The Dumb Factotum challenge

[Soranar]

So as a funny character type, I want to try and play a dumb Factotum

It seems counterintuitive at first but you don't lose that much

-you still get spellcasting (and most factotum don't pick spells with saves anyway)
-access to all skills
-x6 skillpoints
-extra standard actions

My only question is, how would you optimize that?

I was thinking of playing a Dragonborn of Bahamut Mongrelfolk since all your stats become irrelevant when you alter self or polymorph into a fighting form

or go for an archery build of some sort?

I'm open to suggestions

[Thurbane]

Play an Expert and call it a day?

[Rebel7284]

6+ Int skill points don't do much if your Int is low. I can certainly see a factotum Archer type character prioritizing Int below Dex and a tripper character being OK with only minor bonuses from 14ish Int as Str and Con become more important. While I can certainly imagine something like Factotum 8/Ur-Priest 10 build that only really cares about standard actions, not using Factotum's other abilities is still sad as some of them are pretty good.

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm so glad you asked because RAW, cunning insight works with a low intelligence score!!!


Cunning Insight (Ex): Before making an attack roll, damage roll, or saving throw, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain a competence bonus on the roll equal to your Intelligence modifier. Cunning insight does not require an action, and you can use it as often as you wish during your turn or others’ turns—provided that you have the inspiration points to spend. Because this ability provides a competence bonus, it does not stack with itself.

Bonus is a defined concept in dnd, but "modifier" is not! So your modifier can be -5, but you get a bonus equal to it. Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value.



So you can be a dog that has a +5 bonus with cunning insight....

If you go into negative intelligence through ability damage, you might be able to get a huge bonus to your roll, but you'de have to be able to withstand the damage and still have a roll to make...

[Jormengand]

Many of the powerful skills, such as Lucid Dreaming (which can outright kill someone in their sleep) and Iajutsu Focus (which can deal a ton of damage to people) aren't int-based. Not to mention profession executioner, profession siege engineer, or I think you can change the stat on craft poisonmaking.

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm so glad you asked because RAW, cunning insight works with a low intelligence score!!

Bonus is a defined concept in dnd, but "modifier" is not! So your modifier can be -5, but you get a bonus equal to it. Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value.



So you can be a dog that has a +5 bonus with cunning insight....

If you go into negative intelligence through ability damage, you might be able to get a huge bonus to your roll, but you'de have to be able to withstand the damage and still have a roll to make...

Danger- brains over brawn is the opposite, spend an inspiration point to add your int modifier to a strength check...which would subtract if you had an int penalty...

[prufock]

I'm so glad you asked because RAW, cunning insight works with a low intelligence score!!!

Bonus is a defined concept in dnd, but "modifier" is not! So your modifier can be -5, but you get a bonus equal to it. Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value.

Math doesn't work that way. "Modifier" is indeed a defined term: "A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." You can't have a bonus that is equal to a negative modifier, that just doesn't compute.

A factotum with low Int can still be workable, but they lose about half of their class features. Some of what they DO retain is still good, like Cunning Knowledge, Trapfinding, Cunning Strike, Arcane Dilettante (provided you don't use spells with saves), Opportunistic Piety, Cunning Surge, Cunning Breach, Cunning Dodge, and Cunning Brilliance all work fine. Factotum 8/Warblade 12 can still work.

The downside is that you can't take Font of Inspiration.

[bean illus]

Danger- brains over brawn is the <snip>, spend an inspiration point to add your int modifier to a strength check...which would subtract if you had an int penalty...
Really, BoB is under rated, unless you just don't play skills. 12 skills qualify, and your end bonus should be +12 or greater. That's 144 skill points (some of which are rarely used). In addition the +12 mod is with +6 class skills x 23 +414 skill points, and that doesn't count the 12 Int based skills. In total the Int based Facto gets about 600 skill points, maybe more. Saying that a dumb facto doesn't lose much should include that info.


Math doesn't work that way. "Modifier" is indeed a defined term: "A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." You can't have a bonus that is equal to a negative modifier, that just doesn't compute.

A factotum with low Int can still be workable, but they lose about half of their class features. Some of what they DO retain is still good, like Cunning Knowledge, Trapfinding, Cunning Strike, Arcane Dilettante (provided you don't use spells with saves), Opportunistic Piety, Cunning Surge, Cunning Breach, Cunning Dodge, and Cunning Brilliance all work fine. Factotum 8/Warblade 12 can still work.

The downside is that you can't take Font of Inspiration.
Well there is that. lol.

[daremetoidareyo]

"A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." You can't have a bonus that is equal to a negative modifier, that just doesn't compute.

There is no reason not to try to compute it.

If a bonus is equal to the modifier and the modifier is negative, there is no reason to not assume that the magnitude of the factotums intelligence as compared to the average is what is fueling the ability. So you could assume that any modifier that is applied as a bonus is an absolute value. Otherwise, they simply could have said "add your intelligence bonus as a circumstance bonus to blah blah blah". But they didn't say that. They said something that is reasonably interpretable in this fashion.

