Factotum?

[Ilmryn]

The factotum; what does it do, what book is it from, and is that book worth getting?

[BeholderSlayer]

Factotum is jack of all trades, so they do whatever you want really. It's in Dungeonscape.

[AnswersQuestion]

The factotum; what does it do, what book is it from, and is that book worth getting?

1) Everything
2) Dungeonscape
3) Yes

[Stegyre]

What does it do? A bit of everything, literally.

Where's it from? Dungeonscape. (Co-authored by the Giant, himself.)

Is it worth getting? Mm. That depends upon so many unstated factors. However, I think it is generally regarded as well done and worth having.

D@m! Ninjaed. :smallwink:

[Incanur]

It's from Dungeonscape and it does everything. All skills as class skills, 6 skill points, trapfinding, martial weapon proficiency, limited healing, and limited spellcasting.

[Ilmryn]

So it's like the chameleon, but a base class?

[hamishspence]

A bit. And it synergizes very well with chameleon.

[Stegyre]

A bit. And it synergizes very well with chameleon.
I don't know. It seems that at least some feel that it is redundant with Chameleon, and a player should choose one or the other. There is at least some overlap in their abilities.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't know. It seems that at least some feel that it is redundant with Chameleon, and a player should choose one or the other. There is at least some overlap in their abilities.

There is some overlap in the abilities between Factotum and Chameleon. However, the factotum doesn't give the chameleon's biggest draws, the bonuses to saves and abilities, and a significant amount of partial casting; and the chameleon doesn't do the factotum's major draws as well, those being the ability to mimic class features in every battle, and it has a bigger hit die. They both grant insight bonuses to attack/damage/skill checks depending on choices made either at use or at the beginning of the day. I'm personally of the opinion that they complement one-another well enough that the little bit of overlap can be overlooked.

[Thurbane]

http://www.ikeafans.com/galleries/images/68509/large/1_black-white-ikea-kitchen-faktum.jpg
...oh sorry, that's a Faktum! :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

http://www.ikeafans.com/galleries/images/68509/large/1_black-white-ikea-kitchen-faktum.jpg
...oh sorry, that's a Faktum! :smallbiggrin:

Huh? I don't understand this joke. :smallfrown:

[Thurbane]

Huh? I don't understand this joke. :smallfrown:
IKEA has a line of furniture called Faktum. A bit obscure, I admit...I live next door to a massive IKEA outlet, so I suppose I take it for granted. Whenever me and my ex-flatmate (also a D&D player) would see billboards for Faktum, we'd always make Factotum jokes... :smalltongue:

[Draz74]

The Factotum is an Intelligence-based skillmonkey who is even better at skills, using his class features, than the Rogue. He also:

can fight well, but not well enough to outshine a similarly-optimized Barbarian
can throw out reasonably powerful spell effects, but only a very few times per day
can deal lots of damage if you use a couple of unintended combos (I'm not talking "ubercharger" amounts of damage, or even "Rogue" amounts. Just enough to remain relevant at higher levels.)
can heal some hitpoint damage, in case the Cleric goes down
simulates pretty well the style of play where a character says, "Instead of doing the same (powerful) thing every round, I'm going to think up something crazy and unique and situational to do in each battle, and have the mechanics of the game give me a way to succeed at it."

Note: While the class has some great design principles at its foundation, its description isn't actually very well-edited. Thus, a DM who allows a Factotum is going to have to make a number of rulings to adjudicate the class's wording. But it's worth it, IMO.

The book, Dungeonscape, is co-authored by our own webmaster Rich Burlew. Besides the Factotum, it has:

a bunch of highly useful mundane and magical equipment, mostly non-combat type stuff (which, when you read it, is like, "Duh, how did my characters ever survive a dungeon crawl without that?!?").
a fantastic chapter on traps, and making them more of an actual encounter instead of a "I roll Search/Disable Device. Did I roll high enough?"
a couple nifty monster templates that make monsters much more usable (mechanically and especially fluff-wise) in dungeon settings.

[FMArthur]

Don't let peoples' descriptions of the class fool you into thinking a Factotum does everything equally well; Factotum is a skillmonkey, the best in the game, is strong at physical combat and defense in short bursts, and provides very limited arcane spellcasting / healing backup (much less than a Bard, for comparison).

IMO, Dungeonscape is not worth getting if you don't have the higher-priority books. I'd get every Handbook, Compendium, Complete, Races of (except Eberron) and Tome of book before I got Dungeonscape, since it doesn't have a whole lot of anything you'd really use other than the Factotum.

On Factotum and Chameleon comparison/combination...Factotums and Chameleons sound similar if you give the most vague possible descriptions of them, but they don't play alike and their abilities can work together for stronger effects rather than make the other's similar ability redundant. Factotums are generalists at all times, providing weak but very diverse abilities that let them contribute a little bit in every different way at once. Chameleons are more like specialists who can change their specialization once or twice a day. Their abilities are more powerful (except at skillmonkeying; the Chameleon class provides rather poorly for that role) but they only do one role at a time, as if they really were a normal specialist class. So a Chameleon is able to prepare for predetermined situations more effectively, while a Factotum is designed around handling the unexpected.

Chameleon levels taken for the class itself instead of 2 levels for the daily changeable bonus feat generally dominate a character build and roleplay themes as the central concept - taking over for the entry class pretty much entirely - so I made a base class version to run the gamut from 1-20 to bring out the concept fully. Check it out in my sig if you're interested. :smallredface:

[JaronK]

The Factotum is the replacement to the Rogue, much like the ToB classes replaced a lot of the earlier melee classes. Basically, the designers realized that the original classes had problems, and after years of throwing in random patches (like the Lightbringer Rogue ACF) they finally just made a new class that does what the original was supposed to do.

So basically, it's a Rogue that doesn't care if you're undead or a plant or a construct or an ooze (Iajuitsu Focus). It's a Rogue that can actually have virtually all skills at decent levels, including the more obscure ones (Cunning Knowledge). It's a Rogue that's actually better at all the stealthy/movement abilities than Monks and Rangers and the like (Brains over Brawn). It's a Rogue that can actually defend itself a bit, so it's not afraid to fight... at least for a bit (Cunning Insight, Cunning Defense, Cunning Dodge). It's a Rogue that's actually intelligence based as it should be. (all the class abilities). And it's a Rogue that doesn't find himself completely without magic in a world where magic is one of the tools you're expected to have (Arcane Dilettante). And yet, it's not at all overpowered (at least until you hit level 19...). In other words, it's a fixed Rogue.

As for Factotum/Chameleon... I don't think the synergy is very good at all. The main reason it would be good is combining Cunning Surge (8th level) with casting, but if you wait that long to go into Chameleon you don't get decent spells for a very long time. At most levels, you'll find that a pure Factotum is simply better than a Factotum/Chameleon, especially considering Able Learner is a wasted feat for a Factotum. If you're going Chameleon, MAYBE go to Factotum 3. But mostly, I'd say you'd do better with Binder than Factotum as an entry.

JaronK

[SurlySeraph]

can deal lots of damage if you use a couple of unintended combos (I'm not talking "ubercharger" amounts of damage, or even "Rogue" amounts. Just enough to remain relevant at higher levels.)

Don't forget taking lots of Fonts of Inspiration for a sneak attack nova. Or lots of Fonts of Inspiration and Cunning Surge for a spellcasting nova. Factotum usually remains balanced if the player doesn't spend 20+ inspiration points on a single turn, though. Also, fast-progression casting classes like Ur-Priest can be pretty scary with a Factotum as a base, but that's only a concern at fairly high levels.

[Thurbane]

Don't forget taking lots of Fonts of Inspiration for a sneak attack nova.
If you read the ability that way...there is some debate as to whether you can only use it for 1d6, or multiple.

[SurlySeraph]

If you don't read it that way, 3 IP per standard action becomes the focus, and that's a lot worse.

Say, Human Factotum 9, 20 Int, spending his 5 feats on Font of Inspiration. He has 20 IP and 4 spells per day, one 3rd-level and three 2nd-level. He uses his standard action to cast Stinking Cloud, spends 9 IP on Cunning Surge, and casts Glitterdust, Cloud of Bewilderment, and Shadow Spray. Now a bunch of targets need to make 4 saves or be screwed for the encounter. Sure, he spent a fair amount of resources; he's still got 11 IP left for this encounter, and if he needs casting later there's always UMD. And if he spent 3 IP more, he could also take a full-round action then too, such as sneak attacking someone he just blinded.

And that's without any particular effort or at very high level. Combining Factotum with Warblade, Swordsage, or rapid-progression casters leads to some pretty powerful results. Say, Factotum 8/ Ur-Priest 10, also loaded up with FoI, casting pretty much as many 9th-levels spells as he wants per turn.

[Draz74]

The Factotum is the replacement to the Rogue, much like the ToB classes replaced a lot of the earlier melee classes. Basically, the designers realized that the original classes had problems, and after years of throwing in random patches (like the Lightbringer Rogue ACF) they finally just made a new class that does what the original was supposed to do.
[snip]
(Iajuitsu Focus).
You say that like you think the writer intended the Factotum to use Iaijutsu Focus. :smallconfused:

Iaijutsu is a clever RAW-way to make the Factotum significant in melee, without having to be creative and clever on a situational basis. But I very much doubt it was intended to be a major feature of the class, and I for one enjoy seeing Factotums played without it sometimes.


it's not at all overpowered (at least until you hit level 19...).
Eh, even then. Cunning Brilliance falls more under the "poorly edited/clarified in the text" area (as I mentioned earlier) than the "overpowered" area. Cunning Brilliance isn't really overpowered at all as long as you interpret it with a shred of common sense (i.e. no counting "Wizard Spellcasting" as an Extraordinary class feature -- there's an argument for this by RAW, but it's kinda tenuous, and it's clearly unintended and game-breaking).


Don't forget taking lots of Fonts of Inspiration for a sneak attack nova.
Yeah, along with the Iaijutsu stuff, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said you could rack up a lot of damage-per-round in unintended ways. (And this one was clearly unintended, since FoI didn't even exist when the Factotum was first introduced!)

Still, personally I feel there's always something better for a Factotum to do with his Inspiration Points than add 1d6 sneak attack damage per point. To an attack that might not even hit. (The only time I would use Cunning Strike is if my DM allowed me to use it to qualify for Craven, which isn't strictly RAW; and then I would only use it to add +1d6+Craven damage.)


Or lots of Fonts of Inspiration and Cunning Surge for a spellcasting nova. Factotum usually remains balanced if the player doesn't spend 20+ inspiration points on a single turn, though.
I'm trying to figure out what your point is here. Is it that Factotum is breakable? Sure. Any class is breakable.

I agree that taking a lot of Fonts of Inspiration and using them all in one turn can get broken, yes. (Although if you're doing this with spells, you're going to run out of spells for the day very quickly. I'd rather use a wand. FoI abuse + Ray of Stupidity wand = madness!)


Also, fast-progression casting classes like Ur-Priest can be pretty scary with a Factotum as a base, but that's only a concern at fairly high levels.

Well, Ur-Priest is pretty scary regardless of base, but yeah. :smallsmile:

[gorfnab]

Here is a Factotum Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871722/The_Factotum_Handbook) from 339 since BG is having issues.

[Greenish]

a couple nifty monster templates that make monsters much more usable (mechanically and especially fluff-wise) in dungeon settings.You can have sharks in your lake of acid! Giant squids that thrive in lava! Hydras that can actually fit in the dungeon they're supposed to live in!

It's a Rogue that's actually intelligence based as it should be. (all the class abilities).To nitpick, Opportunistic Piety (healing and turning undead) is based on Wisdom.

[JaronK]

You say that like you think the writer intended the Factotum to use Iaijutsu Focus. :smallconfused:

Iaijutsu is a clever RAW-way to make the Factotum significant in melee, without having to be creative and clever on a situational basis. But I very much doubt it was intended to be a major feature of the class, and I for one enjoy seeing Factotums played without it sometimes.

Um... it was intended. They're the all skills base class. They're the only one (among PC classes). That's pretty intended. Factotums are intended to use all the various skills (including the obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus) just like Archivists are intended to use obscure divine spells. It's their thing. It's what they do.

You don't have to use it of course... archer Factotums have little need for it. But yes, Factotums were supposed to make use of skills a lot, including lesser used one.


Eh, even then. Cunning Brilliance falls more under the "poorly edited/clarified in the text" area (as I mentioned earlier) than the "overpowered" area. Cunning Brilliance isn't really overpowered at all as long as you interpret it with a shred of common sense (i.e. no counting "Wizard Spellcasting" as an Extraordinary class feature -- there's an argument for this by RAW, but it's kinda tenuous, and it's clearly unintended and game-breaking).

The standard argument by RAW is "Monster Manual V explicitly says so, Monster Manual 1 implicitly says so, PHB backs this up." That's a pretty good one. However, nobody in their right mind would pick up Wizard casting because you don't have time to memorize spells. It's Sorcerer casting you'd grab. Or Favored Soul. Or Beguiler. Either way, it has to be a spontaneous caster. I'm not sure what's so surprising about the fact that an ability to grab any ex ability off any base class turns out to be really strong. Even without spells your options include "all the maneuvers of any ToB class" or "all the feats of a Fighter."


Yeah, along with the Iaijutsu stuff, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said you could rack up a lot of damage-per-round in unintended ways. (And this one was clearly unintended, since FoI didn't even exist when the Factotum was first introduced!)

Sneak Attack Novaing is actually a terrible tactic for a Factotum. Overdoing Font of Inspiration turns out to be a bad idea in real play, since there's actually a bunch of other feats well worth taking (Darkstalker, for example). Plus, Cunning Surge is pretty much strictly better than Cunning Strike.

However, Font of Inspiration was made by the same designers as the ones who made the Factotum, because they did indeed intend for you to use more inspiration points... when they realized they'd given the class too few. Turns out it's okay, as you don't actually need that many, but it was certainly intended that you have more.


Still, personally I feel there's always something better for a Factotum to do with his Inspiration Points than add 1d6 sneak attack damage per point. To an attack that might not even hit. (The only time I would use Cunning Strike is if my DM allowed me to use it to qualify for Craven, which isn't strictly RAW; and then I would only use it to add +1d6+Craven damage.)

