Understand the Factotum [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JaronK

2010-09-23, 04:40 AM

RebelRogue

2010-09-23, 04:40 AM

You can do a 4e method and requre a 5 minute rest to recharge them out of battle maybe?
FWIW, that's the way I see it.

Greenish

2010-09-23, 05:08 AM

So how do inspiration points work? and why do they come back so fast? Seems as though this class has far more options than the standard 3.5 classDepends on your definition of "the standard 3.5 class". They have more options than the fighter, yeah (who doesn't?) but less than a wizard.

They're brimming with options, but for most part none of those options are too strong. (Extra actions when stacked to teeth with Fonts of Inspiration can be a bother, and they gain a few spells as JaronK mentioned.)

hamishspence

2010-09-23, 05:11 AM

FWIW, that's the way I see it.

I think Tome of Battle has something similar- encounter powers, but sometimes they can be recharged faster.

Monsters with manuevers, but not martial classes, get them "once per encounter" and I think it takes 5 minutes to renew them outside of combat.

shadow_archmagi

2010-09-23, 08:05 AM

So how do inspiration points work? and why do they come back so fast? Seems as though this class has far more options than the standard 3.5 class

thanks

Well, yeah, the factotum's gig is "I have way more options"

Now, he can't necessarily do it BETTER than everyone else, but he can certainly try. Favorite factotum moment:

GUARD: Hey get away from there!
ME: "I'm just standing by the wall. It's 10 feet high and can't be climbed. What am I going to do, suddenly leap over it?"
GUARD: Well I-
OTHER PLAYER: I make a break for the gates and run.
DM: what's your land speed
OTHER PLAYER: a lot
DM: OK, you escape
ME: I cast Jump, giving me a +20 bonus to jump. My INT gives me another 5, and my factotum level contributes some more. I roll a 15. That's enough to hop the wall.
GUARD: Son of a ----- he actually did it

Darkfire

2010-09-23, 08:16 AM

I think Tome of Battle has something similar- encounter powers, but sometimes they can be recharged faster.

Tome of Battle's manoeuvres can all be recovered during an encounter providing your class(es)/feat(s) provide a recovery mechanism*. Whether the encounter lasts long enough and you have the time to do so is another matter. The restriction is that you can't have the same manoeuvre prepared more than once and that it takes 5 minutes of exercise/meditation/prayer to change your prepared manoeuvres (unless you take Adaptive Style).

Monsters with manuevers, but not martial classes, get them "once per encounter" and I think it takes 5 minutes to renew them outside of combat.
There're a couple of feats that would allow these monsters to increase their usage but, without martial adept class levels, chances are it wouldn't ever be to more than twice per encounter.

*Warblades can recover all of their expended manoeuvres with a swift action providing that they use their standard for the round to either do nothing or make a single attack and do not initiate a manoeuvre/change stance in the same round; Swordsages can recover one expended manoeuvre by taking a full-round action (unless they take Adaptive Style which allows recovery of all expended manoeuvres as a full-round action); Crusaders have additional issues as their manoeuvres have two additional states to prepared and expended (withheld and granted) but they don't have to spend an action recovering manoeuvres at the expense of having less control over when expended ones become ready to use (granted) again.

Greenish

2010-09-23, 08:21 AM

*Warblades can recover all of their expended manoeuvres with a swift action providing that they use their standard for the round to either do nothing or make a single attack and do not initiate a manoeuvre/change stance in the same roundAccording to popular interpretation, they also have the option of full attacking.

jiriku

2010-09-23, 08:25 AM

So how do inspiration points work? and why do they come back so fast? Seems as though this class has far more options than the standard 3.5 class

thanks

For some reason it seems that he cannot use the inspiration points out side of combat - is this right

- To represent this seemingly random body of knowledge,
a factotum gains inspiration points that he can spend to
activate his abilities. At the beginning of each encounter,
he gains a number of inspiration points determined by
his level (see Table 1–1).

They're definitely usable outside of combat. Factotum has got quite a few options, but I can think of 6-8 classes offhand (most of them core) that have more.

Starbuck_II

2010-09-23, 08:35 AM

According to popular interpretation, they also have the option of full attacking.

I disagree with that one. It says a single attack not multiple.

Greenish

2010-09-23, 08:44 AM

I disagree with that one. It says a single attack not multiple.Well, it says that the swift action must be immediately followed by a melee attack, but it doesn't forbid full attacking:

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon).It is, as I said, subject to interpretation.

Beheld

2010-09-23, 09:03 AM

An "encounter" is any time you as a player control your character. For example, if the DM says "you walk into town, what do you do?" that's an encounter. If you say "I go to the weapons store" when you enter the store that's likely a new encounter. You detect a trap? New encounter. The only times you're not in an encounter are when you're sitting back while the DM is telling you stuff, such as telling you about the sea voyage you're on or whatever.

Encounter is a little loosely defined, but generally speaking if you solve the set up of the encounter the encounter is now over, and if you want to do anything else a new encounter begins.

So yes, you can use Inspiration Points very freely outside of combat (since generally speaking outside of combat you can start and end encounters whenever you want.

This is incredibly incorrect on so many levels.

The DMG never explicitly defines encounters, but it does say the following things about them:

1) PCs are expected to face four encounters a day on average.
2) Encounters grants XP.
3) "Each individual encounter is like it's own game-with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

So no, and encounter is not "every time you control your character." Entering a town is not an encounter unless you are prevented from entering town for some reason, and have to bypass some obstacle.

Hell, by your definition "I control my character this round, and next round, I also control my character, so it's actually inspiration points per round!"

The times you are not in an encounter include any time there is no obstacle to doing what you are doing.

Of course, the Factotum is a poorly written class for a number of reasons, and the fact that is talks about encounters, which are purposefully undefined, instead of doing what ToB did for everyone except the Crusader and specifically defining what action resets maneuvers, is just one more reason, to add to the already large pile of reasons that any DM should houserule the Factotum out of it's messy worded status.

Esser-Z

2010-09-23, 09:05 AM

Re:Warblade

A full attack after recovery fulfills the condition "must be followed by a melee attack". There is no further condition stating what can or cannot come after that melee attack, nor is there a condition stating it must be a standard action attack. Do not be confused by the mention of standard action here. It comes after the or and refers only to spending an action to do nothing, no more.

Person_Man

2010-09-23, 09:05 AM

Factotum is sorta a 3.75 class. As 3.0 and 3.5 developed, people started to realize that most important unit of balance was how many resources you could expend in a round and in an encounter (as opposed to how many attacks you had, or how many resources you could expend in a game day). Thus Free Actions were generally replaced Swift and Immediate Actions, and more classes were written with At-Will, Per Encounter, and cool-down (once every 5 rounds, once every 1d4 rounds, etc) abilities.

Of course, this only works as a balancing mechanism if every class is written that way. Thus 4E was born.

Draz74

2010-09-23, 10:51 AM

Of course, the Factotum is a poorly written class for a number of reasons,

So sad but so true ... :smallfrown:

It's a very well-designed class. Yet somehow manages to also be a very poorly-written class. The number of rules ambiguities in the Arcane Dilettante class feature alone ... :smallsigh:

Fortunately, it seems like it's not very much work for a sensible DM to make a sensible ruling on each ambiguity, and have the class actually work out pretty easily.

Pechvarry

2010-09-23, 02:33 PM

This is incredibly incorrect on so many levels.

The DMG never explicitly defines encounters, but it does say the following things about them:

1) PCs are expected to face four encounters a day on average.
2) Encounters grants XP.
3) "Each individual encounter is like it's own game-with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

So no, and encounter is not "every time you control your character." Entering a town is not an encounter unless you are prevented from entering town for some reason, and have to bypass some obstacle.

Hell, by your definition "I control my character this round, and next round, I also control my character, so it's actually inspiration points per round!"

The times you are not in an encounter include any time there is no obstacle to doing what you are doing.

All of which was written before the concept of "per encounter" was born (see Person_Man's post). For all intents and purposes, just mentally insert the word "combat" before every occurrence of the word "encounter" in the DMG bit.

The Sage used what JaronK's talking about as a decent rule of thumb for adjudicating inspiration points. Not RAW, but when there simply IS no RAW...

EDIT:

Unless otherwise noted, a skill trick can be performed only once per encounter (or once per minute, for scenes that don't involve combat or conflict).

I quote this bit for 2 reasons: 1) If you don't like Jaron's method, once/minute out of combat works OK too. 2) Note the bolded part. Apparently it's worth noting that such a thing as conflict exists without combat. This is crucial because skill tricks are once/encounter, but many of them are for social scenarios and such. Sneaking through a hallway with a guard around the corner could be considered a conflict.

It seems a decent rule of thumb to port over to maneuvers and inspiration points.

Finally, succeeding on any sort of roll is overcoming an obstacle in D&D. So bring on the ambiguity.

JaronK

2010-09-23, 02:45 PM

This is incredibly incorrect on so many levels.

The DMG never explicitly defines encounters, but it does say the following things about them:

1) PCs are expected to face four encounters a day on average.
2) Encounters grants XP.
3) "Each individual encounter is like it's own game-with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

So no, and encounter is not "every time you control your character." Entering a town is not an encounter unless you are prevented from entering town for some reason, and have to bypass some obstacle.

No, I'm correct. The problem here is that when the rules or scenarios say "encounter" they usually mean "combat encounter" or "trap encounter" but dealing with a merchant is also an encounter. If you stop by the side of the road to craft an item quickly using Fabricate, that's an encounter (probably a short one, but something happened, so it counts). Any time your PC is interacting with the world, you're doing an encounter.

Here's the FAQ on the topic, btw:

"Can a factotum (Dungeonscape, page 14) use his
"cunning insight" to boost his save outside of combat (for
example, against a poison trap)?
Yes, you can use such abilities outside of combat. An
"encounter" is more than a combat, but it also includes any
other significant event in the game such as stopping to bash
down a door, navigating a rickety bridge, or dealing with a trap.
If the characters have a minute or two to catch their breath and
rest, assume that the last encounter has ended and all per
encounter abilities refresh."

As you can see, any significant event is an encounter. I used the phrasing "when you control your character" because if you're interacting with the environment, that's a significant event. The key thing you're missing is that you have to take a break between encounters (a minute or two is the defined amount) to make it a new encounter. During that minute, you're not really controlling your character directly... the DM is skipping forward and you're not doing anything. If you're still actively doing something (dodging enemies, hiding from an enemy, casting a long casting time spell, whatever) then you're still in the same encounter and your per encounter abilities won't refresh.

The FAQ does have a lot on Factotums by the way. It's worth looking over.

JaronK

jiriku

2010-09-23, 02:46 PM

BumblingDM

2010-09-23, 02:57 PM

so when you guys say the Factotum is poorly written - what do you mean? and how would you fix it?

Incorrect

2010-09-23, 03:00 PM

Would once per minute, or per five minutes seem balanced?
I guess you could use Cunning Knowledge on each skill, once each day, but would be a problem at all?

Oh, and by the way, where does it say that that you cant save the IP? Is there a limit? A time frame?
I know its broken and stupid, but RAW?

Kobold-Bard

2010-09-23, 03:20 PM

so when you guys say the Factotum is poorly written - what do you mean? and how would you fix it?
The term encounter is badly defined outside of combat, which lead to threads like this.

Would once per minute, or per five minutes seem balanced?
I guess you could use Cunning Knowledge on each skill, once each day, but would be a problem at all?

Oh, and by the way, where does it say that that you cant save the IP? Is there a limit? A time frame?
I know its broken and stupid, but RAW?

You get a certain amount for each encounter. Meaning if a new encounter comes up you have that amount again, resetting rather than cumulating.

JaronK

2010-09-23, 05:36 PM

I recall reading in the DMG (although this may have been 2e) that an "encounter" is a situation in which players interact with NPCs or the environment, and experience a reasonable chance of failure. If players are planning what to do amongst themselves, or PvPing their own party members, that's not an encounter. If players are purchasing mundane gear from an NPC merchant and not attempting to haggle, or 20th level characters are slaughtering 1st-level goblins, that's not an encounter. But if characters are searching a murder scene for clues, scouting the wilderness to find the source of a plume of smoke they viewed from miles away, or trying to convince the cantankerous archmage to cast divinations for them, all of these things are encounters.

Right, but if you're using any skill there's a chance at failure (unless you would have succeeded on a 1) so when we're talking about the Factotum's ability to boost skills once per encounter, any situation where they'd want to do so is an encounter. The same is true of the Factotum boosting their saves vs a trap or something.

And yes, "encounter" needs a better definition, which is why I use the one I used above. If the PCs are trying to do anything, it's an encounter. The bigger question is when one encounter ends and another begins, but the guideline seems to be that if you could just stop for a minute and not do anything without something else forcing you to act, that's going to be a break in between encounters.

As for saving the IPs, it talks about that in the very same FAQ I quoted above. IPs refresh... they don't stack up.

There's nothing unbalanced about the Factotum being able to use their once per day per skill boost relatively rapidly and not running out of inspiration points doing so when out of combat. That's just how they work.

JaronK

Beheld

2010-09-23, 09:03 PM

so when you guys say the Factotum is poorly written - what do you mean? and how would you fix it?

A number of issues. First: 1) Lots of their abilities either are questionable, or are worded to do something different than what you might think they should.

Can a Factotum gain multiple d6 of SA by spending multiple IP?

Wholly crap, 30% of Arcane Dilettante is argued about differently by everyone.

Your level 1 Factotum enters a combat, (thus an encounter) and gains X IP. He then doesn't use it. Then he enters another encounter, and gains X more IP. Now he has 2X IP. WTF! But that's the actual RAW. Most DMs of course nerf this somehow.

What is an encounter? Well, it's actually undefined. There are lots of ways to define encounter, and none of them actually help. Compare that to classes like the Swordsage, who have X maneuvers readied, and then can regain them with a specific action.

Lots of abilities are capped in uses per day. For a class that pays for them by encounter. That's dumb. Just let the Factotum have infinite uses of +Factotum level to skill a day.

Special Bonus bad wording: FoI the feat Factotums suck without, is also poorly worded, and can equally be interpreted in several correct ways, some of which are good, some of which are dumb, and some of which are really dumb, but all of which are equally correct as per the English language.

How would I fix all that? Change the mechanics.

1) Change it to "maximum pool of IP equal to X." that he expends points from, and can replenish with a minute of downtime. There, problem solved.

2) Change the number an power of IP so that there is no need for FoI, and then get rid of it, because it's a dumb idea.

3) Give him fewer and possibly no per day limits. Change any limits I might want to per encounter.

No, I'm correct. The problem here is that when the rules or scenarios say "encounter" they usually mean "combat encounter" or "trap encounter" but dealing with a merchant is also an encounter. If you stop by the side of the road to craft an item quickly using Fabricate, that's an encounter (probably a short one, but something happened, so it counts). Any time your PC is interacting with the world, you're doing an encounter.

...

As you can see, any significant event is an encounter. I used the phrasing "when you control your character" because if you're interacting with the environment, that's a significant event. The key thing you're missing is that you have to take a break between encounters (a minute or two is the defined amount) to make it a new encounter. During that minute, you're not really controlling your character directly... the DM is skipping forward and you're not doing anything. If you're still actively doing something (dodging enemies, hiding from an enemy, casting a long casting time spell, whatever) then you're still in the same encounter and your per encounter abilities won't refresh.

No, every significant event, and every time your character takes an action, is not an encounter. An encounter can only exist when a chance of failure exists. Walking through town is not an encounter, many encounters could occur from diplomacy to buying things to a demon porting in, but the act of picking a location in town, and walking there is not an encounter.

You are attempting to first determine what the most sensible way for Factotum inspiration to work is, and then backwards define that as an encounter. Nope. Sorry, encounter exists to talk about more things than factotums, the DMG is explicit that you face approximately four encounters a day. You should control your characters more than four times per 24 hours of game time.

I mean, you seriously just decided to declare that when the rules talk about encounters, they aren't really talking about encounters, and that's why you are right and the actual rules are wrong about the definition of encounter.

Draz74

2010-09-23, 09:28 PM

A number of issues. First: 1) Lots of their abilities either are questionable, or are worded to do something different than what you might think they should.

