spells that are the real problem.

Actually, in a way.... you are correct...




:: Achievement Unlocked ::
Incidental Inspiration, 50 points


You have gained a measure of insight into the dark workings of gaming and the repair of large systems. Entirely by accident.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 12:24 AM
Well yes, but you know, wizard spells can only be used by wizards.

FoI can only be used by factotum.

The effectiveness of one has a direct impact on the effectiveness of the other.

The Glyphstone
2009-08-22, 12:33 AM
Well yes, but you know, wizard spells can only be used by wizards.

FoI can only be used by factotum.

The effectiveness of one has a direct impact on the effectiveness of the other.

Wizards...or to a lesser extent, sorcerers. Or Archivists with access to Domain scrolls. Or artificers with money to burn.

A sorcerer who spends all his spells known on battlefield control/SoD spells will be a kickass Batman/God Sorcerer, but he's still rendered inferior to the wizard because the wizard can choose to be something else tomorrow, while the sorc is for the most part stuck.

Doc Roc
2009-08-22, 12:35 AM
My sorcerers custom bind an /unstuck macro:
Limited wish->psychic reformation.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 12:45 AM
Well, I did never say Sorc/WIz. I recall saying Wizard spells.


:P

Kelpstrand
2009-08-22, 02:36 AM
Yes, but this lets you get by with a far more reasonable skill modifier for iaijatsu, meaning in turn greater viability across the board, and many similar advantages. Additionally, more standard actions is good kung-fu. I'm sorry that we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I have no stomach for an argument with you when the rules of the debate are fluid as mercury and just as poisonous.

Thank you for your incredibly weird and totally unjustified insult, but I'm seriously curious.

I mean, you people make the statement "Factotums are really good."

Then you switch to "Well if you have this 3.0 book and your DM let's you use a skill from it, you can totally be really good."

And then it's "Factotum 8/Iajistu Master 5 is brokenly awesome."

And then it's "Well, assuming you have 23 standard actions."

Yes, I can make a Wizard build that does elevendy billion damage, but that doesn't make every Wizard broken, it means the specific conflux of feats that bring about elevndy billion damage is broken.

If there was a class called Warmage, and it could totally get Spontaneous casting of the entire Cleric list by taking a prestige class, are people going to naturally assume that this is the case with all Warmages? No.

So why is it that literally every single factotum on this board ends up having a skill I've never heard of before and feat I had to google that doesn't even exist in a book?

How good is a factotum without Font of Inspiration or Iajitsu focus? Because the answer I'm getting from everyone's examples is: So terrible that no human being alive has ever played one.

arguskos
2009-08-22, 02:44 AM
How good is a factotum without Font of Inspiration or Iajitsu focus? Because the answer I'm getting from everyone's examples is: So terrible that no human being alive has ever played one.
As someone who's played them in a decently optimized party? Pretty decent. Definitely middle of the road, not INSANEZOMG powerful, but better than most core melee classes. The big issue Factotums have is they basically can't multiclass successfully, since nothing in the universe grants more Inspiration. Without Font, they are somewhat shoehorned into Factotum 20 if they want to keep up with the "I'm a jack of all trades" bit decently well. With Font, they can PrC into lots of fun stuff, and still get good utility out of Inspiration.

End story? They're good, but nothing insanely amazing. Don't bother getting up in arms about it.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 02:49 AM
Thank you for your incredibly weird and totally unjustified insult, but I'm seriously curious.

I mean, you people make the statement "Factotums are really good."

Then you switch to "Well if you have this 3.0 book and your DM let's you use a skill from it, you can totally be really good."

And then it's "Factotum 8/Iajistu Master 5 is brokenly awesome."

And then it's "Well, assuming you have 23 standard actions."

Yes, I can make a Wizard build that does elevendy billion damage, but that doesn't make every Wizard broken, it means the specific conflux of feats that bring about elevndy billion damage is broken.