[Fizban]

Lots of people seem to think Factotums should be good in melee, but str is far from their first stat and most str bonus races have int penalties. Dump int and you can jack up the str so you don't need the int to X abilities. You have fewer skills but plenty of characters get by with just 2 or 3 skills anyway, and you still have Cunning Knowledge-which pushes your high skills over the top.

Biggest problem is lack of armor proficiency forcing you to push more dex. Dips fix everything but delay your factotum stuff, but if you can swing an ACF to trade Brains over Brawn and Cunning Defense for armor proficiency you're clear to brawl.

A high str/low int Factotum is still the wonder of the tribe, able to craft and plan all sorts of things that no one else can touch, including spells not available to races with significant int+cha penalties.

[Soranar]

That's the thing, even with an int penalty

-you still have UMD
-you still have spells
-you still have listen/spot

That's still better than most tier 4 classes

[prufock]

If a bonus is equal to the modifier and the modifier is negative, there is no reason to not assume that the magnitude of the factotums intelligence as compared to the average is what is fueling the ability.

There are several reasons not to assume that.
1 - It doesn't work that way.
2 - That isn't how it works.
3 - That's not how any of this works.

More seriously, you're making an assumption only because it suits your conclusion. There's no mention of magnitude in the factotum RAW, there's no precedent for a "negative bonus" as absolute value, and you can't simply assume designer intent. As written, it does not work.

[Mr Adventurer]

Wouldn't you need Int 10+spell level to cast your Arcane Dilettante spells?


If you go into negative intelligence through ability damage, you might be able to get a huge bonus to your roll,

That's not how that works, either. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#abilityScoreLoss)

[Jormengand]

Wouldn't you need Int 10+spell level to cast your Arcane Dilettante spells?

No; that restriction is class-based and doesn't appear in the factotum's spellcasting.

[daremetoidareyo]

There are several reasons not to assume that.
1 - It doesn't work that way.
2 - That isn't how it works.
3 - That's not how any of this works.

More seriously, you're making an assumption only because it suits your conclusion. There's no mention of magnitude in the factotum RAW, there's no precedent for a "negative bonus" as absolute value, and you can't simply assume designer intent. As written, it does not work.

I'm glad that your argument of nah-uh is articulated in a truipartite list form. But I disagree.

It's fair to assume that the designers made conscientious choices when they chose their words, and that the general thrust of the game, when abilities are unclear is that you try to make them work.

They could have said modifier twice or bonus twice or put a minimum of 1 on the ability but instead chose a sentence wherein a penalty could be applied as a bonus and an equally valid argument to "it doesn't work". Is that it does work. Because bonuses are obligately positive, and modifiers can be either positive or negative, therefor an intelligence penalty is commuted to a bonus by the very structure of the sentence itself. The modifier commutes into the positive. The only way to be crystal clear that this is expressly allowed in a contrite number of words was to say: add your intelligence bonus or penalty as a bonus to your attack rolls....

If they wanted you to suffer a penalty for low intelligence, they would have put (minimum 0, or -5). Or even 1. Instead they chose a wording where you can pull either negative or positive integer values to apply as modifier type that has obligately positive integers.

Bonuses and penalties are very consistent throughout the entire game amongst 100s of books. Why get so squirrelly on just the factotem entry.

You contention boils down to two arguments,
1.)the designers didn't think about their wording at all and ignored the possibility of an intelligence penalty.

2.) The designers did consider an intelligence penalty and chose the dumbest way to word the ability. Relying on an implicit understanding that modifiers that are penalties, when applied as a bonus, short out to make nonsense rather than an implicit understanding that putting a numeric entity drawn from a range of options into a container that obligately must demonstrate a single characteristic would by virtue of the categorization, be scrubbed of disqualifying characteristics.

If I tell you that you can pull a plant or seed from a bag and turn it into a sprout companion, your argument is that it had to be a sprout in the first place.

[Rebel7284]

You contention boils down to two arguments,
1.)the designers didn't think about their wording at all and ignored the possibility of an intelligence penalty.


Just going to put it out there, this is almost certainly true!

[daremetoidareyo]

Just going to put it out there, this is almost certainly true!

The game is just so consistent on the nomenclature of bonuses and penalties that I have a hard time believing this

I assume that the designers wrote it expressly to allow my interpretation so that smart players with low intelligence characters could take dips and get a benefit. Otherwise they could have ripped off the wording for the monks wis to ac.

Alternatively, game designers casually considered what an intelligence penalty would do and decided to make it ambiguous so that savvy gamers could at least argue the point.

[Jormengand]

Bonus is a defined concept in dnd, but "modifier" is not! So your modifier can be -5, but you get a bonus equal to it. Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value.

Case of mistaken nonentity. A -5 bonus is NULL, so a factotum with int 1 gets NULL - that is, the class feature does nothing, as expected (and, if we're honest with ourselves, intended). I just don't see the logic that leads from "-5 bonuses don't exist" to "it must mean a +5 bonus and the designers intended for someone to try making a factotum with low intelligence, and expect their DM to agree with it." Like, this is some rude furnishing level of RAW-nonsense right here.

