Most Well Designed Classes in 3.5? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Zombulian

2018-04-27, 06:05 PM

I agree with the spirit of a T3-centric definition for class balance.

Sure, you can up the difficulty / deadliness to "compensate" for T1 characters, but at some point you're just playing rocket tag -- lose initiative, lose your character. At that point, you stop voluntarily interacting with the game, and start "winning" by forcing more & more parts of the game to just not apply to your character. That's interesting as a forum-based thought exercise, but I find that it's dull at the table.

-- -- --

In addition to the classes listed so far, I'd add Tome of Magic's Binder and Complete Adventurer's Scout as well-balanced in the context of a T3-T4 party.

I think this is an excellent point. Part of balance and design is understanding that we are playing a game and games are only fun if there's a possibility of failure - extra points if that failure doesn't just mean "you die" like at the far end of optimization.

I love Beguiler as a class. Rogue is decent enough, and I always felt that Dragonfire Adept was pretty well designed when metabreath feats are taken into account.

Is it though?
I was going to compare it to Factotum and realized that I haven't listed that class yet. I think that may be worth a mention as well.

No one mentioned the Binder? Are they not thought well of anymore?

Good point!

Shugenja. Ok, here me out. They aren't well designed; understanding what orders they're restricted to (or aren't) is a pain and their one unique class feature is near useless. However, regardless of how their potential order list is interpreted, they can do several different jobs depending on how you want to specialize. If we take T3 as an ideal balance point, they're more versatile than a Warmage or Duskblade and have full 9th level casting. However, their limited list means they can't reach the absurd points a Sorcerer or even Beguiler could. In this case, I think the lack of support is a benefit: they have nothing that could be misconstrued as game breaking on their lists. They can be built as blasters, magic scouts, buffers, diviners, healers, anti-mages etc. but not all at once. A well-built Shugenja will probably be more powerful than a Bard, but not as good outside its chosen niche. I think that makes it pretty balanced. But again, not well-designed. An editor really needed to ask for a rewrite on that whole "which orders you're allowed to select" section.

Hm. I was fully prepared to thrash you when I read the first sentence, but you make a decent point.

Troacctid

2018-04-27, 06:20 PM

Do you then think that Beguiler is not a well designed class?
Not rhetorical or accusative btw. Just curious.
I like the class. It definitely achieves its design goals. But it also steps on a lot of toes in the process. I would consider something like Psychic Rogue to be better designed, for example.

No one mentioned the Binder? Are they not thought well of anymore?
Ehhh, the concept is cool, but I'm not crazy about the execution. It has complexity and confusion issues, IMO.

Goaty14

2018-04-27, 07:38 PM

I was going to compare it to Factotum and realized that I haven't listed that class yet. I think that may be worth a mention as well.

Though doesn't a Factotum have to spend ~3 feats on FoI to be decent? Sure, feat taxes exist, but you'd only expect 1 or 2... I don't have anything to add myself.

Nifft

2018-04-27, 08:11 PM

In addition to the classes listed so far, I'd add Tome of Magic's Binder and (...)

No one mentioned the Binder? Are they not thought well of anymore? Well there was that one guy...

I was going to compare it to Factotum and realized that I haven't listed that class yet. I think that may be worth a mention as well.

IMHO the Factotum is not a good class. Its utility seems to depend on how well you can coerce the DM to allow stuff from other settings (e.g. Iaijutsu Focus) and to let you shop at WBL-Mart for partially-charged wands.

Rogue also benefits from UMD shenanigans, as do Bard and Beguiler, but those classes can contribute to a T3 party without touching UMD.

IMXP, Factotum looks a lot better on paper than it does in play.

Deophaun

2018-04-27, 08:19 PM

Kinda tough to say that a class that gets death ward twice is well designed, but perhaps that's being too nit-picky for this discussion.

Rogue also benefits from UMD shenanigans, as do Bard and Beguiler, but those classes can contribute to a T3 party without touching UMD.
UMD with Beguilers and Dread Necros can turn them Tier 2 easy, as they have the capacity add any spell to their limited lists through that. Rogues are still stuck with wands and scrolls.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-27, 08:37 PM

Well there was that one guy...

IMHO the Factotum is not a good class. Its utility seems to depend on how well you can coerce the DM to allow stuff from other settings (e.g. Iaijutsu Focus) and to let you shop at WBL-Mart for partially-charged wands.

Rogue also benefits from UMD shenanigans, as do Bard and Beguiler, but those classes can contribute to a T3 party without touching UMD.

IMXP, Factotum looks a lot better on paper than it does in play.

I don't know if I'd go as far as bad but it's definitely a hard-mode class. Really gotta leverage WBL and the limitations on the factotum class features. Iaijutsu is an optimization red-herring. It does what it was intended to do well enough but that thing isn't "provide constant, level appropriate damage" and never was.

For good design, I really like the incarnate. Its modular nature makes fulfilling its skill-based character role much more fluid than a factotum or rogue could ever hope to do so and the array of abilities soulmelds can grant make sure that he's almost never without something useful, especially once you get rapid meldshaping.

I won't speak to balance because the phrase "X is balanced" is meaningless without defining what X is balanced against.

Quertus

2018-04-27, 10:49 PM

What do you guys think are the most well designed/balanced classes in 3.5?

So, obviously, I'm going to hold an insane, WTF opinion. Which one? Hmmm.. Wizards are the only most balanced class.

Why? Because balance is only important relative to the party. Wizards have the largest possible range of power levels. Therefore, Wizards are the most able to be built to be balanced to the party.

As to well designed... Crusader wins, IMO. It is hard to mess up, and has the versatility and utility to be useful in most situations.

Compare that to, say, a Beguiler. One very focused shtick. Far too easy for the GM / module to take a **** on that, and you just sit there twiddling your thumbs, wishing you had taken levels in something useful, like Expert.

Part of balance and design is understanding that we are playing a game and games are only fun if there's a possibility of failure - extra points if that failure doesn't just mean "you die"

So, my Wizard's Astral Projection doesn't die when I fail; I just come back tomorrow. Or, similar thing with Contingency.

So, how can non-Wizards fail gracefully? :smallconfused:

georgie_leech

2018-04-27, 11:05 PM

I love Beguiler as a class. Rogue is decent enough, and I always felt that Dragonfire Adept was pretty well designed when metabreath feats are taken into account.

I dunno of I'd call Rogue especially well designed. Most early classes didn't have much of a capstone, but I really feel like a well designed class needs some other level 20 feature than ERR:CAPSTONE_NOT_FOUND; RETURN VALUE: BAB+, REF+

magicalmagicman

2018-04-27, 11:10 PM

Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Artificer

It's not the class. It's the spells, feats, and PrCs.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-28, 12:09 AM

Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Artificer

It's not the class. It's the spells, feats, and PrCs.

You -might- have had something with druid if not for wild shape but the rest of them -are- the spells they pick. Artificer in particular is nearly everything in one class.

Absent the spells, they swing too far the other way in that they are basically nothing.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-28, 12:12 AM

IMHO the Factotum is not a good class. Its utility seems to depend on how well you can coerce the DM to allow stuff from other settings (e.g. Iaijutsu Focus) and to let you shop at WBL-Mart for partially-charged wands.

Rogue also benefits from UMD shenanigans, as do Bard and Beguiler, but those classes can contribute to a T3 party without touching UMD.

IMXP, Factotum looks a lot better on paper than it does in play.

Most people who think the Factotum is underpowered just lack imagination.

In combat:
-Using the Sniper's Shot spell, along with Cunning Strike and either a quality bow or touch spell (like the Acid Splash cantrip) you can assassinate targets from a distance before combat starts.
-Using Never Outnumbered combined with Cunning Surge to drop a Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fear.htm) spell allows you to instantly panic a number of targets without a save. Combined with Imperious Command, they will cower for the first round.
-Preparing Heroics allows you to pick up any fighter feat for 10 minutes/level, like the next rank of Two-Weapon Fighting for Dex based Factotums. The far more powerful Mirror Move (https://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20000901a) will turn you into the party's front-liner
-Brains Over Brawn functions on the majority of useful combat maneuvers, like trip and disarm, and on the various Setting Sun throws. Cunning Brilliance can give you the maneuver selection of a 15th level martial adept. Or you can drop the pretense and use Polymorph to assume any of the usual forms (hydra, etc.) or Tenser's Transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) to play as a BSF for a little while.
-As an arcane spellcaster, you have access to eternal wands. Additionally, during off-days you can prepare several rings of spell-storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) with useful utility spells to pull out and cast as needed.

Out of combat:
With only a single rank, and use of Cunning Knowledge, a straight-classed Factotum can do any function of any skill required of him.
-Forgery is the obvious suspect. With 1 rank and Cunning Knowledge, you can whip up nearly anything. And it is opposed by another Forgery check, which not a lot of NPC's have.
-Opportunistic Piety, plus a rank or two in Perform (strings) allows you to utilize a Lyre of the Restful Soul and a Rod of Defiance from Libris Mortis for an effective -8 to any undeads turn resistance. And there's always fun to be had with a Lyre of Building (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#lyreofBuilding)
-Cunning Knowledge and Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm) allows you to create pretty much anything you might need.
-Minor Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/minorCreation.htm) gets you Black Lotus Extract by the bucket. The Master of Poisons feat gives you Poison Use, as well as the ability to apply them to your weapon as a swift action.

None of this approaches the raw, consistent damage of Iaijutsu Focus, but a Factotum's job was never intended to be killing things. He was the person who specialized in carrying silver bullets for any situation. It's not a class for beginners. You are essentially playing a wizard, but without the wizard's biggest advantages. When utilized properly, there is no situation they cannot handle.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-28, 12:24 AM

-snip-

Not sure where you're getting the idea that factota count as arcane casters. SLAs are generally considered neither unless otherwise noted. I can see why you'd assume as much but arcane dilettante doesn't actually say you cast the SLAs as arcane ones.

n00b17

2018-04-28, 12:45 AM

Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Artificer

It's not the class. It's the spells, feats, and PrCs.

I really don't feel artificer is well designed, even excluding the ways you can break it. It's way too dependent on both downtime and WBL. As for the ways you can break it, none of those were really unintentional uses. You can boost the hell out of wands with meta magic feats doing exactly what the writers intended with zero splat diving. I'd call that a broken class feature. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a magical crafter and I look for it in every game I play, but the implementation really doesn't fit with 3.5's crafting mechanics and resource management focus.

Plus, druid has a pretty limited spell list and still manages to be OP out of the box.

Tvtyrant

2018-04-28, 02:49 AM

Warlock, DFA, Warblade, Crusader, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Spirit Shaman all stand out.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-28, 03:07 AM

I dunno of I'd call Rogue especially well designed. Most early classes didn't have much of a capstone, but I really feel like a well designed class needs some other level 20 feature than ERR:CAPSTONE_NOT_FOUND; RETURN VALUE: BAB+, REF+
I don't see how balance has anything to do with capstones. Only a tiny percentage of campaigns ever get close to level 20, so what a class does at level 20 is important only on paper.

I second Warlock and Warmage as being well-designed. Regarding the Rogue, if using the version from Pathfinder it becomes very solid (its class features give it dex-to-damage, sneak attack on undead and plants, and debuffs on a hit).

noce

2018-04-28, 03:25 AM

A well balanced but poorly designed class is the Lurk. It is a capable fighter, a capable scout, a capable utility manifester, and has a strong and flavourful shtick (augments). The poor design is that the shtick depends too heavily on class levels, so you must be almost pure class. This is the same problem of another, similarly well balanced, similarly poorly designed class, the spellthief.

I second the spirit shaman on being both well designed and balanced. Compared to druid, it lacks animal companion and wildshape, and relies on two casting stats. Its casting mechanic is both crippling and interesting, and I like when choices are hard. Notable is the fact that it is a spontaneous caster without delayed spell access. Its class features are interesting but don't bound you to the class, allowing multiclassing.
All in all, maybe the class could break the game, but they did a much more balanced and much more interesting class than the druid.

TalonOfAnathrax

2018-04-28, 03:27 AM

On second thought, Rogue isn't that well-designed. It definitely has a bunch of trap options/feats out there, even in Core. And if built badly a guy with a greatsword often does more damage than they can even from sneak attack unless they make sure to get lots of attacks and then somehow get them all to hit.

No, the best designed class is the Crusader! It really needs action cards to be convenient to play (but those were given free as a web enhancement) but once you have them it's great.

Nifft

2018-04-28, 03:51 AM

Most people who think the Factotum is underpowered just lack imagination. Huh, you're starting off with a group attack.

I guess the congruous reply would be: "This one guy who thinks the Factotum is powerful just lacks experience."

In combat:
-Using the Sniper's Shot spell, along with Cunning Strike and either a quality bow or touch spell (like the Acid Splash cantrip) you can assassinate targets from a distance before combat starts. You're wasting two of your once-per-day SLAs to put an "unlimited range sneak attack" effect on a 25 +5 ft./2 levels cantrip. If that came from a wand, it's 25 ft. flat. Then you spend all your remaining Inspiration points to ensure you have literally zero class features for the duration of the encounter, if you miss or you're facing more than one foe at a time, or your foe mysteriously survives 1d3 + 10d6 damage (the expected value of which is a whopping 36.5 points of damage, and gosh that's over half of Lolth's hit points in 1e -- but wait, we're playing 3.5e, and 37 hit points of damage actually isn't impressive at all).

Is that your plan? Blow all your Inspiration in an "alpha strike" which (at best) deals pathetic damage to a single target at short range?

-Using Never Outnumbered combined with Cunning Surge to drop a Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fear.htm) spell allows you to instantly panic a number of targets without a save. Combined with Imperious Command, they will cower for the first round. Imperious Command causes cowering for 1 round all by itself. It's a solid feat. Factotum gets zero credit for Imperious Command working as written.

Never Outnumbered is a skill trick that works in a 10 ft. radius, which is quite decent, but won't usually be large enough to end an encounter. You really want to be able to use it more than once per encounter, which you can do with various PrCs, but not with Factotum. Also, Factotum gets zero credit for Never Outnumbered working as written.

So what's the value of Factotum? Spending 5 inspiration points to cast fear, to induce panic for 1 round, when there are enemies that you didn't demoralize? The areas of effect are different (cone vs. 10 ft. radius burst), so there's no guarantee you will be able to target all relevant foes. The overlap zone is a 10 ft. cone, which is not sufficient to cover all opponents in most encounters. Factotum gets zero credit for failing to deliver "instant panic without a save".

... unless you're facing so few opponents that they all fit into a 10 ft. cone. That's ... three? Three tightly packed opponents. That's a smaller area than grease would have covered, and fear immunity / mind-affecting immunity are more common than flight / slip immunity.

-Preparing Heroics allows you to pick up any fighter feat for 10 minutes/level, like the next rank of Two-Weapon Fighting for Dex based Factotums. The far more powerful Mirror Move (https://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20000901a) will turn you into the party's front-liner Mirror Move will not turn you into a front-liner. In addition to feats, you'd need gear, stats, relevant class features, lots of hit points, and a certain je ne sais quois -- the Factotum lacks all of those.

If feats were enough to make a front-liner, then Fighter would be a good class. It's not. If you expend your limited pool of SLAs to emulate a Fighter for a few minutes, then at best you're losing.

Furthermore, you're only given the opportunity to lose in this way when there's already a fighter-type with all the feats you want. If you're fighting something that either lacks feats or made better choices in life, and you didn't bring your own fighter-type, you can't even use this tactic.

-Brains Over Brawn functions on the majority of useful combat maneuvers, like trip and disarm, and on the various Setting Sun throws. Cunning Brilliance can give you the maneuver selection of a 15th level martial adept. Or you can drop the pretense and use Polymorph to assume any of the usual forms (hydra, etc.) or Tenser's Transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) to play as a BSF for a little while. You're talking about a level 19 ability here. By level 19, a UMD Rogue can be expected to use polymorph -- except better, because the Rogue has class features which work on every attack. You really don't want to get flanked by a Rogue 10 Hydra. Compared to that, the Factotum is not powerful at all.

Or instead of a Rogue, how about a Totemist. That's a valid T3 front-liner. Then someone turns her into a Hydra, and now she's got 5 bite attacks -- each of which gets her Bite-enhancing soulmeld benefits (e.g. free Trip attack / Enhancement bonus to attack & damage / deal extra cold damage). What's the comparable value that the Factotum brings as a potential polymorph target?

The one accurate thing you've said so far is that Brains Over Brawn functions on useful combat maneuvers. Honestly, Brains Over Brawn is the major draw I can see for this class. It's functional as a defense, and it can extend the utility of Trip attacks up a whole size category, and it stacks with size categories.

Brains Over Brawn is a legit class feature.

-As an arcane spellcaster, you have access to eternal wands. Additionally, during off-days you can prepare several rings of spell-storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) with useful utility spells to pull out and cast as needed. Warlock Invocations are SLAs that do qualify for Arcane Spellcaster, because the Warlock's rules say they do. The Factotum lacks the relevant text.

Out of combat:
With only a single rank, and use of Cunning Knowledge, a straight-classed Factotum can do any function of any skill required of him.
-Forgery is the obvious suspect. With 1 rank and Cunning Knowledge, you can whip up nearly anything. And it is opposed by another Forgery check, which not a lot of NPC's have. Once per day per thing, you can do a thing.

Need to Bluff twice in one day? The first one works great! The second one, you're stuffed.

Need five ID papers for five PCs? The first one works great! The second one, you're stuffed.

Need to ascertain the honesty of NPCs? The first time you sense motive, it works great! The second time an NPCs either bluffs or does not bluff, you're stuffed.

Cunning Knowledge is very niche in actual play, and fails to "do any function of any skill required of him", because competent skill users tend to need more than one skill check per skill per day.

You know who makes one skill check per skill every day? Craftsmen NPCs. That's a solid Factotum career choice. Stay in the village and make some nice wooden chairs. That is a calling for which you can generate consistent success with that once-per-day-per-skill boost.

-Opportunistic Piety, plus a rank or two in Perform (strings) allows you to utilize a Lyre of the Restful Soul and a Rod of Defiance from Libris Mortis for an effective -8 to any undeads turn resistance. And there's always fun to be had with a Lyre of Building (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#lyreofBuilding) Lyre of Building sounds like a great item for that Craftsman NPC, and it's a great fit for the Factotum since its main combat power can only be used 1/day anyway. Oh but wait, you need to make multiple Perform checks to keep the non-combat effect going, and you can only guarantee one of those per day. Maybe it's not so great.

The other two items seem to be Turn Undead enhancers. Is your plan to use Turn Undead for undead turning? Turn Undead attempts are a great resource -- but they're great because usually you can expend them to fuel things which are better than undead turning.

-Cunning Knowledge and Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm) allows you to create pretty much anything you might need. ... if you're a Craftsman NPC, sure. Factotum seems solid in that role.

If you're an adventurer, you need things like a wall right there right now, because otherwise the water flooding in will drown us and the strange green rat skeletons will bite our soft fleshy bits.

Fabricate is a great spell for forum theory-crafting (literally), but it's not a primary solution to adventurer problems. It's not even a tertiary solution to adventurer problems.

-Minor Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/minorCreation.htm) gets you Black Lotus Extract by the bucket. The Master of Poisons feat gives you Poison Use, as well as the ability to apply them to your weapon as a swift action. Factotum gets no credit for whatever the feat does.

The spell can be replicated by a level 1 feat: Hidden Talent (psionic minor creation), but in practice nobody worries about buckets of Black Lotus swamping every game because in real games many DMs frown upon such shenanigans -- and, just in case it's not clear, that means the shenanigan often does not work.

Your big trick here seems to be that -- in the absence of a DM -- at 10th level you can pull an inferior version of a shenanigan which was available to everyone else at level 1.

None of this approaches the raw, consistent damage of Iaijutsu Focus, How are you getting consistent Iaijutsu Focus damage?

but a Factotum's job was never intended to be killing things. He was the person who specialized in carrying silver bullets for any situation. It's not a class for beginners. You are essentially playing a wizard, but without the wizard's biggest advantages. When utilized properly, there is no situation they cannot handle. He fails at being a silver bullet. You can't count on the Factotum succeeding in any non-trivial situation, and nobody sweats the trivial situations.

Factotum can pitch in a few times per day within a variety of roles, but the Factotum covers none of those roles. You can't rely on a Factotum as your party's (Face / BDF / Scout / BFC / Corpse / Buffer / Utility Caster / etc.). If you anticipate social situations, you need a face who can Bluff more than once, and who can Sense Motive more than once. If you anticipate an ambush, you need a scout who can make more than one Spot check. If you anticipate combat -- and you do -- you need a character who can participate for more than one round.

You can mitigate some of this with gear & feats, but note that you're spending resources to mitigate instead of to excel.

Warlock, DFA, Warblade, Crusader, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Spirit Shaman all stand out.

Ah, the balanced Druid. Good call.

I don't see how balance has anything to do with capstones. Only a tiny percentage of campaigns ever get close to level 20, so what a class does at level 20 is important only on paper.

I think for balance we should focus on:
- Playable from levels 3 to 15, with bonus points for working well above & below that range.
- Challenged by level-appropriate encounters.
- Maybe something about how many niche categories (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) each class can cover. (Maybe not those in specific, but something in that direction.)

georgie_leech

2018-04-28, 06:01 AM

I don't see how balance has anything to do with capstones. Only a tiny percentage of campaigns ever get close to level 20, so what a class does at level 20 is important only on paper.

Balance nothing, +1 BAB and Ref is boring. Paladins get another Smite, Casters get more spell slots... Heck, even the Fighter, blandest of the bland, at least gets another Feat :smallamused:

Cosi

2018-04-28, 09:30 AM

@Factotum: The Factotum is a bad class because whoever wrote it forgot to put an expiration time on their action points and/or forgot to put a cap on the number they can have at one time. Also the entire class is build to encourage dumpster diving to make up for the fact that your abilities are crap otherwise. With an actual caster, you can just cast good spells and be done with it. With a Factotum, you have to dig through every splat to get the best possible spell to be remotely useful.

@Balance: I don't understand what "tread on balance" could possibly mean in the context of D&D. There are barely enough classes at the same balance point in Core to put together an entire party (I think Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Druid works, and arguably Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian). Anyone who says that "Tier 3 is balanced" or "Duskblades are balanced" or "9th level casters aren't balanced" needs to define what "balanced" means in a non-circular way first.

Aside from all that, the class's most often-cited appeal (i.e. full attack channel) is much weaker in practice than on paper, and only appears at level thirteen (or well above where the average campaign ends).