If there was a class called Warmage, and it could totally get Spontaneous casting of the entire Cleric list by taking a prestige class, are people going to naturally assume that this is the case with all Warmages? No.

So why is it that literally every single factotum on this board ends up having a skill I've never heard of before and feat I had to google that doesn't even exist in a book?

How good is a factotum without Font of Inspiration or Iajitsu focus? Because the answer I'm getting from everyone's examples is: So terrible that no human being alive has ever played one.

They have every skill as class skills. They can get other classes abilities. They can cast spells. They get big int-synergy.

They are better than a rogue in almost every single way.

Connington
2009-08-22, 02:55 AM
So you wonder what a factotum tastes like served without cheese?

Pretty damn good actually. It can contribute to a group as well as a or better than rogue by simple intelligent use of spells. It's not going to outshine anyone at what they do like a druid or a cleric, but if a specialist isn't at hand, a Factotum does the job well enough. Very handy, since most parties have a role or a few subroles that aren't covered. And if your party is big enough that everything is covered, it's big enough that either a player or a character will be out of commission at any given time. If everything you want is covered at the moment, the factotum can just groove along helping out one of the characters, until a roadblock is hit.

To summarize, powerful without being overpowering. It's not my fondness for the class that says that, it's general consensus, go look up the tier system for example.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-22, 03:06 AM
Well the reason I say this is because I've DMed for more than one Factotum without either of those things, and found it to be pretty much on par with a rogue, significantly less useful in combat, a better skill monkey, and more versatile combat inputs.

It just gets annoying that everyone starts blabbing about the amazing super factotum for no reason I can discern, and it's apparently because everyone here regularly checks (and allows) Wizards web supplements and drags out old 3.0 books to make their factotum.

My Players are not consummate dumpster divers, so it just comes off as weird that it took 6 pages before anyone even mentioned the obscure sources they were using, and 7 to find out both of them. But yet apparently no one at all was talking about Factotums that didn't have access to these sources.

My players don't use any 3.0 books, and probably don't even know that web supplements exist, and I can't imagine that's even a weird state of events, since I've never felt the need to use a web supplement ever in the course of D&D, and the desire for 3.0 book material dropped drastically with the escalation of 3.5 material.

It's weird that apparently Factotums don't exist without 23 standard actions. The idea that something like that is actually considered part of the ranking in of the class in general play is odd to me, since I certainly didn't think Rainbow Servant Warmages or metacheese Wizards were a natural assumption when talking about those classes.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 03:34 AM
GAH!

Wizards (or sorcerers), in general play, do not break the game. Wizards (or sorcerers), in general play are powerful, but tend not to cast 200 spells using one spell slot, or deliver 600 negative levels using one spell slot.

Pun-Pun does not see general play. Hulking Madness does not see general play.

It does change the fact that they are ****ing powerful.

My gish, for instance, might not see play in your games. What sees play in your game might die in 2 rounds to an average encounter in my game, or heaven forbid Saph's or Tidesinger's games, which seem to be pretty deadly. Or, if not deadly, you need caution, skill, and a moderately optimized character.

This is what I am saying. You may run low power games. I run medium power games, I allow everything, but my players don't often optimize enough to make it an issue. Tidesinger, I know, runs a tough game. Mind Flayer Sorcerers at level 9 with a two person party is not what I call easy. However, for the expected power level (Iaijutsu/FoI factotum [me] and Tainted Scholar/Anima Mage [Tleilaxu_Ghola, from Gleemax]) this was about right. We were seriously inconvenienced, and it mainly came down to a fail fortitude save followed by Iaijutsu Madness.

But, again, it's all in the game. So don't go saying DMs won't allow it. I'll find one that does, and knows how to compensate. (EDIT: Within reason, generally, if it's banned from Test of Spite, on the boards, it's usually unsalvageable. Not all of it, but much.) Have some trust in your players to be powerful without breaking things.

EDIT: Also, how many times does it need to be said...