Can a Factotum gain multiple d6 of SA by spending multiple IP?

Wholly crap, 30% of Arcane Dilettante is argued about differently by everyone.

Yeah ... that's a small look at parts of the issue.

You can argue about what an encounter is, obviously. You can argue about how Cunning Strike works (and why it's so terrible anyway), and which Sneak Attack-based feats it allows you to qualify for (if any). In fact, you can expand that to argue about whether the Factotum qualifies for feats based on several abilities, none of which he has constantly, but which he can gain temporarily by using his class features. (Sneak Attack and Turn Undead are the main ones, though. And spellcasting ...) You can argue about whether Brains over Brawn was intended to apply to Initiative checks (although by RAW, it certainly does).

Arcane Dilettante in particular is a breeding ground of no end of confusion. When does it count as a spell-like ability, and when does it count as spellcasting? RAW only calls it a spell-like ability ... but then, it contradicts that by saying it can be combined with normal metamagic feats. So, how far does that principle extend? Does it work with metamagic rods? How about runestaves and other items from MIC that let you cast a specific spell by expending a prepared spell or spell slot? (Because Arcane Dilettante does actually say something about preparing a spell, incidentally.)

On the whole, there are just way too many things in the Factotum's description that should have been clarified, a lot.

Your level 1 Factotum enters a combat, (thus an encounter) and gains X IP. He then doesn't use it. Then he enters another encounter, and gains X more IP. Now he has 2X IP. WTF! But that's the actual RAW. Most DMs of course nerf this somehow.
So does the FAQ, for what it's worth.

Lots of abilities are capped in uses per day. For a class that pays for them by encounter. That's dumb. Just let the Factotum have infinite uses of +Factotum level to skill a day.
No, actually, I think this is a good element of the class. Yeah, per-day abilities are annoying ... but the Factotum only has such limitations on class features that could potentially be game-breaking if they were purely per-encounter. I agree with the per-day limit on Cunning Knowledge, Opportunistic Piety, and Arcane Dilettante.

Hmmm, I guess I wouldn't mind if Cunning Brilliance lost its per-day limitation, though. (Although it should have some clarifications to limit it, too. It obviously wasn't intended to temporarily give your Factotum the Spellcasting ability of a Level 15 Beguiler. :smallsigh:)

Special Bonus bad wording: FoI the feat Factotums suck without, is also poorly worded, and can equally be interpreted in several correct ways, some of which are good, some of which are dumb, and some of which are really dumb, but all of which are equally correct as per the English language.

Huh, I'm not actually familiar with rules/interpretation debates about Font of Inspiration.

For the record, the Factotum doesn't really suck without this feat. He's still Low Tier 3, or mid-Tier 3 if you rely on various Iaijutsu Focus tricks. FoI just brings him up to High Tier 3 (and makes him a lot more boring to play IMO).

1) Change it to "maximum pool of IP equal to X." that he expends points from, and can replenish with a minute of downtime. There, problem solved.
Agreed!

2) Change the number an power of IP so that there is no need for FoI, and then get rid of it, because it's a dumb idea.
Agreed again! Well, mostly. IP should only be increased a little bit. Actually, what I prefer is, Font of Inspiration should still exist, but you should only be able to take it once. And the number of IP it grants should scale with level.

Even with this homebrew version of FoI, though, the Factotum shouldn't be ending up with anything crazy like 50 IP per encounter at L20. It's easy to get carried away with large amounts like that ... and forget how powerful the Factotum's abilities truly are, if applied cleverly and opportunistically. Giving the Factotum oodles of IP is the lazy player's method ... and the Factotum is meant to be a cleverly-played class who has to be careful how and when he uses his resources.

Beheld

2010-09-23, 10:31 PM

So does the FAQ, for what it's worth.

Yes, because it's clearly not what they meant to write, and the FAQ is all about issuing stealth errata that isn't really errata.

Huh, I'm not actually familiar with rules/interpretation debates about Font of Inspiration.

Short answer:

1) The fact that it give 1 IP the first time and two the second and one more each time after that doesn't actually mean it grants 3 then 4.

It could actually mean that it grants one, then two that is inclusive of the one, then three that is inclusive of the two and one.

IE, just like a Wizard that takes Extra spell gins one extra slot, and the second time he takes it, he get's two extra slots.

2) Technically speaking, an Factotum gains IP each encounter, and then can spend it. But the FoI feat doesn't say "The amount of IP you gain at the start of each encounter is increased by one." It says "You gain one IP."

That means, explicit RAW, taking the feat gives you one IP, but after you spend it, at the beginning of the next encounter, you don't gain more IP than an Factotum without FoI, you gain the same amount.

This is clearly the most RAW interpretation of the feat, and yet, it is also the obviously dumbest, and should never be used, because taking the feat would be the dumbest thing you could ever do under that rule, worse than Toughness.

For the record, the Factotum doesn't really suck without this feat. He's still Low Tier 3, or mid-Tier 3 if you rely on various Iaijutsu Focus tricks. FoI just brings him up to High Tier 3 (and makes him a lot more boring to play IMO).

For the record, I do not rate a class based on how well it arbitrarily fits a set of generic statements, I rate things based on their usefulness and their power. The Factotum without FoI is not as useful as most other classes (that are worth playing) and is not as powerful as those classes. So without FoI, it sucks (according to the standards by which I judge things).

Agreed again! Well, mostly. IP should only be increased a little bit. Actually, what I prefer is, Font of Inspiration should still exist, but you should only be able to take it once. And the number of IP it grants should scale with level.

1) I didn't say I'd increase IP a lot. Primarily, I would change the IP number to be higher to start with, scale a smaller percent of itself (though the absolute value would probably be higher) and increase the cost of "Extra standard action" to encourage the use of other abilities.

2) If you make FoI only takable once, and granting IP, then you just add a magic one feat tax to all Factotums compared to just increasing the IP as if all Factotums had FoI, and letting them take other feats.

jiriku

2010-09-23, 10:50 PM

2) If you make FoI only takable once, and granting IP, then you just add a magic one feat tax to all Factotums compared to just increasing the IP as if all Factotums had FoI, and letting them take other feats.

However, there is value in having the customization option of being able to spend a feat to have more IP than a typical factotum. The trick will be to scale the IP granted so that it's enough to be worth a feat to someone who wants to focus on liberal use of IP, but not so much as to be a no-brainer feat for anyone playing a factotum. Ideally the choice ought to be power-neutral with several other feat options that are of use to a factotum, so the player is presented with a meaningful choice.

Draz74

2010-09-23, 10:52 PM

Yes, because it's clearly not what they meant to write, and the FAQ is all about issuing stealth errata that isn't really errata.
Right.

For the record, I do not rate a class based on how well it arbitrarily fits a set of generic statements, I rate things based on their usefulness and their power. The Factotum without FoI is not as useful as most other classes (that are worth playing) and is not as powerful as those classes. So without FoI, it sucks (according to the standards by which I judge things).
The Tier system is a useful shorthand because it summarizes what you prefer to call "usefulness and power."

Your game, your mileage. But I've seen Factotums be pretty awesometastic without FoI. For example, if you've never read the SilverClawShift campaign journals, you should. Their Kobold Factotum was incredible.

1) I didn't say I'd increase IP a lot.
No, you didn't. But other times that I've discussed this issue, most people want a lot more. For other readers' benefit, I was clarifying.

2) If you make FoI only takable once, and granting IP, then you just add a magic one feat tax to all Factotums compared to just increasing the IP as if all Factotums had FoI, and letting them take other feats.
True, unless (1) the Factotum gains enough IP without the feat to be reasonably playable, and (2) the FoI feat gives an amount of IP that is valuable, but not a large enough amount to be a no-brainer, and (3) the Factotum has other good choices of feats to take. (3) is obviously the case.

Beheld

2010-09-23, 11:46 PM

The Tier system is a useful shorthand because it summarizes what you prefer to call "usefulness and power."

No, it really doesn't, that was kinda my point. It values a whole lot of things that aren't usefulness or power.

True, unless (1) the Factotum gains enough IP without the feat to be reasonably playable, and (2) the FoI feat gives an amount of IP that is valuable, but not a large enough amount to be a no-brainer, and (3) the Factotum has other good choices of feats to take. (3) is obviously the case.

I don't think it's even possible to balance an amount of IP from a feat such that it's not a gimmie feat or a never take feat. All classes trend away from usefulness with successive feats. The very best you could hope for is that at levels 1-X, no Factotum takes the feat, and at levels X-20 all Factotums do.

And that's if you perform a feat of balancing that is a miracle.

Look at Extra Slot. No one ever takes it. And yet, if you scale it up, people still won't take it, until it reaches a point where people automatically always take it.

Tyndmyr

2010-09-23, 11:51 PM

Look at Extra Slot. No one ever takes it. And yet, if you scale it up, people still won't take it, until it reaches a point where people automatically always take it.

Extra Slot serves a very useful purpose. Only in E6, but there it is a balanced, viable choice. Only after pumping your casting stat moderately, sure, but you'll hit a point where you're effectively capped on available slots, and more is always nice.

In an actual game? Meh. It'll be made redundant by the gains from next time you level, and it will quickly fade it value as slots become plentiful.

It IS extremely hard to balance static increases against non-linear scaling class benefits, though. It's even worse when it's ALSO a non static increase, like with FoI. Once you start taking them, it's hard to stop.

Pechvarry

2010-09-24, 12:56 AM

I always felt Font of Inspiration should simply be something like +2 IP, unable to take it multiple times, and a req for a 2nd feat that gives you the ability to spend an action to recover some points. How many and what kind of action? dunno. Just make sure there's a caveat about being unable to use IP in the round in which you're refreshing.

JaronK

2010-09-24, 02:30 AM

A number of issues. First: 1) Lots of their abilities either are questionable, or are worded to do something different than what you might think they should.

Can a Factotum gain multiple d6 of SA by spending multiple IP?

Luckily, this was clarified by the FAQ (the answer is yes). Of course, since Cunning Strike mostly sucks, it doesn't matter much. Nice for qualifying for ambush feats I guess, but even then I'd rather dip Swordsage for Assassin's Stance (and all those other goodies!).

Your level 1 Factotum enters a combat, (thus an encounter) and gains X IP. He then doesn't use it. Then he enters another encounter, and gains X more IP. Now he has 2X IP. WTF! But that's the actual RAW. Most DMs of course nerf this somehow.

Nope. This too was in the FAQ. They refresh, they don't stack.

What is an encounter? Well, it's actually undefined. There are lots of ways to define encounter, and none of them actually help. Compare that to classes like the Swordsage, who have X maneuvers readied, and then can regain them with a specific action.

Also in the FAQ. It's amazing, but this is one class where there were clarifications needed... and then given. I mean yeah, it would be nice if you didn't have to have an FAQ to be sure, but at least they did that. So even if it wasn't clear when printed, now it is. Consider the Dread Necromancer, whose fear ability still doesn't have a duration listed, or the Monk, who never had their unarmed strike proficiency officially granted (sure, it's obviously intended, but the same is true of inspiration point refreshing).

Special Bonus bad wording: FoI the feat Factotums suck without, is also poorly worded, and can equally be interpreted in several correct ways, some of which are good, some of which are dumb, and some of which are really dumb, but all of which are equally correct as per the English language.

Actually, I've played Factotums without FoI. They don't suck at all. FoI feels like a crutch, honestly. I think Darkstalker, Master of Poisons, Imperious Command, Item Familiar, EWP Gnomish Quickrazor, Knowledge Devotion, Manyshot, Craft Wand, and Craft Wonderous Item are all amazing on a Factotum. The more I've played Factotums, the less I've wanted FoI. Really, it's only Cunning Surge (and in the end game Cunning Brilliance) that make FoI worth even considering, compared to the other tasty feats you could be taking.

But what interpretations could you possibly have of that feat? Take it once and you get 1 Inspiration Point extra. Take it twice and you get three (1 for the first feat, two for the second). Take it a third time and you get 6 (1+2+3). What possible other interpretations are there? I mean, it doesn't say one feat overwrites the second, so if you've got one feat granting one Inspiration Point, and another granting 2, what could that mean other than you now have three more?

No, every significant event, and every time your character takes an action, is not an encounter. An encounter can only exist when a chance of failure exists. Walking through town is not an encounter, many encounters could occur from diplomacy to buying things to a demon porting in, but the act of picking a location in town, and walking there is not an encounter.

It is if you do something that you could fail at... which includes skill checks and saves and basically anything where you'd ever want to use an inspiration point. If you had no chance of failing whatever you wanted to do, why would you want to spend an inspiration point anyway, or worry about it refreshing? I dunno, I've never had a problem with this one at all.

You are attempting to first determine what the most sensible way for Factotum inspiration to work is, and then backwards define that as an encounter. Nope. Sorry, encounter exists to talk about more things than factotums, the DMG is explicit that you face approximately four encounters a day. You should control your characters more than four times per 24 hours of game time.

See the FAQ. The DMG is talking about Combat Encounters. You're supposed to face about 4 combat encounters per day. But there are other kinds... social encounters, trap encounters, even intraparty encounters. They're all encounters. And the FAQ makes this clear. Yes, you could call it an errata, but the fact is the FAQs are used by the designers like erratas. Annoying, but it's what they do.

I mean, you seriously just decided to declare that when the rules talk about encounters, they aren't really talking about encounters, and that's why you are right and the actual rules are wrong about the definition of encounter.

No, I decided to read the FAQ, and follow it.

JaronK

Starbuck_II

2010-09-24, 06:21 AM

But what interpretations could you possibly have of that feat? Take it once and you get 1 Inspiration Point extra. Take it twice and you get three (1 for the first feat, two for the second). Take it a third time and you get 6 (1+2+3). What possible other interpretations are there? I mean, it doesn't say one feat overwrites the second, so if you've got one feat granting one Inspiration Point, and another granting 2, what could that mean other than you now have three more?

JaronK

While I agree with what you wrote: another forum Gaming Den thinks the feats replace each other. At least the guy named Frank there.
He wrote some Tome stuff rebalancing classes.

Beheld

2010-09-24, 07:14 AM

No, I decided to read the FAQ, and follow it.

Yes, you decided to take the non official thing, and use that, even where it explicitly contradicts the official thing. That's fine, if you want to use the houserules suggested by the FAQ, I certainly won't stop you, but there's no reason to pretend that it's the actual rules, because it's not.

hamishspence

2010-09-24, 07:16 AM

FAQ is about as official as it can get, without being "RAW"- since it's on the official site, and authorized by the official staff.

Beheld

2010-09-24, 07:36 AM

FAQ is about as official as it can get, without being "RAW"- since it's on the official site, and authorized by the official staff.

FAQ has no authority to rewrite anything, so, to take an example:

"A Factotum gains [IP]."

FAQ: "Well, er... what we meant to say, is er... that... um... of right, it says refreshes. Factotum Inspiration refreshes, you don't gain points, you refresh the points, because... the rules say... that... Because it just does."

So when the FAQ explicitly contradicts the actual rules, and claims something with literally no basis in the actual written text, it's just suggesting houserules.

Draz74

2010-09-24, 11:40 AM

Beheld, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your incredibly hostile tone.

If you're trying to prove that the Factotum, as written, without the FAQ clarifications to help it out (which, AFAIK, pretty much everyone uses), is a terribly-written, very-confusing class, then ... yeah. Several of us have already agreed with you whole-heartedly.

Even if you do have a good point that you're trying to make, and it's not getting through our thick skulls, you might find more success if you explain your point without acting condescending towards anyone who e.g. uses the FAQ as more-or-less unofficial errata, or who uses the Tier System as shorthand so they don't have to write long descriptions of classes' power every time, or who likes the Factotum.

Beheld

2010-09-24, 12:22 PM

Beheld, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your incredibly hostile tone.

I'm not sure why you think I have hostile tone.

If you're trying to prove that the Factotum, as written, without the FAQ clarifications to help it out (which, AFAIK, pretty much everyone uses), is a terribly-written, very-confusing class, then ... yeah. Several of us have already agreed with you whole-heartedly.

