[3.5] I attempted to create an epic factotum

[Marin]

So! As the title says, I attempted to craft an epic factotum leveling scheme. I am playing in a max level 40 game and I love the factotum class so much that I would like to take more than 20 levels in it. To do this, I used the guidelines laid out in Epic Level Basics in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/basics.htm). Where there were exceptions to the levelup pattern, such as how Factotum gains more inspiration points than usual at level 20, I ignored that and returned to the slower progression of previous levels. When in doubt about RAI, I ignored RAI and did my best to stick to RAW. (Ex: Should Factotum's spellcasting progress past spell level 7? RAI is probably no. RAW is yes.) I plan on presenting this to my DM for approval when the time comes.

Here's a snapshot of the extended class features template. (https://i.imgur.com/sx6lMLw.png)

For reference on how spell levels above 9 work, see: the Improved Spell Capacity epic feat (http://dnd.arkalseif.info/feats/dungeon-masters-guide-v35--4/improved-spell-capacity--1567/index.html) (It basically just gives you higher level slots for which you can use to apply metamagic.)

There is no official list of epic bonus feats for factotums, which is problematic, but I don't think there's anything I can do about that besides talk to my DM. Getting spells above 9th level without spending a feat like casters would have to feels kinda sketchy to me even if it's RAW, so maybe I'll wind up bargaining to exchange those bonus feats for the extra spell level in the way a caster would if it's an issue.

What do you guys think? Any way I can improve upon this?

[Mr Adventurer]

Hey, snap: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279751-I-made-an-Epic-Factotum-progression!

They told me to move it to the Homebrew forum though.

[Biggus]

As far as I can see by RAW the Factotum's spellcasting shouldn't progress beyond level 7. How did you decide that it does?

[Yogibear41]

You don'g gain additional BAB after level 20, you get epic bab.

Basically if your bab is +15 at level 20, you never get a 4th attack, your table misrepresents that.

[Marin]

Hey, snap: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279751-I-made-an-Epic-Factotum-progression!

They told me to move it to the Homebrew forum though.

Oh cool! Nice to see I'm not the only one who loves this class. Does this count as homebrew, since I'm trying to operate within a set of guidelines within the SRD? If so, my bad. ||D


As far as I can see by RAW the Factotum's spellcasting shouldn't progress beyond level 7. How did you decide that it does?

Well, the epic progressions guidelines I used to create this extended table says this:

"Any class features that increase or accumulate as part of a repeated pattern also continues to increase or accumulate after 20th level at the same rate."

The Factotum's Arcane Dilettante is one such class feature, so I progressed it! I recognize that Factotums probably weren't intended to progress past spell level 7, but that's RAI--not RAW. Them being limited to spell level 7 is, as far as I can see, a consequence of being limited to level 20 rather than explicitly written as a hard limitation. If you did find something that explicitly states they're never supposed to progress past level 7 though, I'd love to hear where you found it so I can correct my table.


You don'g gain additional BAB after level 20, you get epic bab.

Basically if your bab is +15 at level 20, you never get a 4th attack, your table misrepresents that.

Oh yeah! You're right! That totally slipped my mind. Thank you, I'll go fix that and put out a new snapshot shortly after making this post.

[Biggus]

Well, the epic progressions guidelines I used to create this extended table says this:

"Any class features that increase or accumulate as part of a repeated pattern also continues to increase or accumulate after 20th level at the same rate."

The Factotum's Arcane Dilettante is one such class feature, so I progressed it! I recognize that Factotums probably weren't intended to progress past spell level 7, but that's RAI--not RAW. Them being limited to spell level 7 is, as far as I can see, a consequence of being limited to level 20 rather than explicitly written as a hard limitation. If you did find something that explicitly states they're never supposed to progress past level 7 though, I'd love to hear where you found it so I can correct my table.


It's not a repeated pattern. The number of class levels you have each spell level for before acquiring the next one go 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,3. For *part* of the pattern it repeats at 2,3 as you've progressed it, but not at the start or the end.

[Marin]

It's not a repeated pattern. The number of class levels you have each spell level for before acquiring the next one go 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,3. For *part* of the pattern it repeats at 2,3 as you've progressed it, but not at the start or the end.

If you look at some of the pre-written epic classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/classProgressions.htm) in the SRD made using these guidelines, you'll find that quite a lot of them ignore "outliers" to the patterns.

The barbarian does not gain their first damage reduction until 7th level, yet they gain it every 3 levels in their epic progression. The druid gains wild shape every 3 levels, despite that pattern not establishing itself until level 5 and thus having an outlier. The monk's unarmored speed bonus is not initially 3 levels per speed increase. The paladin continued progressing remove disease despite that having breaks in the pattern. The bard's inspire courage likewise has a break in the pattern, with his second instance of inspire courage taking 7 levels to progress instead of the normal 6.

I do see what you're saying, but the RAW does not specify that the repeated pattern can't have any breaks, and there's strong evidence that wasn't the RAI. Instead, I would argue that the RAW precludes me from cherry picking the outliers that benefit me. For example: inspiration points. At level 20, Factotum gets 2 inspiration points instead of the normal 1. That's not part of the 3-3-3 repeated pattern established earlier, so I felt compelled to ignore it.