3.0 is allowed in 3.5 games!by default

Connington
2009-08-22, 03:38 AM
Huh, depends on how intelligently your player is using his factotum. Sure, Iaijistu gets brought up as an example of just how midblowing a factotum can be, but in the real world, they're still pretty cool. Just pick good spells, use skills in combat where possible, and grab whatever available feats that let you take advantage of your intelligence modifier. That's pretty much common sense, and it should let make a more powerful character than a Rogue, although not drastically.

For comparison, Rogues get sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge and trapsense. Factotums get Arcane spells and intelligence modifier as a bonus to strength and dexterity checks without using their main mechanical limiter. With it, they have the half a dozen nice options.

sofawall
2009-08-22, 03:43 AM
Alter Self is a nice pick for their spells, for instance.

Hida Reju
2009-08-22, 05:01 AM
I swear I have heard these same arguements one every D&D based forum when this class comes up.

Team 1 side - It's too powerful (but only if you focus on a narrow build using Item familiar, FoI, and Iaijutsu Focus)

Team 2 side - It's balanced and can do a little of everything replacing the slot for a skillmonkey.

Team 3 sdie - It's weaksauce and will never be anything more unless you do that one build that team 1 does.

My problem is that if you remove FoI it really drops in effectiveness regardless of any other items you allow.

Then if it does not have a super action economy trick it does a rogues job in combat but not as good or as often.

Next without something like Iaijutsu Focus it can not do as much damage as often as a rogue.

IMO if you have a special build with all the fixins then you get exactly what you set out to get. A character that is very powerful in its chosen idea and can still do a skillmonkey job.

If you just build one without those special feats/skills then you just get a better caliber of skill monkey that traded combat for massive skill bonuses and some Decent once a day SLA's.

hamishspence
2009-08-22, 05:33 AM
3.0 stuff is usually allowed, but as a rule some things need updating- prestige classes with skills that no longer exist (Innuendo, Intuit Direction, Read Lips)

Also, isn't the general rule, that if a 3.5 version exists of something, that version takes precedence- spell, class, prestige class, feat, etc?

Most of the important 3.0 books were updated to 3.5 at WOTC site- the Faerun books, the monster books, Epic Handbook, MotP, Deities and Demigods, etc.

Dragon 318 had the 3.5 update for Oriental adventures- didn't say Iaijutsu focus was removed, so in theory, if you have the book and can show it works the way you say it works, at the DM allows Oriental Adventures content, it should work

Doc Roc
2009-08-22, 05:59 AM
Kelpstrand:
The issue is that you insist I prove a thing, then insist I prove it without whatever I used to prove it. Factotums exist just fine without 23 standard actions. There was no need for hyperbole there. I've seen them in combat and they're just fine without it. What am I going to need to do to prove to you that they're pretty good, and very playable in most circumstances? To me, it seems like every argument I level just gets demonized.

There's a pretty big body of work about them being basically excellent on 339. A number of other posters have weighed in saying they've played them without cheese and it's great fun. I'm sorry I seem to keep upsetting you but...


My Players are not consummate dumpster divers, so it just comes off as weird that it took 6 pages before anyone even mentioned the obscure sources they were using, and 7 to find out both of them. But yet apparently no one at all was talking about Factotums that didn't have access to these sources.

I don't think this is merited. Sofawall is not a "dumpster diver." I'm not either. I don't know what to say except that I don't think I want to talk about this anymore.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-22, 06:18 AM
I tried playing a factotum in a core only game once and it didn't work at all.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-22, 07:59 AM
Actually, they are quite good even without Iaijutsu Focus, because of their skill set.