It actually is RAW, because you do indeed have "sneak attack as a class ability." But I agree, Cunning Strike is almost never a good idea (3d6 damage on one attack is almost never as good as another attack, at least as you get to higher levels). Except for very specific situations (True Strike assassination, Coup de Gras) you really don't want to use it much. Might be worth it with Terrifying Strike and Sickening Strike, but I prefer to just get Assassin's Stance.

In general I think Font of Inspiration is heavily overrated, and basically a crutch. Yes, you can break the action economy a bit, but in the end other feats just do more for you in the long run. Craft Wand, Craft Wonderous Item, Darkstalker, Item Familiar, Master of Poisons, Many Shot, Knowledge Devotion, and a host of others turn out to be rather important.

And yeah, Opportunistic Piety is Wisdom. But, you don't need much of a Wis score for it.

JaronK

[Tael]

Um... it was intended. They're the all skills base class. They're the only one (among PC classes). That's pretty intended. Factotums are intended to use all the various skills (including the obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus) just like Archivists are intended to use obscure divine spells. It's their thing. It's what they do.

You don't have to use it of course... archer Factotums have little need for it. But yes, Factotums were supposed to make use of skills a lot, including lesser used one.


Wait, do you actually think the designers intended the Factotum to Iaijutsu Focus as a replacement for sneak attack? Not just obscure skills, but IF specifically?

[Tytalus]

Um... it was intended. They're the all skills base class. They're the only one (among PC classes). That's pretty intended. Factotums are intended to use all the various skills (including the obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus) just like Archivists are intended to use obscure divine spells. It's their thing. It's what they do.

The point is not whether Factorum was intended to have all skills as class skills. That seems pretty obvious.

But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source? That's ... a bit out there, to put it mildly.

[Draz74]

Um... it was intended. They're the all skills base class. They're the only one (among PC classes). That's pretty intended. Factotums are intended to use all the various skills (including the obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus) just like Archivists are intended to use obscure divine spells. It's their thing. It's what they do.

You don't have to use it of course... archer Factotums have little need for it. But yes, Factotums were supposed to make use of skills a lot, including lesser used one.
This:


The point is not whether Factorum was intended to have all skills as class skills. That seems pretty obvious.

But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source? That's ... a bit out there, to put it mildly.
... is exactly what I had in mind. I seriously doubt the existence of Iaijutsu Focus ever crossed the Factotum's writer's mind while he was writing the class.


The standard argument by RAW is "Monster Manual V explicitly says so, Monster Manual 1 implicitly says so, PHB backs this up." That's a pretty good one.
I remember reading when you and some other rules gurus hashed this all out on another thread, and there was some key quote that "proved" your side which, when I read it, I immediately felt a little sick to my stomach because of the logic involved. I don't remember what it was, specifically; and I don't remember if it was a very ambiguous passage, or just so obviously counter to what the game intended that I couldn't believe it had gotten through editing.

Even if Spellcasting is firmly established as [Ex] (:smallmad:), I'm not sure "class feature" or "class ability" is clearly defined anywhere, nor whether it means the same thing in the (poorly-edited) Factotum writeup that it means in other areas of the game. To me, the description of Cunning Brilliance always seemed to indicate a class feature on another class's Table of abilities under the "Special" column. The Sorcerer, for example, only has one ability in that column: "Summon familiar." Spellcasting is a whole separate part of his class Table. This simple interpretation of Cunning Brilliance pretty well keeps it from being overpowered very nicely.

Even if I'm wrong about how the rules define class abilities ... even if picking up Sorcerer casting is fully and inarguably 100% legal by RAW ...

... well, Monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes is 100% RAW too. And this seems to be the same magnitude of inanity to me.


However, nobody in their right mind would pick up Wizard casting because you don't have time to memorize spells. It's Sorcerer casting you'd grab. Or Favored Soul. Or Beguiler. Either way, it has to be a spontaneous caster.
Eh, duh. Slip-up on my part.


I'm not sure what's so surprising about the fact that an ability to grab any ex ability off any base class turns out to be really strong. Even without spells your options include "all the maneuvers of any ToB class" or "all the feats of a Fighter."
Not the way I've ever read Cunning Brilliance, it doesn't.

(Though I actually think the Fighter version -- a 19th-level character spending 4 precious Inspiration to pick up 8 temporary feats off the Fighter bonus list -- would be reasonable. Powerful, but not overly so. But yeah, under my understanding of Cunning Brilliance, you could only get one Fighter bonus feat.)


However, Font of Inspiration was made by the same designers as the ones who made the Factotum, because they did indeed intend for you to use more inspiration points... when they realized they'd given the class too few. Turns out it's okay, as you don't actually need that many, but it was certainly intended that you have more.
What's your source on the claim that FoI was written by the same designer(s) as the original class? I've never heard that before.


It actually is RAW, because you do indeed have "sneak attack as a class ability."
Again, is "class ability" really well-defined at all? If so, what sick wording in its description manages to pull off "sneak attack" as a Factotum class ability? :smallsigh: The Factotum class description lists a class ability called "Cunning Strike." It does not list a class ability called "Sneak Attack."

[Innis Cabal]

Again, is "class ability" really well-defined at all? If so, what sick wording in its description manages to pull off "sneak attack" as a Factotum class ability? :smallsigh: The Factotum class description lists a class ability called "Cunning Strike." It does not list a class ability called "Sneak Attack."

Thank you. Was going to say this.

[JaronK]

The point is not whether Factorum was intended to have all skills as class skills. That seems pretty obvious.

But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source? That's ... a bit out there, to put it mildly.

...yes, the Factotum was intended to have all skills as class skills... AND use them. All skills includes ones you might not know about. Just look at their fluff. They are "skilled in nearly every art" and are "constantly on the hunt for new abilities and tricks." They are "capable of mimicking the abilities of others." What part of that sounds like it's out of character at all for them to mimic the abilities of a samurai and use the art of Iajuitsu Focus? What part of "constantly on the hunt for new abilities and tricks" sounds like it's not intended for them to use obscure abilities like Iajuistu Focus? While we're at it, do you think it's also unintended for them to use skills like Autohypnosis and Lucid Dreaming and any other more obscure skill?

As for class abilities... class abilities are abilities granted by your class. See page 23 of the PHB, where they show that anything in the special area of a class table is a "class ability," for example "Cunning Strike" in the Factotum entry. It's also pretty clear there that any other ability granted by the class is also a "class ability." Factotums have a class ability that lets them sneak attack. Thus, they have the sneak attack ability as a class ability. It's not called "sneak attack" in the table, but it's still a class ability that gives you sneak attack. It doesn't have to be called sneak attack in the entry... heck, the CA Ninja Sudden Strike counts as Sneak Attack as a class ability anyway (though in that case there's a specific rule saying as much).

This is as opposed to sneak attack from something that's not a class ability, for example certain races that have it as a racial ability, or the Assassination weapon enchantment (which isn't quite sneak attack anyway, but it acts like it is).

JaronK

[Thurbane]

Wait, do you actually think the designers intended the Factotum to Iaijutsu Focus as a replacement for sneak attack? Not just obscure skills, but IF specifically?
But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source? That's ... a bit out there, to put it mildly.I have to agree here...I would be a bit surprised if the designers specifically had things like Iajutsu Focus or Lucid Dreaming in mind when designing the factotum. To me, it seems like more of an incidental effect of having ALL skills as class skills.

FWIW, Factotum is not the only base class with this ability. By letter of the RAW, Expert gets to cherry pick any 10 skills. Same with the Human Paragon class. Then there's also the Savant class in Dragon Magazine Compendium, who also gets all skills as class skills.

[Incanur]

Iajutsu focus probably doesn't even exist in most campaign worlds. Decent trick when you can get it, sure, but not fundamental to the class.

[The Shadowmind]

Iaijutsu Focus by it self isn't really a problem, you start combat with a sneak attack equivalent(up to an extra 32 damage on average, for one attack). It only becomes low-fat cheese when you combine it with the Gnomish Quickrazor.

[Incanur]

Problem or not, the factotum doesn't magically get skills from books the DM ain't using. That's all I'm saying.

[Thurbane]

Iaijutsu Focus isn't neccessarily a problem, I was just saying I don't think it was really part of the design process for the Factotum...

[JaronK]

Iaijutsu Focus by it self isn't really a problem, you start combat with a sneak attack equivalent(up to an extra 32 damage on average, for one attack). It only becomes low-fat cheese when you combine it with the Gnomish Quickrazor.

In what way is it cheesy to have a sneak attack equivalent that works only on Flat Footed opponents, but works on everyone regardless of type? It's equivalent to Rogue sneak attack (harder to trigger, works on more people, roughly the same damage at any given level). Do you think Rogue sneak attack is low fat cheese too?

And no class gets anything from books DMs aren't using, obviously. That doesn't mean its somehow horribly violating RAI for a Factotum to use obscure skills (or spells) from random sources, especially when the Factotum entry specifically talks about how they like finding obscure abilities and tricks to use.

JaronK

[Thurbane]

Just curious - what skills pop up outside of those in the PHB? Autohypnosis, Iajutsu Focus, Knowledge (psionics), Lucid Dreaming and Truenaming. Is there others I've missed?

[ImperiousLeader]

Martial Lore from Tome of Battle, but it's pretty much just Spellcraft for Martial Adepts.

[Cerlis]

sounds like a Factotum would be a perfect "Skilled Valet who has an answer for everything" seen in a few stories

[The Shadowmind]

In what way is it cheesy to have a sneak attack equivalent that works only on Flat Footed opponents, but works on everyone regardless of type? It's equivalent to Rogue sneak attack (harder to trigger, works on more people, roughly the same damage at any given level). Do you think Rogue sneak attack is low fat cheese too?
JaronK

I don't mean cheesy in a way that is broken, but in a way the was completely unintended for the writer at the time. An extra 31 damage on an attack all attacks is tiny in the long run of things. Cheesy probably wasn't the right word. but what just popped in my head at the time.


Just curious - what skills pop up outside of those in the PHB? Autohypnosis, Iajutsu Focus, Knowledge (psionics), Lucid Dreaming and Truenaming. Is there others I've missed?

Lucid Dreaming and the Cat skills.

[JaronK]

Then every spell the authors didn't specifically think of a Factotum using is also cheesy? I don't buy it. Factotums are completely intended to use every Wizard spell up to a given level, including ones the Factotum designers didn't specifically think of at the time. They're also completely intended to use every skill, including ones Factotum designers didn't think specifically of at the time. Is using Forgery cheesy? It's in the PHB, but it's so rarely used that they probably didn't think about it. Is it cheesy to use Fins to Feet, because that spell probably wasn't thought of when they made the class, even though it's just a random Sor/Wiz 2 spell in the Spell Compendium?

That's just not what cheese means. Nor is it bad in any way.

Iajuitsu Focus is just one tactic Factotums can use, that's quite handy, and both RAW and RAI, as much as any other random spell or skill from a random source is. Is it cheesy? No. Broken? No. Useful? Yes. But when a DM starts calling everything that's useful and not expected "cheesy" it hurts the game in the long run, because then players just spend their time trying to figure out what the solution the DM expected was, instead of playing their characters how they want (within the scope of the game, of course).

JaronK

[Coidzor]

However, Font of Inspiration was made by the same designers as the ones who made the Factotum, because they did indeed intend for you to use more inspiration points... when they realized they'd given the class too few. Turns out it's okay, as you don't actually need that many, but it was certainly intended that you have more.

JaronK

Where'd you find that out?


The point is not whether Factorum was intended to have all skills as class skills. That seems pretty obvious.

But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source? That's ... a bit out there, to put it mildly.

It's a bit out there to say that it's unreasonable for the Factotum to make use of said skill when it is not that obscure by any stretch of the imagination in the 3rd edition library. It's not high on the priority list, especially for the complete 3.5 library due to having most of it having received updates, unless you want its particular niche, but it is not obscure. Nor is OA setting-dependent. It puts forth a setting but also has things in it that are along the same lines of offering additional fluff and crunch for things in its vein in the same way as the It's X Outside series.


Again, is "class ability" really well-defined at all? If so, what sick wording in its description manages to pull off "sneak attack" as a Factotum class ability? :smallsigh: The Factotum class description lists a class ability called "Cunning Strike." It does not list a class ability called "Sneak Attack."

You pegged it as a class ability under your definition of a class ability. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm)


To me, the description of Cunning Brilliance always seemed to indicate a class feature on another class's Table of abilities under the "Special" column.
So sneak attack from/as a class feature is a class ability. To say otherwise would be to contradict your word and interpretation.

Lucid Dreaming and the Cat skills.

Cat skills? You mean the mountains? :smallconfused:


Just curious - what skills pop up outside of those in the PHB? Autohypnosis, Iajutsu Focus, Knowledge (psionics), Lucid Dreaming and Truenaming. Is there others I've missed?

Well, in the vein of knowledge (psionics), there's psicraft and Use Psionic Device.

[The Shadowmind]

Cat skills? You mean the mountains? :smallconfused:.

Fabulous Cats! (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c)
Handle Humanoid.

I though there was more, which is why I said Cat skills.

[gorfnab]

Just curious - what skills pop up outside of those in the PHB? Autohypnosis, Iajutsu Focus, Knowledge (psionics), Lucid Dreaming and Truenaming. Is there others I've missed?
Control Shape, Use Psionic Device, Psicraft, Perform: Weapon Drill, and Martial Lore

BG is back up so here the better Factotum's Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2720.0)

[Kylarra]

I believe that the point that many other people are trying to make is that they doubt the veracity of the claim that the Factotum was specifically designed to use Iajutsu Focus. As in, Iajutsu focus was specifically thought of by the designers as a replacement for sneak attack and they were thinking "yeah, the factotum should use this skill from our 3.0 OA series as a source of bonus damage", not that the factotum should necessarily be prevented from using it via RAW/RAI.

I think that's the disconnect between the two arguments over IF.