[daremetoidareyo]

Case of mistaken nonentity. A -5 bonus is NULL, so a factotum with int 1 gets NULL - that is, the class feature does nothing, as expected (and, if we're honest with ourselves, intended). I just don't see the logic that leads from "-5 bonuses don't exist" to "it must mean a +5 bonus and the designers intended for someone to try making a factotum with low intelligence, and expect their DM to agree with it." Like, this is some rude furnishing level of RAW-nonsense right here.

I disagree. I disagreed years ago, before the playground made me the monster that I am today.

Why are we obligated to parse the clearly defined plain language sentence like it's computer code? That's far less intuitive than accepting that a -5 modifier that is turned into a bonus to certain rolls is a +5 bonus to those rolls. I'm not willfully subverting the will of the game designers here like I do in other optimization challenges, I'm outright defending what I think is a valid interpretation of the text that the designers are likely to have anticipated.

[Jormengand]

I disagree. I disagreed years ago, before the playground made me the monster that I am today.

Why are we obligated to parse the clearly defined plain language sentence like it's computer code? That's far less intuitive than accepting that a -5 modifier that is turned into a bonus to certain rolls is a +5 bonus to those rolls. I'm not willfully subverting the will of the game designers here like I do in other optimization challenges, I'm outright defending what I think is a valid interpretation of the text that the designers are likely to have anticipated.

I don't think the designers created the factotum under the consideration that someone might play it with an intelligence penalty. That's just silly. If a -5 bonus (or a +negative-five bonus) doesn't exist, then that doesn't mean that anything that would be one of those is now a +5 bonus. If they'd intended it to work like that, it would have been trivial to write "The magnitude of the modifier."

[prufock]

You contention boils down to two arguments,
1.)the designers didn't think about their wording at all and ignored the possibility of an intelligence penalty.

2.) The designers did consider an intelligence penalty and chose the dumbest way to word the ability. Relying on an implicit understanding that modifiers that are penalties, when applied as a bonus, short out to make nonsense rather than an implicit understanding that putting a numeric entity drawn from a range of options into a container that obligately must demonstrate a single characteristic would by virtue of the categorization, be scrubbed of disqualifying characteristics.
No, my contention boils down to ONE argument: the interpretation that requires the least illogical rationalization is the best one. Unless you can find some support for your claim that positive equals negative, it simply doesn't work that way. You are pulling it out of thin air.

It either works as written (granting a bonus if you have a positive modifier, doing nothing if you have a negative modifier) OR it doesn't and is written incorrectly (the writer made an error).

In your own words:
"Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value."
A negative modifier IS a penalty, and in no case ever in D&D has there been a penalty as a bonus.

Your definitions are faulty - modifier IS a defined term; bonuses and penalties are types of modifier.
Your reasoning is faulty - there is no logical progression that results in a negative modifier equaling a bonus. By definition, they are incompatible.


I disagree. I disagreed years ago
Being incorrect for a long time doesn't make you less incorrect.


Why are we obligated to parse the clearly defined plain language sentence like it's computer code? That's far less intuitive than accepting that a -5 modifier that is turned into a bonus to certain rolls is a +5 bonus to those rolls. I'm not willfully subverting the will of the game designers here like I do in other optimization challenges, I'm outright defending what I think is a valid interpretation of the text that the designers are likely to have anticipated.
No amount of dismissive language changes what is written. We aren't parsing it like it's computer code any more than you are, we are simply reading it. A more intuitive interpretation than yours would be that if you have a negative Int modifier, you get a negative modifier to Cunning Insight. Either interpretation requires you to assume the writers phrased it incorrectly, but this one is more consistent with the nature of D&D rules.

[daremetoidareyo]

No, my contention boils down to ONE argument: the interpretation that requires the least illogical rationalization is the best one. Unless you can find some support for your claim that positive equals negative, it simply doesn't work that way. You are pulling it out of thin air.

It either works as written (granting a bonus if you have a positive modifier, doing nothing if you have a negative modifier) OR it doesn't and is written incorrectly (the writer made an error).

In your own words:
"Because in no case ever in dnd, has there been a -5 bonus to a roll, (that would be called a penalty)...so modifier must act like an absolute value."
A negative modifier IS a penalty, and in no case ever in D&D has there been a penalty as a bonus.

Your definitions are faulty - modifier IS a defined term; bonuses and penalties are types of modifier.
Your reasoning is faulty - there is no logical progression that results in a negative modifier equaling a bonus. By definition, they are incompatible.


Being incorrect for a long time doesn't make you less incorrect.


No amount of dismissive language changes what is written. We aren't parsing it like it's computer code any more than you are, we are simply reading it. A more intuitive interpretation than yours would be that if you have a negative Int modifier, you get a negative modifier to Cunning Insight. Either interpretation requires you to assume the writers phrased it incorrectly, but this one is more consistent with the nature of D&D rules.

I'm no more dismissive than y'all.