Factotum are blessed in having a caster level, and access to both Use Magic and Use Psionic Device. With their Arcane Dilettante ability, their "caster level" (which counts pretty much as a real caster level for all purposes), and their UMD, they make better wand and scroll users than a Rogue: they have the Int to distribute at least one point for UMD if considered necessary, and they don't need UMD at all to use the wands and scrolls since they are considered to have the spells on their list (their Arcane Dilettante ability allows them access to the spell list of a sorcerer/wizard, remember). You may use UMD if necessary for scrolls and wands of other classes (Cleric or Druid, for example; even the Artificer's wands and scrolls are open to them)

Furthermore, the fact that they can get UPD makes them good at doubling as psionics users. Get a dorje or psicrystal and use the charges/PP in them for whichever ability you desire. Since they might wish to invest a bit in Charisma, anything that enhances Charisma checks enhances UPD too, and they can get ranks on the proportion of 1:1, they can make some of the best UPD users, considering that there's few UPD users around (and Rogue, sadly, isn't one of them) Right there, they beat the Rogue in two of its capabilities (being the skill-monkey and the wand-based caster/dorje-based manifester)

Iaijutsu Focus was mostly found to be a quirk that could be applied mechanically, as it is a 3.0 skill that wasn't officially updated or eliminated, so it could still see play (depending on the DM, of course), and that served as a kind of Sneak Attack for the Factotum, who didn't had one. I could mention other skills that are either beneficial to the Factotum (Autohypnosis, for the huge amount of things that can handle, and the fact that it allows better self-stabilization), or just plain hilarious (Control Shape? Truenaming!? ...Well, you can actually use some Truenaming well with the feat and the Factotum's Int, while having a one day boost when necessary)

While it doesn't replace a Wizard in sheer power, the fact that you can use two of the most polarized skills out there (UMD/UPD) with a decent-to-high degree of usefulness is, if I may add, one great reason to play a Factotum.

Also, if that weren't enough, they make decent dips. A gish may enjoy having a level of Factotum, especially if it goes the Wizard/Eldritch Knight path, since it allows for the use of Int for a bigger load of things. For example, using Cunning Strike for a ranged touch attack.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-22, 10:58 AM
Also, people are forgetting that a Factotum adds 1d6+int mod+HD to his attacks, compared to the Rogues SA+HD. It's not as much, but it's enough in my experience to make the enemy avoid you, and it works much better for crit-builds.

Eldariel
2009-08-22, 11:19 AM
Factotums also make incredible use of Manyshot. With the extra Standard Action, that's extra 3-4 arrows, and thanks to Manyshot using a single attack roll, you can make the whole volley hit rather well. Then you get very decent damage thanks to being able to add Int to damage.

All this twice in round (or one Manyshot and one Rapid Shot, or more if you allow unlimited uses of the Cunning Surge). This makes Factotum one of the better archer characters in game, especially since they can also easily gain additional damage with their Int and indeed, are the only base class who gets a whole stat to ranged damage. They also make excellent candidates for Knowledge Devotion further developing this angle. They CAN Sneak Attack, but truly, their best feature is how amazingly they work at long range.


Now, to truly take advantage of this, you do need high stats (obviously high Int with decent Dex and Str to actually exceed the capabilities of standard archers), but it's doable on 32pb.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-22, 11:24 AM
It does change the fact that they are ****ing powerful.

Actually, that's precisely my point, I have not seen anything at all to indicate that Factotums without Font of Inspiration and Iajitsu Focus are '****ing powerful' in fact, from my experience they are very far from '****ing powerful.'


My gish, for instance, might not see play in your games. What sees play in your game might die in 2 rounds to an average encounter in my game, or heaven forbid Saph's or Tidesinger's games, which seem to be pretty deadly. Or, if not deadly, you need caution, skill, and a moderately optimized character.

I think that is very unlikely, since I've seen an example of Saph/Tidesingers (hybrid Test of Spite) game, and am in fact playing in a game with both of them starting tomorrow.

You gish may or may not be more powerful than characters in my games depending on what spells you have persisted. But I seriously doubt that Anthropomorphic Bat Druids and Dragonborn Fire Elf Elven Generalist Domain Wizards would die in two rounds to an average encounter in your games.


