"The Bard is Supposed to do a Little Bit of Everything."

[Zovc]

I was eating lunch with a friend last weekend, we were catching up. He was telling me about one of the campaigns he was running back home, and how he wants to start running one that is actually relatively local for me.

I'm quite excited to be able to play Dungeons and Dragons, as I'm not a capable DM myself, and there is not enough interest to get a game started where I live. I do read splatbooks for entertainment, and have read the core rulebooks (3rd Edition and 3.5) quite a few times (admittedly, I haven't read the Monster Manual cover to cover, but it's more of a catalog than the other books). Of the classes I've come across, I like the Factotum the most.

I remember seeing a thread about Factotums recently when I glanced over here maybe a week ago, but I didn't get a chance to read it through. Nevertheless, I brought up the Factotum to my friend (remembering how he said he hates the class), saying I had read it recently, and it definitely didn't seem broken (as he felt it was). I pointed out that the class mechanically fits its flavor of, "Oh, the wizard didn't to prepare spell X, I'll cast it," I think that's what he has a problem with. I personally like being versatile, the jack of all trades, master of none type. My friend says that's what the Bard is for; in other words, he thinks the Bard is what the Factotum should be (at least, that's what I took from it).

Personally, I think this is a failing of the Bard's design, the Bard doesn't have a particular role of his own (from my own understanding)--so he just does everything. This feels wrong to me, as I don't think the concept of a bard is "guy who does everything." I have no objections to Bardic Knowledge, but why does the bard cast spells? Why can't the bard do more cool stuff with music/performance, like he should be able to?

What do you think? Is the Bard a balanced Factotum? Should the Bard play like a factotum? Is the Factotum too good at everything for being able to do so much?

Also, consider that this DM has told me that the fighter is a strong class. (Not that I want to discuss this, it's just my lurking has led me to believe this is far from the popular opinion.) He thinks Core DnD is balanced without having to add splatbooks.

[Catch]

Some would say the Factotum is a balanced Bard. It's better at being Jack, where the Bard has its own niche.

The best Bards, though, pick one or two things and specialize. I've played blaster Bards, gish bards, skill monkeys, etc. Rarely do I see a generalist Bard, so the Factotum is preferable if you're ADD about where you want to excel.

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding why Bards have magic, in (I think) the 1st Edition, to become one you had to be a Druid with levels in at least 1 other class and they were based more on Celtic Bards then anything (hence their access to cure magic and knowledge abilities). As far as the idea that they are supposed to do a bit of everything, I agree with this assesment due to their design. I've heard that Factotums can be neat but they often need to spend all of their feats on Font of Inspiration to get enough Inspiration Points to be useful consistantly if I remember correctly. I think a couple of people here have made magicless Bards (I'll try to find information on them).

[Zaydos]

I've never played a factotum, so I can't make an informed judgment on their balance, but I've tried a few bards. Personally I found that they weren't very effective as a jack of all trades but instead functioned well to buff allies with bardic music. Honestly I think factotums work better as a jack of all trades, but I haven't read them through recently. Even so I'll have to stat one out tomorrow.
Part of me wants to say they were a better jack of all trades in 2nd than in 3rd because they had slightly reduced thief abilities and wizard spells and could fight as well as a thief which was almost as good as a cleric and you could wield any weapon. In addition you leveled faster than anybody but thieves. I never played a bard in 2nd edition, though, instead going elven fighter/mage.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I know very little about the Factotum class. I've homebrewed a fix for the Bard class (which adds a bunch of the features from the d20 Modern Charismatic Hero class in place of some of the Bardic Music features), but I doubt that is what the OP is after as it makes the Bard more "talky man" and specialised.
To the OP: Let me know if you do want to look it over - as it's all from "core" d20 game books (allbeit from different games), your DM might accept it.


Also, consider that this DM has told me that the fighter is a strong class. (Not that I want to discuss this, it's just my lurking has led me to believe this is far from the popular opinion.) He thinks Core DnD is balanced without having to add splatbooks.

The fighter is a powerful class, you just have to play them right. In the game I'm running at the moment, with PCs from 11th to 13th, the fighter/barbarian is the party's killing machine. In one encounter, he took out all six bad guys in the first two rounds, before the rest of the party had dealt any damage.
He's stacked up Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation and the rest so that he's generally adding 20 to his multiple damage dice. And he almost always hits, multiple times.

In my experience of running D&D the last 25 years, if you let the wizards or other casters rest up all the time, then they are super powerful and the game gets busted. So you never let the party rest easy. You always have encounters ready for them - realistic encounters that mean something, not just random stuff pulled out of the Wandering Monster tables.
As long as the casters aren't blasting off all their spells and then resting every other encounter, your Core Classes from the big three books are pretty well balanced (with maybe a tweak to the monk and bard).

I just mention this - not to start a debate, cause the OP didn't want that - to suggest that maybe the DM the OP has been talking with is of the same school.

[ZeroNumerous]

A generalist bard doesn't try to do everything, he just plugs the gaps in the party and buffs what the party already does well. Lets say you have a party consisting of a rogue, a conjurer wizard(banned illusion and enchantment), a warblade and a swordsage. Well, obviously your party is missing healing. A generalist bard would pick up Dragonfire Inspiration to capitalize on the parties high melee concentration, learn the Lesser Vigor spell and pick up a wand of that spell. He'll then want to pick up Snowflake Wardance and stand in the back of the line to intercept anyone that makes it past the warblade/swordsage/rogue.

Further, the Factotum is in no way broken as is. It's only breakable when you're able to take Font of Inspiration for every single feat, put ranks in Iaijutsu, quick draw a new dagger every attack and just pile on enough d6s of damage to embarrass most rogues. And even then you're still merely doing damage.


I just mention this - not to start a debate, cause the OP didn't want that - to suggest that maybe the DM the OP has been talking with is of the same school.

Except this will start a debate. Might I suggest moving it to another thread so as not to derail this one?

[Zovc]

Further, the Factotum is in no way broken as is. It's only breakable when you're able to take Font of Inspiration for every single feat, put ranks in Iaijutsu, quick draw a new dagger every attack and just pile on enough d6s of damage to embarrass most rogues. And even then you're still merely doing damage.

So, how many feats can you invest in Font of Inspiration without breaking the Factotum? Every other feat?

[Boci]

So, how many feats can you invest in Font of Inspiration without breaking the Factotum? Every other feat?

Well you can only take it a number of times equal to your inteligence modifier, so as many times as you like.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I'm confused as to why this is in Homebrew Design.