Yes. The Duskblade should get channel on however many attacks she happens to have at first level. Yes that makes the class a very good dip for gish builds, but if you are going to have open multi-classing, you should damn well encourage people to openly multiclass.

Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Artificer

It's not the class. It's the spells, feats, and PrCs.

Agreed, except for Artificer. It's excessively complicated and encourages dumpster diving. Also it follows a weird power curve that leads people to overestimate how good it is.

No, the best designed class is the Crusader! It really needs action cards to be convenient to play (but those were given free as a web enhancement) but once you have them it's great.

I don't think any class whose non-combat abilities amount to "skills" and "hope breaking things is useful" counts as well-designed.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-28, 11:30 AM

Huh, you're starting off with a group attack.

I guess the congruous reply would be: "This one guy who thinks the Factotum is powerful just lacks experience."

You're wasting two of your once-per-day SLAs to put an "unlimited range sneak attack" effect on a 25 +5 ft./2 levels cantrip. If that came from a wand, it's 25 ft. flat. Then you spend all your remaining Inspiration points to ensure you have literally zero class features for the duration of the encounter, if you miss or you're facing more than one foe at a time, or your foe mysteriously survives 1d3 + 10d6 damage (the expected value of which is a whopping 36.5 points of damage, and gosh that's over half of Lolth's hit points in 1e -- but wait, we're playing 3.5e, and 37 hit points of damage actually isn't impressive at all).

Is that your plan? Blow all your Inspiration in an "alpha strike" which (at best) deals pathetic damage to a single target at short range?

Imperious Command causes cowering for 1 round all by itself. It's a solid feat. Factotum gets zero credit for Imperious Command working as written.

Never Outnumbered is a skill trick that works in a 10 ft. radius, which is quite decent, but won't usually be large enough to end an encounter. You really want to be able to use it more than once per encounter, which you can do with various PrCs, but not with Factotum. Also, Factotum gets zero credit for Never Outnumbered working as written.

So what's the value of Factotum? Spending 5 inspiration points to cast fear, to induce panic for 1 round, when there are enemies that you didn't demoralize? The areas of effect are different (cone vs. 10 ft. radius burst), so there's no guarantee you will be able to target all relevant foes. The overlap zone is a 10 ft. cone, which is not sufficient to cover all opponents in most encounters. Factotum gets zero credit for failing to deliver "instant panic without a save".

... unless you're facing so few opponents that they all fit into a 10 ft. cone. That's ... three? Three tightly packed opponents. That's a smaller area than grease would have covered, and fear immunity / mind-affecting immunity are more common than flight / slip immunity.

Mirror Move will not turn you into a front-liner. In addition to feats, you'd need gear, stats, relevant class features, lots of hit points, and a certain je ne sais quois -- the Factotum lacks all of those.

If feats were enough to make a front-liner, then Fighter would be a good class. It's not. If you expend your limited pool of SLAs to emulate a Fighter for a few minutes, then at best you're losing.

Furthermore, you're only given the opportunity to lose in this way when there's already a fighter-type with all the feats you want. If you're fighting something that either lacks feats or made better choices in life, and you didn't bring your own fighter-type, you can't even use this tactic.

You're talking about a level 19 ability here. By level 19, a UMD Rogue can be expected to use polymorph -- except better, because the Rogue has class features which work on every attack. You really don't want to get flanked by a Rogue 10 Hydra. Compared to that, the Factotum is not powerful at all.

Or instead of a Rogue, how about a Totemist. That's a valid T3 front-liner. Then someone turns her into a Hydra, and now she's got 5 bite attacks -- each of which gets her Bite-enhancing soulmeld benefits (e.g. free Trip attack / Enhancement bonus to attack & damage / deal extra cold damage). What's the comparable value that the Factotum brings as a potential polymorph target?

The one accurate thing you've said so far is that Brains Over Brawn functions on useful combat maneuvers. Honestly, Brains Over Brawn is the major draw I can see for this class. It's functional as a defense, and it can extend the utility of Trip attacks up a whole size category, and it stacks with size categories.

Brains Over Brawn is a legit class feature.

Warlock Invocations are SLAs that do qualify for Arcane Spellcaster, because the Warlock's rules say they do. The Factotum lacks the relevant text.

Once per day per thing, you can do a thing.

Need to Bluff twice in one day? The first one works great! The second one, you're stuffed.

Need five ID papers for five PCs? The first one works great! The second one, you're stuffed.

Need to ascertain the honesty of NPCs? The first time you sense motive, it works great! The second time an NPCs either bluffs or does not bluff, you're stuffed.

Cunning Knowledge is very niche in actual play, and fails to "do any function of any skill required of him", because competent skill users tend to need more than one skill check per skill per day.

You know who makes one skill check per skill every day? Craftsmen NPCs. That's a solid Factotum career choice. Stay in the village and make some nice wooden chairs. That is a calling for which you can generate consistent success with that once-per-day-per-skill boost.

Lyre of Building sounds like a great item for that Craftsman NPC, and it's a great fit for the Factotum since its main combat power can only be used 1/day anyway. Oh but wait, you need to make multiple Perform checks to keep the non-combat effect going, and you can only guarantee one of those per day. Maybe it's not so great.

The other two items seem to be Turn Undead enhancers. Is your plan to use Turn Undead for undead turning? Turn Undead attempts are a great resource -- but they're great because usually you can expend them to fuel things which are better than undead turning.

... if you're a Craftsman NPC, sure. Factotum seems solid in that role.

If you're an adventurer, you need things like a wall right there right now, because otherwise the water flooding in will drown us and the strange green rat skeletons will bite our soft fleshy bits.

Fabricate is a great spell for forum theory-crafting (literally), but it's not a primary solution to adventurer problems. It's not even a tertiary solution to adventurer problems.

Factotum gets no credit for whatever the feat does.

The spell can be replicated by a level 1 feat: Hidden Talent (psionic minor creation), but in practice nobody worries about buckets of Black Lotus swamping every game because in real games many DMs frown upon such shenanigans -- and, just in case it's not clear, that means the shenanigan often does not work.

Your big trick here seems to be that -- in the absence of a DM -- at 10th level you can pull an inferior version of a shenanigan which was available to everyone else at level 1.

How are you getting consistent Iaijutsu Focus damage?

He fails at being a silver bullet. You can't count on the Factotum succeeding in any non-trivial situation, and nobody sweats the trivial situations.

Factotum can pitch in a few times per day within a variety of roles, but the Factotum covers none of those roles. You can't rely on a Factotum as your party's (Face / BDF / Scout / BFC / Corpse / Buffer / Utility Caster / etc.). If you anticipate social situations, you need a face who can Bluff more than once, and who can Sense Motive more than once. If you anticipate an ambush, you need a scout who can make more than one Spot check. If you anticipate combat -- and you do -- you need a character who can participate for more than one round.

You can mitigate some of this with gear & feats, but note that you're spending resources to mitigate instead of to excel.

So in other words, you feel that the Factotum is guaranteed success when it counts only once per area of expertise per day (as opposed to any other person doing the same check, who will probably succeed, but has no way to guarantee success when they need it to count) but Tier 1 casters can do it all day so compared to them the Factotum sucks.

You must be new. It's pretty well known that everything else sucks when compared to Tier 1 casters. It's also true that if you know ahead of time what the exact limits of a character are and use that to set up specific scenarios in which they will fail, then they'll fail. It doesn't matter what the character can do when you have a vindictive DM who doesn't want them to succeed.

If you are putting only 1 rank in every single skill with your factotum you are doing it wrong. You place skills like you would for any other character. If you are doing a social character focus on social skills. If you are doing a sneaky scouty character pick sneaky scouty skills. Single ranks go into the niche abilities you only need to roll once. You never need to make more than one craft check per day (one check is a day's worth of work, remember?) You never need to make more than one forgery check at a time. (Who the **** forges five invitations? You make one for yourself and bring the party as your guests). You don't need more than one knowledge check when researching a particular subject. You never need more than one Gather information check (one check is 2 to 5 hours of game time). You only get one shot at Decipher Script. You know who I'm going to ask to do that one check? The guy who expends no resources and can't fail.

Lans

2018-04-28, 12:00 PM

Factotum gets access to down time and niche spells, possibly better than any one who isn't a tier 2+caster

Deophaun

2018-04-28, 12:31 PM

Factotums are good if you focus on ability damage as cunning insight will apply to things like shivering touch and ray of stupidity.

Single ranks go into the niche abilities you only need to roll once. You never need to make more than one craft check per day (one check is a day's worth of work, remember?)
There are degrees of success with crafting, with the option to add an arbitrary number of +10s to accelerate the speed. If you want to be any good at crafting, you're putting ranks into it. If not and you just want to make the DCs to clear base success (like for fabricate), having a high Int plus masterwork tools will likely get you there on a take 10. Cheap magical bonuses and/or aid another checks will get you the rest if not.

You don't need more than one knowledge check when researching a particular subject.
But you're going to when you are using it for it's primary function: identify the strengths and weaknesses of enemies. One rank doesn't cut it no matter how high your one/day boost is.

The rest are OK, however they're also reasonable to use with a scroll of divine insight or similar for the few times you do need them. Gather Information is pretty much the only one that might be used enough for that to be expensive.

Quertus

2018-04-28, 12:45 PM

A well balanced but poorly designed class is the Lurk. ... The poor design is that the shtick depends too heavily on class levels, so you must be almost pure class. This is the same problem of another, similarly well balanced, similarly poorly designed class, the spellthief.

Why do you consider dependence on class levels to be indicative of poor design?

In the translation from 3e to 3.5, a number of class features gained the "limited by class levels" text. Do you believe that 3.5 was a worse design than 3e?

No, the best designed class is the Crusader! It really needs action cards to be convenient to play (but those were given free as a web enhancement) but once you have them it's great.

I mean, I've used playing cards, dice - any number of things to track Crusader maneuvers. I don't consider it inconvenient to play without the (really cool) cards.

@Factotum: The Factotum is a bad class because whoever wrote it forgot to put an expiration time on their action points and/or forgot to put a cap on the number they can have at one time.

Can you explain that to someone not familiar with the class? It sounds like you said they, say, gain spell points every day, with no limit to max spell points.

Also the entire class is build to encourage dumpster diving to make up for the fact that your abilities are crap otherwise.

Agreed, except for Artificer. It's excessively complicated and encourages dumpster diving.

What's with the hate on classes that encourage dumpster diving?

Now, if you're trying to say that they require dumpster diving to hit an acceptable floor (for some definition of "acceptable"), then I can see the argument.

your abilities are crap otherwise. With an actual caster, you can just cast good spells and be done with it. With a Factotum, you have to dig through every splat to get the best possible spell to be remotely useful.

I... might be tempted to call this "well designed", actually. It's the class for players who get great joy out of dumpster diving for the character creation minigame, and who would be OP AF with a more traditional caster.

There are barely enough classes at the same balance point in Core to put together an entire party (I think Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Druid works, and arguably Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian). Anyone who says that "Tier 3 is balanced" or "Duskblades are balanced" or "9th level casters aren't balanced" needs to define what "balanced" means in a non-circular way first.

* Inserts obligatory "protect the poor casters from being outdone by martials" comment *

All classes have a range of possible build space. IMO, "well designed for balance" classes are those which have the broadest possible range, that can be most easily balanced to any group, any play style.

Agreed, except for Artificer. It's excessively complicated and encourages dumpster diving. Also it follows a weird power curve that leads people to overestimate how good it is.

Care to explain this one?

Nifft

2018-04-28, 02:02 PM

So in other words, you feel that Nah, all I did was point out a common flaw that permeated your examples. I just pointed out that your arguments were unsupported and the results you "guaranteed" were unsustainable.

You must be new. Hmm, let's fact-check that...
https://i.imgur.com/woix5Bj.png vs. https://i.imgur.com/bzb7AwZ.png

You are wrong, again.

It's pretty well known that everything else sucks when compared to Tier 1 casters. That's why I've been disproving your claims using T3 / T4 non-casters, classes like Rogue and Totemist.

It's also true that if you know ahead of time what the exact limits of a character are and use that to set up specific scenarios in which they will fail, then they'll fail. It doesn't matter what the character can do when you have a vindictive DM who doesn't want them to succeed. Your argument is that if you need to Bluff two whole times in one day then you have a vindictive DM who wants you to fail.

With only a single rank, and use of Cunning Knowledge, a straight-classed Factotum can do any function of any skill required of him.

If you are putting only 1 rank in every single skill with your factotum you are doing it wrong.

Actually that wasn't me, the person "doing it wrong" was you.

Factotum gets access to down time and niche spells, possibly better than any one who isn't a tier 2+caster

That's legit.

I think a Warlock 12 can do that job just as well (but obviously that only works at level 12+), and a Chameleon can do the same for Divine spells at level 6+.

Factotums are good if you focus on ability damage as cunning insight will apply to things like shivering touch and ray of stupidity. I suspect that's unintentional and may cause player vs. DM fights at some tables... but it's very clever.

But you're going to when you are using it for it's primary function: identify the strengths and weaknesses of enemies. One rank doesn't cut it no matter how high your one/day boost is.

Yeah, plus a thematic dungeon could very plausibly feature a majority of creature types demanding the same knowledge category, which just compounds the issue.

If you're there to cover Knowledge skills, you need to be able to roll high on each one you cover multiple times per day.

-- -- --

All of the above assumes that we just gloss over how poorly written the Factotum mechanics are and pretend they just work.

Like:

- What's the specific definition of an encounter which triggers gaining Inspiration points?
- What happens to left-over points when an encounter ends?
- If a new wave of attackers shows up, and they all roll initiative while the PCs maintain their current initiative, is that a new encounter?
- What's the action type required to use Cunning Surge? By not specifying, it would tend to be a Standard action, and that would mean it's a non-functional feature.

It's like the class equivalent of a fantasy heartbreaker.

GrayDeath

2018-04-28, 02:25 PM

Puuhh, balanced.

Lets simply keep to "Well designed T3 CLasses" and similar ok? As we dont need another thread discussing what balance is. ^^

Warlock, DFA, Warblade, Crusader, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Spirit Shaman all stand out.

Agreed, add Totemnist and Beguiler as well as Bard and you have a collection of classes that will work well within their niches, have a bit to a lot outside of that, and not make the other classes present totally obsolete.

noce

2018-04-28, 02:32 PM

Why do you consider dependence on class levels to be indicative of poor design?

In the translation from 3e to 3.5, a number of class features gained the "limited by class levels" text. Do you believe that 3.5 was a worse design than 3e?

Obviously 3.5 is better than 3.0.
I also think it's a good design to link class features to class levels (casting, wild shape, bardic music are sound examples of well designed class features).

To rephrase my statement, it's sad that there are no prestige classes that advance spellthief and lurk class features, thus forcing you to multiclass/prestige class as little as possible if you want to keep augments, for example.

Clearly, this is not true for class features of core classes, since you can choose among many prestige classes that advance those.

Zombulian

2018-04-28, 02:32 PM

Puuhh, balanced.

Lets simply keep to "Well designed T3 CLasses" and similar ok? As we dont need another thread discussing what balance is. ^^

too late son :smalleek:

Dimers

2018-04-28, 02:43 PM

I'll second the motion of Binder.

As for the Factotum, I do think it fits the list if the player knows about Font Of Inspiration. The class being relatively SAD, and that one attribute being the one that gives skill points, is definitely worth something. I find bards more potent than factota, but I'd rather play the latter.

Luccan

2018-04-28, 03:09 PM

heavyfuel

2018-04-28, 03:27 PM

Quertus

2018-04-28, 03:29 PM

Puuhh, balanced.

Lets simply keep to "Well designed T3 CLasses" and similar ok? As we dont need another thread discussing what balance is. ^^

One may not want such a thread, but that does not correlate positively with the need for one. :smallwink:

To rephrase my statement, it's sad that there are no prestige classes that advance spellthief and lurk class features, thus forcing you to multiclass/prestige class as little as possible if you want to keep augments, for example.

Clearly, this is not true for class features of core classes, since you can choose among many prestige classes that advance those.

I understand your concern now. I'm not sure if that makes the class itself poorly designed, or the prestige classes, or 3.5 in general.

Very few prestige classes advance turning or animal companion, IIRC.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-28, 03:46 PM

*snip*

So to recap:

You first you looked at text that stated a Factotum with 1 rank in a skill can meet the necessary DC's for any given check using Cunning Knowledge and from that extrapolated the assumption, "He builds factotums by putting only one rank in everything."

Then you looked at my join date and from that assumed you have more table experience than I do.

Finally, you finish by pointing out that a rogue or a totemist doing things that a factotum can also do makes him better than that factotum because he can do them more frequently.

/sigh....

All of the above assumes that we just gloss over how poorly written the Factotum mechanics are and pretend they just work.

Like:

- What's the specific definition of an encounter which triggers gaining Inspiration points?
- What happens to left-over points when an encounter ends?
- If a new wave of attackers shows up, and they all roll initiative while the PCs maintain their current initiative, is that a new encounter?
- What's the action type required to use Cunning Surge? By not specifying, it would tend to be a Standard action, and that would mean it's a non-functional feature.

It's like the class equivalent of a fantasy heartbreaker.

Factotums work just fine if you understand the rules of the game... or have actually read the Dungeon Master's Guide at some point.

Like the entire heading in Chapter 3 that break down exactly what an encounter is, beginning on page 48:

Each individual
encounter is like its own game—with a beginning, a middle,
an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser.
Encounters are determined by the DM, as the challenges the party must overcome in order to accomplish a specific goal.

- What happens to left-over points when an encounter ends?
Who cares?
You don't ever use them outside of encounters, so you don't need rules to govern where they go.
The instant the party reaches a new challenge that must be overcome you get them back.

- If a new wave of attackers shows up, and they all roll initiative while the PCs maintain their current initiative, is that a new encounter?
Oh gosh it sure would be helpful if there was some long-winded rules text that could serve as guidelines for all the intricacies of how to handle changing combat conditions oh wait there totally is:

The adventurers are fighting for their lives against a group of trolls
intent on throwing them into a dank pit to feed to the dragon that controls this part of the dungeon. Suddenly, in the middle of the
fight, a strike team of dwarves wanders into the room where the
battle rages. If, in the course of a battle between two sides, some
third group enters the battle, they should come into the action in
between rounds. The following rules apply to this situation,
whether or not the new group is allied with one or more existing
side involved in the encounter.
Newcomers Are Aware: If any (or all) of the newcomers are
aware of one or both of the sides in a battle, they take their actions
before anyone else. In effect, they go first in the initiative sequence.
Their initiative check result is considered to be 1 higher
than the highest initiative check result among the other participants
in the encounter. If differentiation is needed for the actions
of the newcomers, they act in order of their Dexterity scores, highest
to lowest. The reason for this rule is twofold.
• Since they’re aware, but there’s no way to get an action ahead of
everyone else (because the encounter has already started), they
go first to simulate their advantage. This happens whether the
other sides are aware of the new side or not.
• Placing the newcomers at the beginning of the round means
that those who had the highest initiative check results prior to
their arrival are the first characters to have an opportunity to
react to them. This is an important advantage for characters
with high places in the initiative order.
Newcomers Not Aware: If any or all of the newcomers are not
aware of the other sides when they enter the encounter (for
example, the PCs stumble unaware into a fight between two monsters
in a dungeon), the newcomers still come into play at the
beginning of the round, but they roll initiative normally. If one of
the other characters involved in the encounter has a higher initiative
check result than one or more of the newcomers, that character
can react to those newcomers before they get a chance to act
(the newcomers are caught flat-footed).
If more than one new group enters an existing encounter at the
same time, you must first decide if they are aware of the
encounter. Those that are unaware, “stumbling in,” roll initiative.
Those that are aware act first in the round, in the order of their
Dexterity scores, even if they are not in the same group.
Example: A group of powerful adventurers fights a naga in a
dungeon room. The naga rolled badly for initiative, and all the adventurers
act before it. Between rounds three and four of that battle,
three orcs on a random patrol stumble in. At the same time,
two more nagas arrive, having been alerted by the sounds of the
battle. At the beginning of round four, the two new nagas act in
the order of their Dexterity scores. Then the orcs roll for initiative,
and the results of their rolls are placed within the normal initiative
order for the battle. In this case, poor check results place them
dead last, even after the original naga.
Then the adventurers act, able to react either to the flat-footed
orcs or to the new naga reinforcements. Then the original naga
acts, followed by the orcs (who probably flee from this battle,
which is clearly out of their league). This same sequence is used
for subsequent rounds of the battle.

Whether or not it was planned ahead of time by the DM, or randomly rolled via some sort of wandering monster chart is irrelevant. New Combatants are clearly a part of the same encounter.

- What's the action type required to use Cunning Surge? By not specifying, it would tend to be a Standard action, and that would mean it's a non-functional feature.

On what non-rules text do you base that assumption?
Because the SRD says otherwise at least twice.
Use a Special Ability: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#useSpecialAbility)

Using a special ability is usually a standard action, but whether it is a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined by the ability.
Extraordinary Special Abilities: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.
And finally the Rules Compendium, pg. 118 clarifies even further:

Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless
otherwise noted.

Seriously...
It's perfectly fine if you don't like the factotum because they tend to either solve encounters with a nova or have trouble contributing because they aren't prepared, or don't function in a given role as easily or consistently other classes do, or because they are at their best when the player has a great deal of obscure book knowledge to draw from. It's fine to not like them for any reason.

But stop making **** up to justify your opinion of them as anything other than an opinion.

It makes you look new.

tiercel

2018-04-28, 04:04 PM

Doesn't Spirit Shaman get any Druid spell it could want, but with Sorcerous casting? I know it doesn't get many "known" per day, I'm just curious about arguments for it being well designed or balanced.

Spirit Shaman is a very interesting class — the spell access mechanic is a weird but kind of cool prepared/spontaneous hybrid, for one thing.

It’s pretty arguably better balanced that Druid, but that’s not saying much; instead of piling Wildshape and Animal Companion on top of full casting, they get more narrowly construed but still useful class abilities, and fewer spells known per day plus split casting stats to nerf spells. That said, they are still full casters who get 9ths at 17th level, and who do still get class abilities on top of that; I don’t think it is reasonable to say they are “Tier 3”.

——

In terms of “well designed” I’d say there are at least some arguments against “change my whole class feature set” classes like Incarnate and Binder.

1) Complexity. It’s not clear how to use the specific magic subsystems to a lot of people, even sometimes after several readings, but that's also in part due to....

