Factotum or Rogue? (3.5)

[D4rkh0rus]

A few weeks ago I had posted a question on an assassin build... Now I am left wondering one thing...

I'm planning on taking 3 levels of a skill focused class. but I can't decide on eithe factotum or Rogue.

Factotum/Assassin synergizes with skills 10 times more than rogue, but rouge 3 has penetrating strike (the build will be primarily wraithstriked TWF sneak attack for dmg).

So, I guess the question would be. If I have access to weapon augment crystals... is Factotum 3 worth taking over Rogue 3? (and no, I can't use Factotum 8's ability more than once per round, DM ruled that.)

In the case of Weapon augment crystals not beign available, which would win?

also,what feats (other than TWF line, Darkstalker, Craven, staggering strike) are worth taking? I was gonna take strength devotion (I have a cleric dip for Travel Dev.) but GM thinks the feat is too OP as an extra attack + hardness bypass... so he won't allow me to use it.

Other than snap kick, what else Can I get?

[bekeleven]

What's your ability spread? Rolled or PB? Factotum is one of the best ways for a martial character to become Int SAD, applying it easily to AC, Attack, Damage, and Saves, not to mention twice to many stealth skills once per day.

[Aasimar]

I just want to make it known that if I hear the word Factotum about 100 more times, I'm pretty sure my head will explode.

It's like, somebody went out to create an 'everything and the kitchen sink' class, cause he didn't want to give anything up.

It's like it's only there to make the mundane classes feel even less relevant in their chosen fields.

[Rubik]

I just want to make it known that if I hear the word Factotum about 100 more times, I'm pretty sure my head will explode.

It's like, somebody went out to create an 'everything and the kitchen sink' class, cause he didn't want to give anything up.

It's like it's only there to make the mundane classes feel even less relevant in their chosen fields.If the designers didn't want the mundane classes to be use-impaired, they should've made them useful in the first place.

And if you don't want to see factotum debates, stop posting in factotum threads and ignore them.

[Aasimar]

I hardly ever do post in them, this is my first time.

Just seeing them as the standard response to any 'what class should I pick' thread that pops up, whether that's to help someone pick a class to play or what class some fictional character might be or what-have-you.

I'm sick of seeing it all over the place.

[Spore]

Never rogue. God, I learned to hate that useless class.

[eggynack]

I hardly ever do post in them, this is my first time.

Just seeing them as the standard response to any 'what class should I pick' thread that pops up, whether that's to help someone pick a class to play or what class some fictional character might be or what-have-you.

I'm sick of seeing it all over the place.
It's mostly just the standard response if someone asks for something that's like a factotum. Y'know, someone who draws from quick wit and inspiration to solve their problems, and can engineer a solution out of anything. It's not the factotum's fault that that's a popular protagonist type.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I just want to make it known that if I hear the word Factotum about 100 more times, I'm pretty sure my head will explode.

It's like, somebody went out to create an 'everything and the kitchen sink' class, cause he didn't want to give anything up.

It's like it's only there to make the mundane classes feel even less relevant in their chosen fields.

Then whatever you do don't click this link (http://youtu.be/TKDXr_fimQ8)!

Actually, do, 'cause Rossini is awesome (as is Hvorostovsky, of course).

And yes, the Factotum is an 'everything and the kitchen sink' class. "Do everything" is what Factotum means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factotum), after all. And it's a pretty good T3 general purpose class because of it. Still falls down compared to the true factotums, the T1 classes.

To the OP:

Three levels of Factotum gives you Brains Over Brawn, which gives you your Int Mod to Str and Dex checks and Str and Dex skills, which is pretty much awesome. You would lose out on 2d6 Sneak attack compared to Rogue that way, but that may be little issue for your build (we'd have a better idea if you posted as much about the build as you can, if you wouldn't mind).

