Why is Archivist and Factotum considered good classes?

[Sims]

I've never seen them in any book. But whenever there is a thread about Gestalting, people bring them up alot.

So what is/are these classes and what are their level progressions and class features that make them so valuable?

[Khatoblepas]

Factotum: Rogue on crack. Jack of all trades, but competent at all of them. SAD as a Wizard with his Int-focused class features.

Archivist: Can learn any divine spell. Int-based casting.

Basically, they gestalt well with Wizards because they're all Int-based.

[Aquillion]

They just do a lot. Archivist are Int-based and can learn any divine spell if they have a scroll, including all the oddball class-specific ones. Factotum is hard to sum up quickly, but they're skill-monkeys that can also mimic the features of a bunch of other classes to an extent and get some free actions. Oh, and they can add Int to everything.

Archivists aren't really more powerful than wizards or clerics absent extreme cheese, but they're on par, and are worth using in Gestalt just like those (technically, better than clerics if you're gestalting with a combat class, since the only real advantage clerics have over Archivists is being decent at combat.)

Factotums aren't even Tier 1, but they're well-made in general, and more importantly, their ability to get free actions is insanely powerful in Gestalt, since the only thing that balances it for Factotums is that they don't have anything overwhelming to do with those extra actions.

[sonofzeal]

Archivist - "any divine spell" is a whooooooole lot broader than the writers seemed to realize. Apparently they were just thinking Cleric/Druid, but almost all the good Wizard spells are on Cleric Domains, and there's a Divine Bard so that opens up too. Basically, Archivists can have almost every spell in the game.

Factotum - not nearly in the same category. Archivist is one of the Tier 1's, Factotum isn't. However, with Font of Inspiration abuse they can break the action economy and take a whole pile of extra standard actions. That said, they generally won't have anything too stellar to do with them. Their spellcasting is very limited, and their melee is merely decent unless they're burning more IP for that too. Still, the ability to take multiple turns in a row shouldn't be underrated.

[FMArthur]

They're Intelligence-based:

Archivist is an Intelligence-based Divine caster, possibly the only one. It can cast every single Divine spell ever.

The Factotum adds his Intelligence to physical skill checks, Initiative, and Strength/Dexterity checks automatically, gets all skills as class skills, can add his Intelligence to basically any of his combat statistics a certain number of times per encounter (which is very easy to increase with a feat), and can grant himself extra actions.

Add to this the fact that the Wizard, Psion, Duskblade and Warblade are all strong Int-based classes, and it's easy to see how a gestalt character can excel with just Intelligence alone. The Factotum is usually used for these Int-based hybrids to grant themselves extra actions - only with extra actions can you actually translate a gestalt combo's versatility to raw combined power. Archivist is used to just cover Divine spells in a build desiring to cast everything.

[Amphetryon]

A note of clarification on Archivist: Because they can learn any Divine spell that's been written down, by RAW that means that they can functionally learn every spell in the game due to various Feats and PrCs that treat Arcane spells as Divine. There are probably some corner-case exceptions, and it's dependent on what your DM chooses to include in the actual game, but that's a pretty strong benefit, by RAW.

[Yuki Akuma]

Archivists can learn any spell at all with a dedicated enough book search and/or Scribe Scroll cooperation cheese. And to top it off, they have more spells per day that Wizards (they have the same spells per day as Clerics, except without one slot per level being dedicated domain slots) and they have class features that are actually useful. (And for that matter, they have class features.)

Factotums can just basically do everything a Rogue can do, and more besides. And he is incredibly SAD - he can get away with dumping every stat but Int, generally.

[Essence_of_War]

Sims,

WotC showed off the archivist as free content here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3
It has a lot of built in fluff for a horror-ish/call of cthulu-esque setting, but can always be re-fluffed if you'd like it to be a little more high fantasy.

As others have said, being an int-based divine caster is pretty amazing and lends itself very well to gestalt'ing.

[Aquillion]

Factotums can just basically do everything a Rogue can do, and more besides. And he is incredibly SAD - he can get away with dumping every stat but Int, generally.You'd need that feat that lets you substitute Int for Con, though. I can't remember the name, but as I recall, it's very setting-dependent, requiring that you be from one specific region or something.

[sonofzeal]

Factotums can just basically do everything a Rogue can do, and more besides. And he is incredibly SAD - he can get away with dumping every stat but Int, generally.
Not exactly. Unless you're taking a whole bucket of FoI's, your damage output tends to lag way behind a Rogue's. A TWF Rogue can demolish someone if they get the chance, and a Factotum lacks anything comparable. They get a pseudo Sneak Attack, yes, but the IP cost is just ridiculous.

[Yuki Akuma]

They have Iaijutsu Focus as a class skill.

Yes yes I know it's a 3e skill but it was never updated so technically...

[Amphetryon]

You'd need that feat that lets you substitute Int for Con, though. I can't remember the name, but as I recall, it's very setting-dependent, requiring that you be from one specific region or something.

Initiate of the Faerie Mysteries. Not technically necessary, but increases survival rate by an order of magnitude at low levels.

[sonofzeal]

They have Iaijutsu Focus as a class skill.

Yes yes I know it's a 3e skill but it was never updated so technically...
Well yes. But then what are we comparing? A Core-only Rogue to a Factotum grabbing material from 3.0 sources and other material that has never been printed ever?

A comparable Rogue, imo, would be using Craven and probably Daring Outlaw.

[Cartigan]

Archivists aren't really more powerful than wizards or clerics absent extreme cheese, but they're on par, and are worth using in Gestalt just like those (technically, better than clerics if you're gestalting with a combat class, since the only real advantage clerics have over Archivists is being decent at combat.)


No one is bothering to mention that Archivists also have good and useful class abilities completely unrelated to spell casting. If Archivists could only learn Cleric spells, they would still be a formidable and useful class.

Of course you will never hear that mentioned from optimizers who only take Archivists because of broad readings of not narrow enough rules allowing them to cheese it to death.

[Gnaeus]

Not exactly. Unless you're taking a whole bucket of FoI's, your damage output tends to lag way behind a Rogue's. A TWF Rogue can demolish someone if they get the chance, and a Factotum lacks anything comparable. They get a pseudo Sneak Attack, yes, but the IP cost is just ridiculous.

But OP is talking about Gestalting. You take Factotum, + an active class that gives you good damage. Even weak classes like fighter or monk can put out credible damage with several extra standard actions. A caster can dominate the board with multiple spells in a turn, or something like a crusader can blow through all their readied maneuvers and just recover them the next turn.

And then there is all the stuff they can add int to, and the pseudo-spellcasting. For a typical game, factotum is better than rogue, but not amazingly better (tier 3 vs high tier 4). For Gestalt, factotum is amazing.



Of course you will never hear that mentioned from optimizers who only take Archivists because of broad readings of not narrow enough rules allowing them to cheese it to death.

Broad readings of what? If you leave out anything that anyone might disagree with (domains, divine bard, PRCs, tricks to cast arcane as divine) you are left with ONLY Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Adept. Core Divine classes. That is still the best spell list in the game, with a huge # of spells, including many which are normally arcane, and many below the level where they are usually seen.

[byaku rai]

Out of curiosity, where is Factotum written down? I know Archivist is in Heroes of Horror, but I've never seen the actual class for Factotum.

[Sims]

So are Rogues overall stronger than Factotums? (Meaning not Gestalt)

[Cartigan]

Broad readings of what? If you leave out anything that anyone might disagree with (domains, divine bard, PRCs, tricks to cast arcane as divine) you are left with ONLY Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Adept. Core Divine classes. That is still the best spell list in the game, with a huge # of spells, including many which are normally arcane, and many below the level where they are usually seen.

And THEN we run on the ridiculous assertion that all those spells are actually acquirable. Ie, your DM will have and sell you a scroll of everything ever.

[Gnaeus]

And THEN we run on the ridiculous assertion that all those spells are actually acquirable. Ie, your DM will have and sell you a scroll of everything ever.

You know, I buy into that argument with the wierd stuff. If you want a scroll from some rare domain, you are going to have to bust your ass finding the one retailer who has it. I agree that finding wierd PRC spells should be hard.

But even without tricks (like a warlock or artificer who can make any divine scroll ever), the archivist can do fine with just spells possessed by common classes. It isn't even like a wizard, who has to find a guy who knows spell X, because every divine caster knows every spell on their list. If you assume no magic mart (which hurts the mundanes a lot more than it hurts the Archivist) and no dropped scrolls, the archivist already knows scribe scroll, so all he needs to do is find 3 or 4 NPCs who he can pay or convince to spend a couple of days with him, with the Archivist taking the tiny XP hit. Paladins might present a problem to an evil aligned archivist. But otherwise, there is no good reason why this would be hard.


So are Rogues overall stronger than Factotums? (Meaning not Gestalt)

Define "stronger". Absent 3.0 stuff, the rogue can probably optimize to do more damage assuming regular sneak attack.

The factotum is more flexible, and can abuse low level broken spells, like alter self. And of course, while they both have UMD, the factotum can UMD multiple items in a round with his several standard actions.

[supermonkeyjoe]

And THEN we run on the ridiculous assertion that all those spells are actually acquirable. Ie, your DM will have and sell you a scroll of everything ever.

Agreed, in all the games I have played and run Divine scrolls appear so infrequently.

That's why you have a warlock, artificer or cleric cohort to scribe all your scrolls for you

[Cartigan]

But even without tricks (like a warlock or artificer who can make any divine scroll ever), the archivist can do fine with just spells possessed by common classes. It isn't even like a wizard, who has to find a guy who knows spell X, because every divine caster knows every spell on their list.
At least all [NPC] Wizards are going to have scribe scroll though.


If you assume no magic mart (which hurts the mundanes a lot more than it hurts the Archivist) and no dropped scrolls, the archivist already knows scribe scroll, so all he needs to do is find 3 or 4 NPCs who he can pay or convince to spend a couple of days with him, with the Archivist taking the tiny XP hit. Paladins might present a problem to an evil aligned archivist. But otherwise, there is no good reason why this would be hard.
How would an archivist scribe a scroll of a spell he doesn't know or copy the spell from a class that can like not scribe scrolls and definitely don't carry spell books?



That's why you have a warlock, artificer

This is the problem with how the Archivist was written. He can use cheese from other books to become all powerful. It's a serious problem with 3.5 that leads to so much cheese - authors are VERY likely to not know what classes are capable of in other books (even core) and WotC made no effort to keep everything coherent and consistent.

[yugi24862]

Out of curiosity, where is Factotum written down? I know Archivist is in Heroes of Horror, but I've never seen the actual class for Factotum.

Factotum is from Dungeonscape, a book mainly about designing dungeons but had some good ACF's and factotum aswell. Rich did some of the stuff in it, dont know what though.

[Gnaeus]

At least all [NPC] Wizards are going to have scribe scroll though.

Yeah, but that only helps if the wizard in question knows the spell.



How would an archivist scribe a scroll of a spell he doesn't know or copy the spell from a class that can like not scribe scrolls and definitely don't carry spell books?