This is what I am saying. You may run low power games. I run medium power games, I allow everything, but my players don't often optimize enough to make it an issue.

I also allow everything I have access to except Incantatrix, DMM Persist, and metamagic cheese death rays. My players do optimize quite a bit within the extensive book collection we have between us.


So don't go saying DMs won't allow it.

I never said they wouldn't. I said that they are from obscure sources people are unlikely to possess or have knowledge about. I wish someone had been talking about Factotums with Dungeonscape + Core + Completes + Races, because that seems like a general set of books, or I really wish someone had clarified from page 1 that Factotums without Font of Inspiration and IF are a totally different much weaker animal, but they are going to talk about things using these two things that seriously boost power level.

That way I won't waste my time telling my players that Warmages are strong because they can spontaneously cast the entire Cleric list.


The issue is that you insist I prove a thing, then insist I prove it without whatever I used to prove it. Factotums exist just fine without 23 standard actions. There was no need for hyperbole there. I've seen them in combat and they're just fine without it. What am I going to need to do to prove to you that they're pretty good, and very playable in most circumstances? To me, it seems like every argument I level just gets demonized.

I'm not asking you to prove anything, you made the claim that Factotums are really powerful, you made the claim that Factotum 8/Iajistu Master 5 is a extremely broken build.

I questioned these conclusions because they seem very off the wall to me. I wish you had mentioned the fact that neither of those assertions is true without Font of Inspiration and/or IF. Then I would never have questioned them to begin with.

You don't have to do anything to prove that they are pretty good and very playable in most circumstances. That's what I said from the beginning. But others, such as you and sofawall have been lecturing me, not that they are pretty good and very playable, but that they are super amazing, really powerful, and sweet. Something that is not true without certain caveats that I had never even heard of.

At this point I made a post in which I expressed my frustration that most of this conversation was spent without anyone telling me about these things that make a huge difference to the power level of the character.

It's like if Shapeshifting Druid were the normal version and Wildshape + AC were in a different book as an ACF. If I went a long time discussing Druids with people, and they never even mentioned that they were assuming Wildshape, I would be frustrated.

I do not think that makes you bad people, or that your statements about powerful factotums are not true in the context of these abilities, I just expressed my desire that I had been informed of them earlier in the discussion.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-22, 11:27 AM
Factotums also make incredible use of Manyshot. With the extra Standard Action, that's extra 3-4 arrows, and thanks to Manyshot using a single attack roll, you can make the whole volley hit rather well. Then you get very decent damage thanks to being able to add Int to damage.

All this twice in round (or one Manyshot and one Rapid Shot, or more if you allow unlimited uses of the Cunning Surge). This makes Factotum one of the better archer characters in game, especially since they can also easily gain additional damage with their Int and indeed, are the only base class who gets a whole stat to ranged damage. They also make excellent candidates for Knowledge Devotion further developing this angle. They CAN Sneak Attack, but truly, their best feature is how amazingly they work at long range.

Indeed this is the standard Combat Factotum I have seen used in my games where my players are unaware of IF, and it is of relatively average power but very playable. They also don't know about Font of Inspiration, so they do not ever use Cunning Surge twice, and use it sparingly anyway, but other than that the build is very similar.

Xenogears
2009-08-22, 12:04 PM
I never said they wouldn't. I said that they are from obscure sources people are unlikely to possess or have knowledge about. I wish someone had been talking about Factotums with Dungeonscape + Core + Completes + Races, because that seems like a general set of books, or I really wish someone had clarified from page 1 that Factotums without Font of Inspiration and IF are a totally different much weaker animal, but they are going to talk about things using these two things that seriously boost power level.

See I find this amusing. The reason it is so funny to me is that I don't have ANY of the books you listed (I used to have the 3.0 monster manual and Players handbook but lost them. Never had the 3.0 DM's guide or any 3.5 books) but I DO have Oriental Adventures and am ALWAYS trying to find a way to get Iaijutsu Focus into a character. Like persuing through simple weapons to find a simple slashing weapon so even my VoP character can Iaijutsu focus.