[Coidzor]

^: The only apparent motivation for saying it in the first place appears to be arguing in favor of banning it as being against RAI. Hence people objecting to neutering the class from doing its thing as master of all skills.


Fabulous Cats! (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c)
Handle Humanoid.

I though there was more, which is why I said Cat skills.

Well. Now I know how to get skill-based slavery by RAW other than 3.0's Creature Type Trainer feat and a source of reliable Intelligence Drain.

In fact, I'm now imagining a cabal of catfolk factota with a number of humanoid fanboy pets as a group of antagonists. Sorta combines pop culture interpretation of Ancient Egyptian culture with anime fanboys with catgirl fetishes...

[JaronK]

My claim certainly isn't that Factotums were designed specifically to use Iajuitsu Focus (it's possible they were thinking of it, but the only way to know would be to ask the designers themselves. One of them runs this website... it's Rich. Jason Bulmahn is the other). Rather, it's that they were specifically designed to use obscure skills and spells, with Iajuitsu Focus being one of those skills. Thus, there's nothing "cheesy" about using the skill... it's exactly what they're meant to do, even if that skill wasn't what they were thinking of at the time.

Though using that skill makes them exactly like the guy from Assassin's Creed, right down the weapon, and that's awesome.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

...yes, the Factotum was intended to have all skills as class skills... AND use them.

That was never in dispute. In fact, it was explicitly acknowledged.

Simply put, this particular skill (IF) does affect the power potential of the Factorum considerably. Given that it is in an outdated, obscure, setting-dependent source and assuming that the class was not intended to have such wildly varying power depending on whether this rule/source is used or now, implies to me that the designers did not fully consider the implications of "ALL skills as class skills". I.e., IMHO if the designers had intended the IF power-up, they would have included the skill in the class' writeup. YMMV.

I'm beginning to understand the critical views of your estimation of the Factorum (i.e., IF (potentially plus Quickrazor) and FoI being a given when evaluating its potential, despite the obscure sources) I've seen on BG and TGDMB.



It's a bit out there to say that it's unreasonable for the Factotum to make use of said skill when it is not that obscure by any stretch of the imagination in the 3rd edition library.

I'd rather we don't get into a strawman debate. That was neither said nor implied.

[Kylarra]

^: The only apparent motivation for saying it in the first place appears to be arguing in favor of banning it as being against RAI. Hence people objecting to neutering the class from doing its thing as master of all skills.There were people contesting JaronK's apparent claim that Factotum was intended to use IF, as in designed to use IF, not the more general stance of "uses obscure knowledge" that he took later on when he clarified indirectly. I am simply putting it out there that the two sides are misunderstanding each other. JaronK keeps taking his line while not acknowledging, until now, that he meant to imply "master of esoteric knowledge" and not "user of Iajutsu Focus" when the subject was first broached along those lines.

[JaronK]

That was never in dispute. In fact, it was explicitly acknowledged.

Simply put, this particular skill (IF) does affect the power potential of the Factorum considerably.

First, it's Factotum. Second, not really. It makes them better in melee. But poison archer Factotums (Knowledge Devotion + Manyshot + a decent bow + usually a poison generation method) are generally even nastier. And when you want to talk about serious power from Factotums, it comes from their ability to control actions and combo spells, plus their general access to the Wizard/Sorc list as spell like abilities.

So no, it's not their most powerful option, meaning it doesn't really affect their "power potential", it's just a solid and characterful option. I haven't claimed as much either... but I have claimed that Factotums can use it to behave just like a fixed version of the Rogue, and that it is neither "cheesy" nor against RAI to use it.


I'm beginning to understand the critical views of your estimation of the Factorum (i.e., IF (potentially plus Quickrazor) and FoI being a given when evaluating its potential, despite the obscure sources) I've seen on BG and TGDMB.

...you know I refer to FoI as a crutch, right? And IF + Quickrazor as a solid melee option, not a given, and not even one of their strongest options? Please don't use strawmen.


I'd rather we don't get into a strawman debate. That was neither said nor implied.

You mean like what you just said? That was a strawman.

But let's be clear. You state that the statement "It's a bit out there to say that it's unreasonable for the Factotum to make use of said skill when it is not that obscure by any stretch of the imagination in the 3rd edition library" was neither said nor implied. Yet in the same post you claim


Given that it is in an outdated, obscure, setting-dependent source...

and others gave statements like


But what you are saying is that Factorum was specifically intended to use an obscure skill from an obscure, setting-dependent, 3.0 source?

So I think we can establish that even you yourself consider it obscure (even though another popular class, the Iajuitsu Master, is built around it, and the skill was actually found or referenced in multiple source books). And others had called it obscure too. And since it was referred to as "cheesy" at least when combined with the Quickrazor, that does imply people are claiming it's unreasonable to use. Not much of a strawman there, is it?

@Kylarra: Take a look at what I actually said. In the first post, I said Factotums are a replacement to the Rogue, and then mentioned Iajuitsu Focus as one way they are capable of being like one... I never said that Iajuitsu Focus itself was a specific design goal. When asked about IF specifically, my first response was:


Um... it was intended. They're the all skills base class. They're the only one (among PC classes). That's pretty intended. Factotums are intended to use all the various skills (including the obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus) just like Archivists are intended to use obscure divine spells. It's their thing. It's what they do.

You don't have to use it of course... archer Factotums have little need for it. But yes, Factotums were supposed to make use of skills a lot, including lesser used one.

At no point is that saying "The Factotum was specifically supposed to use Iajuitsu Focus, and was in fact designed around that skill." I said the Factotum was intended to be "the all skills base class." and that they "are intended to use all the various skills including obscure ones like Autohypnosis, Lucid Dreaming, and Iajuitsu Focus" not that any specific one of those was a design goal or something. And I've said that all along. Nor did I claim as Tytalus says that it's a serious effect on the power potential of the class... in fact I was pretty clear that you can absolutely make a strong Factotum without it.

Heck, the strongest Factotums are going to be the ones that use Animate Dead to make a bunch of 10 headed zombie hydras and then take advantage of the fact that their spells never take longer than a standard action (see MM and Rules Compendium) to drop Minor Creation for gallons of Black Lotus Poison on the boss (make 1000 saves or die!), then takes that poison and keeps it for the rest of the day while shooting everyone with arrows laced with the stuff, then assassinate people using Imperious Command so they can't act, then take out a swarm of undead by holding a Lyre of the Restful Soul and a Rod of Defiance while blowing them up with Turn Undead or something, all around level 10 or so. 5d6 IF damage per attack sorta doesn't compare.

And to be clear... I am not saying the Factotum was designed with the specific intent to use the Lyre of the Restful Soul. I know some people might not have seen that particular magic item, and it might not be available in all games. But I also feel that it was intended that Factotums can use various magic items available to them, such as the Lyre of the Restful Soul.

JaronK

[Draz74]

You pegged it as a class ability under your definition of a class ability. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm)

So sneak attack from/as a class feature is a class ability. To say otherwise would be to contradict your word and interpretation.

I ... think you kind of missed the context of my statements. I definitely was never questioning that Sneak Attack is a class ability for some characters (e.g. Rogues). I was opining that it's not a class ability for Factotums.

The way I would rule things, the Craven prerequisite "Sneak attack as a class ability" can be met by having levels in Rogue, Spellthief, Ninja, Assassin, etc., etc. Maybe even Lurk. It cannot be met by the Factotum's Cunning Strike or Cunning Brilliance abilities, nor by Assassin's Stance or any other feats or items that grant Sneak Attack.

[JaronK]

While I'd agree that things that aren't class abilities shouldn't count as "sneak attack as a class ability" why shouldn't a class ability like Cunning Strike, which gives sneak attack, be counted as such? Is it not a class ability? Does it not give sneak attack? Is your sneak attack not thus derived from a class ability?

Heck, I'd say Assassin's Stance works, but only if you got it from your class (as opposed to the Martial Stance feat).

But you did in fact say, in your post, that class abilities are those found in the special section of the class table. I agree entirely (though I think anything else the class might grant, most notably spellcasting, also counts). But that makes it clear that Cunning Strike is a class ability.

JaronK

[Draz74]

While I'd agree that things that aren't class abilities shouldn't count as "sneak attack as a class ability" why shouldn't a class ability like Cunning Strike, which gives sneak attack, be counted as such? Is it not a class ability? Does it not give sneak attack? Is your sneak attack not thus derived from a class ability?
Cunning Strike is most certainly a class ability. I was never contesting that.

Cunning strike gives (temporary) sneak attack.

None of that changes the fact that Cunning Strike is not the class ability "Sneak Attack." "As" and "derived from" are not the same thing; one has a level of recursion while the other is simply an identity.

Going by strict RAW, you might be able to convince me that "Spellcasting" is a class ability, but even then I still wouldn't think Cunning Strike counts as "sneak attack as a class ability" for prerequisites. (As a DM, of course, with the ability to houserule in the name of balance, this is reversed. Using Cunning Brilliance to become a temporary full caster is absurd, while using Cunning Strike or especially Assassin's Stance to qualify for Craven is pretty tame.)

[JaronK]

If a feat had the prerequisite "Arcane Caster Level 3 as a class ability" would you say a Sorcerer 3 doesn't qualify, because he doesn't actually have a class ability that says "Arcane Caster Level 3?" I'd say he does, because he has a class ability (spellcasting) that gives him arcane caster level 3. I've been looking about a bit for references to other prerequisites that want things "as a class ability" but have yet to find examples.

Though really, I just wouldn't take Craven regardless. I think it's overrated... never being able to be immune to mind effecting is TERRIBLE as you get into high levels. That's one heck of an achilles heel.

As for Cunning Brilliance... it depends on the group. I'd absolutely allow it if the group were Wizard, Cleric, Factotum, Archivist. After all, everyone else in the group can do it, so what's wrong with the Factotum being at the same level (for short periods each day)? If the group were Barbarian, Factotum, Warmage, Crusader, I might be willing to let the Factotum do it for Warmage spells, but only those. If the group were Fighter, Soulknife, Factotum, Healer, I absolutely wouldn't allow it. But those would all be balance decisions. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd want a Factotum in that last group at all.

But generally speaking, in any forum discussion I'm going to talk about RAW, not my house rules, simply because no one else plays by my exact house rules.

JaronK

[Draz74]

If a feat had the prerequisite "Arcane Caster Level 3 as a class ability" would you say a Sorcerer 3 doesn't qualify, because he doesn't actually have a class ability that says "Arcane Caster Level 3?"
Yes, absolutely.


I've been looking about a bit for references to other prerequisites that want things "as a class ability" but have yet to find examples.
Yeah, Craven is really an oddity in that way. Which is good, since no one would qualify for the caster level requirement as you wrote it above.

I think the Caven prereq is more of an editing error than anything. But as-written, I can't justify Factotum qualifying for it.


Though really, I just wouldn't take Craven regardless. I think it's overrated... never being able to be immune to mind effecting is TERRIBLE as you get into high levels. That's one heck of an achilles heel.
Fair.


As for Cunning Brilliance... it depends on the group. I'd absolutely allow it if the group were Wizard, Cleric, Factotum, Archivist. After all, everyone else in the group can do it, so what's wrong with the Factotum being at the same level (for short periods each day)? If the group were Barbarian, Factotum, Warmage, Crusader, I might be willing to let the Factotum do it for Warmage spells, but only those. If the group were Fighter, Soulknife, Factotum, Healer, I absolutely wouldn't allow it. But those would all be balance decisions. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd want a Factotum in that last group at all.
I still find allowing the Factotum temporary full casting to be ludicrously in violation of what I think Cunning Brilliance was intended to do, but OK. Your game would work fine with this sort of adjudication, and I would even be fine with playing under these rulings.


But generally speaking, in any forum discussion I'm going to talk about RAW, not my house rules, simply because no one else plays by my exact house rules.

Nobody plays exactly by RAW, either, unless only as a playtesting exercise. I understand the "discuss RAW only" convention, but I don't agree with it 100% -- I think forum discussions turn out a lot more productive when a smidge of common sense can be assumed (i.e. ignoring RAW that nobody in their right mind would follow, like drowning = healing or Monks' unarmed nonproficiency).

... And I think we've had this conversation before.

[JaronK]

It's fine to say "in my game, house rule X applies." But saying "X is how the game works" is entirely a false statement if X is a house rule, even one you consider to be common sense. For example, saying humanoid Monks are proficient in unarmed strikes is strikes is false... they're not, due to some really sloppy writing. It's common sense to allow them to be proficient, since it's obviously intended, but at the same time claiming that's how it really is is false.

And I too highly doubt Cunning Brilliance was "intended" to be used with casting. I've certainly never claimed such things were intended. Then again, Druids weren't intended to use Wild Shape in combat (at least, according to the playtesters) and Monks were intended to be awesome against Wizards. There's a big difference between the game that was intended (mostly T5 folks running around, with Clerics healing, Wizards blasting, Druids using their scimitars in combat while keeping their animal companions safe away from the combat), the game the designers actually wrote (Monks aren't proficient in unarmed strikes, Polymorph gives you spellcasting abilities, a single Candle of Invocation will lead to infinite wishes, Wizards can make new planes of existence where time and space are mere playthings), and the games most people play (generally somewhere in between). But I don't know exactly how you play, and you don't know exactly how I play, and none of us know what the designers intended (except where the designers have specifically stated what they meant) so in the end our only common ground is the game they actually wrote. Which is to say, RAW. By RAW, that Cunning Brilliance-spellcasting thing totally works. But any decent player should ask their DM if that's the kind of nonsense that they want in their game before doing it, whether it's RAW or not.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

So no, it's not their most powerful option...


For the sake of a fruitful discussion, please stick to what's actually been said.



<dubious argument that mixes things said by different posters while disregarding their context to "conclude" that single poster must have meant something he never said>


I'm not going to comment that one. Again, let's stick to what's actually been said.

My point never was whether it's "unreasonable" for a Factotum to use IF. I also never claimed it's their strongest option or that it's better than being a ranged Factotum or a Factorum using broken options such as abusing Minor Creation (yay Strawmen!).

