Factotum/Chameleon questions: What makes it so good?

[Demelain]

I'd say the Factotum masters whichever skillset is needed by the party. They're intelligence based and have every skill as a class skill - whichever hole isn't covered by someone else can be filled in by a Factotum. Perhaps not as good as a class designed to specialize in a certain skill type, but more than adequate.

[SorO_Lost]

Ugh, seriously more SA hate? For one thing, 80% of the monsters a Rogue would have have no such Immunity, and the ones that possess an inherent Immunity (such as undead/plants/golems) that can be ignored for less than 20gp a round. Further Penetrating Strike adds extra damage based on your SA to any creature you flank. They could be an Invisible and Incorporeal Undead wearing Heavy Fortification armor, if you flank them you deal that bonus damage and that's all there is to it. And the Light-Bringer version isn't even ambiguous if the Bonus Damage is still considered Sneak Attack for the purposes of Ambush related Feats.

SA vs Iaijitsu is of very little comparison. SA scales faster, so against non-immune SA simply deals more on top it's easier to trigger. But if you want to ignore that and focus on the small margin of immune foes, you're talking one Feat for each. Factotum needs Exotic Weapon Proficiency(gnome quick razor) to use Enhanced weapons, Rogue needs Penetrating Strike. Now they both deal about the same. Not Iaijitsu is a superior option against Undead, but the same. The only thing Iaijitsu truly has going for it is that anyone can pick it up, which in that reguard lessens it's value in a Factotum vs Rogue debate since the Rogue could just as easily invest those two extra Skill Points (or four is changling) into it at each level.

And on the Rogue vs Factotum, the Factotum fundamentally is weaker than the Rogue. On a more TO level we like to think the Spellcasting puts the Factotum above a Rogue, and if done right it does. But on a more practical level the Factotum uses Skills. This is a bad thing. Everyone has Skills, people can buy Skill bonuses (+20 for 15gp!), real Classes offer stuff beyond Skills and Spellcasters bypass Skills entirely. Basing your self entirely on Skills is to beg to be an NPC Class. The Rogue appears stronger because being competent with Skills is not it's focus but it's secondary role. It's real primary role is Traps and secondary combatant, which makes it at home either in combat or out. Which when 90% of the game's rules is about the former, it's kind of a big deal.

And on the same token it's the same with Chameleon. Everything that makes the Chameleon great has nothing to do with Encounters. If your DM runs a Grayhawk, Forgotten Realms, or Eberron game. Crafting Items is an NPC role and not something to be proud of. So your in game mileage of it will greatly vary. However, it's Spellcasting access alone does add a nice level of raw power to the Class that helps it make the character worth running so it's not all bad news.

[X-Codes]

I'd say the Factotum masters whichever skillset is needed by the party. They're intelligence based and have every skill as a class skill - whichever hole isn't covered by someone else can be filled in by a Factotum. Perhaps not as good as a class designed to specialize in a certain skill type, but more than adequate.

Classes don't specialize in skills beyond crappy abilities like Trapfinding or Nature Lore.

Also, when it comes to combat a Factotum simply has more options than a Rogue.  They can trip, they can hit hard, and their small amount of arcane spellcasting lets them circumvent some of the issues with melee characters that Rogues can't do without UMD or that cheap crutch called Sneak Attack.  Also, sure, Sneak Attack scales faster than Iaijutsu, but Power Attack scales faster than Sneak Attack, so why should I care?

As for availability vs. commonality, that argument is fine until we start talking about important NPCs.  Important NPCs will always have high defenses and immunities, even if the rest of the campaign is relatively low-key.

[SorO_Lost]

Also, sure, Sneak Attack scales faster than Iaijutsu, but Power Attack scales faster than Sneak Attack, so why should I care?

Actually, Power Attack scales from +1 per two levels (poor BAB) to +2 per level (full BAB & THF) at the cost of accuracy and the Feat to access it. SA scales +1~+6 per two levels excluding multiclassing and item augmentation. The upper end of an even unaugmented SA scales faster and at no cost.

You're real point is charging scales faster. Or, look at me with my tongue pointing out of my mouth, I know how to deal 5,000 damage and some how that invalidates your point haha.

[Demelain]

An option doesn't need to be the best to be good.
If we only considered the optimal configuration to be viable, we wouldn't play a mundane to begin with. Charging deals more damage than SA/IF to be sure, but that doesn't invalidate the latter.

[X-Codes]

Actually, Power Attack scales from +1 per two levels (poor BAB) to +2 per level (full BAB & THF) at the cost of accuracy and the Feat to access it. SA scales +1~+6 per two levels excluding multiclassing and item augmentation. The upper end of an even unaugmented SA scales faster and at no cost.

