Factotum?

[Prak]

I've heard of the factotum, and it's been implied that it's a broken class, or some such... I've not seen it, however, what book is it in?

[IGTN]

It's Not Outside.

[Prak]

wait... is that our name for cityscape or dugeonscape? either way I don't have it... what's the class do that supposedly so broken?

[Psychic Robot]

Dungeonscape. It's an okay class. Its execution is poor, though. It has the ability to mimic abilities of other classes (similar to a chameleon) and it can kind of sneak attack, and it has...well, the entire class is mostly based around Inspiration points, which are neat and which the Factotum gets on a per-encounter basis, but the developers forgot to say what happens to them after the encounter.

Again, it's very "meh." It has the ability to get extra actions, if I recall correctly, and it can cast some spells of up to 7th-level...but I just found it to be boring, really. Its most noteworthy feature is that everything is a class skill for it.

[Prak]

ah, cool.

The most memorable thing from dungeonscape for my mind is seriously the acid-breathing monster template.

[ubernoob]

The class is broken in the same way the fighter is broken. It's too binary to be used without being extremely careful.

[Cynic]

it's broken in that it can't even use the most underpowered of all D&D mechanics properly. the feat system.

if you need to do anything properly with the factotum, you spend all your feats on Fonts of Inspiration or whatever. For a character who can supposedly mimic every single archetype out there, he can't really do it well as he can't use simple combos such as Robilars+Karmic, item creation feats, etc.. Because he's too busy spending all his time on getting the power and not molding it in anyway useful to him.

It's an okay idea with really bad implementation.

[Voss]

It follows the versatility = power concept that the WotC designers seized on after repeated failures with warlock-style unlimited use = power attempts.

Unfortunately, while it is versatile, its also several levels behind... so whatever random shenanigans the factotum pulls out of its ass are rarely relevant to the situation at hand.

Its broken only in the sense that its more powerful than the fighter. It can manage some shit just on the basis of UMD, but by and large it can't keep up with a well designed rogue. Its more a bard-level character. Lots of random crap propped up by UMD.

[ubernoob]

It follows the versatility = power concept that the WotC designers seized on after repeated failures with warlock-style unlimited use = power attempts.

Unfortunately, while it is versatile, its also several levels behind... so whatever random shenanigans the factotum pulls out of its ass are rarely relevant to the situation at hand.

Its broken only in the sense that its more powerful than the fighter. It can manage some shit just on the basis of UMD, but by and large it can't keep up with a well designed rogue. Its more a bard-level character. Lots of random crap propped up by UMD.

Shit, factotums aren't even better at UMD than other classes. Their only notable features are:
All skills as class skills (cool, but pretty useless for power)
Int to str and dex checks at 3rd (good for tripping)
Int to save as a nonaction (nice, but divine grace et all are better for unlimited use)
Extra standard action (you get 3/combat at 20 without FoI and 28/combat with FoI)

They also get laughable spellcasting.

Basically it's a three level class as far as usable abilities go. You get int to trip and int to saves 3 times per combat. At 8th you can get an extra standard action per day without FoI silliness or shitloads more with it.


So, it's meh without FoI and totally binary with it (because you're blowing all your abilities to not add meaningful combat OPTIONS while getting more actions that don't matter much) decimating some encounters and sucking in the rest.

Binary if you include FoI in your discussions and simply low powered otherwise.

[Prak]

So, basically the ideal Factotum is a build with maxed out UMD, FoI silliness, at least one rank of sleight of hand for quick drawing, and something along the lines of a bandoleir full of wands?

[ubernoob]

So, basically the ideal Factotum is a build with maxed out UMD, FoI silliness, at least one rank of sleight of hand for quick drawing, and something along the lines of a bandoleir full of wands?

Assuming you have cheap no save, no SR spells in them, yeah.

[Cynic]

some of the stupidest Factotum shit I've seen is builds that focus on Iajutsu Mastery and retarded campaign-specific skills.

Yes, the factotum can own with Truenaming and IM and whatever other esoteric almost third-party skills out there. Or at least he can do well with them and also have some spells.

Someone compared him to a bard. No, I disagree on that. A bard at the very least is not as binary a class as the Factotum. They both suck ass from day one till the end of days but at least Mr. I-Sing can do four things with all of them not being esoteric bullshit-ness.

[Kaelik]

some of the stupidest Factotum shit I've seen is builds that focus on Iajutsu Mastery and retarded campaign-specific skills.

Yes, the factotum can own with Truenaming and IM and whatever other esoteric almost third-party skills out there. Or at least he can do well with them and also have some spells.

Someone compared him to a bard. No, I disagree on that. A bard at the very least is not as binary a class as the Factotum. They both suck ass from day one till the end of days but at least Mr. I-Sing can do four things with all of them not being esoteric bullshit-ness.

