is there a class that gives +int to hit

[Akto]

Hey there all

I have been thinking of playing a factotum for a campaign, and wanted it to have feat that makes it have a slight melee focus, so that i can focus the inspirations points on the other stuff a facto can do, so was wondering if there were a class that let's you add your int to your hit bonus, as the facto ability cunning insight, only permanently

[Greenish]

Eternal Blade, against select enemies. The reference thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732) doesn't have any other classes (well, aside from factotum), and it's pretty complete.

[AdalKar]

Hey there.

Well, it doesn't look all that good from what I saw, only the Eternal Blade PrC in ToB seems to do it and it's only against one creature type if I am informed correctly.

But you can find a nice list of stuff to make you less MAD right here:

X stat to Y bonus by PersonMan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732)

Maybe that helps you out a bit :smallsmile:

Edit: Swordsaged -_-

[Herabec]

I believe the Swashbuckler allows you to use your Int instead of Strength or Dexterity for to-hit chances.

[Greenish]

I believe the Swashbuckler allows you to use your Int instead of Strength or Dexterity for to-hit chances.It doesn't, but it does get int to damage at third level.

It also gives Weapon Finesse at first level, which would be pretty silly if it would then later change the attack stat to something else.

[Person_Man]

Once you can cast 4th level spells (9th level?) you can cast Thunder Lance and Whirling Blade (which might be 3rd level. I'm AFB right now). So just stick with strait Factotum and you'll be fine.

[FMArthur]

If you take Font of Inspiration enough times, you'll have enough IPs to use them constantly until combat ends.

[arguskos]

Once you can cast 4th level spells (9th level?) you can cast Thunder Lance and Whirling Blade (which might be 3rd level. I'm AFB right now). So just stick with strait Factotum and you'll be fine.
Thunderlance is 4th, Whirling Blade is 2nd. :smallcool:

[Greenish]

Once you can cast 4th level spells (9th level?) you can cast Thunder Lance and Whirling Blade (which might be 3rd level. I'm AFB right now). So just stick with strait Factotum and you'll be fine.Well, Thunder Lance is what, rounds per level? And a factotum can cast it precisely once a day.

[FMArthur]

Well in the same vein as Whirling Blade, Steeldance is a 3rd level spell that lets you grab two bladed weapons from up to medium range (these are also the spell's Focus, so maybe you don't get to take weapons from far away and the range is just an error) to hover around you and make attacks against enemies adjacent to you. They attack independently from you on your turn (no action), and use your caster level + your casting stat for attack rolls as well as adding your casting stat to their damage.

[Tvtyrant]

Make a persistance thunderblade character, there was an op thread for it not long ago.

[HalfDragonCube]

If you take Font of Inspiration enough times, you'll have enough IPs to use them constantly until combat ends.

This is probably the best way to go, as you don't spend standard actions casting spells. With two flaws you can have 6 extra IPs at first level.

In a little while you can sneak attack better than a rogue.

[JaronK]

IIRC Warblade gives int to hit and damage against flanked opponents.

JaronK

[Draz74]

This doesn't work so well for the Factotum, but there's the classic Psion Gish build that uses Control Body on itself (with the Psicrystal maintaining concentration on the power).

[Curmudgeon]

With two flaws you can have 6 extra IPs at first level.

In a little while you can sneak attack better than a rogue.
Hardly. A Factotum barely does sneak attack better than a 1st-level Rogue, because the bonus damage from Cunning Strike doesn't come with an exception to the basic stacking rule:
Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Since Cunning Strike is the source of the bonus to your damage roll in each case, at most you can roll multiple 1d6 Cunning Strike sneak attack dice and select the single d6 with the best bonus.

[Aemoh87]

Make a persistance thunderblade character, there was an op thread for it not long ago.

As the person who started that thread, I found the easiest way to do it actually was just make an item that thunderlances at will.

[gomipile]

Hardly. A Factotum barely does sneak attack better than a 1st-level Rogue, because the bonus damage from Cunning Strike doesn't come with an exception to the basic stacking rule: Since Cunning Strike is the source of the bonus to your damage roll in each case, at most you can roll multiple 1d6 Cunning Strike sneak attack dice and select the single d6 with the best bonus.