But not the person I was responding to.

you might find more success if you explain your point without acting condescending towards anyone who e.g. uses the FAQ as more-or-less unofficial errata, or who uses the Tier System as shorthand so they don't have to write long descriptions of classes' power every time, or who likes the Factotum.

??

I have not acted condescending towards anyone. I am just pointing out that FAQ is not errata, and even stated that it's perfectly fine for someone to use the suggested houserules from the FAQ for Factotums. It's not better than any other set of houserules which accomplish a similar (or different) purpose. But I'm not criticizing the act of using houserules to cover for the deficiencies of the class. In fact, I suggested my own.

As for the Tier system, you have apparently completely misunderstood my criticism of the Tier system, but that's to be expected, because it has nothing to do with this thread, so I've been trying to avoid diverting the thread, and have purposely been short on the subject. Long story short, I'm not criticizing people for using the Tiers as a shorthand, if I were going to criticize people, it would be for talking about and using a system of ranking on gospel without having actually put any work into understanding the tier system or the classes on it, but that's a very limited criticism, because some people do understand it, and delving into the intricacies of that is beyond most people's interest or concern.

Instead, all of my criticisms of the Tier system are at the system itself, not people who use it.

Pechvarry

2010-09-24, 12:25 PM

Hostility would be defined as having as your first post in a thread: "this is incredibly incorrect on so many levels", I think.

Anyway, I wish you would've addressed me instead of continuing to attack JaronK.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9411547&postcount=19

Namely, there is no RAW about non-combat encounters. So the DMG's definition simply isn't complete.

Draz74

2010-09-24, 12:43 PM

I'm not sure why you think I have hostile tone.
Well, I apologize if I was misunderstanding your intended tone or message. But it definitely came off that way to me, repeatedly.

I think it started with your response to my message that contained a backhanded, subtly critical objection to my use of the term "Tier 3." While I appreciate your intent not to derail this thread into a debate of the merits of the Tier System, sometimes ignoring the divergent topic is better than just hinting at your negative opinion of it.

But not the person I was responding to.
I suggest you give him the benefit of the doubt; he probably didn't find it necessary to acknowledge personally when several other people already had done so. Particularly as he is a proven veteran in discussions of class balance, with a record of being quite level-headed.

Also, I get bothered easily when well-crafted arguments get dismissed with a simple "but that's not technically RAW," like you said about the FAQ to JaronK. I'm pretty sure nobody plays by strict RAW, and making assumptions about extremely common houserules (e.g. Monks being proficient with unarmed strikes) is not something to waste time criticizing.

If you feel there is a good reason to question the assumption that everyone who uses Factotums also uses the FAQ-clarifications of them, then please state your objection with more specificity (as you did in the remainder of this post, but not earlier). You came off as belittling anyone who treats parts of the FAQ as if they were a common basis for online discussion.

Anyway, those are why I felt like your tone was hostile.

Beheld

2010-09-24, 02:23 PM

All of which was written before the concept of "per encounter" was born (see Person_Man's post). For all intents and purposes, just mentally insert the word "combat" before every occurrence of the word "encounter" in the DMG bit.

And if you just insert the word(s) "Upsidedown pineapple" before every instance of the word "spell" in the PHB, then there is no RAW for spells, but since it isn't there already, all spells are being talked about, instead of just upsidedown pineapple ones. Likewise, the DMG is talking about all encounters.

The Sage used what JaronK's talking about as a decent rule of thumb for adjudicating inspiration points. Not RAW, but when there simply IS no RAW...

Well, there actually is a RAW, it's just a really bad RAW. And that houserule, like I said, is not really any better than other houserules that accomplish the same goal.

Namely, there is no RAW about non-combat encounters. So the DMG's definition simply isn't complete.

Like I said, there is a RAW about non combat encounters. It's just really dumb and no one uses it. The DMG is complete, because it defines itself as complete.

olentu

2010-09-24, 03:35 PM

And if you just insert the word(s) "Upsidedown pineapple" before every instance of the word "spell" in the PHB, then there is no RAW for spells, but since it isn't there already, all spells are being talked about, instead of just upsidedown pineapple ones. Likewise, the DMG is talking about all encounters.

Well, there actually is a RAW, it's just a really bad RAW. And that houserule, like I said, is not really any better than other houserules that accomplish the same goal.

Like I said, there is a RAW about non combat encounters. It's just really dumb and no one uses it. The DMG is complete, because it defines itself as complete.

Actually I recall that the DMG does use the term rollplaying encounter at least once. Now I do not recall exactly where but I know it is in there. So depending on how it is used there may in fact be encounters that do not involve combat.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 03:37 PM

The FAQ isn't a set of rules. It's just personal opinion that WotC paid for. And while most of the FAQ is correct, it isn't all correct. It still includes a bunch of things that are obviously against the rules.
You might be confusing Quick Draw with the ability of any character with a base attack bonus of +1 or better to draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement (PH 142). Since the page is conveniently cited, it's just a minute's work to see that the bolded FAQ statement is not allowed by the rules.

The ratio of errors and just plain house rules is higher than average in the FAQ portions regarding the Factotum. For one, Cunning Strike doesn't include an exception to the basic stacking rule, so additional inspiration points spent will give overlapping, not stacking, 1d6 bonuses to your damage roll; that's one obvious error.
It’s reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability. No, it's really not "reasonable to assume" something that contradicts the RAW. The Rogue's sneak attack isn't designated as extraordinary.
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. Being able to make a sneak attack, for a Rogue, doesn't require any extraordinary insights; it's just natural to pick the weak points of a target if you've learned where they are. (That's why there are rules specifically forbidding boxers from doing just that.) Cunning Brilliance is limited to abilities actually designated as extraordinary, and so can't gain a Rogue's sneak attack.

My point is that you can't treat the FAQ as a source of "stealth errata", and especially not for the Factotum. That's not to say that the FAQ is useless; on the contrary, the questions posed provide useful tools to help get at a better understanding of the rules. You just need to work through each question and provide your own answer rather than trust the FAQ authors.

As to the issue of defining an encounter, we've got a few answers in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Combat is clearly defined as an encounter.
Traps are also defined as encounters.
Any encounter that would give only "story XP" is at individual DM discretion. From the "STYLE OF PLAY" section (DMG pages 7-8):
DEEP-IMMERSION STORYTELLING

In this style of game, the NPCs should be as complex and richly detailed as the PCs ... Going to a store to buy iron rations and rope can be as important an encounter as fighting orcs. If you're not in that style of game, there may not be anything your DM defines as an "encounter" other than combat and traps. Because the Factotum class is written with much ambiguity, understanding how you can use their abilities is going to require negotiation with each DM; there just aren't many straightforward answers.

Urpriest

2010-09-24, 04:12 PM

As to the above, I remember several places in the rules where it is stated that all class features unless noted otherwise are extraordinary abilities. No time to dig through books at the moment, but someone should be able to find the rule pretty quickly.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 04:20 PM

As to the above, I remember several places in the rules where it is stated that all class features unless noted otherwise are extraordinary abilities.
I obviously have no insight into your memory on this point, but if those "several places in the rules" aren't in the Player's Handbook (regarding base classes) or Dungeon Master's Guide (regarding prestige classes) then they don't count at all.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

olentu

2010-09-24, 04:47 PM

I obviously have no insight into your memory on this point, but if those "several places in the rules" aren't in the Player's Handbook (regarding base classes) or Dungeon Master's Guide (regarding prestige classes) then they don't count at all.

Hold on a second there. The primary source rule only comes into play when there is a contradiction between sources and never in any other situation at all. So long as there is no contradiction then secondary sources are free to make whatever rules they want about anything they want and those rules will be correct. So before you can say that the rule does not count you will need to demonstrate a contradiction.

And this "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." does not contradict any rule that designates that one or more class abilities are Ex since it only applies to the unspecified category which they do not fall under being designated as Ex. So if claiming a contradiction it looks like you are going to need to present some actual contradictory rules.

Of course none of this matters if the Ex specifying rule is not first presented since rules that don't exist don't matter at all but should it exist the point remains.

Edit: Bah I dropped otherwise and under other circumstances out of my sentence. It should read "since it only applies to the otherwise unspecified category which they do not fall under being designated as Ex under other circumstances."

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 05:48 PM

Hold on a second there. The primary source rule only comes into play when there is a contradiction between sources and never in any other situation at all. So long as there is no contradiction then ...
There's a clear contradiction between the rule I quoted from the Player's Handbook and what Urpriest claimed to remember.

olentu

2010-09-24, 05:56 PM

There's a clear contradiction between the rule I quoted from the Player's Handbook and what Urpriest claimed to remember.

Which rule because I am not seeing it if it is this "natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

The word "otherwise" means that this only applies so long as the abilities are not designated under other circumstances and the theoretical rule is an other circumstance that designates the ability.

Urpriest

2010-09-24, 06:04 PM

Aha! After digging a bit, I have realized my error. The rules for alter self and the like state that extraordinary abilities are lost unless they are gained from class levels (such as a barbarian's rage). While I took this ability to mean that abilities like barbarian's rage (i.e. class features) are extraordinary abilities, looking through the barbarian's class description it appears that rage is explicitly tagged as extraordinary, as are many other classes' abilities. Sneak attack, however, is explicitly not so tagged. I withdraw my previous objection.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 06:36 PM

it appears that rage is explicitly tagged as extraordinary, as are many other classes' abilities. Sneak attack, however, is explicitly not so tagged.
It's actually a bit more complex than that. Just as there are Extraordinary versions of Hide in Plain Sight (Ranger, Scout) and Supernatural versions (Assassin, Shadowdancer), so too there are natural (untagged) and Extraordinary versions of sneak attack. The Fatemaker (Planar Handbook, pages 50-52) PrC has an Extraordinary sneak attack ability. The Factotum's Cunning Brilliance ability is restricted to Extraordinary abilities from standard character classes, though, so prestige classes like the Fatemaker don't qualify. (Fatemaker sneak attack also overlaps rather than stacks with Rogue sneak attack.)

Fax Celestis

2010-09-24, 06:47 PM

BumblingDM

2010-09-24, 07:12 PM

interesting, so since sneak attack isn't stated as extrordinary - then the Factotum cannot take that ability? What is a decent list of powers that they can take?

Also, can they take abilities from Prestige Classes?

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 07:23 PM

The Factotum's Cunning Brilliance ability is restricted to Extraordinary abilities from standard character classes, though, so prestige classes like the Fatemaker don't qualify.

Also, can they take abilities from Prestige Classes?
See above.

Urpriest

2010-09-24, 07:26 PM

See above.

Standard character classes isn't a rules term, I assume you mean base classes?

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 07:35 PM

Standard character classes isn't a rules term, I assume you mean base classes?
"Standard character class" is exactly the term used in the rules for the Factotum's Cunning Brilliance. It's also the term used to refer to base classes in Wizards of the Coast articles here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20041105b) and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060804a).

olentu

2010-09-24, 07:43 PM

"Standard character class" is exactly the term used in the rules for the Factotum's Cunning Brilliance. It's also the term used to refer to base classes in Wizards of the Coast articles here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20041105b) and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060804a).

So your argument is that those are actual rules sources and that there are only 4 standard character classes one of which is not technically defined and thus can never be referenced.

Talbot

2010-09-24, 07:57 PM

I've been refraining from commenting on this thread since I'm currently playing a Factotum in a game being run by BumblingDM, but for reference sake, here's a link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a

I offer the following without comment on its validity/significance:

The two questions asked have been discussed at length in this thread, as have the answers, but it seems necessary to point out that the guy answering these questions was also the Lead Developer of Dungeonscape.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-24, 08:22 PM

I offer the following without comment on its validity/significance:

The two questions asked have been discussed at length in this thread, as have the answers, but it seems necessary to point out that the guy answering these questions was also the Lead Developer of Dungeonscape.
Well, that's bonus points for consistency. :smallamused: The Factotum class abilities are written without proper attention to the game rules, and so are those FAQ answers.

JaronK

2010-09-25, 02:06 AM

Note: The primary source on ability types (including Ex and all that) is actually the Monster Manual, not the PHB or DMG. Curmudgeon, you even quoted it: "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." Furthermore, Natural Abilities are those abilities that are inherent to the physical form of the creature, such as claw attacks (inherent due to having claws to attack with), movement modes (your feet/wings/whatever allow you to do it) or ability to breath water (your gills do it). Sneak Attacks are not inherent to the physical form (which is why no class granted abilities are natural unless the class changes your physical form), nor are they magical, thus they are extraordinary.

The FAQ is clearly correct here... especially considering other later classes were printed with the (Ex) after sneak attack. The early books were generally pretty bad about clarifying which type of ability something was.

Note that the Monster Manual (which again is the primary source on this topic) states that all special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. Natural isn't even an option for special abilities (see page 6). Page 315 has further clarification on this point. To be clear: all Special Abilities (which includes every ability given by a class) don't even have Natural as an option... so you HAVE to fit the Rogue's sneak attack (as well as a bunch of other abilities) into one of the three other categories. And according to the Monster Manual (again, the primary source on this) all non magical abilities that are also special abilities are in fact Ex.

But it is correct that "Standard Character Class" is another way of saying "Base Class" and is used in a few books. It's annoying, and they really should have kept to one term, but that term does get used a few times and it always means the same thing.

So in conclusion, yes, Cunning Brilliance can give you a Rogue's Sneak Attack, a Fighter's Bonus Feats, and a whole lot of other stuff besides.

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-25, 02:09 AM

While I agree with what you wrote: another forum Gaming Den thinks the feats replace each other. At least the guy named Frank there.
He wrote some Tome stuff rebalancing classes.

Frank also thinks that there's no way to find a cost for the warbeast template (it's in the template), that large Str 20+ flying creatures can't carry a man sized character, and a lot of other really bizarre things (those two actually came from the same quote!). He also hates Factotums for personal reasons. He's a great game designer but he's long since gotten so far into homebrew that he doesn't remember the actual rules of the game anymore.

And since the FAQ is written by the guy who wrote Factotums, I think it's pretty clear how it's supposed to work. It seems everyone but Frank and a few other people at the Den are quite capable of interpreting the rules clearly.

JaonK

olentu

2010-09-25, 02:48 AM

But it is correct that "Standard Character Class" is another way of saying "Base Class" and is used in a few books. It's annoying, and they really should have kept to one term, but that term does get used a few times and it always means the same thing.

That fact has not yet been properly supported after having been questioned. It is not acceptable for someone to assert something if they are not going to properly back regardless of if it is correct or not.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-25, 02:57 AM

Note: The primary source on ability types (including Ex and all that) is actually the Monster Manual, not the PHB or DMG.
That's almost correct. The primary source on how Extraordinary abilities work is the Monster Manual. But whether a particular base class ability is Extraordinary or not is dictated by the Player's Handbook. Since the PH states that Rogue sneak attack is not Extraordinary, the details of how any Extraordinary abilities work never becomes an issue.

JaronK

2010-09-25, 05:35 AM

That fact has not yet been properly supported after having been questioned. It is not acceptable for someone to assert something if they are not going to properly back regardless of if it is correct or not.

Ugh. Look at every use of the phrase "Standard Classes" in the DMG and PHB II. For example, in the Introduction section of the PHB II you have a reference to the "New Classes" section, which says it "expands the roster of standard classes by four." This section adds the Beguiler, Knight, Duskblade, and Dragon Shaman. I'll let you figure it out from there.

@Curmudgeon: "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

Do you see anything about how it's only the primary source for how they work there? And something that says it's not the primary source for whether an ability is one or another? I don't. It just says it's the primary source for those ability types, end of sentence. What else is there to say? If it has to do with those ability types, the Monster Manual is the primary source. That's it. That is, by the way, why Spell Likes always take a standard action even if the spell would take longer, despite the fact that the PHB says otherwise... the Monster Manual overrules it. Huge boost for the Factotum, that.

JaronK

olentu

2010-09-25, 06:03 AM

Ugh. Look at every use of the phrase "Standard Classes" in the DMG and PHB II. For example, in the Introduction section of the PHB II you have a reference to the "New Classes" section, which says it "expands the roster of standard classes by four." This section adds the Beguiler, Knight, Duskblade, and Dragon Shaman. I'll let you figure it out from there.