Instead, I've been arguing that it seems that the designers did not intend Factotums to abuse IF, in the context of the your argument that Factotums are competent in melee because of IF, and your claim that Factotums using IF was intentional.

I base this on two observations (to reiterate): first, that (ab)using IF changes the power potential of a Factotum, as it makes them competent in an area where they are, without IF, mediocre at best. Second, that IF is not part of the Factotum rules, but does in fact come from an outdated, obscure, setting-specific source.

YMMV, obviously, but to me that's pretty clear.



...and the skill was actually found or referenced in multiple source books.


Could you please enlighten me which ones those are?



Though really, I just wouldn't take Craven regardless. I think it's overrated... never being able to be immune to mind effecting is TERRIBLE as you get into high levels. That's one heck of an achilles heel.


Huh? Craven does not prevent you from becoming immune to mind-affecting effects. At all.

You might loose the benefits of the feat when you become immune to fear effects, but that's completely different.



I think the Caven prereq is more of an editing error than anything. But as-written, I can't justify Factotum qualifying for it.


I have to agree here. By RAW, Cunning Brilliance only gives you the benefits and drawbacks of a class ability, not the class ability itself. As such, it doesn't satisfy prerequisites such as "X as a class ability".

As for spellcasting ... what are the arguments that spellcasting is (Ex) again?

[Coidzor]

Huh? Craven does not prevent you from becoming immune to mind-affecting effects. At all.

You might loose the benefits of the feat when you become immune to fear effects, but that's completely different.

It functions the same way. It just cuts off an option from your arsenal with a prohibitively expensive start-up cost rather than being completely unable to do it within the rules.

[Foryn Gilnith]

(yay Strawmen!).
I think people should stop using that word. It's too emotionally loaded and there's great potential for the argument to just go back and forth which each side claiming the opponent is misrepresenting their position (as opposed to, say, legitimately misunderstanding, because that's the way communication works)


<dubious argument that mixes things said by different posters while disregarding their context to "conclude" that single poster must have meant something he never said>
Every single quote in his post is from your posts, save for the last quote which refers to his own position. Have a little more trust for people's argumentative integrity.


I also never claimed it's their strongest option or that it's better than being a ranged Factotum or a Factorum using broken options such as abusing Minor Creation
"Broken" and "abusing" are matters of scale. Any use of a Battlefield Control wizard can be abuse in weak enough parties; nothing a melee mix can pull out is "broken" if seen in the light of the optimized full casters that compose the rest of his party.
And while this claim was never explicitly made, it's a reasonable extrapolation from existing points (just as "JaronK claimed that you claimed it's their strongest option" is implicit but extrapolatable). Iaijutsu Focus and Font of Inspiration would only be critical views of an estimation of the Factotum's power if these elements were the primary contributions to the Factotum's power; as they are not, it can be concluded that the two elements are not critical to the views of JaronK or the ill-defined BG/TGDMB people.


Could you please enlighten me which ones those are?
Yeah, JaronK should probably do that.


Huh? Craven does not prevent you from becoming immune to mind-affecting effects. At all.
"Gaining the benefits of Craven" and "Being immune to mind-affecting effects" are mutually exclusive. I think that's what he meant.


As for spellcasting ... what are the arguments that spellcasting is (Ex) again?
A monster or two in MM5. Githyanki and/or Hobgoblins, I believe.

@Tytalus, what precisely is your argument? You've said your "point never was whether it's "unreasonable" for a Factotum to use IF", but words like "abuse" imply certain leanings.

[JaronK]

For the sake of a fruitful discussion, please stick to what's actually been said.

I'm not going to comment that one. Again, let's stick to what's actually been said.

My point never was whether it's "unreasonable" for a Factotum to use IF. I also never claimed it's their strongest option or that it's better than being a ranged Factotum or a Factorum using broken options such as abusing Minor Creation (yay Strawmen!).

Actually, you did claim it's their strongest option (or one of). See here:


Simply put, this particular skill (IF) does affect the power potential of the Factorum considerably. Given that it is in an outdated, obscure, setting-dependent source and assuming that the class was not intended to have such wildly varying power depending on whether this rule/source is used or now, implies to me that the designers did not fully consider the implications of "ALL skills as class skills". I.e., IMHO if the designers had intended the IF power-up, they would have included the skill in the class' writeup. YMMV.

You see, IF would not "affect the power potential of the Factotum considerably" unless it was at least tied among their strongest options. Nor would it be a "power-up." If the designers added a new spell that was simply kinda strong, but not as good as other spells of its level to the Wizard, would it be a power up or effect the power potential of the Wizard considerably? No, of course not. But if that spell were far better than any other option, then it would. If a new Feat for a Fighter was designed, but it wasn't among the best feats available to them, no one would refer to it as affecting the power potential of the Fighter considerably, and it wouldn't be a power up. But if that new feat was something like Shock Trooper, it would.

So yes, you made that argument. I guess you didn't mean to?


Instead, I've been arguing that it seems that the designers did not intend Factotums to abuse IF, in the context of the your argument that Factotums are competent in melee because of IF, and your claim that Factotums using IF was intentional.

I said Factotums were a good fix for Rogues, and IF meant they could behave like fixed Rogues (with a fixed version of sneak attack). I never claimed it was a source of power. Furthermore, why do you refer to it as "IF abuse?" You're claiming it's not a hugely powerful thing, right? So why is it suddenly abuse again? It's a sneak attack equivalent, not a Planar Binding loop.


I base this on two observations (to reiterate): first, that (ab)using IF changes the power potential of a Factotum, as it makes them competent in an area where they are, without IF, mediocre at best.

See? "abuse" and "power potential." You sure seem to think it's a huge source of their power. Meanwhile, there are plenty of ways to be nasty at hitting stuff as a Factotum without IF. Master of Poisons + Minor Creation (Sinmaker's Surprise) your first attack of each round has a DC 24 Save or take 2d6 con damage attack with an extra 3d6 acid damage, and with a weapon with the "Assassination" property that value can jump up to as high as 29. With a two level dip into Swordsage you can combine Brains over Brawn with the throw maneuvers to be quite effective, or use Assassin's Stance to trigger Terrifying Strike + Sickening Strike to raise that save DC effectively 4 higher. Is that your idea of "mediocre at best?"


Second, that IF is not part of the Factotum rules, but does in fact come from an outdated, obscure, setting-specific source.

One could say the same about any Wizard/Sorcerer spell that comes from a variety of books too. Does that make using them "abuse" too? Let me guess: only if it's really powerful. I doubt you'd ever claim some spell that wasn't actually very powerful used by a Factotum was "abuse."


Could you please enlighten me which ones those are?

Oriental Adventures and Unapproachable East offhand.


Huh? Craven does not prevent you from becoming immune to mind-affecting effects. At all.

You might loose the benefits of the feat when you become immune to fear effects, but that's completely different.

Except if you become immune to mind affecting effects, you're immune to fear, aren't you? And you can't use the feat as a result. So if you take Craven, you either waste the feat, or you can't become immune to Mind Effecting. As a rule, if you can become immune, you should do so full time if at all possible. That means you can't make use of your feat at all.


I have to agree here. By RAW, Cunning Brilliance only gives you the benefits and drawbacks of a class ability, not the class ability itself. As such, it doesn't satisfy prerequisites such as "X as a class ability".

Cunning Strike, not Cunning Brilliance. You know, the "you get sneak attack" class ability.


As for spellcasting ... what are the arguments that spellcasting is (Ex) again?

MMV says it is, for one (it's the first book to give a type to "Spells"). For another (if you actually need to figure it out without the "it's this!" clue in MMV), the primary source on what the ability types are is the Monster Manual. That says that all special abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp (Na abilities aren't special abilities, they're stuff like your run speed). It also has "Spells" listed as a special ability (specifically a Special Attack) in a number of monsters, something all other books that have spellcasting monsters also do. The Players Handbook backs this up on page 180 by saying all abilities of every kind are Ex, Su, Sp, or Na, saying that anything that's not one of the first three has to be the last... but we've already established special abilities aren't NA either. So it has to be Su, Sp, or Ex.

Su and Sp abilities are defined by how they're not spells. Specifically, they're just like spells, except for a few traits (such as not requiring components). So that eliminates them too. That leaves only Ex. This makes sense, because Invoke Magic wouldn't work at all if the ability to cast spells itself was a magical ability... you'd lose your entire Wizard (or whatever) casting ability entirely in an AMF if that were so. But you don't, it's just that the spells don't work... so you still have the Invoke Magic spell to cast, and you still have the other spells available to you as well once Invoke Magic goes off.

No other ability type would make any sense. MM1 itself specifically cuts out Na. Sp and Su are defined by how they're not spells.

And of course, from the beginning, the big one is that MMV specifically labels what "Spells" is in an entry... Ex. Just in case you needed it spelled out.

JaronK

[Foryn Gilnith]

Oriental Adventures and Unapproachable East offhand.
Unapproachable East has Weapon Focus, Sword Focus, Greystaff Focus, but no Iaijutsu Focus. It's confined to Oriental Adventures.

[Incanur]

Where does Unapproachable East say anything about Iaijutsu Focus?

[Tytalus]

Actually, you did claim it's their strongest option (or one of).

To say that something changes the power potential and saying that something is the strongest option is not the same thing. The quote you provided does not substantiate your claim.

I'll say it again: IF makes the factotum competent in an area where it is otherwise at best mediocre. And of course that is a considerable power-up. I really thought you as the tier system guy would understand that best.



Is that your idea of "mediocre at best?"


I fail to see what Minor Creation / Poison abuse has to do with the Factotum class. This is open to all classes with access to that spell (i.e., your argument is what you call a "class X" fallacy (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.31) - see post #31).

Also, you yourself have stated (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.160) that Factotums without IF are "not exactly spectacular in combat".



One could say the same about any Wizard/Sorcerer spell that comes from a variety of books too. Does that make using them "abuse" too? Let me guess: only if it's really powerful. I doubt you'd ever claim some spell that wasn't actually very powerful used by a Factotum was "abuse."


Not following what this has to do with the Factotum.



Oriental Adventures and Unapproachable East offhand.


Where exactly in UE is the skill Iaijutus Focus referenced? I'm afraid I can't seem to find it.

Even *if* it is in there (I strongly doubt it), that's a single reference to the skill (beside the book it appeared in), which happens to also be an obscure, outdated, setting-specific source. Wouldn't really make IF more mainstream in my book. Again, YMMV.



Except if you become immune to mind affecting effects, you're immune to fear, aren't you? And you can't use the feat as a result. So if you take Craven, you either waste the feat, or you can't become immune to Mind Effecting.


You said, and I quote: "never being able to be immune to mind effecting is TERRIBLE". The feat does not prevent you from becoming immune, which is what you claimed. That you loose access to the feat if you do was pointed out by myself, thanks.



As a rule, if you can become immune, you should do so full time if at all possible. That means you can't make use of your feat at all.


That's a strange argument. And a "rule" I am not aware of. Where did you find that? Certainly not in a party with an IC bard, methinks.

And your conclusion is wrong. You can use the feat up to the point where you are immune 24/7, which likely is later in your adventuring career. And then, you can still retrain.

But again, whether it's a good or a bad choice wasn't my point. My point was your statement was incorrect.



Cunning Strike, not Cunning Brilliance. You know, the "you get sneak attack" class ability.


Ah, Cunning Strike then, thanks. It still doesn't seem to confer sneak attack as "as a class ability" if you go by a strict reading of the RAW. It allows you to add sneak attack damage under certain circumstances. It's certainly not a class ability called "Sneak Attack". If that's good enough for you, more power to you (and the Factotum).



MMV says it is, for one (it's the first book to give a type to "Spells").

Not really an argument I want get into, but where exactly?

I see the Hobgoblin Warsoul has an ability called Arcane Talent (Ex), but that's not exactly "Spells" (the class ability). Furthermore, the "Spells" entry in the glossary (p.219), that should be the reference point, still has no (Ex) designator, which undermines the argument. And other monsters, such as the Hobgoblin Duskblade, which have *actual* spells, do not have them listed as (Ex), either.

Is there anything else in MM5? Just curious.



For another (if you actually need to figure it out without the "it's this!" clue in MMV), the primary source on what the ability types are is the Monster Manual.

<snipping long argument>

No other ability type would make any sense. MM1 itself specifically cuts out Na. Sp and Su are defined by how they're not spells.


...unless, of course, the MM1 passage(s), on which all hinges, was an oversight (like the Factotum and IF oversight :smallwink:). Of course, the MM1 also didn't label "Spells" as "(Ex)". Going by the MM1, it would appear that spells thus fall under Na.

The PHB doesn't seem so clear either: according to table 8-2, using Ex abilites does not incur attacks of opportunity, which spells do. The description on p.142 softens that somewhat. However, on page 180, it states that Ex abilites "cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, ...". Spellcasting doesn't seem to qualify.

I's also a bit strange to assume that casting spells is not a magical activity, while using spell-like abilites is. But that's just my personal opinion.



Just in case you needed it spelled out.


Snark detected! :smallcool:

[Foryn Gilnith]

Not following what this has to do with the Factotum.
Factotum using obscure, 3.0, setting-specific Sorcerer/Wizard spell through Arcane Dilettante: not abuse
Factotum using obscure, 3.0, setting-specific skill: not abuse
That's how the argument goes.


Wouldn't really make IF more mainstream in my book.
If Iaijutsu Focus was cited anywhere besides its home sourcebook that would make it more mainstream than at least half of WotC material.


which happens to also be an obscure, outdated, setting-specific source.
I'd contest the claim that Unapproachable East is obscure. It is most definitely not outdated. And if a skill appears in two different campaign settings that (again) gives it more credibility than most WotC material, which is never cited outside of its home book and rarely cited within that book.


The feat does not prevent you from becoming immune, which is what you claimed.
He didn't claim that. His original wording strongly suggested that, yes, but his subsequent posts cannot be read as claiming Craven directly blocks mind-affecting immunity.


My point was your statement was incorrect.
And while his statement was literally incorrect, his intended meaning (implied via context and later explicitly stated) cannot be defined as incorrect.