From the official v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a:

I have two questions related to the factotum (Du 14) and
sneak attack:
1. Can a factotum spend more than one inspiration
point on cunning strike to gain more than 1d6 points of
sneak attack damage?
2. Can a factotum of 19th level use cunning brilliance to
emulate a rogue’s sneak attack ability?
Answering your questions in order:
1. Yes, you can use multiple inspiration points to gain
additional sneak attack damage.
2. It’s reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an
extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if
an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear,
supernatural element should be fair play.

[Curmudgeon]

From the official v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
Yes, those are prime examples of why the FAQ isn't a credible source, since both answers violate the RAW. :smallsigh:

[gomipile]

Well, it would make sense if whoever wrote up the class intended the ability to work the way the FAQ says. I cannot imagine a designer thinking that a level 5 to 20 factotum should get essentially no better sneak attack than a level 1 rogue. After all, the ability does cost significant resources, given that the opportunity cost is measured in extra standard actions after class level 8.

This may factually be a case of the FAQ using RAI instead of RAW, but the answer they gave is in my opinion the right answer to give to the people who actually play and enjoy the game.

[Thurbane]

Yes, those are prime examples of why the FAQ isn't a credible source, since both answers violate the RAW. :smallsigh:
Agreed. It also goes totally against the spirit of the Factotum class, IMHO (dabbler/jack of all trades, master of none).

Allowing multiple IPs for increasing sneak attack (without any listed cap) + Font of Inspiration means the Factotum can nova sneak attack dice far in excess of anything an equivalent level Rogue can hope to achieve. Congrats - you've now made the Factotum better at the only thing the Rogue had the edge in. Take out a thick black marker, and cross the Rogue entry out of your PHB. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Well, it would make sense if whoever wrote up the class intended the ability to work the way the FAQ says.
Then they really ought to have learned more about how the D&D game works beforehand, and written the Factotum class so it works as they intended, don't you think? Or having failed to take those basic rules into account, written up something for a Dungeonscape Errata file to fix their goofs?

[Draz74]

Agreed. It also goes totally against the spirit of the Factotum class, IMHO (dabbler/jack of all trades, master of none).

Allowing multiple IPs for increasing sneak attack (without any listed cap) + Font of Inspiration means the Factotum can nova sneak attack dice far in excess of anything an equivalent level Rogue can hope to achieve. Congrats - you've now made the Factotum better at the only thing the Rogue had the edge in. Take out a thick black marker, and cross the Rogue entry out of your PHB. :smalltongue:
I think, rather, that Font of Inspiration goes against the spirit of the Factotum class.

Without FoI in the picture, the Rogue is still far better than the Factotum at sneak attacking. Cunning Strike is seldom worth using on its own with the default amount of Inspiration.


Then they really ought to have learned more about how the D&D game works beforehand, and written the Factotum class so it works as they intended, don't you think? Or having failed to take those basic rules into account, written up something for a Dungeonscape Errata file to fix their goofs?
Ought, yes.

That being said, I'll say it before and I'll say it again -- while there's nothing inherently wrong with making sure people know what the strict RAW says in these cases (which you've done very diligently), there comes a point where houserules are common enough that it's reasonable and practical to discuss them in a widespread manner without focusing on the fact that they're houserules.

That's the case with Monks being proficient with unarmed strikes; it's the case with drowning killing people off rather than healing them; and IMO it's also the case with Cunning Strike stacking (and still sucking :smallannoyed:).

[Thurbane]

I think, rather, that Font of Inspiration goes against the spirit of the Factotum class.

Without FoI in the picture, the Rogue is still far better than the Factotum at sneak attacking. Cunning Strike is seldom worth using on its own with the default amount of Inspiration.
Very good points.

Ought, yes.

That being said, I'll say it before and I'll say it again -- while there's nothing inherently wrong with making sure people know what the strict RAW says in these cases (which you've done very diligently), there comes a point where houserules are common enough that it's reasonable and practical to discuss them in a widespread manner without focusing on the fact that they're houserules.

That's the case with Monks being proficient with unarmed strikes; it's the case with drowning killing people off rather than healing them; and IMO it's also the case with Cunning Strike stacking (and still sucking :smallannoyed:).
Hmmm, I personally believe it is still worth pointing out houserules, even commonly accepted ones. It just helps avoid potential confusion.