@Curmudgeon: "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

Do you see anything about how it's only the primary source for how they work there? And something that says it's not the primary source for whether an ability is one or another? I don't. It just says it's the primary source for those ability types, end of sentence. What else is there to say? If it has to do with those ability types, the Monster Manual is the primary source. That's it. That is, by the way, why Spell Likes always take a standard action even if the spell would take longer, despite the fact that the PHB says otherwise... the Monster Manual overrules it. Huge boost for the Factotum, that.

JaronK

Really I didn't care if it was right or not I cared about people making claims and not bothering to give them proper support. But I suppose I must keep the same hard line stance for everyone.

While that would set the specified classes as standard classes (not technically standard character classes but I can let that slide for now) that is all that it does. It means that those can be said to be standard classes but not anything else. So it looks like no general rules as of yet if going by what you say the rules actually say and not making up extensions. Though I suppose that since your position is that things that are not the rules are actually rules or something like that then that is not an unreasonable position for you to take.

Well in any case it seems you at least bothered to use only actual rules sources for your argument so there is that. I suppose I shall let you get back to me if you wish to continue though I doubt we will ever reach agreement.

Edit: Though I suppose you might dig up a bit or rules text that specifies just exactly standard character classes are and then we would agree. But again beyond something of that caliber case by case looks to be the best one can hope for.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-25, 06:15 AM

Do you see anything about how it's only the primary source for how they work there? And something that says it's not the primary source for whether an ability is one or another? I don't.
I do.
The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. The Rogue class description does not have (Ex), (Su), or (Sp) after Sneak Attack. And then on page 180 the PH says exactly what that means:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. The Monster Manual is not the primary source for how to interpret base class descriptions, nor is it the primary source for natural abilities appearing in other books.

There are different, sometimes conflicting, rules in the different primary source books. You can't apply Monster Manual rules unless the rules about how to use the rules provide authority to the MM. Here they do not. The primary source remains the Player's Handbook, and its own rules never give cause to leave that scope. Thus regardless of what the Monster Manual says, those rules are never allowed to be used regarding Rogue sneak attack.

Beheld

2010-09-25, 07:51 AM

And since the FAQ is written by the guy who wrote Factotums, I think it's pretty clear how it's supposed to work. It seems everyone but Frank and a few other people at the Den are quite capable of interpreting the rules clearly.

The FAQ doesn't talk about FoI at all, and so has nothing to do with that subject at all.

hamishspence

2010-09-25, 12:52 PM

That is, by the way, why Spell Likes always take a standard action even if the spell would take longer, despite the fact that the PHB says otherwise... the Monster Manual overrules it. Huge boost for the Factotum, that.

The MM simply states "takes a standard action unless noted otherwise".

The PHB states "takes a standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description"

The Rules Compendium:

"When a preexisting core rulebook or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence"

And on Spell-like abilities:

Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.

It's not so clear about what happens when it has a casting time of more than 1 standard action though.

If the SRD wording of various abilities and monsters is considered to be "Core + errata":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.

JaronK

2010-09-25, 03:20 PM

Really I didn't care if it was right or not I cared about people making claims and not bothering to give them proper support. But I suppose I must keep the same hard line stance for everyone.

While that would set the specified classes as standard classes (not technically standard character classes but I can let that slide for now) that is all that it does. It means that those can be said to be standard classes but not anything else. So it looks like no general rules as of yet if going by what you say the rules actually say and not making up extensions. Though I suppose that since your position is that things that are not the rules are actually rules or something like that then that is not an unreasonable position for you to take.

Well in any case it seems you at least bothered to use only actual rules sources for your argument so there is that. I suppose I shall let you get back to me if you wish to continue though I doubt we will ever reach agreement.

Edit: Though I suppose you might dig up a bit or rules text that specifies just exactly standard character classes are and then we would agree. But again beyond something of that caliber case by case looks to be the best one can hope for.

Do I really have to look up every reference of "Standard Classes" for you? I gave you one specific reference. I even told you what books use that phrase most (DMG and PHB II) so you could check yourself. Look, at this point I showed "standard classes" being used to reference four base classes. That's enough to show there's evidence for it being about base classes. Do you have some other commonality between those four classes that you think could be the meaning of "standard classes?" Do you have some other theory for what you think "standard classes" means and the evidence to back it up? And why do you believe those four classes are the only ones referred to as "standard classes" when I already told you the DMG makes the same reference? Do you believe the DMG is talking about the Beguiler, Knight, and other PHB II classes?

{Scrubbed}

But just to confuse you, the DMG on page 176 defines base classes as "One of the eleven classes described in the Player's Handbook." If you go by the claim in this thread that the DMG always trumps, that means every class printed after the PHB is not a base class. It can be a standard class (which is always used to mean a class that's not a prestige class, but never defined as being in the PHB), but not a base class. Of course, most of us would state that at the time of the DMG's writing that was true but no longer is. But if you want to get literal, the Wu Jen and Hexblade and Warblade aren't base classes... by that reading. Just standard classes. Of course, the DMG isn't the primary source on classes (the PHB is) and later books obviously refer to newer classes as base classes as well.

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-25, 03:26 PM

The MM simply states "takes a standard action unless noted otherwise".

This is the primary source for spell like abilities, so they do... but the RC will effect this.

The PHB states "takes a standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description"

Trumped by the primary source.

The Rules Compendium:

"When a preexisting core rulebook or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence"

Allows the Rules Compendium to trump the primary source.

And on Spell-like abilities:

Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.

Still allows long casting time spells to be cast as a standard action, as per the MM definition. The Rules Compendium doesn't touch on long casting time spells, so the Rules Compendium only shortens fast cast spells here.

It's not so clear about what happens when it has a casting time of more than 1 standard action though.

Oh, it's clear alright. The MM and RC both agree that they take a standard action, which is what's so amazing for Factotums. The RC only made Factotums better by letting them cast Wraithstrike in a useful way.

If the SRD wording of various abilities and monsters is considered to be "Core + errata":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities

Actually, the physical books always trump the SRD, and no official errata (not even an FAQ) was released on this topic. Not that it matters, as the SRD also leaves out anything about when it's otherwise stated (but the RC trumps the SRD, so fast cast spells are still fast when used Spell Like).

End result: the Factotum's spell like casting is EXTREMELY powerful when used with long cast spells like Major Creation that are not supposed to be used mid fight. Surrounding enemies in a pool of Black Lotus poison is extremely nasty. If one dose of BL is 1 ounce, then you about 1000 doses per cubic foot. Go ahead, start rolling those saves... pretty sure someone's going to get a 1 at some point!

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-25, 03:33 PM

I do. The Rogue class description does not have (Ex), (Su), or (Sp) after Sneak Attack.

It doesn't need to. Just like the human race doesn't have the rules for "humanoid" type printed in the description. Those rules are printed elsewhere. What you're missing here is that the entry about how everything not one of the first three types is natural means that if the rules for the first three types don't apply to the ability, then it's natural. The primary source rules on which type is which are in the Monster Manual. So, look through the definitions there. If it's a Special Ability, it can't be natural, so it has to be one of the other three. Pick one. Sneak Attack follows all the rules for (Ex) in the Monster Manual, so it's Ex. Done.

Note that Fighter Bonus Feats aren't listed as Ex either in the Fighter section. Except Feats are all defined as Ex (unless otherwise noted) anyway, so they too are Ex. It doesn't have to say it in the section itself... you just pick a category based on the rules in the Monster Manual.

The Monster Manual is not the primary source for how to interpret base class descriptions, nor is it the primary source for natural abilities appearing in other books.

The Monster Manual tells you how to determine if something is Sp, Su, Ex, or Na (though that last is only if it doesn't fit in the first three, since the Monster Manual doesn't talk much about Natural abilities). But the Monster Manual is also clear that ALL special abilities must be Sp, Su, or Ex.

There are different, sometimes conflicting, rules in the different primary source books.

There's only one primary source for each thing. For ability types, it's MM. Full stop.

You can't apply Monster Manual rules unless the rules about how to use the rules provide authority to the MM. Here they do not. The primary source remains the Player's Handbook, and its own rules never give cause to leave that scope.

Incorrect. What we are trying to figure out is what type of ability Sneak Attack is. "Ability types" are the scope of the Monster Manual, as quoted earlier. It doesn't matter if it's Sneak Attack from Rogues, from Assassin's Stance, or from Hunter's Eye. It's still sneak attack, and unless specifically mentioned otherwise, it follows the rules of the Monster Manual on what type of ability it is. When you get it is the priority of the PHB, at least when it comes to base classes.

JaronK

Starbuck_II

2010-09-25, 03:40 PM

Sandstorm lists Sneak attack for the Marrulurk as as Extraordinary. So there is support for it being listed as such.

olentu

2010-09-25, 03:58 PM

Do I really have to look up every reference of "Standard Classes" for you? I gave you one specific reference. I even told you what books use that phrase most (DMG and PHB II) so you could check yourself. Look, at this point I showed "standard classes" being used to reference four base classes. That's enough to show there's evidence for it being about base classes. Do you have some other commonality between those four classes that you think could be the meaning of "standard classes?" Do you have some other theory for what you think "standard classes" means and the evidence to back it up? And why do you believe those four classes are the only ones referred to as "standard classes" when I already told you the DMG makes the same reference? Do you believe the DMG is talking about the Beguiler, Knight, and other PHB II classes?

{Scrubbed}

But just to confuse you, the DMG on page 176 defines base classes as "One of the eleven classes described in the Player's Handbook." If you go by the claim in this thread that the DMG always trumps, that means every class printed after the PHB is not a base class. It can be a standard class (which is always used to mean a class that's not a prestige class, but never defined as being in the PHB), but not a base class. Of course, most of us would state that at the time of the DMG's writing that was true but no longer is. But if you want to get literal, the Wu Jen and Hexblade and Warblade aren't base classes... by that reading. Just standard classes. Of course, the DMG isn't the primary source on classes (the PHB is) and later books obviously refer to newer classes as base classes as well.

JaronK

Oh I might actually agree with you as to what standard classes are probably intended mean but that does not mean anything relating to what the rules say. Like I said unless you can find a definition for standard character classes that actually defines what they are the best that can likely be done is a case by case setting. Generalizations are not acceptable since they are actually making up rules rather then not. So your reference from the PHBII is useless since it only makes those 4 classes standard classes but does not describe what a standard class actually is (much less a standard character class).

And of course it is you who are making the claim about what the term "standard character class" means so you are the one that needs to do the proving. My theory currently is that there is not enough presented information to determine completely just what "standard character class" means without generalizing a specific rule or rules and that is unacceptable. Well at least to me perhaps you are fine with allowing taking any specific rule and saying that it now applies everywhere even though it does not say it does.

Also the whole primary source rule argument is not so meaningful since there has not yet been a contradiction between books presented so far as I can tell. But hmm so that means that even going with later books trumping the DMG unless a later book defines that a class is a base class then it is not barring another book redefining the term base class completely. So it is not like it is confusing just unimportant to me since I am not arguing that "standard character class" means base class.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-25, 04:32 PM

The primary source rules on which type is which are in the Monster Manual.
That is pure fabrication.
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. It's the source for abilities which are designated as one of those types. It has no authority to decide that a base class ability listed in the Player's Handbook and not designated as one of those types is instead something else. This is akin to Spain deciding that it's going to apply Spanish laws to people that it assumes are of Spanish origin in Mexico. The rules of Spain have no status in Mexico, just as the rules of the Monster Manual have no bearing on Player's Handbook base class abilities.

BumblingDM

2010-09-26, 02:33 PM

so they can get sneak attack thats fine - but they can get all the fighter feats? that seems dumb for one, and would slow the hell out of everything for two.

hamishspence

2010-09-26, 02:54 PM

The MM doesn't actually contradict the PHB- it just has an incomplete description:

MM: "Takes a standard action unless noted otherwise"
PHB: "Takes a standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description"

So- the MM implies that not all SLAs take a standard action- if noted otherwise, they can take longer (or shorter).

And the PHB explains exactly where it needs to be noted otherwise- in the spell description.

JaronK

2010-09-26, 11:22 PM

Fine, here's more references to "standard class" {Scrubbed}

From the SRD, at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantcharacterclasses.htm :
This section presents sixteen variant versions of the standard character classes, along with several additional variants created by swapping one or more class features for features of other classes.

Each fully detailed variant has entries for one or more of the following topics. If an entry does not appear, use the material for the standard class.

Note that section is talking about variants of the PHB base classes. Note also this is a reprint of Unearthed Arcana, but the word "standard" is added in the SRD and not found on page 47 of Unearthed Arcana.

And how about in Dungeonscape itself? I mean, the question is what a Dungeonscape class means when it says "standard class" right? Look no farther than page 3 in the table of contents for the line "Standard Class Options." This gives new options for, you guessed it, the 11 base classes found in the PHB. Then what do we get? On page 8, the entire section called "Standard Class Options." It's all about the PHB base classes. {Scrubbed}

However, all the standard classes in the Player's Handbook have abilities or strengths that are useful in a dungeon... Each standard class entry also contains one or more alternative class features...

So, while "standard class" and "standard character class" are never strictly defined (much like "encounter") they are repeatedly referenced. They are referenced describing the classes found in PHB and PHB II, all of which are base classes. Thus, the only possible interpretation is that "standard class" means something that is found in all of those classes. I'll leave it to you to figure out.

"Base Class" itself is strictly defined by the DM as being a class found in the PHB (DMG page 176). Nothing else. I'll leave you to figure that one out as well.

{Scrubbed}

And yes, "Bonus Feats" is one Fighter ability, so you get them all with Cunning Brilliance. You even get them as though you were a Fighter of your Factotum level, so a 20th level Factotum using that ability suddenly gets all 11 feats. Nifty. You only get them for one fight a day though. Still, it's potent. Personally, I'm a fan of taking the full charge lineup and destroying one encounter with it, but there's something to be said for all the archery feats...

JaronK

olentu

2010-09-27, 01:18 AM

Fine, here's more references to "standard class" (I swear I'm the only one who bothers to look this stuff up).

From the SRD, at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantcharacterclasses.htm :

Note that section is talking about variants of the PHB base classes. Note also this is a reprint of Unearthed Arcana, but the word "standard" is added in the SRD and not found on page 47 of Unearthed Arcana.

And how about in Dungeonscape itself? I mean, the question is what a Dungeonscape class means when it says "standard class" right? Look no farther than page 3 in the table of contents for the line "Standard Class Options." This gives new options for, you guessed it, the 11 base classes found in the PHB. Then what do we get? On page 8, the entire section called "Standard Class Options." It's all about the PHB base classes. {Scrubbed}

So, while "standard class" and "standard character class" are never strictly defined (much like "encounter") they are repeatedly referenced. They are referenced describing the classes found in PHB and PHB II, all of which are base classes. Thus, the only possible interpretation is that "standard class" means something that is found in all of those classes. I'll leave it to you to figure out.

"Base Class" itself is strictly defined by the DM as being a class found in the PHB (DMG page 176). Nothing else. I'll leave you to figure that one out as well.

{Scrubbed}

And yes, "Bonus Feats" is one Fighter ability, so you get them all with Cunning Brilliance. You even get them as though you were a Fighter of your Factotum level, so a 20th level Factotum using that ability suddenly gets all 11 feats. Nifty. You only get them for one fight a day though. Still, it's potent. Personally, I'm a fan of taking the full charge lineup and destroying one encounter with it, but there's something to be said for all the archery feats...

JaronK

You seem to have just reiterated what you have already said except for the unearthed arcana and dungeonscape stuff that from what you have listed only confirms the position that I believe was already stated by the DMG that the PHB classes are standard classes. But as that was already confirmed I don't see the reasoning behind doing so again. Though I suppose if you keep listing books you will eventually hit upon the correct reference. I would go find it for you but I don't like to do others arguing for them.

JaronK

2010-09-27, 01:33 AM

{Scrubbed}

olentu

2010-09-27, 01:52 AM

{Scrubbed}

Oh come now it is not that I am incapable of understanding the concepts I am just not accepting them as valid in this case since I dislike improper justification. Perhaps I would have been more understanding or even just ignored the discussion if the original justification given was not some wizards of the coast preview articles but it was.