2) Jack-of-all-trades syndrome. Even a more classic JoAT class like Bard does better when it at least somewhat specializes in certain aspects. With Incarnate or Binder, if you really do specialize in a certain role, then you aren’t really using the whole “reshape my abilities” schtick that helps define the class; on the other hand, if you do try to substantially reshuffle your character on a given day, you’re still stuck with static parts of your build (e.g. race, abilities, feats, most magic items) that can’t so fluidly change day to day.

I know there are plenty of folks who both like and certainly understand these classes better than I do, but those have always been my issues with those classes.

With Bard, I’ve seen some people underrate the class (because they think the class can’t do any one thing well) or overrate it (because they think it can do everything well), but a given build can be pretty good at one thing, okay at a secondary, and maybe pinch hit a bit otherwise.

With classes that are more JoAT-y seeming than Bard, it seems like if they specialize, an actual class specialized in that field would be better, and if they don’t specialize, they risk becoming more of a.... six of all trades than a Jack of all trades.

Part of this viewpoint is that I just really haven’t seen either of these classes in play at a table, though, and at least in my experience any class handles differently in theory than in practice — and I just don’t have the experience of practice in these cases (vs, say, Spirit Shaman, where I do have some experience).

heavyfuel

2018-04-28, 04:07 PM

Who cares?

Everyone playing a Factotum ever? If points accumulate from previous encounters, then it's possible to almost never use them and then have dozens or hundreds of points for an encounter you really need.

It's a very relevant piece of rules that's never addressed.

On what non-rules text do you base that assumption?
Because the SRD says otherwise at least twice.
Use a Special Ability: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#useSpecialAbility)

Extraordinary Special Abilities: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)

And finally the Rules Compendium, pg. 118 clarifies even further:

On the rules text you yourself quoted.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

They are only non-actions if they are reactive. Evasion, Mettle, AC Bonus, Still Mind. However, Cunning Surge is not a reactive extraordinary ability, it's an action, and a standard action because of it. Rules Compendium is not RAW because it's not a primary source.

Seriously...
It's perfectly fine if you don't like the factotum because they tend to either solve encounters with a nova or have trouble contributing because they aren't prepared, or don't function in a given role as easily or consistently other classes do, or because they are at their best when the player has a great deal of obscure book knowledge to draw from. It's fine to not like them for any reason.

But stop making **** up to justify your opinion of them as anything other than an opinion.

It makes you look new.

The nova thing is very DM dependent. Even if cunning surge is a free action (which it isn't), DMs likely won't let you do it more than once a turn. And even if Cunning Strike can be stacked with itself (it can't) for more than 1d6 Sneak Attack damage, you're putting all your chips on enemies not being immune to it AND you making the attack roll.

And again, the very fact that this discussion is happening is proof the Factotum is an extremely poorly designed class, which is the point of this thread

Goaty14

2018-04-28, 04:33 PM

Finally, you finish by pointing out that a rogue or a totemist doing things that a factotum can also do makes him better than that factotum because he can do them more frequently.

Consistency is key, given that you'd have 3-4 encounters per day, so nova-ing on one and then being dead weight for the others plain won't cut it.

It's perfectly fine if you don't like the factotum because they tend to either solve encounters with a nova or have trouble contributing because they aren't prepared, or don't function in a given role as easily or consistently other classes do, or because they are at their best when the player has a great deal of obscure book knowledge to draw from. It's fine to not like them for any reason.

But stop making **** up to justify your opinion of them as anything other than an opinion.

It makes you look new.

So to recap: You're answering his questions while giving criticism for not already knowing the answers (What!? Somebody in these threads doesn't have 200+ IQ!?), and then resolving that it is ok to think the class is bad (read: because it is, IMO), but not ok to assume things that have not been said (if you didn't like it being assumed, why didn't you just say it?).

All without making a counterargument, which I guess means that we can stick a fork in factotum being a badly designed class.

Komatik

2018-04-28, 04:37 PM

Balance is overrated, so:

Warblade
Crusader
Swordsage
Druid
Beguiler
Death Master
Binder
Totemist

I love the **** out of thematic magic. GIVE ME MORE. One thing I'd like is a more caster-y psychic warrior - less high level magic, good mix of caster-y and beatstick spells, and tons of PP. I'd love the **** out of that. Also, just give me a Druid-style shell with a spontaneous Death Master list, maybe a bit more natural muscle for Warhammer Fantasy Battle Vampires as a class.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-28, 04:43 PM

And again, the very fact that this discussion is happening is proof the Factotum is an extremely poorly designed class, which is the point of this thread

Precisely. If you need a series of dubious loopholes to show that the class can contribute, that only proves that it's badly designed (and that in most actual campaigns it won't be able to contribute much).

magicalmagicman

2018-04-28, 05:07 PM

You -might- have had something with druid if not for wild shape but the rest of them -are- the spells they pick. Artificer in particular is nearly everything in one class.

Absent the spells, they swing too far the other way in that they are basically nothing.

Just pick spells that fit your notion of "balance".

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-28, 05:43 PM

Very few prestige classes advance turning or animal companion, IIRC.

Turning isn't so uncommon but it's usually tied to something undead themed. There are very few PrCs that advance either turn or rebuke at the players option, it's usually one or the other based on the class itself, and fewer still that advance animal companion without dropping everything else about the druid.

Just pick spells that fit your notion of "balance".

That kinda works with the sorcerer but the rest are just a short break from going right back to playing a very different game from the non- and partial casters. A player that's really mastered wild shape is a force to be reckoned with on a non-caster ranger chassis, much less a full-on druid.

Just because you can work around the problem doesn't mean it's not there. The lists are still absurd (the weakest of them makes spirit shaman T2 all by itself) and the classes (other than druid and artificer) just don't have much else going for them. You can fix the druid by adjusting his list and nerfing wild shape into the ground but you'd have to overhaul the entire system to keep the artificer out of T1 territory.

Goaty14

2018-04-28, 05:50 PM

Just pick spells that fit your notion of "balance".

Ok, but I think Kelb's point here is that they're badly designed (not balanced) in having little-no other class features than spells (save for artificer and maaaybe druid).

Even if we're basing the classes (mind you, not the players) off of balance, Exhibit A displaying a player restricting his wizard to preparing only evocation spells is playing the same class as Exhibit B, who has a player that chain-gates efreet. EDIT: Though you do have a point on restriction of spells, which is why beguiler and warmage are both considered balanced.

magicalmagicman

2018-04-28, 07:15 PM

That kinda works with the sorcerer but the rest are just a short break from going right back to playing a very different game from the non- and partial casters. A player that's really mastered wild shape is a force to be reckoned with on a non-caster ranger chassis, much less a full-on druid.

Just because you can work around the problem doesn't mean it's not there. The lists are still absurd (the weakest of them makes spirit shaman T2 all by itself) and the classes (other than druid and artificer) just don't have much else going for them. You can fix the druid by adjusting his list and nerfing wild shape into the ground but you'd have to overhaul the entire system to keep the artificer out of T1 territory.

The topic isn't about non- and partial casters. The topic is about well designed classes. Wizard is well designed for a class that goes all in on spells. If it's broken because of broken spells then don't include those spells in the game. Just because spells are broken doesn't mean the class is too.

I honestly don't see the whole ZOMG ARTIFICER BREAK GAMES thing people keep crying about. The only time the Artificer becomes broken is with infinite preparation time, at which point the Wizard breaks the game just as much as him. I have never been able to successfully play an artificer that dominated the game. All I did in the party was craft gear for my other players in the very limited wealth and downtime we had. Couldn't do anything fancy which is why I retired the character.

So saying Artificer is poorly designed and balanced because with infinite wealth and downtime for crafting and scrying it can get very powerful is not an argument. Especially since you can also restrict available items to fit your notion (or the OP's notion) of balance.

For a class that goes all in on crafting, artificer is well designed.

Deophaun

2018-04-28, 07:23 PM

For a class that goes all in on crafting, artificer is well designed.
Except it's not. It's very campaign dependent. Whether you can even use your main class features is entirely at the whim of the DM. And if the DM suddenly wants to run a ticking time bomb scenario, you can be SoL for the rest of the campaign. That's not good design.

I personally don't touch it unless the UA craft point system is in place because of that.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-28, 07:41 PM

The topic isn't about non- and partial casters. The topic is about well designed classes.

It is if they're in the same party with the casters but they -can't- play the game in the same way. It's a strange sword & sorcery game that dispenses with the sword guys altogether.

Wizard is well designed for a class that goes all in on spells. If it's broken because of broken spells then don't include those spells in the game. Just because spells are broken doesn't mean the class is too.

If the class -is- its spells, and the spells break the game, the class breaks the game. All of the classes you listed except the druid and artificer are exactly that. They're balanced against one another roughly well enough but the fact that picking a PrC is the default rather than an option strongly suggests they're just not well designed. They're nothing but low-level filler until you can reach your chosen PrC(s).

I honestly don't see the whole ZOMG ARTIFICER BREAK GAMES thing people keep crying about. The only time the Artificer becomes broken is with infinite preparation time, at which point the Wizard breaks the game just as much as him. I have never been able to successfully play an artificer that dominated the game. All I did in the party was craft gear for my other players in the very limited wealth and downtime we had. Couldn't do anything fancy which is why I retired the character.

Here's some reading: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice Short version: artificers don't need to craft to be monstrous.

So saying Artificer is poorly designed and balanced because with infinite wealth and downtime for crafting and scrying it can get very powerful is not an argument. Especially since you can also restrict available items to fit your notion (or the OP's notion) of balance.

It doesn't need -infinite- anything. It just needs -enough- and the system mastery to make the most of it.

For a class that goes all in on crafting, artificer is well designed.

It does crafting better than any other class. It does it better than any two classes combined. If that didn't give access to all of the things it'd be pretty cool. Since it does, it's a problem.

I repeat; just because you can fix the problem doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

Troacctid

2018-04-28, 08:22 PM

Except it's not. It's very campaign dependent. Whether you can even use your main class features is entirely at the whim of the DM. And if the DM suddenly wants to run a ticking time bomb scenario, you can be SoL for the rest of the campaign. That's not good design.
Infusions are really strong and consumables are generally pretty quick to craft. You'll be fine IMO.

Precisely. If you need a series of dubious loopholes to show that the class can contribute, that only proves that it's badly designed (and that in most actual campaigns it won't be able to contribute much).
The dubious loopholes aren't to make the class playable, they're to theorycraft that it's dysfunctional.

Deophaun

2018-04-28, 08:46 PM

Infusions are really strong and consumables are generally pretty quick to craft. You'll be fine IMO.
Infusions aren't crafting, save for one. Low level consumables are ok for time, but they're also generally not what the guy who wants to provide equipment for his team is focusing on.

Endarire

2018-04-29, 01:27 AM

I vote Druids and Artificers. They get something notable each level or thereabouts and a significant reason to stay single classed pre-epic. You can play them at or near the height of their power (which may be complex even with guides) or play them at a lower power level and still likely be useful. You can somewhat switch between high and low power between days/weeks.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-29, 01:44 AM

I'll take Nifft's side on this one. Factotums are pretty terrible in actual play. There was a post here a few month ago - I can't seem to find it, I think it was deleted - where there was a challenge to build a decent factotum and builds were subpar.

During my years playing 3.5, I've seen 3 Factotums, and there wasn't a single time I didn't wish for a Rogue instead. And that's saying something.

The only good class feature the factotum has is Brain Over Brawn. Literally everything else is bad. Even Cunning Surge is terrible, eating at your Inspiration like there's no tomorrow. At lv 20, if you do absolutely nothing else in combat, you can get 3 Standard Actions which, again, will be used for nothing.

Factotum 3 is like Fighter 2 in that you better have a damn good plan if you want to progress the class beyond that.

So yeah, not balanced, not well designed. Has no place being on the list.

Oh so anecdotal evidence and personal experience now counts as fact? Because I've played Factotum twice in two different games-- one built to be primarily a social character with Intimidate in combat, and the other built around Iaijutsu Focus with the Dark Template for HiPS-- and I did better than fine in both games. In fact there were more than a couple times where I thought, "Boy I'm glad I didn't just go straight rogue instead." So I guess that means that you are just bad at building and/or playing Factotums.

Everyone playing a Factotum ever? If points accumulate from previous encounters, then it's possible to almost never use them and then have dozens or hundreds of points for an encounter you really need.

It's a very relevant piece of rules that's never addressed.

...

...Yeah, okay...

By that logic I guess that means that since Cunning Strike doesn't state how long you gain the 1d6 of Sneak Attack for, it lasts forever.
Thus any factotum has an arbitrarily high number of sneak attack dice on every attack.

Rules Compendium is not RAW because it's not a primary source.

Yes, it is.

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for
how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources
from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules
clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing
the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well
as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and
easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement
differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is
meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how
to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer
that question.

The nova thing is very DM dependent. Even if cunning surge is a free action (which it isn't), DMs likely won't let you do it more than once a turn. And even if Cunning Strike can be stacked with itself (it can't) for more than 1d6 Sneak Attack damage, you're putting all your chips on enemies not being immune to it AND you making the attack roll.

Gosh if only there were some manner of arcane spells that would guarantee success on attack rolls when it counts (there's at least six under 3rd level).
And some manner of spell or magic item to obviate the immunity of certain creatures to precision damage.

And what did we talk about earlier with regards to vindictive DM's who do not want a character to succeed?

And again, the very fact that this discussion is happening is proof the Factotum is an extremely poorly designed class, which is the point of this thread
That is the most nonsensical thing ever. Of all time.
Like if I sit here and talk about how bards are awful without the support they get from splat books on account of there being exactly two relevant feats for them in the Player's Handbook, or about how they are incapable of contributing meaningful damage of their own to an encounter, and have no defensive utility if they do get attacked, or about how the only two useful bard songs are Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness-- with bonus points for Countersong being the worst class feature in all of D&D, or about how the only role they can do better than anyone else is being a party face (which is never required in any game)... just saying those things isn't proof that core bards are a poorly designed class.

It's proof that I don't like core only bards and think they are underpowered.

Consistency is key, given that you'd have 3-4 encounters per day, so nova-ing on one and then being dead weight for the others plain won't cut it.

... :smallconfused: ...
...Inspiration points come back.
They come back at the start of every encounter.

So to recap: You're answering his questions while giving criticism for not already knowing the answers (What!? Somebody in these threads doesn't have 200+ IQ!?), and then resolving that it is ok to think the class is bad (read: because it is, IMO), but not ok to assume things that have not been said (if you didn't like it being assumed, why didn't you just say it?).
He wasn't asking those questions because he genuinely was confused.

As was obvious from the header about "overlooking how poorly written Factotum" was, he was making what he thought were rhetorical statements that didn't actually have answers. ...Hence the snark he got in response.

All without making a counterargument, which I guess means that we can stick a fork in factotum being a badly designed class.
Again... just because you don't know how to play them doesn't make them bad.

Beguilers are also bad if you pick bad spells.
Warlocks are bad if you don't know how to use invocations.

Ramza00

2018-04-29, 02:08 AM

Who created the Factotum again, which designer?

Kurald Galain

2018-04-29, 02:50 AM

Who created the Factotum again, which designer?

It's one of those Prelude-To-4E classes, isn't it? It's got encounter powers, most of its mechanics make zero sense from in-character perspective, and it arbitrarily uses ability scores for things they normally don't do. Looks very much like a trial balloon to me...

heavyfuel

2018-04-29, 02:56 AM

...

Your evidence is no less anecdotal;
Rules Compendium has no authority over the Primary Source Errata. The SRD says it's not an action for reactive things, which Cunning Surge isn't;
Cunning Strike specifies a single attack roll;
All these option eat away at your action economy. Using True Strike, Sniper's Shot , Grave/Vine/Golem Strike all at once is impossible due to the duration of the spells. And that still leaves enemies with Fortification and, even more common, Uncanny Dodge immune to your ranged sneak attacks;
Bards need splat books (and that's debatable). Factotums need splats and also need the DM to babysit them and correct their dysfunctional rule set.

You're clearly so in love with the class you can't see its flaws.

hamishspence

2018-04-29, 04:34 AM

Who created the Factotum again, which designer?

Jason Bulmahn - according to this post by Rich Burlew, the other of the two authors of the book:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?193765-Xykon-s-Acid-born-shark

I created the acidborn shark, and I was making fun of myself.

I've never read any reviews about Dungeonscape, but I would point out that the acidborn shark was intended to be ridiculous and over-the-top, because sometimes that's fun. It's specifically stated that it was only bred to be used in dungeon deathtraps. The reviewer quoted clearly wants his D&D to be Serious Business, but screw that. If I thought I could have slipped laser-headed sharks through the WOTC editing staff, I would have.

The factotum was all Jason, though, as was the dungeoncrasher.

Ignimortis

2018-04-29, 06:05 AM

Warblade, definitely. Swordsage and crusader are plagued by their refresh mechanics, which are basically a feat tax and RNG respectively. PoW handled refreshes slightly better, though not everywhere.
Factotum is good mechanically, but an IC mess.
Fixed-list casters are nice and what wizards and their like should've been like from the beginning - a concrete concept which has good tricks but not "all of the good tricks at once".
Scout is nice, although it could use some buffs to keep up with its' competition.

Soranar

2018-04-29, 08:00 AM

I've played a few factotum and, in the end, I ended up playing it like a pseudo Paladin while filling the rogue's job

-Play a small race (stongheart halfling works best due to the bonus feat but any race works fine)
-get a decent medium mount (obtain familiar, wild cohort, animate dead, a friendly druid, plenty of options for that)
-Get a lance and mounted combat feats
-throw in knowledge devotion

Since you can get your INT to damage vs anything (much better than a smite), charging and multiplying the damage works just fine. Your damage is always decent and you have all the skillpoints you need outside combat to do everything else

You do less damage than a pure ubercharger but you don't sacrifice all your defenses to do it and it keeps you safe to fight this way, even if whatever you hit didn't die you're not stuck in close combat after

Outside of combat you have plenty of utility (maxing out the 6 knowledges for knowledge devotion is actually useful)
You don't bother with move silently + hide so it frees up some skillpoints
You can still open locks, disarm and search for traps
You have access to wands and spells for specific problems (like say trap disarming) and you rarely waste resources on combat
You turn undead better than a paladin (no level penalty) and you can heal a bit too
You don't even need that much inspiration points (you start with 2, that's 2 ''smites'' per encounter)
You even get your INT bonus to ride
You're not the best party face honestly (due to the lack of emphasis on Charisma) so I prefer leaving that job to the bard or a sorcerer or an actual paladin

As for the best designed classes (with little alterations like substitution levels or alternate class features)

Beguiler (has in built weaknesses that make it palatable to a DM)
Dread necromancer (same as above)
Crusader and Warblade (I find the swordsage's recovery method is just too annoying)
Death Master (same as dread necro)
Factotum
Warlock
Barbarian (does the job even without pounce)

Goaty14

2018-04-29, 09:27 AM

And what did we talk about earlier with regards to vindictive DM's who do not want a character to succeed?

That if you have a DM that attempts to challenge your character in any way possible, we are to assume your DM hates your character and desperately wants him to kick the bucket for good? If our next enemies aren't kobolds with 13 AC, then your DM is 100% attempting to shut down your entire build by making you miss. If you have to, pardon my language, fight undead then clearly you have a vindictive DM who wants to crush you with an iron fist.

... :smallconfused: ...
...Inspiration points come back.
They come back at the start of every encounter.

Oh. :smallredface: Still, the factotum doesn't have the consistency needed for drawn-out or massive encounters, or enemies that survive their nova.

Beguilers are also bad if you pick bad spells.

Both of us know that a beguiler automatically knows her entire list. If one looks at it and continues to pick the same (bad) spells, then either 1) The player is happy with the suboptimal results, or 2) The player is blind

Warlocks are bad if you don't know how to use invocations.

There's a difference between "Not knowing how the class functions" and "Not knowing how to play them optimally". This is equivalent to telling somebody that a barbarian is bad if you don't know how to make melee attacks.

Gnaeus

2018-04-29, 09:35 AM

Doesn't Spirit Shaman get any Druid spell it could want, but with Sorcerous casting? I know it doesn't get many "known" per day, I'm just curious about arguments for it being well designed or balanced.

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

It’s also badly balanced in that it is worse than Druid in every single imaginable way.

It’s horribly designed, in that it has access to a tier 1 spell list designed with Druid in mind, so that half the spells on its list are nearly unusable.

n00b17

2018-04-29, 09:44 AM

The topic isn't about non- and partial casters. The topic is about well designed classes. Wizard is well designed for a class that goes all in on spells. If it's broken because of broken spells then don't include those spells in the game. Just because spells are broken doesn't mean the class is too.

I honestly don't see the whole ZOMG ARTIFICER BREAK GAMES thing people keep crying about. The only time the Artificer becomes broken is with infinite preparation time, at which point the Wizard breaks the game just as much as him. I have never been able to successfully play an artificer that dominated the game. All I did in the party was craft gear for my other players in the very limited wealth and downtime we had. Couldn't do anything fancy which is why I retired the character.

So saying Artificer is poorly designed and balanced because with infinite wealth and downtime for crafting and scrying it can get very powerful is not an argument. Especially since you can also restrict available items to fit your notion (or the OP's notion) of balance.

For a class that goes all in on crafting, artificer is well designed.

"craft everything" is not a well-designed premise for a class in 3.5. First of all, 3.5 is based on the assumption that the primary challenge comes from daily resource attrition. Building everything off of the long-term progression in item crafting breaks that economy. It runs against the design and spirit of the game. (side note: forcing constant time limits on the party and dictating the entire pace of the adventure just to keep 1 party member from getting out of hand is not good design ) Secondly, magic can do just about anything in 3.5. "can cast everything" is not a good character role, because it means that role is "do everything". The same holds for artificer, because that's an even wider role than wizard.

Goaty14

2018-04-29, 09:44 AM

It’s horribly designed, in that it has access to a tier 1 spell list designed with Druid in mind, so that half the spells on its list are nearly unusable.

Such as? I know Enhance Wild Shape is just out, but just about everything else looks usable.

Gnaeus

2018-04-29, 09:54 AM

Such as? I know Enhance Wild Shape is just out, but just about everything else looks usable.