With the rules. 2 casters can cooperate to create a scroll, with one caster providing the feat and the other one the spell. That is quite clear in the item creation rules. How do they do it? Beats me. I can't scribe scrolls. But it is very clear that they can.

SRD:Prerequisites (bold added)

Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.

If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item.

Archivist provides Scribe Scroll. Cleric/druid/ranger/paladin/adept casts the spell. Easy as pie. Oh, and they could also buy spells from other archivists, assuming that they aren't the only one.

[Cartigan]

With the rules. 2 casters can cooperate to create a scroll, with one caster providing the feat and the other one the spell. That is quite clear in the item creation rules. How do they do it? Beats me. I can't scribe scrolls. But it is very clear that they can.
Then how are Wizards any more hampered than Archivists?

[dextercorvia]

Then how are Wizards any more hampered than Archivists?

Because they can't just walk into a guild and assume that everyone there knows the spell that they want. An archivist can go to the temple of Flaranghansdlfh and get any Travel spell.

[Gnaeus]

Then how are Wizards any more hampered than Archivists?

Because the wizard has to find someone who knows the spell. The archivist just has to find someone of the right class & level, because they automatically know the spell. To have access to every wizard spell ever, a wizard needs a huge net of contacts. An archivist only needs to have one contact each from 5 classes. And he could probably skip cleric, since he gets 2 of those per level for free.

[Darth Stabber]

Factotum is in Dungeonscape, hidden in and amoungst the ACFs. He's that sneaky. Easily abusable, but it takes some serious optimizing to get him above teir 2.

As stated by everyone else Archivist has every spell ever, and class features. Even limited to just Cleric and Druid Spells he deserves his place in teir 1, and the nifty little tricks he can pull off with a friendly warlock or artificer are rediculous. A gestalt Archivist//Artificer would legitimately have acess to any spell printed as divine, and you could easily make the case for any arcane spell (as a gm I would stop that, but I don't gm every game in the world). Add to it that they have actual class features from both halves(not as good as druid, but having any puts it above wizard and cleric). Even Wizard//archivist doesn't have the practical capacity of arch//art.

[TroubleBrewing]

Factotum is generally considered stronger than Rogue. The main difference being that while a Rogue gets bucket loads of sneak attack D6's, the factotum is casting several spells a turn thanks to his extra standard action. And extra actions are ALWAYS superior to extra D6's.

[Malevolence]

Factorum - It's a Rogue, that doesn't suck. That isn't why though. Extra Standards + spell spam is why, since this is about Gestalt.

Archivist - Huge spell access. While not as powerful as it seems, mostly because Wizards can already cast almost anything, by RAW it's still very good.

And of course there's always the standard check - if it is SAD, it's probably good, and if it is MAD, it's probably bad. Int focus is great for SAD.

[PollyOliver]

First off, both are very good classes. Depending on the DM, an archivist can arguably get more powerful than a wizard. An archivist gets access to all cleric spells at level-up and any divine spell in the game via scribing--this includes druid spells, ranger spells, weird PrC spells, domain spells (which are often arcane), and if you have a nice or crazy DM, a ton of useful arcane spells through the divine bard. Given a lenient DM and the spell compendium, you can get access to every divine and almost every arcane spell in the game.

The factotum is basically a rogue with more skill points who has traded his sneak attack for the ability to instead use sneak attacks, arcane spells, smites, turning, and extra actions. And gets INT to everything.

As has been said, one reason they're good for gestalting is the INT synergy. You can pair either with a wizard and you're ready to go. A wizard//archivist gets just about every spell in the game and gets his friends a damage bonus on top of it. A wizard//factotum gets INT to everything, including initiative depending on the DM, extra spells, and extra actions to use them in. An archivist//factotum gets the same, and can use the factotum's 10+INT skill points to max out every knowledge skill so his friends always get a dark knowledge bonus. Plus, factotums get turn attempts, for all the usual shenanigans.

Though I have to say my favorite gestalt combo with the factotum involves warblade, and I'm hoping to finally get to play mine soon.

[Yuki Akuma]

Then how are Wizards any more hampered than Archivists?

You are aware that most divine classes know every spell on their spell list, right?

Wizards very emphatically do not.

Wizards can do this trick too, by hitting up a Warmage, Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, but Archivists get more out of it because they get to treat spells as the level they were crafted at, not the level they appear on his list (because he doesn't have one).

So he can get, say, fourth level Paladin-only spells at level seven, when they're 'balanced' for around level fourteen.

So. Mr. Archivist wants to learn Break Enchantment, which is a Cleric/Druid 5 spell, as a level 4 spell. So he contacts his ally, Mr. Paladin, and the two work together to scribe a scroll of Break Enchantment - at level 4, because that's the level the Paladin knows it at. Then Mr. Archivist scribes it into his prayer book and can prepare it in a level 4 spell slot, and it acts in all ways as a level 4 spell.

He could then contact Mr. Cleric or Mrs. Druid and get it scribed as a 5th level spell, if he wants, but there's no real reason to do that...

Mr. Wizard, meanwhile, wants to learn Break Enchantment. He contacts one of his Wizardly friends, Mr. Abjurer, but Mr. Abjurer took Dismissal and Cloud Kill this level! So he has to go find another Wizard who knows Break Enchantment, which may take some time. (Or he could call on Mr. Bard and hope he knows it, but that's even less likely.)

Even if he gets the scroll from Mr. Bard, though, when he copies it into his book it's level 5, not level 4, because it's level 5 on his spell list.

[Yora]

Today, 3 pm (at least around here):

Suddenly, Ninjas! Everywhere!

[stainboy]

I don't see a problem with archivists if you're fine with Tier One in general. Breaking an archivist takes work, and a wizard willing to do the same amount of work can break the game in half just as easily. If you can't trust a player with an archivist you can't trust them with a wizard either.

[Grendus]

Didn't the eratta say artificer scrolls are neither arcane nor divine? Don't know about warlocks, but by RAW the artificer trick doesn't work iirc.

[Veyr]

Correct, Artificer scrolls are neither arcane nor divine and cannot be used by an Archivist or a Wizard.

I don't believe Warlocks have the same restriction, though it would be a sensible houserule.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the cooperative scroll-scribing shenanigans.

[Gnaeus]

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the cooperative scroll-scribing shenanigans.

How is using a rule as it was intended to be used a shenanigan? The game is very clear that people can cooperate to scribe scrolls. Presumably, archivists are supposed to be able to gain spells by that method, or it wouldn't even have been included. Using a splatbook class to get every spell ever as a divine scroll is probably not what Archivists were intended to do. The designers probably weren't thinking about divine bards, PRCs, domains, or Arcane cast as Divine tricks. But scribing scrolls from core divine casters is exactly what archivists were designed for.

[PetterTomBos]

They're Intelligence-based:

Archivist is an Intelligence-based Divine caster, possibly the only one. It can cast every single Divine spell ever.

Well, that isn't necessarily true. Theres a feat in bastards and bloodlines that allow you to cast with a different stat.. It has the some fluff prereq (need to descend from spellcasters that casted with that stat, basically) but if the GM is lenient that may be solveable :) Or just pick up a silverbrow human or something :)

[Yuki Akuma]

How is using a rule as it was intended to be used a shenanigan? The game is very clear that people can cooperate to scribe scrolls. Presumably, archivists are supposed to be able to gain spells by that method, or it wouldn't even have been included. Using a splatbook class to get every spell ever as a divine scroll is probably not what Archivists were intended to do. The designers probably weren't thinking about divine bards, PRCs, domains, or Arcane cast as Divine tricks. But scribing scrolls from core divine casters is exactly what archivists were designed for.

They probably didn't consider classes that get spells at lower spell levels because they only have four spell levels total, either.

Most of the time, when you can do things like that, the rules text tells you to always treat it as the level it appears on a certain spell list. But they didn't think to include it this time.

[Cartigan]

How is using a rule as it was intended to be used a shenanigan?
Considering the Archivist is the ONLY divine class with a spellbook and was produced in a significantly later book, it's basically the definition of shenanigans to use the rules in order to copy every divine spell ever into the Archivist's spellbook..
Is Pun-Pun not shenanigans despite using the rules?


Presumably, archivists are supposed to be able to gain spells by that method, or it wouldn't even have been included.
PRESUMABLY, the Archivist only goes to the local temple and buys Divine scrolls. Look, my conjecture is equally on par with yours, if not even more correct given the history of nonexistent consistency or even acknowledgment of rules across books by authors.

[Curmudgeon]

and what are their level progressions and class features that make them so valuable?
What makes the Factotum so valuable is that the class abilities are written very poorly, and a player can often sneak silly things past a DM too weary to wade through all the rules gotchas. Examples:

no definition of when an encounter ends
stacking mostly not addressed
Font of Inspiration can be read as offering either a linear or quadratic inspiration point benefit
shenanigans about which class abilities are Extraordinary

That's about it. :smallsigh:

[Gnaeus]

Considering the Archivist is the ONLY divine class with a spellbook and was produced in a significantly later book, it's basically the definition of shenanigans to use the rules in order to copy every divine spell ever into the Archivist's spellbook..

Huh? The fact that it came out in a later book is evidence that it is being used as intended. If Archivist came out first, and then adept, paladin and ranger emerged, there might be an RAI argument that archivist is suddenly vastly strong because of this additional material. There is a good argument that the developers did not plan various splat material to play well together. But the simplest, plainest reading of the archivist's powers lets them copy divine spells from any base divine class. It says so clearly.


Is Pun-Pun not shenanigans despite using the rules?

No. Archivist does not use infinite loops. Pun-Pun uses splat abilities in a way in which they were clearly not envisioned, to create a deity. Archivist uses the plain text of the class, to do what the class was designed to do, which is to be able to cast any divine spell. Did the authors underestimate how powerful that is? Maybe. Is it possible to get spells from sources that the authors did not intend (PRCs, Divine Bard, Domains) and is that borderline? Sure. But it is impossible to read the Archivist in such a way that they shouldn't be allowed spells from the base 20 list core divine casters. It is like Druid is using shenanigans when it turns into a spell casting bear. Sure it is strong. Maybe too strong. But it is clearly what Natural Spell was designed to do. Manipulate Form was not designed for abuse in deity creation.


PRESUMABLY, the Archivist only goes to the local temple and buys Divine scrolls. Look, my conjecture is equally on par with yours, if not even more correct given the history of nonexistent consistency or even acknowledgment of rules across books by authors.

And by RAW, they can do exactly that. ANY divine scrolls. Find me a source, any 3.5 non-homebrew source, fluff or rules, that even suggests that you can't cooperate to create scrolls, or that an Archivist shouldn't be able to learn spells from the core divine non-prc casting classes.

[Doc Roc]

No one is bothering to mention that Archivists also have good and useful class abilities completely unrelated to spell casting. If Archivists could only learn Cleric spells, they would still be a formidable and useful class.

Of course you will never hear that mentioned from optimizers who only take Archivists because of broad readings of not narrow enough rules allowing them to cheese it to death.