If the text reads "take your person and put them in the ladies room." Your assumption is that the person must be a lady because it does not compute that a man would be in the ladies room. And my contention is that the instructions grant permission to put the man in there.

As has been stated, it was reallly really easy to avoid my interpretation altogether, and it isn't as outlandish as y'all are making it sound. I think the reason the response to this is so bitter is the fact that I'm transgressively arguing that a character can derive any benefit whatsoever from a low ability score, and I'm upsetting the meritocracy of whatever chargen system you use.

I think upsetting that order is why I'm being considered daft instead of people dropping computer coding jargon into a conversation about plain text game rules.

[Rebel7284]

If the text reads "take your person and put them in the ladies room." Your assumption is that the person must be a lady because it does not compute that a man would be in the ladies room. And my contention is that the instructions grant permission to put the man in there.


Considering the current political climate in the US, that may not be the best example. Certain conservatives keep arguing that the lady can't be a lady unless her genitals fit some arbitrary rules. :P

[daremetoidareyo]

Considering the current political climate in the US, that may not be the best example. Certain conservatives keep arguing that the lady can't be a lady unless her genitals fit some arbitrary rules. :P
Lol.

Take a fruit from the apple/tomato jar and put it in the Tomato pouch.

[prufock]

If the text reads "take your person and put them in the ladies room." Your assumption is that the person must be a lady because it does not compute that a man would be in the ladies room. And my contention is that the instructions grant permission to put the man in there.
The problem with this analogy is that we already know the person is not a "lady" (bonus) because it is specifically a "man" (penalty - the modifier is below 0). While you may have permission for the man to enter the washroom, that doesn't make him a lady (to keep the analogy, he could be a male janitor).

Here is a more parallel and numerical analogy, and avoids any real-world political issues.

You (the factotum) work at a hobby shop. Your boss (the RAW) tells you that today he will give you a bonus of $1 (competence bonus) for each copy of Dungeonscape that you sell (your intelligence modifier). You don't sell any copies of the book. What's worse, two people return copies of Dungeonscape that they bought yesterday (negative intelligence modifier). How big of a bonus do you get?

1. Your assertion is that you would get a $2 bonus. This is the "absolute" interpretation you propose. You can't get a "negative bonus," therefore the returned books count as books sold.
2. Your boss' assertion is that you owe him $2. This is the "intuitive" interpretation I proposed in my last post. "Bonus" in this interpretation can be negative, despite the normal definition.
3. My assertion is that you neither get the bonus nor owe your boss any money. This is my "null" interpretation. Your boss did not originally offer any penalties for books returned, and books returned do not count as books sold.

If you can convince your boss that the "absolute" interpretation is correct, good on you, but that doesn't make it the correct interpretation.

[daremetoidareyo]

The problem with this analogy is that we already know the person is not a "lady" (bonus) because it is specifically a "man" (penalty - the modifier is below 0). While you may have permission for the man to enter the washroom, that doesn't make him a lady (to keep the analogy, he could be a male janitor).

Here is a more parallel and numerical analogy, and avoids any real-world political issues.

You (the factotum) work at a hobby shop. Your boss (the RAW) tells you that today he will give you a bonus of $1 (competence bonus) for each copy of Dungeonscape that you sell (your intelligence modifier). You don't sell any copies of the book. What's worse, two people return copies of Dungeonscape that they bought yesterday (negative intelligence modifier). How big of a bonus do you get?

1. Your assertion is that you would get a $2 bonus. This is the "absolute" interpretation you propose. You can't get a "negative bonus," therefore the returned books count as books sold.
2. Your boss' assertion is that you owe him $2. This is the "intuitive" interpretation I proposed in my last post. "Bonus" in this interpretation can be negative, despite the normal definition.
3. My assertion is that you neither get the bonus nor owe your boss any money. This is my "null" interpretation. Your boss did not originally offer any penalties for books returned, and books returned do not count as books sold.

If you can convince your boss that the "absolute" interpretation is correct, good on you, but that doesn't make it the correct interpretation.

Except in order to make the analogy parallel your boss needed to say I will give you a $1 bonus for each copy of dungeonscape that is bought or sold. The word modifier in the glossary is an inclusive term for the binary status of bonus and penalty. The analogy for your theorem assumes what the boss wants...maybe dungeonscape is a secret scientology text and he wants to inflate the numbers of how many are sold to get on the NY times bestseller list. It's not my job to assume unless I want his job.

But perhaps we should just say ymmv and let the thread continue on without as steep a derail. Put it in your quiver of possible arguments and carry on.

On an aesthetic note, however, if any class was going to be designed with the potential to turn an intelligence penalty into a bonus through sharp player rules lawyering, it would be the factotem.

[prufock]

Except in order to make the analogy parallel your boss needed to say I will give you a $1 bonus for each copy of dungeonscape that is bought or sold. The word modifier in the glossary is an inclusive term for the binary status of bonus and penalty.
We can change the word "sell" in this case to something more inclusive that a retail boss might use - "move" or "ring up."