Such as all the pet spells on a class with no pet.
Such as the basic Druid combat buffs like bite of the wereX which work fine if you are a tiger but on a mid BAB bad armor simple weapon chassis make you look like a fighter who rolled his combat feats at random from a list.
Such as all the cool day long spells that you can’t take at a reasonable level because you only get one spell retrieved of the highest 2 levels so the primal spell that costs a Druid a spell slot cost a SS all his top level slots.
Such as all the specialist anti (plant, animal, outsider, undead etc) spells that you can’t slot for the same exact reason.

I agree it isn’t T3. It has strategic spells like nukes and fast travel. But compared with any T3 it’s a steaming pile of owlbear poop which is more likely to be shut out of encounters than most T4s.

Pleh

2018-04-29, 10:14 AM

Scout probably deserves at least an honorary place on the list. It had the unfortunate placement of being an early non-core class, so the slight buffs it needs were overlooked in various splat supplements. If it had gotten enough attention, it might have gotten over that last hurdle.

I feel like Factotum discussion just about needs a separate thread at this point. For this thread's needs, we can put it down under "depends on who you ask."

I don't generally agree that full casters are more balanced just because you can scale them down. That seems to break with the intent of the thread, which is to talk about classes that don't need scaling up or down to balance at T3. I mean, if we include T1s because they can scale down, should we include T5s that can scale up? Seems to be counterproductive. We should be looking at "out of the box" build samples, maybe averaged with typical real builds that most commonly see play for classes that have goofy mechanics.

I agree that levels 3-15 should be a limit since outside these limits, level itself tends to skew balance to where any class starts breaking things.

Actually, it might be an interesting/unique setting that uses only these "T3 weighted" classes universally.

heavyfuel

2018-04-29, 11:00 AM

Soranar

2018-04-29, 11:42 AM

Since crit immunity is so damn common I'm never really satisfied with any class that relies on precision damage. Even when you face something that's not immune to crits the barbarian typically out damages you anyway and you usually have very little hitpoints to go in melee anyway (like d6, sometimes d8 when you're lucky)

Even with the ACF that lets a rogue a rogue sneak attack something for half that they flank, not everything can be flanked (oozes are rare but are a thing) and simple positioning can also make this completely impossible without specific feats(like say fighting a skeleton in a hallway).

A swift hunter build is a rare exception but that relies on a class stacking feat, not a single class.

I forgot to mention psi classes

psychic warrior is a great class
Psions are limited enough not to be overpowered and remain flavorful
The power point system is a lot simpler to keep track of too

Pleh

2018-04-29, 12:03 PM

I disagree. Having to jump through hoops to be able to use your core feature in a full-attack; Low damage output even after jumping through said hoops due to halved d6 progression and absence of Craven; Problems similar to the rogue immunity wise, and no Penetrating Strike or Grave/Golem/Vine Strike to help overcome; Uncanny Dodge that works differently probably because the class designer didn't bother to read the PHB.

Shoddy design.

I feel like you're still trying to compare them to T1 rather than T3, which given the thread seems unfair to Scout. T3 is often defined by versatility, which the Scout skills really kind of help with

Also, note that your points about craven and precision damage again go along with my point that Scout suffered from being ignored by splats because it wasn't Core.

Are you sure you're not just looking for a reason to fight?

heavyfuel

2018-04-29, 12:11 PM

I feel like you're still trying to compare them to T1 rather than T3, which given the thread seems unfair to Scout.

Also, note that your points about craven and precision damage again go along with my point that Scout suffered from being ignored by splats because it wasn't Core.

Are you sure you're not just looking for a reason to fight?

I'm not comparing them to Tier 1s. Most mid tier classes that have been mentioned as having a good design is because they have good class features that accessible in many different situations and you don't have to jump through hoops to use them. This is not the case with the Scout.

This design issue could've been solved with a single line of text that read along the lines of "Skirmish can be used in place of Sneak Attack in regards to feats, spells, and prestige classes", but it wasn't. As it stands, the DM needs to step in and decide to help you by allowing these things you can't have by RAW, and that's not a mark of good design.

It's not a fight. Do you really think people who disagree with you and express their opinion are necessarily trying to pick a fight?

Pleh

2018-04-29, 12:30 PM

I'm not comparing them to Tier 1s. Most mid tier classes that have been mentioned as having a good design is because they have good class features that accessible in many different situations and you don't have to jump through hoops to use them. This is not the case with the Scout.

This design issue could've been solved with a single line of text that read along the lines of "Skirmish can be used in place of Sneak Attack in regards to feats, spells, and prestige classes", but it wasn't. As it stands, the DM needs to step in and decide to help you by allowing these things you can't have by RAW, and that's not a mark of good design.

Skirmish is far from the only thing about scout that matters. I edited my last post because I forgot to mention their skill set, but you ninja'd my edit. The Scout is mostly about Movement and Mobility, not just Skirmish. Skirmish is the bread and butter, but they have the skills to make that movement possible.

After all, if the extra damage were the only thing Scout needed to be T3, the tiers would be ranked much differently, so it really isn't that big a problem that skirmish tends to be fairly situational. If it's the only reason you're taking Scout, it's a pretty flimsy foundation to build on. Scout is and has always been a grab bag of useful features.

It's not a fight. Do you really think people who disagree with you and express their opinion are necessarily trying to pick a fight?

I'm not the one nitpicking about Factotum anecdotes.

Goaty14

2018-04-29, 01:06 PM

On a related note, a Wilderness Rogue 20 is nigh identical to a Scout 20, except being pretty much better in most aspects. I.e A wilderness rogue gets 1 step lower HD, and loses some effects that the scout gets (which are replaceable by magic items, such as the blindsight and FoM), while having overall more class features.

As a side note, I like the rogue at higher levels because of it's UMD and the "Rogue Special Abilities" since most, if not all, of them are good choices.

heavyfuel

2018-04-29, 01:31 PM

Skirmish is far from the only thing about scout that matters. I edited my last post because I forgot to mention their skill set, but you ninja'd my edit. The Scout is mostly about Movement and Mobility, not just Skirmish. Skirmish is the bread and butter, but they have the skills to make that movement possible.

After all, if the extra damage were the only thing Scout needed to be T3, the tiers would be ranked much differently, so it really isn't that big a problem that skirmish tends to be fairly situational. If it's the only reason you're taking Scout, it's a pretty flimsy foundation to build on. Scout is and has always been a grab bag of useful features.

I'm not the one nitpicking about Factotum anecdotes.

The scout's skill list is indeed good, but that alone is just not enough. Lack of the Track feat and UMD as a class skill hurts them but they do OK with the skills they're given. Still, a class that's described in the book as favoring "devastating attacks" being terrible in combat makes it poorly designed.

Similar to the Factotum, I'd rather have a (Wilderness) Rogue every day of the week.

Pointing out flaws in a class isn't nitpicking. Ignoring a class' shortcomings doesn't make it well designed, even if your really really like the class.

Nifft

2018-04-29, 01:37 PM

Scout - I feel like it intended to not need full attacks, so the default incompatibility with full attack seems purposeful.

(Whether this design intent was actualized or not is a separate issue, and specifically a balance issue, so it's still on-topic for this thread.)

It's not shoddy design to make a feature like Skirmish which is incompatible with full attacks, since full attacks themselves are pretty awful from a game design perspective.

It might be poor design to not give that one Skirmish attack enough damage, or to allow backdoors which make Skirmish compatible with full attacks too easily, but the default behavior doesn't seem shoddy.

Factotum - I'm guessing the passage in the RC was written due to problem cases like the ones we experienced. It's unfortunate that the class necessitated such rules additions, but unfortunately it's still got leaks even after that.

The one positive Factotum experience I can relate was a butler NPC, who was a factotum Factotum via Leadership, and that character chimed in when that PC missed an important Knowledge roll -- which was infrequently, but it was funny when it happened. "Of course Sir is forgetting the discussion we had last night, in which Sir related ..."

That NPC was the opposite of a spotlight hog, so the class was fine.

It would be awful on a PC, though.

Artificer - In my limited experience with the class, the infusion-heavy Artificer who doesn't make much stuff was still quite strong. UMD is a hell of a skill. In Eberron (where I saw an Artificer in play) it's also useful as a healer for Warforged PCs, which is a solid perk.

Troacctid

2018-04-29, 02:24 PM

Artificer - In my limited experience with the class, the infusion-heavy Artificer who doesn't make much stuff was still quite strong. UMD is a hell of a skill. In Eberron (where I saw an Artificer in play) it's also useful as a healer for Warforged PCs, which is a solid perk.
Indeed. The introductory paragraphs for the class talk about its role in the party and the advantages it can offer a group. Infusing allies' equipment to buff them and being able to utilize any magic item the party comes across are both mentioned more prominently than the crafting abilities.

And frankly, it doesn't take that much downtime to use to your craft reserve, especially at lower levels when you can drain it completely in a day or two. Worst comes to worst, you can sacrifice infusion slots to craft during the night while the other party members sleep.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-29, 03:04 PM

Your evidence is no less anecdotal;
Correct. The difference though is that you didn't even entertain the possibility that you could have at some point made mistakes in your build or gameplay. You just threw up your hands and declared it to be a bad class.

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

Rules Compendium has no authority over the Primary Source Errata.
I want you to consider for a moment all of the possible implications of you attempting to run a game with that ruling.

That means that no book other than the Player's Handbook has any authority over any subject, as the errata specifically gives the PHB sole authority over "the rules of the game." (whatever the hell that means).

It means that the Draconomicon, Races of the Dragon, and countless other splats that within their rules text assert their primacy over older sources cannot do so, and thus everything they have to say on a given subject is meaningless.

If you are so single-minded that you cannot see the flaw in that approach, then you are clearly not interested in arriving at the truth of the matter. You are interested in "winning" an argument.

Cunning Strike specifies a single attack roll;
No it doesn't.
It says only "Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage. You must spend the inspiration point to activate this ability before making the attack roll."
It does not specify what kind of an action it is to do so, which defaults it to a free action (or a standard action in your world), and lists no expiration, like every other Inspiration ability does. Thus in your games, in which Cunning Surge is a nonability because it takes a standard action to activate, any factotum can spend any round in which they do nothing else to use a standard action to "gain" a d6 of Sneak Attack that lasts forever. Then gain another and another in perpetuity, as Inspiration points refill at the start of every encounter.

Or would you like to reconsider your position yet?

All these option eat away at your action economy. Using True Strike, Sniper's Shot , Grave/Vine/Golem Strike all at once is impossible due to the duration of the spells. And that still leaves enemies with Fortification and, even more common, Uncanny Dodge immune to your ranged sneak attacks;
Bards need splat books (and that's debatable). Factotums need splats and also need the DM to babysit them and correct their dysfunctional rule set.

A Factotum above level 8 that really wants to put his mind to Nova a target with sneak attack has as many standard actions for as many spells as they need.

Neither Uncanny Dodge nor Improved Uncanny Dodge do anything against Sneak Attacks if you are flat-footed to the Factotum (by not being aware of it's presence). Uncanny Dodge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#uncannyDodge) does not make you immune to being flat-footed, you simply retain your Dexterity bonus when you are. Just reading the text of the feature tells you that the character can clearly still be caught flat-footed, viz., "even if he is caught flat-footed. Immunity to being flat-footed is an incredibly common misunderstanding of how that class feature works due to other book authors misreading the ability and suggesting in their own work that it does something it does not.

You're clearly so in love with the class you can't see its flaws.

I know exactly what a Factotum's flaws are.
Low amounts of available Inspiration points cause them to very quickly fall behind in encounters that last longer than a couple of rounds, necessitating several instances of the Font of Inspiration feat to give them any sort of staying power.
Their in-class arcane support is also very low. Given the level range most games are played, a factotum will only get about three to six spells per day. And even at 20 they only get up to 8th level spells. Additionally their options to metamagic those spells are very weak. This necessitates a collection of scrolls and wands, along with a prodigious use of UMD to adequately function in this area, which several other classes can also do. And like those other classes a factotum simply cannot effectively fill the role of a dedicated arcane caster.

I am well aware that the class is not perfect, and is a little underpowered without splat support. You, on the other hand, are so blinded by your bad experience playing them that you have to rewrite the Rules As Written to create a scenario where they are unplayable.

Zombulian

2018-04-29, 03:35 PM

Correct. The difference though is that you didn't even entertain the possibility that you could have at some point made mistakes in your build or gameplay. You just threw up your hands and declared it to be a bad class.

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

But this is a thread about the quality of tools :smallconfused:

I don't generally agree that full casters are more balanced just because you can scale them down. That seems to break with the intent of the thread, which is to talk about classes that don't need scaling up or down to balance at T3. I mean, if we include T1s because they can scale down, should we include T5s that can scale up? Seems to be counterproductive. We should be looking at "out of the box" build samples, maybe averaged with typical real builds that most commonly see play for classes that have goofy mechanics.

I think this is something good to keep in mind. At the same time though, I think it's interesting that this came from the same person arguing for Scout.

Lans

2018-04-30, 01:24 AM

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

Luccan

2018-04-30, 01:44 AM

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

Hurrah, more support for the Shugenja!

Dimers

2018-04-30, 02:15 AM

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

It’s also badly balanced in that it is worse than Druid in every single imaginable way.

It’s horribly designed, in that it has access to a tier 1 spell list designed with Druid in mind, so that half the spells on its list are nearly unusable.

Gotta disagree with the first two points. A spirit shaman's class features are definitely helpful in sufficiently common situations -- like, fighting elementals or incorporeal undead. So not worse in every imaginable way. And I've played a spirit shaman and had to hold myself back for my fighter and psychic-warrior allies. Even wonky full casting is powerful.

Quertus

2018-04-30, 08:10 AM

Exhibit A displaying a player restricting his wizard to preparing only evocation spells is playing the same class as Exhibit B, who has a player that chain-gates efreet. EDIT: Though you do have a point on restriction of spells, which is why beguiler and warmage are both considered balanced.

So, Wizard can play with party A, or party B. They are well designed to operate at a variety of balance points. How many classes can say that?

It is if they're in the same party with the casters but they -can't- play the game in the same way.

I thought the point of different classes was that they played the game different ways.

It's a strange sword & sorcery game that dispenses with the sword guys altogether.

Don't do that! Where would Quertus be without meat shields "sword guys"?

If the class -is- its spells, and the spells break the game, the class breaks the game.

That's an interesting position. There exist things - specific spells, specific feats, specific tactics - that break the game. If "spells" break the game, by this logic, that means feats and tactics break the game. So I'm pretty sure that the logic breaks at this point.

But the second half is much more interesting (IMO). Even if we agree that feats break the game, declaring that, by virtue of being about feats, a class is broken? Even when there are plenty of balanced feats to take?

the fact that picking a PrC is the default rather than an option strongly suggests they're just not well designed. They're nothing but low-level filler until you can reach your chosen PrC(s).

So, in another thread, we had someone claiming that Arcane Archer as a base class was indicative of bad design. So I'm a bit confused on just what criteria people are using.

Why is being good at qualifying for the prestige class you actually want indicative of bad class design?

Warblade, definitely. Swordsage and crusader are plagued by their refresh mechanics, which are basically a feat tax and RNG respectively.

What do you have against their refresh mechanics?

Swordsage, like many prestige classes, says that playing this class costs you a feat. Sounds fair.

Crusader has the advantage that playing the class, you get free chaos. Sounds fair.

Fixed-list casters are nice and what wizards and their like should've been like from the beginning - a concrete concept which has good tricks

Strongly disagree.

Wizards should have been what wizards were from the beginning - sages searching the ruins of fallen civilizations for scraps of arcane knowledge. None of this getting free spells as you level - or, worse, gain access to your entire fixed list - BS.

"craft everything" is not a well-designed premise for a class in 3.5.

I mean, "craft the entire party's WBL" was actually part of the concept for one of my characters, and it worked just fine.

But this is a thread about the quality of tools :smallconfused:

Hahaha, true that.

However, one of my best 3e characters was created when another player tried a class, and declared it unplayable. Challenge accepted!

Ignimortis

2018-04-30, 08:36 AM

What do you have against their refresh mechanics?

Swordsage, like many prestige classes, says that playing this class costs you a feat. Sounds fair.

Crusader has the advantage that playing the class, you get free chaos. Sounds fair.

Swordsage is not a prestige class. I like PoW's recharge mechanics better, because, like Warblade, you get resources back for doing things you should be doing. Harbinger gets a maneuver back for claiming enemies, which is important and supported by class features, Warder gets maneuvers back for using Defensive Focus, which improves tanking capabilities, which is what Warders do, Warlords regain maneuvers for using Gambits, etc. Warblade gets maneuvers for hitting people, which is a bit too easy, but also synergizes with his purpose.

Meanwhile a Swordsage...has to stand still and focus, which is counterproductive for a mobile striker archetype, and a Crusader just has to hope he gets some good stuff (yes, I could've made a joke about "having faith", but I won't).

Strongly disagree.

Wizards should have been what wizards were from the beginning - sages searching the ruins of fallen civilizations for scraps of arcane knowledge. None of this getting free spells as you level - or, worse, gain access to your entire fixed list - BS.

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

PhoenixPhyre

2018-04-30, 08:52 AM

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

I express no opinion on the rest of the discussion, but I strongly agree here. If wizards are supposed to be arcane researchers, then it's even more important that they have limited focus (from a broad set of possible foci). Because real researchers are incredibly narrowly specialized.

As a quantum chemistry PhD, I was an expert in one particular method of simulating scattering events between certain molecules at a narrow range of energies. I could talk reasonably at the "general graduate student level" in a small range of other fields, and could do the basics of any physics and most chemistry fields.

In game terms, I'd probably be able to learn any 1-3rd level spell, some 4-6 level spells, and 7-9th level spells from a very narrow range of themes (not even spell-schools, those are too wide). I have no idea how you'd actually implement that, but it's how a researcher should look. Wide shallow base, incredibly narrow but deep focus.

Being an expert in everything simultaneously means that the topics aren't very well understood. It was much easier being a polymath back when we really didn't know much.

Komatik

2018-04-30, 10:05 AM

Ignimortis

2018-04-30, 10:17 AM

Soo... Death Master? :>

A different Dread Necromancer, from what I see? Kinda okay-ish at first glance, too. A bit fiddly with "can cast stuff in armor but only by using blood of sentient creatures", but w/e. In general, yes, this is close to what I'm talking about.

Komatik

2018-04-30, 11:01 AM

A different Dread Necromancer, from what I see? Kinda okay-ish at first glance, too. A bit fiddly with "can cast stuff in armor but only by using blood of sentient creatures", but w/e. In general, yes, this is close to what I'm talking about.

I'm mostly themegasming about the spell list. DM's is a bit sparse in comparison.

Ignimortis

2018-04-30, 11:12 AM

I'm mostly themegasming about the spell list. DM's is a bit sparse in comparison.
True enough, the spell-list is slightly better from thematic point of view. Might look into it, didn't really bother with DragComp classes before...

heavyfuel

2018-04-30, 11:15 AM

...

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

gkathellar

2018-04-30, 11:20 AM

Totemist is a great piece of design, with enough moving parts for the experienced player but numerous ways to build a totally viable punchbot or other simple build. It has a cool aesthetic (the best art in MoI is easily for the totemist, including some or Wayne Reynolds' most restrained, sensible work), unique toys, very little ability score dependency, and compelling reasons both to multiclass and to take the class all the way to 20.

Ignimortis

2018-04-30, 11:31 AM

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

Uh, Factotums are good at many things. Damage is their weakness, and the only point in which they distinctly lose to rogues. They're an extremely good skill-monkey, can whip out magic when it's needed, and even can break action economy a little bit if they want. They have no damage, but that's not why people pick them.

The only bad part about factotums is their IC justification. They're basically pulling tricks out of their butt by being so very clever.

heavyfuel

2018-04-30, 11:47 AM

Uh, Factotums are good at many things. Damage is their weakness, and the only point in which they distinctly lose to rogues. They're an extremely good skill-monkey, can whip out magic when it's needed, and even can break action economy a little bit if they want. They have no damage, but that's not why people pick them.

The only bad part about factotums is their IC justification. They're basically pulling tricks out of their butt by being so very clever.

While I do think Factotums are sub-par in many situations - combat being one of them - my main argument is that they were not well designed, which is the entire point of this thread.

They require multiple rulings by DMs to work, and that's a terrible way to design something. I understand that on a game with infinite options such as D&D, DMs will have to make rulings at some point, but this thing that should be an eventuality is a constant with the Factotum.

What action is Cunning Surge? Can you use it more than once a round? How long does Cunning Strike last? Can I apply more than 1d6 damage to Cunning Strike? What is an encounter? What happens to my remaining IP after the encounter? Do I get IP when out of combat? What the hell a "spell resistance check" even is?

Even if they are decent skill monkeys, they have horrific design. The fact they also suck at combat just compounds their problems.

Troacctid

2018-04-30, 12:10 PM

n00b17

2018-04-30, 04:15 PM

I mean, "craft the entire party's WBL" was actually part of the concept for one of my characters, and it worked just fine.

I think you misunderstand me. It's a bad premise because a) the artificer can craft everything off every list two levels earlier than a full caster can. b) Full casters already break the game, and an artificer can do all the same stuff, just earlier. c) Crafting armor, weapons, etc for the party is fine. That doesn't usually break the game. And if you didn't break the game in your case, great! But consumables can quite easily break the game if you're not careful, even if it didn't happen in your case

Cosi

2018-04-30, 06:47 PM

Can you explain that to someone not familiar with the class? It sounds like you said they, say, gain spell points every day, with no limit to max spell points.

The relevant text is this:

At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level.

It specifies when you gain the points, and how many you gain, but not any expiration or limit. So by RAW, you can bag-of-rats your way to infinite actions. That alone disqualifies the class from "well designed".

Now, if you're trying to say that they require dumpster diving to hit an acceptable floor (for some definition of "acceptable"), then I can see the argument.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I... might be tempted to call this "well designed", actually. It's the class for players who get great joy out of dumpster diving for the character creation minigame, and who would be OP AF with a more traditional caster.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you are creating classes that (if you have done your job with concept), will appeal to a variety of players, but ensured that most of them will not be able to play them effectively.

Care to explain this one?

Artificers are real bad at low levels because their options are "use abilities with 10 minute casting times" and "try to make a UMD check to use a scroll". Neither of those things are conducive to effective action at low levels. At high levels they can do whatever arbitrary stuff they want. People look at "break the game any way you want" and confuse it with "do useful things that are effective".