...unless, of course, the MM1 passage(s), on which all hinges, was an oversight (like the Factotum and IF oversight :smallwink:).
"Oversight" implies that the inclusion of IF was an error. I'd contest that. It is entirely appropriate for a factotum, student of forgotten lore, to obtain unusual combat techniques like Iaijutsu. It might not have been taken into account when balancing the Factotum, but the end result is balanced enough, and maintains the internally consistent feel of the intended class.


I see the Hobgoblin Warsoul has an ability called Arcane Talent (Ex), but that's not exactly "Spells" (the class ability).
Interesting note. Thank you.

[Tytalus]

Factotum using obscure, 3.0, setting-specific Sorcerer/Wizard spell through Arcane Dilettante: not abuse
Factotum using obscure, 3.0, setting-specific skill: not abuse
That's how the argument goes.


LOL. I still don't know what it has to do with what we are discussing.



I'd contest the claim that Unapproachable East is obscure. It is most definitely not outdated.


It's a 3.0 source. That's pretty outdated for a 3.5 game in my book. YMMV.



He didn't claim that. His original wording strongly suggested that, yes, but his subsequent posts cannot be read as claiming Craven directly blocks mind-affecting immunity.


I do know that he subsequently changed his statement, but the point is, his original statement was wrong and I merely pointed that out. Before he revised and clarified his statement. That's all there is to it.



"Oversight" implies that the inclusion of IF was an error. I'd contest that. It is entirely appropriate for a factotum, student of forgotten lore, to obtain unusual combat techniques like Iaijutsu. It might not have been taken into account when balancing the Factotum, but the end result is balanced enough, and maintains the internally consistent feel of the intended class.


Yes, JaronK has argued similarly before. Yes, it is fitting with the Factotum fluff to use odd techniques. That's beside the (mine, at least) point.

The point is: I believe that IF (and/or its potential) was not considered when the Factotum was created, i.e., it was an oversight. Having or not having access to this skill makes considerable difference in the power potential of a factotum (i.e., it makes it competent in an area it's not without the skill), which I assume was not intended. This is made worse by the fact that the source is obscure, outdated and setting-specific, which to me implies that it's not available to most 3.5 players. I'd argue that if the designers intended factotums to use IF and become capable melee fighter with it, they would have included the skill in Dungeonscape.

Based on the obscure source and the availability consideration, I believe (this is my main point) that IF shouldn't be considered a given when talking about factotum as a class, or comparing it to other classes (as in this thread or when considering which tier it's in).

To be perfectly clear, I don't care if a particular factotum uses it when it fits the game's setting / style etc. and all involved are fine with it. I'm opposed to considering it a given or similarly readily available option as, say, Power Attack for a fighter.

Sadly, there are no final answers as to whether it was intended that factotums use or even abuse IF or not, only opinions.

[Draz74]

Based on the obscure source and the availability consideration, I believe (this is my main point) that IF shouldn't be considered a given when talking about factotum as a class, or comparing it to other classes (as in this thread or when considering which tier it's in).

To be perfectly clear, I don't care if a particular factotum uses it when it fits the game's setting / style etc. and all involved are fine with it. I'm opposed to considering it a given or similarly readily available option as, say, Power Attack for a fighter.

Yep, that's a good summation of my issues with Iaijutsu Focus as well. And I concur that JaronK originally brought up IF in this thread by making it sound like it was a basic, crucial staple in all Factotum builds. He's since clarified a couple times that he didn't intend that, but I'm just clarifying, that's the (only) reason I originally objected to anything he said about IF.

[Coidzor]

So you're saying we're three pages in for no reason other than that your sense of right and wrong was injured when someone took something as a given that usually is in forum discussions?

[Draz74]

So you're saying we're three pages in for no reason other than that your sense of right and wrong was injured when someone took something as a given that usually is in forum discussions?

Welcome to the Internet. :smallbiggrin:

(No, for the record. We're three pages in mostly because (1) other people with other vendettas were involved, (2) other topics have been branched onto, and (3) people didn't read my original objections very carefully, assumed I was saying a bunch of stuff I wasn't saying, and responded to those other arguments.)

And I'm glad you say IF is "usually a given" in forum (Factotum) discussions -- that means there was a purpose to all my statements, namely, to object that IF should not be any such axiom.

[Foryn Gilnith]

So you're saying we're three pages in for no reason other than that your sense of right and wrong was injured when someone took something as a given that usually is in forum discussions?

Better we be three pages in for a trivial reason than for a legitimate argument going nowhere, and better that we be only 3 pages in as opposed to 6.


It's a 3.0 source.
Is it? I see Survival instead of Wilderness Lore and a sidebar on page 6 referring to the revised D&D core rulebooks. Yet the internet says it's 3.0. Odd.

[GreyMantle]

Better we be three pages in for a trivial reason than for a legitimate argument going nowhere, and better that we be only 3 pages in as opposed to 6.


Is it? I see Survival instead of Wilderness Lore and a sidebar on page 6 referring to the revised D&D core rulebooks. Yet the internet says it's 3.0. Odd.

In the period running up to the release of 3.5, WotC started slightly altering how they presented statblocks, specific mechanics, skilllists, etc. It was by no means complete (and I think in some cases the updates were never actually used), but it was something.

[JaronK]

To say that something changes the power potential and saying that something is the strongest option is not the same thing. The quote you provided does not substantiate your claim.

If it wasn't one of the strongest options, then it wouldn't change the power potential. The only way that something changes the power potential (or is a power up) is if the most powerful build (under a given circumstance) includes that thing. If not, it would have no effect on power potential, and would not be a power up.


I'll say it again: IF makes the factotum competent in an area where it is otherwise at best mediocre. And of course that is a considerable power-up. I really thought you as the tier system guy would understand that best.

Yeah, a Factotum has no need to be mediocre in close combat, even without IF. I as someone who's played one know that. The first time I saw a Factotum in close combat, he was completely without gear (locked up prison situation, he was joining the group and the DM wanted us to free him as a way to get him to join). He didn't have ranks in IF. His response? Escape from his confinement (easily), Alter Self into some really nasty bee outsider thing (he was a Teifling), and beat the snot out of his captors.


I fail to see what Minor Creation / Poison abuse has to do with the Factotum class. This is open to all classes with access to that spell (i.e., your argument is what you call a "class X" fallacy (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.31) - see post #31).

Cute. But no. The Class X fallacy refers to when someone calls a class powerful (comparatively) for something the class itself has nothing to do with. The Factotum class lets you cast Minor Creation. Thus, using Minor Creation as a ticket to power as a Factotum is not a Class X fallacy. Using it with Monk would be a Class X Fallacy, as that class doesn't get Minor Creation or any poison based abilities. You're simply using the fallacy incorrectly. Factotums DO get the spell, unlike virtually all other skillmonkeys.


Also, you yourself have stated (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.160) that Factotums without IF are "not exactly spectacular in combat".

Did you just quote me talking about Experts and pretend I was talking about Factotums? I said Experts are not exactly spectacular in combat without IF. I said Factotums have stuff like Polymorph and Alter Self.


Not following what this has to do with the Factotum.

Factotums have the ability to cast any spell off the Wizard/Sorcerer list printed in any book (up to a given level). Also, they have the ability to use any skill printed in any book. Your claim that it's somehow "abusive" and "unintended" to use a skill from an "obscure" book is equivalent to saying it's abusive and unintended to cast Wizard/Sorc spells from some other obscure book. Thus, a Factotum casting a spell found in, I dunno, some random Eberron book is abusive by your logic.


You said, and I quote: "never being able to be immune to mind effecting is TERRIBLE". The feat does not prevent you from becoming immune, which is what you claimed. That you loose access to the feat if you do was pointed out by myself, thanks.

I was assuming you were actually intending to use the feat. If you really want to just blow a feat that you're not going to use because you just turned into a Necropolitan, fine. But yes, there was a hidden assumption in there that you were actually planning to use the feat. Considering my overall point there was "Craven's not a very good feat because of how it interacts with mind effecting immunity" claiming that you can make it completely useless to get around its vulnerability doesn't hurt the case I was making at all.


That's a strange argument. And a "rule" I am not aware of. Where did you find that? Certainly not in a party with an IC bard, methinks.

Basic rule of optimization. For example, a recent thread on BG went over the defenses a character should have at high level... immunity to death effects and mind effecting were considered stock standard. Lots of stuff is mind effecting at high levels. Lots of stuff has REALLY nasty fear effects that you absolutely don't want to get hit by. And considering everyone who would take Craven has a poor will save (or nearly so), even a Bard isn't going to be enough to overwhelm Craven's penalty enough that you're not extremely vulnerable.

Basically, you're getting +class level damage in exchange for getting made useless in a heck of a lot of fights. Bad trade. There's a reason I tend to make my stealth characters necropolitan if I have a chance.


And your conclusion is wrong. You can use the feat up to the point where you are immune 24/7, which likely is later in your adventuring career. And then, you can still retrain.

Any time you're using the feat, you have an Achilles heel. Every dragon makes you pee your pants. And they're hardly the only types with such an ability. And not everyone can retrain... aren't you the one arguing that the DM might not be using a specific book?


But again, whether it's a good or a bad choice wasn't my point. My point was your statement was incorrect.

Only because you somehow thought I was talking about an in game rule, as opposed to the obvious optimization rule. It's like "thou shalt not give up caster levels." Considering I said "as a rule you should do so" it should have been obvious that this was a rule of thumb for play, not a rule in the game. Rules in the game are not "should" they're "allowed" or "not allowed." You should not give up cater levels as a rule. You should have mind immunity whenever possible as a rule. You should avoid taking odd levels of Fighter (beyond 1, ignoring 9 for Zhentarium Fighters).


Ah, Cunning Strike then, thanks. It still doesn't seem to confer sneak attack as "as a class ability" if you go by a strict reading of the RAW. It allows you to add sneak attack damage under certain circumstances. It's certainly not a class ability called "Sneak Attack". If that's good enough for you, more power to you (and the Factotum).

It's a class ability that confers sneak attack (not a sneak attack like ability, not just sneak attack damage, but sneak attack itself). You are arguing that it doesn't confer sneak attack as a class ability.


Not really an argument I want get into, but where exactly?

I see the Hobgoblin Warsoul has an ability called Arcane Talent (Ex), but that's not exactly "Spells" (the class ability). Furthermore, the "Spells" entry in the glossary (p.219), that should be the reference point, still has no (Ex) designator, which undermines the argument. And other monsters, such as the Hobgoblin Duskblade, which have *actual* spells, do not have them listed as (Ex), either.

It's, once again, an ability that gives spells.


Is there anything else in MM5? Just curious.

No, just some critters with the ability to cast spells, which is Ex.


...unless, of course, the MM1 passage(s), on which all hinges, was an oversight (like the Factotum and IF oversight :smallwink:). Of course, the MM1 also didn't label "Spells" as "(Ex)". Going by the MM1, it would appear that spells thus fall under Na.

MM1 clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that all special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. MM1 is also the primary source on ability types. Spells are a special ability. Na abilities have been clarified multiple times to be things inherent to the physical structure of the creature, like run speed, flight granted from wings, and ability to make claw attacks. This in no way fits with spellcasting. No source indicates that spells should be Na, and MM1 (the primary source) specifically forbids it.

But if you want to stand by this argument, realize that Alter Self grants Na abilities. So your claim here is that a Factotum 5 can gain spellcasting if they can find any 5 HD or below racial spellcaster. Are you sure that's where you want to go with this? See here for reference: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040518a and note that "physical qualities" are what PHB defines as Na, under page 180.

However, I will say that I was mistaken about UE. I thought the Iajuitsu Master was in it, and it was not (it's in Oriental Adventures). I read it over and just noticed UE is actually a Forgotten Realms book, with a theme that just happens to mimic OA heavily without actually being from that setting. So I retract that statement. IF is in only one book to my knowledge.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

MM1 clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that all special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. MM1 is also the primary source on ability types. Spells are a special ability.
That argument doesn't hold up, because you have to first assume that conclusion (that spells are Extraordinary abilities) to get to where the Monster Manual would be a relevant rules source, since the MM is the primary source on only some ability types. In fact, you don't actually get there 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. So this over-arching Primary Sources rule says that you consult the Player's Handbook for how to use base class descriptions. The PH says this on page 180:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. So the primary source for base classes says that, if it's not labeled, it's a natural ability, not an Extraordinary ability. Because spells are natural abilities, we never have any cause to refer to the Monster Manual, since that book isn't listed as the primary source for natural abilities.

[JaronK]

Except the PHB (and later comments on the subject) define Na abilities as those inherent to physical form. That doesn't match spells at all... or any ability granted by a class, unless that class changes the physical form. Classes are not your physical form, they're your training and experience and talent. So even by the PHB, that's not going to work for a second. And you missed the part where Monster Manual says all special abilities have to be Su, Sp, or Ex. Spells is a special ability, and Monster Manual thus does have priority by forcing Spells into at least one of those categories.

Plus, there are a lot of abilities that never get a defined type, but use the descriptions given. You're treating the statement "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like" to mean it has to be specifically labeled or else it's natural, when it instead clearly means that the PHB 180 entry makes stuff designated if they fit the appropriate descriptions. I mean heck, Feats are generally defined as Ex, but no indivdual feat says it's Ex... does that mean they're Na? Is the class entry "Bonus Feats" under Fighter an Na ability? Is sneak attack NA? Look at the definition of Na.

Basically, your logic leads to something that doesn't fit the rules at all (namely the vast majority of class abilities being Na, despite the fact that Na abilities are defined in a way that means they should almost never be granted by class).

Here's what Rules of the Game says on Na abilities:


Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form.

See also Rules of the Game: Polymorphing 3 for more examples of Natural Abilities. Note the stuff that's Ex, and the stuff that's Na. See if you can spot a pattern. And don't forget to read up on what PHB 180 says Natural Abilities are too. Might as well check the Rules Compendium while you're at it.

But hey, if you really want to say that Alter Self grants spells, whatever. Gets you there at level 5 instead of 19.

JaronK

[olentu]

Hold on a second here there are two things in play about how spells are defined. Now sure natural abilities are it seems worded as a catch all for anything that is not defined elsewhere.