The analogy for your theorem assumes what the boss wants...maybe dungeonscape is a secret scientology text and he wants to inflate the numbers of how many are sold to get on the NY times bestseller list. It's not my job to assume unless I want his job.
This is a red herring. There is no intent assumed on the boss' part, only what he says - "Do this and I'll give you this."

If you're still unconvinced, and believe the boss does indeed owe you $2, I don't expect anything will convince you, so yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[bean illus]

Wow. lol. jus sayin

[eggynack]

This argument seems really straightforward. The text says, "A competence bonus on the roll equal to your Intelligence modifier." 5 does not equal -5. You probably can't get a -5 bonus, but that doesn't magically mean that the equation has an absolute value within it. There's no reason to think you should put that absolute value there, any more than you should square the -5, or subtract 100 from it. You don't just get to assume any of this, especially if you're working in total rules space. Is it strictly clear what does occur in this case? Not really. The notion of converting a -5 into a bonus is admittedly a bit weird. But that doesn't mean you get to dictate the outcome yourself. You don't get to say, "Oh, yeah, that was probably a scalar all along," just because the existing rules are wonky the way they are.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Can we just assume that no sane group will let you turn a massive penalty into a massive bonus and move on with our lives?

A low-Int Factotum will have decent skill access, substantial 1/day skill boosts, a little bit of spellcasting that can't really be used offensively, a little bit* of sneak attack, a decent chunk of healing, extra standard actions, the ability to ignore SR and DR a bit, the ability to sometimes say "no, I don't die," and eventually the ability to copy class features. It's... surprisingly not terrible, all told, but the medium BAB is what kills it. If you had a full BAB and maybe some better armor proficiencies you'd be a passable fighter type, but as-is I think you'd struggle to contribute. Of course, I'm generally harsh on the Factotum to begin with, but you're the features you're giving up are your best, most reliable ones.

*Or, possibly, a very large amount, if you take that reading of things

[Mr Adventurer]

Spells that help to overcome the -5 attack bonus you have (at level 20) from Medium instead of Full BAB:
- Polymorph
- Bite of the Weretiger
- Bite of the Werebear
- Tenser's Transformation(!)

[Stealth Marmot]

Math doesn't work that way.

Thank you Morbo.
Long story short, if you are playing a Factotum with an Int score under 12, you have chosen poorly.

You completely nullify Cunning Insight, one of the core abilities of the Factotum. In addition, you remove the bonus of Brains over Brawn, which is one of the Factotum's best bonuses to skill checks. In fact, if you have an int penalty, it will work against it since it applies automatically without inspiration. You also can't use Cunning Defense, so what are you left with?

Oddly enough, nothing stops you from using spells as Arcane Dillettante, since it technically counts as a spell like ability or some such. At any rate, nothing says that you require a certain INT rating to cast the spells on the Factotum's description, although you might want to double check the rules on spellcasting in general to see if that's allowed. Long story short (too late), even if you can cast the spells, you also have an abysmal save DC, so you are limited to spells that are buffs or don't have a saving throw.

You can use trapfinding, but with an int penalty to search AND disable device, you will have a hard time. You can still use cunning knowledge since that is level based, but that will not really pay off for several levels. You can use Inspiration to get sneak attack, but you may as well roll a rogue if you want to do that (gets more skill points and sneak attack at all times, in addition to evasion and uncanny dodge).

In fact, you may as well roll rogue for the whole thing entirely, it would be a much better outcome for you. Aside from a d8 hit die instead of a d6, the rogue wins on every level until level 5, and even then wins on total usefulness.

At level 5 Factotum you get Opportunistic piety which is based on wisdom and charisma for turning, which is useful, but you could also just get ranks in Use Magic Device as a rogue and get a wand of cure light wounds.

At level 8 you get the most powerful ability, which is NOT int based and allows you extra standard actions. At that point you start catching up with other classes, but you will still be way behind overall.

All things considered, you would lose most of your class abilities in low levels, and about half your abilities for mid and high levels, and even worse, it would affect your skill monkey capabilities to a severe degree. You have fewer skill points overall, your INT based skills will take a penalty (and a LOT of skills are INT based), and you will lose out on your dex and strength based skills due to Brains over Brawn, even IF your DM allows you to not take a penalty from a negative INT.

One last thing that hasn't come up so far (I think) is that you no longer qualify for the Font of Inspiration feat, which is an absolutely fantastic feat that is the only Factotum exclusive feat.

On that note you also can't qualify for Combat Expertise and related feats, which some factotums prefer. Knowledge Devotion, another popular Factotum feat, also has its bonus based on an INT based roll.

You are far better off playing a rogue with low Int. Almost none of the rogue's class abilities are based on your INT modifier, and they get more skill points to counter low INT. Many of their skills are INT based, but they can be compensated a little easier with the extra skill points, and they can focus on other dex based skills.

You could still play the Factotum, sure, but why? It's like playing a Paladin with 8 charisma, or a Barbarian with 8 constitution, or a Bard with 8 charisma. Why would you want to? Are you trying to make a point?

