Factotum rebalance

[Broccoli21]

I think this might make for a better factotum:
-Limit number of IP per turn to factotum level.
-8 skill points
-more IP (maybe 12-15 max)
-turning check based on INT
-max cunning strike damage=(level/2)d6
-only one extra action per turn
-good will save

Is this balanced? Any suggestions???

[Mushroom Ninja]

Umm... Factotum was never unbalanced... Was it?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Is it still balanced? Yes. Is it better? I don't think so.

The factotum already has enough skill/inspiration points
Inspiration novas are discouraged even without a hard cap
A hard cap on inspiration novas just stops certain crowning moments of awesome
Turning isn't worth balls anyway
Giving the factotum a good will save makes it more powerful, and I can't really see the justification

Disclaimer: Intentionally blunt. Will understand and accept if you react with hostility.

[Lycanthromancer]

Umm... Factotum was never unbalanced... Was it?

It's not nearly so good without Font of Inspiration, and is, admittedly, a tad weak.

It's still awesome, however.

As far as the OP goes...

Check out the Font of Inspiration feat.

[Broccoli21]

Yea. I mostly did this to nerf novaing and make it a little on par with casters (higher tier 3)

[Draz74]

I think this might make for a better factotum:
-Limit number of IP per turn to factotum level.

Unnecessary. A Factotum without Font of Inspiration will never spend more than his level in IP in a turn anyway (except maybe at Level 1, but that's fine with me). A Factotum with Font of Inspiration ... well, there are better ways to limit it.

-8 skill points

Unnecessary. He already outperforms the Rogue and the Beguiler -- let alone everyone else! -- as a pure skillmonkey. Outdoes the Rogue because he can focus on INT so much; outdoes the Beguiler because nothing is cross-class; and outdoes them both because of Cunning Knowledge.

-more IP (maybe 12-15 max)

Hmmm. Rather than changing the basic class, I'd prefer to alter Font of Inspiration so that it can only be taken once, but is actually worthwhile and scales. The end effect could be about the same as what you're suggesting -- the Level 20 Factotum would end up with about 15 IP -- but at the cost of a feat.

-turning check based on INT

Factotum already gets plenty of use out of INT. I'm glad he still has some reason not to dump Charisma.

-max cunning strike damage=(level/2)d6

Cunning Strike is already his single weakest class feature. No thanks.

-only one extra action per turn

This is a good rule.

-good will save

Meh, 'twould be nice, but honestly it bugs my inner "balance analyzer." Being not-terrible at Will saves is already supposed to be represented by using Cunning Insight to add INT to Will saves.

In short, I think the best Factotum fix would be:

• Rewrite FoI so it can only be taken once, but gives a scaling amount of IP (starting at about 2, ending at about 6). Preferably scaling with Character Level.
• Limit Cunning Surge use to once/turn.
• Possibly adding some minor melee utility, like a couple dice of Sneak Attack dice. This is only necessary if weird Iaijutsu cheese (that already makes the Factotum too-good in melee) is nerfed in return.

[Zeta Kai]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially if your "fix" doesn't even change the class by one whole tier. Many players & DMs will agree that Tier 3 is something of a sweet-spot, as far as game balance is concerned. Very capable, diverse, & fun, but not difficult to challenge or accommodate. In other words, a great all-around class that needs a tweak like a Wizard needs buff, or a Truenamer needs a nerf.

@ Draz74: How's this?

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed of well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisite: Int 15, Must have Inspiration as a class feature.
Benefits: You gain 1 inspiration point per class level of your Inspiration-granting class.

[Broccoli21]

can cunning strike be used more than once on one attack???

[Draz74]

@ Draz74: How's this?

I'd prefer:

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed of well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisite: Inspiration as a class feature; Wis 13 or Cha 13.
Benefits: You gain 2 inspiration points, plus 1 inspiration point per 4 character levels.

Keep other ability scores somewhat useful. Make Inspiration plentiful for the (steep) cost of one feat, but not so plentiful that it can be spammed with abandon.

can cunning strike be used more than once on one attack???

The rules are not super clear-cut, but the general consensus is "yes."

It's still terribly weak. If it lasted for a whole round rather than one attack, maybe we'd be talking.

As it is, it's much worse than adding INT to damage using Cunning Insight (even though that is limited to once per attack). +3.5 damage per inspiration point is just not very good -- and that's if the attack that uses Cunning Strike even hits!

[Riffington]

Rogue ought to be more powerful than factotum...