Even if we're basing the classes (mind you, not the players) off of balance, Exhibit A displaying a player restricting his wizard to preparing only evocation spells is playing the same class as Exhibit B, who has a player that chain-gates efreet. EDIT: Though you do have a point on restriction of spells, which is why beguiler and warmage are both considered balanced.

Blaming "Wizards" for Chain Binding is stupid. If you are allowed to do that, anyone can break the game because you can just buy Candles of Invocation. The biggest mistake people make when discussing power is looking at infinite loops and assuming they matter at all.

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

Why does "balanced" mean "Tier Three"?

It's a strange sword & sorcery game that dispenses with the sword guys altogether.

Sure, but it's hardly the caster's fault that Fighters don't get any class features that matter. Deciding if the Wizard is good should be done on the Wizard's terms.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-30, 08:47 PM

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

Then you're doing it wrong.
If a book asserts it's own primacy over a given subject, then it has primacy.
The Rules As Written do not care about your feelings.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

So even with the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge (one extra standard action per round tops), a naked Factotum can still do something such as dropping Cloudkill and Solid Fog on a group of enemies, effectively removing them from combat (likely until they are dead).

What can a naked Rogue do in that same round?

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

Apparently so.
Though once again, this makes him worse than a rogue how?

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

You are free to disagree with me as well.
After all, I cannot force you to be correct.

What you aren't free to do is push your unsubstantiated opinion on a public forum as fact and not expect someone to point out your mistakes.

@Cosi

The singular biggest problem in this thread right now is that everyone is posting opinions for or against particular classes based solely on what fits their own personal definition "well-designed".

Rather than what it actually means, which is, "artistically or skillfully planned, especially for a particular purpose", we are running the gamut from
-"meets it's stated design goals", to,
-"performs beyond normal expectations", to,
-"is too complicated and difficult to comprehend", to,
-"I don't like it".

We are never going to reach any kind of a consensus unless we agree to work from the same starting point.

Nifft

2018-04-30, 09:05 PM

So even with the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge (one extra standard action per round tops), a naked Factotum

Point of order: as already mentioned in this thread, the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge is that it costs a standard action to activate, which means that under the least favorable interpretation possible it's dysfunctional and does literally nothing except cost you 4 points.

Good luck putting lipstick on that pig.

Also, why is your Factotum naked? I get that this is a fantasy game but usually it's not that kind of fantasy.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-30, 09:22 PM

Point of order: as already mentioned in this thread, the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge is that it costs a standard action to activate, which means that under the least favorable interpretation possible it's dysfunctional and does literally nothing except cost you 4 points.

Good luck putting lipstick on that pig.

Also, why is your Factotum naked? I get that this is a fantasy game but usually it's not that kind of fantasy.

Sorry. The least favorable correct interpretation of Cunning Surge.

And naked means gear-less. Grow up.

ZamielVanWeber

2018-04-30, 09:26 PM

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

Shugenja is, sadly, atrociously designed. It has no class features beyond spells after level one and is eventually required to learn spells that do not exist. The number of 0th spells a shugenja knows eventually exceeds the number on their spell list. I bought Magic of Rokugan just to give them some love (and love they got).

Out of the PHB the only one I feel wad generally well designed was druid. It had class features all the way up beyond spell casting that generally kept relevant and the features did a good job at evoking the class's theme.
Honorable mention to bard: it's design kept getting in its way so you often end up with this jack-of-all-trades feeling but they really took a good stab at it.

Nifft

2018-04-30, 09:35 PM

Sorry. The least favorable correct interpretation of Cunning Surge.

And naked means gear-less. Grow up.

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Sorry, even in your absurdly favorable scenario, the Factotum fails to deliver because you're wrong about the rules. Again.

ZamielVanWeber

2018-04-30, 09:42 PM

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Dubious, but only because factotum is often poorly written. To that end I would vote it as poorly designed: very cool conceptually but it just drowns under it's poor editing. The class runs far too heavily on "you know what I meant."

Nifft

2018-04-30, 09:51 PM

Dubious, but only because factotum is often poorly written. To that end I would vote it as poorly designed: very cool conceptually but it just drowns under it's poor editing. The class runs far too heavily on "you know what I meant."

Remember that this is assuming the least favorable interpretation possible for the Factotum, per @Tonymitsu's post.

So if there are two possible interpretations, use the least favorable one for this example.

ZamielVanWeber

2018-04-30, 10:03 PM

Remember that this is assuming the least favorable interpretation possible for the Factotum, per @Tonymitsu's post.

So if there are two possible interpretations, use the least favorable one for this example.

Under that qualifier I am not confident the class is playable. Several features do not work properly, or at all, and you just sacrificed the ability to make pedantic arguments that inspiration points stack up forever. It is just insanely poorly written.

If you clean up the writing and just bring in the RAW the writer seemed ignorant of the class is pretty solid. By far weakest at combat though: if you do not use iajustsu focus and a way of triggering it at least once a round if not every attack then be prepared to be doing hilariously pathetic damage or be ready to be on UMD duty. I use them and martial adept at enemies a lot since if they nova it is with /enounter instead of /day resources so players tend to get less annoyed.

Goaty14

2018-04-30, 10:08 PM

Blaming "Wizards" for Chain Binding is stupid. If you are allowed to do that, anyone can break the game because you can just buy Candles of Invocation. The biggest mistake people make when discussing power is looking at infinite loops and assuming they matter at all.

I am not blaming wizards for chain-gating. I'm using two different examples of how stupidly OP a wizard can be (definitely beyond chain-gating), and how weak a wizard can be.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-30, 10:25 PM

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Gosh if only there was a feat for that...

Sorry, even in your absurdly favorable scenario...

The irony here, of course, is that Factotums consistently under-perform only in universes where every opponent they might ever face has Uncanny Dodge or Mindsight or Freedom of Movement, or immunity to level drain or ability drain or death effects or mind-affecting effects or illusions in general.

I suppose that means only classes that can deal huge amounts of non-precision damage in a single round are well-designed in the whole of D&D.

the Factotum fails to deliver because you're wrong about the rules. Again. when I change the Rules As Written and hope that no one notices in order to prove that my point.

Fixed that for you.

The only thing you have proven is that Factotum is a bad class if you have no idea how to build one. Again.

Nifft

2018-04-30, 11:04 PM

Under that qualifier I am not confident the class is playable. Several features do not work properly, or at all, and you just sacrificed the ability to make pedantic arguments that inspiration points stack up forever. It is just insanely poorly written.

If you clean up the writing and just bring in the RAW the writer seemed ignorant of the class is pretty solid. By far weakest at combat though: if you do not use iajustsu focus and a way of triggering it at least once a round if not every attack then be prepared to be doing hilariously pathetic damage or be ready to be on UMD duty. I use them and martial adept at enemies a lot since if they nova it is with /enounter instead of /day resources so players tend to get less annoyed. If you re-write it such that it works, then sure, the re-written class could work. But that would be a different class.

If you like the class, then I wonder if you could be convinced to post a homebrew version (which actually works) over in the homebrew subforum. It would be great to see someone competent have a go at it.

I'd originally liked the idea of the Factotum, but then I was bitterly disappointed by the sadly dysfunctional reality of its implementation.

The only thing you have proven is that Factotum is a bad class if you have no idea how to build one. Again. I'm not building anything, are you confusing me with someone else?

The only thing I've been doing is showing how the claims you make about the Factotum's competency are wrong.

Troacctid

2018-04-30, 11:22 PM

Artificers are real bad at low levels because their options are "use abilities with 10 minute casting times" and "try to make a UMD check to use a scroll". Neither of those things are conducive to effective action at low levels. At high levels they can do whatever arbitrary stuff they want. People look at "break the game any way you want" and confuse it with "do useful things that are effective".
Oh my goodness, are you telling me that a spellcasting class is relatively weak at low levels? Gasp!

heavyfuel

2018-04-30, 11:37 PM

Then you're doing it wrong.
If a book asserts it's own primacy over a given subject, then it has primacy.
The Rules As Written do not care about your feelings.

It's clear to me now that the Factotum is indeed the be all and end all of class design. Having a dozen dubious rules in no way make the class less well designed. I see the light now. Do I need sarcasm tag there?

I'd honestly love to see you playing a Factotum at game with a DM that doesn't bend to your every will and let you dumpster dive, and see you be even mildly useful. And from now on, I'll just agree with you in these regards, knowing full well it's impossible to change your mind on a subject you're the only one defending.

Anyway, I tire of discussing the other points, but the one I quoted still needs correcting.

Rules Compendium asserts it's primacy over other books, but not over errata. And the Primary Source Errata says the core books are primary. So the order is Errata > Core Books > Rules Compendium > Other Books.

Also, there's the fact that we have the 2012 Premium core books, which were not preexisting at the time Rules Compendium was published, and by RC's own rules, RC only takes precedence over preexisting core books and supplements. Since those books were published later, they were not preexisting, therefore, Rules Compendium has no authority over them.

The only thing you have proven is that Factotum is a bad class if you have no idea how to build one. Again.

I'm not building anything, are you confusing me with someone else?

The only thing I've been doing is showing how the claims you make about the Factotum's competency are wrong.

Neither am I, or anyone else in the thread AFAIK. I wonder what he's talking about.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 12:33 AM

Rules Compendium asserts it's primacy over other books, but not over errata. And the Primary Source Errata says the core books are primary. So the order is Errata > Core Books > Rules Compendium > Other Books.
The text includes both preexisting books and supplements, not just books. RC is also more specific, and specific beats general, and, in addition, the errata says right there that exceptions to the primary source rule will be called out specifically, which is exactly what RC does.

Also, there's the fact that we have the 2012 Premium core books, which were not preexisting at the time Rules Compendium was published, and by RC's own rules, RC only takes precedence over preexisting core books and supplements. Since those books were published later, they were not preexisting, therefore, Rules Compendium has no authority over them.
The 2012 editions are reprints, not new books. Their original printings predate RC by several years.

https://i.imgur.com/emqT3CM.png

Zombulian

2018-05-01, 12:50 AM

Man when I mentioned Factotum as a counter to Rogue I definitely didn't expect this.

Nifft

2018-05-01, 01:11 AM

Man when I mentioned Factotum as a counter to Rogue I definitely didn't expect this.

So let's talk about Rogue.

Things I like, design-wise:
- A Rogue's shining moments of awesome are usually achieved via team play: Sneak Attack on a full attack often comes from flanking, or exploiting a condition imposed by another PC (via Trip or grease or the like).
- It's relatively easy for the player to know when Sneak Attack will not work, as compared to SR or DR which are often a surprise.

Thinks I dislike, design-wise:
- Niche protection. "Every party needs a Rogue because traps! Every dungeon needs traps because Rogue!"
- Scouting is poorly conceived in D&D. Much like traps, it's often a solo mini-adventure where the rest of the players just sit there and watch you play.

Zombulian

2018-05-01, 01:27 AM

So let's talk about Rogue.

Things I like, design-wise:
- A Rogue's shining moments of awesome are usually achieved via team play: Sneak Attack on a full attack often comes from flanking, or exploiting a condition imposed by another PC (via Trip or grease or the like).
- It's relatively easy for the player to know when Sneak Attack will not work, as compared to SR or DR which are often a surprise.

Thinks I dislike, design-wise:
- Niche protection. "Every party needs a Rogue because traps! Every dungeon needs traps because Rogue!"
- Scouting is poorly conceived in D&D. Much like traps, it's often a solo mini-adventure where the rest of the players just sit there and watch you play.

At the risk of veering off-topic, do you think that there's a better way to place scouting in D&D? It seems unfortunately necessary if that role is to be expressed, but I get what you mean by the issues of having people sit on stand-by, it's a group game after all.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 01:44 AM

Nifft

2018-05-01, 01:51 AM

At the risk of veering off-topic, do you think that there's a better way to place scouting in D&D? It seems unfortunately necessary if that role is to be expressed, but I get what you mean by the issues of having people sit on stand-by, it's a group game after all.

Sure, there are potentially lots of ways.

One example would be to treat the party as a single unit for the purpose of exploration, with each PC in a formation role, and grant a different party-wide bonus based on who is in which formation role.

If the Rogue takes point ("lead role"), then the party gets a Stealth & Perception bonus.

If the Rogue is in a sniping position ("striker role"), then the party gets extra damage during the first round of combat.

If the Rogue is in the front line ("tank role"), then the party gets relatively little, since that's a poor fit in terms of role.

... etc. Maybe look at some of the stuff people did in Rogue Trader to make the bridge roles all feel useful when the party is in space.

The party moves as a unit with a formalized & abstract marching order until an encounter starts. The really nice thing about this way of organizing the party is that it scales up very nicely, right up into a mass-combat wargame between armies.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-05-01, 02:23 AM

Quertus

2018-05-01, 06:52 AM

@Cosi Thanks for the clarifications. My only comment is, if they'd also built a "no dumpster diving required" Factotem-like class, would you still have issue with the dumpster diving prerequisite in the existing one?

Swordsage is not a prestige class.

Yes, I know that. :smalltongue: I was just saying that giving a primary class a feat tax, much like many Prestige classes have, did not seem unreasonable to me.

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

I'm not a fan of "master of all arcane arts conceivable" either. I prefer wizards to be like a computer (or phone or whatever) that can only run the apps that have been installed. This easy (or automatic!) mastery of their entire spell list rather irks me.

Now, I like my computer (or phone or whatever) to be able to run any software, and it's irksome enough that I can't run Apple products on my PC (can't cast cleric / bard / whatever spells on my wizard) without making 95% of treasure scrolls inapplicable because they're not my specific subschool specialty. Imagine if your devices worked that way!

I express no opinion on the rest of the discussion, but I strongly agree here. If wizards are supposed to be arcane researchers, then it's even more important that they have limited focus (from a broad set of possible foci). Because real researchers are incredibly narrowly specialized.

As a quantum chemistry PhD, I was an expert in one particular method of simulating scattering events between certain molecules at a narrow range of energies. I could talk reasonably at the "general graduate student level" in a small range of other fields, and could do the basics of any physics and most chemistry fields.

In game terms, I'd probably be able to learn any 1-3rd level spell, some 4-6 level spells, and 7-9th level spells from a very narrow range of themes (not even spell-schools, those are too wide). I have no idea how you'd actually implement that, but it's how a researcher should look. Wide shallow base, incredibly narrow but deep focus.

Being an expert in everything simultaneously means that the topics aren't very well understood. It was much easier being a polymath back when we really didn't know much.

Hmmm... But, I bet, if someone handed you an advanced formula for, say, thermodynamics calculations, with a little study, you could utilize that formula repeatedly and repeatably.

That's the trick. The Wizard is fairly literally cramming every day. Their looking back at their notes, and cramming to use a specific formula that day.

I think you misunderstand me. It's a bad premise because a) the artificer can craft everything off every list two levels earlier than a full caster can. b) Full casters already break the game, and an artificer can do all the same stuff, just earlier. c) Crafting armor, weapons, etc for the party is fine. That doesn't usually break the game. And if you didn't break the game in your case, great! But consumables can quite easily break the game if you're not careful, even if it didn't happen in your case

A) WBL Magic Item Wal-Mart can craft items NI levels faster still. Not seeing the problem here.

A2) unless you mean "it's not fair". I play casters. I personally don't have an issue if a dedicated crafter is better at crafting than my casters. Shrug.

B) certain spells, feats, items, and tactics can break the game. Unless you propose we ban all spells, feats, items, and tactics, I'm not seeing anything of value in this point.

C) I don't waste my money on consumables! :smalltongue:

If I read you correctly, your entire premise appears to be about breaking the game. I can only respond with, "don't do that".

The singular biggest problem in this thread right now is that everyone is posting opinions for or against particular classes based solely on what fits their own personal definition "well-designed".

Rather than what it actually means, which is, "artistically or skillfully planned, especially for a particular purpose", we are running the gamut from
-"meets it's stated design goals", to,
-"performs beyond normal expectations", to,
-"is too complicated and difficult to comprehend", to,
-"I don't like it".

We are never going to reach any kind of a consensus unless we agree to work from the same starting point.

I mean, it's hard to convince the end user that software that actually works is somehow less well designed than software that... doesn't.

For me, "works" includes "I can play the character in a game, and the character will contribute in a properly balanced fashion". Which, since it's easy to build a Wizard to fit in most any tier of game, Wizard just works. Not many classes can say that. So most classes fail my simple "it just works" criteria. If it doesn't have the "works" feature, I don't really care how fancy it is under the hood (save, perhaps, to lament the lack of "works" feature).

Cosi

2018-05-01, 07:08 AM

Rather than what it actually means, which is, "artistically or skillfully planned, especially for a particular purpose",

That standard is dumb and bad. We are talking about a specific domain, of course people are going to use domain-specific definitions, and of course those definitions are going to be more precise than the general one. What does it even mean for a D&D class to be "artistic"? Is the Druid "artistic"? Is the Monk? The Warblade? The Knight? What does it mean for a class to be "skillfully planned"? That it's balanced? That it's complex? That it's simple? All you've done is moved the undefined terms a level down.

I am not blaming wizards for chain-gating. I'm using two different examples of how stupidly OP a wizard can be (definitely beyond chain-gating), and how weak a wizard can be.

But that's not relevant. It literally does not matter that you can abuse planar binding to gain infinite power, because in a game where you are going to be allowed to do that, anyone can do it.

Oh my goodness, are you telling me that a spellcasting class is relatively weak at low levels? Gasp!

The Artificer isn't weak at low levels, it's garbage. A 1st level Wizard is spending a spell slot with per-day recharge to cast color spray or sleep at DC ~15 with no failure chance. A 1st level Artificer is spending gold with no recharge and craft reserve with per-level recharge to cast color spray or sleep at DC 11 with a failure chance that may well be north of 50% (DC 21 to activate a CL 1 scroll, with a bonus somewhere between +4 and +11). It doesn't even get better that much quickly because both the check and the bonus scale at a point per level.

@Cosi Thanks for the clarifications. My only comment is, if they'd also built a "no dumpster diving required" Factotem-like class, would you still have issue with the dumpster diving prerequisite in the existing one?

I suppose? But at that point I'd think it was stupid that they put out two classes with the same concept. The way to handle letting people dumpster dive is something like the Wizard where you can build a totally viable BFC Wizard by just taking good core spells and casting them, but it takes work to make a blaster Wizard (let alone more esoteric concepts) work.

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 10:50 AM

The text includes both preexisting books and supplements, not just books. [...] in addition, the errata says right there that exceptions to the primary source rule will be called out specifically, which is exactly what RC does.

The 2012 editions are reprints, not new books. Their original printings predate RC by several years.

Errata are neither supplements nor books. And no, it doesn't. The Primary Source Errata is only secondary to other errata.

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

Reprints they may be, they are new books regardless, with different rules in relation to the original core.

bean illus

2018-05-01, 12:04 PM

Uh, Factotums are good at many things. Damage is their weakness, and the only point in which they distinctly lose to rogues. They're an extremely good skill-monkey, can whip out magic when it's needed, and even can break action economy a little bit if they want. They have no damage, but that's not why people pick them.[/I]

I'm kind of in the middle on factotum.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's badly designed so much as poorly written. It does need DM interpretation, but the answers seem relatively obvious to me. Anything that makes zero sense, interpret in a way that seems obvious and useful. Take it for granted that I'm unless stated otherwise INSPIRATION means instant/free?

Cunning Strike is 3hp dam, it's useless unless it's scaling, which implies multiple inspiration points can be spent at once. This allows a Nova type ability, but is no more dangerous than any other T3 in the game.

Even cunning surge is so hemmed by factotums other other limitations that allowing free use of it will not break a T2 game.

To repeat myself, it's obviously poorly-written. Nevertheless, with commonly accepted interpretation it plays fairly well. Though lacking in punch, it plays a bit differently than other classes, and appeals to a certain niche of player.

A factotum has access to skills beyond any class in the game. 280 + skill points and another 120 + from BoB. With cunning insight, take 10, and even take 20 when feasible, you Excel at nearly everything.

Factotum is not supposed to shine all the time. It's supposed to be quirky. It's sort of like a T4 that keeps slipping out T3 gimmicks but with occasional access to T 2 game changers.

I do find it's very role play oriented, and I like that.

Lol. I talked too long about what I know very little about.

Oh and let's not forget UMD. Factotum is a dumpster diving class. To rule that out is to rule out factotum, but with dumpster diving the class becomes more fun.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 12:48 PM

Errata are neither supplements nor books. And no, it doesn't. The Primary Source Errata is only secondary to other errata.
"When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically."

Reprints they may be, they are new books regardless, with different rules in relation to the original core.
New books that existed in 2003, four years before RC?

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 01:19 PM

"When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically."

This is for contradictions withing the same book. "When the text within a product contradicts itself"

This has nothing to do with contradictions between core books vs supplements

hamishspence

2018-05-01, 01:25 PM

This is for contradictions withing the same book. "When the text within a product contradicts itself"

And I can think of a few cases where it made more sense to follow the table - like in Champions of Ruin - 3 feats, with identical requirements - according to the table, all 3 do +1d6 damage, according to the text, the Slashing feat does +1 damage instead of +1d6 damage as the other two do.

Or the Rainbow Servant from Complete Divine - the character statblock and the table both matched up - the text didn't - and the text version was more powerful, to the point of often being cited as Broken.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 01:31 PM

This is for contradictions withing the same book. "When the text within a product contradicts itself"

This has nothing to do with contradictions between core books vs supplements
Let me see if I can get a handle on your argument.

According to the errata document, primary sources, AKA the core rules (which are the primary source for all rules), always take precedence over secondary sources, AKA everything outside core, due to the Book and Topic Precedence rule. The Rules Compendium's rules for rules primacy (Exception > Specific > General) are from a secondary source because they're not in a core book, and core books, which do not cover the topic at all, are the primary source for rules primacy. So Exception > Specific > General does not apply here, or, by extension, anywhere else where the general rule is from a core book. Furthermore, because the core books did not exist at the time of RC's printing, they would still take precedence because RC's clause only covers preexisting books. So far so good?

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 01:59 PM

Let me see if I can get a handle on your argument.

According to the errata document, primary sources, AKA the core rules (which are the primary source for all rules), always take precedence over secondary sources, AKA everything outside core, due to the Book and Topic Precedence rule. The Rules Compendium's rules for rules primacy (Exception > Specific > General) are from a secondary source because they're not in a core book, and core books, which do not cover the topic at all, are the primary source for rules primacy. So Exception > Specific > General does not apply here, or, by extension, anywhere else where the general rule is from a core book. Furthermore, because the core books did not exist at the time of RC's printing, they would still take precedence because RC's clause only covers preexisting books. So far so good?