JaronK

2010-09-27, 04:18 AM

Oh come now it is not that I am incapable of understanding the concepts I am just not accepting them as valid in this case since I dislike improper justification. Perhaps I would have been more understanding or even just ignored the discussion if the original justification given was not some wizards of the coast preview articles but it was.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my justification for the usage of "Standard Classes" started with PHB II. Even a basic online search would have revealed the usage in the SRD ("Standard Classes" SRD into Google would do it) and just looking at the Dungeonscape table of context would make it very clear how it's used in that book. Surely a section called "Standard Classes" should be enough to tell you what a standard class is. If that's not enough, I don't know what possibly could be. Heck, the only other plausible interpretation I can see would be to use the SRD quote to claim "Standard Classes" are any class that's not an Alternative Class (such as the Cloistered Cleric). That definition would even include PrCs (but it doesn't seem likely, since no PrC is ever mentioned as a Standard Class).

By the way, if you want even more usage of the word, consider PHBII page 31 as well. It reads:

To compliment the eleven standard classes presented in the Player's Handbook, supplements such as the Complete series have introduced additional classes. This chapter provides advice and insight on eighteen classes that fit well within most D&D games...

That's now adding in the complete books as giving "Standard Classes" and of course it only talks about base classes. And just in case anyone takes that out of context, it does indeed mean it's adding more standard classes (not that only the eleven PHB classes are standard, as an earlier quote mentions adding four new ones in PHBII).

Honestly, the wording gets thrown around quite a bit. It's always used in the same way.

JaronK

olentu

2010-09-27, 04:58 AM

I can't speak for anyone else, but my justification for the definition of "Standard Classes" started with PHB II. Even a basic online search would have revealed the usage in the SRD ("Standard Classes" SRD into Google would do it) and just looking at the Dungeonscape table of context would make it very clear how it's used in that book. Surely a section called "Standard Classes" should be enough to tell you what a standard class is. If that's not enough, I don't know what possibly could be. Heck, the only other plausible interpretation I can see would be to use the SRD quote to claim "Standard Classes" are any class that's not an Alternative Class (such as the Cloistered Cleric). That definition would even include PrCs (but it doesn't seem likely, since no PrC is ever mentioned as a Standard Class).

By the way, if you want even more usage of the word, consider PHBII page 31 as well. It reads:

That's now adding in the complete books as giving "Standard Classes" and of course it only talks about base classes. And just in case anyone takes that out of context, it does indeed mean it's adding more standard classes (not that only the eleven PHB classes are standard, as an earlier quote mentions adding four new ones in PHBII).

Honestly, the wording gets thrown around quite a bit. It's always used in the same way.

JaronK

Yeah so far nothing has yet said exactly what a standard class is as far as I can tell. Perhaps I have missed something but from looking at what you have presented it still looks like a case by case definition or a reference to the term without definition.

I mean the PHB2 section presented says additional classes not additional standard classes and being a complement to something does not mean one must have all the characteristics of the thing to which one is complementary.

Really now you have just been beating the same points with the same sources for several posts now. If you had something that gives the definition why have you not presented it or directed me to it. Well actually I can see why you would not since doing so would mean doing just what I have contended must be done for proper justification.

Ah perhaps I am understanding an interaction that I had overlooked. My position is that things need proper justification which in this case is more justification then what has been given. On the other hand it seems your position is that the given justification is enough and no more is needed. However since I am not disagreeing with the conclusion only the method the point of contention must be over method. With that being the disagreement you would not be able to go and find the actual definition as doing so would seem to mean accepting that the given justification is lacking and since that is in agreement with my position means agreeing with my position.

Well then I suppose we are stuck in the same spot until either I agree that the currently presented sources are enough or you choose to present more information showing that the current sources are not enough.

JaronK

2010-09-27, 05:13 AM

Yeah so far nothing has yet said exactly what a standard class is as far as I can tell. Perhaps I have missed something but from looking at what you have presented it still looks like a case by case definition or a reference to the term without definition.

This is standard in D&D. "Encounter" is also never defined, but it gets used enough that we can see what the word means. "Race" and "Monster" are also never defined, but from usage we can see what those words mean as well. Heck, "Base Class" is only defined once and it's defined wrong! Likewise, the definition of "Creature" is also not synced up with usage. {Scrubbed}

Honestly, having a section entitled "Standard Classes" is the best many important terms get.

I mean the PHB2 section presented says additional classes not additional standard classes and being a complement to something does not mean one must have all the characteristics of the thing to which one is complementary.

Except the PHB2 section quoted before that does mention "additional standard classes" which is why I mentioned that as well.

Really now you have just been beating the same points with the same sources for several posts now.

I added two sources in a very recent post (Dungeonscape and SRD). How many do you need? How about one more: Tome of Magic, page 4. "This book introduces three new types of magic, each of which is supported by a new standard class, plus prestige classes, feats, magic items, monsters, and effects similar to spells." Same source, page 7: "This chapter... details a standard class and several prestige classes for PCs and NPCs..."

Wait, maybe that's not enough. Want another one? How about Tome of Battle on page 7. "These three standard classes are summarized below." And yeah, they're talking about Crusaders, Swordsages, and Warblades. {Scrubbed}

Benly

2010-09-27, 05:16 AM

All this just reminds me of the bit where the rules never say a dead character can't take his full normal complement of actions.

After a certain point you just have to apply your basic literacy skills, people.

olentu

2010-09-27, 05:44 AM

This is standard in D&D. "Encounter" is also never defined, but it gets used enough that we can see what the word means. "Race" and "Monster" are also never defined, but from usage we can see what those words mean as well. Heck, "Base Class" is only defined once and it's defined wrong! Likewise, the definition of "Creature" is also not synced up with usage. {Scrubbed}

Honestly, having a section entitled "Standard Classes" is the best many important terms get.

Except the PHB2 section quoted before that does mention "additional standard classes" which is why I mentioned that as well.

I added two sources in a very recent post (Dungeonscape and SRD). How many do you need? How about one more: Tome of Magic, page 4. "This book introduces three new types of magic, each of which is supported by a new standard class, plus prestige classes, feats, magic items, monsters, and effects similar to spells." Same source, page 7: "This chapter... details a standard class and several prestige classes for PCs and NPCs..."

Wait, maybe that's not enough. Want another one? How about Tome of Battle on page 7. "These three standard classes are summarized below." And yeah, they're talking about Crusaders, Swordsages, and Warblades. {Scrubbed}

Yes yes many things are not defined. However that does not matter to me unless there is disagreement over what the definition is. if someone states that a particular interpretation is correct and another disagrees then the person making the claim needs to give proper justification as to the correctness of their definition. However if there is no disagreement them by mutual agreement the problem of definition is ignored.

Yes the previous section talks about additional standard classes. However the previous Chapter 1: New Classes section is not Chapter 2: Expanded Classes. The section from chapter 2 you presented merely says that some classes, that may or may not be standard, were presented in the completes to compliment the standard classes in the PHB.

This is a case where there is disagreement over what the term means.

I am arguing that the information given is not enough to support the conclusion. I am not disagreeing on the conclusion.

Now then are you arguing that the given information is enough to prove a definition. If you are then we are at odds. If you are not then we are talking about different things.

And now that you mention it bringing in additional sources would seem to agree with my point but as I had not realized that particular interaction I did not notice it at the time.

Really if you wish to present enough support to satisfy my contention I am going to need to see the thing that says just what a standard class is not just more definitions that single out specific classes as standard. Should you get around to presenting that specific bit of text or telling me where it is located I will be satisfied that the position is not sufficiently supported. And I don't know perhaps you will be satisfied that I agree with you on the conclusion even though I am not disagreeing with you at the moment.

To reiterate my current position is that the definition of the term has not had sufficient support presented and that more needs to be presented. Should sufficient support be presented I will no longer think that the support is insufficient. It would seem that the only way to not agree with me is to not present what I would consider sufficient support for the position.

Greenish

2010-09-27, 11:24 AM

{Scrubbed}

Tyndmyr

2010-09-27, 12:12 PM

Standard classes are base classes.

They are used identically and interchangably. There is no competing explanation for what a standard class could be that has anywhere close to the same supporting assumptions.

I really don't understand why people are still objecting to this.

Talbot

2010-09-27, 01:49 PM

{Scrubbed}

Draz74

2010-09-27, 04:02 PM

{Scrubbed}

Couldn't have summarized this thread any better myself ... :smallsigh:

Beheld

2010-09-27, 04:12 PM

Couldn't have summarized this thread any better myself ... :smallsigh:

Well, not the thread, just that one specific issue that JaronK actually wants to talk about.

FoI, encounter definitions, ect are all things that he just gave up on, so the thread got really boring.

Draz74

2010-09-27, 04:19 PM

Well, not the thread, just that one specific issue that JaronK actually wants to talk about.

FoI, encounter definitions, ect are all things that he just gave up on, so the thread got really boring.

Actually I got bored before the thread distilled down to that one issue. It was too rules-lawyery all around for my interest.

(And JaronK isn't the one sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "Nyah nyah I can't hear you"; he's just allowed himself to be diverted by said entities. Apparently he needs to take Internet Apathy lessons. :smallsmile:)

JaronK

2010-09-27, 05:26 PM

{Scrubbed}

FoI, encounter definitions, ect are all things that he just gave up on, so the thread got really boring.

Encounter definitions seemed finished. Some people thought the FAQ was meaningless on the topic, despite it being written by the same guy who wrote the Factotum in the first place. Since that tells us exactly what was meant (the only way RAI is ever clear is when the designer outright says "I meant X") I consider that argument done.

{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2010-09-27, 05:32 PM

{Scrubbed}

So- first time you take the feat, 1 bonus inspiration point, the second time you take the feat, 2 bonus inspiration points (not counting those from the first feat), the third time, 3 bonus inspiration points (not counting any from previous feats), and so on?

That's how it seems to be worded.

JaronK

2010-09-27, 05:47 PM

So- first time you take the feat, 1 bonus inspiration point, the second time you take the feat, 2 bonus inspiration points (not counting those from the first feat), the third time, 3 bonus inspiration points (not counting any from previous feats), and so on?

That's how it seems to be worded.

You gain one inspiration point the first time you take the feat. If you had 5, now you have six.

The second time you take the feat, you gain one more than the last time you took it. Last time you gained one, so now you gain two. You had 6, now you have 8.

The third time you take the feat, you gain one more than the last time you took it. Last time you gained two, so now you gain three points. You had 8, so now you had 11.

Which is to say, exactly what you just said. Yeah, it's pretty straight forward.

JaronK

Beheld

2010-09-27, 06:04 PM

{Scrubbed}

The person who wrote the Factotum class doesn't get to define an encounter in the DMG. He can say "I guess I was totally wrong to use the word encounter, because I didn't mean encounter at all." But he can't redefine encounter.

{Scrubbed}

JaronK

2010-09-27, 06:53 PM

The person who wrote the Factotum class doesn't get to define an encounter in the DMG. He can say "I guess I was totally wrong to use the word encounter, because I didn't mean encounter at all." But he can't redefine encounter.

Actually, he's not the first to use "Encounter" this way. Consider the DMG II, page 57, under "Special Encounters."

Other creatures provide as much opportunity for unique encounters as locations. Interactions with large groups, particularly in heavily populated areas, create their own hazards.

It goes on to give the following examples of an encounter: a dramatic chase scene including pits and gaps, debris, and inclines. A large crowd (note: this isn't about combat, but rather trying to direct a crowd and move through it). An angry mob (basically like a creature encounter).

As you can see, it gives simply interacting with a crowd as a sample of an encounter. Does your definition of encounter fit with the rules here? Or is it perhaps possible that the definition of encounter evolved, just as the definition of "base class" did? Do you think that the definition of a base class is one listed in the PHB? That's what the DMG says. Why or why not is that correct?

{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed} There was an appeal to authority (Frank says so) given in this thread, and an unsubstantiated assertion that it was debated. That's it. Neither of those are logically sound. However, I feel that actually printing the feat is logically useful. That's my only argument... the feat is clear, so I linked it.

{Scrubbed}

JaronK

2010-09-27, 06:54 PM

{Scrubbed}

Beheld

2010-09-27, 08:25 PM

{Scrubbed} There was an appeal to authority (Frank says so) given in this thread, and an unsubstantiated assertion that it was debated. That's it. Neither of those are logically sound. However, I feel that actually printing the feat is logically useful. That's my only argument... the feat is clear, so I linked it.

{Scrubbed} I didn't appeal to authority, I didn't even mention Frank. I didn't make an assertion that it was debated. Debated by who? I don't care whether it is debated, I care whether it has multiple correct interpretations. Which is why I spelled out the three possible equally correct interpretations, and why they were all correct, based on the quote of the actual feat.

{Scrubbed}

Name your assertion.

Your assertion "Font of Inspiration increases the amount of inspiration you gain at the beginning of each encounter by increasing amounts."

{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

And here you are insulting me again. I quoted the DMG about encounters, not you. I quote the Font of Inspiration feat, you choose to assert that it means something specific without referencing it until last post.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-27, 11:50 PM

{Scrubbed}
Sure. Let's start with Arcane Dilettante. When do you spend your IPs here?
By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability. You don't have anything to mimic until you spend your IPs. But "at the start of each day" you're not in any sort of encounter. Are you using IPs left over from your last encounter (the previous day or before)? There is no refresh mechanism listed except for "at the beginning of each encounter".
If you wish to enhance a spell with a metamagic feat, you must apply the feat when you prepare the spell. Factotums don't prepare spells at all; they mimic them with spell-like abilities, and most metamagic feats don't apply to such SLAs. As written, this is clear as mud.

I'm not unclear on whether Cunning Strike gives you more return with more inspiration points; that's clear. With no stated exception, Cunning Strike must follow the limitations of the basic stacking rule. What I am unclear on is whether you can spend multiple IPs on Cunning Strike and get to roll them to add the best of overlapping d6s. The ambiguity comes because the ability is very consistent in its use of the singular.

Opportunistic Piety has no alignment requirements, but it talks about channeling divine energy. Now, divine energy can be either positive energy or negative energy. The Factotum ability doesn't specify which, but it's written as if divine energy were always positive energy by referring to healing and turning undead. However, what happens to a Factotum/Cleric character who normally channels negative energy?
Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil. Cunning Surge is also very clear in its use of the singular. Do you think you can use multiple Cunning Surges per round?

Very few of the Factotum's abilities are clear.

Awnetu

2010-09-28, 12:13 AM

Sure. Let's start with Arcane Dilettante. When do you spend your IPs here? You don't have anything to mimic until you spend your IPs. But "at the start of each day" you're not in any sort of encounter. Are you using IPs left over from your last encounter (the previous day or before)? There is no refresh mechanism listed except for "at the beginning of each encounter". Factotums don't prepare spells at all; they mimic them with spell-like abilities, and most metamagic feats don't apply to such SLAs. As written, this is clear as mud.

By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability.

You spend IP when you mimic the spell, not when you prepare the spell.

...You can select any sorcerer/wizard spell up to that level, but you can prepare only one spell of your maximum level.

Arcane Dilettante actually says explicitly that they do prepare the spells. It's clear during the description that you can apply metamagic feats, while that does violate the rules governing the spell like abilities, it is far from unclear.

I'm not unclear on whether Cunning Strike gives you more return with more inspiration points; that's clear. With no stated exception, Cunning Strike must follow the limitations of the basic stacking rule. What I am unclear on is whether you can spend multiple IPs on Cunning Strike and get to roll them to add the best of overlapping d6s. The ambiguity comes because the ability is very consistent in its use of the singular.

Seems pretty obvious to me that you gain 1d6 Sneak Attack Dice if you spend an inspiration point, I dont see how stacking rules apply considering feats like, Improved Sneak Attack do pretty much the same thing.
Also it has been clarified, you spend 5 IP, you get 5 sneak attack dice, I dont get what you are trying to say. :smallconfused:

Opportunistic Piety has no alignment requirements, but it talks about channeling divine energy. Now, divine energy can be either positive energy or negative energy. The Factotum ability doesn't specify which, but it's written as if divine energy were always positive energy by referring to healing and turning undead. However, what happens to a Factotum/Cleric character who normally channels negative energy?