Actually, the most powerful practical archer build from these optimizers you seem to hate? Archivist. Uses the class features for stun-locks, and other powerful effects. And most temples employ rangers, paladins, and clerics. Which is a sizable working set, particularly if you wander around, looking for clerics with interesting domains. Sounds like a fun sidequest to me.

[Vulaas]

Well yes. But then what are we comparing? A Core-only Rogue to a Factotum grabbing material from 3.0 sources and other material that has never been printed ever?

A comparable Rogue, imo, would be using Craven and probably Daring Outlaw.

Personally, if we're going core/dungeonscape only with a Factotum, I would rather use my spells to do long-term buffs, and make myself for archery. If we're pulling more sources in, such as CoR and CS, the archer-Factotum just gets better with splitting bows. You dip Swashbucker and go daring outlaw, I'd dip Fighter for the feats and extra BAB, so all my feats can be font.

Similar levels of optimization, the Rogue will still lack compared to a factotum due to better class features.

[Cartigan]

Huh? The fact that it came out in a later book is evidence that it is being used as intended.
Of course it was intended for the Archivist to have access to every spell ever - including most arcane ones.


No. Archivist does not use infinite loops.
How it is achieved is wholly irrelevant. Is, or is not, Pun-Pun against the rules?


And by RAW, they can do exactly that. ANY divine scrolls. Find me a source, any 3.5 non-homebrew source, fluff or rules, that even suggests that you can't cooperate to create scrolls, or that an Archivist shouldn't be able to learn spells from the core divine non-prc casting classes.
My argument was entirely that the people who wrote the class exhibited the same amount of knowledge and foresight as people writing the other splat books. That is to say none.

[Coidzor]

What makes the Factotum so valuable is that the class abilities are written very poorly, and a player can often sneak silly things past a DM too weary to wade through all the rules gotchas.

Now you're just shortchanging the non-contentious aspects of the Factotum. The Kitchen Sink doesn't touch upon any of those (except for the bit about Font of Inspiration, but even there he's taking the view of it you seem more likely to agree with) and is generally considered to be a good chassis.

[Ormur]

My argument was entirely that the people who wrote the class exhibited the same amount of knowledge and foresight as people writing the other splat books. That is to say none.

I think you're unnecessarily restricting that to "splat" books.

[Coidzor]

I think you're unnecessarily restricting that to "splat" books.

Indeed, though there are other problems with putting the argument "the designers were maliciously negligent" on the table, at least, that's the impression I'm getting of what the argument is. :smallconfused:


How it is achieved is wholly irrelevant.

No, it is relevant, especially in the context of the reply you received for the position you appeared to be taking.


My argument was entirely that the people who wrote the class exhibited the same amount of knowledge and foresight as people writing the other splat books. That is to say none.

Ahh, see, there was a bit of miscommunication going on here, I think, as you seem to have had several of us (myself included) thinking that you were saying that Archivists being able to learn non-Cleric Divine Spells was an accident.

[Cartigan]

Indeed, though there are other problems with putting the argument "the designers were maliciously negligent" on the table, at least, that's the impression I'm getting of what the argument is. :smallconfused:
I never said it was malicious. Capricious maybe.


No, it is relevant, especially in the context of the reply you received for the position you appeared to be taking.
How is it relevant? If it can be achieved by rules and it is shenanigans, then the argument presented that "It's RAW so it's not shenanigans" falls apart.


Ahh, see, there was a bit of miscommunication going on here, I think, as you seem to have had several of us (myself included) thinking that you were saying that Archivists being able to learn non-Cleric Divine Spells was an accident.
An accident no. I'm sure they meant to do that. And I'm sure they didn't bother to think what that meant nor was anyone being paid to.

[Coidzor]

How is it relevant? If it can be achieved by rules and it is shenanigans, then the argument presented that "It's RAW so it's not shenanigans" falls apart.

Well, the argument as I saw it was, "It's an explicit class feature that was intentionally put in as part of the class's design so it's not shenanigans to use it," which is quite a bit different.

Though, it's possible that the real issue here is we've all got different connotations of what a shenanigan is, come to think of it. :smalleek:

[Gnaeus]

How it is achieved is wholly irrelevant. Is, or is not, Pun-Pun against the rules?

Some versions of Pun-Pun (there are many) are within the rules as written. Pun-pun was clearly, unquestionably, not part of the intended use of that power.

Archivist having access to all divine spells is clearly written into the class. It is strong when played as intended. So?

Pun-Pun breaks the game by its very nature. It is perhaps the definition of unplayable theoretical optimization. Archivist is entirely playable in high powered games. Stick it in a group with other Tier 1 casters or optimized builds and it isn't overpowered at all.


My argument was entirely that the people who wrote the class exhibited the same amount of knowledge and foresight as people writing the other splat books. That is to say none.

Ormur answered that very well. The fact that the designers had a very poor idea of balance, knowledge or foresight, doesn't mean that it is somehow necessary or desirable to create arbitrary, homebrewed nerfs to everything overpowered. RAW, what the archivist does is clear. There is no logical reason why an archivist cannot easily get access to the majority of divine spells in the game (and again, I haven't suggested anything other than the most limited reading of the spells an Archivist can use). If Archivist is overpowered in YOUR game, you can ban it, or rewrite it. But don't act like the rules are vague just because you don't like what they say. There are certainly interpretations of Archivist and their spell list that are MUCH stronger than what I have suggested. I think mine is about the most conservative reading that can actually be supported by what is in the books.

[Cartigan]

Well, the argument as I saw it was, "It's an explicit class feature that was intentionally put in as part of the class's design so it's not shenanigans to use it," which is quite a bit different.
It's obviously shenanigans to use it as it is used by optimizers. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.


Some versions of Pun-Pun (there are many) are within the rules as written. Pun-pun was clearly, unquestionably, not part of the intended use of that power.

Archivist having access to all divine spells is clearly written into the class. It is strong when played as intended. So?
So you are going to argue that it was within the designer's intent to allow the Archivist access to a number, if not all, arcane spells in addition to the more obvious basic divine spells or the Druid and Cleric? I'd be surprised if they even thought people would use it to get Ranger or Paladin spells.

[Gnaeus]

{Scrubbed}


So you are going to argue that it was within the designer's intent to allow the Archivist access to a number, if not all, arcane spells in addition to the more obvious basic divine spells or the Druid and Cleric? I'd be surprised if they even thought people would use it to get Ranger or Paladin spells.

Nope. I am going to argue that it was the designer's intent for them to be able to use at least the base spell lists of the core divine classes. Those are (once again) Cleric, Druid, Adept, Ranger or Paladin. Were they thinking about Shukenja? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. Every Domain spell from every domain? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. Divine Bard? I highly doubt it. PRCs? I think not. Every arcane spell ever when cast as a Divine spell through a PRC or feat? Almost certainly not.

That said, even if you throw all that stuff in and the kitchen sink also, Archivist is not any more game breaking than the base classes that compile it. Shapechange and Gate are certainly available to it, via cleric & druid. It is a very strong tier 1, but there are much stronger tier 1 builds than Archivist 20.

[Ormur]

It's obviously shenanigans to use it as it is used by optimizers. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

There must be a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Archivists are very strong so they don't fit into every campaign if played to their potential. They can even break such games but both applies to half the classes in D&D.

[Optimator]

Archivists have the best move-actions in D&D



Ormur answered that very well. The fact that the designers had a very poor idea of balance, knowledge or foresight, doesn't mean that it is somehow necessary or desirable to create arbitrary, homebrewed nerfs to everything overpowered. RAW, what the archivist does is clear. There is no logical reason why an archivist cannot easily get access to the majority of divine spells in the game (and again, I haven't suggested anything other than the most limited reading of the spells an Archivist can use). If Archivist is overpowered in YOUR game, you can ban it, or rewrite it. But don't act like the rules are vague just because you don't like what they say. There are certainly interpretations of Archivist and their spell list that are MUCH stronger than what I have suggested. I think mine is about the most conservative reading that can actually be supported by what is in the books.
Very well put. It seems abundantly clear how the ability works, and it works great.

[Malevolence]

There must be a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

There is.


Archivists are very strong so they don't fit into every campaign if played to their potential. They can even break such games but both applies to half the classes in D&D.

Good DMs can handle a top tier class just fine. If you can deal with core only Clerics, Druids, or Wizards, an Archivist won't make you blink.

[Aquillion]

Of course it was intended for the Archivist to have access to every spell ever - including most arcane ones.That wasn't what you said originally, though -- maybe you misspoke, but scroll up. You said that giving the Archivist every Divine spell ever is an abuse. It clearly isn't; it's explicitly how the class was meant to be used. It's when people start to abuse tricks to learn every single Arcane spell as a Divine spell that it becomes obvious that you're going beyond RAI.

(Well, sorta-sorta. Giving the Archivist every single Divine spell whenever they want it without making them work for it is not how it was intended to work, yeah -- the idea is that they're supposed to be constantly hunting for bits of divine lore, buttonholing every Divine caster they come across to quiz them about their magic and asking them to write it down. Acting like that is not abuse, though, that's how the class is meant to be played -- basically, it encourages you to act like an archivist, which is one of the things I always loved about it. Cornering the Paladin and asking him to write down all his religious rites so you can put them in your book is totally in-character for an Archivist.)

With that said, one vital houserule the Archivist sorely needs:

The level an Archivist learns or casts a spell as should not be derived from the class you learn the spell from. Instead, use the spell level from the first available class in the following list that gets the spell:

Cleric [non-domain]
Wizard
Druid
Cleric [Domain]
All other full casters.
(Etc -- put partial casters here.)

Additionally, an Archivist cannot learn a spell until they are at at least the class level at which a vanilla member of the 'donor' class would have gained access to it, all other factors aside.

This ensures that they don't get spells early because one obscure class gets it early, or because something like a Paladin gets it early to account for slower overall casting progression.

[sonofzeal]

So are Rogues overall stronger than Factotums? (Meaning not Gestalt)
Outside of gestalt....

I love Factota. I think they're an awesome idea. I've used them in a couple of my favorite builds. If I were to stat myself, I'd almost certainly be a Factotum.

But my experience is that they're slightly less powerful than Rogues. They're good, don't get me wrong, but they don't really have any major strengths either. They're generalists in a game that strongly encourages specialists. Rogues know what their job is - finding traps, and gutting unsuspecting mooks like friday fish. A Factotum can do the former, but isn't really set up for the latter so well. That means in combat, you really have to choose your position carefully. You can fill just about any of the roles, but you're not going to be able to keep up with a specialist. You won't DPS like a Rogue, or tank like a Crusader, or heal like a Cleric, or blast like a Psion. And if you commit yourself to any one role, you'll find yourself underperforming in the long run. The only way to stay relevant is to try and figure out the encounter and decide what's most needed, but that means you probably won't have much feat support for whatever it is you decided to do.

There's a few ways around this. Brains Over Brawn + Improved Trip can be terrifying. They also get good use out of Alter Self and Polymorph. Iaijutsu Focus, if your DM allows it, can make a good foundation for a build too. Still, you really have to go looking for these combos.

Thus, the power of the class very much comes down to the skill of the player, both in character building and in on-the-spot decision making. As such, I don't think anyone would call it a weak class, since it can always do well if handled well. But it's also not a strong class, since it really does require a fine touch to bring out its power.