[Soranar]

In fact, if you have an int penalty, it will work against it since it applies automatically without inspiration.

-I don't see why I couldn't choose to simply not use the ability but for the sake of argument let's say I have 10 INT

Oddly enough, nothing stops you from using spells as Arcane Dillettante, since it technically counts as a spell like ability or some such. At any rate, nothing says that you require a certain INT rating to cast the spells on the Factotum's description, although you might want to double check the rules on spellcasting in general to see if that's allowed. Long story short (too late), even if you can cast the spells, you also have an abysmal save DC, so you are limited to spells that are buffs or don't have a saving throw.

-problem is those are probably the spells a factotum would choose anyway. Alter self, polymorph, tenser's transformation, nightstalker transformation, mighty wallop, greater mighty wallop and grease come to mind just from the top of my head. There are many many useful options out there

You can use trapfinding, but with an int penalty to search AND disable device, you will have a hard time. You can still use cunning knowledge since that is level based, but that will not really pay off for several levels. You can use Inspiration to get sneak attack, but you may as well roll a rogue

-that is definitely true, so I might need to invest a feat into tactile trapsmith if I wanted to fill the trapmonkey role

(gets more skill points and sneak attack at all times, in addition to evasion and uncanny dodge).

-Sneak attack is mostly a trap as far as rogues are concerned. Power attack + a two handed weapon will out damage a rogue , works well against almost anything and deals with DR and crit immunity far more easily

In fact, you may as well roll rogue for the whole thing entirely, it would be a much better outcome for you. Aside from a d8 hit die instead of a d6, the rogue wins on every level until level 5, and even then wins on total usefulness.

-Oh I definitely disagree with that. A rogue is a solid tier 4, a dumb Factotum is still a tier 3 class.

At level 5 Factotum you get Opportunistic piety which is based on wisdom and charisma for turning, which is useful, but you could also just get ranks in Use Magic Device as a rogue and get a wand of cure light wounds.

-true but a Factotum can also use UMD and he has opportunistic piety, so far the factotum is still ahead

At level 8 you get the most powerful ability, which is NOT int based and allows you extra standard actions. At that point you start catching up with other classes, but you will still be way behind overall.

-Again, a dumb Factotum is still tier 3, it's still more useful than a normally optimized tier 4 or lower class .

All things considered, you would lose most of your class abilities in low levels, and about half your abilities for mid and high levels, and even worse, it would affect your skill monkey capabilities to a severe degree. You have fewer skill points overall, your INT based skills will take a penalty (and a LOT of skills are INT based), and you will lose out on your dex and strength based skills due to Brains over Brawn, even IF your DM allows you to not take a penalty from a negative INT.

-True but I lose out on fairly minor abilities that don't work all day long. A +x bonus to AC, damage, attack or skill is nice but it's not absolutely necessary for the Factotum to shine.

One last thing that hasn't come up so far (I think) is that you no longer qualify for the Font of Inspiration feat, which is an absolutely fantastic feat that is the only Factotum exclusive feat.

-Assuming it's not banned to begin with but yes, that is a big cost when you rely on your inspiration points for everything.

On that note you also can't qualify for Combat Expertise and related feats, which some factotums prefer. Knowledge Devotion, another popular Factotum feat, also has its bonus based on an INT based roll.

-I realize I'm not building a typical Factotum, I'm just pointing out that even my counterintuitive build is still viable.

You are far better off playing a rogue with low Int. Almost none of the rogue's class abilities are based on your INT modifier, and they get more skill points to counter low INT. Many of their skills are INT based, but they can be compensated a little easier with the extra skill points, and they can focus on other dex based skills.

-here I must disagree a rogue is just too inferior to a Factotum to be considered on par with one I'll post a build to prove my point in a following post

[Soranar]

Race: Human
Alignment: Neutral Good

STATS (28 pts buy)

STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 14

FEATS:

Level 1 Nymph's kiss, tactile trapsmith
Level 3 Obtain Familiar
Level 6 Power Attack
Level 9 Celestial familiar (musteval guardinal)

- The familiar is great since it can use it's own spells, heals, and use wands
-This build assumes Iaijutsu focus is banned so I max out craft alchemy/diplomacy/intimidate/search/disable device/use magic device and I spend the rest of my points on key skills like balance/bluff and knowledge arcana(for obtain familiar)

you're the party face
you can craft your own alchemy items (and use your factotum level as a bonus to the craft check)
you're the party trapmonkey
you're a secondary spell caster and you have your own secondary spell caster (familiar + wand)
If you want to assassinate something, you can throw an alchemist's fire at its head and activate your sneak attack ability to boost the damage

if Iaijutsu focus is allowed, then your familiar can also use Iaijutsu focus and throw daggers to surprise enemies, trade power attack for quickdraw and do the same after casting grease with a wand or your own spell

a rogue can't use craft alchemy
a rogue can't get a familiar
a rogue can't use Iaijutsu focus (which is more useful than sneak attack as it works against anything)
he also has less hit points, worst weapons and generally less options than the dumb factotum

[Stealth Marmot]

I don't feel like doing a full rebuttal, someone with a bit more optimization skills should probably do that.