It does not specify, fair enough, however it does say exactly what that ability grants, where is the confusion? Nothing changes if you normally channel negative energy, the ability doesn't allow for that.

Cunning Surge is also very clear in its use of the singular. Do you think you can use multiple Cunning Surges per round?

By spending 3 inspiration points, you can take an extra standard action during your turn.

How is this unclear? You spend three inspiration points, you gain an extra standard action. There is no limit built into that description for how many times you can take it a round, so it would fall to how many inspiration points the factotum has.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 12:24 AM

Seems pretty obvious to me that you gain 1d6 Sneak Attack Dice if you spend an inspiration point, I dont see how stacking rules apply considering feats like, Improved Sneak Attack do pretty much the same thing.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. The Improved Sneak Attack feat specifies an exception to the basic stacking rule:

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If you're trying to modify your damage roll with a bonus from Cunning Strike you have to follow the basic stacking rule above. Adding more than 1d6 from Cunning Strike does not stack because that rule says so, and Cunning Strike must provide an explicit exception if you want it to stack. The FAQ can't change that rule and the WotC requirement to follow it.
Also it has been clarified, you spend 5 IP, you get 5 sneak attack dice, I dont get what you are trying to say. :smallconfused: Do you get it now? "Clarifications" can't change the basic rules of the game; they're just not allowed to. Only official errata are given that power.

Awnetu

2010-09-28, 12:31 AM

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a

So in order for this to count, it has to be under the errata stuff on wizards website?:smallconfused:

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 12:44 AM

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a

So in order for this to count, it has to be under the errata stuff on wizards website?:smallconfused:
That's it exactly, according to WotC's official rules.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The primary source for the stacking rule is the Player's Handbook, which governs how all base class descriptions are to be interpreted. So, absent an explicit change in an errata file for Dungeonscape, the Factotum's Cunning Strike is not permitted to stack.

No, my question is whether multiple uses of Cunning Strike are permitted to overlap; i.e., get a bunch of d6s to roll to see how high you can come with one of them. But stacking is a non-issue, regardless of what the FAQ says.

Awnetu

2010-09-28, 12:57 AM

/Facepalm at wizard's failure.

Well, according the SRD the better bonus would take precendence.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies.

Seems kind of a stretch, but I buy it.

Talbot

2010-09-28, 02:15 AM

That's it exactly, according to WotC's official rules. The primary source for the stacking rule is the Player's Handbook, which governs how all base class descriptions are to be interpreted. So, absent an explicit change in an errata file for Dungeonscape, the Factotum's Cunning Strike is not permitted to stack.

No, my question is whether multiple uses of Cunning Strike are permitted to overlap; i.e., get a bunch of d6s to roll to see how high you can come with one of them. But stacking is a non-issue, regardless of what the FAQ says.

I'd say there's a pretty strong case to be made that while PHB is the primary source for stacking, it isn't the primary source for Factotum. Since (and I believe the DMG says this itself) most if not all class features are just ways of breaking the usual rules of the game, it'd make sense for the Factotum entry, the one that's clarified by the FAQ, to be the primary source for Cunning Strike and how it works.

Regardless, once the guy who wrote the class feature in question says what it's suppose to do in a sanctioned article on the publisher's website, arguing against it is basically just being contentious for the sake of being contentious.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 04:53 AM

I'd say there's a pretty strong case to be made that while PHB is the primary source for stacking, it isn't the primary source for Factotum.
There's no case to be made ─ strong, weak, or totally flimsy ─ because the official WotC rules are 100% clear about what the primary rules source is for using base class descriptions like the Factotum: that's always the Player's Handbook.

(and I believe the DMG says this itself) What the DMG says on this point doesn't matter, because WotC's rules say that it doesn't matter here; it's also not the primary source. {Scrubbed}

Regardless, once the guy who wrote the class feature in question says what it's suppose to do ... That doesn't matter, either. That guy wasn't the editor of the book. His name isn't one of those listed on the cover. The people in charge at WotC got to decide at the time of publication what the class actually could do, and they also established the rules about how you read and interpret things whenever there's a clash between two different rules. Those people could also have decided to print a set of online errata to change things about the Factotum class after the fact. They didn't do that. Instead they published rules that say the Player's Handbook is always correct when there's a disagreement between different rules while you're trying to use any part of a base class description.

JaronK

2010-09-28, 05:41 AM

{Scrubbed}

JaronK

2010-09-28, 05:52 AM

Sure. Let's start with Arcane Dilettante. When do you spend your IPs here?

When you cast the spell.

You don't have anything to mimic until you spend your IPs. But "at the start of each day" you're not in any sort of encounter.

Ah yes, your faulty definition of encounter makes it confusing. Any time the PCs are interacting with their environment and actually doing something, they can be in an encounter. See the FAQ.

Are you using IPs left over from your last encounter (the previous day or before)? There is no refresh mechanism listed except for "at the beginning of each encounter".

Assuming you haven't been in some sort of all night encounter, the moment you say "I'd like to cast X spell" you've now put yourself in an encounter. Note that you can't just start a new one in the middle of an old one. There has to be a break of a minute or two in between. Again, the FAQ is clear on this.

Factotums don't prepare spells at all; they mimic them with spell-like abilities, and most metamagic feats don't apply to such SLAs. As written, this is clear as mud.

Factotums have a special rule that makes spell metamagics apply to their SLAs as though they were spells. Thus, a Factotum could ready Maximized Scorching Ray if he had a sufficiently high level slot available (in fact, due to their mechanic, if you had that feat you'd always want to Maximize it if you could afford to do so, unless that was the highest level you could go.

This is all listed in the rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. The specific overrules the general, so the general rule that metamagics can't just be applied to spells (at least for spell metamagics) is overruled by the Factotum rules.

What's so unclear about that?

I'm not unclear on whether Cunning Strike gives you more return with more inspiration points; that's clear. With no stated exception, Cunning Strike must follow the limitations of the basic stacking rule. What I am unclear on is whether you can spend multiple IPs on Cunning Strike and get to roll them to add the best of overlapping d6s. The ambiguity comes because the ability is very consistent in its use of the singular.

Answered in the FAQ and by the Sage on the website. Yes, you can add it up. No, there's no point, as the ability is pretty weak and Cunning Surge is almost always better. Yes, this violates the stacking rules, but it's a case where the designer has stated his intent openly.

Opportunistic Piety has no alignment requirements, but it talks about channeling divine energy. Now, divine energy can be either positive energy or negative energy. The Factotum ability doesn't specify which, but it's written as if divine energy were always positive energy by referring to healing and turning undead. However, what happens to a Factotum/Cleric character who normally channels negative energy?

He is able to rebuke it normally, but can't control undead regardless of comparative level. This should be clear from the fact that Factotums specifically cannot control undead via Turning... this exception wouldn't exist if evil ones didn't rebuke. It's just like a cleric.

Cunning Surge is also very clear in its use of the singular. Do you think you can use multiple Cunning Surges per round?

Of course. It says you spend 3 IP to get a new standard action. You get one per use (hence the singular) but nothing in the rules indicates a limit on the number of times you can do it per round (other than the obvious limit of running out of IPs).

Very few of the Factotum's abilities are clear.

{Scrubbed} You want unclear? Try and figure out the duration on the Dread Necromancer's fear aura. That's unclear. Figure out how exactly Haunt Shift works. The Factotum though? It's pretty darn straight forward, especially since it got a timely FAQ.

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-28, 05:55 AM

There's no case to be made ─ strong, weak, or totally flimsy ─ because the official WotC rules are 100% clear about what the primary rules source is for using base class descriptions like the Factotum: that's always the Player's Handbook.

You forgot a critical rule: the specific outweighs the general. General class rules are trumped by the rules for any one specific class. Dungeonscape is the primary source on anything relating to the Factotum. The "primary source" rules are for when general rules clash (such as how Spell Like Abilities work based on the Monster Manual and PHB). They are irrelevant when dealing with cases where one is more specific.

I'm also REALLY not a fan of just ignoring text that's officially from WotC and on their website or in their books unless it has some good reason for being ignored.

JaronK

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 06:13 AM

You forgot a critical rule: the specific outweighs the general. General class rules are trumped by the rules for any one specific class. Yes, but only if those rules actually do provide such an exception. The Factotum rules state an exception to the stacking rules for Cunning Insight ("you can use it as often as you wish during your turn or others’ turns") but never provide an exception for Cunning Strike.

Dungeonscape is the primary source on anything relating to the Factotum. No, it really isn't. When there's a dispute about how you interpret the Factotum class abilities, the Player's Handbook is the primary source, and it's always correct.

Your argument is like saying that your Subaru manual is the primary authority when you're driving your Subaru, and thus you can ignore the traffic laws. Sorry, but the traffic laws always win.

Beheld

2010-09-28, 09:25 AM

{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2010-09-28, 09:43 AM

{Scrubbed}

He did, in fact, link to the feat, and discuss the text of it.

The text:

Benefits: When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point.

Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Awnetu

2010-09-28, 10:04 AM

{Scrubbed}

Who is agreeing with him who you know hasn't read the text?

Beheld

2010-09-28, 10:10 AM

He did, in fact, link to the feat, and discuss the text of it.

Partially correct.

In post 93, the same post where he accused me of making unsubstantiated claims (and implied that his own were substantiated) he linked to the feat for the first time.

He has so far not yet even once discussed the actual text of the feat, merely asserting that is is obvious what it means, because everyone agrees with him, so there is no need to discuss what the rules actually say.

Awnetu

2010-09-28, 10:20 AM

Partially correct.

In post 93, the same post where he accused me of making unsubstantiated claims (and implied that his own were substantiated) he linked to the feat for the first time.

He has so far not yet even once discussed the actual text of the feat, merely asserting that is is obvious what it means, because everyone agrees with him, so there is no need to discuss what the rules actually say.

{Scrubbed}

That was directly after linking to the feat in that same post.

Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time).

How is this unclear? You take the feat 1 time, you gain 1 inspiration point. you take it a second time, you gain 2 Inspiration points. Now you have 3, the first feat gives you one, the second gives you 2. If it lacked the part in parenthesis, then you would just get 1 point each time you took FoI, however because of that text, each time you take the feat, you gain more points via the feat.

hamishspence

2010-09-28, 10:24 AM

Which was mentioned as far back as page 2:

But what interpretations could you possibly have of that feat? Take it once and you get 1 Inspiration Point extra. Take it twice and you get three (1 for the first feat, two for the second). Take it a third time and you get 6 (1+2+3). What possible other interpretations are there? I mean, it doesn't say one feat overwrites the second, so if you've got one feat granting one Inspiration Point, and another granting 2, what could that mean other than you now have three more?

Beheld

2010-09-28, 11:13 AM

That was directly after linking to the feat in that same post.

Yes, he insulted me, linked to the feat, and repeated his assertion in the same post. But this is after I pointed out his incorrect and unsubstantiated assertion. So obviously it was unsubstantiated before this link.

How is this unclear? You take the feat 1 time, you gain 1 inspiration point. you take it a second time, you gain 2 Inspiration points. Now you have 3, the first feat gives you one, the second gives you 2. If it lacked the part in parenthesis, then you would just get 1 point each time you took FoI, however because of that text, each time you take the feat, you gain more points via the feat.

{Scrubbed}

The Factotum Inspiration ability says "At the beginning of each encounter,
he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)." In Table 1-1 this amount is 3 for both second and third level.

So the Factotum has no inspiration points right this second.

He then levels up.

Then he takes the Font of Inspiration feat, and he gains one inspiration point.

Then he enters an encounter and gains three inspiration points, as per his table.

Then he spends all his inspiration.

Now, the next time he enters into an encounter, the level 3 Factotum with Font of Inspiration gains 3 points of inspiration. JaronK would claim this number is four.

I agree that the text of Font of Inspiration is "you gain 1 inspiration point." But you will notice that this statement is not the same as "Each time you gain inspiration, you gain one more than you otherwise would have gained." Which is what you and JaronK are attempting to claim it does.

This was all spelled out on page 1, by me, you just all choose to repeatedly rhetorically question how it could possibly not be clear, even as you both misunderstand it, instead of addressing my actual post.

{Scrubbed}

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 11:28 AM

I'm also REALLY not a fan of just ignoring text that's officially from WotC and on their website or in their books unless it has some good reason for being ignored.
WotC has provide the good reason: their primary sources rule for how you settle all such rule conflicts. When the Player's Handbook says one thing about how to treat Factotum class abilities and Dungeonscape, the FAQ, and the the book's developer all say something else, there's a clear rule from WotC. That rule says you must ignore all those other sources, because the Player's Handbook is correct. Whether you're "a fan" of that approach or not, the rules of the game say you're required to follow it.

The primary sources rule sets a procedure for how all multi-source conflicts get resolved. Those conflicts can be avoided in the first place if the newer source simply puts in a line noting that they're making an exception to the normal rules. That's really all it takes, and such an exception was noted for the Factotum's Cunning Insight class ability. The designer just failed to include exceptions for other abilities. Without those exceptions you've got to follow the normal rules for class abilities.

drakir_nosslin

2010-09-28, 12:23 PM

{Scrubbed}

Beheld

2010-09-28, 12:32 PM

{Scrubbed}

Well, in fact, the wording is not actually ambiguous. It's very clear. It's also very stupid. I have thought about this, far enough to actually read what it really says, instead of just assuming I know what someone meant.

Yes, the designer of the feat almost certainly meant something different, but was a) very bad at writing clear rules text, and b) thrown off by the already poorly written Factotum inspiration ability.

But what the designer of that feat meant is not the same things as what he wrote. I could make an argument that he meant for taking FoI 3 times to increase the maximum inspiration refreshing to a number three higher than on the table. But since that is clearly not what he wrote, in any way, and in fact not even how Factotum Inspiration works in the first place, that might be his intent without being the actual rule.

You might have noticed that I started my participation in this thread by claiming that the Factotum abilities are poorly written. Clearly the fact that what the designer of a feat meant is nothing even close to what he ended up writing would be evidence in favor of that point.

{Scrubbed}

No, it's very common for people to take an incredibly stupid rule, and just assume it means something less stupid. That happens all the time.

hamishspence

2010-09-28, 12:38 PM

When the Player's Handbook says one thing about how to treat Factotum class abilities and Dungeonscape, the FAQ, and the the book's developer all say something else, there's a clear rule from WotC. That rule says you must ignore all those other sources, because the Player's Handbook is correct.

The problem being that the PHB was written long before Dungeonscape was- and back then, there weren't any encounter-based class abilities.

As for "text trumps table" there's cases where this leads to brokenness (the Phaerimm in Lost Empires of Faerun) and where "table" is less broken than text.

For example- the Rainbow Servant. in Complete Divine. Sample character follows Table- Table is weaker than text- text is rather overpowered.

Or in Champions of Ruin- 3 feats, 1 each for bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage- effectively identical prerequisites, identical in the table- but in the text, the slashing feat is vastly weaker.

If "text trumps table" is always followed, there are times when, while you may be following RAW, you are probably not following Rules As Intended.

Yes, the designer of the feat almost certainly meant something different, but was a) very bad at writing clear rules text, and b) thrown off by the already poorly written Factotum inspiration ability.

But what the designer of that feat meant is not the same things as what he wrote.

On the meaning of the phrase "Gains inspiration points- the feat in this context is probably using "gains" in the permanent sense.

A bit like this epic feat:

Improved Manifestation [Epic, Psionic]
You increase your power point reserve.

Prerequisites
Character level 21st, ability to manifest powers of the normal maximum power level in at least one psionic class.

Benefit
When you select this feat, you gain 19 power points.

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you do so, you gain an additional number of power points equal to your previous benefit +2.

I don't think the designers would say that those extra power points are lost forever once used.

So, why would the extra inspiration points gained from a feat, be lost forever once used?

Thurbane

2010-09-28, 05:10 PM

Talbot

2010-09-28, 05:20 PM

I'm going to be playing my first Factotum in an upcoming one-shot 1st level adventure. Rolled the character the other night - did quite well (18, 16, 15, 14, 11, 11). The DM has advised us that it is a "swashbuckling themed" adventure, and we'll be starting in a small village.