However and here is the important thing the lack of a rule is not a rule that there must always be a lack. This means that while in the absence of anything defining the type of ability that spells are the rules may define them as natural, that same lack of definition means that any other source at all may define what ability type spells are since there can be no contradiction with a rule that does not exist.

But I am not at the moment going to look up the MM5 ruling or whatever and so currently have no say on the validity of such outside of what I have just said.

[JaronK]

MMV just has two critters that have spells as an ability (but it's written as Arcane Talent). That ability is written with an (Ex). This is the only case where spellcasting itself is actually written with a type.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

If it wasn't one of the strongest options, then it wouldn't change the power potential. The only way that something changes the power potential (or is a power up) is if the most powerful build (under a given circumstance) includes that thing. If not, it would have no effect on power potential, and would not be a power up.


That claim is simply not true.

Again, as the tier guy I thought you know the value (power) of versatility. IF lets the Factotum do things it couldn't before (be strong in melee). That does change its power potential.

If a class is strong in X areas, it is more powerful than the same class when its only strong in X-1 areas and less strong in 1.



Yeah, a Factotum has no need to be mediocre in close combat, even without IF. I as someone who's played one know that.

Thanks for the anecdotal evidence.



Cute. But no. The Class X fallacy refers to when someone calls a class powerful (comparatively) for something the class itself has nothing to do with. The Factotum class lets you cast Minor Creation. Thus, using Minor Creation as a ticket to power as a Factotum is not a Class X fallacy.

Any class that lets you cast MC has the same benefit.

Gaining access to a single 4th-level wizard spell is far from hard. And minor creation creates so much matter, it's sufficient if a single person in the party can cast it. Once per day.

But again, I'm failing to see what minor creation abuse has to do with the Factotum as a class. IMHO it's broken (YMMV) and is thus more TO than PO. As such, it has no place in a class comparison.



Did you just quote me talking about Experts and pretend I was talking about Factotums?

True, mea culpa.



Factotums have the ability to cast any spell off the Wizard/Sorcerer list printed in any book (up to a given level). Also, they have the ability to use any skill printed in any book. Your claim that it's somehow "abusive" and "unintended" to use a skill from an "obscure" book is equivalent to saying it's abusive and unintended to cast Wizard/Sorc spells from some other obscure book. Thus, a Factotum casting a spell found in, I dunno, some random Eberron book is abusive by your logic.


Again, that's nothing I said or implied. Please stick to what's actually been said.

I also don't quite see the implied equivalence of skills (of which there are about three out of core) and spells (of which there are thousands out of core), which makes this comparison inapt.

But yes, I'll play along: certain spells from obscure sources might change the power potential of certain classes. The druid and his fleshraker companion benefit massively from Venomfire, and Streamers ... you've probably heard of, too. When we consider the power of the low-level beastmaster druid, for example, I'd therefore suggest not assuming Venomfire is a given, especially if it's not explicitly a Forgotten Realms game that's fine with using 3.0 sources. And Forgotten Realms resources seem considerably less obscure to me than Oriental Adventures for the average game. YMMV.

And again: skills are not spells.



I was assuming you were actually intending to use the feat. <...> Considering my overall point there was "Craven's not a very good feat because of how it interacts with mind effecting immunity"

You can use the feat just fine when you are not immune 24/7, which is likely most of the adventuring career for the average character.

Again, I do understand your (rephrased) point. I tend to disagree with it, but that's beside the point. However, your original statement (before you rephrased it) was clearly wrong, which I merely pointed out. Back then, before you corrected it.



Basic rule of optimization.

<...>

Basically, you're getting +class level damage in exchange for getting made useless in a heck of a lot of fights.


I strongly doubt that you are willing to ignore your IC bard's potential in all situations as to make this a "basic"rule.

"A heck of a lot of fights"? Interesting claim. In epic levels perhaps, or in games where the players don't know how to improve will saves.

Either way, it boils down to a matter of personal preference. Ours differ, obviously.



aren't you the one arguing that the DM might not be using a specific book?


No. And please note that retraining is not the only way to exchange an unwanted feat. Also, there's a tremendous difference between PHB2 and some obscure, outdated, setting-specific book. Again, YMMV.



It's a class ability that confers sneak attack (not a sneak attack like ability, not just sneak attack damage, but sneak attack itself). You are arguing that it doesn't confer sneak attack as a class ability.


The relevant part is: "Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage.". This can be read both as gaining the damage (literal reading) and gaining the ability. At best, I'd say, is that you can read it as getting the ability to get SA under certain circumstances, which is not quite the same as actually getting SA. But as I said, if it's good enough for you, more power to you.



It's, once again, an ability that gives spells.


It's, once again, not the Spells class ability, which is what actually matters.

The fact that there is obviously a difference is readily apparent in the MM5 itself: other monsters, such as the Hobgoblin Duskblade, which have *actual* spells, do not have them listed as (Ex). And the glossary, the central point of reference for special abilities, also doesn't list Spells as (Ex), which clearly supports that Arcane Talent (Ex) is not the same as Spells (the class ability).

Furthermore, MM5 no longer lists Spells in the special attack section, so the MM1-argument no longer works.



MM1 clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that all special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. MM1 is also the primary source on ability types. Spells are a special ability.


Again, the fact that MM5 does no longer list "Spells" as a special ability seems to indicate that they don't (or shouldn't) fall under the MM1 ruling.

Note also that the MM1 (the primary source) doesn't list Spells as (Ex), and that the PHB defines Ex abilites in a way that does not fit spellcasting (i.e., not incurring AoOs on use).

Again, play as you like, but presenting the issue as clear cut or claiming that the MM5 gives "a type to "Spells"" based on two MM5 critters having a different ability (i.e., not "Spells") with the Ex type, while critters with actual spells don't get (Ex), seems somewhat disingenuous.

[Tael]

This intrigues me. If spells are not a special ability like you are all arguing, and are indeed a natural ability, then Polymorph and the rest would grant spells of whatever you changed into. Talk about making a broken spell more broken.

[Curmudgeon]

Basically, your logic leads to something that doesn't fit the rules at all (namely the vast majority of class abilities being Na, despite the fact that Na abilities are defined in a way that means they should almost never be granted by class).
Whether some particular rule "fits" into our ideas of rules consistency isn't germane. We only have an obligation to follow the rules, not rationalize them. :smallsmile:

Simply because other natural abilities (those not from class levels) are described as being derived from a creature's physical form, that doesn't constitute a requirement that only form-derived abilities are natural. Or more concisely: an example should not be confused with a limiting specification. The PH rule is simple to understand and easy to implement: if it's in a base class description and not labeled as to type, it's natural.

But hey, if you really want to say that Alter Self grants spells, whatever. Gets you there at level 5 instead of 19. Nope. That doesn't work, either.
You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). Alter Self doesn't grant you all natural abilities; it only grants the ones based on physical qualities. That is, this spell goes to a lot of effort to separate form-derived natural abilities from other natural abilities. It's almost as if the designers were aware that there were some powerful natural abilities that they didn't want Alter Self to grant. :smallwink:

[true_shinken]

It actually is RAW, because you do indeed have "sneak attack as a class ability."
Just being picky here: you don't have sneak attack as a class ability. You have cunning strike as a class ability. I don't think it qualifies.

[Curmudgeon]

Just being picky here: you don't have sneak attack as a class ability. You have cunning strike as a class ability. I don't think it qualifies.
That's quite correct, true_shinken. Sneak Attack is an "always on" class feature. The sneak attack derived from Cunning Strike comes and goes, and is only active following an expenditure of IPs. These are clearly different class abilities with different characteristics.

[JaronK]

That claim is simply not true.

Again, as the tier guy I thought you know the value (power) of versatility. IF lets the Factotum do things it couldn't before (be strong in melee). That does change its power potential.

If a class is strong in X areas, it is more powerful than the same class when its only strong in X-1 areas and less strong in 1.

Except it's not even weak in that area... I guess you just don't know how to use them. Alter Self into a Crucian for +8 Natural AC at level 5... is that "mediocre?" But of course, you'd call everything stronger than mediocre that a Factotum can do "abuse" meaning it doesn't count, and then claim that proves Factotums are mediocre in combat. That would be a No True Scotsman fallacy.


Any class that lets you cast MC has the same benefit.

But that's not any class is it? In fact, that's almost unique among skillmonkeys, and among classes that can hide/move silently, and IIRC less than 5% of classes can do it naturally. You're not using the Class X fallacy correctly at all.


But again, I'm failing to see what minor creation abuse has to do with the Factotum as a class. IMHO it's broken (YMMV) and is thus more TO than PO. As such, it has no place in a class comparison.

Yes yes, everything is abuse to you. If it doesn't fit with how you exactly play, it's abuse. Use an obscure skill? Abuse. Use a spell in core? Abuse. That way you can ignore everything that doesn't match what you want to claim. See how your claim is now "Factotums are mediocre in combat at best, unless they are really powerful in combat, but if that's true then it's TO abuse, therefor that has no place in the conversation, therefor Factotums are mediocre in combat at best." That's a No True Scotsman fallacy.


Again, that's nothing I said or implied. Please stick to what's actually been said.

I also don't quite see the implied equivalence of skills (of which there are about three out of core) and spells (of which there are thousands out of core), which makes this comparison inapt.

Implied? You outright stated that IF was "abuse" because it's from an "obscure, outdated, setting specific source." Now you say you didn't claim that? Or that it's not the same as claiming a spell is abuse because it's from an obscure outdated setting specific source? Really?

And the equivalence is obvious: the Factotum was designed to use any skill. They're also designed to use any spell (within level limits, and from the Wiz/Sorc list). To claim it is unintended, cheesy, not RAI, or abuse specifically because one comes from an "obscure, outdated, setting specific source" is the same as claiming the other is unintended, cheesy, not RAI, or abuse because it too is from an ""obscure, outdated, setting specific source"


But yes, I'll play along: certain spells from obscure sources might change the power potential of certain classes. The druid and his fleshraker companion benefit massively from Venomfire, and Streamers ... you've probably heard of, too. When we consider the power of the low-level beastmaster druid, for example, I'd therefore suggest not assuming Venomfire is a given, especially if it's not explicitly a Forgotten Realms game that's fine with using 3.0 sources. And Forgotten Realms resources seem considerably less obscure to me than Oriental Adventures for the average game. YMMV.

And again: skills are not spells.

Yes, those things would change the power potential... if it was one of their best options. Notice how you just picked Venomfire, a spell specifically noted to be extremely powerful, stronger than pretty much any Druid spell of that level for its purpose. And yet you claim IF is also a power up that serious effects the Factotum's power potential... but now you're saying that's not the same as saying it's extremely powerful. Perhaps you'd like to mention a different obscure spell from a setting specific source, that also is a power up that serious influences the Druid's power potential, without being a really powerful spell? From what you've claimed, this should be easy. Go for it.

Nobody's claiming skills are spells. I'm saying your logic about skills would apply to spells as well. Because it does.


You can use the feat just fine when you are not immune 24/7, which is likely most of the adventuring career for the average character.

And during that time you have a crippling weakness and can't be immune. That sucks.


I strongly doubt that you are willing to ignore your IC bard's potential in all situations as to make this a "basic"rule.

Ignore? No. Realize it's not nearly enough? Yes. Craven completely wipes out the benefit of the bard (since it makes a noticable penalty) until long after you should be immune anyway.


"A heck of a lot of fights"? Interesting claim. In epic levels perhaps, or in games where the players don't know how to improve will saves.

And here I meant level 10 or so. But maybe you think all dragons are epic?


No. And please note that retraining is not the only way to exchange an unwanted feat. Also, there's a tremendous difference between PHB2 and some obscure, outdated, setting-specific book. Again, YMMV.

So, specifically because it's not from an obscure, outdated, setting specific book it's not abuse? Hmm... weren't you claiming that this wasn't logic you automatically used for everything when we were talking about spells, because spells are different from skills? And now you're using that same logic (reversed) for character options?

Character options are not skills! There, solves the argument right? ...not so much, does it?


The relevant part is: "Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage.". This can be read both as gaining the damage (literal reading) and gaining the ability. At best, I'd say, is that you can read it as getting the ability to get SA under certain circumstances, which is not quite the same as actually getting SA. But as I said, if it's good enough for you, more power to you.

You get it as a class ability, right?


It's, once again, not the Spells class ability, which is what actually matters.

The spells ability in general.


Note also that the MM1 (the primary source) doesn't list Spells as (Ex), and that the PHB defines Ex abilites in a way that does not fit spellcasting (i.e., not incurring AoOs on use).

Except the MM does say spells has to be Ex, Su, or Sp. You see that part, right?


Again, play as you like, but presenting the issue as clear cut or claiming that the MM5 gives "a type to "Spells"" based on two MM5 critters having a different ability (i.e., not "Spells") with the Ex type, while critters with actual spells don't get (Ex), seems somewhat disingenuous.

It's the only book to give any type to an ability to cast spells. Therefor, it's the best information.


That's quite correct, true_shinken. Sneak Attack is an "always on" class feature. The sneak attack derived from Cunning Strike comes and goes, and is only active following an expenditure of IPs. These are clearly different class abilities with different characteristics.

Rules source for "sneak attack only counts as a class ability if it's an always on ability" please.


Alter Self doesn't grant you all natural abilities; it only grants the ones based on physical qualities. That is, this spell goes to a lot of effort to separate form-derived natural abilities from other natural abilities. It's almost as if the designers were aware that there were some powerful natural abilities that they didn't want Alter Self to grant.

Natural abilities are defined as being abilities based on physical qualities. I even gave you links on that very topic. Can you show a single Na ability listed anywhere for which this is not the case? Try to avoid circular logic in the process. If you're right, surely you can find a single example, right? I've given you numerous examples of what a Na ability is. Want more? From the SRD:


This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Note that's the entire SRD entry on Na abilities. You keep latching onto that second part and ignoring the first, not realizing that the two lines work together only if everything else is designated as one of the other three by the definitions of those other three.

Here's another, from the Rules of the Game on the Polymorph line:


This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain).

Notice again that all the examples are of things based in the inherent physical qualities of the creature.