Point is to me Oriental Adventures is a fairly common book for me to pull stuff out of but all the other books (ironically including Core) involve either the internet or borrowing from a friend. So just because those books are more familiar for you doesn't mean that they are for everyone. From my point of view someone who makes a build using all those books is "dumpster diving" more than someone who uses Iaijutsu Focus.

archerpwr
2009-08-22, 04:05 PM
See I find this amusing. The reason it is so funny to me is that I don't have ANY of the books you listed (I used to have the 3.0 monster manual and Players handbook but lost them. Never had the 3.0 DM's guide or any 3.5 books) but I DO have Oriental Adventures and am ALWAYS trying to find a way to get Iaijutsu Focus into a character. Like persuing through simple weapons to find a simple slashing weapon so even my VoP character can Iaijutsu focus.

Point is to me Oriental Adventures is a fairly common book for me to pull stuff out of but all the other books (ironically including Core) involve either the internet or borrowing from a friend. So just because those books are more familiar for you doesn't mean that they are for everyone. From my point of view someone who makes a build using all those books is "dumpster diving" more than someone who uses Iaijutsu Focus.
So, your rogues have Iaijutsu Focus as well? Remember, having 11 ranks instead of 23 ranks is seriously just 2 fewer dice tops.

Draz74
2009-08-22, 07:36 PM
How good is a factotum without Font of Inspiration or Iajitsu focus?

I'm a big fan of Factotums without these two sources of tricking.

They're a little bit weak in combat (unless you pull off other tricks, like the archery stuff Eldariel posted), but they're still the ultimate skill monkey out of combat, and can still be ok in combat if you actually think like the Factotum is supposed to and pull of creative stunts on a case-by-case basis (including using your spells sparingly but effectively).

archerpwr
2009-08-22, 11:02 PM
I'm a big fan of Factotums without these two sources of tricking.

They're a little bit weak in combat (unless you pull off other tricks, like the archery stuff Eldariel posted), but they're still the ultimate skill monkey out of combat, and can still be ok in combat if you actually think like the Factotum is supposed to and pull of creative stunts on a case-by-case basis (including using your spells sparingly but effectively).

So, the class that is good at magic tea party and trapspringing (aka summon elemental reserve feat), but bad at the minigame 90% of the rules are written for and has the biggest consequence for failure (TPK) is a good class? Or are you saying this from an emotional perspective and not a rational one?

PId6
2009-08-22, 11:17 PM
It just gets annoying that everyone starts blabbing about the amazing super factotum for no reason I can discern, and it's apparently because everyone here regularly checks (and allows) Wizards web supplements and drags out old 3.0 books to make their factotum.
Anthropomorphic Bats.

Frosty
2009-08-22, 11:18 PM
Factotums also make incredible use of Manyshot. With the extra Standard Action, that's extra 3-4 arrows, and thanks to Manyshot using a single attack roll, you can make the whole volley hit rather well. Then you get very decent damage thanks to being able to add Int to damage.

All this twice in round (or one Manyshot and one Rapid Shot, or more if you allow unlimited uses of the Cunning Surge). This makes Factotum one of the better archer characters in game, especially since they can also easily gain additional damage with their Int and indeed, are the only base class who gets a whole stat to ranged damage. They also make excellent candidates for Knowledge Devotion further developing this angle. They CAN Sneak Attack, but truly, their best feature is how amazingly they work at long range.


Now, to truly take advantage of this, you do need high stats (obviously high Int with decent Dex and Str to actually exceed the capabilities of standard archers), but it's doable on 32pb.

When you manyshot, you still need to spend an IP for *each arrow* to add bonus damage to each arrow right?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-22, 11:23 PM
I'm a big fan of Factotums without these two sources of tricking.

