Factotum Inspiration

[BananaNomNom]

As some of you may know the feat fonts of inspiration gives you a additional point of inspiration but also has the special of

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.

How does this ramp up?

[nyjastul69]

The first feat gives you one IP. The second feat gives you 2 IP. The third... (6 now) Yup. The better question is are these points permanent. They likely are, and should be.

[BananaNomNom]

i see i was just not reading it correctly.

[nyjastul69]

i see i was just not reading it correctly.

You are I think. 1+2+3=6 IP's after 3 iterations of the feat. That seems to be the most common interpretation. Ask your DM to be sure though.

[Psyren]

The better question is are these points permanent. They likely are, and should be.

Why wouldn't they be? After you use them, you still have the feat, so you still have the benefit. You might have to wait until the next encounter for them to refill, but refill they would.

[Beheld]

Why wouldn't they be? After you use them, you still have the feat, so you still have the benefit. You might have to wait until the next encounter for them to refill, but refill they would.

Because the feat gave you the benefit of having gaining inspiration points, not of having a higher amount of inspiration points that you gain at the start of an encounter.

It's just one of the many ways FoI is terribly written, and one of the many many many ways the Factotum is terribly written.

[nyjastul69]

Why wouldn't they be? After you use them, you still have the feat, so you still have the benefit. You might have to wait until the next encounter for them to refill, but refill they would.

I think they are. I've just heard that type of argument. You take the feat. You get the IP's. Nothing says they regenerate. I think that's the argument. I absolutely love this class. I've had more fun playing a factotum than any other class. It's just so poorly written. It's a shame really.

[Beheld]

I think they are. I've just heard that type of argument. You take the feat. You get the IP's. Nothing says they regenerate. I think that's the argument. I absolutely love this class. I've had more fun playing a factotum than any other class. It's just so poorly written. It's a shame really.

I think the point is that by RAW, the words of the feat (gains IP) is literally the same way that the Factotum actually functions (when an encounter starts it gains IP) so presumably since you don't gain twice the amount in the table in your second encounter because in the past you gained IP, it wouldn't function that way for the feat either, so the feat has no effect on future instances in which you gain IP.

A way of writing it that is compatible with the Factotum's actual refresh would be "each time you gain IP, you gain one more, 3 more, 6 more, ect." or "one more, two more, 3 more" OR you could write it as "When you take this feat, treat the amount in table X-Y as if it is 1 more, 3 more, ect. than it is for a Factotum of your level."

Not that any of that matters, because no one in their right mind should ever play with the actual factotum rules for gaining IP in the first place, since it doesn't refresh, you gain it. So Factotums can be running around with 50k IP if they just got into a lot of encounters and didn't use all their IP.

Basically, everyone should keep doing what they have been doing all along which is, if for some reason you are playing with a Factotum, read all the rules once. Wait 20 minutes. Write down what you think the rules are after your brain has had time to paper over all the various huge flaws. Play with those rules and never ever read the actual rules again because they have nothing to offer you.

[Mato]

That seems to be the most common interpretation.That's because any correction to a reading that comes across like a nerf isn't received well.

The rules are

Benefit
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. 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.So the first foi wouldn't stack with the second.


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.
Each time you take foi the points you gain are increased by 1 and taking it twice give you a gain of 2 points. Devil's advocate's like to say the text is ambiguous enough to suggest stacking, but it can also just as equally be said that it doesn't say that.

And if you look at other feats

You can gain Extra Turning multiple times. Its effects stack. Each time you take the feat, you can use each of your turning or rebuking abilities four additional times per day.

Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Spell Focus.

You get a +2 bonus on caster level checks (1d20 + caster level) made to overcome a creature’s spell resistance. This bonus stacks with the one from Spell Penetration.

You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including the one from Weapon Focus (see below).

You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on damage rolls, including the one from Weapon Specialization (see below).

A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.
You can prove foi does not have the clear text needed to claim it stacks with it's self.

I'd like to take this time to link you all to a video worth watching. While the title suggests its about racism, it's actually about how a lier discredited among his peers was able to create a long lasting falsehood that many people believed in simply because they have heard the same unsupported opinion many times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzbJn2UAoIs
Read the rules and ask your DM.
Then, and only after that, should you take it to a forum for discussion.
For an example on why, you only need to look at how quickly this thread devolved into discussing if the feat awards a one time benefit according to the "raw" of the feat and combine that with the history of this feat being called stacking even through according to "raw" it doesn't stack. The normal discussions on this are rarely helpful and only serve to waste your time as several people come in to push their personal agendas.