Go ahead. Find a single example that supports your case. Surely you can do it, right? If it helps, Rules of the Game: Polymorph 3 gives tons of examples of Na abilities.


Just being picky here: you don't have sneak attack as a class ability. You have cunning strike as a class ability. I don't think it qualifies.

Rules source for "sneak attack as a class ability requires the name of the class ability to be sneak attack" please. Common English would state that sneak attack gained as a class ability would count as sneak attack as a class ability, whether you gave the actual name of the ability as "sneak attack" or "cunning strike" or "foo." All that would matter is that the sneak attack you gained is gained as a class ability, as opposed to as a feat or piece of equipment or some other source. If I said I gained $50k in payment as a bus driver last year, would you say I was lying if nowhere did my contract specifically said "$50k in payment", but rather said "Salary: $30,000 plus overtime" and simply added up to $50k? If I said "I got this medal as a soldier" would you say I was lying if the certificate I got with it never said "this medal" and only said "Silver Star?" Or is it that it would only matter that I got $50k by virtue of working as a bus driver, and I got the medal by virtue of being a soldier?

JaronK

[Draz74]

Jaron -- I think you're missing his point about Mind Blank vs. Inspire Courage.

He's not just saying "you can neglect mind-affecting immunity and therefore use Craven, as long as you have a Bard around to Inspire your Courage." That seems to be why you think he was referring to Bards.

He's saying, "If Craven sucks because it doesn't work at high levels, when everyone is immune to mind-affecting, then why are Bards with optimized Inspire Courage (and Dragonfire Inspiration) considered strong? After all, they, too, lose their benefits when their allies are immune to mind-affecting."

[JaronK]

Jaron -- I think you're missing his point about Mind Blank vs. Inspire Courage.

He's not just saying "you can neglect mind-affecting immunity and therefore use Craven, as long as you have a Bard around to Inspire your Courage." That seems to be why you think he was referring to Bards.

He's saying, "If Craven sucks because it doesn't work at high levels, when everyone is immune to mind-affecting, then why are Bards with optimized Inspire Courage (and Dragonfire Inspiration) considered strong? After all, they, too, lose their benefits when their allies are immune to mind-affecting."

Oh, I just use Requiem with my bards who do that, since that means the party can be undead and IC still works. So, IC doesn't require you to be vulnerable to mind effecting. It also doesn't give you a penalty vs fear effects, nor does it prevent you from being immune to fear effects.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

Rules source for "sneak attack as a class ability requires the name of the class ability to be sneak attack" please.
How about we just open up Dungeonscape, specifically the CLASS FEATURES heading for the Factotum class, and look at all the sub-headings listed there. Cunning Strike is listed, but Sneak Attack is not. Under Cunning Strike it says:
Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage. You get situational sneak attack damage. There's nothing that says you get the Sneak Attack class feature. While the Cunning Strike Factotum class feature grants sneak attack damage temporarily under appropriate conditions, so does the Spells Ranger class feature under appropriate conditions (if the Ranger casts Hunter's Eye, a spell in Players Handbook II). Neither of these gives your character the Sneak Attack class feature.

Rules source for Cunning Strike grants the "sneak attack class feature" Craven prerequisite? If you can provide such an explicit source in the rules, I'll gladly concede the point.

[JaronK]

Craven says you need sneak attack as a class ability right? Or class feature? Cunning Strike is a Class Feature. It's also a Class Ability. These are synonymous. And it gives you sneak attack.

Once again, if I say I gained a medal as a soldier, would I be lying if actually I had gotten a Silver Star, which is a medal but wasn't specifically presented to me by the name "a medal?" Craven requires you to have "sneak attack as a class ability." It does not require "an entry named sneak attack in the class ability table." The first phrasing only requires that you gain sneak attack, and that it be gained from a class ability. The second would require the class ability actually have the name sneak attack. So, there's your rules source: the Craven feat.

EDIT: You know what? I really don't care. I still think Craven's a horribly overrated feat that becomes unusable at high levels at best, and a liability at worst. Allow it for Factotums or don't in your games, it hardly matters, and in general the feat is a trap anyway.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

Except it's not even weak in that area... I guess you just don't know how to use them. Alter Self into a Crucian for +8 Natural AC at level 5... is that "mediocre?"


Call it what you will, but if one character (the IF one) is better at something than another (the non-IF one), he's ... well ... better. The simple fact is that IF makes Factotums stronger in combat. Considerably, I'd call it. And yes, a +8 NA pales compared to it (it's also available to the non-IF-using Factotum, for that matter), IMHO.



But that's not any class is it? In fact, that's almost unique among skillmonkeys, and among classes that can hide/move silently, and IIRC less than 5% of classes can do it naturally.

Again, I don't want to argue this point: MC/poison abuse is TO (IMHO) and doesn't matter for this discussion anyway. At all. Unless you are insinuating that its a staple for Factotums in actual play, which I find rather ridiculous. If that's the case, we just have to agree to disagree.

But, since you brought it up: every single class with UMD can use the relevant scrolls (and those without it, too, given enough tries). Not quite as good, but for the derived benefit it's most certainly worth blowing the money, especially since a single casting is enough for the entire party. And, as I said before, any class X in party with even a single caster who is capable of casting MC and willing to spare a single 4th level slot to make his party brokenly (IMHO) effective in combat can benefit from this abuse, too.



Yes yes, everything is abuse to you. If it doesn't fit with how you exactly play, it's abuse. Use an obscure skill? Abuse. Use a spell in core? Abuse. That way you can ignore everything that doesn't match what you want to claim. See how your claim is now "Factotums are mediocre in combat at best, unless they are really powerful in combat, but if that's true then it's TO abuse, therefor that has no place in the conversation, therefor Factotums are mediocre in combat at best."

I'd rather you don't misrepresent my opinion any more. You know what fallacy that is. Specifically, the "quote" you provided ("Factotums are ..., unless ...") is not from me.



That's a No True Scotsman fallacy.


No, my friend, it is not. Only your misrepresentation of my posts and views might be construed to be one.



Implied? You outright stated that IF was "abuse" because it's from an "obscure, outdated, setting specific source."


No, I've never made that argument. Perhaps you read too much into my posts, yet again. See below.



And the equivalence is obvious: the Factotum was designed to use any skill. They're also designed to use any spell (within level limits, and from the Wiz/Sorc list). To claim it is unintended, cheesy, not RAI, or abuse specifically because one comes from an "obscure, outdated, setting specific source" is the same as claiming the other is unintended, cheesy, not RAI, or abuse because it too is from an ""obscure, outdated, setting specific source"


JaronK, please stick to what's been said. My point was that since IF is from an obscure etc. source, it should not be taken for granted when comparing the Factotum class to others (i.e., in the context of this thread).

I've never claimed that IF is cheesy because of its source. Nor have I claimed that the Factotum was not intended to have all skills as class skills. In fact, I've said the opposite.

However, the obscure source and the fact that using IF has considerable impact on the melee capabilities of the Factotum led me to believe that the designers did not consider the potential of IF when creating the Factotum.



Yes, those things would change the power potential...


Yes, much like IF.

Again, I don't see the comparison to spells helping this discussion at all (and you did agree on the venomfire example anyway). Keep in mind that I didn't make a point that required an example, but that you asked for one irregardless, which I gave you (heck, I gave two). Now, I'd very much like to return to the actual discussion.



And during that time you have a crippling weakness and can't be immune. That sucks.


Excuse me? You are claiming that a piddly -2 penalty to saves vs. fear (in exchange for a massively improved damage potential, no less) is a "crippling weakness"? I'm sorry, I don't know what to say to something like that, even if it came from someone with no CO experience.

And again: you can be immune during that time, you just lose access to the feat for that time. We've been over this.



And here I meant level 10 or so. But maybe you think all dragons are epic?


Tell me a core way for a sneak attack user to be immune to mind-affecting effects (all the time, too!) that's available at level 10. Then tell me whether you think most groups would know of it and actually use it.

Heck, tell me a non-core way that's obvious enough that it would apply to most or aven a large portion of gaming groups (and hence make it a valid point for a class comparison in this context). And no, I don't think all-undead parties are very common at all.

I don't understand what the dragon comment was intended to achieve. Can you please enlighten me?


Oh, I just use Requiem with my bards who do that, since that means the party can be undead and IC still works. So, IC doesn't require you to be vulnerable to mind effecting. It also doesn't give you a penalty vs fear effects, nor does it prevent you from being immune to fear effects.

Nice example of what CO can do. The very fact that it requires such an elaborate setup to not make a bard (or any buffer with mind-affecting effects) not suck when you use the "rule" that everyone should be immune to mind-affecting effects, pretty much makes my point that the "rule" is not much of a rule after all.

But this is largely a matter of personal preference, so it's rather moot to argue about it. If you prefer to play in such games, go for it. Claiming it's a given is quite another thing, though.



The spells ability in general.


And what is that supposed to be? MM5 still doesn't give a type to the Spells ability (see glossary), only to a different (but admittedly similar) ability.



Except the MM does say spells has to be Ex, Su, or Sp. You see that part, right?


I've already addressed that.



It's the only book to give any type to an ability to cast spells. Therefor, it's the best information.


Sure, and that very book not only gives no type to the (actually relevant) Spells ability, it also gives no type for spellcasting derived from class levels (which is what matters in this discussion) on any critter and removed Spells from the list of special attack in monster stat blocks, which means that the MM1 ruling (above) doesn't apply.



Rules source for "sneak attack only counts as a class ability if it's an always on ability" please.


Not my claim. And it's Class Feature, not Class Ability.



You get it as a class ability, right?


No, you get a class feature called Cunning Strike, not Sneak Attack.



Rules source for "sneak attack as a class ability requires the name of the class ability to be sneak attack" please.


The Factotum class writeup actually has a section outlining all its Class Features. Note that none of them is Sneak Attack. The fact that Cunning Strike allows you to gain SA damage under certain circumstances doesn't make that an extra class feature.

[JaronK]

You keep shifting goal posts here.

You have called IF abuse, but the only reason you gave why IF was in any way wrong was that it was "from an obscure, obsolete, setting specific source." Now you are stating that the argument that it's abuse because it's "from an obscure, obsolete, setting specific source" is not your argument. Why, specifically, is it abuse then? You've continually harped on it as "abuse" over and over and over.

You claimed things which are abuse should not be factored in, such as the Minor Creation thing, therefor Factotums are "mediocre at best" in combat. Evidently Alter Self is also not to be factored in, because any class that can get +8 Natural AC by level 5 (or far more than that if an outsider) is obviously not "mediocre at best." You have continually referred to every ability that makes a Factotum stronger than mediocre at best in melee combat as being abuse and thus not counting, and thus stand by your claim that the Factotum is "mediocre at best" in combat. In what way is this not a No True Scotsman fallacy?

You continually use the Class X Fallacy incorrectly, to the person who codified it. ...that's basically indefensible. Hi there, I'm the primary source, stop pretending you know what it means better than me. The Class X fallacy is where you attribute a powerful ability in a class balance discussion to a class, when that class is not in fact any better at that ability than any other class. Factotums are clearly better at casting Minor/Major Creation than pretty much all other skillmonkeys, and the vast majority of other classes, and they're better at using UMD too, so claiming that any class could do it if they had a Wizard nearby to cast for them (note: Wizards can't cast this in combat, so even they aren't as good at this) or could do it with UMD is missing the point entirely. Unless you think a CW Samurai or Monk is better or equal at casting Minor Creation than a Factotum you're completely misusing the term.

On Craven: the crippling weakness is that to use the feat you can't be immune to mind effecting, or even fear effects. The save penalty just adds insult to injury. Most Core groups at higher levels fighting CR appropriate challenges start using Hero's Feast as soon as possible to at least handle the fear thing... but the fact that Rogues have few other ways to deal with the rest of mind effecting in core is part of the reason they struggle so badly to be effective in combat in high levels (the fact that so much is immune to sneak attack for a core Rogue, and their poor defense/poor HP, is another reason). Though I do find it interesting that in a single post you jump from "every single class with UMD can use the relevant scrolls (and those without it, too, given enough tries" to "Tell me a core way for a sneak attack user to be immune to mind-affecting effects (all the time, too!) that's available at level 10." Scroll of Mind Blank? Which is it? Can anyone UMD scrolls whenever, enough that ability to cast the spell itself counts as a Class X Fallacy in your mind, or core Rogues can't get access to Mind Blank with their UMD and ability to buy scrolls? I'd go with the latter personally, but arguing both is nonsensical.

My comment on dragons not being epic was because I mentioned Dragons as a good reason why you want fear immunity, and you immediately stated that epic play wasn't what you were talking about. So I said Dragons aren't necessarily epic. Let's face it, a skill monkey with Craven is likely in serious trouble in a dragon fight at any level where their fear effect is in play.

And you missed the ball entirely with Venomfire. You consistently state that IF is a "power up" and whatnot, while claiming that it can be a power up and seriously effect the power potential of the class without being one of the strongest available options. But then your example of a spell being a power up is indeed one of the Druid's most powerful options, regularly called out for being so powerful. That's missing the mark entirely.

And do try to remember that "Class Ability" and "Class Feature" are interchangeable terms in D&D, so comments like "And it's Class Feature, not Class Ability" are simply worthless pedantry, equivalent to claiming a kobold is a monster, not a creature.

JaronK

[absolmorph]

This is kinda tangential, but does anyone else find it odd that bards apparently can be so inspirational your weapon of choice lights on fire?

Less tangential: I agree with JaronK. A rogue facing a Young Adult Black Dragon at level 10 will have to make a DC 19 Will save. Without Craven, they at least need to roll a 14, if they have a Cloak of Resistance +2 (leaving room for plenty of other items).

And, honestly, Tytalus, you're very much overstating the power of IF. It only works on flat-footed foes. To use it outside the first round of combat, you either need help (from your Wizard buddy) or to use one of your spells from Arcane Dillettante on Grease or similar. And this damage isn't likely to be above 5d6 until level 15 or higher. At level 10: 10 ranks, +3 Charisma, +3 skill focus, +3 from Circlet of Persuasion gives a +19 bonus (I'm avoiding TO stuff beyond a surprisingly high Charisma), which gets a 20% chance of being 6d6. It'll average at 4d6. It doesn't last beyond the first round of combat.
It's a good skill, but it's by no means their most powerful option. Especially at level 10, when they have Cunning Surge and can start breaking the action economy.