Oh, but I houserule FoI to a static +2 IP per feat, that might make a difference.

[Goonthegoof]

That definitely does make a difference, once you've taken the feat more than 3 times your factotum would start falling behind fast.
I've always found them to be better than rogues simply because they're so much more versatile - I never play rogues for the damage because a swordsage or barbarian will do that so much better, and the factotum is simply much better at everything else than the rogue is.

[sonofzeal]

That definitely does make a difference, once you've taken the feat more than 3 times your factotum would start falling behind fast.
I've always found them to be better than rogues simply because they're so much more versatile - I never play rogues for the damage because a swordsage or barbarian will do that so much better, and the factotum is simply much better at everything else than the rogue is.
If you're taking any feat more than three times, something's seriously wrong. Just sayin'.

They are more versatile, but Rogues are pretty darn versatile too. UMD as a class skill, and tasty tasty 8+int skillpoints, go a long way for that. Really, a decent UMD Rogue can do just about anything a Factotum can do. The Factotum's (Su) class features more come as upgrades than anything really new. A Wand of Lesser Vigor makes the Factotum's healing thingy less significant, although it still helps. And really, both classes are going to depend on making good use of gear, magical and mundane.

In the end, I've just seen enough mediocre Factota that I'm no longer enamoured with their power. By themselves they're competent, though not exceptional. A good optimizer/player can certainly get a lot of mileage out of them, but that goes for a lot of classes.

They still win on style points. Factota are simply classier than rogues.

[Doc Roc]

I will play a factotum over a rogue every time.

[Goonthegoof]

If you're taking any feat more than three times, something's seriously wrong. Just sayin'.

They are more versatile, but Rogues are pretty darn versatile too. UMD as a class skill, and tasty tasty 8+int skillpoints, go a long way for that. Really, a decent UMD Rogue can do just about anything a Factotum can do. The Factotum's (Su) class features more come as upgrades than anything really new. A Wand of Lesser Vigor makes the Factotum's healing thingy less significant, although it still helps. And really, both classes are going to depend on making good use of gear, magical and mundane.

In the end, I've just seen enough mediocre Factota that I'm no longer enamoured with their power. By themselves they're competent, though not exceptional. A good optimizer/player can certainly get a lot of mileage out of them, but that goes for a lot of classes.

They still win on style points. Factota are simply classier than rogues.

Why wouldn't you take it more than three times? It gets better the more you take it.
Factotums win on skills, they have more skills (6+int with int as their primary stat), a better skill list (all of them), better physical skills (brains over brawn) and can boost each skill check by a large amount once per day.
And you don't need good optimisation, all you need to do is pick up items that boost your int and take font of inspiration for every feat and you're ready for pretty much anything.

[Coidzor]

They are more versatile, but Rogues are pretty darn versatile too. UMD as a class skill, and tasty tasty 8+int skillpoints, go a long way for that. .

Factota beat out Rogues on skillpoints anyway, since Factota actually get something for having anything in intelligence.

Edit: Oh. Wait. I think I get what you were getting at now. Yeah, it's not bad, certainly.

[TroubleBrewing]

With the option of playing a Factotum (e.g., outside of core-only games), I pick them over Rogues every time. Their sheer versatility is impossible to match by any other Tier 3 or below class.

[sonofzeal]

Why wouldn't you take it more than three times? It gets better the more you take it.
Any class/build that relies on choosing the same feat three or more times in a row is generally bad taste for an actual playable character. It can be hilarious for theoretical exercises (see my Henry the Indestructable if you can find it), but is inelegant and rather kludgy for actual play. Factotum is such an elegant class, it's almost a shame to sully them with such a step down. It's like taking grade-A german sausage, grilling it to perfection, and then serving it with cheese wiz. The result might work, and it might actually be good, but seriously now. I can't imagine being content with that, unless I was absolutely rushed for time and had to slap something on there.


Factotums win on skills, they have more skills (6+int with int as their primary stat), a better skill list (all of them), better physical skills (brains over brawn) and can boost each skill check by a large amount once per day.
I didn't say otherwise. All I said was that Rogues are plenty flexible. Which they are. I don't see anyone denying that.


And you don't need good optimisation, all you need to do is pick up items that boost your int and take font of inspiration for every feat and you're ready for pretty much anything.
Again, if your entire build is "Factotum with FoIx12", I'm going to lose a little respect. It's filler, if you can't come up with any feat more interesting.

I'll grant the point though. A Factotum with fifty bajillion IP can be pretty darn competitive. But if you have to resort to those sorts of overwrought methods, I'd rather be playing a Rogue.



...again, I love the Factotum, but I love it for its elegance and creativity, not its power. And FoI may help with the creativity, but it lacks elegance... and if you take that away, I lose a lot of my interest.

[PollyOliver]

I wouldn't necessarily take a factotum every time, but between factotums and beguilers I play rogues (and scouts) a lot less than I used to. I used to be the go-to trapfinder/skillmonkey, and used to play rogue or scout builds almost every time unless we were missing a caster, but once I actually read through beguiler (which somehow I didn't do when we first got the book) and we bought Dungeonscape for factotum, I've played one craven daring outlaw and one swift hunter in a one-off, and that's it. Meanwhile, I've played two beguilers and four factotums (one also in a one-off). I'll trade my d6's for a metric ton of versatility most days.

[shadow_archmagi]

What makes the Factotum so valuable is that the class abilities are written very poorly, and a player can often sneak silly things past a DM too weary to wade through all the rules gotchas. Examples:

no definition of when an encounter ends
stacking mostly not addressed
Font of Inspiration can be read as offering either a linear or quadratic inspiration point benefit
shenanigans about which class abilities are Extraordinary

That's about it. :smallsigh:

Honestly, even with a conservative estimate of encounter, you still get INT to lots of skills, access to all skills, a handful of spells (Prepared cleric style from the wizard list!), and INT in combat.

Those are all very nice class features, and with the exception of casting spells, they don't cost actions, so they completely stack with whatever other class you're gestalting with. I like playing Factotum/Artificer and fill the party role of "Everything but punching" (It's a 2 man campaign, so another player is dedicated to punching, and no one feels left out)

[holywhippet]

I have a question. Am I right in thinking that the archivist can grab any two cleric spells when they level up? Even domain spells? That removes much of the problem involved with finding a cleric with a particular domain to get spells from.

On another note, the archivist could struggle in certain games if the DM doesn't make high level divine casters easy to locate. Scribing a paladin's break enchantment spell will only work if you can find a high enough level paladin who is willing to help.

[Veyr]

No, Domain spells are not "Cleric spells", since "Cleric spells" are defined as "spells on the Cleric list". Note that not even Clerics who take a given Domain get to add the spells to the Cleric list; rather, their Domain spell slots give them an opportunity to prepare spells that might not appear on their list. But if the spell is not on their spell list, it's not a "Cleric spell" and therefore they cannot prepare it with normal "Cleric spell slots". Since it is on their Domain list (which is a separate spell list), however, they can activate Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items of the spell.

[JaronK]

Archivists:

First off, while they only get the main Cleric spells for their spellbook when they level up, they can actually get virtually every spell in existence due to the fact that there are so many effects that put various arcane spells down as divine (Domains, Hexer PrC, Favored of Bahamut Favored Soul Variant, etc). Second, the writers of the class evidently thought it might be hard to get those spells... but the spell research rules in the DMG say it takes just one day and IIRC twice the cost of having an NPC cast the spell to research a duplicate of any existing spell. So instead of having to go on quests to find the spells you need, you just need a trivial cost and a day of downtime to get what you want. You can just research "The Hero Domain spell Giant Size" and now you have Giant Size.

Add to this their quite useful class abilities (Stun enemies as a move action!) and you've got a very powerful class indeed. The fact that their bonus spells come off Wisdom is annoying, but they get an extra spell per level compared to Wizards anyway so that's not even a big deal.

Factotums:

They're extra potent in Gestalt, because the primary fault of Gestalt is that you have twice the abilities of a normal character but only the normal amount of actions. It doesn't matter if you're a Wizard//Archivist... you're still only casting one spell per turn. The Factotum changes all that at level 8 when the class gives extra actions.

They're extremely SAD... all you need is Int. They get Int to Dex and Str based skills and checks (including Initiative and Trips!), and if you go Necropolitan or use Fairy Mysteries Initiate they don't even care about Con. This means they can end up with more skills than a Rogue... and they get all skills as class skills, so they can even take random ones like Lucid Dreaming, Autohypnosis, and Iajuitsu Focus. Plus, they actually have spells to work with. As an added bonus, their spells are actually Spell Like Abilities, which are always cast as Standard Actions (see MM, RC) unless the spell would take less time. That means long cast time spells (Distill Joy, Major Creation, Ghoul Glyph) can now be cast rapidly (harvesting lots of Ambrosia, creating buckets of poison on enemies in combat, or paralyzing an enemy with no save, respectively). They also don't have to worry about collecting the spells as a Wizard might... they just get them. As for dealing damage, they can either go archery (Knowledge Devotion + Extra Actions) or assassination (Iaijutsu Focus), possibly adding poison to that (Minor Creation for endless amounts).

In the end, they come out as super Rogues. They're not as powerful as Archivists of course (though in Gestalt they're amazing to combine with another power class) but they've definitely got a lot of kick. Though as for Font of Inspiration... honestly, the more I've played Factotums the less I've used it. I never take it more than three times now, and sometimes I don't take it at all. Darkstalker, Craft Wonderous Item, Item Familiar, Master of Poisons, various archery feats, and so on end up being so much more valuable. Though I do often dip two levels of Unarmed Swordsage now for the teleports and such.

JaronK

[shadow_archmagi]

Spell-like abilities only cost a standard action


What? No.



A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.


Unless there's some more official source I'm missing...

[Arbitrarious]

I've never really considered Factotums to get spells, they get so few it seems like such a small part of the class. It is certainly handy, but not why i go Factotum.

[MrRigger]

Factotums are awesome purely on their flexibility. Can a Rogue who focuses on pumping Sneak Attack outdamage them? Absolutely. But Factotums can bounce between focuses far easier. They can jump from making absurdly high skill checks to turning undead to flying to sticking a knife between someone's ribs all in the same encounter.

Archivists are good because they're Tier 1, and rightly so. They have one of the most impressive spell lists in the game, even without some of the more questionable tactics like Divine Bard and PrC arcane spells as divine. Of course, some detractors say that your spell list is limited only by what the DM gives you, and this is true, but that's also true of the wizard. But the best part about the Archivist is that ferreting out obscure spells and divine scrolls is a big part of the flavor of the class. You're supposed to quest for the secrets of divine magic, not just the cleric and druid spell list. Getting Paladin and Ranger only spells and Heal a level early from an Adept is what the Archivist is meant to do, as part of the flavor text, as well as mechanically.

MrRigger

[The Cat Goddess]

The fact that you would want to get Font of Inspiration more than three times is a hint that the feat is broken as written and is, by definition, doubly-broken in gestalt.