[P.F.]

Upon close reading I have to agree that the net effect of taking the feat 5 times would be ... gain 5 inspiration points.

It doesn't help that it was written in such a way that a first reading seems to suggest a pyramidal increase, or that the example doesn't entirely dispel this interpretation.

I've not played the class so I can't really judge how debilitating/ gamebreakingly overpowered the alternate interpretations are, but isn't this the ability which allows extra actions à la haste 3.0?

[Venger]

Specific trumps general. FoI says you can take it more than once, so you can take it more than once. The text says "you gain 2 points" upon taking it the second time. If you only gained 1, it would say "you gain 1" or "you gain a total of 2." FoI works by giving you 1 the first time, 2 the second, 3 the third, and so on. If you can't take it more than once, what's the part about you being capped at taking it int bonus times referring to?


Upon close reading I have to agree that the net effect of taking the feat 5 times would be ... gain 5 inspiration points.

It doesn't help that it was written in such a way that a first reading seems suggest a pyramidal increase, or that the example doesn't entirely dispel this interpretation.

I've not played the class so I can't really judge how debilitating/ gamebreakingly overpowered the alternate interpretations are, but isn't this the ability which allows extra actions à la haste 3.0?

No, if you take it 5 times, you gain 15 IP. you don't need that many and should spread your feats out a little.

I've played the class for many years. Without foi, factotum really doesn't have enough inspiration points, much like meldshaping classes and essentia. Cunning surge will allow an extra standard, but it costs 3 of your inspiration points.

[Beheld]

Specific trumps general. FoI says you can take it more than once, so you can take it more than once. The text says "you gain 2 points" upon taking it the second time. If you only gained 1, it would say "you gain 1" or "you gain a total of 2." FoI works by giving you 1 the first time, 2 the second, 3 the third, and so on. If you can't take it more than once, what's the part about you being capped at taking it int bonus times referring to?

His argument is very specifically that when you you take it the second time, you gain 2 ISP from the second feat, but it doesn't stack with the first feat, because the rules say that feats don't stack, and the FoI feat doesn't say it does stack unlike all the other feats that stack. You can disagree, but you should address his actual argument.

[P.F.]

Specific trumps general. FoI says you can take it more than once, so you can take it more than once. The text says "you gain 2 points" upon taking it the second time. If you only gained 1, it would say "you gain 1" or "you gain a total of 2."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it were meant to snowball, it would say "you gain a total of 3," etc.


I've played the class for many years. Without foi, factotum really doesn't have enough inspiration points, much like meldshaping classes and essentia. Cunning surge will allow an extra standard, but it costs 3 of your inspiration points.

In any case, playability trumps pedantry, which is why we can also safely ignore arguments that, like toughness, it provides a one-time benefit without raising your maximum.

[AnachroNinja]

Leaving aside whether it's overpowered, underpowered, or just right, it's always bothered me that the immediate assumption that the feat functions in such a way that it quickly provides more IP then the class itself does. Now maybe that was a deliberate attempt to fix the class, that is possible I guess, but it just doesn't feel right.

It's like if the psionic feat for extra PP stacked multiplicatively until you were getting 300pp the fifth time you took the feat. Yah, you invested a lot of feats into that, but completely overshadowing the classes natural progression just seems ridiculous.

That said, just by the text I have to agree with the "overlaps each time you take the feat" interpretation.

[Venger]

His argument is very specifically that when you you take it the second time, you gain 2 ISP from the second feat, but it doesn't stack with the first feat, because the rules say that feats don't stack, and the FoI feat doesn't say it does stack unlike all the other feats that stack. You can disagree, but you should address his actual argument.

Do you mean it "overlaps" (when you take it time 2, you get 2 points, erasing your earlier 1 point, time 3 3 points and so on) I didn't get that from his post.


Leaving aside whether it's overpowered, underpowered, or just right, it's always bothered me that the immediate assumption that the feat functions in such a way that it quickly provides more IP then the class itself does. Now maybe that was a deliberate attempt to fix the class, that is possible I guess, but it just doesn't feel right.