[Lycanthromancer]

Rogue ought to be more powerful than factotum...

But it's not. And its primary offensive ability (sneak attack) is negated against so many enemies that it's not quite tier 3 (quite probably the highest that a tier 4 can get, however).

Really, rogue just isn't all that.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed of well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisite: Inspiration as a class feature; Wis 13 or Cha 13.
Benefits: You gain 2 inspiration points, plus 1 inspiration point per 4 character levels.

I like that this feat doesn't require you to stick with Factotum for 20 levels to be useful, but I'm not so sure about the Wis or Cha requirements. I don't really see the point of messing with Factotum's SAD.

[Lycanthromancer]

I'd prefer:

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed of well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisite: Inspiration as a class feature; Wis 13 or Cha 13.
Benefits: You gain 2 inspiration points, plus 1 inspiration point per 4 character levels.

I think:

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed a well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisites: Inspiration as a class feature; Int 13.
Benefits: You gain 2 inspiration points, plus 1 inspiration point at 3rd character level, and every 2 character levels thereafter.

...should be fine. No reason to make the prereq anything other than Intelligence, and it gives a decent number of points without requiring a ton of feats or being OMGWTFBBQVERPOWERED. You'd end up with +11 inspiration points at 20th level, which would be nice without overdoing things.

[Draz74]

I think:

Font of Inspiration
You have unearthed a well of inspiration from within your soul.
Prerequisites: Inspiration as a class feature; Int 13.
Benefits: You gain 2 inspiration points, plus 1 inspiration point at 3rd character level, and every 2 character levels thereafter.

...should be fine. No reason to make the prereq anything other than Intelligence, and it gives a decent number of points without requiring a ton of feats or being OMGWTFBBQVERPOWERED. You'd end up with +11 inspiration points at 20th level, which would be nice without overdoing things.

Compromise on the quantity? 2 IP, plus 1 for every 3 character levels? (+8 IP at 20th level.)

Remember, the ideal (for a balanced feat) is to make it a feat that the character is (very) tempted to take, but not an absolute certainty. If it's an automatic pick for every Factotum, it's overpowered. I'd rather boost the Factotum elsewhere than make its "balanced" status dependent on an overpowered feat.

And even if you refuse the idea of introducing a minor bit of MAD to the class (which I maintain is healthy game design), printing an INT prerequisite is just a waste of ink. Nobody has ever played a Factotum with less than 13 INT. Better no prerequisite than a meaningless one.

[Riffington]

But it's not. And its primary offensive ability (sneak attack) is negated against so many enemies that it's not quite tier 3 (quite probably the highest that a tier 4 can get, however).

Really, rogue just isn't all that.

Right, so you ought to be buffing it and/or nerfing anything that looks like a rogue-replacement that is more powerful than a rogue.

[Draz74]

Right, so you ought to be buffing it and/or nerfing anything that looks like a rogue-replacement that is more powerful than a rogue.

Why? Just because Rogue got published first?

Shouldn't you figure out which class (for a given archetype) is most fun to play, and balance it, first and foremost?

@Mushroom Ninja: Haha, you got ninja'd by a pirate.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Right, so you ought to be buffing it and/or nerfing anything that looks like a rogue-replacement that is more powerful than a rogue.

Alternatively, we could just use factotum as a rogue-replacement.

[Lycanthromancer]

Compromise on the quantity? 2 IP, plus 1 for every 3 character levels? (+8 IP at 20th level.)

Not much difference there, really. We could do 1/3 levels.

Remember, the ideal (for a balanced feat) is to make it a feat that the character is (very) tempted to take, but not an absolute certainty. If it's an automatic pick for every Factotum, it's overpowered. I'd rather boost the Factotum elsewhere than make its "balanced" status dependent on an overpowered feat.

It doesn't matter if we just give it 2 IP + 1/5 lvls, it'll still be a "must have," because IP are the bread and butter of factotums. Seems like everyone will want it regardless.

Might just be better to boost the amount they get naturally, and that would be the best option overall.

And even if you refuse the idea of introducing a minor bit of MAD to the class (which I maintain is healthy game design), printing an INT prerequisite is just a waste of ink. Nobody has ever played a Factotum with less than 13 INT. Better no prerequisite than a meaningless one.

Giving the FoI feat a Wis or Cha prereq doesn't make sense, and Int, as you said, is basically worthless as a prereq unless it's 17+ (only for low rolls or really low point buy), so I agree with you; I mostly left it there because it makes the feat look slightly harder to get.