[Rubik]

Rogue has at least one major benefit over factotum:

Taking a dip from the changeling rogue substitution level at level 1 grants you 40+INTx4 skill points and the ability to take 10 on social skills, which is...quite nice.

Beyond that, factotum is basically what the rogue should've been in the first place, much like the fact that fighters and monks should've been NPC classes and replaced with the ToB mechanics in the PHB.

[D4rkh0rus]

I didn't post the build Cuz meh... sure Here it Is


1 - X 1
2 - X 2
3 - X 2/Cloistered Cleric 1
4 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1
5 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1
6 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 1
7 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 2
8 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 3
9 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4
10- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)
11- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 1
12- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
13- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 6/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
14- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 7/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
15- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 8/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
16 -X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 8/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 3 (Subs in for Assassin 5 and 9)

Effectively It would be X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Swordsage 1/Assassin 9

X being rogue or factotum.

17-20 dont matter. ill pick something fun.

Feats would be
1 Keen Intellect (UE one) (Int SAD)
1 Darkstalker
1 Weapon Finesse
3 Two-Weapon Fighting
5 (Fighter feat) Improved Unarmed Strike
6 Craven
9 Snap Kick
10 ->> Retrain Imp. Unarmed Strike for Weapon Finesse, Retrain lvl 3 weapon finesse for what?
12 Shadow blade
15 Dunno
18 Dunno

thats the build.

[Pluto!]

Factotum 3 is a really strong dip if you've invested enough in Intelligence for Keen Intellect to be worthwhile, and Penetrating strike has enough issues with Craven and non-flanking sneak attacks that you'll probably want to invest in weapon augment crystals or X-strike wands anyway. I think it would be stronger for the build.

...And this is from someone who isn't fond of the class at all. It's just very strong in this sort of situation.

[Big Fau]

@Aasimar: Your issue is that it invalidates classes that existed before? I'd like to know what your opinion of the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard are, as they do the exact same thing to over half of the system.

At least the Factotum does it in a balanced, non-campaign-wrecking manner.

@OP: Factotums can UMD wands of Gravestrike/Golemstrike, both of which allow you to Sneak Attack things that are normally immune to it (I don't think you need to worry about Plants and Oozes, but you may want to look into Elementals). While the Assassin's spells are fairly limited, the fact that it gets arcane spellcasting means you can expand upon it's list and make the class even more useful.

May I recommend Factotum 11/Assassin 9? Assassin 10 gives you very little benefit outside of the Death Attack DC increase and the spell/day/known. Factotum 11 gives you Cunning Breach, the same BAB and HP increase, 2 extra skill points, and an extra Inspiration Point.

[Kaje]

1 - X 1
2 - X 2
3 - X 2/Cloistered Cleric 1
4 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1
5 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1
6 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 1
7 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 2
8 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 3
9 - X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4
10- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)
11- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 1
12- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
13- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 6/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
14- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 7/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
15- X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 8/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 2 (Subs in for Assassin 5)
16 -X 3/Cloistered Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Assassin 8/Swordsage 1 (unarmed)/Uncanny trickster 3 (Subs in for Assassin 5 and 9)

X 2 /Cloistered Cleric 1 / X 1 / Fighter 1 / Assassin 4 / Unarmed Swordsage 1 / Uncanny Trickster 2 / Assassin 3 / Uncanny Trickster 1

Brevity is your friend.

[Aasimar]

@Aasimar: Your issue is that it invalidates classes that existed before? I'd like to know what your opinion of the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard are, as they do the exact same thing to over half of the system.

At least the Factotum does it in a balanced, non-campaign-wrecking manner.



Druid, Cleric and Wizard were poorly thought out in terms of how the system would grow and how the various spells, feats, races, templates and prestige classes that would later be published would affect them.

Also underthought in terms of how super-analysis over time would maximize the super-flexible and powerful options those classes have (spells) compared to the relatively rigid pick-them-and they're-there-forever options the mundane classes at the time got.

Part of this problem is probably a failure to anticipate how the internet (which was still in it's infancy (compared to now at least) really when 3.0 came out) would bring together people interested in d&d and the mechanics and just completely analyze the **** out of them, then spread the most optimal choices to every group with a player wanting to maximize and willing to look online for tips.

Wizard, Druid and Cleric becoming what they became are why Factotum was published, it's simply another attempt to do what a rogue was supposed to, in the new dynamic created by the evolution of the system. A publishing schedule that requires new feats, spells, classes and races to be brought out regularly inevitably leads to creep of power.

I don't hate those classes, because I don't play them like that, but I do hate how they were made exploitable enough to make classes like the Factotum a necessity.

This is why I like the idea of a new edition, it might not be perfect, but it's a clean slate, all those myriad options that create the possibilities for exploitation go away, at least for a while.

[D4rkh0rus]

Aasimar, go argue somewhere else please. This Isn't a "Why X class should be nerfed" thread.

The name specifies it. If you don't like it then don't post. Problem Solved.

[Big Fau]

Druid, Cleric and Wizard were poorly thought out in terms of how the system would grow and how the various spells, feats, races, templates and prestige classes that would later be published would affect them.

Also underthought in terms of how super-analysis over time would maximize the super-flexible and powerful options those classes have (spells) compared to the relatively rigid pick-them-and they're-there-forever options the mundane classes at the time got.

Part of this problem is probably a failure to anticipate how the internet (which was still in it's infancy (compared to now at least) really when 3.0 came out) would bring together people interested in d&d and the mechanics and just completely analyze the **** out of them, then spread the most optimal choices to every group with a player wanting to maximize and willing to look online for tips.

Wizard, Druid and Cleric becoming what they became are why Factotum was published, it's simply another attempt to do what a rogue was supposed to, in the new dynamic created by the evolution of the system. A publishing schedule that requires new feats, spells, classes and races to be brought out regularly inevitably leads to creep of power.

I don't hate those classes, because I don't play them like that, but I do hate how they were made exploitable enough to make classes like the Factotum a necessity.

This is why I like the idea of a new edition, it might not be perfect, but it's a clean slate, all those myriad options that create the possibilities for exploitation go away, at least for a while.

Then may I ask you why you thought your first post in this thread was a contribution to answering the OP's question? All you did, as far as I could infer, was come across as condescending and spiteful.

I for one glad WotC started designing classes like the Factotum towards the end of 3.5. If they kept designing classes that were in-line with the Core noncasters the game would have been bogged down with poor design that would have made Monte Cook's Ivory Tower article look accurate. The Ivory Tower "design", whether it was truly intended or not, is a horrible way to create a game unless the intent of the game is to be as challenging to the player as possible.

The Rogue may be outclassed by the Factotum, but simple fact is that it wasn't that hard to render the class obsolete anyway (if the player built his character around social interaction and stealth but ends up in a Kick-in-the-Door style game, he's more or less wasted his early feats and levels and skill points).

Moreover, it's possible to create a Rogue that can outclass the Factotum in some areas. Difficult, but possible.

[Aasimar]

It was maybe slightly spiteful, but I don't think it was condescending. (and what spite there was wasn't directed at the OP)

I'd rather have seen them rein in the spellcasters than try to make replacement classes for everyone else.

[Fax Celestis]

Neither. Real men use Psychic Rogue.

[eggynack]

I'd rather have seen them rein in the spellcasters than try to make replacement classes for everyone else.
That's not much of a feasible thing, given how much system reworking it'd take. Moreover, I think that the replacement classes are significantly more interesting to work with, with a bunch of cool tactical options. You don't get nearly as much decision making with a fighter as you do with a warblade.

[limejuicepowder]

You can't take weapon finesse at level 1 with rogue or factotum, unfortunately.

Unless you're a changling and can take the racial sub levels, I'd go for factotum. Factotum 3 is really really good for Int-based martial characters, even if you don't stock up on font of inspiration. I don't see anything on a vanilla rogue that can come close to matching what factotum offers.

The changling sub levels are also pretty awesome though, and it offers some unique stuff. Do note though that it trades away trapfinding, which may be a problem.

[Aasimar]

That's not much of a feasible thing, given how much system reworking it'd take. Moreover, I think that the replacement classes are significantly more interesting to work with, with a bunch of cool tactical options. You don't get nearly as much decision making with a fighter as you do with a warblade.

That's true...but that's also part of the problem.

Factotum, Warblade, etc. all appeal to mostly the same macro group that are already attracted to the primary spellcasters (but are perhaps looking for a challenge or something 'different' to try out).

They already had the spellcasters, whereas the people who just want to play a relatively simple class and hit the monsters, or be a relatively bad-ass normal, the people who'd pick fighter, rogue, paladin, barbarian, etc. are getting screwed. They basically get told "Here's a version of a spellcaster that does pretty much what you like, but it has a different name and a more complex mechanic than what you were looking for".

Basically, the whole game got co-opted by the optimizers.

[eggynack]

That's true...but that's also part of the problem.

Factotum, Warblade, etc. all appeal to mostly the same macro group that are already attracted to the primary spellcasters (but are perhaps looking for a challenge or something 'different' to try out).

They already had the spellcasters, whereas the people who just want to play a relatively simple class and hit the monsters, or be a relatively bad-ass normal, the people who'd pick fighter, rogue, paladin, barbarian, etc. are getting screwed. They basically get told "Here's a version of a spellcaster that does pretty much what you like, but it has a different name and a more complex mechanic than what you were looking for".

Basically, the whole game got co-opted by the optimizers.
Those options are still right there though, at approximately the same level of crappiness as ever. It's not like the factotum was the first thing that basically obsoleted the rogue, and it's not like the factotum was rogue errata. You don't always need to take the most optimal choices if you don't want to, and the optimal choices are generally going to be the ones that provide a number of options, factotum or no factotum.

[EugeneVoid]

Just throwing this in before I dive out

I feel the internet has done a good job of explaining how to do intra-party balancing. Otherwise, like many of my friends, once a person playing a caster discovers polymorph, or the cleric finds divine power, the game can quickly dissolve as players start to feel useless.

[Aasimar]

Ah, but in a game with a wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter, where the wizard is a relatively simple blasty type and the cleric a relatively simple healer, booster, occasional blaster, the fighter and rogue still feel useful. (even if it would certainly be possible to build a wizard or cleric that made the rogue and/or fighter feel like absolutely redundant tag-alongs)

But in a party with say, a wizard, cleric, rogue and factotum, the factotum will pretty much always make the rogue player think "Wait, why am I here again?"

[Ivanhoe]

Well, I am not so sure about Factotum, in particular as a dip and/or starting point only. It is somewhat a mixed bag. You get only 3 inspiration points by level 3, that is hardly helping in my view, allowing only some stunts lasting one action or one round (brains over brawn being a quite nice exception at level 3).
Rogue would be better, adding constantly 2d6 sneak, getting 12 more skill points, evasion etc and ACFs like the penetrating strike mentioned...I'd rather take that.

Feat choices look fine (excepting weapon finesse at lvl 1). Maybe focusing on DEX first and INT second would be better?

[Yuki Akuma]

Most fights last around four rounds. Three inspiration is plenty.

[EugeneVoid]

Ah, but in a game with a wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter, where the wizard is a relatively simple blasty type and the cleric a relatively simple healer, booster, occasional blaster, the fighter and rogue still feel useful. (even if it would certainly be possible to build a wizard or cleric that made the rogue and/or fighter feel like absolutely redundant tag-alongs)

But in a party with say, a wizard, cleric, rogue and factotum, the factotum will pretty much always make the rogue player think "Wait, why am I here again?"

Unless, the factotum is played with medium-low op like the rest of the party in which case, he's the guy that unlike the rogue can't always do the stabbity, but instead can do some other stuff like casting the occasional fireball, etc

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Ah, but in a game with a wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter, where the wizard is a relatively simple blasty type and the cleric a relatively simple healer, booster, occasional blaster, the fighter and rogue still feel useful. (even if it would certainly be possible to build a wizard or cleric that made the rogue and/or fighter feel like absolutely redundant tag-alongs)

But in a party with say, a wizard, cleric, rogue and factotum, the factotum will pretty much always make the rogue player think "Wait, why am I here again?"

That's an issue of having redundancies of role, not an issue of the Factotum better fitting most roguish archetypes better than the Rogue itself. But perhaps this is an issue better suited to its own thread?

As far as 2d6 Sneak Attack over Brains Over Brawn, I'd say that BOB is more useful generally, and so I'd generally go with Factotum. Especially if you can get your hands on a Wand of Hunter's Eye (or whichever the Ranger spell that gave sneak attack was).

[Kennisiou]

What are the CC's domains? If you get trickery and Able Learner as a feat you'll be able to qualify for the skill requirements for Assassin without needing Rogue or Factotum, freeing you up to go Swashbuckler for 3 levels for weapon finesse and int to damage, which sounds a lot better to me than three levels of Factotum.

[Fax Celestis]

Also not every rogue is a sneaky back stabber who picks locks and handles traps. I played a rogue for a very long time who dropped sneak attack for fighter feats and picked up the dungeoncrasher ACF, along with a bunch of combat mobility feats and Power Attack. He had no ranks in search, disable device, hide, move silently, or open lock.

The other rogue in the party never felt overshadowed.

Maybe you should think outside the box a little bit: not every character of a given class has to look exactly the same, and just because your class gets a feature doesn't mean you have to rely upon it.

[EugeneVoid]

Also not every rogue is a sneaky back stabber who picks locks and handles traps. I played a rogue for a very long time who dropped sneak attack for fighter feats and picked up the dungeoncrasher ACF, along with a bunch of combat mobility feats and Power Attack. He had no ranks in search, disable device, hide, move silently, or open lock.

The other rogue in the party never felt overshadowed.

Maybe you should think outside the box a little bit: not every character of a given class has to look exactly the same, and just because your class gets a feature doesn't mean you have to rely upon it.

+1
Hadn't thought 'bout that

[Aasimar]

Unless, the factotum is played with medium-low op like the rest of the party in which case, he's the guy that unlike the rogue can't always do the stabbity, but instead can do some other stuff like casting the occasional fireball, etc

I guess. In the end it always comes down to the party and the group that's playing, which I suppose is the point.

I still kind of resent the 'evolution of the 3.5 system, as made evident by the factotum' but I'll concede that maybe I'm just being overly grumpy.

[Ivanhoe]

Most fights last around four rounds. Three inspiration is plenty.

That depends on the DM, and also how he perceives the duration of the encounter. Encounters, in particular at lower levels, can last quite long.
Also, with 3 levels of factotum, you do not get much for your inspiration to spend on. Rogue 3 has more to offer, every round of every encounter.

[Kaje]

Assuming he's able to flank.

[Ivanhoe]

Assuming he's able to flank.

Or making use of the many game situations that trigger sneaks...:smallsmile:

Truth, to tell, sneak attacks are also stopped by quite a few game situations, but as far as I can tell, the OP wants to focus on sneak damage, so ...

[bekeleven]

Most fights last around four rounds. Three inspiration is plenty.

Three inspiration per round on a low-level factotum is reasonable. One to hit, one to damage, and one to AC or a save. There is no overflow of inspiration at high levels, and at lower levels it's probably worse.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Unless you want to use combat maneuvers i'd go with the Rogue. Factotum is nice but if you're only taking 3 levels you should make the most of Brains over Brawn, which your build just doesn't do.
On the other hand, 3 levels of Rogue don't give you anything that you couldn't get with 2 levels of Rogue and another level of Swordsage.
Get Evasion and Assassins Stance and add in another maneuver and Wis to AC on top of it.

[OldTrees1]

Most fights last around four rounds. Three inspiration is plenty.


Three inspiration per round on a low-level factotum is reasonable. One to hit, one to damage, and one to AC or a save. There is no overflow of inspiration at high levels, and at lower levels it's probably worse.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that 3 inspiration per encounter (Factotum lvl 3) not 3 inspiration per round? Given 4 round encounters that is not even enough to use a single ability every round. And just forget about multiple uses per round.

Given 2 attacks per round for 4 rounds, it would take 8 inspiration/encounter in order to get +Int on each attack roll. That is just one use of the ability. It is 16 inspiration per encounter to get it on Attack and Damage. This is ignoring the inspiration to grant Int to AC vs a opponent or a Save.

[bekeleven]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that 3 inspiration per encounter (Factotum lvl 3) not 3 inspiration per round?Hence why I was responding to someone saying "3 inspiration ought to be enough for anybody."

[GreenETC]

Unless you want to use combat maneuvers i'd go with the Rogue. Factotum is nice but if you're only taking 3 levels you should make the most of Brains over Brawn, which your build just doesn't do.
On the other hand, 3 levels of Rogue don't give you anything that you couldn't get with 2 levels of Rogue and another level of Swordsage.
Get Evasion and Assassins Stance and add in another maneuver and Wis to AC on top of it.
I agree with this. Penetrating Strike is just NICE, regardless of the relative ineffectual of Rogue. Also, is there any reason why you want Uncanny Trickster in there? It seems to slow everything down by a level for the sole purpose of getting 8+Int skill points and using 3 skill tricks twice an encounter, which I can't actually picture being incredibly important.

I would suggest modifying the build to end up with a total collection of levels that go like this:

Rogue 3/Factotum 3/Fighter 2/Cloistered Cleric 1/Assassin 9/Swordsage 2
This would give you Wis to AC, Assassin's Stance, 2 feats from Fighter, the Cloistered Cleric Devotion feats/turning, and everything you'd want from Rogue AND Factotum.

[Emperor Tippy]

I would suggest modifying the build to end up with a total collection of levels that go like this:

This would give you Wis to AC, Assassin's Stance, 2 feats from Fighter, the Cloistered Cleric Devotion feats/turning, and everything you'd want from Rogue AND Factotum.

Rogue 1/ Factotum 4/ Swashbuckler 3/ Cloistered Cleric 1/ Invisible Fist Martial Monk 2/ Assassin 9

Is a much superior build. Drop one level of Factotum for Swordsage and (if your DM limits you to only first level stances at SS1) grab Assassins Stance with Martial Study along with taking Shadow Blade. Grab Kung Fu Genius if you don't want to wear armor for Int to AC.

Use Cunning Strike to qualify for Assassin.

[GreenETC]

Rogue 1/ Factotum 4/ Swashbuckler 3/ Cloistered Cleric 1/ Invisible Fist Martial Monk 2/ Assassin 9

Is a much superior build. Drop one level of Factotum for Swordsage and (if your DM limits you to only first level stances at SS1) grab Assassins Stance with Martial Study along with taking Shadow Blade. Grab Kung Fu Genius if you don't want to wear armor for Int to AC.

Use Cunning Strike to qualify for Assassin.
Of course, this would mean you would have to have a DM who allows Dragon Magazine material and won't freak out about the RAW of Martial Monk getting feats without prerequisites. Other than that I completely agree.

Also, Assassin has no prerequisites that would require Cunning Strike, as it actually has no Sneak Attack requirement, despite being THE Core Rogue PrC.

[Psyren]

Neither. Real men use Psychic Rogue.

*bromindfist*