Right, Power Attack scales at +1.5 per level for a Factotum before charging, and SA scales at +1.75 per level for a Rogue.  Power Attack you just need to buff your attack rolls or make touch attacks.  Sneak Attack you need to get specialized magic items in order to bypass the various ways to become immune to it, and then you still need to buff your attack rolls a bit on top of that.

Best case scenario, Sneak Attack is on par with Power Attack.  Not charging, just Power Attack.  Also, that's best case scenario.  There's nothing that shuts down Power Attack hard that doesn't also shut down Sneak Attack.

[Jackinthegreen]

There's nothing that shuts down Power Attack hard that doesn't also shut down Sneak Attack.

Elusive Target has a maneuver that entirely negates PA damage.  Does nothing against SA.

[SorO_Lost]

Power Attack you just need to buff your attack rolls or make touch attacks.  Sneak Attack you need to get specialized magic items in order to bypass the various ways to become immune to it, and then you still need to buff your attack rolls a bit on top of that.

If you can Flank it, you deal 1/2 your SA damage to it using Penetrating Strike End of story. No discussions, no whining, the Rogue SAs his target. This Feat (CS) and ACF (Ravon) comes up in every single Rogue discussion ever posted in the last 8 years. So either you are trolling this thread with your bullshit, or you don't know a damn thing about Rogues.

You obviously don't have any knowledge on this strawman of a subject you've invented. So it's only fitting and proper to flip off your trolling and move on.

[Jackinthegreen]

If you can Flank it, you deal 1/2 your SA damage to it using Penetrating Strike End of story. No discussions, no whining, the Rogue SAs his target. This Feat (CS) and ACF (Ravon) comes up in every single Rogue discussion ever posted in the last 8 years. So either you are trolling this thread with your bullshit, or you don't know a damn thing about Rogues.

You obviously don't have any knowledge on this strawman of a subject you've invented. So it's only fitting and proper to flip off your trolling and move on.

Uh, Soro, the Penetrating Strike ACF is from Dungeonscape, page 13.  No idea about a feat that allows something similar, however.

If you're going to use ad hominem, at least make sure you've got your references right.

[Sinfire Titan]

Last warning: Lay off the personal attacks or the thread will be locked.

[X-Codes]

If you can Flank it, you deal 1/2 your SA damage to it using Penetrating Strike End of story. No discussions, no whining, the Rogue SAs his target. This Feat (CS) and ACF (Ravon) comes up in every single Rogue discussion ever posted in the last 8 years. So either you are trolling this thread with your bullshit, or you don't know a damn thing about Rogues.

You obviously don't have any knowledge on this strawman of a subject you've invented. So it's only fitting and proper to flip off your trolling and move on.

Uh, Soro, the Penetrating Strike ACF is from Dungeonscape, page 13.  No idea about a feat that allows something similar, however.

If you're going to use ad hominem, at least make sure you've got your references right.

Also rules.  Concealment still beats Penetrating Strike.  Nevermind that relying on Penetrating Strike reduces your damage scaling to +0.875 per level.

[SorO_Lost]

Oh, so it's offered as two different ACFs then. Quick google suggested it was a Feat. I like the wording on Lightbringer better, link.

Last warning: Lay off the personal attacks or the thread will be locked.

Let me try rephrasing then

Concealment doesn't matter. DC's Penetrating Strike awards Bonus Damage to any creature you Flank. It even calls out loss of Dex-To-AC (which allows SA normally) does not matter, they have to be Flanked for Penetrating Strike. There are no rules saying Concealment blocks this ACF and this ACF sets a clear example it does not have the same requirements as, or inherent requirements of, Sneak Attack. In short, I have a case against, you have nothing otherwise.

Also, X-Codes has created several false standards. The PA example has already invested a Feat, is assumed to obtain additional Attack increases, and is assumed to be a full BABer. Then on the SA calculations to take only the average value of Rogue Class Advancement, this overlooks the damage range, equal Feat investment, how multiclassing and items can increase SA (even 250gp/rnd=+6d6 sa), reroll effects, and so on. And in all those askewed numbers, the best he could come up with is a .25 decrease. His argument when analyzed helps prove SA's superiority unless you go the route of charging due to how unfair the two need to be measured for PA to come out ahead.

There is also the final point that this is a fucking strawman. A Dragonborn Horc Rogue can make an Iaijutsut Focus strike with a Valorous Manyfanged Dagger. Simultaneously benefiting from six times multiplier on his base value, plus his Sneak Attack, and his Iaijitsu check for damage. Just as the Factotum can use Power Attack & Iaijitsu together (and burn IP for SA). Both of these Classes are not worthless sticks in the mud whose only attempt at viability on a tabletop is charge multipliers. The medial point of SA>PA>Iai is true, but barely even on topic (because I at least referenced Iai in there).