Craft is a class skill for rogues, why wouldn't they be able to use Craft (Alchemy)?

Also, this requires the Book of Exalted Deeds, which is not a universally accepted book since it has a good deal of cheese to it. Plus it means playing an exalted character, which is pretty restrictive if you read how harshly a DM is supposed to treat their actions. It's more restrictive than a paladin.

A familiar is nice, but a lot of what people suggest doing with it requires DM approval, and I'm pretty sure the idea of a familiar running around granting you a second action with wands or scrolls using Use Magic Device is one of those things a DM will start noticing, and if the DM feels a little irritated you might be eating a level loss when a griffon eats your familiar.

[Grod_The_Giant]

-I don't see why I couldn't choose to simply not use the ability but for the sake of argument let's say I have 10 INT
It doesn't say can or may or any other such language that implies a choice. Saying that you can choose not to be affected by certain class features is just opening up a huge can of worms. Int 10 is a better bet.


-problem is those are probably the spells a factotum would choose anyway. Alter self, polymorph, tenser's transformation, nightstalker transformation, mighty wallop, greater mighty wallop and grease come to mind just from the top of my head. There are many many useful options out there
True. Enjoy your tiny handful of spells per day. Hope you don't need to adventure for very long.


-Sneak attack is mostly a trap as far as rogues are concerned. Power attack + a two handed weapon will out damage a rogue , works well against almost anything and deals with DR and crit immunity far more easily
Shame about that medium BAB, though-- that's a lot of potential damage left on the floor. Sneak Attack at least is easy to activate with a bag of marbles, Ring of Blinking, or similar such methods.


-Oh I definitely disagree with that. A rogue is a solid tier 4, a dumb Factotum is still a tier 3 class.
Disagree. I'd argue that Factotum is at best borderline, with lots of versatility but difficulty mustering up enough power to really matter. Throwing away a lot of your low-level power and always-on versatility is not helping your case. I think I'd rather play a Rogue.


-True but I lose out on fairly minor abilities that don't work all day long. A +x bonus to AC, damage, attack or skill is nice but it's not absolutely necessary for the Factotum to shine.
A lot of their best tricks depend on those abilities, though. Poisons and other sorts of ability damage can't be powered up by Cunning Insight. No Brains Over Brawn means no bonuses to tripping and grappling, or on initiative checks. Heck, even Power Attack loses out when you can't get that nice big attack bonus.


STATS (28 pts buy)
Okay, you've traded your Int for, basically, nothing-- I'd so much rather take the -2 to Cha skills it's not even funny.


Level 1 Nymph's kiss, tactile trapsmith
Level 3 Obtain Familiar
Level 6 Power Attack
Level 9 Celestial familiar (musteval guardinal)
So... your first two feats are wasted trying to make up for a lower Int. You have no real offense until around 6th level, when you take Power Attack but don't really have the attack bonus to use it for more than a few points on your first attack.


- The familiar is great since it can use it's own spells, heals, and use wands
True; all Factotums should have one.


-This build assumes Iaijutsu focus is banned so I max out craft alchemy/diplomacy/intimidate/search/disable device/use magic device and I spend the rest of my points on key skills like balance/bluff and knowledge arcana(for obtain familiar)
And there goes the last really useful offensive move you could have used, though I've never been a big fan of relying on it for... any number of reasons.


you're the party face
Poorly-- you don't have that much Cha, or much in the way of abilities to bolster it.


you can craft your own alchemy items (and use your factotum level as a bonus to the craft check)
Okay. They still generally stink, and you're abandoning one of the few ways to bolster them.


you're the party trapmonkey
Fine.


you're a secondary spell caster and you have your own secondary spell caster (familiar + wand) If you want to assassinate something, you can throw an alchemist's fire at its head and activate your sneak attack ability to boost the damage
Relying on UMD will get expensive in a hurry, especially if you're expecting your Familiar to do the same. Alchemist's Fire won't do much even with a d6 of sneak attack added. Even if you're allowed to pump all your IP into the hit, a Rogue will generally have about as many d6's to toss out, and can do it on more than one attack each fight.


a rogue can't use craft alchemy
a rogue can't get a familiar
a rogue can't use Iaijutsu focus (which is more useful than sneak attack as it works against anything)
he also has less hit points, worst weapons and generally less options than the dumb factotum
A Rogue with a one level dip in a caster class can copy all of your best moves. A Rogue/caster/Unseen Seer will do so while also having substantially better magic than you. The worst part, though? The part that I think kills the idea? You haven't gotten anything out if it. Your Str, Dex, and Con scores are still kind of low, you haven't come up with any new offensive tricks, and the one, petty, marginally benefit, higher Cha rolls, can be replicated with a single feat (Nymph's Kiss) or a cheap magic item (Circlet of Persuasion).