[JaronK]

What? No.

Unless there's some more official source I'm missing...

Yes, you're missing the Rules Compendium and the Monster Manual, both of which contradict the SRD and PHB. The Monster Manual says its always a standard action unless otherwise specified, and the Rules Compendium says Spell Likes are a Standard Action unless the spell would take less than that. However, since the Monster Manual is the primary source for Spell Like Abilities, and the Rules Compendium is the only thing able to contradict primary sources, the rule is in fact standard action or less.

It seems different designers had different ideas on how that rule was supposed to work.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, you're missing the Rules Compendium and the Monster Manual, both of which contradict the SRD and PHB. The Monster Manual says its always a standard action unless otherwise specified, and the Rules Compendium says Spell Likes are a Standard Action unless the spell would take less than that.
Huh? No, Rules Compendium doesn't say that. From page 118:

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. ...
Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.
There's no actual contradiction here. Most spells take a standard action to cast, so usually a spell-like ability, which works just like the spell of that name, takes 1 standard action. If the spell has another duration, that's covered by the "unless otherwise noted" clause.

RC only needed to put in an explicit mention of casting times of less than 1 standard action because that possibility didn't exist in the core rules.

The Monster Manual says the same thing (except without the note about faster than 1 standard action casting times, of course). From page 315:
Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components).
...
Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity.
Spell-like abilities "work just like spells" and take "a standard action unless noted otherwise" ─ which a different value in the spell's casting time entry would denote.

If you read the rules fully, you'll pay special attention to terms like "usually" and "unless noted otherwise", and avoid jumping to wishful but erroneous conclusions.

In particular, JaronK, there's no use of "always" in the Monster Manual treatment of spell-like abilities. "Always" is a term which indicates a strong bias (100% compliance), yet it in fact doesn't appear in the rules; that memory error seems to be distorting your understanding on this matter. You've also completely skipped the Rules Compendium "works just like the spell" default and "usually" qualifier to get to the minor note about faster casting times.

[JaronK]

They do take a standard action unless otherwise noted. "Usually" here means it's what they do unless something else says otherwise. Now, Rules Compendium says Sp abilities representing shorter than standard spells take that shorter duration, and some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration. But the default case in both Monster Manual and Rules Compendium is a Standard Action, and the Factotum does not otherwise specify that the spells should take longer durations.

"Work just like spells" indicates what they do when they're cast. The duration is set by the other rule that you just quoted... "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise" and "Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time. " There's really no way to read those two quotes and expect that spell like abilities ever take longer than a standard action unless the ability itself notes as much.

I said "always" with the standard D&D meaning... it always happens unless a more specific rule says it doesn't. And that's how the rule parses out here... it takes a standard action (or shorter) unless the specific Sp ability says otherwise.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

They do take a standard action unless otherwise noted. "Usually" here means it's what they do unless something else says otherwise. Now, Rules Compendium says Sp abilities representing shorter than standard spells take that shorter duration, and some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration.
I think you're going to need to back up that assumption. Let's confine this to the Monster Manual, since that's the primary source for spell-like abilities, as you previously noted.
Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise
If the meaning of "unless noted otherwise" is, as you stated, that "some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration", please find a justification for that assumption in the Monster Manual with at least one such citation.

It's possible that I've overlooked something, and I always appreciate having gaps in my knowledge of the rules repaired. But if there's no evidence to back up your assumption, I think the more straightforward explanation of "unless noted otherwise" is when a spell entry has a duration other than the usual 1 standard action.

[JaronK]

I think you're going to need to back up that assumption. Let's confine this to the Monster Manual, since that's the primary source for spell-like abilities, as you previously noted.
If the meaning of "unless noted otherwise" is, as you stated, that "some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration", please find a justification for that assumption in the Monster Manual with at least one such citation.


...that's what the line says. "Unless noted otherwise" means there has to be a note that the Sp ability takes a different amount of time. At no point does MM or RC say that a Spell Like Ability takes the same time to cast as the spell. RC specifically notes an exception (that shorter cast time spells take less) but the fact that it says no such thing for longer cast time spells makes this all painfully obvious.


I think the more straightforward explanation of "unless noted otherwise" is when a spell entry has a duration other than the usual 1 standard action.

For that to be true you'd need a general case rule that spell like abilities take the same time to use as the cast time of the spells. That rule does not exist in either the RC or MM, and in fact the MM rule says otherwise.

I'm really not sure what you're missing about the statement:


Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise

Note the lack of "usually" there. That's just what it does... it takes a standard action (unless there's a specific note otherwise). The duration of the spell is irrelevant here.

Then you modify that with the RC version:


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

So... it usually takes one standard action (unless there's a special note). But then it gives a reason why it just said "usually" in that it says shorter cast time spells result in shorter duration Sp abilities.

So, to break it down: Sp abilities take a standard action, unless one of the two exception clauses in MM and RC occur: either A) the spell cast time would have been shorter or B) there's a special note saying otherwise.

Factotums do not have the latter. Ergo, their Arcane Dilettante ability is always a standard action unless the cast time would be shorter.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

...that's what the line says.
So you haven't found even a single monster entry with a spell-like ability that supports your "some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration" assumption?

Looks like I've supported my reading of this rule, and you haven't.

[Coidzor]

So you haven't found even a single monster entry with a spell-like ability that supports your "some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration" assumption?

Or while they may, they never actually bothered to specify and so they don't actually have any extant.

That doesn't negate that they left themselves that out in their language.

[JaronK]

So you haven't found even a single monster entry with a spell-like ability that supports your "some individual Sp abilities may say they take a longer duration" assumption?

Looks like I've supported my reading of this rule, and you haven't.

...what exactly do you think the line "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise " means? What other reading besides "a spell like ability requires a standard action to use, unless there's a note that says otherwise somewhere" could you possibly take from this?

JaronK

[Laniius]

I think I have to side with the crowd that states if the spell like ability is mimicing a spell with a long casting time that it takes longer than a standard action for one reason: a dragonfire adept gets an invocation that acts like geas/quest, a spell with a 10 minute casting time. The ability to spam geas/quest as a standard action seems far to overpowered to me which makes me think that a spell like ability is only a standard action or less if the spell it is mimicking is a standard action or less.

[Yuki Akuma]

Because "it's overpowered, it can't work that way" is such a great argument when it comes to 3.5 D&D.

I encourage you to houserule these insane things, but looking at the rules as written they seem to have forgotten to include a few words... which can change the meaning of rules text drastically.

[JaronK]

The Factotum version is even nastier... you can't spam it, but Major Creation as a standard action is insane. Anything that's not immune to poison and acid in the area (and it is an area effect) dies instantly as you hit the whole region with thousands of doses of Sinmaker's Surprise... a poison that also does acid damage, and is vegetable based... if one dose is an ounce, then each cubic foot of the stuff is around 1000 doses. And then you have poison for the rest of the day. Ghoul Glyph's no save paralysis effect is nasty as well.

But just because it's overpowered doesn't mean it's against the rules, and remember that we're talking about a class that's still noticeably weaker than a Wizard (it casts spells better than a Wizard, but the spells it has are much lower level and much fewer, and that's HUGE). It's perfectly acceptable to house rule this of course, but let's not pretend the rules say something other than what they say.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

...what exactly do you think the line "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise " means?
I think if the spell which the SLA mimics has other than the usual 1 standard action casting time, that's "noted otherwise".

[Laniius]

Are there any monsters with standard action SLA's that mimic spells with long casting times?

[sonofzeal]

Are there any monsters with standard action SLA's that mimic spells with long casting times?
The Nightmare has Astral Projection and Etherealness, but on second glance they're (Su) despite being the very definition of (Sp)... huh.

[olentu]

By the by does anyone have a page number for the

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.
quote as I can not find it at all. It should be exceptionally obvious but for some reason I have missed it completely and it is rather bugging me.

[ThunderCat]

I think if the spell which the SLA mimics has other than the usual 1 standard action casting time, that's "noted otherwise".Then why on earth wouldn't they just write "Using a spell-like ability takes the same kind of action as the spell it is emulating"? That's the most obvious way of writing what you claim they were trying to write. It seems far more plausible that the meaning of the rule is "A spell-like ability takes a standard action, but we reserve the right to make exceptions".

The warlock entry seems to support the latter interpretation. The warlock has invocations emulating spells with a longer casting time, like sending, but the description of invocations is pretty clear: "A warlock’s invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity." It doesn't make any sense that they would repeatedly stretch how SLAs cost a standard action if the idea was to just copy the casting time of the spell.

[2xMachina]

The fact that you would want to get Font of Inspiration more than three times is a hint that the feat is broken as written and is, by definition, doubly-broken in gestalt.

Well, I find Gestalt to be somewhat feat starved. Not really, but with 2 classes, each with their own useful feat list... FoI all the time in gestalt will make you lose a lot of things. You could be getting Metamagic or combat feats rather than spam FoI.

[Yuki Akuma]

This is why you gestalt two classes with different abilities but who have similar feat needs.

Or just focus on one class and use the other for its class abilities, skill points, saves and/or hit dice.

[Aquillion]

The fact that you would want to get Font of Inspiration more than three times is a hint that the feat is broken as written and is, by definition, doubly-broken in gestalt.I don't agree. I mean, yes, it's better than most other options for a Factotum, sure, but even with tons of FoI and Iaijutsu Focus, a Factotum is still only upper Tier 3. They don't break the game, they're just really good at what they do.

Taking the same feat a bunch of times is weird, but so what? It means you're super-focused on being a Factotum. You'll be really good at that, but it's not going to make things less fun for anyone else.

[JaronK]

I think if the spell which the SLA mimics has other than the usual 1 standard action casting time, that's "noted otherwise".

That's nice that you think that... except the primary source on spell like abilities does not say that a SLA is matched up to the casting time of the spell (except the Rules Compendium, which clearly states that only matters if they spell is cast in less than a standard action). So, you're just sort of making this up. If the spell said "if this spell is cast as an SLA, then it's cast in X amount of time" that would be otherwise noted in the spell.

Just because you think something doesn't make it RAW. RAW says "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise" and "noted otherwise" means you need a note that says the spell like ability takes a different amount of time.

And for Olentu, that's page 315 of the Monster Manual. Not sure where your other quote is from, but it's using the PHB wording (contradicted by the MM, which is the primary source), so it's probably from that book... off the top of my head, I'd guess page 180, right hand side.

JaronK

[olentu]

That's nice that you think that... except the primary source on spell like abilities does not say that a SLA is matched up to the casting time of the spell (except the Rules Compendium, which clearly states that only matters if they spell is cast in less than a standard action). So, you're just sort of making this up. If the spell said "if this spell is cast as an SLA, then it's cast in X amount of time" that would be otherwise noted in the spell.

Just because you think something doesn't make it RAW. RAW says "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise" and "noted otherwise" means you need a note that says the spell like ability takes a different amount of time.

And for Olentu, that's page 315 of the Monster Manual. Not sure where your other quote is from, but it's using the PHB wording (contradicted by the MM, which is the primary source), so it's probably from that book... off the top of my head, I'd guess page 180, right hand side.