[X-Codes]

Concealment doesn't matter. DC's Penetrating Strike awards Bonus Damage to any creature you Flank. It even calls out loss of Dex-To-AC (which allows SA normally) does not matter, they have to be Flanked for Penetrating Strike. There are no rules saying Concealment blocks this ACF and this ACF sets a clear example it does not have the same requirements as, or inherent requirements of, Sneak Attack. In short, I have a case against, you have nothing otherwise.

False.  Penetrating Strike alters your Sneak Attack ability.  Since Penetrating Strike says nothing about whether or not you are unable to Sneak Attack targets with concealment, the previous rule stands: Sneak Attack says you can't apply the damage against targets with concealment, therefore you can't apply damage against targets with concealment.  Also, to pre-empt your next argument, concealment only gives practical immunity to sneak attack damage, not literal immunity.  It's the difference between struggling in vain to have purpose as a Rogue and having no effect, and simply not being able to even attempt the struggle.

Also, X-Codes has created several false standards. The PA example has already invested a Feat, is assumed to obtain additional Attack increases, and is assumed to be a full BABer. Then on the SA calculations to take only the average value of Rogue Class Advancement, this overlooks the damage range, equal Feat investment, how multiclassing and items can increase SA (even 250gp/rnd=+6d6 sa), reroll effects, and so on. And in all those askewed numbers, the best he could come up with is a .25 decrease. His argument when analyzed helps prove SA's superiority unless you go the route of charging due to how unfair the two need to be measured for PA to come out ahead.

False.  Power Attack is a Feat investment, true, but Sneak Attack doesn't come for free.  Suggesting that taking one Power Attack feat is somehow a bigger investment than taking multiple levels of Rogue is dishonest, at best.  Also, I'm not just assuming additional attack increases. Yes, Power Attack requires hit bonuses.  So does Sneak Attack, because Sneak Attack fails if you don't get those iterative attacks and flurry strikes to land.  What's more, Sneak Attack requires additional resources such as wand chambers and wands of Grave/Golem/Vine/Whateverstrike to bypass type-based immunities or items of True Seeing to bypass concealment-based immunity.  What's more, Rogues need more magic items to even reliably engage CR 5+ monsters in melee combat to get that flanking bonus and get those attacks off.  Factotums, on the other hand, don't need the flanking bonus, and are capable of engaging in melee combat for some time thanks to their SLA's.  Some magical support may be required, but it's far from given.

Secondly, saying that I used full BAB in calculations for Power Attack is an outright lie.  Tell me, how does +1 BAB per level translate to +1.5 damage per level via Power Attack?  Not that it's that big of a deal, anyway, considering how easily a Factotum/Chameleon can just cast Divine Power and give 0 fucks about such trivia.  Furthermore, if you want to take the variable nature of Rogue damage into account, then let's look at minimum damage.  Sneak Attack from a Rogue can result in as little as +0.5 damage per level.  Sneak Attack is random, but is has a strong tendency towards the mean average, therefore using the expected damage value of +1.75 damage per level is completely reasonable.  Also, arguments about improving Sneak Attack via feats, such as re-rolling 1's or using Craven are poor at best.  First off, once you start applying feats, Charging feats for Power Attack come into play.  What's more, static bonuses such as from Craven absolutely never work with Penetrating Strike.  Penetrating Strike only allows one-half of your dice to apply to immune targets.

There is also the final point that this is a fucking strawman. A Dragonborn Horc Rogue can make an Iaijutsut Focus strike with a Valorous Manyfanged Dagger. Simultaneously benefiting from six times multiplier on his base value, plus his Sneak Attack, and his Iaijitsu check for damage. Just as the Factotum can use Power Attack & Iaijitsu together (and burn IP for SA). Both of these Classes are not worthless sticks in the mud whose only attempt at viability on a tabletop is charge multipliers. The medial point of SA>PA>Iai is true, but barely even on topic (because I at least referenced Iai in there).

The discussion was about what a Rogue does that a Factotum doesn't, and the answer was pretty much just Sneak Attack.  At that point, YOU brought up Iaijutsu Focus, and YOU compared it to Sneak Attack, which is just as much a strawman argument as comparing Sneak Attack with Power Attack, and then when I brought up Power Attack, you made ANOTHER strawman and started talking about Charging and complaining that it wasn't a fair comparison.  The simple fact of the matter is that regardless of whether or not you are charging, properly supported Power Attack is THE BEST path to increasing your melee damage output, because it's more reliable than either Iaijutsu or Sneak Attack and damn near as effective (if not more), and if we start talking about classes that can leverage Power Attack, Factotum ranks much higher on that list than Rogue once again.  THAT is my point!