I'd rather know in advance that a build suggestion I read about on a forum incorpated a houserule (common or otherwise), than take it to a gaming group, and have it shot down by a DM that enforces RAW. At least if I already know the RAW standpoint, I can approach the DM from the angle of accepting a reasonable and common houserule...

[Kantolin]

Take out a thick black marker, and cross the Rogue entry out of your PHB. :smalltongue:

Not so! Rogues get 2 more skill points per level, x4 at first level, than the factotum!

If you are playing a rogue, rub that in the factotum's face and relish in your... um, exceptionally situational superiority.

[Thurbane]

Not so! Rogues get 2 more skill points per level, x4 at first level, than the factotum!

If you are playing a rogue, rub that in the factotum's face and relish in your... um, exceptionally situational superiority.
The fact that INT is the Factotum's core stat pretty much mitigates that. Sure, there's no reason that a Rogue can't make INT his first priority stat, but the Fact is that INT is the Factotum's meat and potatoes. While a Rogue gets a few more skill points/level for INT, and bonuses on INT based skill checks, the Factotum gets a literal boatload of class features that benefit from INT.

The Rogue, on the other hand, while cherishing INT, is a bit more MAD than the Factotum. If he wants a better chance to hit in combat, he's going to want a decent DEX or STR, while a Factotum can more easily get by with mediocre numbers in those stats and still be decent in melee...

[Hirax]

It isn't surprising, really. DS did to the rogue what ToB did to core melee classes.

[Tvtyrant]

It isn't surprising, really. DS did to the rogue what ToB did to core melee classes.

Created an alternative equal to a caster at it's own role?

[Thurbane]

It isn't surprising, really. DS did to the rogue what ToB did to core melee classes.
I tend to agree - but my fundamental beef with this is that I think the Rogue was already pretty well suited to do what it was (skillmonkey). I don't subscribe this whole "arms race" idea that all other classes need boosts to compete with full casters (I'm not going to go into that here - for anyone interested, please see my comments in the latest ToB debate), and I also loathe "stealth errata".

Not to mention I hate the fact that one of the most iconic D&D classes of all time (the Rogue, latest incarnation of the Thief) basically got replaced by some oddball, pseudo-caster Indian Jones wannabe. :smalltongue:

[Hirax]

I tend to agree - but my fundamental beef with this is that I think the Rogue was already pretty well suited to do what it was (skillmonkey). I don't subscribe this whole "arms race" idea that all other classes need boosts to compete with full casters (I'm not going to go into that here - for anyone interested, please see my comments in the latest ToB debate), and I also loathe "stealth errata".

Not to mention I hate the fact that once of the most iconic classes (the Rogue, latest incarnation of the Thief) basically got replaced by some oddball, pseudo-caster Indian Jones wannabe. :smalltongue:

Yeah, I'll definitely agree with that, I didn't feel like much was lost when ToB kicked melee core to the curb.

[Kantolin]

Heh, I'm aware of that fact and was mostly being silly with my post. I should've put a :smalltongue: to make it more obvious.

[Draz74]

Hmmm, I personally believe it is still worth pointing out houserules, even commonly accepted ones. It just helps avoid potential confusion.
Pointing them out, sure. I agree that it avoids potential confusion, at least as far as forum discussions are concerned. But Curmudgeon kind of sounded exasperated with the idea that people might be even discussing the non-RAW interpretation, and that kind of bothered me.


I'd rather know in advance that a build suggestion I read about on a forum incorpated a houserule (common or otherwise), than take it to a gaming group, and have it shot down by a DM that enforces RAW. At least if I already know the RAW standpoint, I can approach the DM from the angle of accepting a reasonable and common houserule...
Heh, that's cute, you think there are DMs who play entirely according to RAW. :smallamused:

Hyperbole aside, judging by the DMs I've played with (i.e. not the type who comb online RPG-discussion fora), it's often the case that if you present them with a really obvious houserule, they just get confused because they don't think it's a houserule. Then when you convince them that it is, in fact, contrary to a strict interpretation of the RAW, they just get annoyed with you for having wasted their time rules lawyering, when they saw the final conclusion as being the "common sense" interpretation of the rules anyway.