They're a little bit weak in combat (unless you pull off other tricks, like the archery stuff Eldariel posted), but they're still the ultimate skill monkey out of combat, and can still be ok in combat if you actually think like the Factotum is supposed to and pull of creative stunts on a case-by-case basis (including using your spells sparingly but effectively).I'm not sure the Factotum is weaker in-combat. Yes, they've got lower damage output(1d6+int mod+HD v. SA+HD as previously mentioned), but they can utelize a greater number of odd abilities to make it so they hit those attacks(if the Rogue misses his SA damage is 0), get extra attacks, or go first(which if done right also means going last). Not to mention that they can actually cast, get access to the niche skills(autohypnosis, UPD, IF, and the oft-maligned Truenaming, for starters), and in general get more options. Options are power in D&D, and the Rogue doesn't really have them.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-22, 11:36 PM
Truenaming

Actually, Factotums who take some of the (actually rather powerful) spells with a Truenaming component as their Arcane Dilettante spells actually have some really powerful tools at their disposal. Bulwark of reality, for instance, is a 1st level spell that gives +6 AC with no ACP that works against incorporeal attacks and lasts min/lev. Spurn the supernatural lets you suppress one or more of your target's supernatural abilities. Truename binding and lesser truename binding enslave extraplanar creatures for days at a time. It's just too bad they can't get their hands on unname.

Draz74
2009-08-22, 11:45 PM
So, the class that is good at magic tea party and trapspringing (aka summon elemental reserve feat), but bad at the minigame 90% of the rules are written for and has the biggest consequence for failure (TPK) is a good class? Or are you saying this from an emotional perspective and not a rational one?

Hostile much?

Yes, the Factotum is a well-designed class. No, it is not a perfectly-designed class. In a perfect world, I would like it to be slightly stronger in combat, but not in a way that would stack with the current possible cheeses of Iaijutsu Focus or Font of Inspiration abuse.

But I did say Factotum was a little weak in combat. Not super-weak. Not dysfunctional. A character that shines in the rest of the game, but can barely carry his weight in combat, is OK IMHO. At least in the kinds of campaigns I play in (where 90% would be too high of a figure for the amount of combat). And Trapspringing isn't really the point either. Social encounters, exploration, survival skills, intrigue, espionage, puzzle-solving ...

But hey, if it bothers you, then at least mechanically the class does have Iaijutsu to fall back on in combat. A serendipitous accident for the game designers.

The Factotum does interesting things with the game rules that no other class does, and does so in a way that makes it, in my experience, fun to play. So yeah, I guess to answer your final question, my opinion is from an emotional perspective. But hey, last I checked, the game was about emotional perspectives.

Eldariel
2009-08-23, 06:55 AM
When you manyshot, you still need to spend an IP for *each arrow* to add bonus damage to each arrow right?

It costs an IP to add it to a damage roll, so yeah.

archerpwr
2009-08-23, 01:53 PM
Hostile much?

Yes, the Factotum is a well-designed class. No, it is not a perfectly-designed class. In a perfect world, I would like it to be slightly stronger in combat, but not in a way that would stack with the current possible cheeses of Iaijutsu Focus or Font of Inspiration abuse.

But I did say Factotum was a little weak in combat. Not super-weak. Not dysfunctional. A character that shines in the rest of the game, but can barely carry his weight in combat, is OK IMHO. At least in the kinds of campaigns I play in (where 90% would be too high of a figure for the amount of combat). And Trapspringing isn't really the point either. Social encounters, exploration, survival skills, intrigue, espionage, puzzle-solving ...

But hey, if it bothers you, then at least mechanically the class does have Iaijutsu to fall back on in combat. A serendipitous accident for the game designers.

The Factotum does interesting things with the game rules that no other class does, and does so in a way that makes it, in my experience, fun to play. So yeah, I guess to answer your final question, my opinion is from an emotional perspective. But hey, last I checked, the game was about emotional perspectives.
I have no problem with liking stuff for emotional reasons. Personally, I like warblades. I just wanted to make sure that's what you were talking about.