Because of the Primary Sources Errata, the core books take precedence only when there's a rules disagreement. Supplements exist to add to the core rules and introducing a new is not usually a rules disagreement.

Rules that were added without contradiction are fine (new feats; new spells; new mechanics; etc). Rules that were added but then created a contradiction (Thicket of Blades vs Tumble; Standard Action vs Free Action use of Extraordinary Abilities; Disciple of Dispater's Iron Power vs 3.5's rules for the Improved Critical feat) need to follow the core books.

And the Premium core books did not exist. Even if you insist they are the same books (despite them having different names and different rules), it doesn't change the fact that Rules Compendium has no authority over the Errata.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 02:10 PM

Okay, so the Exception > Specific > General rule from RC applies. So, we have a rule that primary sources, AKA core books, generally take precedence in a rules conflict. We also have another rule saying that Rules Compendium specifically takes precedence over preexisting books. Neither rule is from a core book, but the latter is from the book that is the primary source for rules precedence. So which rule wins: general or specific?

And the Premium core books did not exist. Even if you insist they are the same books (despite them having different names and different rules), it doesn't change the fact that Rules Compendium has no authority over the Errata.
I'm not insisting they're the same books. The books themselves are insisting they're the same books.

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 02:15 PM

Okay, so the Exception > Specific > General rule from RC applies. So, we have a rule that primary sources, AKA core books, generally take precedence in a rules conflict. We also have another rule saying that Rules Compendium specifically takes precedence over preexisting books. Neither rule is from a core book, but the latter is from the book that is the primary source for rules precedence. So which rule wins: general or specific?

Errata wins. Always. And Errata says to use the core books.

This really should be another thread by now. I really want to go back to criticizing class design instead of debating the obvious precedence of errata over books since they were created to correct books.

Troacctid

2018-05-01, 02:17 PM

Errata wins. Always. And Errata says to use the core books.

This really should be another thread by now. I really want to go back to criticizing class design instead of debating the obvious precedence of errata over books since they were created to correct books.
Okay, so what does the errata say about the action required for an (Ex) ability?

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 02:21 PM

Okay, so what does the errata say about the action required for an (Ex) ability?

The Errata says to use the core books, which say it's a Standard Action (in the case of non-reactive ones). Even if RC says not to use the core books, the Errata says otherwise, so that's the one we use.

Cosi

2018-05-01, 02:26 PM

It seems obvious to me that if you can have this argument at all, the class you are having it about is not a good class. No one has pages-long debates about whether or not Sorcerers get a familiar, or whether vestiges do anything.

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 02:32 PM

It seems obvious to me that if you can have this argument at all, the class you are having it about is not a good class.

Yup. That's what I said, like, 15 posts ago in page 2 :smallbiggrin:

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-01, 05:10 PM

Yup. That's what I said, like, 15 posts ago in page 2 :smallbiggrin:

And you weren't any more correct then than you are right now.
Simply having a discussion doesn't prove anything, especially when one side is responding to actual text quotes an accompanying page citations with, "I disagree, so that makes you wrong."

The Errata says to use the core books, which say it's a Standard Action (in the case of non-reactive ones). Even if RC says not to use the core books, the Errata says otherwise, so that's the one we use.

Applying that logic to the assumption that the 2013 reprints are "new books" (they aren't, because that's not what a reprint is), means that those core books have total and complete authority over all other books printed with regards to rules in D&D 3.5 between 2000 and 2013. Therefore, any flaws other books have set right have been backwardly-uncorrected by the republished core rules.

If that is the stance you must adopt for the sole purpose of "proving Factotum is bad", then that's on you. But you picked a hell of a strange hill to die on there.

I'm not building anything, are you confusing me with someone else?

The only thing I've been doing is showing how the claims you make about the Factotum's competency are wrong.

You haven't shown anything.

I've been providing full text quotes with pages to demonstrate that your claims against the Factotum are based almost entirely upon your flawed knowledge of the rules of the game. I.E. not knowing what an encounter is, not knowing about the existence of clear instructions on the flow of encounters, not knowing that you are instructed (in more than one place) to use common sense when adjudicating the rules of the game, and so on...

And you responded by saying I'm the one who doesn't understand the rules.

And then of course there was the childish remark over an obvious metaphor...

It's clear to me now that the Factotum is indeed the be all and end all of class design. Having a dozen dubious rules in no way make the class less well designed. I see the light now. Do I need sarcasm tag there?
No, your sarcasm is obvious.
Sense of humor still needs work though.

I'd honestly love to see you playing a Factotum at game with a DM that doesn't bend to your every will and let you dumpster dive, and see you be even mildly useful.

Gladly.
Feel free to pick the setting, the level range, and the DM.
Feel free to run it yourself or play, as well. You might learn something.

PM me if you want to talk brass tacks on this.

And from now on, I'll just agree with you in these regards, knowing full well it's impossible to change your mind on a subject you're the only one defending.

Yes. Be sure to continue to bully those whose opinions and experiences differ from the majority. That'll surely win others to your cause.

RoboEmperor

2018-05-01, 05:31 PM

n00b17

2018-05-01, 05:33 PM

B) certain spells, feats, items, and tactics can break the game. Unless you propose we ban all spells, feats, items, and tactics, I'm not seeing anything of value in this point.

I feel like you're not arguing in good faith here. When I say "break the game", I mean that it changes the way the game works in way that prevents players from facing challenges and making interesting choices. I'm not arguing that the artificer is too strong (although it has a very high skill ceiling), I'm arguing that the artificer's design changes the game in such a way that it prevents its player as well as other players from making interesting choices. The reason I believe this is that for almost situation out there, there is a spell that deals with that problem. When an artificer can make a scroll of any spell in the game pretty much overnight, it means that as long as the artificer knows what the challenge will be ahead of time, it is fairly easy to negate the challenge and rob everybody else of their fun. Since the artificer also has access to every divination spell in the game by crafting wands and scrolls, the artificer can figure out what the challenge is ahead of time without too much effort.

At a fundamental level, no well designed option should keep the game being fun or interesting. If a certain option is making the game less fun or interesting, than the game will be more fun or interesting without it, and we should probably get rid of it. So no, I don't think we should ban all spells, feats, and items. Just the ones that make the game less fun or encourage tactics that make the game less fun.

A2) unless you mean "it's not fair". I play casters. I personally don't have an issue if a dedicated crafter is better at crafting than my casters. Shrug.

C) I don't waste my money on consumables! :smalltongue:

If I read you correctly, your entire premise appears to be about breaking the game. I can only respond with, "don't do that".

If you're avoiding breaking the game, great! That's good, and I'm glad that this class hasn't kept your games from being fun. My point is this: Why include the option to break the game in the first place? If that option just makes the game worse for everyone, why is it available?

Nifft

2018-05-01, 06:17 PM

And you weren't any more correct then than you are right now. Nor any less correct. In fact, since he said the same thing twice, he was exactly as correct in both instances.

Which is to say: he is correct, and you are wrong.

You haven't shown anything.

I've been providing full text quotes with pages to demonstrate that your claims You've done no such thing.

You spewed some text from a 2010 book which might (?) fix a hole which I experienced in 2008, when the Factotum was published, but the later publication of the fix wasn't in the form of errata, and wasn't available when I was busy to use the class, and being disappointed by the blatantly dysfunctional write-up.

And then two other people had a multi-page discussion about whether the RC is supposed to trump core rules, or just clarify them.

You're pretending that you've scored points, but you could only think that if you were somehow able to ignore a large chunk of the last few pages of discussion.

The only thing that you might have a point about is that Cunning Surge might not be utterly dysfunctional -- if the RC is treated as paid errata, then it might actually be able to grant one extra action per turn, at high cost. Or it might not, if paid errata isn't a thing, and thus conflicts between the RC and the SRD are resolved in favor of the SRD.

I mean, you started out asserting that you'd use a sniper spell to extend Sneak Attack range, then leverage that by dumping all (three to six) Inspiration dice on a 25 ft. long ray, for 1d3 base damage +Xd6 for sneak attack (where X ∈ [3,6]). You thought that would be enough damage to prematurely terminate an encounter. If that's you showing your understanding of the rules, well, you've certainly shown us something.

But what you've shown is not a successful argument.

Quertus

2018-05-01, 06:19 PM

I think traps are one of the most stupid things in d&d.

In any fantasy story I've ever watched/read, I have never seen dungeon traps, ever. There are traps that enemies dig for ambushes, but that's it.

So it's no surprise absolutely no one goes rogue and people deal with traps by just smashing it, taking the hit, or throwing some summoned expendable decoys.

Traps are always a nuisance in our games so my DM just dropped them entirely and focuses on ambushes.

I'm still used to no-one going Wizard, personally. Or Cleric. Or Psion.

I feel like you're not arguing in good faith here. When I say "break the game", I mean that it changes the way the game works in way that prevents players from facing challenges and making interesting choices. I'm not arguing that the artificer is too strong (although it has a very high skill ceiling), I'm arguing that the artificer's design changes the game in such a way that it prevents its player as well as other players from making interesting choices. The reason I believe this is that for almost situation out there, there is a spell that deals with that problem. When an artificer can make a scroll of any spell in the game pretty much overnight, it means that as long as the artificer knows what the challenge will be ahead of time, it is fairly easy to negate the challenge and rob everybody else of their fun. Since the artificer also has access to every divination spell in the game by crafting wands and scrolls, the artificer can figure out what the challenge is ahead of time without too much effort.

At a fundamental level, no well designed option should keep the game being fun or interesting. If a certain option is making the game less fun or interesting, than the game will be more fun or interesting without it, and we should probably get rid of it. So no, I don't think we should ban all spells, feats, and items. Just the ones that make the game less fun or encourage tactics that make the game less fun.

If you're avoiding breaking the game, great! That's good, and I'm glad that this class hasn't kept your games from being fun. My point is this: Why include the option to break the game in the first place? If that option just makes the game worse for everyone, why is it available?

Having teleport breaks an overland travel game, sure. But having teleport makes other games. Don't take teleport away from those who need it for their games. If you know that you're in an overland travel game, don't take teleport. Bring a character who is appropriate to the game.

If you know that divination and custom chosen consumables breaks your games, don't do that.

A sandbox isn't just a random collection of toys. They can be picked with a purpose in mind (a political sandbox, for example), but, more importantly, they are chosen because the GM believes that the players will find them fun.

Characters are - or should be - built similarly. Sure, it makes perfect sense for an Artificer to X, but X isn't fun for anyone - so why doesn't this one?

Answer that, and you've got a playable character (at your table).

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 06:23 PM

And you weren't any more correct then than you are right now.
Simply having a discussion doesn't prove anything, especially when one side is responding to actual text quotes an accompanying page citations with, "I disagree, so that makes you wrong."

Are you delusional? I've backed up all my arguments with text from the rules.

Snowbluff

2018-05-01, 06:24 PM

Nifft

2018-05-01, 06:32 PM

Warlock and DFI are really poorly designed, but I do love them. Leave my Bards alone!

DFI is the only way they can -- oh, you probably meant DFA.

Carry on.

Beguiler is the best designed class. Good, easy casting. Can take spells from future books with learning. A nice combination of skill monkey and illusionist that fits together. Beguiler is so tricky, it snuck up a whole tier while nobody was looking.

Elkad

2018-05-01, 06:46 PM

I have hopes that someday D&D will be published like Star Fleet Battles. Or like they did with the 2e Monstrous Compendium.

Buy your "book", which is really a bunch of hole-punched sheets you put in a binder (provided or not)
Buy an expansion, and mix the pages in with the first book where indicated, sometimes replacing a page with the updated version.
Modules and adventure paths would include sheets to add to your book as well (for new items/creatures/whatever), while keeping the adventure itself (encounters and maps) separate.
Rules would all be decimal numbered, and cross-referenced.

20 expansions later you have a giant tome, all still neatly integrated.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-01, 06:50 PM

Are you delusional? I've backed up all my arguments with text from the rules.

You've successfully defended one point with rules text: that Uncanny Dodge prevents Sneak Attack from functioning against you when you are flat-footed target.
Everything else you've said has been unsubstantiated conjecture or outright flagrant disregard for the rules of the game. Despite you (occasionally) quoting direct text, your obvious bias against Factotums requires you to interpret them in the most inane and absurd way possible to justify your position on the class.

To highlight the most recent example, your assertion that the core books are paramount, even over the other books that assert their own primacy on a given subject, is based on nothing but your own flawed interpretation of the primacy rule found in errata files.

Even if we assume your assertion is correct, that "only an errata file has primacy over the core rules", you are also ignoring this:

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for
how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources
from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules
clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing
the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well
as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and
easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement
differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is
meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how
to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer
that question.

In addition to declaring primacy over all other supplements for the rules of the game, the Rules Compendium also explicitly contains errata.

So unless you somehow have conclusive proof that the thing in the Rules Compendium that you disagree with is not errata, nor a supplement to the Rules As Written that clarifies intent, but is actually... something else... then what is in the Rules Compendium is RAW.

Furthermore...
as the "errata rule" explicitly states that the Monster Manual is the primary source for "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities", the MMI glossary also has this to say:

Extraordinary: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don’t
become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any
effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free
action unless otherwise noted.

So... are you still quite certain your assessment of the viability of Factotums is based on something other than your intense dislike of the class, which is clearly rooted in your personal experience with them?

heavyfuel

2018-05-01, 07:16 PM

Even if we assume your assertion is correct, that "only an errata file has primacy over the core rules", you are also ignoring this [...]

Gathering resources from errata doesn't give it authority over them. RC itself only says it has authority over previous books and supplements, it's silent in regards to errata. If I'm wrong, show me a single quote from RC saying it has priority over errata. I'll swallow my words and take back everything I've said so far as soon as you do that. But I'm confident you'll fail in this regard.

Furthermore...
as the "errata rule" explicitly states that the Monster Manual is the primary source for "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities", the MMI glossary also has this to say:

Extraordinary: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don’t
become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any
effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free
action unless otherwise noted.

Now that's actually a decent argument. However, it says "unless otherwise noted". The Player's Handbook noting an exception to this rule is not a contradiction, it's in fact explicitly permitted.

Normally they are free actions. But if they are not reactive, they are a Standard Action. That's the definition of "unless otherwise noted". You'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Cunning Surge is a reactive ability.

Also, the PHB is the primary source on "using base class descriptions". The description of the Factotum base class's abilities fall under PHB purview, which says it takes a Standard Action to use Cunning Surge. This, again, is not a rules contradiction, since the MM explicitly allows for these exceptions.

Cosi

2018-05-01, 07:45 PM

Simply having a discussion doesn't prove anything,

Having a discussion doesn't prove that one side or the other is right, no. But it's hard to say that having a discussion is totally meaningless when we don't have this discussion about whether Advanced Learning allows you to learn non-core Enchantment and Illusion spells, or whether the Binder can bind vestiges, or whether it's possible to invest incarnum in soulmelds. Looking only at the relative level of debate over the mechanics of the Factotum versus the mechanics of the Beguiler, the Warblade, or the Druid (all classes put forward as "well designed") in this thread, it certainly seems fair to suggest that the Factotum has mechanics that are uniquely ambiguous, and might therefore reasonably be considered "badly designed".

ZamielVanWeber

2018-05-01, 07:54 PM

Warlock and DFI are really poorly designed, but I do love them.

Beguiler is the best designed class. Good, easy casting. Can take spells from future books with learning. A nice combination of skill monkey and illusionist that fits together.

DFA always felt nice and solid to me. Moderate top end but consistent effectiveness balances it's extremely low stat needs.

Beguiler is more dubious to me as it has extremely good Int based casting and a vast skill list to synergizes with that casting (and includes the ever useful UMD). I would personally hold up warmage and dread necromancer as the better examples, personally. Overall I think that the fixed list casters were a good design choice and am sad we did not see more.

Goaty14

2018-05-01, 08:57 PM

But that's not relevant. It literally does not matter that you can abuse planar binding to gain infinite power, because in a game where you are going to be allowed to do that, anyone can do it.

Your argument: "because wizards are able to reliably cast planar binding and gain infinite power, means that the fighter, monk, and commoner can also gain infinite power by using scrolls. Thus, the wizard and the commoner are on the same power level.".

My argument: "because there can exist a wizard that can gain infinite power, yet also exist a wizard that performs horribly means that the wizard is a poorly designed class."

As pointed out in the JaronK tiers, just because a class possesses a trick that allows them to do something cheesy (d2 crusader and metabreath feats come to mind), does not raise the class' power level. Technically I'm arguing that the wizard/sorc spells are designed badly, but it was already pointed out earlier that most T1 casters (including wizard) are their spells, so that's another argument.

NineInchNall

2018-05-01, 11:20 PM

Looking only at the relative level of debate over the mechanics of the Factotum versus the mechanics of the Beguiler, the Warblade, or the Druid (all classes put forward as "well designed") in this thread, it certainly seems fair to suggest that the Factotum has mechanics that are uniquely ambiguous, and might therefore reasonably be considered "badly designed".

Given that level of debate, and the polarization involved, might it be politic to remain agnostic regarding the quality of the Factotum's design and label the class "poorly communicated"? After all, it's hard to judge a thing if you can't really even describe it.

RoboEmperor

2018-05-01, 11:51 PM

My argument: "because there can exist a wizard that can gain infinite power, yet also exist a wizard that performs horribly means that the wizard is a poorly designed class."

That's a terrible argument. Absolutely atrocious. That's like saying...

This character in a fighting game is crap because in the hands of a noob it is crap because of its difficulty, and yet in the hands of a pro it is top tier and winning tournaments. Low skill users should never be used as an argument on whether something is poorly designed or not.

Zombulian

2018-05-01, 11:56 PM

Given that level of debate, and the polarization involved, might it be politic to remain agnostic regarding the quality of the Factotum's design and label the class "poorly communicated"? After all, it's hard to judge a thing if you can't really even describe it.

But if you can't describe it, isn't that a design flaw?

Luccan

2018-05-01, 11:57 PM

That's a terrible argument. Absolutely atrocious. That's like saying...

This character in a fighting game is crap because in the hands of a noob it is crap because of its difficulty, and yet in the hands of a pro it is top tier and winning tournaments. Low skill users should never be used as an argument on whether something is poorly designed or not.

I think it would be closer to saying "In the hands of a noob, it's a glitchy mess with no consistency and in the hands of a pro, it's a glitchy mess that makes fighting it impossible and has a huge advantage because it does things the designers didn't fully intend". I believe that usually results in banning. Of course, I don't think wizard is poorly designed, necessarily, but I also don't think it's the "best designed class in 3.5". I think a range that large is a real problem, much like I think most trap feats are a problem. It shows either a lack of understanding their own system well enough or a willingness to let players completely handicap themselves for the crime of being new.

Edit: Honestly, I think it's the first one, so I'm just crossing the second option out.

RoboEmperor

2018-05-02, 12:36 AM

I think it would be closer to saying "In the hands of a noob, it's a glitchy mess with no consistency and in the hands of a pro, it's a glitchy mess that makes fighting it impossible and has a huge advantage because it does things the designers didn't fully intend". I believe that usually results in banning. Of course, I don't think wizard is poorly designed, necessarily, but I also don't think it's the "best designed class in 3.5". I think a range that large is a real problem, much like I think most trap feats are a problem. It shows either a lack of understanding their own system well enough or a willingness to let players completely handicap themselves for the crime of being new.

Edit: Honestly, I think it's the first one, so I'm just crossing the second option out.

I don't really defend T1 classes. The only time I do is because my current build needs their full power to be viable, and even then i never stop trying to replace the T1 class with a T2 class.

In terms of design (not power) I'd put wizard on the same level as fighter. One is new spell level every other level, and one is a free bonus feat every other level. I don't include spells in the class design unless it has a fixed list like warmage. Access to a broad range of spells is something I attribute to the class (bard v.s. wizard).

In any case I agree, Wizard and Fighter are not "best designed class".

Quertus

2018-05-02, 12:50 AM

Your argument: "because wizards are able to reliably cast planar binding and gain infinite power, means that the fighter, monk, and commoner can also gain infinite power by using scrolls. Thus, the wizard and the commoner are on the same power level.".

My argument: "because there can exist a wizard that can gain infinite power, yet also exist a wizard that performs horribly means that the wizard is a poorly designed class."

As pointed out in the JaronK tiers, just because a class possesses a trick that allows them to do something cheesy (d2 crusader and metabreath feats come to mind), does not raise the class' power level. Technically I'm arguing that the wizard/sorc spells are designed badly, but it was already pointed out earlier that most T1 casters (including wizard) are their spells, so that's another argument.

I once again put forth my argument: because wizard has such a broad range of play levels, it is indicative of better designed class, that can be played at more tables than classes with a more narrow play window..

Having a discussion doesn't prove that one side or the other is right, no. But it's hard to say that having a discussion is totally meaningless when we don't have this discussion about whether Advanced Learning allows you to learn non-core Enchantment and Illusion spells, or whether the Binder can bind vestiges, or whether it's possible to invest incarnum in soulmelds. Looking only at the relative level of debate over the mechanics of the Factotum versus the mechanics of the Beguiler, the Warblade, or the Druid (all classes put forward as "well designed") in this thread, it certainly seems fair to suggest that the Factotum has mechanics that are uniquely ambiguous, and might therefore reasonably be considered "badly designed".

Hmmm... Although I tend to err on that side of things, I am reminded of a story from my college years.

So, there we were, in a CS class. i forget which one offhand - probably Networking. Anyway, the professor is trying to explain Token Ring topography.

Now, for reference, the class has first learned the concept of computers just broadcasting whenever they felt like it. In Token Ring, they can only broadcast when they have the "token", which must be "passed" from computer to computer, whether or not they intended to otherwise transmit data.

It's clear nobody gets it. They keep expressing concern over complex time-sharing algorithms, especially the complexity inherent in recalculating and redistributing shares when the network composition changes. With some minor concern over the concept of or inefficiency in passing the token without otherwise using their turn. The professor is looking increasingly exasperated at his inability to communicate such a simple concept, as demonstrated by the clueless questions posed - repeatedly - by his class.

Finally, there's the straw that breaks the camel's back: I raise my hand. Now, you may have a hard time imagining this, but I am both a genius and rather... out there. The last light of hope goes out of the professor's eyes, as he resigns himself to his fate. "Yes? You have a question, too?"