Right, so you ought to be buffing it and/or nerfing anything that looks like a rogue-replacement that is more powerful than a rogue.

I don't like rogues. I find them quite dull.

I much prefer to simply replace it with the factotum, since they can do everything rogues can and more, and they're far more fun (but that's just my opinion).

[Salanmander]

Right, so you ought to be buffing it and/or nerfing anything that looks like a rogue-replacement that is more powerful than a rogue.

Or play your rogue by any other name that would sneak as much.

I really don't buy the assertion that the class named <archetype> must be the best at being <archetype>. Vigilante, for example, is probably a much worse vigilante than some other classes, but I don't really care. I feel reasonable making a character that is a vigilante without using the vigilante class.

[Ernir]

Might just be better to boost the amount they get naturally, and that would be the best option overall.

This, I say.

Feat taxes are... bleh.

[Draz74]

It doesn't matter if we just give it 2 IP + 1/5 lvls, it'll still be a "must have," because IP are the bread and butter of factotums. Seems like everyone will want it regardless.

Really? Because I've seen proposals before, for example, that FoI just grant +2 IP; and the general consensus was, "Not worth a feat."

So, somewhere in there, there has to be a balanced point, where it's worth a feat, but only barely (or only for some Factotums).

Might just be better to boost the amount they get naturally, and that would be the best option overall.

The amount they already get naturally is actually pretty awesome. People just don't think so because they are used to going all-out with FoI. It's like when I switched back to playing normal StarCraft after being accustomed to Big Game Hunters ... it felt terribly prohibitive at first. But once you get used to it, you realize the normal game actually provides you with enough resources.

Giving the FoI feat a Wis or Cha prereq doesn't make sense,

Using Inspiration represents using your cunning wit to spot a unique opportunity to pull something awesome off by taking advantage of a one-time opportunity of some sort.

How doesn't it make sense to be able to do that more often if you are (1) perceptive, good at anticipating the results of your actions, and good at applying your knowledge in general, or (2) forceful of personality, dashing, and proactive?

[Mushroom Ninja]

Using Inspiration represents using your cunning wit to spot a unique opportunity to pull something awesome off by taking advantage of a one-time opportunity of some sort.

How doesn't it make sense to be able to do that more often if you are (1) perceptive, good at anticipating the results of your actions, and good at applying your knowledge in general, or (2) forceful of personality, dashing, and proactive?

Fluff aside, there's no real reason to mess up Factotum's SAD potential. It's not like game balance is going to be thrown off if they can dump CHA or WIS.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The rules are not super clear-cut, but the general consensus is "yes."

It's still terribly weak. If it lasted for a whole round rather than one attack, maybe we'd be talking.

As it is, it's much worse than adding INT to damage using Cunning Insight (even though that is limited to once per attack). +3.5 damage per inspiration point is just not very good -- and that's if the attack that uses Cunning Strike even hits!

The real key with it is taking Craven. +3.5 damage isn't impressive for one IP at 8, but +11 is decent, and probably more than your Int bonus by then.

[Draz74]

The real key with it is taking Craven. +3.5 damage isn't impressive for one IP at 8, but +11 is decent, and probably more than your Int bonus by then.

Craven
Prerequisite: Sneak attack class feature, cannot be immune to fear.

The DM is 110% within his rules-lawyering rights to say, in the name of game balance, "You don't have 'Sneak attack class feature.' You have 'Cunning strike' class feature. You can't take Craven."

Rules-lawyering aside, I still don't think this is worrisome. It makes Cunning Strike an ok ability instead of a terrible ability ... at the cost of a feat. OK. It's still less of a big deal than letting a Rogue take Craven.

Fluff aside, there's no real reason to mess up Factotum's SAD potential. It's not like game balance is going to be thrown off if they can dump CHA or WIS.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I do not see SAD as an appealing feature of class design. Quite the contrary.

[Riffington]

Or play your rogue by any other name that would sneak as much.

I really don't buy the assertion that the class named <archetype> must be the best at being <archetype>. Vigilante, for example, is probably a much worse vigilante than some other classes, but I don't really care. I feel reasonable making a character that is a vigilante without using the vigilante class.

Not this at all.
As a game design thing: the most generic class should be the most powerful overall; specialization should allow more power in one specific area while reducing overall power. Rogue is the generic "guy who gets along via the power of his brains and skills without any special powers" Factotum becomes a specialized version of that: "I've learned the skill of faking magic and stuff". Fundamentally, therefore, it should give up slightly more than it gets as a result. Straight wizard should be more powerful than wizard/archmage (though the archmage should get some cool stuff and some political power) or wizard/iotsv/xkcd/rsvp or whatever. Beguiler should be weaker than sorcerer, but with better skills. Etc.

[Lycanthromancer]

Not this at all.
As a game design thing: the most generic class should be the most powerful overall; specialization should allow more power in one specific area while reducing overall power. Rogue is the generic "guy who gets along via the power of his brains and skills without any special powers" Factotum becomes a specialized version of that: "I've learned the skill of faking magic and stuff". Fundamentally, therefore, it should give up slightly more than it gets as a result. Straight wizard should be more powerful than wizard/archmage (though the archmage should get some cool stuff and some political power) or wizard/iotsv/xkcd/rsvp or whatever. Beguiler should be weaker than sorcerer, but with better skills. Etc.

But why should factotums have to suck? I mean, really?

Should they be as crappy as, say, the monk or soulknife?

Factotums are fine; just buff the rogue a bit.

[Zaydos]

Not this at all.
As a game design thing: the most generic class should be the most powerful overall; specialization should allow more power in one specific area while reducing overall power. Rogue is the generic "guy who gets along via the power of his brains and skills without any special powers" Factotum becomes a specialized version of that: "I've learned the skill of faking magic and stuff". Fundamentally, therefore, it should give up slightly more than it gets as a result. Straight wizard should be more powerful than wizard/archmage (though the archmage should get some cool stuff and some political power) or wizard/iotsv/xkcd/rsvp or whatever. Beguiler should be weaker than sorcerer, but with better skills. Etc.

I see factotums as being more generic I've learned something of everything, with rogues being the "I specialize in thieving and assassination." I see Archmage as a wizard who specializes in magic at the expense of everything else.

I'd buff rogue, though, before I nerfed factotum. I'd like buffing rogue in a way that helped the "I'm the best thief ever" approach.

[Riffington]

But why should factotums have to suck? I mean, really?

Should they be as crappy as, say, the monk or soulknife?

Factotums are fine; just buff the rogue a bit.

That's totally fine if you've got a high power campaign. Give rogues both the sneak attack and the feats, and you have a rogue that can stand with the ubercasters. In a "normal" campaign where wizards rock the fireball, rogue is fine as-is (though in that normal campaign, nobody's heard of factotum)

I see factotums as being more generic I've learned something of everything, with rogues being the "I specialize in thieving and assassination."

But they went to so much effort for you not to see rogues that way. So much. Factotums do things that generic "I learned something of everything" should never ever have learned (magic for one) without very specific backstory.

[Lycanthromancer]

That's totally fine if you've got a high power campaign. Give rogues both the sneak attack and the feats, and you have a rogue that can stand with the ubercasters. In a "normal" campaign where wizards rock the fireball, rogue is fine as-is (though in that normal campaign, nobody's heard of factotum)

Rogues are pretty well useless against a good portion of the Monster Manual. Can't sneak attack constructs. Can't sneak attack undead. Can't sneak attack plants. Can't sneak attack anybody with concealment. Can't sneak attack anyone with cover. Can't sneak attack invisibles. Can't sneak attack without flanking or hiding. Can't sneak attack anyone with fortification (the first and often only armor enhancement I always get).

Rogues are squishy and easy to destroy, and their main offensive weapon (sneak attack) isn't very good. They're decent outside of a fight, until you realize that you can totally replace them with a couple of wands and occasional use of other spells.

Factotums keep up with the competent classes just fine. Rogues? Not so much. "Higher powered campaigns" don't even really come into it. Just competent ones.

But they went to so much effort for you not to see rogues that way. So much. Factotums do things that generic "I learned something of everything" should never ever have learned (magic for one) without very specific backstory.

Magic isn't part of everything?

Bards are the jacks of all trades. They have magic. They also have singing. What if I want to be a Renaissance Man without having to strum a lute or take Perform: Mime? What if I want to use my intellect and cleverness, rather than use and abuse others with stratospheric Charisma?

Rogues don't do this very well, since they're thieves, thugs, trapsmiths, and assassins, but they're not nearly as competent as they should be to prevent being outshined by the knock, find traps, and summon monster spells.

[Draz74]

Yeah, I hate to say it (because I love Rogues, and they were already a huge step in the right direction compared to 2e classes), but if they wanted the Rogue to be any sort of generic skill-using/witty class, they should have given it less Sneak Attack and more other class features. As is, the Rogue really is an assassin-type class.