Any ideas what to do with the character, in terms of build? I've never played a character with a reach weapon before, so I was thinking of using the glaive as my primary weapon. The group is quite conservative in terms of sources - dipping iun multiple obscure splats is discouraged, and web-only content (Font of Inspiration, I'm looking at you!) is right out. Race will be PHB only - I usually like playing Humans. Not sure what the rest of the party will be at this point...

If you're going to be swashbuckling a lot, I suggest looking at the Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel. A lot of them are pretty swachbuckly, and your Factotum will have plenty of skill points (the 18 goes in Int). Knowledge Devotion is a good feat for upping your usefulness when you're not using Inspiration points in case you're not planning to spend all your feats on Font of Inspiration (which, unless you're Beheld, is a feat that gets better the more you take it, but kind of stinks the first time or two). Your stats are pretty good so a lot of the usual Factotum go-tos (Keen Intellect, Faerie Mysteries Initiate, and Insightful Reflexes) aren't as great as they usually are. Craven is still pretty darned handy though. I usually recommend crafting feats, but it really depends on the campaign as it's absolutely no fun to just sit back and craft while your buddies go off killing bad guys and rescuing damsels and having extended, pointless, and occasionally hilarious tangential conversations about the latest NPC and/or plot point.

If you're planning to multiclass, 3 levels of Swashbuckler CAN be worth it if you're focusing on melee and need to buff up your Fort save (and would be fitting for the flavor of the campaign), but Warblade is almost always a better route, especially if you're taking more than 3 levels outside of Factotum. Incidentally, the main jump-off points for Factotum are 8, 16, and 19, so if you plan to multiclass, think in terms of 12, 4, or 1 levels.

A lot of people will suggest Quickdraw and/or Gnomish Quickrazors for Iaijutsu Focus, but if you go that route you end using an awful lot of your resources keeping your enemies flat-footed and to me, at least, it's never quite as fun as doing something less gimmicky. That being said, it's handy for doling out damage.

Another way you could go would be to take Extra Turning at level 6, and stock up on the various turning-fueled Devotion feats, most of which are awesome.

JaronK

2010-09-28, 05:50 PM

WotC has provide the good reason: their primary sources rule for how you settle all such rule conflicts. When the Player's Handbook says one thing about how to treat Factotum class abilities and Dungeonscape, the FAQ, and the the book's developer all say something else, there's a clear rule from WotC. That rule says you must ignore all those other sources, because the Player's Handbook is correct. Whether you're "a fan" of that approach or not, the rules of the game say you're required to follow it.

No, the clear rule is specific overrides the general. Specific rules on the Factotum itself (from Dungeonscape, the FAQ, and the online supplement) override any general class rules.

{Scrubbed}

Beheld

2010-09-28, 06:17 PM

{Scrubbed}

Less insulting, more backing up your claims with textual quotes from the book.

What is your textual basis for the bolded claims.

Instead, the feat causes you to "gain one inspiration point" I base this claim on the fact that the feat says "gain one inspiration point."

It does not "increase your number of Inspiration points" because it doesn't say that.

Nor do you refresh to that number at the beginning of the encounter, instead, you gain that number of inspiration points, I base this on the fact that it says "At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)." Not, "Refreshes to a maximum that is the number on table 1-1."

Maybe, instead of repeatedly asserting how obviously right you are, you could back your insults up with actual readings from the book.

Talbot

2010-09-28, 06:26 PM

{Scrubbed}

Beheld

2010-09-28, 06:29 PM

{Scrubbed}

Anybody else want to insult me a few times, then tell me to just invent something that doesn't exist in the rules in order to better understand the rules?

Get it out of your system as much as you want, and the type the words "Banana Kiwi Apple"

I'm going to ignore everything you say until after you type those words, but by typing those words, you are agreeing to stop suggesting we treat houserules that you personally like as the actual rules.

To be very clear:

A measure of a character’s health or an object’s
integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery. A character’s hit point total increases permanently with additional experience and/or permanent increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects

Note that the Hit point total increases. Note that such a thing as an Inspiration point total exists no where in the rules, and only in your attempts to graft houserules onto the rules.

Benly

2010-09-28, 06:36 PM

Beheld, the problem is that you are for whatever reason not applying fundamental literacy skills to reading the text. By the standards you are applying to rules interpretation, a dead character in fact gets his full complement of actions because the Rules Compendium entry does not mention dead characters losing their actions and it is the primary source regarding the Dead condition. Is it ridiculous? Absolutely, but that is what the text-reading pseudo-logic you are suggesting leads to.

JaronK

2010-09-28, 07:18 PM

Note that the Hit point total increases. Note that such a thing as an Inspiration point total exists no where in the rules, and only in your attempts to graft houserules onto the rules.

Please see the Factotum table entry. It's right there. That's your Inspiration point total. Note that nowhere in the rules is there an option of gaining just one inspiration point... you always just refill it to whatever the maximum inspiration point total is. For reference, see the Factotum entry in Dungeonscape (which you're clearly not doing, otherwise you'd know about that table!).

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-28, 07:26 PM

Less insulting, more backing up your claims with textual quotes from the book.

What is your textual basis for the bolded claims.

The table that I just referenced, obviously.

Instead, the feat causes you to "gain one inspiration point" I base this claim on the fact that the feat says "gain one inspiration point."

Ah, but this point is added where? Nothing in the rules lets you add to your current Inspiration point total, it either refreshes or nothing. So you have to add that point to the only numerical value for your Inspiration Point Total listed in the rules... the table in the Factotum entry is where. See that entry for number of Inspiration Points? That's the one.

It does not "increase your number of Inspiration points" because it doesn't say that.

"Gain X Inspiration Points" and "Increase your number of Inspiration Points" are the same thing. And it's obviously added to the only rules entry for how many you have.

Nor do you refresh to that number at the beginning of the encounter, instead, you gain that number of inspiration points, I base this on the fact that it says "At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)." Not, "Refreshes to a maximum that is the number on table 1-1."

Right, at the beginning of each encounter. Not just one time, each encounter. This is EXACTLY THE SAME as increasing your max total, then refreshing it, exactly as everyone else has said. What's the problem here?

JaronK

Draz74

2010-09-28, 08:37 PM

Beheld

2010-09-28, 08:52 PM

The table that I just referenced, obviously.
...
Ah, but this point is added where? Nothing in the rules lets you add to your current Inspiration point total, it either refreshes or nothing. So you have to add that point to the only numerical value for your Inspiration Point Total listed in the rules... the table in the Factotum entry is where. See that entry for number of Inspiration Points? That's the one.

No, that's the number of inspiration points that a Factotum gains at the beginning of each encounter. That is not an inspiration point total, because there is no inspiration point total.

{Scrubbed}

Read the following two lines side by side:

"At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)."

"When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point."

Those are identical except that one happens at the beginning of each encounter, and the other happens once ever. If you are claiming that the feat adds one to the value in table 1-1 when taken, then you should be arguing that every time the Factotum enters combat the value in table 1-1 is added to itself.

And it's obviously added to the only rules entry for how many you have.

But there is no rule entry on how many you have. Because you can have all sorts of different numbers. If you start an encounter and spend on inspiration, you have a number of inspiration that is less than the value of table 1-1. There is a rule entry on how many Inspiration points a Factotum gains at the beginning of each encounter, but that is not how many you have. You take the feat, you gain one inspiration point. IE, you have no inspiration because you spent it all, you level up, you have on inspiration. That's it.

Right, at the beginning of each encounter. Not just one time, each encounter. This is EXACTLY THE SAME as increasing your max total, then refreshing it, exactly as everyone else has said. What's the problem here?

You have no max total. Your max total is not increased. Even if you did have a max total, it still wouldn't be increased, because the feat doesn't say it increases any max total, it says you gain one inspiration point. It doesn't say "You gain one inspiration point at the beginning of each encounter." It says one, ever.

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 08:54 PM

No, the clear rule is specific overrides the general. Yes, that's the case when the rules actually state an exception, such as the "Benefit" vs. "Normal" sections of feats.

Specific rules on the Factotum itself (from Dungeonscape, the FAQ, and the online supplement) override any general class rules.
That's the case only in your own Factotum house rules, I'm afraid. Any time the Factotum class calls out an exception (as it does for Cunning Insight) that does override the general rules. But when the Factotum class fails to make an exception all rules conflicts get decided by the primary sources rules, and the Player's Handbook is always correct.

Let me try to summarize your position:

You like the Factotum class.
In all cases where there's a question about how to interpret the rules, you choose the option which gives the Factotum more power.
You're blithely ignoring the WotC rules you don't like, because you're "REALLY not a fan" of them.

The Shadowmind

2010-09-28, 08:55 PM

You have no max total. Your max total is not increased. Even if you did have a max total, it still wouldn't be increased, because the feat doesn't say it increases any max total, it says you gain one inspiration point. It doesn't say "You gain one inspiration point at the beginning of each encounter." It says one, ever.

You mean like how toughness says you gain +3 hp, and not your max hp increases by 3?

Thurbane

2010-09-28, 09:09 PM

If you're going to be swashbuckling a lot, I suggest looking at the Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel. A lot of them are pretty swachbuckly, and your Factotum will have plenty of skill points (the 18 goes in Int). Knowledge Devotion is a good feat for upping your usefulness when you're not using Inspiration points in case you're not planning to spend all your feats on Font of Inspiration (which, unless you're Beheld, is a feat that gets better the more you take it, but kind of stinks the first time or two). Your stats are pretty good so a lot of the usual Factotum go-tos (Keen Intellect, Faerie Mysteries Initiate, and Insightful Reflexes) aren't as great as they usually are. Craven is still pretty darned handy though. I usually recommend crafting feats, but it really depends on the campaign as it's absolutely no fun to just sit back and craft while your buddies go off killing bad guys and rescuing damsels and having extended, pointless, and occasionally hilarious tangential conversations about the latest NPC and/or plot point.

If you're planning to multiclass, 3 levels of Swashbuckler CAN be worth it if you're focusing on melee and need to buff up your Fort save (and would be fitting for the flavor of the campaign), but Warblade is almost always a better route, especially if you're taking more than 3 levels outside of Factotum. Incidentally, the main jump-off points for Factotum are 8, 16, and 19, so if you plan to multiclass, think in terms of 12, 4, or 1 levels.

A lot of people will suggest Quickdraw and/or Gnomish Quickrazors for Iaijutsu Focus, but if you go that route you end using an awful lot of your resources keeping your enemies flat-footed and to me, at least, it's never quite as fun as doing something less gimmicky. That being said, it's handy for doling out damage.

Another way you could go would be to take Extra Turning at level 6, and stock up on the various turning-fueled Devotion feats, most of which are awesome
Woot, glad to hear about another person trying Factotum (w/out FoI!). A level 1 one-shot, eh? So no spells or Brains over Brawn or whatever.

Yeah, glaive is probably the best weapon at this point; falchion is the other reasonable choice (crits are nasty when you add your INT to them!). Skill tricks won't matter at Level 1 (since you can't qualify for any of them).

It makes me sad to say it, but if you don't ever plan to level up, Intelligence probably isn't as valuable to you as Strength. So I'd go 18 STR, 16 INT, 15 CON, 14 DEX.

Hmmm ... maybe actually take Quick Draw and use a bunch of weapons, situationally? Longbow, Glaive, Falchion, Heavy Pick (e.g. when performing a coup-de-grace) ... Quick Draw is pretty lame normally, but at Level 1 it's pretty cool.
Nice...thanks.

There is a chance the adventure might get us to level 2, maybe 3 at a stretch...

JaronK

2010-09-28, 09:22 PM

Let me try to summarize your position:

You like the Factotum class.
In all cases where there's a question about how to interpret the rules, you choose the option which gives the Factotum more power.
You're blithely ignoring the WotC rules you don't like, because you're "REALLY not a fan" of them.

Go read up on what a "Strawman" is. Then tell me why what you just did here is wrong. Otherwise, I'm done with you.

JaronK

Benly

2010-09-28, 09:26 PM

Let me try to summarize your position:

You like the Factotum class.
In all cases where there's a question about how to interpret the rules, you choose the option which gives the Factotum more power.
You're blithely ignoring the WotC rules you don't like, because you're "REALLY not a fan" of them.

If that was the case I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be arguing in favor of only base classes being standard classes and would instead be on the side arguing in favor of "we cannot know the truth and therefore all classes are standard classes or else the factotum is impossible".

BeholderSlayer

2010-09-28, 09:37 PM

BumblingDM

2010-09-28, 09:45 PM

so...yeah...

Can someone explain to me why the factotum when imitating another class power will be able to get all of the fighter feats?

Curmudgeon

2010-09-28, 09:48 PM

If that was the case I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be arguing in favor of only base classes being standard classes and would instead be on the side arguing in favor of "we cannot know the truth and therefore all classes are standard classes or else the factotum is impossible".
Fair point; I guess my eyes kind of glazed over on that rather silly sideline. Let's change that to:

In almost all cases where there's a question about how to interpret the rules, JaronK chooses the option which gives the Factotum more power.
I think that's an accurate summary statement. I'm really not trying to create a strawman argument here, but I do find it frustrating that he's picking and choosing the rules that he likes and ignoring others that are supposed to take precedence.

Benly

2010-09-28, 09:50 PM

It's absurdly clear that Font of Inspiration increases the number of inspiration points you have when an encounter starts.

Otherwise, you end up with the factotum racking up inspiration points as he hits encounters if he doesn't use them all. Given enough encounters without using all of them, he could have hundreds, thousands, or millions of inspiration points.

There is little time left before the dark necromancer completes his ritual. The heroes stand at the gates of his citadel. There is only one preparation left for them to make before the final siege. Alazar the Cunning turns to his faithful companion and nods - the two of them know what to do.

Alazar's squire reaches into his satchel and pulls forth a squirming rat, throwing it at the hero's feet. In a trice, it is impaled on his rapier. They wait for the dust to settle, then Alazar nods and another rat is thrown, and another. His allies stand by, keeping watch until the bag is emptied - Alazar's rituals are strange, but they know the power these acts bring him.

In time, he is ready. He is truly inspired by battle after battle with terrified rodents. The heroes go forth to their destiny.

BeholderSlayer

2010-09-28, 09:53 PM

There is little time left before the dark necromancer completes his ritual. The heroes stand at the gates of his citadel. There is only one preparation left for them to make before the final siege. Alazar the Cunning turns to his faithful companion and nods - the two of them know what to do.

Alazar's squire reaches into his satchel and pulls forth a squirming rat, throwing it at the hero's feet. In a trice, it is impaled on his rapier. They wait for the dust to settle, then Alazar nods and another rat is thrown, and another. His allies stand by, keeping watch until the bag is emptied - Alazar's rituals are strange, but they know the power these acts bring him.

In time, he is ready. He is truly inspired by battle after battle with terrified rodents. The heroes go forth to their destiny.

Make the squire a commoner with the chicken infested feat, and the rats chickens. Win D&D.

Beheld

2010-09-28, 10:12 PM

It's absurdly clear that Font of Inspiration increases the number of inspiration points you have when an encounter starts.

Otherwise, you end up with the factotum racking up inspiration points as he hits encounters if he doesn't use them all. Given enough encounters without using all of them, he could have hundreds, thousands, or millions of inspiration points.

Allow me to present that argument in a more general context:

"It is absurdly obvious that X cannot be true, because if X is true, then there is a consequence that I do not want."

There's a name for that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)

I agree that it is unfortunate that the Factotum class is written so poorly. And yes, by the actual rules, they can save up IP, because they gain IP, and never lose it.

I recommend you houserule that to something more sensible. I also recommend you houserule FoI to something sensible (Well, actually I recommend you houserule it you of existence and give more IP to the Factotum, but whatever.)

That doesn't mean that the rules don't say what they actually do.

FirebirdFlying

2010-09-28, 11:03 PM

so...yeah...

Can someone explain to me why the factotum when imitating another class power will be able to get all of the fighter feats?

The argument is that since fighter bonus feats are labeled as a single class feature, and gained at level one, the factotum can imitate it.

JaronK

2010-09-29, 12:33 AM

so...yeah...

Can someone explain to me why the factotum when imitating another class power will be able to get all of the fighter feats?