It's like if the psionic feat for extra PP stacked multiplicatively until you were getting 300pp the fifth time you took the feat. Yah, you invested a lot of feats into that, but completely overshadowing the classes natural progression just seems ridiculous.

That said, just by the text I have to agree with the "overlaps each time you take the feat" interpretation.

Well, it provides inspiration points, yes, but it does so at the cost of your feats, which you could be using on more important stuff like imp trip or mindsight or what have you.

[Cosi]

Specific trumps general. FoI says you can take it more than once, so you can take it more than once. The text says "you gain 2 points" upon taking it the second time. If you only gained 1, it would say "you gain 1" or "you gain a total of 2." FoI works by giving you 1 the first time, 2 the second, 3 the third, and so on.

Why wouldn't it say "you gain a total of 3" or "you gain 2 additional" if it works as you claim? "You gain 2" is ambiguous, which is the entire point.


I've played the class for many years. Without foi, factotum really doesn't have enough inspiration points, much like meldshaping classes and essentia. Cunning surge will allow an extra standard, but it costs 3 of your inspiration points.

This doesn't seem super relevant. The fact that the class sucks if the feat is not ruled in your favor doesn't influence what the feat means. It might imply that we should houserule things, but it doesn't mean anything in a RAW context.

[Venger]

Why wouldn't it say "you gain a total of 3" or "you gain 2 additional" if it works as you claim? "You gain 2" is ambiguous, which is the entire point.

This doesn't seem super relevant. The fact that the class sucks if the feat is not ruled in your favor doesn't influence what the feat means. It might imply that we should houserule things, but it doesn't mean anything in a RAW context.

Ok, then why wouldn't it say "they overlap" if it overlapped? You can't say the text is ambiguous and then also say it unilaterally blocks one reading of the feat.

He asked "how does using pyramidal foi work regarding game balance" so I told him. Seems relevant to me.

[Cosi]

Ok, then why wouldn't it say "they overlap" if it overlapped? You can't say the text is ambiguous and then also say it unilaterally blocks one reading of the feat.

Sure. I'm not saying it definitively doesn't work as it is usually interpreted, just that it doesn't definitively work that way. The feat lacks any clarifying text in either direction.

[Venger]

Sure. I'm not saying it definitively doesn't work as it is usually interpreted, just that it doesn't definitively work that way. The feat lacks any clarifying text in either direction.

That seems fair. While factotum is by far my favorite base class, I can't possibly argue that it isn't poorly written. I mean, a decade after the fact, I'm running into two completely different readings of foi I've never even heard of before.

[Stealth Marmot]

That seems fair. While factotum is by far my favorite base class, I can't possibly argue that it isn't poorly written. I mean, a decade after the fact, I'm running into two completely different readings of foi I've never even heard of before.

I'm actually writing up a revamp of the class that involves rewriting the feat.

Edit: By the way, anyone else wish that since the Forums are run by one of the authors he would comment on it? I know he doesn't OWE us anything, but I really wish he would.

[Cosi]

Edit: By the way, anyone else wish that since the Forums are run by one of the authors he would comment on it? I know he doesn't OWE us anything, but I really wish he would.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Rich wrote Font of Inspiration, which is the primary object of controversy here. Unless he has some information we don't about what its author intended, I don't know that he's necessarily a definitive source on what the feat is supposed to mean.

[Venger]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Rich wrote Font of Inspiration, which is the primary object of controversy here. Unless he has some information we don't about what its author intended, I don't know that he's necessarily a definitive source on what the feat is supposed to mean.

Rich did work on dungeonscape, which I assume is what he's referring to.

[Cosi]

Rich did work on dungeonscape, which I assume is what he's referring to.

Sure, and I would consider Rich to be a reasonable authority on questions about the Factotum class itself (for example "how the hell does IP refresh work" or "what is the action type of Cunning Surge"). But as he did not, to my knowledge, have any hand in Font of Inspiration, I don't think his opinion on its stacking is particularly more authoritative than any other person's (with the obvious exception of whoever wrote the feat).

[Venger]

I'm actually writing up a revamp of the class that involves rewriting the feat.

Edit: By the way, anyone else wish that since the Forums are run by one of the authors he would comment on it? I know he doesn't OWE us anything, but I really wish he would.