I mean, I admit that you're right that the class functions without much Int, I just don't think it functions well enough to be worth it. If you can come up with a trick that a high- to moderate-Int Factotum can't do better, then I'll be impressed.

[eggynack]

a rogue can't use Iaijutsu focus (which is more useful than sneak attack as it works against anything)
Rogues can make sneak attack work on pretty much everything, and it's significantly easier to trigger. And they can use it more than once a round without the use of feats or other resources. Iajatsu focus is great, particularly because it's low cost relative to sneak attack kinda eating major class feature slots, but I'm pretty sure that a character would trade access to iajatsu focus, even with the points to fuel it granted, for sneak attack progression, any day of the week.

[prufock]

In addition, you remove the bonus of Brains over Brawn, which is one of the Factotum's best bonuses to skill checks. In fact, if you have an int penalty, it will work against it since it applies automatically without inspiration. You also can't use Cunning Defense, so what are you left with?
Actually, check that reading again; it has the opposite wording of cunning insight. You get your bonus as a modifier. If you don't have a bonus, the ability doesn't apply.


At any rate, nothing says that you require a certain INT rating to cast the spells on the Factotum's description, although you might want to double check the rules on spellcasting in general to see if that's allowed.
He's using spell like abilities, not spells; they don't have the usual 10+modifier requirement. Same applies to warlocks using invocations.


One last thing that hasn't come up so far (I think) is that you no longer qualify for the Font of Inspiration feat, which is an absolutely fantastic feat that is the only Factotum exclusive feat.
It was mentioned ;)


You could still play the Factotum, sure, but why? It's like playing a Paladin with 8 charisma, or a Barbarian with 8 constitution, or a Bard with 8 charisma. Why would you want to? Are you trying to make a point?
It's interesting as a theoretical challenge, but I'm not sure it's something I'd want to actually play.


Craft is a class skill for rogues, why wouldn't they be able to use Craft (Alchemy)?
Craft (alchemy) requires that you be a spellcaster; however, this means factotums don't qualify either, as they use spell-like abilities, not spells.

[bean illus]

How does Int help PA? Or is that just with cunning insight and then PA? (i guess that's what you mean.)

I hadn't thought of that gimmick, but a facto could be a two handed power attacker? 14, 14, 14, - 16, 10, 10.

[Grod_The_Giant]

How does Int help PA? Or is that just with cunning insight and then PA? (i guess that's what you mean.)

I hadn't thought of that gimmick, but a facto could be a two handed power attacker? 14, 14, 14, - 16, 10, 10.
Pretty much, yeah. The boost from Cunning Insight goes a long way towards making up for your lower BAB, at least in terms of to-hit. One IP for, effectively, 2 or 3*Int to damage a bad deal, especially since you can combine it with Improved Trip and Alter Self/Polymorphing into a bigger, stronger form.

[Soranar]

I mean, I admit that you're right that the class functions without much Int, I just don't think it functions well enough to be worth it. If you can come up with a trick that a high- to moderate-Int Factotum can't do better, then I'll be impressed.

Now that is a challenge. Find one thing a dumb Factotum can do better than a smart one. How about battlefield control?

Race: Mongrelfolk
Template: dragonborn of bahamut (heart aspect)

now combine this with entangling exhalation and maybe a few metabreath feats

STATS (28 pts buy)

STR 14
DEX 6 (dumped, not that useful to you)
CON 24 (Main STAT, gets every increase)
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 4 (dumped, this guy is not your party face nor does he use UMD, that's what his familiar is for)

What this guy does: entangle opponents with his breath weapon. The save DC should be shy high with 24 CON. Use a reach weapon to threaten more squares so you can get extra attacks somehow.

You should still get a familiar to use all those nice skills you have (like UMD). If being exalted is too cheesy for your taste there are other improved familiars that are still definitely worth it and with your incredible health they would be quite hard to kill.

Your main combat form at higher level is going to be a hydra anyway so your other physical STATS don't matter but that extra HP is sure to help. Except for a mongrelfolk, I can't think of anything with as much CON as that race

[bean illus]

Pretty much, yeah. The boost from Cunning Insight goes a long way towards making up for your lower BAB, at least in terms of to-hit. One IP for, effectively, 2 or 3*Int to damage a bad deal, especially since you can combine it with Improved Trip and Alter Self/Polymorphing into a bigger, stronger form.

Can you throw together a quick build stub for that? or a small feat list? ............and WOW that's a one level dip!

[Stealth Marmot]

Pretty much, yeah. The boost from Cunning Insight goes a long way towards making up for your lower BAB, at least in terms of to-hit. One IP for, effectively, 2 or 3*Int to damage a bad deal, especially since you can combine it with Improved Trip and Alter Self/Polymorphing into a bigger, stronger form.

I have mentioned my current Factotum that I rolled up took Combat Expertise and Improved trip, and will use Enlarge person as a first level spell. We start at level 3, and due to his 16 str (18 after enlarge), 18 int, feat and enlarge person, he will get a +16 on his strength roll to trip someone, and get a free melee attack on the now prone person if it succeeds. At level 3.