There's some need to spell everything out in online discussion, because there's no such thing as "common sense" on the internet. But in actual groups, I've found this type of quibbling to be counter-productive.


I tend to agree - but my fundamental beef with this is that I think the Rogue was already pretty well suited to do what it was (skillmonkey). ...

Not to mention I hate the fact that one of the most iconic D&D classes of all time (the Rogue, latest incarnation of the Thief) basically got replaced by some oddball, pseudo-caster Indian Jones wannabe. :smalltongue:

I do love the Rogue. Compared with many other Core classes, it's got a lot of flexibility and can cover a lot of different character concepts. In some ways it's excellent game design. And other than maybe the Bard, it's also the best Core class balance-wise.

But I have to say, long before the Factotum ever came around, it did bother me a little bit that one of the Rogue's defining features was Sneak Attack. I wanted to be able to trade away that Sneak Attack for an array of other class features -- appropriately rogue-ish ones, not warrior or caster features. So that I could make a roguish type who wasn't focused on assassination or even just damage-per-round.

And since the Factotum came along, I am surprised by how many times I have considered a character concept (often from a movie or book), and realized, "Oh, Factotum would actually be the best way to model that character in D&D."

However, I'll grant you that I wish there was an option for the Factotum to trade out his arcane spell-likes in favor of something more mundane (but still powerful). Something like non-magical Swordsage maneuvers or something. (That would be the best way, IMO, to represent e.g. the Robert Downey version of Sherlock Holmes.)

[Curmudgeon]

But Curmudgeon kind of sounded exasperated with the idea that people might be even discussing the non-RAW interpretation, and that kind of bothered me.
No, my exasperation is for those who mix RAW and house rules without distinguishing the categories, as giantmudkip did to get this snowball rolling (though I think the intent was humorous). That means I'm especially exasperated with the people responsible for the FAQ. After all, they were being paid to pay attention to the game rules and give "official" answers. :smallmad:

Whenever I run a game I find it tedious to point out that Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes, and that's a house rule ─ but I do it every time. :smallsigh: (I also have house rules to let Rapid Reload and Manyshot work with slings; Monks deserve at least a halfway decent ranged weapon.)

Almost everybody uses house rules, and I'm no exception. But my house rules are going to be different from those of other people on this forum; all we share for certain is the RAW. So it's a good idea to distinguish what's common among us from the things that will vary from group to group, and a bad idea to assume that your house rules are going to be used by a different group in a different part of the world.

[Psyborg]

He generally sounds exasperated. Try not to worry about it; it's nothing personal, and he's just trying to help- both you, and everyone else reading the thread who might get confused. Unlike a lot of other habitually acerbic people, I've never seen him be deliberately offensive, even to...far stupider people than anyone in this thread.

And- forgive me if I'm being presumptuous by speaking for the forum as a whole here- Curmudgeon has earned both his name, and our respect and gratitude in spite of that. He's like an omnipresent gruff encyclopedia. :smallamused:

[Draz74]

No, my exasperation is for those who mix RAW and house rules without distinguishing the categories, as giantmudkip did to get this snowball rolling (though I think the intent was humorous). That means I'm especially exasperated with the people responsible for the FAQ. After all, they were being paid to pay attention to the game rules and give "official" answers. :smallmad:

OK. Sorry for misrepresenting you.

I think the FAQ people saw their job a little differently ... I think they considered themselves to have authority to essentially make minor errata via their rulings.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the FAQ people saw their job a little differently ... I think they considered themselves to have authority to essentially make minor errata via their rulings.
That's at odds with the official statements in every Errata file, of course. But even so, I'd hardly call that pair of Factotum FAQ answers "minor" in effect. Together they'd give a level 19 Factotum Rogue 19 sneak attack damage (+10d6) from assuming sneak attack is Extraordinary for Cunning Brilliance, and then let stack any number of extra uses of Cunning Strike (possibly +36d6 extra assuming ever-increasing Font of Inspiration benefits). That pair of rule-breaking "minor errata" increases their sneak attack power from RAW +1d6 to FAQ +46d6. :smallfurious:

[gomipile]

No, my exasperation is for those who mix RAW and house rules without distinguishing the categories, as giantmudkip did to get this snowball rolling (though I think the intent was humorous). That means I'm especially exasperated with the people responsible for the FAQ. After all, they were being paid to pay attention to the game rules and give "official" answers. :smallmad:

Whenever I run a game I find it tedious to point out that Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes, and that's a house rule ─ but I do it every time. :smallsigh: (I also have house rules to let Rapid Reload and Manyshot work with slings; Monks deserve at least a halfway decent ranged weapon.)