Sure, and I would consider Rich to be a reasonable authority on questions about the Factotum class itself (for example "how the hell does IP refresh work" or "what is the action type of Cunning Surge"). But as he did not, to my knowledge, have any hand in Font of Inspiration, I don't think his opinion on its stacking is particularly more authoritative than any other person's (with the obvious exception of whoever wrote the feat).

I'm a little in the dark as to the confusion regarding IP point refresh. They replenish at the beginning of the next encounter.

When you're in a non-combat scenario, 1 minute is the same as an encounter as we know from the section on skilltricks in complete scoundrel.

cunning surge, in absence of verbiage otherwise, is very technically a standard. since that would mean the ability literally does nothing but waste 3 IP, I've never seen anyone rule it that way, and I've always seen it treated as a free.

if we're opening cans of worms though, let's argue about cunning strike. does it:
1) give 1d6 if you spend 1 period full stop
2) give SA equal to a rogue of your factotum level for 1 IP
3) give 1d6 per 1 IP spent
4) some fourth thing

also what kind of action is it?

I wish they'd specified which kind of action all the cunning x were. some of them specify, but some don't.


While I will not in any way posit that this is actual RAW, an extremely common houserule I've seen regarding cunning surge also limits it to one additional action a turn. I don't think this has a RAW leg to stand on, but I support it from a metagame perspective (so the factotum player's turn doesn't take 5 minutes) and also from a balance/design perspective (like the rule for manifesters about not being able to spend more than your ML on a power, this would prevent you from novaing too hard and screwing yourself by not having any IP left for later.

I don't think he did either.

That said, like the famous hexblade fix, it still might be interesting to have his opinion. Even if it's not RAW, it may provide guidance as to how people want to houserule factota in their own games.

[AnachroNinja]

Ok, then why wouldn't it say "they overlap" if it overlapped? You can't say the text is ambiguous and then also say it unilaterally blocks one reading of the feat.

He asked "how does using pyramidal foi work regarding game balance" so I told him. Seems relevant to me.

Probably because the general rules for feats say they overlap. It's only necessary to specify something when it works differently then the standard rules indicate. Just my take on it.

[Cosi]

I'm a little in the dark as to the confusion regarding IP point refresh. They replenish at the beginning of the next encounter.

They don't "refresh". You gain a whole new pile. Meaning that if you end encounters with IP left over, your IP rapidly climb to infinity. Also, "encounter" is not a defined game term, and is easily abusable by e.g. Bag of Rats type tactics.

[Venger]

They don't "refresh". You gain a whole new pile. Meaning that if you end encounters with IP left over, your IP rapidly climb to infinity. Also, "encounter" is not a defined game term, and is easily abusable by e.g. Bag of Rats type tactics.

Oh, I see. I'd never run into confusion on that point before. If, say, your pool is 10, and you use up 6 points during encounter A, leaving you with 4, you get 10 at the beginning of encounter B. I'd never heard anyone try to argue you'd be left with 14 at the beginning of encounter B.

While out of game time is covered by csco, I'll agree "encounter" isn't really defined, especially for non-combat ones.

[Cosi]

Oh, I see. I'd never run into confusion on that point before. If, say, your pool is 10, and you use up 6 points during encounter A, leaving you with 4, you get 10 at the beginning of encounter B. I'd never heard anyone try to argue you'd be left with 14 at the beginning of encounter B.

As Beheld mentions, that's because people mostly don't run Factotums by RAW, because by RAW it's an incoherent mess that is only saved from being game destroying by how terrible it is.

[Beheld]

Oh, I see. I'd never run into confusion on that point before. If, say, your pool is 10, and you use up 6 points during encounter A, leaving you with 4, you get 10 at the beginning of encounter B. I'd never heard anyone try to argue you'd be left with 14 at the beginning of encounter B.

It's very common for people to realize that you should never ever ever ever ever play the game with the factotum the way it is written. And some people consciously or not choose to therefore immediately houserule it in their head to be the not stupid way of playing, and then move on. But yeah, the rule totally just says you gain IP, and there is no maximum. Just one of the many many ways the Factotum is poorly written.

[Stealth Marmot]

I have revamped the class with my own creations here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520387-Factotum-Remastered-New-Feats-and-adapted-class-abilities&p=21882014).

Feel free to comment and consider using it.