JaronK

Well thanks for the attempt and the PHB one you correctly directed me to is somewhat similar but I unfortunately have either lost my ability to read or that exact quote is from a much more mysterious source.

[JaronK]

DMG at the very beginning of the glossary? SRD? Those are the only other places I could think of.

JaronK

[olentu]

DMG at the very beginning of the glossary? SRD? Those are the only other places I could think of.

JaronK

Hmm I do not see it in the DMG but that is an interesting thought i.e. is this a case of the SRD introducing a new rule not found in any of the books of which it is made up. Hmm that would be something to check and I suppose I shall have a read through the SRD to satisfy my curiosity.

[Darth Stabber]

I think a great fix for FoI is to just remove the clause that let's you take it multiple times. Make them commit to something. FoI is really just a crutch for avoiding thinking out a build, except, unlike most build crutches, this one is actually competent.

[Major]

I tend to only use font if I plan on doing the chameleon route. If I go pure factotum I rarely use font of inspiration.

Without the factotum level ups you don't get enough inspiration to make use of it. Normally Chameleon/factotum isn't as good as straight factotum, but being able to go nova and blast a crap load of spells in one standard action can get pretty amusing.

It really all depends. font of inspiration is a good fall back if you don't want or need another feat for your build. Mainly because pure factotum's don't really need many feats and can do fine without.

[dextercorvia]

Hmm I do not see it in the DMG but that is an interesting thought i.e. is this a case of the SRD introducing a new rule not found in any of the books of which it is made up. Hmm that would be something to check and I suppose I shall have a read through the SRD to satisfy my curiosity.

The SRD blends wordings from the various core books. This makes some of the rules more or less clear.

[RaginChangeling]

I think a great fix for FoI is to just remove the clause that let's you take it multiple times. Make them commit to something. FoI is really just a crutch for avoiding thinking out a build, except, unlike most build crutches, this one is actually competent.

Well, without FoI, I would never play a Factotum. They don't get nearly enough inspiration points to do much of anything in that case, I would rate them lower in combat than a Rogue or anything else. They just get a stupidly low amount of inspiration per encounter.

[Gametime]

The whole point of using RAW in internet discussions is to give people a common ground. I would hazard a guess that so few people actually play with all spell-like abilities being a standard action or faster that using that interpretation takes us farther from common ground than the common sense interpretation. Regardless of which is actually supported by the rules, an evaluation of Factotum as a playable class should, I think, make some concessions to how the game is actually played, difficult as that may be to discern. It's the same reason I don't think "Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes" is a valid criticism of how good the class is.

Mind, it's possible that I'm wrong and at least a significant minority of gamers have taken the time to track down the relevant text about spell-like abilities, compare the authority of the sources based on which is most concerned with spell-like abilities, and concluded that spell-like abilities replicating long cast-time spells should usually still take a standard action, but I doubt it.

[Draz74]

I think a great fix for FoI is to just remove the clause that let's you take it multiple times. Make them commit to something. FoI is really just a crutch for avoiding thinking out a build, except, unlike most build crutches, this one is actually competent.

Except, then it's terrible.

It would balanced if many Factotums, but not all, found it a worthwhile feat. We discussed a scaling version of it once that people seemed to have divided opinions about at the end (It sucks! It's still totally required for any optimized Factotum!) ... which I think was a good sign that it was actually balanced. It granted 2 Inspiration points, plus one for every six character levels, or something like that.

[olentu]

The SRD blends wordings from the various core books. This makes some of the rules more or less clear.

Actually doing a search for that specific text on the actual SRD I was unable to find a match and it was not apparent in my readings of the sections that seemed relevant. Now that is not to say that my computer or my eyes did not miss it but I really can not find this exact quotation anywhere. I suppose I shall just have to not have my curiosity satisfied and perhaps I shall stumble upon that exact wording at some later time.

[Coidzor]

I think a great fix for FoI is to just remove the clause that let's you take it multiple times. Make them commit to something. FoI is really just a crutch for avoiding thinking out a build, except, unlike most build crutches, this one is actually competent.

So what's the problem and why does it need to be fixed?

[Aquillion]

I think a great fix for FoI is to just remove the clause that let's you take it multiple times. Make them commit to something. FoI is really just a crutch for avoiding thinking out a build, except, unlike most build crutches, this one is actually competent.
Why do you want to force people to think out a build? There's nothing wrong with having an easy-to-make, playable character that can stack up with carefully-optimized partners out-of-the-box. In fact, it's a good thing!

The "best" state of the game would be one where you could choose almost any combination of feats, class levels and skills and get a competitive, useful character. Obviously that's not possible, but I don't see anything wrong with Factotum having an easy-to-make build that keeps it as a strong tier 3. It's not overpowered compared to full casters or other optimized T3 classes -- it's just competent. Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, are you saying that people should be forced to carefully plan out a huge list of feats from multiple sourcebooks just to be competent? Sure, that should be an option, but I don't see any reason to make someone who just wants to take the same feat over and over suck. If it was a fighter, maybe, you could argue that it makes a boring character, and players shouldn't be encouraged to make boring characters -- but a Factotum is still plenty interesting, even with FoI in every single feat slot.

Not everyone wants to obsess over their build. Being able to say "here, this is an easy way to build a competitive character" is a good thing.

[Engine]

Why do you want to force people to think out a build? There's nothing wrong with having an easy-to-make, playable character that can stack up with carefully-optimized partners out-of-the-box. In fact, it's a good thing!

The "best" state of the game would be one where you could choose almost any combination of feats, class levels and skills and get a competitive, useful character. Obviously that's not possible, but I don't see anything wrong with Factotum having an easy-to-make build that keeps it as a strong tier 3. It's not overpowered compared to full casters or other optimized T3 classes -- it's just competent. Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, are you saying that people should be forced to carefully plan out a huge list of feats from multiple sourcebooks just to be competent? Sure, that should be an option, but I don't see any reason to make someone who just wants to take the same feat over and over suck. If it was a fighter, maybe, you could argue that it makes a boring character, and players shouldn't be encouraged to make boring characters -- but a Factotum is still plenty interesting, even with FoI in every single feat slot.

Not everyone wants to obsess over their build. Being able to say "here, this is an easy way to build a competitive character" is a good thing.

I agree. And while you could have a Factotum with a lot of FoI - an "easy" build - it's not so easy to actually play them. Nothing overwhelming, of course. But you have a lot of options on your table with a Factotum, and know what to do it's not as simple as to take a lot of FoI. With a Factotum you have to play smart.

[Darth Stabber]

I, as a gm, usually require a little creativity out of player if I know they are an optimizer. The players that aren't optimizers are unlikely to try that particular trick, but players that know exactly what they are doing should at least be creative.

[The Cat Goddess]

Except, then it's terrible.

It would balanced if many Factotums, but not all, found it a worthwhile feat. We discussed a scaling version of it once that people seemed to have divided opinions about at the end (It sucks! It's still totally required for any optimized Factotum!) ... which I think was a good sign that it was actually balanced. It granted 2 Inspiration points, plus one for every six character levels, or something like that.

Sadly, the problem with most Feats is that they don't scale.

For example: Touch of Golden Ice. Nice feat at early levels, but the static saving throw roll makes the feat pointless at higher levels.

[Darth Stabber]

For example: Touch of Golden Ice. Nice feat at early levels, but the static saving throw roll makes the feat pointless at higher levels.

I agree with your argument, but at high levels ToGI actually picks up steam on builds that capitalize on attacks per round. At some point their going to roll a 1, and I have had good luck with it on a totemist build. So not useless, just very specialized. Okay, its still bad then, but their is a druid spell that ups poison dcs, and I got a ring of that, it upped th dc to 20 and ate up a big chunk of money (at lvl 15 a dc 20 gets resisted a lot, but at 7 attacks around you can get it to stick atleast once).

[olentu]

I agree with your argument, but at high levels ToGI actually picks up steam on builds that capitalize on attacks per round. At some point their going to roll a 1, and I have had good luck with it on a totemist build. So not useless, just very specialized. Okay, its still bad then, but their is a druid spell that ups poison dcs, and I got a ring of that, it upped th dc to 20 and ate up a big chunk of money (at lvl 15 a dc 20 gets resisted a lot, but at 7 attacks around you can get it to stick atleast once).

I kind of doubt that touch of golden ice is a poison considering the book from which it springs.

[MeeposFire]

It is not a poison but it acts like a poison in every way but it is exalted.

[olentu]

It is not a poison but it acts like a poison in every way but it is exalted.

True but things are tangled enough already.

[Cirrhosis]

how is taking FoI 3 times worse than taking dodge > mobility >spring attack? the first time you take it, it's only of marginal benefit, like dodge. the second time is good enough that the first time almost seems worth it. the third time makes the first two most definitely worth it.

you're also limited in the number of times you can take it by your intelligence modifier, so you can't fill up on 12 instances of it without pushing your intelligence score up to 34. that's well out of the range of a 20th level +0 LA character, for instance. i'd buy maybe a 25 intelligence, which would get you 7 instances of FoI. sure, that's a bloody lot of the same feat, but i'd be far mor worried about the wizard taking 12 metamagic feats than i would the factotum taking 7 FoIs.

also: JaronK's right. the rules are pretty specific on the SLA as a standard action thing. it's not poorly worded. the drowning rules are poorly worded, if you want a reference.

[Veyr]

how is taking FoI 3 times worse than taking dodge > mobility >spring attack? the first time you take it, it's only of marginal benefit, like dodge. the second time is good enough that the first time almost seems worth it. the third time makes the first two most definitely worth it.
Ooooh, if only that were true of Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack...

[Vuann]

The Monster Manual says the same thing (except without the note about faster than 1 standard action casting times, of course). From page 315:
Quote:Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components).
...
Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity.

Spell-like abilities "work just like spells" and take "a standard action unless noted otherwise" ─ which a different value in the spell's casting time entry would denote.


So I have a question.. Factotum's description of their spell-like ability specifically states that if there is any material components that they must be supplied. Which goes directly against the description of a spell-like ability above that says none are needed. If a Factotum must supply the components to cast the spell then surely it is counted as a "real" spell and should therefore count for any PrC class that requires "ability to cast x spells"...

I was thinking about how to take factotum/warblade/jpm but the spellcasting seemed to be an issue since it's only a "spell like ability". Since when does any other spell like ability require the actual components to be used? It just seems a bit strange to me. If the material components are actually being consumed to cast the spell, then surely it is more than just a pseudo ability that can't count as real casting. I mean hell if you can "fake" a level 7 wizard spell, then you should be able to fake anything a PrC can pull off.

[Major]

I'll be honest, originally I laughed when I read what JaronX said. Claiming that spell-like abilities were a standard action even if they were a spell with longer time.

But then I looked up the rules. And he is right.

[JaronK]

So I have a question.. Factotum's description of their spell-like ability specifically states that if there is any material components that they must be supplied. Which goes directly against the description of a spell-like ability above that says none are needed. If a Factotum must supply the components to cast the spell then surely it is counted as a "real" spell and should therefore count for any PrC class that requires "ability to cast x spells"...