Because it's just one ability in the text (remember, text always trumps table). Check out the Fighter entry... he's got just one ability, called "Bonus Feats." The Factotum is duplicating the "Bonus Feats" ability of a Fighter of his Factotum level. So at level 19 he gets 10 of them, at 20 he gets 20.

I doubt he counts as a Fighter of sufficient level to take Fighter only feats though. The ability to do so isn't actually in the "Bonus Feats" ability, so I'd guess he's not able to take Weapon Supremacy or anything. Not that that matters much... it's Power Attack and Shock Trooper and things like that you'll want.

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-29, 12:38 AM

Fair point; I guess my eyes kind of glazed over on that rather silly sideline. Let's change that to:

In almost all cases where there's a question about how to interpret the rules, JaronK chooses the option which gives the Factotum more power.
I think that's an accurate summary statement. I'm really not trying to create a strawman argument here, but I do find it frustrating that he's picking and choosing the rules that he likes and ignoring others that are supposed to take precedence.

Also a strawman, and obviously false. I just go for the interpretation that best fits with all given rules. I'm willing to use RAI only if it's been spelled out (such as when the designer has specifically said what they meant to do, or when an example in the text clearly shows what they meant... not this does not apply to sample characters, which are not necessarily written by the same designer as the one who made the class). The fact that for the Factotum this is often beneficial means little, especially considering the benefits you're going for here. Who actually cares about using Cunning Strike more than once per round? And seriously, is there any way to read Cunning Surge that indicates you can't do it more than once per round?

Meanwhile, making Sneak Attack and similar abilities natural abilities makes Factotums MORE powerful, since they have Alter Self, and the rules of the game article on that topic says Alter Self gives you all natural abilities of what you're imitating. Since your argument is that all abilities not specifically designated in their entries as any type are natural, Alter Self now gives virtually everything you'd ever want in a 2nd level spell... which Factotums get at level 5. You're arguing that Factotums should be more powerful. I'm arguing otherwise.

You do, however, seem to be trying to find vagueries where they don't exist. When over 90% of the people reading the class seem to get it just fine, it's not that the rules are vague... it's that you're having trouble reading the class. The Dread Necromancer rules on Fear Aura are an example of an actual vague rule. Heck, the definition of True Dragon counts too.

You want to argue with me? Deal with my actual arguments. Making a strawman just indicates your only desire is to "win" on the internet, but don't care about being right.

JaronK

BumblingDM

2010-09-29, 12:42 AM

ok.. thats...umm..ok

Do you guys have a good list of whats in or not?

Curmudgeon

2010-09-29, 12:55 AM

I just go for the interpretation that best fits with all given rules. I'm willing to use RAI only if it's been spelled out (such as when the designer has specifically said what they meant to do, or when an example in the text clearly shows what they meant...
What "best fits with all the given rules" is given by following those rules, including the rules resolving conflicts. RAI isn't part of the rules, and just isn't allowed when there are actual explicit rules saying something else.

"Willing to use RAI" simply means you're willing to ignore the written rules.

Beheld

2010-09-29, 01:06 AM

To be fair Curmudgeon, he doesn't always or even mostly choose the most powerful option. The actual text is very clear about gaining inspiration, and thus it carrying over from encounters. That's much more powerful than the thing he's trying to claim.

JaronK

2010-09-29, 01:10 AM

@BumblingDM: You mean for Cunning Brilliance? Via the rules in the Monster Manual (which don't actually contradict the PHB on page 180, it's just that you have to understand that the rules on PHB 180 tell you which things are Ex or Sp or Su, and if they don't fall into any of those categories they're Na), any non magical special ability granted by a class is Ex. Honestly, if it's not written as Sp or Su it's probably Ex (since Sp and Su abilities tend to be marked), and thus available to a level 19 Factotum. The only obvious exception I can think of off hand are natural attacks that a class grants by giving you claws or something... though the ability to have the claw is probably Ex or Su, the claw attack itself is Na. Something that's obviously magical in nature would most likely be Su if not otherwise marked, but that's rare... they tend to mark those.

The big ones are martial adept Maneuvers and Fighter Bonus Feats, though Wizard Bonus Feats are worth considering if you want to have fun with metamagic for a short time. If you want to be cheesy as heck, the Spellcasting of a Sorcerer, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage or Favored Soul are great options (I don't want to get into that debate right now, but if you want to know why "Spells" is an Ex Special Attack, please see the Monster Manual and PHB on ability types, then look in MMV). Then again, we're talking about level 19 here. If you've already got a Wizard in your group, it's the same power level, and that Wizard could already shatter reality 5 levels ago if he really wanted to.

JaronK

JaronK

2010-09-29, 01:15 AM

What "best fits with all the given rules" is given by following those rules, including the rules resolving conflicts. RAI isn't part of the rules, and just isn't allowed when there are actual explicit rules saying something else.

"Willing to use RAI" simply means you're willing to ignore the written rules.

No, it means I'm willing to use RAI in understanding what RAW says. Sometimes rules can be ambiguous. In those situations, a designer outright saying "the rule means X" tells you what RAW is. Sometimes you might not be sure if RAW was telling you one thing or another. {Scrubbed}

In this case, we have a specific overriding the general situation. And yes, I'm arguing for the weaker option. It's just you using a strawman argument completely unsupported by evidence. To be clear, I don't want Factotums to be any stronger or weaker than they are... why would I? If I wanted to play something really strong I'd be playing a Wizard/Shadowcraft Mage or an Archivist/Binder/Anima Mage/Tainted Sorcerer or something. It's not like it's hard to find a class that's stronger than a Factotum. Three of them are in core alone.

JaronK

Beheld

2010-09-29, 02:06 AM

{Scrubbed}

And here you are continuing to insult me for no reason, and refusing to address my actual arguments yet again.

I specifically said that the only actual RAW one is th third, which is unfortunately, the stupidest, and clearly not worth even writing.

Optimator

2010-09-29, 02:14 AM

{Scrubbed}

Beheld

2010-09-29, 02:21 AM

{Scrubbed}

No, I'm not being ridiculous. I am advocating that the RAW of the rules is what it is. And that if the RAW doesn't set a maximum, or say that you refresh to a number, but instead says you gain X, then you just gain X.

Why is it that every poster takes time out of their day to call me ridiculous, insult me, question my motives, but not a single one of you can actually address a single argument based on the text of the ability and feat?

Curmudgeon

2010-09-29, 02:27 AM

No, it means I'm willing to use RAI in understanding what RAW says. Sometimes rules can be ambiguous. In those situations, a designer outright saying "the rule means X" tells you what RAW is.
You do know by now that the RAW answer to that is: the designer has no say after the book is published. Any issues regarding what's actually written can be decided in two ways:

An errata file changing the book after the fact.
Following the written procedures for conflict resolution.
Because somebody (designer, FAQ author, JaronK, Curmudgeon, or anybody else) says so isn't on that list.

Draz74

2010-09-29, 02:41 AM

Why is it that every poster takes time out of their day to call me ridiculous, insult me, question my motives, but not a single one of you can actually address a single argument based on the text of the ability and feat?

Meh, for my part, after "questioning your motives," I didn't address your argument because I have no argument against it. Taking the RAW at their literal face value, I agree with you. The actual description of the Factotum's Inspiration ability states nothing about "refreshing" a "pool" of Inspiration points, it just says you gain some. So, yes, following exact directions like a brain-dead automaton, this ability would be stackable and cause all kinds of nightmares (and Font of Inspiration would just be silly-stupid).

I don't understand why other people in this thread can't concede your literal correctness. However, I am far more baffled by why either side in this argument sees any value in continuing to argue over the rules with such tenacity. The way I see it, you and JaronK are both correct about what you're actually writing (you about what the RAW actually say, JaronK about what the RAI are and how we should actually be discussing the Factotum), but both of you are so concerned about your own arguments that you refuse to acknowledge the other's correctness in his own realm of argument.

But while I grew bored of both sides of the argument days ago, I do have to say that I don't ever understand why one should bother discussing RAW in cases where it's obvious practically no one plays that way, a la Monks being nonproficient with unarmed strike in discussions of Monk class balance.

JaronK

2010-09-29, 02:56 AM

{Scrubbed}

Benefits: When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point.

Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

{Scrubbed} The only possible interpretation that actually fits all existing RAW is that the inspiration point total that you have (see the Factotum table) at your given level is increased by one, exactly like Toughness giving you three hitpoints (which is technically less clear). Which is to say, you gain one inspiration point, and this point is added to your inspiration point number.

Or, more to the point: do you believe toughness just gives you three hit points right when you take the feat, which are lost permanently when you take damage? Why or why not, and why is that different?

And furthermore, is any of this relevant? Do you believe there's anybody who will be playing that Font of Inspiration gives you one point outside of encounters that just gets used up the first time it's used? Are you trying to say that it's like Monks and unarmed strike proficiency (where by RAW it's just messed up but no one will use it that way) or do you believe it's actually confusing for anybody? If it's the former, I frankly don't care enough to continue this and it looks like no one else does either {Scrubbed}

Talbot

2010-09-29, 03:38 AM

Out of curiosity, and to steer this thread back in the general direction of useful (and laziness; I don't know the books as well as a lot of people here)... which other Int-based bonuses stack with Factotum's various tricks?

Does Improved Cunning Defense stack with a Kung Fu Genius Monk (Into to AC x2, possibly x3)?

Does Knowledge Devotion stack with the Factotum Int bonus to attack or damage? I believe they're both insight bonuses, so maybe not, but I don't know the rules as well as some people on the bored.

What about Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike?

Warblade's various Int tricks?

Basically, how hard can you hoke out a Faerie Mysteries/Insightful Reflexes/Keen Intellect Factotum to get the most mileage out of his SAD?

Awnetu

2010-09-29, 08:03 AM

It stacks with Monks + Kung Fu Genius. Iaijutsu Master AC bonus also works.

Insightful Strike(Swashbuckler) also works. Competence Bonus from Factotum, Unnamed (Oddly enough) from Swashbuckler. Combine that with Thunderlance for Int to Damage three times, and Int to hit twice. (Like you are gonna burn Inspiration points on that.)

Keen Intellect and Insightful Reflexes also work with the Factotums Int powers obviously.

Bayushi Deceiver 2 will net you Int to Initiative twice if you consider the Cunning Strike ability to count for entry prereqs.

Throw on 7 Levels of warblade and youll have it again to Reflex Saves, Crit Confirmations, and against Melee, Flat Footed/Flanked targets.

Thats close the the maximum amount of Int you will be able to pump out on the same character.

I don't think any of that broke the stacking rules, but yea.

Beheld

2010-09-29, 10:36 AM

{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Yes you can. You can randomly gain one inspiration point, or two, or three, or even more. You can gain inspiration whenever your class or feats say you gain inspiration. Your class ability says you gain inspiration points at the beginning of each encounter. A feat which you can take says you gain an inspiration point when you take the feat. So you do in fact gain an inspiration point when you take the feat.

{Scrubbed}

It is not RAW impossible to gain an inspiration point in or out of an encounter. There is no where any rule that says you can't gain inspiration points outside an encounter. So if something says "You gain an inspiration point." Then you do in fact gain it.

all existing RAW is that the inspiration point total that you have (see the Factotum table) at your given level is increased by one

Per existing RAW, you have no inspiration point total.

and this point is added to your inspiration point number.

Your inspiration point number is the number of inspiration points you have. This number can be as low as zero, after spending all your IP, or debatably high, but even at level 1, this amount has three possible values even without you taking the feat, 2, 1, and 0. I agree the point is added to your inspiration point number, IE the number you have. And then you can spend that point and have a smaller inspiration point number.

And furthermore, is any of this relevant?

I believe it is relevant what the actual rules are, so that we can accurately houserule them to the best possible set.

Fax Celestis

2010-09-29, 11:07 AM

I don't understand why other people in this thread can't concede your literal correctness. However, I am far more baffled by why either side in this argument sees any value in continuing to argue over the rules with such tenacity. The way I see it, you and JaronK are both correct about what you're actually writing (you about what the RAW actually say, JaronK about what the RAI are and how we should actually be discussing the Factotum), but both of you are so concerned about your own arguments that you refuse to acknowledge the other's correctness in his own realm of argument.

But while I grew bored of both sides of the argument days ago, I do have to say that I don't ever understand why one should bother discussing RAW in cases where it's obvious practically no one plays that way, a la Monks being nonproficient with unarmed strike in discussions of Monk class balance.
Agreed wholeheartedly.

Beheld

2010-09-29, 11:29 AM

However, I am far more baffled by why either side in this argument sees any value in continuing to argue over the rules with such tenacity.

Because someone is wrong on the internet.

The way I see it, you and JaronK are both correct about what you're actually writing (you about what the RAW actually say, JaronK about what the RAI are and how we should actually be discussing the Factotum), but both of you are so concerned about your own arguments that you refuse to acknowledge the other's correctness in his own realm of argument.

I have repeatedly and regularly recognized the fact that the RAW is very bad, and that JaronK's houserules are more sensible than the RAW. I have said that many times.

I don't ever understand why one should bother discussing RAW in cases where it's obvious practically no one plays that way, a la Monks being nonproficient with unarmed strike in discussions of Monk class balance.

Well, the Factotum is very different from the simple Monk issue. The Monk is obviously wrong, and a very simple one word fix that is very obvious, and oh yeah, not a class worth saving.

The Factotum has many very different wording problems that necessitate rewriting large sections of the rules and guessing at what was meant, or otherwise coming up with a basis for your changes, and beneath all that is a salvageable class.

So being very clear about what is and isn't RAW has the advantage of allowing you to consider other, better houserules than the ones JaronK presents, whereas falsely believing that his houserules are the RAW prevents one from considering it where it needs to be considered.

JaronK

2010-09-29, 11:38 AM

Out of curiosity, and to steer this thread back in the general direction of useful (and laziness; I don't know the books as well as a lot of people here)... which other Int-based bonuses stack with Factotum's various tricks?

Warblade's a lot of fun to combine in when you consider Sapphire Nightmare Blade, and Iajuitsu Master is amusing (though I'd still rather use a Quickrazor than a Katana, while you do need the Katana for Int to AC). Warblade 1/Factotum 8/Iajuitsu Master 10/Unarmed Swordsage 1 would be a very solid combo. Slaughter enemies as a standard action!

Does Improved Cunning Defense stack with a Kung Fu Genius Monk (Into to AC x2, possibly x3)?

It does, but by the time you're at X3 it doesn't much matter, as that's at least level 17 and AC is much less useful. But with that said, if your DM lets you apply Kung Fu Genius or Carmendine Monk to Swordsage levels, a two level dip is TOTALLY worth it. Assassin's Stance, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, and the teleport maneuver is such a wonderfully useful combination.

Does Knowledge Devotion stack with the Factotum Int bonus to attack or damage? I believe they're both insight bonuses, so maybe not, but I don't know the rules as well as some people on the bored.

IIRC it does, but even if it doesn't it's wonderful (just don't use the IP for Int to attack or damage). However, the one problem with KD is that it uses up a LOT of skill points, so someone else has to handle the usual skill monkey roles (traps, mainly). If you've got a Rogue in your party, going the KD route is a good way to avoid stepping on his toes and who can say no to a permanent (eventually) +5 to hit and damage? Especially good with archery.

What about Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike?

Yes, but I wouldn't waste three levels on that. Weapon Finesse is trumped by Feycraft Weapons anyway, and compared to what a two level dip into Swordsage would give you three levels in Swashbuckler just isn't worth it.

Warblade's various Int tricks?

Works. Warblade//Factotum is an amazing Gestalt for this reason.

Basically, how hard can you hoke out a Faerie Mysteries/Insightful Reflexes/Keen Intellect Factotum to get the most mileage out of his SAD?

He's not going to be SAD... you'll want high Dex anyway. So Insightful Reflexes is probably a waste of a feat. But yeah, you can pump the Int synergy pretty darn high if you want. I wouldn't delay Factotum progression too much for this though... the level 8, 11, 16, and 19 abilities are amazing (the 16 is pretty good, but amazing for what you're trying to do here) so I wouldn't want to spend too many levels on this.

JaronK