[Bard]

So... turns out that a orc rogue sneak attacking you quickdrawing a greataxe and using a iajitsu power attack wins.

Jokes aside, I don't see the point of trying to argue sneak attack vs power attack in a factotum thread, but hell, I'll chime in~
I think we all know the ups and downs of both.

* Power attack with leap/charging deals Tons of Damage™
* Power attack has issue hitting high armor things
* Sneak attack has less issue hitting things, but still has them
* Power attack needs a huge stick and one feat to work properly
* Sneak attack needs a huge investment of classes and feats to work and a ton of magic items (wands at first, crystals later)
* Power attack (on a full BAB class, +2/level/attack) scales slower than a dedicated sneak attack build (even just rogue 20 with TWF-line and Craven, even if we consider the same number of attacks +2.25/level/attack ), but a dedicated power attack charger build scales way faster.
* Both can do way more than enough damage in a campaign and might do too much damage if you optimize them too much.
* Sneak Attack in a campaign where magic items are rare and you can't craft your own, it's mostly useless.
* Sneak Attack requires at least Darkvision, but ideally Blindsight or concealment makes it cry.

Am I missing something or saying something wrong?

IF we are to contextualize it with a factotum, in a almost pure factotum/chamaleon build I'd say PA is better tho since Sneak Attack (beside items) requires a class that gives SA growth and a bunch of feat to work well.

IF we are comparing factotum with a rogue... well factotum isn't a combat class, rogue is. A dps-oriented rogue imho can deal way more damage (given the proper items) than a non-charge-abusing factotum, but the factotum should still be able to do a decent amount of it while having way more utility in and out of combat.

If not I think both can be made to work in a way or the other.

If noone of the above is related I am absolutely lost on what the point of the conversation is now 

[zugschef]

Without FoI abuse and that ridiculous 3.0 skill Factotums don't bring anything to the table in combat. Out of combat, they don't even function at all because the game lacks a definition of what an encounter actually is, when it starts and how long it lasts. And just because people keep mentioning Arcane Dilletant: Their SLAs are crap, too, because if your cohort has a wizard cohort, this wizard still casts better than the Factotum.

[Jackinthegreen]

Considering ToB maneuvers, skill tricks, and even a barbarian's Rage also require knowledge of what constitutes an "encounter," the excuse that "encounter" lacks a proper definition and thus abilities that depend on what it is can't be used is clearly at odds with actually playing the game itself.

However, CSc does have a brief paragraph about it:

Skill tricks are special maneuvers, so you can’t just use
them as often as you want. Unless otherwise noted, a skill
trick can be performed only once per encounter (or once
per minute, for scenes that don’t involve combat or other
conflict). This restriction sets skill tricks apart from feats
and class features, which are often repeatable.

The implication of the bolded part is that the designers consider happening upon any kind of conflict an encounter.  What defines conflict will probably depend a bit on how the table runs things.

Edit: Actually, the DMG does have rules on how to start an encounter.  Check page 22.  The thing to note about that version is it's specific to combat, which we all know isn't the one and only way to have an encounter, otherwise social and roleplaying encounters aren't really encounters, are they?

So far it's looking like the players themselves should come to a consensus on what an encounter is because the rules seem to be inadequate.

[linklord231]

IF we are comparing factotum with a rogue... well factotum isn't a combat class, rogue is.

All classes are combat classes.  If your class doesn't offer you anything meaningful to do in combat, your class is made of fail and shame. 

[zugschef]

Edit: Actually, the DMG does have rules on how to start an encounter.  Check page 22.  The thing to note about that version is it's specific to combat, which we all know isn't the one and only way to have an encounter, otherwise social and roleplaying encounters aren't really encounters, are they?

That is the reason why I put this under "out of combat".

[Demelain]

Out of combat, they don't even function at all because the game lacks a definition of what an encounter actually is, when it starts and how long it lasts.

If you're going to attempt an argument, at least avoid using ridiculous shit like that. Is there a precise definition of an encounter covering all circumstances? No. But it has to be one hell of a draconian DM deliberately shitting on you in order for the claim you're making to be relevant ever.

[Jackinthegreen]

Out of combat, they don't even function at all because the game lacks a definition of what an encounter actually is, when it starts and how long it lasts.

If you're going to attempt an argument, at least avoid using ridiculous shit like that. Is there a precise definition of an encounter covering all circumstances? No. But it has to be one hell of a draconian DM deliberately shitting on you in order for the claim you're making to be relevant ever.

Makes me wonder if Kevin_Video's DM has ever done that.  "I use an inspiration point to boost this climb check." "Sorry, you're not in an encounter, thus you don't have any inspiration points to use."