They're not spells. They're spell like abilities with a few specific case exceptions that make them more like spells than normal. You'll want to review the Complete Arcane rules on spell like abilities and prerequisites... Factotums can qualify for things that require "Caster Level X" (such as Mindbenders) but not things that say "Cast spells of X level."


I'll be honest, originally I laughed when I read what JaronX said. Claiming that spell-like abilities were a standard action even if they were a spell with longer time.

But then I looked up the rules. And he is right.

I did the exact same thing when it was pointed out to me the first time, especially since I'd seen the PHB rules on the subject.

JaronK

[stainboy]

It makes sense if you think of SLAs as something that only monsters do, like the writers probably did nine years ago.

[AmberVael]

I did the exact same thing when it was pointed out to me the first time, especially since I'd see the PHB rules on the subject.

JaronK

It's a common misconception.

Because of this: SRD on SLAs. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities)

For those who don't feel like using the link and looking up the relevant section, here is the quote.


A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

I'm not sure how or why it says this in the SRD, as it is not supported in the Monster Manual or Rules Compendium, but there it is.

[olentu]

It's a common misconception.

Because of this: SRD on SLAs. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities)

For those who don't feel like using the link and looking up the relevant section, here is the quote.



I'm not sure how or why it says this in the SRD, as it is not supported in the Monster Manual or Rules Compendium, but there it is.

Er now that you have found it on the not really the SRD SRD I shall ask would you happen to know where it is in the actual SRD since while I have stopped searching so urgently I am still wondering if that exact quote actually exists and I am completely missing it or if it is something someone made up and then gave a coat of legitimacy by association.

[AmberVael]

Er now that you have found it on the not really the SRD SRD I shall ask would you happen to know where it is in the actual SRD since while I have stopped searching so urgently I am still wondering if that exact quote actually exists and I am completely missing it or if it is something someone made up and then gave a coat of legitimacy by association.

It isn't in the official SRD, because it isn't actually the rule. (You can find sections on SLAs, but none have that quote. They all use the Monster Manual version.)

That said, given that d20srd is easy to navigate and access, and has high popularity, especially within GitP... lots of people refer to it, and thus there is a good chance people will repeat the mistakes made within it.

[olentu]

It isn't in the official SRD, because it isn't actually the rule. (You can find sections on SLAs, but none have that quote. They all use the Monster Manual version.)

That said, given that d20srd is easy to navigate and access, and has high popularity, especially within GitP... lots of people refer to it, and thus there is a good chance people will repeat the mistakes made within it.

Oh good I shall no longer be bothered by that mysterious quotation now that I have reasonable confirmation that it is just someone's houserule. Thanks for saving me from an extended period of nagging annoyance.

[Draz74]

It isn't in the official SRD, because it isn't actually the rule. (You can find sections on SLAs, but none have that quote. They all use the Monster Manual version.)

That said, given that d20srd is easy to navigate and access, and has high popularity, especially within GitP... lots of people refer to it, and thus there is a good chance people will repeat the mistakes made within it.

"Mistakes" in d20srd, nine times out of ten, turn out to be legitimate -- based on official errata or similar. It's a very carefully-made website.

[olentu]

"Mistakes" in d20srd, nine times out of ten, turn out to be legitimate -- based on official errata or similar. It's a very carefully-made website.

Well it being a mistake depends.

If the site claims to be a faithful reproduction of the SRD with at most searchability and hyperlinks between terms then I would say that yes they are "mistakes" in so much that they are incorrect regardless if if they are copied from some not freely distributed books, from the errata, are just made up, or whatever since they are not part of the SRD. Even the hyperlinks could be improper but that is not really the subject.

On the other hand if the site claims to be a mash up of a particular person's view of the D&D rules, some stuff they saw or read, the SRD, and probably some other stuff then the site is giving just what it advertises.

[AmberVael]

"Mistakes" in d20srd, nine times out of ten, turn out to be legitimate -- based on official errata or similar. It's a very carefully-made website.

I'm aware. d20srd does have a very good track record for that kind of thing, but I mean, I looked in the Monster Manual, I looked in the Monster Manual Errata, I looked in the DMG, I looked in the DMG errata, and I checked the Rules Compendium.

If all of those say otherwise, I'm inclined to think d20srd just made a minor mistake in wording here.

And Olentu, d20srd IS very carefully made, and what Draz is saying is pretty much true. This isn't interpretation, they're very faithful to RAW and precise wording the vast majority of the time.

[Yora]

I'm not sure how or why it says this in the SRD, as it is not supported in the Monster Manual or Rules Compendium, but there it is.
It's in the PHB, page 142.

There it says "The casting time of a spell-like ability is 1 standard action, unless the abilities description notes otherwise."
I assume that by description of the ability, they mean the spell description.

[AmberVael]

It's in the PHB, page 142.

There it says "The casting time of a spell-like ability is 1 standard action, unless the abilities description notes otherwise."
I assume that by description of the ability, they mean the spell description.

That's not necessarily a correct assumption, which is how this whole argument started.

I suggested that this assumption came from the d20SRD wording, which says it much more clearly:

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.
Yet this wording is not supported anywhere. The wording you cite is the same as in the Monster Manual, and does not clearly support the argument that Spell-like abilities use the same casting time as the spells they mimic. In fact, a very reasonable (and probably the most RAW) argument can be made that spell casting time has nothing to do with it, and thus SLAs are standard unless otherwise noted in the monster description.

If you want to see more of this argument in depth, go back a few pages and check out what JaronK and Curmudgeon were discussing, which is where all this came from in the first place.

[olentu]

I'm aware. d20srd does have a very good track record for that kind of thing, but I mean, I looked in the Monster Manual, I looked in the Monster Manual Errata, I looked in the DMG, I looked in the DMG errata, and I checked the Rules Compendium.

If all of those say otherwise, I'm inclined to think d20srd just made a minor mistake in wording here.

And Olentu, d20srd IS very carefully made, and what Draz is saying is pretty much true. This isn't interpretation, they're very faithful to RAW and precise wording the vast majority of the time.

Regardless of whether they are faithful to the rules most of the time or none of the time the heart of the matter is what they are claiming to be. If they claim to be just a collection of rules that includes some or all of the SRD then there is no problem. If the claim is a SRD and not anything else then even if they were to put in a direct reprint of say complete arcane word for word that would still be incorrect. Sure the rules might not be wrong but they would also not be purely the SRD anymore.

This is important for two reasons the first is I would say obvious from this thread i.e. that as more changes are made sometimes they end up presumably accidentally making stuff up.

The second has to do with rules groupings. Not every group plays with every book and then a rule that creeps in from another book and is incorrectly placed with SRD material could get into a game that it should not be in. Now I would find this less of a problem if they had some indicator at the changes stating explicitly that this is not SRD material and I suppose that the source would be of use as well. But without some note for differentiation they are incorrectly labeling rules as part of the SRD if outside sources are included.

But as I said these only matter if they claim to be only SRD content. If they claim to be some rules that includes most or all of the SRD then there is no problem as they can not be blamed for others mislabeling their service.

[The Cat Goddess]

how is taking FoI 3 times worse than taking dodge > mobility >spring attack? the first time you take it, it's only of marginal benefit, like dodge. the second time is good enough that the first time almost seems worth it. the third time makes the first two most definitely worth it.

you're also limited in the number of times you can take it by your intelligence modifier, so you can't fill up on 12 instances of it without pushing your intelligence score up to 34. that's well out of the range of a 20th level +0 LA character, for instance. i'd buy maybe a 25 intelligence, which would get you 7 instances of FoI. sure, that's a bloody lot of the same feat, but i'd be far mor worried about the wizard taking 12 metamagic feats than i would the factotum taking 7 FoIs.

also: JaronK's right. the rules are pretty specific on the SLA as a standard action thing. it's not poorly worded. the drowning rules are poorly worded, if you want a reference.

Roll 18 Int. +2 Int Grey Elf. +5 Tome. +6 Item. +5 from Levels. Level 20, Int 36.

The thing is... yeah, maybe the third time it's "worth it". Then the fouth time it's "really worth it". Then the fifth time it's "Wow!", and so on. Because of the rediculous scaling, it's a broken feat.

[Veyr]

Not to mention a Factotum 20 has, at most, 8 feats (if he's human) to take anyway. That's a 26, which isn't even hard. But 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=36, which is a lot of Inspiration to spend in one encounter.

[JaronK]

The real question is what you plan to actually do with all that inspiration. That's more than enough to cast all your spells in a single round, but now you've nova'd out your entire magical capability for the day. Maybe you can make a bunch of standard action attacks (which with Manyshot might be decent) but at the level you can do this it's really not very impressive.

That's why I never go above 4 of the feat... I'll occasionally take 3, and usually I don't take it at all. Better to have better things to do than to be able to do worse things faster.

JaronK

[The Cat Goddess]

The real question is what you plan to actually do with all that inspiration. That's more than enough to cast all your spells in a single round, but now you've nova'd out your entire magical capability for the day. Maybe you can make a bunch of standard action attacks (which with Manyshot might be decent) but at the level you can do this it's really not very impressive.

That's why I never go above 4 of the feat... I'll occasionally take 3, and usually I don't take it at all. Better to have better things to do than to be able to do worse things faster.

JaronK

It's more explicitly broken in Gestalt.

[Amphetryon]

It's more explicitly broken in Gestalt.

I've always been under the impression that Gestalt is more feat-starved than normal 3.X; if you've chosen FoI, you've blocked off the metamagic or similar powerful option for whatever you're gestalting Factotum with.

[JaronK]

Indeed, while novaing your spells is obviously powerful, skipping out on stuff like metamagics, darkstalker, and so on reduces your overall abilities. It's good for kick in the door games, but less so when the complexity of the game rises.

JaronK

[The Cat Goddess]

I've always been under the impression that Gestalt is more feat-starved than normal 3.X; if you've chosen FoI, you've blocked off the metamagic or similar powerful option for whatever you're gestalting Factotum with.

Inspiration Points take the place of Quicken Spell (and some other feats as well).

[JaronK]

But taking the feat too many times means losing out on PrCs (which often require feats as prerequisites) and/or other abilities.

JaronK

[Major]

And even still...saying something is broken because of what it does in gestalt campaigns is kinda silly...

[Torvon]

I just wanted to contribute that I don't consider factota to be SAD. Not at all. I find them very MAD actually.

* CON: you need a very special (and probably broken) regional feat (Initiate of Faerie Mysteries). Most DMs won't allow this feat.
* CHA: defines your turn undead checks
* WIS: defines the number of healing and turn undead per day. Important by itself, but even moreso when you take feats like Travel Devotion.
* DEX: needed for ranged combat and bow damage
* STR: needed for melee combat and damage

I find my factotum to be very MAD indeed. Brains over Brawns doesn't help with attack rolls or damage rolls, and if you don't take FOI 100 times, you just can't go to town using it on every single attack and damage roll in combat.

Factota don't get a single feat (compare that to ranger, or fighter ...). I play a ranged factotum, and you need plenty of feats for that (point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot, precise shot, knowledge devotion).