Almost everybody uses house rules, and I'm no exception. But my house rules are going to be different from those of other people on this forum; all we share for certain is the RAW. So it's a good idea to distinguish what's common among us from the things that will vary from group to group, and a bad idea to assume that your house rules are going to be used by a different group in a different part of the world.

On second look, I think an argument could be made that the FAQ on Cunning Strike is, in fact, RAW. I think that the sneak attack dice added by Cunning Strike may not, in fact, be a modifier in the strictest sense(because it is a die roll itself.) Even if it is, there is much precedent for different types of sneak attack damage stacking.

[HalfDragonCube]

Human factotum is one of my favourite combinations, simply because you can quite easily have a huge number of skill ranks.

If you are using point buy, then max out Int to 18. Now take two flaws for a total of 4 feats. You gain an extra skill point if you are human, which get quadrupled at first level. Take the Open Mind feat for each. This nets you a total 20 extra skill points. This gives ((6 + 4 + 1) x 4) + 20 skill points at first level. With 64 skill points and having all skills as class skills, you can get at least one rank in every skill.

Compared to a rogue, you have better HD, sneak attack, skill monkeying and weapon proficiencies and a few other interesting abilities.

In the party you can be the utility person, the one who has so many items in their handy haversack that they need two sheets to contain it all.

Edit: At least, I think you can have at least one rank in every skill, there are probably other skills in books I haven't read like there were in XPH.

[Curmudgeon]

I think an argument could be made that the FAQ on Cunning Strike is, in fact, RAW. I think that the sneak attack dice added by Cunning Strike may not, in fact, be a modifier in the strictest sense(because it is a die roll itself.)
Whether it's a static number or determined by a die roll doesn't make any difference. From the in-game definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_modifier&alpha=M) of the term:
modifier

Any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty. Modifiers from the same source do not stack, and modifiers with specific descriptors generally do not stack with others of the same type. If more than one modifier of a type is present, only the best bonus or worst penalty in that grouping applies. Bonuses or penalties that do not have descriptors stack with those that do.
Following this definition, if you add it to your damage die roll it is a modifier.

Even if it is, there is much precedent for different types of sneak attack damage stacking.
Oh, absolutely: with explicit language in every case. Some examples:

If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

If a blackguard gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

If a spellthief gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a daggerspell mage gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a daggerspell shaper gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a dishonorable dread pirate gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a nightsong enforcer gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a nightsong infiltrator or her ally gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a shadowbane inquisitor gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a shadowbane stalker gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a shadowmind gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a spymaster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

If a streetfighter gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as levels of rogue), the bonuses on damage stack.

Since the black flame zealot gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses to damage stack.
I could keep on going, but I think you get the idea. Sneak Attack overlaps (not stacks) under the general stacking rule, so an explicit exception is required every single time if it's to stack.

[Draz74]

That's at odds with the official statements in every Errata file, of course.
Of course. But I don't think they cared.


But even so, I'd hardly call that pair of Factotum FAQ answers "minor" in effect. Together they'd give a level 19 Factotum Rogue 19 sneak attack damage (+10d6) from assuming sneak attack is Extraordinary for Cunning Brilliance, and then let stack any number of extra uses of Cunning Strike (possibly +36d6 extra assuming ever-increasing Font of Inspiration benefits). That pair of rule-breaking "minor errata" increases their sneak attack power from RAW +1d6 to FAQ +46d6. :smallfurious:

First: I really doubt Font of Inspiration was being taken into consideration when judging Cunning Strike's power. I'm pretty sure the feat was written up in 5 minutes without consulting anyone else, by someone who just wanted their Factotum-themed article to have a sidebar. I'm not even sure the feat was published on the website yet by the time the FAQ ruling was made.