No, man, Token Ring topography is like taking a toke off a joint. You take the joint, you take your toke, you pass it on. There is no complex sharing algorithm. Someone joins the circle, or leaves the circle, you just keep track of who you pass to. You don't want a toke, you just pass it. It's dead simple.

The professor pauses for a moment, and watched the lightbulbs go on throughout the class. "So," he asks, "anyone still have any questions about Token Ring?"

Amazing what I can learn from watching movies, no?

In short, just because people are baffled by something doesn't mean that the thing is inherently inelegant - it may simply be matter of approach in understanding it.

Granted, I haven't heard anything to make Factotum sound particularly elegant, but I don't put it as outside the realm of possibilities that someone could write a "this is how Factotum was intended to work" (regardless of whether it works that way or not) that might be quite elegant.

Zombulian

2018-05-02, 01:02 AM

I once again put forth my argument: because wizard has such a broad range of play levels, it is indicative of better designed class, that can be played at more tables than classes with a more narrow play window..

Hmmm... Although I tend to err on that side of things, I am reminded of a story from my college years.

So, there we were, in a CS class. i forget which one offhand - probably Networking. Anyway, the professor is trying to explain Token Ring topography.

Now, for reference, the class has first learned the concept of computers just broadcasting whenever they felt like it. In Token Ring, they can only broadcast when they have the "token", which must be "passed" from computer to computer, whether or not they intended to otherwise transmit data.

It's clear nobody gets it. They keep expressing concern over complex time-sharing algorithms, especially the complexity inherent in recalculating and redistributing shares when the network composition changes. With some minor concern over the concept of or inefficiency in passing the token without otherwise using their turn. The professor is looking increasingly exasperated at his inability to communicate such a simple concept, as demonstrated by the clueless questions posed - repeatedly - by his class.

Finally, there's the straw that breaks the camel's back: I raise my hand. Now, you may have a hard time imagining this, but I am both a genius and rather... out there. The last light of hope goes out of the professor's eyes, as he resigns himself to his fate. "Yes? You have a question, too?"

No, man, Token Ring topography is like taking a toke off a joint. You take the joint, you take your toke, you pass it on. There is no complex sharing algorithm. Someone joins the circle, or leaves the circle, you just keep track of who you pass to. You don't want a toke, you just pass it. It's dead simple.

The professor pauses for a moment, and watched the lightbulbs go on throughout the class. "So," he asks, "anyone still have any questions about Token Ring?"

Amazing what I can learn from watching movies, no?

In short, just because people are baffled by something doesn't mean that the thing is inherently inelegant - it may simply be matter of approach in understanding it.

Granted, I haven't heard anything to make Factotum sound particularly elegant, but I don't put it as outside the realm of possibilities that someone could write a "this is how Factotum was intended to work" (regardless of whether it works that way or not) that might be quite elegant.

I think it's possible you're looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I am), but I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is people discussing the very lack of elegance and clear communication inherent in the class, and how that is what adds up to being a design flaw.

Florian

2018-05-02, 03:10 AM

This character in a fighting game is crap because in the hands of a noob it is crap because of its difficulty, and yet in the hands of a pro it is top tier and winning tournaments. Low skill users should never be used as an argument on whether something is poorly designed or not.

It´s not so much low skill users, but rather the huge gap in performance when looking at possible power bottom and ceiling before factoring player skill in.

Quertus

2018-05-02, 06:44 AM

I think it's possible you're looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I am), but I'm pretty sure the issue at hand is people discussing the very lack of elegance and clear communication inherent in the class, and how that is what adds up to being a design flaw.

That's the thing - I get that. And I almost agree with it.

But.

Let's say that I have a set of numbers. The first is the difference between the first two prime numbers. The second is the age of the subject in my oft-told story of demonstrating a firm grasps on numbers. The third is the cube root of digits 29-30 of pi.

Written and described this way, this set of numbers seems complex. But, really, they're as easy as 1,2,3.

So, my issue is, does the description of the class being poorly designed mean that the class itself is poorly designed? Does the fact that the class interacts with rules filed with ambiguity / lack of clarity, or the rules it interacts with being poorly designed, make the class poorly designed?

When I write code, and that code interacts with a bug in Windows, does that make my code poorly designed?

I have a difficult time accepting that the answer is "yes" here.

Florian

2018-05-02, 06:57 AM

@Quertus:

You should know both, working with established Design Patterns and interacting with Frameworks, especially in an OO environment and how to handle Exceptions.

NineInchNall

2018-05-02, 08:48 AM

But if you can't describe it, isn't that a design flaw?

Only if the cause of the difficulty is something intrinsic to the thing described. It's not a design flaw if the difficulty exists because you aren't good at describing things in general. Technical writing is a significantly different skill from creative or persuasive writing, and one thing we know with absolute certainty is that the 3.x devs/designers were horrendous technical writers.

Andor13

2018-05-02, 09:48 AM

RoboEmperor

2018-05-02, 10:05 AM

It´s not so much low skill users, but rather the huge gap in performance when looking at possible power bottom and ceiling before factoring player skill in.

Why is that a bad thing? A computer in the hands of a non-science/tech major and the same computer in the hands of a world class hacker results in a huge gap in performance when looking at possible power bottom and ceiling. So the computer is badly designed?

If a class is supposed to be "noob friendly" then yes, you factor in player skill, but if not, then you completely disregard newbies and solely look at the performance of competitive users. Because that's what competitive games do right? They make balance changes based on the pro-tier not the noob-tier.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-05-02, 10:17 AM

If a class is supposed to be "noob friendly" then yes, you factor in player skill, but if not, then you completely disregard newbies and solely look at the performance of competitive users. Because that's what competitive games do right? They make balance changes based on the pro-tier not the noob-tier.

Is D&D supposed to be a competitive game that balances based on "experts"? And what defines "pro-tier" in D&D? Mechanical optimization skill? Role-play? Something else?

Reasoning from inapposite analogies can lead you in strange directions.

ComaVision

2018-05-02, 10:18 AM

Why is that a bad thing? A computer in the hands of a non-science/tech major and the same computer in the hands of a world class hacker results in a huge gap in performance when looking at possible power bottom and ceiling. So the computer is badly designed?

That's definitely not "before factoring player skill in." GUIs were a huge step forward because they lowered the skill barrier to start using a computer, that's good design.

If a class is supposed to be "noob friendly" then yes, you factor in player skill, but if not, then you completely disregard newbies and solely look at the performance of competitive users. Because that's what competitive games do right? They make balance changes based on the pro-tier not the noob-tier.

No, all classes should have a high enough optimization floor that they can contribute to a group because that's good design. Also, what is a "competitive user" in the context of TTRPG?

Also, most competitive games do not solely make balance changes based on pro-tier. If a character/class/hero is dominating pro OR noob tier, that's poor design.

Quertus

2018-05-02, 10:35 AM

That's definitely not "before factoring player skill in." GUIs were a huge step forward because they lowered the skill barrier to start using a computer, that's good design.

That's debatable. There are plenty of people - most often in tech support - who believe that the world was a much better place when there was a firm "you must be this smart to use a computer" barrier.

The fact that modern firearms are so easy to use that toddlers can accidentally kill their patents is another example of the questionable nature of the value of easy user interfaces.

No, all classes should have a high enough optimization floor that they can contribute to a group because that's good design. Also, what is a "competitive user" in the context of TTRPG?

Also, most competitive games do not solely make balance changes based on pro-tier. If a character/class/hero is dominating pro OR noob tier, that's poor design.

The Hierarchy dominates noob tier; the Alliance dominates pro tier. Yet StarControl seems well designed.

Now, the bolded part is quite interesting. Hmmm... I'd say that it's good design to have one "arcanist" with a solid floor, one "martial" with a solid floor, one "skill monkey" with a solid floor, etc - in other words, one class with a solid floor for each base concept. After that, IMO, you're free to make as many classes with "unplayable" floors as you see fit so long as the difference is clearly labeled.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-05-02, 10:48 AM

That's debatable. There are plenty of people - most often in tech support - who believe that the world was a much better place when there was a firm "you must be this smart to use a computer" barrier.

Elitists will elite. That doesn't make it right. Or useful. Or a decent analogy. The "high priesthood" model of computing dooms it to limited utility.

ComaVision

2018-05-02, 10:49 AM

That's debatable. There are plenty of people - most often in tech support - who believe that the world was a much better place when there was a firm "you must be this smart to use a computer" barrier.

That's stupid. The advancement of our society in the last several decades owes a lot to how ubiquitous computers are. Not to mention that those tech support jobs wouldn't exist without people to support.

Now, the bolded part is quite interesting. Hmmm... I'd say that it's good design to have one "arcanist" with a solid floor, one "martial" with a solid floor, one "skill monkey" with a solid floor, etc - in other words, one class with a solid floor for each base concept. After that, IMO, you're free to make as many classes with "unplayable" floors as you see fit so long as the difference is clearly labeled.

I suppose that's a matter of preference. IMO, if the developer is acknowledging that a class sucks out of the gate and takes an experienced player to bring them to parity then they should just address that issue instead of attaching a label and calling it a day.

Quertus

2018-05-02, 11:22 AM

I suppose that's a matter of preference. IMO, if the developer is acknowledging that a class sucks out of the gate and takes an experienced player to bring them to parity then they should just address that issue instead of attaching a label and calling it a day.

A cookie is yummy. An ice cream cone... not so much. But, I can much more easily add ice cream to a cone than to a cookie. And I can easily tailor the experience to my tastes, producing a vanilla ice cream cone, or a chocolate ice cream cone, or a triple-dip bubblegum / truffle / spumoni ice cream cone.

Being incomplete out of the gate is not inherently a bug. Sometimes, it's a feature.

See also modern legos vs original legos.

RoboEmperor

2018-05-02, 11:52 AM

Is D&D supposed to be a competitive game that balances based on "experts"? And what defines "pro-tier" in D&D? Mechanical optimization skill? Role-play? Something else?

Reasoning from inapposite analogies can lead you in strange directions.

My point is you don't call a class poorly designed because noobs fail with them. You call a class poorly designed because pros annihilate campaigns with them.

You want to say Wizard is poorly designed because it breaks games? Sure.
You want to say Wizard is poorly designed because it is ludicrously more powerful than any other class? Sure.
But you don't say a Wizard is poorly designed because noobs suck with them and pros rock with them.

Elkad

2018-05-02, 12:01 PM

Buy PDFs. Go to Kinkos. Spend more money. Goal achieved.

(When I played SFB our rules did not quite fit into a 4" D-ring binder. Still a blast though.

That doesn't work, because you have to edit everything. Rules are stuck in sidebars and various other strange places. Pages have two types of content on them. Etc.

My SFB rules are in a 3" binder, with all the SSDs in several smaller ones (by race/nation), but I haven't added to it in better than 20 years (X1 was probably my last purchase, it was new at the time), so I don't know what else there is.

Zombulian

2018-05-02, 01:10 PM

That's the thing - I get that. And I almost agree with it.

But.

Let's say that I have a set of numbers. The first is the difference between the first two prime numbers. The second is the age of the subject in my oft-told story of demonstrating a firm grasps on numbers. The third is the cube root of digits 29-30 of pi.

Written and described this way, this set of numbers seems complex. But, really, they're as easy as 1,2,3.

So, my issue is, does the description of the class being poorly designed mean that the class itself is poorly designed? Does the fact that the class interacts with rules filed with ambiguity / lack of clarity, or the rules it interacts with being poorly designed, make the class poorly designed?

When I write code, and that code interacts with a bug in Windows, does that make my code poorly designed?

I have a difficult time accepting that the answer is "yes" here.

The answer is, indeed, yes. Elegance and readability for the purposes of playing a game is part of good design. I get that you like feeling smarter than other people, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a frickin game.

That's debatable. There are plenty of people - most often in tech support - who believe that the world was a much better place when there was a firm "you must be this smart to use a computer" barrier.

The fact that modern firearms are so easy to use that toddlers can accidentally kill their patents is another example of the questionable nature of the value of easy user interfaces.

Dude what are you going on about? You can't compare the easy use of firearms to game playability.

Quertus

2018-05-02, 01:11 PM

You want to say Wizard is poorly designed because it breaks games? Sure.
You want to say Wizard is poorly designed because it is ludicrously more powerful than any other class? Sure.
But you don't say a Wizard is poorly designed because noobs suck with them and pros rock with them.

Only noobs break games. and only the Sith deal in absolutes

Andor13

2018-05-02, 01:14 PM

That doesn't work, because you have to edit everything. Rules are stuck in sidebars and various other strange places. Pages have two types of content on them. Etc.

That's true. You would have to edit the game from the ground up to be compatible with that model. It's a shame we have to choose between the convenience and joy of dead tree books and the completely different convenience and portability/updateability of electronic ones. Although now I'm fantasizing about a dead tree book with an Augmented Reality overlay for hypertext and errata. ... That would be kind of amazing.

RoboEmperor

2018-05-02, 01:29 PM

Only noobs break games.

I agree to this.

Quertus

2018-05-02, 02:05 PM

The answer is, indeed, yes. Elegance and readability for the purposes of playing a game is part of good design. I get that you like feeling smarter than other people, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a frickin game.

I rather hate it, actually. :smallannoyed:

Of course, if you read that I like it, then I count it as a win, as I have successfully roleplayed Quertus. :smallwink:

That aside, do I agree with your assertion that simplicity and readability for playing a game is indicative of good game design? Hmmm... Mostly.

See, there are different types of people who want different types of experiences out of things. Some people really enjoy digging for obscure knowledge. If the game isn't designed with obscure knowledge, they won't enjoy it as much.

Me, I greatly enjoy digging for obscure knowledge and interactions in the game. Oh, your world features rocks that float? Well, why do they float? How can I utilize this knowledge? What else can I do with it?

But for the rules? Character creation? No, I value clarity. I have no interest, personally, in digging into the character creation minigame.

So, for me, simplicity and readability make for a good experience - but that isn't true for everyone.

So, IMO, having general clarity, but with discrete chunks that most of us can ignore (like, say, specific classes) that require digging seems the optimal design.

Dude what are you going on about? You can't compare the easy use of firearms to game playability.

Um...

That's definitely not "before factoring player skill in." GUIs were a huge step forward because they lowered the skill barrier to start using a computer, that's good design.

I was simply responding to another user attempting to assert a value judgement as fact when, in the larger scheme, the veracity of that claim is in question.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-02, 03:32 PM

Gathering resources from errata doesn't give it authority over them. RC itself only says it has authority over previous books and supplements, it's silent in regards to errata. If I'm wrong, show me a single quote from RC saying it has priority over errata. I'll swallow my words and take back everything I've said so far as soon as you do that. But I'm confident you'll fail in this regard.

Now that's actually a decent argument. However, it says "unless otherwise noted". The Player's Handbook noting an exception to this rule is not a contradiction, it's in fact explicitly permitted.

Normally they are free actions. But if they are not reactive, they are a Standard Action. That's the definition of "unless otherwise noted". You'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Cunning Surge is a reactive ability.

Also, the PHB is the primary source on "using base class descriptions". The description of the Factotum base class's abilities fall under PHB purview, which says it takes a Standard Action to use Cunning Surge. This, again, is not a rules contradiction, since the MM explicitly allows for these exceptions.

Wow.

Even when presented with plainly written explanations of why your position is fractally wrong, you are so completely blinded by your dislike of Factotum that you have to adjust your own interpretation in order to hold on to your belief that class is bad to the point of being completely unplayable. You aren't even pretending that you're arguing RAW at this point. You're rules-lawyering.

It's like you feel somehow physically assaulted by the mere notion that the Factotum might not be as bad as you believe it to be, or that you might have potentially misjudged it in at least some way. By contrast, Nifft was able to admit at least one positive thing about the class-- that Brains Over Brawn is an excellent feature-- even if he had to do so grudgingly.

Seriously, what did Factotum ever do to you to personally to warrant such desperate, bull-headed, obstinance?

heavyfuel

2018-05-02, 07:21 PM

Seriously, what did Factotum ever do to you to personally to warrant such desperate, bull-headed, obstinance level headed arguments?

They were terribly written, for one.

Nifft

2018-05-02, 08:18 PM

By contrast, Nifft was able to admit at least one positive thing about the class-- that Brains Over Brawn is an excellent feature-- even if he had to do so grudgingly. Pardon your own inability to read the thread, but there's nothing "grudging" about my evaluation that Brains Over Brawn was a solid class feature. You certainly didn't sway my opinion, for or against.

@heavyfuel also said a nice thing about that class feature, and so did several other people -- which is no surprise, since it's one of the few useful tools the class offers.

Seriously, what did Factotum ever do to you to personally to warrant such desperate, bull-headed, obstinance? It did not meet my performance expectations.

Also, it's very poorly written.

Also also, it's got a weird fanbase who seem to over-sell it, which in turn leads to disappointment -- who knows, maybe I was over-sold myself by some clueless fan, which is why I became disillusioned and let down by the stark reality of Factotum's failure to deliver.

Cosi

2018-05-02, 10:06 PM

Your argument: "because wizards are able to reliably cast planar binding and gain infinite power, means that the fighter, monk, and commoner can also gain infinite power by using scrolls. Thus, the wizard and the commoner are on the same power level."

No, "therefore infinite power loops are not a meaningful part of balance discussions".

Given that level of debate, and the polarization involved, might it be politic to remain agnostic regarding the quality of the Factotum's design and label the class "poorly communicated"? After all, it's hard to judge a thing if you can't really even describe it.

Presentation is a part of the class' design. The argument being made seems to be "is the Factotum good", which is an orthogonal question to "is the Factotum well designed". A class can be effective without being well designed. As an example, you could imagine a class that had as it's only ability "once per day, win a level appropriate encounter". Per the DMG encounter guidelines, that class is pretty much exactly correctly balanced for a four-encounter workday. But it's obviously a painfully terrible class from a design perspective. Even if you gave them more uses of that ability (to the point that it became broken), at no point would the class be good.

NineInchNall

2018-05-03, 10:06 AM

The argument being made seems to be "is the Factotum good", which is an orthogonal question to "is the Factotum well designed". A class can be effective without being well designed. As an example, you could imagine a class that had as it's only ability "once per day, win a level appropriate encounter". Per the DMG encounter guidelines, that class is pretty much exactly correctly balanced for a four-encounter workday. But it's obviously a painfully terrible class from a design perspective. Even if you gave them more uses of that ability (to the point that it became broken), at no point would the class be good.

Quite obviously. (Well, except from the more pedantic philosophical-intentionality perspective that your example class is well-designed for the purpose of demonstrating poor design. This raises the question of whether a toy example can demonstrate poor design without itself being well-designed.)

Presentation is a part of the class's design.

This I take issue with. Take any given thing that is well-designed--doesn't matter what--and describe it poorly to someone. Does that thing cease being well-designed? Simultaneously have someone else describe it well to yet another person. Is it now both well- and poorly-designed? This feels wrong. Quality of design intuitively seems like an intrinsic property.

It also bugs me because it's rhetorically unnecessary for showing that the as-written class is bad. If we separate the (unknown) intended class from the class as presented, then any opposing arguments cannot be of the form, "But that's not what was intended," since we would have already forfeited that battle.

I guess my point was and is that winning the war does not require winning every battle.

heavyfuel

2018-05-03, 10:29 AM

This I take issue with. Take any given thing that is well-designed--doesn't matter what--and describe it poorly to someone. Does that thing cease being well-designed? Simultaneously have someone else describe it well to yet another person. Is it now both well- and poorly-designed? This feels wrong. Quality of design intuitively seems like an intrinsic property.

It also bugs me because it's rhetorically unnecessary for showing that the as-written class is bad. If we separate the (unknown) intended class from the class as presented, then any opposing arguments cannot be of the form, "But that's not what was intended," since we would have already forfeited that battle.

I guess my point was and is that winning the war does not require winning every battle.

Things in the real world can be experienced first-handed by people. Even if you describe them poorly, there's an opportunity for people to get a different description from someone else or - better yet - try out these things for themselves and notice the good design.

A set of rules describing class in a table top RPG, however, gives no such opportunity. If the rules are vague, they are vague for everyone. It's impossible for anyone other than the person who designed the class to explain their intent with it, and the designer already tried and failed to explain how the class works in the rulebook.

The horrible design of the Factotum has nothing to do with intuitiveness, it has to do with it not being at all clear on what you can or can't do with the class. Magic of Incarnum is least intuitive book there is, but the book is generally considered a very good book.

The Shadowmind

2018-05-03, 11:02 AM

The Factotum is a terribly edited class, but that doesn't exactly mean it is it isn't well balanced, it also doesn't mean it is well balanced. Does bad editing mean badly designed?

What is needs is:

Inspiration: The factotum gains [See Table], amount of inspiration at the meaning of an encounter. This inspiration disappears. one minute after the end of the encounter. [See side-bar about what is an encounter] Outside of an encounter, the factotum may freely spend inspiration.

Cunning Strike: As a free action, the Factotum may spend a point of inspiration and gain 1d6 sneak attack for 1 round. At level x, and every y levels afterwards, they may spend additional point of inspiration to increase the sneak attack damage by an additional +1d6 per point of inspiration spent.

Cunning Surge. As a swift action, the Factotum may spend Z inspiration and gain an additional standard action this turn. [This is nerf to those that like to nova by spending all inspiration in one go, but that doesn't seem to be the design goal of the class].

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-03, 01:08 PM

Things in the real world can be experienced first-handed by people. Even if you describe them poorly, there's an opportunity for people to get a different description from someone else or - better yet - try out these things for themselves and notice the good design.

A set of rules describing class in a table top RPG, however, gives no such opportunity. If the rules are vague, they are vague for everyone. It's impossible for anyone other than the person who designed the class to explain their intent with it, and the designer already tried and failed to explain how the class works in the rulebook.

The horrible design of the Factotum has nothing to do with intuitiveness, it has to do with it not being at all clear on what you can or can't do with the class. Magic of Incarnum is least intuitive book there is, but the book is generally considered a very good book.

How a Factotum's class abilities function is only unclear if you do not understand the rules of the game upon which the class is designed to interact. Or have a fundamentally flawed approach with which you interpret them.

There are rules telling exactly what an encounter is. It is perfectly clear when you regain spent inspiration points.
Extraordinary abilities that do not otherwise specify what type of action is required to utilize them are free actions. This is explicitly stated in several places.