But to quote the infamous JaronK:

"But Dungeonscape is obscure, so if you are allowing Factotums then the only logical conclusion is that you are allowing setting specific 3.0 skills."

[Leress]

If you can't make the class good with the book that it's in plus the core three books (because some asses like to say that psionics is core, but it's just in the SRD which doesn't equal Core), then the class isn't that good to begin with.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Point of order: Adding in psionics also doesn't make it that great.

[Cynic]

But to quote the infamous JaronK:

"But Dungeonscape is obscure, so if you are allowing Factotums then the only logical conclusion is that you are allowing setting specific 3.0 skills."

Uh...wah? Stupid logic set aside, I think it's good I have not heard anything about this JaronK you speak about.

[Prak]

If you can't make the class good with the book that it's in plus the core three books (because some asses like to say that psionics is core, but it's just in the SRD which doesn't equal Core), then the class isn't that good to begin with.

'nother point of order, Psionics was retconned to be core on the back of, I believe, CPsionics.

[Leress]

If you can't make the class good with the book that it's in plus the core three books (because some asses like to say that psionics is core, but it's just in the SRD which doesn't equal Core), then the class isn't that good to begin with.

'nother point of order, Psionics was retconned to be core on the back of, I believe, CPsionics.

Oh, okay, my mistake then. As Count said it really doesn't help this class that much any way.

[Cynic]

If you can't make the class good with the book that it's in plus the core three books (because some asses like to say that psionics is core, but it's just in the SRD which doesn't equal Core), then the class isn't that good to begin with.

'nother point of order, Psionics was retconned to be core on the back of, I believe, CPsionics.

(Blink) SO the core books are PHB/MM/DMG/XPH+CompPsi?

Wow, talk about just randomly adding something to be part of core...

[Prak]

CPsi isn't core, it's a supplement, but XPH was retconned as core on the back of something.

One could also look at Psionic's inclusion in many supplements as a silent assent by wizards that Psi is core, for example, ELH

[Psychic Robot]

CPsi is an abortion.

[zeruslord]

Another big factor is that psionics, unlike all the other new systems Wizards put out, is explicitly included in Eberron and is important enough to the setting that it is hard to ignore it or rewrite everything that uses it. The other books that could have been adopted into core (ToB, ToM, Incarnum) came out after Eberron and while they were working on 4e, and while most people use Tome of Battle, the other two were left by the wayside.

[Koumei]

Pfft, they can say what they like (although if you're accepting XPH as core because of CPsi, then presumably you're also accepting all of the nerfs included in it), but when you actually buy the "Core Book Set" it only contains the core three.

Making it core just adds some supposed legitimacy to that pile of shit, and that just leads to more "But if you don't let me use it you're a bad person and I'll call all the other Psitards to come and harass you! And here are reposted links to prove my point!" arguments.

At any rate, it seems to be rather... odd logic to say "This is obscure, so if you're allowing it then you're also allowing every other obscure thing, including 3.0 stuff that didn't get updated." I've known DMs to say "You get core+complete*, plus a single obscure book of your choice."

And really, they did make a 3.5 samurai - even if it is utter shit - so wouldn't you think that, if that made it through but Iaijutsu as a skill didn't, that the official stance is "Iaijutsu did not make the cut (HAHAHA). It no longer exists."?

*The first four completes, of course. Not Psi, Mage, Scoundrel or whatever other stuff they churned out.

[Cynic]

Pfft, they can say what they like (although if you're accepting XPH as core because of CPsi, then presumably you're also accepting all of the nerfs included in it), but when you actually buy the "Core Book Set" it only contains the core three.

Making it core just adds some supposed legitimacy to that pile of shit, and that just leads to more "But if you don't let me use it you're a bad person and I'll call all the other Psitards to come and harass you! And here are reposted links to prove my point!" arguments.

At any rate, it seems to be rather... odd logic to say "This is obscure, so if you're allowing it then you're also allowing every other obscure thing, including 3.0 stuff that didn't get updated." I've known DMs to say "You get core+complete*, plus a single obscure book of your choice."

And really, they did make a 3.5 samurai - even if it is utter shit - so wouldn't you think that, if that made it through but Iaijutsu as a skill didn't, that the official stance is "Iaijutsu did not make the cut (HAHAHA). It no longer exists."?

*The first four completes, of course. Not Psi, Mage, Scoundrel or whatever other stuff they churned out.

Isn't 3.5 backwards compatible? Yes, you have to do the necessary up-dates to 3.5. But I've always been under the impression that 3.5 and 3.0 are compatible except for the rules changes between the two.

This isn't an endorsement of Iaijutsu but this should technically mean that it still exists in the world. It's a shit mechanic and probably should have been tossed anyway but OA is considered to be 3.5 compatible because OA 3.5 hasn't yet been released.

[Prak]

This is basically my stance. I tend to cringe when I see IF in a build because it's blatently used by my power gaming friend...