Second: Assuming the (very reasonable) houserule that Sneak Attack is considered Extraordinary, it's still arguable whether you can get +10d6 Sneak Attack using Cunning Brilliance. Cunning Brilliance says it only works for class features that are gained at character level 15 or lower, and by level 15, the Rogue only has +8d6 Sneak Attack. (And yes, I know that we could argue this all week, just like every other line of the Factotum's poorly-written description.)

Third: Frankly, at Level 19, 46d6 precision damage isn't really that big a deal. Particularly when it only works on one attack per day. Not to mention that this attack could still miss, after you declare you're spending 36 Inspiration Points to enhance it with Cunning Strike. Anyway, as long as we're indulging in FoI stupidity anyway, I'd rather use those same 36 IP for 12 extra Standard Actions ... which means 130d6 Sneak Attack damage after Cunning Brilliance (since we were assuming one attack by default). :smalltongue: So once again, the stacking- or non-stacking nature of Cunning Strike is a moot point as far as balance is concerned.

[Curmudgeon]

Third: Frankly, at Level 19, 46d6 precision damage isn't really that big a deal. Particularly when it only works on one attack per day.
That would be per encounter, actually. Pretty close to one guaranteed enemy takedown each time (assuming you're going to go nova in this way, prepping with True Strike as your level 1 Arcane Dilettante SLA just makes sense).

You're right that there are other abuses possible from these FAQ answers, of course.

[Draz74]

That would be per encounter, actually.
No, you could get +36d6 sneak attack 1/encounter, but you can only get the additional +10d6 from Cunning Brilliance 1/day. (Unless you have multiple encounters within one minute of time, I guess.)


Pretty close to one guaranteed enemy takedown each time (assuming you're going to go nova in this way, prepping with True Strike as your level 1 Arcane Dilettante SLA just makes sense).
You could still roll a natural 1. And now you're talking about doing +46d6 damage over two rounds, rather than one.


You're right that there are other abuses possible from these FAQ answers, of course.
The FAQ has little to do with it, actually. (After all, it's not so different if you use Sudden Strike instead of Sneak Attack in this case.) It's more an abuse of Font of Inspiration, as well as the lack of a 1/round limitation on Cunning Surge.

[Coidzor]

I could keep on going, but I think you get the idea. Sneak Attack overlaps (not stacks) under the general stacking rule, so an explicit exception is required every single time if it's to stack.

The presentation more suggests WOTC thinks players are idiots than seeming like a good basis from which to extrapolate rules that have never been stated overtly, so unless you have some other source to back it up, I'm just going to have to answer you with incredulity.

[Curmudgeon]

The presentation more suggests WOTC thinks players are idiots than seeming like a good basis from which to extrapolate rules that have never been stated overtly,
The basic stacking rule is pretty overt. Sneak Attack is a bonus to your damage roll, and thus multiple instances of bonus damage from the same source (Sneak Attack) won't stack.

[Thurbane]

I'm pretty sure the feat was written up in 5 minutes without consulting anyone else, by someone who just wanted their Factotum-themed article to have a sidebar.
Now this I agree with.

I like the idea of letting a feat give the factotum extra IPs - to be honest, they can be a little lacking...but making it an exponential increase (or is it quadratic - I always get those two confused) for each time you take the feat is just insane, IMHO. AFAIK, no other stackable feat works this way. Open Minded, for example, gives you a static number of skill points to spend every time you take the feat.

[Veyr]

We can use Gauss's famous "trick" for getting out of his math class punishment (a lot) faster here (he was assigned to sum the numbers 1 through 100 as punishment; he solved it astoundingly quickly by noticing that 1+100=101, 2+99=101, 3+98=101, and so on, and that there were 50 such pairs, so 101*50=5050)

IP = sum(1 to FOI) = 1/2 * FOI * (FOI+1) = 1/2[(FOI)2 + FOI]

This result is a polynomial of order 2, otherwise known as a quadratic equation.


An exponential function would accelerate much faster.

[Thurbane]

Thanks. I used to be quite good at math at school, but since I don't use most of the higher functions in my job or day to day life, most of them fled my head... :smalltongue: