Factotum Spellcasting Question

[Enyo]

What are the restrictions on spellcasting for a factotum in terms of how many and what kind? I can't find anything in the Dungeonscape book that mentions it.

[Psyren]

What are the restrictions on spellcasting for a factotum in terms of how many and what kind? I can't find anything in the Dungeonscape book that mentions it.

There's a small column on their class table that covers the maximum spell level (they top out at 7th.) The number of spells per day is covered in the "special" column (they top out at 8 spells per day), with the following restrictions:

- Only one of those spells can be from their highest spell level.
- They cannot cast the same spell twice in a day.
- You can't cast any spells with an XP cost.

Aside from that, the entire sor/wiz list is open to you. In addition, they are technically SLAs, meaning they are all automatically still/silent (though you must provide the material components.)

[Deadline]

The Arcane Dilettante ability on page 16 covers it. The table on page 15 covers the max level of spell you can cast (it's in the Spell Level column), as well as how many spells you get per day (in the special column, look for Arcane Dilettante). You spend 1 inspiration point to emulate a spell you've prepared for the day as a spell like ability.

[Mr Adventurer]

You also use each spell prepared once per day, and can't prepare the same spell more than once.

[badgerman]

... and by RAW you don't benefit from prestige classes which give you levels in an arcane spellcasting class in terms of getting more spells per day or spells known. Although you should improve in your arcane caster level which can be important if you take the obtain familiar feat.
If you want to take a prestige class which gives you levels in an arcane spellcasting class talk to your dm if your factotum could gain the complete benefit.

[Curmudgeon]

... and by RAW you don't benefit from prestige classes which give you levels in an arcane spellcasting class in terms of getting more spells per day or spells known. Although you should improve in your arcane caster level which can be important if you take the obtain familiar feat.
A Factotum has a caster level, but not an arcane caster level. SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. The Arcane Dilettante class feature might make it look like it would alter the Factotum's CL, but that name only refers to the spell list from which the Factotum picks their SLAs.

[daremetoidareyo]

The following table has all of the prestige classes that advance "existing spellcasting class". You will need to read up on the prestige classes to see if they split arcane and divine in the text, (some will), but these are generic +1 level to spellcasting classes.





PR Class

existing

notes (entry requirements) etc.



Magical Trickster



2/3
3rd level arcane or divine



Master Vampire



2/3
must be vampire



Squire of Legend



2/3





Wayfarer guide



2/3
cast teleport



Dragonsong Lyrist



2/5





Fortune’s friend



2/5





Sanctified One



2/5





Sharn Skymage



2/5





Ruathar



3/3
3rd level arcane or divine



Ollam



3/5





Topaz Guardian



3/5





Drow Judicator



3/10





Tamer of Beasts



3/10





Cyran Avenger



4/5





Dread witch



4/5
will +4, cast cause fear, scare



Effigy Master



4/5
need simulacrum on the class spell list



Fatespinner



4/5
4th level arcane



Gray hand enforcer



4/5
4th level spells



Maester



4/5
caster 5th level arcane



Unbound Scroll



4/5
3rd level arcane or infusions



Impure Prince



4/6





Master of Masks



4/10





Thrall of demogorgon



4/10





Thrall of orcus



4/10





Alchemist savant



5/5
3rd level arcane or infusions



Knight of the Blue moon



5/5
sponataneously cast arcane



Moonstar Agent



5/5
must be able to cast disguise self, identify, and have bardic knowledge: **first level gets you skill focus knowledge



Paragnostic Apostle



5/5
3rd level arcane or divine



Primal Scholar



5/5
Caster level 7



Shadowcraft Mage



5/5
3 illusion spells, 1 shadow spell at 4th level



Spelldancer



5/5
3rd level arcane or divine



Spellwarp sniper



5/5
3rd level spells +sneak attack



Thaumaturgist



5/5
lesser planar ally



Zhentarim skymage



5/5
must be able to cast detect thoughts, invisibility, suggestion, summon monster 3+,FEATS combat casting, iron will, mounted combat



Cerebrex



5/10
3rd level arcane



Doomlord



5/10





Dragonslayer



5/10





Flux adept



5/10





Insidious corrupter



5/10





Martyred Champion of Ilmater



5/10





Oozemaster



5/10
3rd level arcane or divine



Osteomancer



5/10





Platinum Knight



5/10





Scar enforcer



5/10





Scion of Tem Et Nu



5/10





Shadowspy



5/10
1st level divine, must be cleric or paladin of pelor



Shapeshifter



5/10





Skylord



5/10





Talon of Tiamat



5/10





Visionary Seeker



5/10





Witch Hunter



5/10
cast magic circle against evil



Disciple of Asmodeus



6/10





Shaper of form



6/10





Trall of Grazzt



6/10
3rd level spells with evil descriptor



Verminlord



6/10
cast giant vermin



Arachnomancer



7/10





Elemental archon



7/10
protection from elements as a divine spell



Fiendbinder



7/10
summon monster iv



Malconvoker



8/9
summon monster 3



Dragonheart mage



8/10
must spontaneously cast spells



Elemental savant



8/10





Luckstealer



8/10
3rd level arcane or divine



Renegade Mastermaker



8/10





Walker in the Waste



8/10
must cast sand or thirst domain spells as divine



Void Disciple



8/13
3rd level arcane or divine



Ardent Dilletante



9/10





Celestial Mystic



9/10





Child of Night



9/10





Deep Diviner



9/10
2nd level arcane



Dispassionate watcher of chronepsis



9/10
able to cast divine



Fleshwarper



9/10
familiar



Lord of Tides



9/10
2nd level divine



Master of Shadow



9/10
Caster level 5



Prophet of Erathaoi



9/10
4th arcane or divine



Raumathari Battlemage



9/10
3rd level arcane



Stormcaster



9/10
must be able to cast gust of wind & call lightning/lightning bolt



Swanmay



9/10
wild empathy, speak with animals



Stormsinger



10/10
skills 8, magical aptitude & storm magic feats, Bardic music



Alienist



10/10





Arcane Trickster



10/10





Auspician



10/10





Bane of Infidels



10/10
3rd level divine



Diabolist



10/10
will+5, must be able to cast shriveling



Divine oracle



10/10
skills 8, 2 divination spells



Divine Prankster



10/10
2nd level divine



Dreadmaster



10/10
3rd level divine



Durthan



10/10
2nd level arcane and 2nd level divine



Dweomerkeeper



10/10
cast divine and arcane spells



Frostmage



10/10
must cast arcane spells



Geomancer



10/10
2nd level arcane and 2nd level divine



Goldeye



10/10
3rd level divine



Guild wizard of water deep



10/10
3rd level arcane



Hexer



10/10
cast lightning bolt as a divine spell



Keeper of Cerulean Sign



10/10





Loremaster



10/10
7 divination spells, 1 of which is 3rd level



Mage Killer



10/10
4th arcane or dive



Master Alchemist



10/10
4th arcane or dive



Master of Yuirwood



10/10
alertness, track, elf



Nightcloak



10/10
3rd level divine



Rimefire witch



10/10
1st level divine



Sacred exorcist



10/10
dismissal or dispel evil



Sentinel of Bharrai



10/10





Serpent Slayer



10/10
able to cast arcane or divine



Shadow Adept



10/10
3rd level arcane or divine



Shadowcrafter



10/10
any 3rd level spell with shadow descriptor



Singer of Concordance



10/10
3rd level divine



Storm singer



10/10
bardic music



Sword Dancer



10/10
2nd level divine



Techsmith



10/10





Verdant Lord



10/10
cast control plants



Vermin keeper



10/10
wildshape



Wearer of Purple



10/10
cast 1 necro spell



Winterhaunt of Iborighu



10/10
1st level divine



Mythic Exemplar

4/10*

*Or 8/10



Combat Medic

5/5*

*must have cure light wounds on list

[Psyren]

Factotums don't cast spells though, they use SLAs. And they lack the Warlock's "+1 spellcasting classes advance me" clause. So you would need a PrC that doesn't specify that it advances a "spellcasting class."

But why on earth would you want to PrC out of Factotum anyway? No PrCs grant inspiration, which drives all of your spellcasting (and everything else you do) anyway.

[SinsI]

But why on earth would you want to PrC out of Factotum anyway? No PrCs grant inspiration, which drives all of your spellcasting (and everything else you do) anyway.

The PrC might have the same flavor but grant far more power and flexibility than pure Factotum.
I.e. Chameleon - he also can emulate a lot of abilities, but his spellcasting is vastly superior - each class level increases caster level by 2, he has The Best spellcasting list in the game (namely, every single spell at the lowest level from every single class) and has a ton of spell slots like Mystic Theurge after getting the Double Aptitude - he also has a floating feat and reassignable bonus to a Stat you want.

[Yuki Akuma]

Factotum 10/Chameleon 10 is probably the single greatest Chamaleon build possible.

Factotum 20 is arguably still better.

[Psyren]

Fair enough, I did forget Chameleon. That is a good choice for them, though personally I would still rather just go F20 and load up on FoI, especially with Cunning Surge.

[Enyo]

If it's even optimal, can I multiclass into assassin or artificier instead? I kind of prefer the spells in that class or using magical items/weapons since it fits my character's tendency to go tactical and use a variety of ranged attacks that do different effects.

[Segev]

For whatever reason, I never liked the Factotum. It seems overpowered, despite not being a full caster. Part of it, I think, is that it's just "rogue+" and yet tries so hard to be everything that it isn't anything.

[Curmudgeon]

For whatever reason, I never liked the Factotum.
I've never liked the class, either. For me it's the atrociously bad writing that causes the dislike. Clarity for the Factotum is on par with Power for the Monk: it's really not there.

[Segev]

I've never liked the class, either. For me it's the atrociously bad writing that causes the dislike. Clarity for the Factotum is on par with Power for the Monk: it's really not there.

Yeah, but you can still optimize the Monk to being playable (not powerful, but...playable). :smalltongue:

Can you optimize clarity for the Factotum? >_> <_<

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yeah, but you can still optimize the Monk to being playable (not powerful, but...playable). :smalltongue:

Can you optimize clarity for the Factotum? >_> <_<

It just takes some houserules. I use Curmudgeon's.

[Segev]

Oddly, I DO like the dvati, conceptually. However, they are also a mess of unclarity and ill-thought-out mechanics.

Dvati Factotum for maximum rules ambiguity?

[Psyren]

Designer intent is not hard to grasp, especially for the Factotum - and while rules ambiguity is not ideal, it's nothing seasoned 3.5 players haven't dealt with in many, many other areas. Just look at the dysfunctions thread, or classes like the Swordsage - I'm not going to let a few obvious oversights keep me out of a fun class.

[Segev]

Designer intent is not hard to grasp, especially for the Factotum - and while rules ambiguity is not ideal, it's nothing seasoned 3.5 players haven't dealt with in many, many other areas. Just look at the dysfunctions thread, or classes like the Swordsage - I'm not going to let a few obvious oversights keep me out of a fun class.

My problem goes deeper than unclarity, personally. I don't find it fun; I find it sucks the fun out of a group when it's played.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not going to let a few obvious oversights keep me out of a fun class.
It's more than a few oversights, and quite a few of them aren't obvious. Cunning Surge takes a standard action to use absent a house rule, making it worse than useless. What's the right house rule fix: move action, swift action, or free action? Personally, I use the one in the middle, but I've seen DMs go either way.

The term "gains" is ambiguous, and could mean the same as either "adds" or "attains". When a Factotum gains IPs at the start of an encounter, is that number added to their existing total, or is their IP store reset to that value each encounter? I went with "attains" to match the FAQ answer on this point, and applied exactly the same meaning in Font of Inspiration (so it always adds +1 IP rather than +1, then +2, +3 ...). The first interpretation of "gains" was OK with most players because the FAQ said so, but the identical interpretation in FoI made every single Factotum player upset; they thought ever-increasing power was their due.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point that these oversights keep the Factotum out of the "fun" category as far as I'm concerned. I had to ban the Factotum from my games for quite a while, because it would just grind everything to a halt as "discussions" of class features became obstacles to play. I had to block out quite a few hours to work through the class's many issues and write up sufficient clarifications and house rules before I could remove the ban. :smallmad:

[SinsI]

The worst part about FoI is that it is a feat tax, just like Natural Spell for druids. IMHO, it should be completely eliminated and replaced by a refresh mechanic similar to the ones for Tome of Battle classes.

BTW, since we are on the Giant in the Playground forums, and Richard Burlew is one of the authors of the Dungeonscape, is it possible to get his own errata for the class he designed?

[ZamielVanWeber]

IIRC Rich had nothing to do with factotum's development.

[SinsI]

IIRC Rich had nothing to do with factotum's development.

Dungeonscape only lists two designers, so he might know RAI for all the questionable class features of Factotum - the way it was playtested.

[Curmudgeon]

The worst part about FoI is that it is a feat tax, just like Natural Spell for druids.
What makes you say that? Natural Spell gives the Druid a capability they don't otherwise have. In contrast, Font of Inspiration just gives the Factotum more IPs per encounter. Is there some reason you think the Factotum has insufficient IPs to be a viable class without taking FoI?

[Psyren]

It's more than a few oversights, and quite a few of them aren't obvious. Cunning Surge takes a standard action to use absent a house rule, making it worse than useless.

I've heard this from you a lot and I don't buy it. Your cited rule only says "Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted", yet nowhere do I see that Cunning Surge requires an action. The only requirement I see in the ability is IP expenditure. Also, it specifically gives you "an extra standard action"; extra being defined as "more than you get normally" so for this to be true you have to be up a standard from where you began before you used the ability. To read it your way, getting no extra standard actions, is to invent RAW in one place and violate it in another.


The term "gains" is ambiguous, and could mean the same as either "adds" or "attains". When a Factotum gains IPs at the start of an encounter, is that number added to their existing total, or is their IP store reset to that value each encounter? I went with "attains" to match the FAQ answer on this point, and applied exactly the same meaning in Font of Inspiration (so it always adds +1 IP rather than +1, then +2, +3 ...). The first interpretation of "gains" was OK with most players because the FAQ said so, but the identical interpretation in FoI made every single Factotum player upset; they thought ever-increasing power was their due.

So your argument is that you can only ever choose one definition of a word, and then apply it universally regardless of circumstance? Where in the rules does it say that "gains" in the Inspiration ability and "gains" in FoI have to mean the same thing? Do you apply the same reasoning to words like "level," "check", "bonus" and "turn"?

[Curmudgeon]

I've heard this from you a lot and I don't buy it. Your cited rule only says "Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted", yet nowhere do I see that Cunning Surge requires an action.
The options are either (1) the ability automatically happens in a reactive fashion; and (2) using the ability is an action (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_action&alpha=).
action: A character activity.

The only requirement I see in the ability is IP expenditure.
Spending IP does not happen in a reactive fashion; instead, it is a character activity during your turn.

Also, it specifically gives you "an extra standard action"; extra being defined as "more than you get normally" so for this to be true you have to be up a standard from where you began before you used the ability. To read it your way, getting no extra standard actions, is to invent RAW in one place and violate it in another.
You get your normal standard action, which you use to to initiate Cunning Surge. That action is used up. You then get an extra standard action to use as you like. There is no net utility gain, but you still get an extra standard action. If you had some ability that triggered whenever you took a standard action, using Cunning Surge would trigger that ability twice in your turn.

So your argument is that you can only ever choose one definition of a word, and then apply it universally regardless of circumstance?
No, I'm merely stating that the Factotum is badly written, and part of it is that the authors used the ambiguous word "gains" repeatedly. So as not to compound the ambiguity, I'm being consistent. I'm even being consistent in the way the "Sage" decided to interpret "gains" in the one instance where that ambiguity was addressed in the FAQ. There is no actual "right" or "wrong" here, because the class is written too poorly for that to be possible. A poorly-written class leads to contention, as you've amply demonstrated. So thanks for helping me make my point. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

The options are either (1) the ability automatically happens in a reactive fashion; and (2) using the ability is an action (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_action&alpha=).

Except this definition is wrong, because per the PHB, there are many activities that are in fact not actions.


Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else. For instance, using the Use Magic Device skill (page 85) while trying to activate a device is not an action, it is part of the standard action to activate a magic item.

Are you attempting to claim that Use Magic Device is not a character activity? How about retrieving a spell component from your pouch while casting a spell, is that not a character activity?



You get your normal standard action, which you use to to initiate Cunning Surge. That action is used up. You then get an extra standard action to use as you like. There is no net utility gain, but you still get an extra standard action.

If there is no net utility, how have you gained anything extra? You get no extra standard actions that turn to use on anything.

If you give me two $10 bills and I give you a $20 bill in return, did you get extra money?



No, I'm merely stating that the Factotum is badly written, and part of it is that the authors used the ambiguous word "gains" repeatedly.

I think bad reading is at fault here, not bad writing. When you have to clutch at straws like applying the least beneficial definition of "gains" to a feat in order to make it not work, then this reveals nothing more but wishful thinking on your part.

[SinsI]

What makes you say that? Natural Spell gives the Druid a capability they don't otherwise have. In contrast, Font of Inspiration just gives the Factotum more IPs per encounter. Is there some reason you think the Factotum has insufficient IPs to be a viable class without taking FoI?

Depends on what you call a "viable class" - some might say that the Monk is a viable class. It is certainly viable even with zero Inspiration Points just due to skill bonuses and skills. But it needs Inspiration Points to get the most benefits of the class, and once he runs out Factotum has precious little to offer - it's like the Wizard's "15 minutes adventuring day" problem, only for Factotum it becomes a "2 round Encounter", and Wizards fix most of it by level 5 or 6, while Factotums only get it worse since his new and best abilities are so Inspiration Points hungry.

Factotum desperately needs something like maneuver recovery technique from Tome of Battle.

[Curmudgeon]

I think bad reading is at fault here, not bad writing. When you have to clutch at straws like applying the least beneficial definition of "gains" to a feat in order to make it not work, then this reveals nothing more but wishful thinking on your part.
I'm not trying to "make it not work", but to resolve ambiguity. Either interpretation of "gains" makes Font of Inspiration yield a stacking benefit, instead of the default.
If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once. This general rule would have repeated Font of Inspiration feats yield additional points to the tune of +1, then +0, +0, ... IPs. The "attains" meaning of "gains" would have FoI yield +1, then +1, +1, ... IPs consistently. The "adds" meaning of "gains" would have FoI yield +1, then +2, +3, ... IPs.

Is there some special reason you think the meaning of "gains" for the Factotum's Inspiration Points at the start of each encounter should be different from the meaning of "gains" for Font of Inspiration? And how is consistent interpretation of terms "bad reading"?

[Segev]

Highly tangential, but it would be interesting to see a variant on the psion designed around the notion of omega-striking. The class has 0pp under normal circumstances, but, when engaged in combat, gains some number (call it "N") pp each round. N may vary based on level. No cap. If he waits long enough, he can hurl high-end powers around. Until then, he's got a slow ramp-up.

[Rubik]

Highly tangential, but it would be interesting to see a variant on the psion designed around the notion of omega-striking. The class has 0pp under normal circumstances, but, when engaged in combat, gains some number (call it "N") pp each round. N may vary based on level. No cap. If he waits long enough, he can hurl high-end powers around. Until then, he's got a slow ramp-up.So the class is useless outside of combat, cannot gain psionic focus unless it's in combat, and is pretty much useless inside of combat unless it's got some shaper powers.

No thank you.

[Segev]

So the class is useless outside of combat, cannot gain psionic focus unless it's in combat, and is pretty much useless inside of combat unless it's got some shaper powers.

No thank you.

Okay, replace "psionics" with "Z-points" and call it the "Z-fighter." I'm not really trying to key off of psionics so much as the "build points from 0 to 'enough'" idea rather than the usual D&D resource-management that says you're strongest at the start of a fight and get weaker the longer it goes on.

[Psyren]

I'm not trying to "make it not work", but to resolve ambiguity. Either interpretation of "gains" makes Font of Inspiration yield a stacking benefit, instead of the default. This general rule would have repeated Font of Inspiration feats yield additional points to the tune of +1, then +0, +0, ... IPs. The "attains" meaning of "gains" would have FoI yield +1, then +1, +1, ... IPs consistently. The "adds" meaning of "gains" would have FoI yield +1, then +2, +3, ... IPs.

Is there some special reason you think the meaning of "gains" for the Factotum's Inspiration Points at the start of each encounter should be different from the meaning of "gains" for Font of Inspiration? And how is consistent interpretation of terms "bad reading"?

Except FoI already specifically tells you what multiple instances of it do, overriding your general rule and making it irrelevant.



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

That is the "unless indicated otherwise in the description" from your cite, and the parenthetical even gives an example.

[Rubik]

Okay, replace "psionics" with "Z-points" and call it the "Z-fighter." I'm not really trying to key off of psionics so much as the "build points from 0 to 'enough'" idea rather than the usual D&D resource-management that says you're strongest at the start of a fight and get weaker the longer it goes on.Unfortunately, the vast majority of fights last 3-4 rounds or less for everyone but the most unoptimized of groups, thus making that idea...less than viable.

[Curmudgeon]

Except FoI already specifically tells you what multiple instances of it do, overriding your general rule and making it irrelevant.
Yes, I've already stated that stacking rule override. The issue is how it stacks its benefit, because Font of Inspiration is anything but specific.

That is the "unless indicated otherwise in the description" from your cite, and the parenthetical even gives an example.
Yes, and that example does nothing to alleviate the ambiguity, because it matches both possible meanings of "gain". You either attain a total of 2 extra IPs the second time you take FoI, or you add an extra 2 IPs the second time.

[Psyren]

Yes, I've already stated that stacking rule override. The issue is how it stacks its benefit, because Font of Inspiration is anything but specific.

Yes, and that example does nothing to alleviate the ambiguity, because it matches both possible meanings of "gain". You either attain a total of 2 extra IPs the second time you take FoI, or you add an extra 2 IPs the second time.

But that just brings me right back to your wishful thinking. If there are two "equally" (I use this term loosely) valid ways of reading a feat, one of which results in the feat being useful and one of which does not, the fact that feats specifically say "Benefit:" says to me that you are meant to go with the reading that actually provides a benefit.

Attempting to hide behind a desire for "consistency" as a reason for ignoring context is not much of an excuse. As I pointed out earlier, there are all kinds of instances in 3.5 where the same word means different things in different contexts, and you don't seem all that devoted to consistency as a concept in those instances - rather, you use the meaning that makes the most sense as the context changes, just like we all do.

That a given rule might be ambiguous does not make a specific reading right or wrong - it simply means the GM must step in and make the final choice. At your tables, you have chosen to interpret every even remotely questionable aspect of the Factotum to use the least powerful reading possible, and encourage all others to do the same (if not throw the class out entirely); given your self-professed love for the rogue class, I can't help but suspect a little bias against the Factotum being the root cause of this enmity.

[Enyo]

Can they use explosive runes? I saw it in an online handbook, but I just want to make sure.

[Psyren]

Can they use explosive runes? I saw it in an online handbook, but I just want to make sure.

Yes, either using Arcane Dilettante or UMD.

[Curmudgeon]

But that just brings me right back to your wishful thinking. If there are two "equally" (I use this term loosely) valid ways of reading a feat, one of which results in the feat being useful and one of which does not, the fact that feats specifically say "Benefit:" says to me that you are meant to go with the reading that actually provides a benefit.
There are two ways Font of Inspiration can work:

"gain" = "attain": you add +1 IP every time you take the feat.
"gain" = "add": you add a constantly-incrementing number of IPs every time you take the feat.

Both of these provide a useful benefit. The second one would provide a benefit that gets increasingly better every time you take the feat, which is unprecedented in D&D as far as I know.

[Enyo]

Wait, how do I know if the spell doesn't use XP, which means that I can't cast it?

[Psyren]

The second one would provide a benefit that gets increasingly better every time you take the feat, which is unprecedented in D&D as far as I know.

Ah, I get you now.I thought you were arguing that it doesn't give you any more than you'd get without the feat, so my mistake.

But as far as precedent for "increasingly better" in D&D, there certainly is. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psionicTalent)


Wait, how do I know if the spell doesn't use XP, which means that I can't cast it?

Spells that have an XP cost are clearly indicated as such - they have "XP" in the "Components" line, and there is text in the spell that tells you how much XP you must pay. Explosive Runes has no such cost.

An example of a spell with XP cost is Awaken. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm)

[Curmudgeon]

But as far as precedent for "increasingly better" in D&D, there certainly is. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psionicTalent)
Again, you're jumping to a conclusion. Psionic Talent uses the same ambiguous word "gain", with exactly the same two different possible meanings.

[nyjastul69]

Again, you're jumping to a conclusion. Psionic Talent uses the same ambiguous word "gain", with exactly the same two different possible meanings.

It is however a president example of which you claimed was unpresident.

[Curmudgeon]

It is however a president example of which you claimed was unpresident.
No, that doesn't follow. It can't set a precedent for accelerating benefit unless "gain" always means "add". The only ruling to pin down the meaning of this ambiguous term is the FAQ establishing that "gain" instead means "attain" where the Factotum is concerned. If we decide to be consistent in applying the FAQ definition, then Psionic Talent stacks with diminishing rather than increasing value: you attain +2 PPs the first time you take the feat, but only +1 PP additional each time thereafter.

I'm afraid the only precedent set by Psionic Talent is for ambiguous language. :smallsigh:

[nyjastul69]

No, that doesn't follow. It can't set a precedent for accelerating benefit unless "gain" always means "add". The only ruling to pin down the meaning of this ambiguous term is the FAQ establishing that "gain" instead means "attain" where the Factotum is concerned. If we decide to be consistent in applying the FAQ definition, then Psionic Talent stacks with diminishing rather than increasing value: you attain +2 PPs the first time you take the feat, but only +1 PP additional each time thereafter.

I'm afraid the only precedent set by Psionic Talent is for ambiguous language. :smallsigh:

Fair enough. Also, I'm not sure how that misspelling got there. I think my phone autocorrected it.

[SwordPsion]

Factotums don't cast spells though, they use SLAs. And they lack the Warlock's "+1 spellcasting classes advance me" clause. So you would need a PrC that doesn't specify that it advances a "spellcasting class."

But why on earth would you want to PrC out of Factotum anyway? No PrCs grant inspiration, which drives all of your spellcasting (and everything else you do) anyway.

I'm personally rather fond of Swashbuckler 3/Factotum 17. I don't know if it's "better" than Factotum 20, but it certainly is better at melee fighting, and the Int Synergy is pretty cool.