So ... I love the class. But I simply cannot agree with the general agreement here that factota only need INT.

Torvon

[Gametime]

You don't need charisma unless you're using Iajitsu Focus (and, even then, you don't really NEED it once you get to the level where you can get big skill-boosting magic items). You also don't need a big wisdom; UMDing a wand is better for healing than the factotum's built-in ability and you don't need all that many uses per day to use Travel Devotion nearly every combat. And you shouldn't need both dexterity AND strength; one or the other should be enough.

So factotums want high intelligence and decent constitution and strength/dexterity. Three stats, with the added bonus that their most important stat can be used fairly often to augment one of the others. That's roughly as MAD as most other tier 3 classes (and significantly less so than most of the tier 1 and 2 classes, unsurprisingly).

[Curmudgeon]

* WIS: defines the number of healing and turn undead per day. Important by itself, but even moreso when you take feats like Travel Devotion.
A Factotum can't use their turn undead attempts to fuel Travel Devotion, because they can't do so in the required swift action.
Starting at 5th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to channel divine energy as a standard action. You can use this energy to heal injuries, harm undead, or turn undead.

[JaronK]

I just wanted to contribute that I don't consider factota to be SAD. Not at all. I find them very MAD actually.

* CON: you need a very special (and probably broken) regional feat (Initiate of Faerie Mysteries). Most DMs won't allow this feat.

I tend to go Necropolitan, because it gives so many benefits (with the Ritual of Shadow Walking it gives unlimited teleportation. It makes you immune to a LOT of nasty stuff. And disguising yourself as living means it's unlikely you'll be hit by specific anti-undead attacks). That handles con. But otherwise, Con is useful.


* CHA: defines your turn undead checks

I tend to use the Lyre of the Restful Soul with the Rod of Defiance if I plan on fighting lots of undead. In that case, their turn resistance gets so low that Charisma doesn't really matter much. Otherwise, undead can just be hacked to pieces anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. I find Charisma just isn't that necessary... eventually I'll get an Admiral's Bicorn, but until then it's just not important.


* WIS: defines the number of healing and turn undead per day. Important by itself, but even moreso when you take feats like Travel Devotion.

Meh, again, I don't see it as being that critical.


* DEX: needed for ranged combat and bow damage

And melee hitting, since I'd always use Feycraft Quickblades in combat. Very important.


* STR: needed for melee combat and damage

No need, Feycraft weapons means I hit with Dex, and if I'm in melee I'll do damage with Iaijutsu Focus. I take a strength of about 10, just enough to carry a Haversack without worrying about weight penalties.

So in the end, I pump Int and Dex, dump Con and Wis entirely, and usually have a Charisma and Str of about 10.

JaronK

[Torvon]

I tend to go Necropolitan, because it gives so many benefits (with the Ritual of Shadow Walking it gives unlimited teleportation. It makes you immune to a LOT of nasty stuff. And disguising yourself as living means it's unlikely you'll be hit by specific anti-undead attacks). That handles con. But otherwise, Con is useful.
This is a pure mechanical aspect. Some people just prefer to play races for roleplaying ... and 99.999% races are not Necropolitan, and therefor I see that you can argue that CON is not needed, but my point was: in general it is.


I tend to use the Lyre of the Restful Soul with the Rod of Defiance if I plan on fighting lots of undead. In that case, their turn resistance gets so low that Charisma doesn't really matter much. Otherwise, undead can just be hacked to pieces anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. I find Charisma just isn't that necessary... eventually I'll get an Admiral's Bicorn, but until then it's just not important.
We are not level 20, and I like the idea that the Factotum is flexible and can do plenty of stuff. Above poster mentioned just ignoring the Factotum healing since it sucks compared to endlevel UMDing ... but again: neither do all groups start at end level, nor does it work for character without that very specific gear.
The same goes for your argument regarding Charisma. "You don't need Charisma, you can just as well kill undead the normal way."

"Sorry Jim, we don't need your Cleric since our Rogue has UMD and plenty of gold. And the ranger you wanted to play, Jim... we don't need one because the group already pays one we hired in some city." :smallwink:

I don't know the items you mention above, but I'll make sure to check them out, and hope they are available for us at that level.
EDIT: so all your turn-undead characters play the lyre, because that item contributes more than others in the turn-undead mechanics? That's hilarious.
Rod of Defiance looks great, thanks for the recommendation. Bit too expensive for us currently, but I'll make sure to get one. Also, I can just buff myself for eagle's splendor before turning.


No need, Feycraft weapons means I hit with Dex, and if I'm in melee I'll do damage with Iaijutsu Focus. I take a strength of about 10, just enough to carry a Haversack without worrying about weight penalties.
Ok, that's reasonable. Feycraft was in PH2? If I remember correctly our DM considers this broken ;)

Thanks for the input. Went for INT>DEX>STR>CHA>CON>WIS now for my factotum. I don't want to drop CHA for plenty of reasons (sooo many skills involved, turning check, the character I have in mind has higher charisma, etc.).
STR14 for some more damage on the bow and to carry stuff around, and also for some melee-ing.

Torvon

[sreservoir]

This is a pure mechanical aspect. Some people just prefer to play races for roleplaying ... and 99.999% races are not Necropolitan, and therefor I see that you can argue that CON is not needed, but my point was: in general it is.

considering that necropolitan is an acquired template for humanoids and monstrous humanoids, I'd think that >90% of races can be necropolitan.

[Aquillion]

considering that necropolitan is an acquired template for humanoids and monstrous humanoids, I'd think that >90% of races can be necropolitan.Hee.

"So... all I have to do is go Necropolitan, and my weak constitution won't matter at all? And you say that there's no drawbacks whatsoever?"

"Absolutely none! A small gold fee, a little ritual, and bam! You'll still get to be a humanoid and everything. Oh, but technically speaking you'll be dead."

I'm amused by the fact that being dead is considered a minor, unimportant thematic point when optimizing a character. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

I'm amused by the fact that being dead is considered a minor, unimportant thematic point when optimizing a character. :smalltongue:

Undead. Unless you're talking about the thing where low level characters will die instead of become undead.

[balistafreak]

I'm amused by the fact that being dead is considered a minor, unimportant thematic point when optimizing a character. :smalltongue:

Sometimes your theme is the vatgrown killing machine. What better way to emphasize lack of... culture? :smallamused:

[JaronK]

This is a pure mechanical aspect. Some people just prefer to play races for roleplaying ... and 99.999% races are not Necropolitan, and therefor I see that you can argue that CON is not needed, but my point was: in general it is.

Note that I was saying that I normally use Necropolitan, not that everyone does, and that Con will be needed for those who do not. With that said, Whispergnome is probably the best base race for Factotums too, and gives a con bump, so there's that as well. If you're not going undead Con should definitely be factored in, I'm just saying I often skip it personally by going undead (which gives SO many other advantages).


We are not level 20, and I like the idea that the Factotum is flexible and can do plenty of stuff. Above poster mentioned just ignoring the Factotum healing since it sucks compared to endlevel UMDing ... but again: neither do all groups start at end level, nor does it work for character without that very specific gear.
The same goes for your argument regarding Charisma. "You don't need Charisma, you can just as well kill undead the normal way."

"Sorry Jim, we don't need your Cleric since our Rogue has UMD and plenty of gold. And the ranger you wanted to play, Jim... we don't need one because the group already pays one we hired in some city." :smallwink:

I don't know the items you mention above, but I'll make sure to check them out, and hope they are available for us at that level.
EDIT: so all your turn-undead characters play the lyre, because that item contributes more than others in the turn-undead mechanics? That's hilarious.
Rod of Defiance looks great, thanks for the recommendation. Bit too expensive for us currently, but I'll make sure to get one. Also, I can just buff myself for eagle's splendor before turning.

The thing is, unlike a Rogue a Factotum has no particular trouble killing undead. Iajuitsu Focus (for melees) and Knowledge Devotion (for archers) works just fine on them, so there's no actual need for specialized undead killing stuff. As such, I just don't see any need with pumping Charisma to deal with undead... why not just pump Dex so I can hit them better and treat them like every other monster? The only time I'd consider buying specialized stuff (in a really undead heavy campaign, let's say) I'd get the Lyre and Rod, which is a MUCH better investment than pumping Charisma. As a Factotum, I can use Cunning Surge to play the lyre as a standard action, then draw the Rod as a Move Action and Turn Undead in the same round and explode everything.

So, the point is not that you should always have those two items, but rather that if you care so much about Turn Undead you should have them, but in most games you should just ignore it entirely and thus can safely not worry about Charisma (or Wisdom).

As for healing, I don't think Factotum healing is really sufficient to be more than a "oh, that's a nice ability too" sort of thing. I certainly don't rely on it. So I wouldn't worry too much about it.


Ok, that's reasonable. Feycraft was in PH2? If I remember correctly our DM considers this broken ;)

Heh, not much to be done about that. In which case you'd need Weapon Finesse to avoid Str.


Thanks for the input. Went for INT>DEX>STR>CHA>CON>WIS now for my factotum. I don't want to drop CHA for plenty of reasons (sooo many skills involved, turning check, the character I have in mind has higher charisma, etc.).
STR14 for some more damage on the bow and to carry stuff around, and also for some melee-ing.

Torvon

If you're not going Necropolitan, I'd be worried about getting Con that low... but it looks like you're an archer so that's not horrible. There's a great MiC enchantment that gives +5 damage per hit to attacks... I'd strongly consider getting it on your bow if at all possible (Collision, I think it's called) and of course Splitting. Knowledge Devotion's a great feat but it really soaks up your skill points. And the Crossbow Sniper feat would let you get Dex to damage with Crossbows, while Vital Aim from the Targetter variant Fighter just straight up gives Dex to damage with bows. Also, since you mentioned liking charisma skills, Stormwrack has the Admiral's Bicorn. Expensive, but well worth it if you can afford it. Also, it's a very fine hat.

JaronK

[Greenish]

* DEX: needed for ranged combat and bow damageDex doesn't increase bow damage without Dead Eye or targeteer's Vital Aim.

[Torvon]

Dex doesn't increase bow damage without Dead Eye or targeteer's Vital Aim.
Didn't find Deadeye nor Dead Eye. Do you mean this?

Benefit: When taking a full round action to attack with a ranged weapon, the character adds their level to the damage from all attacks.

Cannot find Vital Aim either.

Thanks
Torvon

[Veyr]

Dead Eye is in the Dragon Compendium. Be sure to check the errata! (the pre-req gets far more manageable)

[JaronK]

With crossbow sniper, I think you can actually get Dex to damage two and a half times. You'd need Rapidshot or Hand Crossbow Mastery of course, and you might as well throw on a Gnomish Crossbow Sight, but that could be pretty fun.

And by the way, what did the prereqs change to?

JaronK

[Veyr]

BAB +1 rather than BAB +14.

[Greenish]

Didn't find Deadeye nor Dead Eye. Do you mean this?

Cannot find Vital Aim either.Dead Eye is from Dragon Compendium, Vital Aim is a class feature of the Targetteer variant fighter from Dragon Magazine #310.