If you want to then claim the class is bad because of things like whether or not you can exceed your maximum listed quantity of inspiration points by banking them after encounters because the book doesn't say you can't, or that Cunning Strike is useless because it doesn't say it stacks with itself... well one of those ignores obvious intent, and the other one requires you to assume the author deliberately made a useless class feature. And you are also breaking another fundamental guideline of interpreting 3.5 rules which states you should do so with a judicious application of common sense. Trying to play the game strictly and solely using the Rules As Written leaves you with an unplayable game.

You might as well be arguing at that point that all of 3.5 is badly designed.

If you have someone describe to you how awesome a Factotum is because they can cast three spells in a round without metamagic using Cunning Surge, and then try to play that class in a game with the assumption that Cunning Surge doesn't even do anything because it takes a standard action to activate... then of course you will walk away from that experience thinking a) Factotum is a bad class, and b) the person who told you to try it has no clue what they are doing.

When you refuse to examine whether or not in the equation of 'the player + the class + the DM + the game' that you could be the problem, then you are the problem.

Does bad editing mean badly designed?
And THIS is exactly the point I made two pages ago (and was subsequently told that I didn't know what I was talking about).

The whole reason why there are so many arguments, not just over the Factotum, but over virtually every class suggested, is that everyone is using their own personal interpretation of what constitutes "well-designed" as the basis for their arguments.

The reason we have no consensus is because we have no common ground for which to compare them.

If you are complaining about the editing in a book, then it's the book you have a problem with. This has nothing to do with the design of class found in that book. Author intent absolutely matters when considering class design, even more than it does for interpreting the rules of the game. It's for exactly this reason that Truenamer has terrible design. The core mechanic upon which the class was based was not well thought out and it does not function as the author intended, and no reasonable interpretation of the rules allows them to effectively use their abilities in the game. You cannot in good faith make the same statement about Factotum. No reasonable DM would assume you can bank inspiration points forever. Nor would any reasonable DM assume Cunning Surge takes a standard action to use.

Cosi

2018-05-03, 02:01 PM

This I take issue with. Take any given thing that is well-designed--doesn't matter what--and describe it poorly to someone. Does that thing cease being well-designed?

No. But your explanation of it is poorly designed. I don't think it's really possible or desirable to separate "Factotum-the-class" from "Factotum-the-rules-in-the-book". Good design is immediately usable, and I don't think the Factotum reaches that standard (based, again, on the uniquely high level of debate about whether or not its class features function).

There are rules telling exactly what an encounter is. It is perfectly clear when you regain spent inspiration points.

You don't "regain spent inspiration points". That implies a limit. You just gain new inspiration points. Because this happens without limit, the Factotum is broken and can take 10,000 actions every (meaningful) fight.

If you want to then claim the class is bad because of things like whether or not you can exceed your maximum listed quantity of inspiration points by banking them after encounters because the book doesn't say you can't, or that Cunning Strike is useless because it doesn't say it stacks with itself... well one of those ignores obvious intent, and the other one requires you to assume the author deliberately made a useless class feature.

It seems to me that it is unreasonable to use "if it didn't work this way, it would suck" as an argument for something not working, or to argue RAI when talking about design. The designers presented a particular product that uses particular language to describe its functioning. They chose to write the IP refresh mechanics in the particular way they wrote them, just as they chose to give Factotums the particular number and kind of spells per day that Factotums get. Should we assume that Chain Binding doesn't work because the result is very powerful, and therefore clearly could not have been intended?

And you are also breaking another fundamental guideline of interpreting 3.5 rules which states you should do so with a judicious application of common sense.

Well designed rules do not need to be interpreted. Can you point out a comparable rules dispute regarding, say, the Beguiler?

And THIS is exactly the point I made two pages ago (and was subsequently told that I didn't know what I was talking about).

You really think that asking if classes are "artistic" was going to get answers that were more objective?

Nifft

2018-05-03, 02:05 PM

It seems to me that it is unreasonable to use "if it didn't work this way, it would suck" as an argument for something not working, or to argue RAI when talking about design. Absolutely.

I mean, if Fighters didn't get access to spells, they would suck.

And indeed they do.

Svata

2018-05-03, 02:53 PM

You don't "regain spent inspiration points".

And if you did only ever regain them, you'd never have any to start with. Can't spend before you have, and so you can't regain something you never gained. Also, the "There were reprints of the original core books which means the Rules Compendium is invalid" is also stupid. It's one of the obvious stupid rules holes like drown-healing that only jerks argue in any amount of seriousness. Though with how open to interpretation and how unclearly many of the Factotum's abilities are written (lack of duration, lack of info on whether you can stack it, etc) I would say that, yeah, it's kinda poorly designed, though it could have been easily fixed with another pass in editing to clear stuff up.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-04, 02:52 PM

You don't "regain spent inspiration points". That implies a limit. You just gain new inspiration points. Because this happens without limit, the Factotum is broken and can take 10,000 actions every (meaningful) fight.

The entire "per-encounter" structure of the factotum's overall design implies a limit.

Inspiration is only broken if you want it to be.

It seems to me that it is unreasonable to use "if it didn't work this way, it would suck" as an argument for something not working, or to argue RAI when talking about design. The designers presented a particular product that uses particular language to describe its functioning. They chose to write the IP refresh mechanics in the particular way they wrote them, just as they chose to give Factotums the particular number and kind of spells per day that Factotums get. Should we assume that Chain Binding doesn't work because the result is very powerful, and therefore clearly could not have been intended?

Using any metric that assumes the designers are a bunch of talent-less hacks who have only a tenuous understanding of the English language, rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living seems rather self-defeating to me.

There's a big difference between, "The interaction is a little muddled and we don't know the intent", and "If you squint and tilt your head sideways, the wording is ambiguous and therefore I can ignore the intent."

Well designed rules do not need to be interpreted. Can you point out a comparable rules dispute regarding, say, the Beguiler?
If, at levels 5 and 10 respectively, the Beguiler has already taken the Silent and Still Spell feats (say to qualify for something else), what happens?
In the case of Advanced Learning, what is the specific criteria for "sorcerer/wizard spells"? Are they spells specifically listed in the books as "sorcerer/wizard", or are they simply spells that can be cast by sorcerers and/or wizards. In the latter case, the-- I dunno, Wyrm Wizard prestige class-- can add any spell from anywhere to their class spell list. Does that then follow that in any world in which Wyrm Wizards exist a Beguiler can also add any illusion or enchantment spell from any list to their own (by doing it the same way a Wyrm Wizard does)? Or any other class which allows for sorcerer or wizard entry and can add spells from anywhere?

You really think that asking if classes are "artistic" was going to get answers that were more objective?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume here that this is a general reference to the common line, "well, artistic is a useless metric because all art is subjective."

If so, that's an intellectual cop-out. If art really was completely subjective then there would be no reason for artists to ever try to improve in their craft. They would just accept that some people will like the art product and some people won't, and nothing would ever change or evolve.

Human beings are similar enough to each other that it is possible (and often simple) to find objective standards through which art can be judged.

Additionally, "well I don't like the word 'artistic'" is in not a helpful response to the issue of a total lack of common ground.

Nifft

2018-05-04, 02:53 PM

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

We've been trying.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-04, 04:11 PM

We've been trying.

I'll be happy to stop contradicting you as soon as you start being correct.

Nifft

2018-05-04, 04:25 PM

Nah, all I did was point out a common flaw that permeated your examples. I just pointed out that your arguments were unsupported and the results you "guaranteed" were unsustainable.

I'll be happy to stop contradicting you as soon as you start being correct.

You haven't contradicted me.

You've been trying to post reasons why the Factotum is good, and I'm one of several people shooting your (faulty) reasoning down.

You've been doing this thing where you pretend other people are being contradicted by you for like... four pages? Five maybe? But nobody is buying it, just like nobody is buying your (faulty) reasoning about the Factotum being good.

It's not a compelling argument, and it's not the kind of pretend that I'm here to discuss.

heavyfuel

2018-05-04, 04:36 PM

There's a big difference between, "The interaction is a little muddled and we don't know the intent", and "If you squint and tilt your head sideways, the wording is ambiguous and therefore I can ignore the intent."

You say you know the intent, but you can't know. Unless you were the one who wrote the class or have personally had a conversation with the creator about the class, it's impossible to have this knowledge.

Is Cunning Surge supposed to be a Free Action? I honestly think so. Despite the rules saying it's a Standard Action, I truly do believe the designer meant for this to be a Free Action. However, I also believe they intended for it to be once per round. I also argue it's extremely likely they wanted it to be a Swift Action. I really don't think it was meant to be "you gain as many Standard Actions as you have Inspiration Points divided by 3".

Can you spend multiple points to gain more than 1d6 die of Sneak Attack? Again, I think you can. It's not what the ability says, but the intent seems to be so. However, yet again, I don't think this means spending 20 inspiration should grant you 20d6, it should be capped at half your level rounded up (just like the Rogue). But nowhere does it say so.

How you think the class was intended to be played is only relevant if you're the DM of a particular game. Since we're not playing a game right here right now, and since you're definitely not DMing anything, your opinion on how the class is supposed to work is just that. An opinion.

Kurald Galain

2018-05-04, 04:37 PM

I'll be happy to stop contradicting you as soon as you start being correct.

That's just hilariously ironic :smallbiggrin:

Nifft

2018-05-04, 04:43 PM

Is Cunning Surge supposed to be a Free Action? I honestly think so. Despite the rules saying it's a Standard Action, I truly do believe the designer meant for this to be a Free Action. However, I also believe they intended for it to be once per round. I also argue it's extremely likely they wanted it to be a Swift Action. I really don't think it was meant to be "you gain as many Standard Actions as you have Inspiration Points divided by 3".

Can you spend multiple points to gain more than 1d6 die of Sneak Attack? Again, I think you can. It's not what the ability says, but the intent seems to be so. However, yet again, I don't think this means spending 20 inspiration should grant you 20d6, it should be capped at half your level rounded up (just like the Rogue). But nowhere does it say so.

If I were re-writing the Factotum, I'd probably make Cunning Surge a Swift action.

Also, I'd make their Sneak Attack (1) last a whole round, and (2) scale up for more dice with class level. Without free scaling, it seems unbalanced that you can either pay 1 ip for +Int to damage, or 1 ip for a more heavily-restricted +1d6.

Cosi

2018-05-04, 05:40 PM

The entire "per-encounter" structure of the factotum's overall design implies a limit.

Well, ****, if the use of "encounter" in the Factotum's refresh period at all implies that they have a limit, then we can stop worrying about planar binding cheese -- the use of "a creature" and "up to three elementals or outsiders" in lesser planar binding and planar binding implies that you aren't supposed to be able to chain those spells. Every broken thing in the game has text you can interpret as making it not broken, because the game was not designed to be broken. The rules mean what they say, not what they kind of sound like they might say. Otherwise you can't have a discussion about those rules, because what it sounds like iron heart surge is getting at to me can very easily be different from what it sounds like iron heart surge is getting at to you.

Using any metric that assumes the designers are a bunch of talent-less hacks who have only a tenuous understanding of the English language, rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living seems rather self-defeating to me.

There's a lot of space between "talentless" and "doesn't make mistakes". I like 3e. It's a fun game that works well out of the box, and very well with some effort. But it is undeniably true that there are massive holes in the rules in various places. The sets "creatures you can summon with planar binding" and "creatures that can cast planar binding" overlap in the core rules. Both wish and shapechange were made more broken in the transition to 3.5. The Truenamer exists at all. There are flaws in the game, and "inspiration stacks forever because no one put in an expiration period" does not seem any less reasonable than generally accepted char-op interpretations like Pun Pun.

If, at levels 5 and 10 respectively, the Beguiler has already taken the Silent and Still Spell feats (say to qualify for something else), what happens?

Whatever the default for getting bonus feats you already have is. I think its "nothing happens", but it could be "you get whatever feat you want". In any case, this is far from unique to the Beguiler. Any class that grants fixed bonus feats (or simply bonus feats from a short list) potentially encounters the same level. Also, no one brought this up in the thread before, so it seems like it probably isn't of the same caliber.

In the case of Advanced Learning, what is the specific criteria for "sorcerer/wizard spells"? Are they spells specifically listed in the books as "sorcerer/wizard", or are they simply spells that can be cast by sorcerers and/or wizards. In the latter case, the-- I dunno, Wyrm Wizard prestige class-- can add any spell from anywhere to their class spell list. Does that then follow that in any world in which Wyrm Wizards exist a Beguiler can also add any illusion or enchantment spell from any list to their own (by doing it the same way a Wyrm Wizard does)? Or any other class which allows for sorcerer or wizard entry and can add spells from anywhere?

Again, has not been brought up previously, so it seems unreasonable to equivocate -- my point is not "all other classes are totally unambiguous" just "none of the other classes people said were good have such glaring issues". In any case, both Beguiler and Wizard refer to "sorcerer/wizard", so I would assume they refer to the same thing.

If so, that's an intellectual cop-out. If art really was completely subjective then there would be no reason for artists to ever try to improve in their craft. They would just accept that some people will like the art product and some people won't, and nothing would ever change or evolve.

I don't think that follows. When artists get better, it's usually aimed at getting better at some particular kind of art. Not getting generically "more artistic". Realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(art_movement)) and Surrealism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism) are both artistic movements, but their values and characteristics are not at all the same. Is there some platonic ideal of "art" that one or the other is closer to? Was Dega (a famous Realist painter) a better artist than Dali?

Additionally, "well I don't like the word 'artistic'" is in not a helpful response to the issue of a total lack of common ground.

I think there's a good deal of common ground. People seem to have picked a fairly consistent set of classes (and more tellingly, they seem to have not picked a consistent set of classes like Truenamer, Monk, and Samurai). If you want to arrive at a consensus, it should be by working from the places people agree (e.g. the Beguiler is well designed, the Monk is badly designed), not by looking in a dictionary for a general definition for a term that has a high degree of sensitivity to context.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-04, 06:16 PM

You haven't contradicted me.

You've been trying to post reasons why the Factotum is good, and I'm one of several people shooting your (faulty) reasoning down.

No I've been posting reasons explaining why your assessment on the Factotum as unplayable is misinformed. Coupled with rules text that illustrates why your reasoning is incorrect: that the rules don't say what you think they do, and that things you think are the realm of DM fiat because they aren't discussed by the rules actually are discussed.

You've been doing this thing where you pretend other people are being contradicted by you for like... four pages? Five maybe? But nobody is buying it, just like nobody is buying your (faulty) reasoning about the Factotum being good.

You were the one that didn't know what constitutes and encounter and I'm the one that lacks reading comprehension... sure.

I wonder if everyone else finds your attempted gaslighting as funny as I do.

You say you know the intent, but you can't know. Unless you were the one who wrote the class or have personally had a conversation with the creator about the class, it's impossible to have this knowledge.

Is this in any way related to how you "know" that the Rules Compendium doesn't contain relevant errata on a topic?

Is Cunning Surge supposed to be a Free Action? I honestly think so. DespiteBecause the rules saying it's a Standard free Action,
You really think if you repeat this bull**** enough times it will eventually be true, don't you?

Your assessment of the primacy rule is incorrect. Because if it was correct, no book would have the ability to discuss any topic related to new rules, on account of the Player's Handbook being given explicit authority over "the rules of the game". Swift actions wouldn't exist (Miniatures Handbook). There would be no additional uses for skills, except those touched upon in the PHB, nor would there be skill tricks. The entire subsystem of Pisonics would cease to work. There would be no alternate class features. ...I could spend the rest of the 5e print run individually listing out all the rules dysfunctions this would create.

And even if we pretend that you are correct-- assuming that the errata does explicitly give the Monster Manual sole authority over "extraordinary abilities" (which is an exception to the general rules covered by the PHB)-- then by your own logic you are still incorrect because the Monster Manual states that if a given extraordinary ability does not otherwise list an action to use it, it is a free action. "unless otherwise noted" refers to the ability itself noting the action needed. Like a full two thirds of the Factotum's abilities do. This is obvious from it being located in the subheading of a glossary defines general rules for extraordinary abilities. There is, additionally, no contradiction between the glossary text of the PHB extraordinary ability on pg 308, and the Monster Manual on pg. 313. Nor is there any contradiction present between the MM and the text on pg. 142.

Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually
standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration,
and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

That does not state "are standard actions unless otherwise noted", and nothing there states that standard is the default action for extraordinary abilities. Usually indicates "typically, but with exception.". That is not text that is instructing you to do anything. The Monster Manual is the only one that gives explicit instruction.

Reading that text otherwise is assuming author intent that you cannot know because you weren't there.

The fact that you have to keep moving the goalposts and attempting to redefine words, grammar and sentence structure to maintain your position shows only that you are arguing from a purely ideological position that is utterly immune to logic and reason. The only world in which you are capable of existing is one in which Factotums are bad. And not just "not recommended" bad, but Truenamer levels of unplayable bad. Because you had a bad experience playing the class, and you blamed the class instead of yourself.

I have also played the class. Both times I played the class I did just fine. The second time was much better than the first, on account of knowing it better and having the experience to improve upon the mistakes I made the first time.

I also know the class is not easy to use. I tried to teach my friend to play one in a game I was running, and in a party of a Psion(shaper), a ranger, a cleric, and a warblade, he was absolutely dead weight.

No one is telling you that you can't be frustrated by the class. No one is telling you that you have to like it.

What I am telling you is that making up bull**** to justify your dislike is not okay.

heavyfuel

2018-05-04, 06:35 PM

All that text, and it's still just your opinion.

Doctor Awkward

2018-05-04, 06:48 PM

Well, ****, if the use of "encounter" in the Factotum's refresh period at all implies that they have a limit, then we can stop worrying about planar binding cheese -- the use of "a creature" and "up to three elementals or outsiders" in lesser planar binding and planar binding implies that you aren't supposed to be able to chain those spells. Every broken thing in the game has text you can interpret as making it not broken, because the game was not designed to be broken. The rules mean what they say, not what they kind of sound like they might say. Otherwise you can't have a discussion about those rules, because what it sounds like iron heart surge is getting at to me can very easily be different from what it sounds like iron heart surge is getting at to you.

There's a lot of space between "talentless" and "doesn't make mistakes". I like 3e. It's a fun game that works well out of the box, and very well with some effort. But it is undeniably true that there are massive holes in the rules in various places. The sets "creatures you can summon with planar binding" and "creatures that can cast planar binding" overlap in the core rules. Both wish and shapechange were made more broken in the transition to 3.5. The Truenamer exists at all. There are flaws in the game, and "inspiration stacks forever because no one put in an expiration period" does not seem any less reasonable than generally accepted char-op interpretations like Pun Pun.

I mean... that's kind of the point of Practical Optimization: obvious author intent matters, don't try to base your build around a silly mistake in the text (like the Vigilante prestige class stating in it's table that you get 22 spells per day at 3rd level), and accept the fact that the authors are humans who occasionally make mistakes.

I don't honestly considered Pun Pun to be acceptable character optimization. It's a toy that exists for the purpose of mental masturbation. A thought exercise for players who have more in-depth knowledge of the system than some of the designers did when they wrote their respective books and are more interested in tinkering with mechanics for the sake of tinkering than creating an effective build that might actually see the light of day at a table.

All of those things are perfectly fine so long as you establish up front, "expect this kind of thing to be Rule 0'ed".

The point is the mere existence of a flaw in not always indicative of poor design. Not all flaws are created equal.

Whatever the default for getting bonus feats you already have is. I think its "nothing happens", but it could be "you get whatever feat you want". In any case, this is far from unique to the Beguiler. Any class that grants fixed bonus feats (or simply bonus feats from a short list) potentially encounters the same level. Also, no one brought this up in the thread before, so it seems like it probably isn't of the same caliber.

The default is actually "if you have the same feat twice, then they don't stack unless it says they do." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions)

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.

There is a very good reason why the case of feats granted as class features is house-ruled into something else at virtually every table, if for some reason the retraining rule aren't used.

Again, has not been brought up previously, so it seems unreasonable to equivocate -- my point is not "all other classes are totally unambiguous" just "none of the other classes people said were good have such glaring issues". In any case, both Beguiler and Wizard refer to "sorcerer/wizard", so I would assume they refer to the same thing.

What's more curious to me is why some flaws, even when they are misperceived, are considered so much more offensive than others.

I don't think that follows. When artists get better, it's usually aimed at getting better at some particular kind of art. Not getting generically "more artistic". Realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(art_movement)) and Surrealism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism) are both artistic movements, but their values and characteristics are not at all the same. Is there some platonic ideal of "art" that one or the other is closer to? Was Dega (a famous Realist painter) a better artist than Dali?

Well no, but we aren't talking about different art movements. We are (I hope) talking about one one particular art movement from which to consider these classes: 3rd Edition.

Your example seems to me more along the lines of asking whether or not 4th edition classes are better designed than 3rd edition. They are two entirely different systems with vastly different design goals, and there are almost no grounds with which to compare them without bias.

I think there's a good deal of common ground. People seem to have picked a fairly consistent set of classes (and more tellingly, they seem to have not picked a consistent set of classes like Truenamer, Monk, and Samurai). If you want to arrive at a consensus, it should be by working from the places people agree (e.g. the Beguiler is well designed, the Monk is badly designed), not by looking in a dictionary for a general definition for a term that has a high degree of sensitivity to context.

It was looking at the consensus list that was giving me pause to begin with. It felt like most people were treating "well designed" as being equivalent to "well-balanced", and the prevailing opinion generally seems to be that Tier 3 is the goal for overall game balance.

If I'm wrong on that, then my concern is unfounded. If I was right, but that's what the consensus on well-designed is to be, then so be it. I can only opine that I think a different metric should be used.

As an example, with Beguiler being in the hot seat, what about this bit from the description of the class:

As a beguiler, you possess many useful skills and spells.
If your adventuring group lacks a rogue, you make a great
substitute for all but the rogue’s melee combat strengths. If
the group lacks a wizard or other arcane caster, you can also
fill that role with your command of illusions and enchantments,
although you lack a wizard’s array of spells that deal
damage and you possess less spellcasting versatility. Your
main strategy should be to control enemies, bolster your
allies, and take command of the battlefield.

Despite the book's assertion, I think we can agree that a beguiler could never competently fulfill the role of primary arcanist in the same way a wizard can. There is a huge chunk of the monster manual that is immune to most of his spells. And even in the case of ones that aren't, most of them are save-or-dies. So a Beguiler is doing everything or he is doing nothing.

If that is bad design for any Tier 1 caster, how can it be good design for the beguiler?
*And before anyone starts, yes, I do agree that beguilers are overall well designed. This is me playing devil's advocate.