[Tytalus]

You keep shifting goal posts here.

Kettle ... black.



You have called IF abuse, but the only reason you gave why IF was in any way wrong was that it was "from an obscure, obsolete, setting specific source." Now you are stating that the argument that it's abuse because it's "from an obscure, obsolete, setting specific source" is not your argument. Why, specifically, is it abuse then?


One has nothing to do with the other.

I'll say it again: In no way have I stated that IF is abuse because of its source. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from claiming that, as I've corrected you on it several times.

In the contexts I've mentioned IF abuse (once) / (ab)use (also once) it I did not mean to say that any use of IF is abuse, but rather indicate that it can be abused. Specifically, I stated that I believe the designers did not consider the potential of IF when abused.

In summary: IF, IMHO, is a skill that can have considerable impact on the game (which some may go so far as to call abused). I hope that settles it. Whether or not IF is abuse (or whether I consider it to be) is actually not even relevant to my point, and to this thread.

My actual point is - still - that I believe that IF was not considered when designing the Factotum (for reasons outlined repeatedly in previous posts) and that it should not be considered as a given when comparing Factotum to other classes (and this is where the obscure source comes into play!).



You claimed things which are abuse should not be factored in, <...>, therefor Factotums are "mediocre at best" in combat.


Not following how you got there. Are you implying that Factotums require abusive tricks to be better than mediocre in melee?



You have continually referred to every ability that makes a Factotum stronger than mediocre at best in melee combat as being abuse and thus not counting.

You are confusing two comparisons here that you have made. The one that actually mattes is the comparison of the Factotum to other classes, which is what pertains to the OP. The other one is comparing the IF-using Factotum and the non-IF-using Factotum (to determine if the latter is, in fact mediocre in melee or not), where you are intent to "prove" that IF has no implication worth mentioning on the Factotums power potential. That begs the question, of course, why IF gets brought up at all when discussing the factotum's melee potential...

For comparison 1, I argued that IF should not be taken for granted due to its source. For comparison 2, it's the essential element, so of course it can't be disregarded.

I've not disregarded Alter Self in either case, but I don't think it brings the Factotum to much better than mediocre. Even if you pick the odd NA+8 form. Alter Self certainly is a nice, well-known trick.

That actually only leaves MC/poison, which I do consider TO cheese (i.e., beyond abuse). As such, it should have no place in a discussion remotely related to practical play. Again, YMMV.

So when you say I've "continually referred to every ability that makes a Factotum stronger than mediocre at best in melee combat as being abuse and thus not counting.", you are referring to a single TO option.



In what way is this not a No True Scotsman fallacy?


Because your presentation of my arguments was false.



You continually use the Class X Fallacy incorrectly, to the person who codified it.


Congratulation!

Call it what you will then, the name actually isn't very good anyway. The idea is the same (or better, if you actually restrict "your" definition to something all classes can do). You are claiming a trick to be a special feature of a class, while most PCs will have access to it one way or another. Perhaps not as easy, but still.



On Craven: the crippling weakness is that to use the feat you can't be immune to mind effecting, or even fear effects. The save penalty just adds insult to injury. Most Core groups at higher levels ...


My point, very clearly, was that it's useful until higher levels, at which point you can retrain it if you feel like it.

You then argued that this point comes at level 10+ already. When I asked you to provide convincing, non-contrived examples for achieving (complete) immunity at that level, you shifted the goalposts to high levels ...

Still curious, actually.



Let's face it, a skill monkey with Craven is likely in serious trouble in a dragon fight at any level where their fear effect is in play.


A skill monkey without craven is only slightly less in trouble (only a 10% higher chance not to be shaken - assuming he isn't aware of his weakness and/or doesn't know how to cover up for it), but can do considerable more damage to the dragon.

And of course, you can still become immune if you want to and have the means. For a dragon fight, you might want to consider it, if you feel like losing access to the feat is worth it.



That's missing the mark entirely.


It's what you asked for: a powerful spell from an obscure source that changes the power potential of a class/build. You got it. You even agreed with the example. So don't complain about it.



And do try to remember ... simply worthless pedantry ...


You seem offended for some reason. That's pretty sad.

Please keep it friendly, I merely clarified the actual RAW that was being discussed, in case it matters. If it doesn't, feel free to disregard such clarifications.

And after all, you are the one who felt it necessary to correct my spelling before.

[Greenish]

This is kinda tangential, but does anyone else find it odd that bards apparently can be so inspirational your weapon of choice lights on fire?Not really. I mean, they can cast spells, and have many other blatantly magical effects tied to their songs.

Bard's performance is magic: "a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects on those around him". There are plenty of examples of magical music in fantasy and mythology. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicMusic)

Inspire Courage is a Supernatural ability, so having it cause a supernatural effect shouldn't raise eyebrows.

[Thurbane]

The PHB doesn't seem so clear either: according to table 8-2, using Ex abilites does not incur attacks of opportunity, which spells do. The description on p.142 softens that somewhat. However, on page 180, it states that Ex abilites "cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, ...". Spellcasting doesn't seem to qualify.
I think this is one of the most compelling cases that spellcasting is not an Ex ability.

Also, the abilities that the Hobgoblins get in MM5 seems to be an innate casting analog (similar to that of, say, a Raksahasa) rather than "true" casting to me. It also carries a different name, Arcane Talent - which, as noted above, is not an aiblity that appears under any monster with "true" spellcasting.

[JaronK]

Kettle ... black.

Which goalpost have I shifted? Be specific.

You know what? Nevermind. Having read the rest of your post, you're obviously arguing with intent to win, not to find the truth (otherwise, you wouldn't snip quotes down to "worthless pedantry" when you can't answer a point). So it hardly matters anyway. For example, you claim most classes have access to casting Minor Creation (obviously false). And evidently are unaware of how easy immunity to fear effects in core is (Hero's Feast, cast by the only decent core healing class) as well as how easy immunity to Mind Effecting is outside of core (Necropolitan, rebuked or controlled Ghostly Visage). Though I have no idea why you specified core, since Craven isn't even available in core.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

Which goalpost have I shifted? Be specific.


I was, further down in that post.



You know what? Nevermind. Having read the rest of your post, you're obviously arguing with intent to win, not to find the truth.


I am not sure what makes you say that. The points you listed in support of this claim are not correct (see below).

But let's review.

I've made two very simple points:


My (original) point was that IF should not be considered a given when comparing the Factotum to other classes. I based this on its obscure, outdated and campaign-specific source. Note that this is an opinion (indicated by YMMVs), so there is no "truth" here at all.
I also voiced the opinion that IF and its potential was not considered when designing the Factotum. I base that primarily on the source again (see above) and the impression that the there is a considerable power difference depending on whether or not the Factotum has IF access. This is, also, an opinion, so again no "truth" to be found here - until we can ask the designers.


You have then, over the course of several posts, claimed that I have made a number of (more or less foolish and thus easily refutable) points, that I haven't actually made. I tried my best to correct those assertions, even if it took several tries in some cases. Here's a non-complete list, since there have been a lot of "claims":


IF is abusive/cheese/etc. because of its source.
Spells are abusive/etc. because of their source.
IF is the factotums most powerful option.
All powerful melee options of the Factotum are abuse.
The DM might not be using a specific book.
I used a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Everything is abuse to me.
Etc.


I've clearly been correcting these in the interest of "truth", i.e., pointing out misrepresentations (of my position). On the other hand, your misrepresentation of the points in the first place is certainly not in the interest of "truth".

I also have joined the discussion on the issues related to Craven and Spellcasting as they pertain to the Factotum, primarily to point out things obviously overlooked in your assertions.


Craven and Cunning Strike: you asserted that Cunning Strike fulfills the prerequisite for Craven, specifically "Sneak attack class feature". However, "Sneak Attack" is not listed as a class feature of the Factotum (see DS, p. 16-17), only Cunning Strike is. Cunning Strike merely allows you add sneak attack damage under certain conditions. This certainly was a contribution to the "truth".
Craven being "worth" a feat: I argued that it is, since it makes a considerable difference in damage potential for an (IMHO) negligible cost, until at higher levels, where you might want to retrain it if you expect to be immune to fear a lot. This is an issue of opinion, so there are no truths here.
Spellcasting qualifying for Cunning Brilliance: Again, there were glaring inconsistencies in the assertions you made. First, MM5 does not "spell out" that the Spells class feature is (Ex) as you asserted, since it's not used with that type anywhere in the book, including the glossary and the monsters descriptions. The monster ability you referred to is not the same as "Spells", i.e., spell casting derived from class levels. Also, Spells breaks several constraints on (Ex) abilities. E.g., according to table 8-2, using Ex abilites does not incur attacks of opportunity, which spells do (although the description on p.142 softens that somewhat). And on page 180, it states that Ex abilites "cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, ...". Second, you referred to the MM1 passage stating that all (monster) abilities are either Su, Sp or Ex to conclude Spells must be Ex. MM5 seems to address that by having Spells no longer being listed as a special ability, so this rule shouldn't apply anymore. Even if it wasn't clear from all this that Spells is not (Ex), at least your assertion's problems (which you forgot to mention) are now known, too. All in all, I believe I've helped in determining the "truth" considerably.


No offense, but to me the claim I'm not interested in the "truth" seems odd, especially considering the above. Perhaps I'm not interested in the truth according to JaronK, i.e., taking your claims regarding the rules for granted.

On the other hand, you have used some questionable rhetoric in these arguments, which makes me question your intentions instead. I've listed the misrepresentations of my position(s) already. To name a few more:


Exaggeration: e.g., with a -2 to will saves "every dragon makes you pee your pants", along with many others
Argument reversal: you asked for an example of a spell that, similar to IF, comes from an obscure source and changes the power potential of a class. I gave you two (Venomfire, and another), despite voicing concerns that what applies to IF might not apply to spells. You even agreed with the example. Later, you twist the situation, making it appear that my example was bad because it doesn't fulfill a certain requirement (that you never even specified!) and used that to argue that I have to show you a spell that satisfies even stricter criteria (implying that otherwise my position is wrong). Of course, I never made made a point based on this (or any spell-) example, nor did I claim anything could be derived from comparing a spell to IF - it was your idea. Pretty interesting move, though.
Snarks and condescending remarks: "And do try to remember ...", "simply worthless pedantry", "Just in case you needed it spelled out.", etc.
Skewed analogy: the medal situation. You are postulating the relationship between Cunning Strike and Sneak Attack is the same than that of Silver Star to Medal, but that's just what's up for debate. I.e., you are fabricating the relationship you want to "prove" into the example, which makes the example moot at best (disingenuous at worst). A proper analogy would be this: instead of the Silver Star, you were awarded a Cunning Certificate that says: "every time you spend $10, you get to hold a Silver Star for 6 seconds.". Does that mean you were awarded a Silver Star? No.
Etc.


Now, it's fine to be direct and bring things to a point, even to exaggerate once in a while to make a good point. And I'm ok with the occasional snark, but this all isn't too conductive to finding the "truth". In fact, it's more suitable if you "just want to win".



otherwise, you wouldn't snip quotes down to "worthless pedantry" when you can't answer a point


Interesting. Please note that those words ("worthless pedantry") came from you, not me. And there was no question or point to answer - at all - in the section I condensed, just your (somewhat emotional) assertion that being precise regarding the actual RAW under discussion is ... well, "worthless pedantry".



For example, you claim most classes have access to casting Minor Creation (obviously false).


Any PC of any class has access to Minor Creation once the UMD bonus reaches +0, as long as they have a wand and some time on their hands. A scroll is also an option if the PC has a means to decipher it. By level 10, when the Factotum gets the ability to cast MC, every PC of any has the appropriate resources. It might not be easy, fast or free, but hey - everyone can do it.

In addition, any PC has access to MC directly if in a party with a caster who can cast it and is willing to spare a single spell slot to make his party overpowered in melee. After all, MC creates enough poison for the entire party. Not a given, but still.

So yes, most classes do have access to it (in fact, all do). If you define "access" as "must be able to cast it as a spell and not from a scroll or wand, and must not be a beneficiary of the spell from a party member", then you would be right.



And evidently are unaware of how easy immunity to fear effects in core is (Hero's Feast, cast by the only decent core healing class) as well as how easy immunity to Mind Effecting is outside of core (Necropolitan, rebuked or controlled Ghostly Visage). Though I have no idea why you specified core, since Craven isn't even available in core.


Good point about Heroes Feast, I forgot about that. It's available at ECL11+, if there's someone in the party who can cast it and if he's willing to spend a 6th-level spell slot on it. I'd agree that at higher levels (still assuming a character able to cast it in the party) it's probably a popular spell.

[MeeposFire]

This is kinda tangential, but does anyone else find it odd that bards apparently can be so inspirational your weapon of choice lights on fire?

Less tangential: I agree with JaronK. A rogue facing a Young Adult Black Dragon at level 10 will have to make a DC 19 Will save. Without Craven, they at least need to roll a 14, if they have a Cloak of Resistance +2 (leaving room for plenty of other items).

And, honestly, Tytalus, you're very much overstating the power of IF. It only works on flat-footed foes. To use it outside the first round of combat, you either need help (from your Wizard buddy) or to use one of your spells from Arcane Dillettante on Grease or similar. And this damage isn't likely to be above 5d6 until level 15 or higher. At level 10: 10 ranks, +3 Charisma, +3 skill focus, +3 from Circlet of Persuasion gives a +19 bonus (I'm avoiding TO stuff beyond a surprisingly high Charisma), which gets a 20% chance of being 6d6. It'll average at 4d6. It doesn't last beyond the first round of combat.
It's a good skill, but it's by no means their most powerful option. Especially at level 10, when they have Cunning Surge and can start breaking the action economy.

Don't forget that they need to be flatfooted and you need to draw your weapon, that last part makes things trickier if you want it more than once.