Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pants" data-source="post: 3358552" data-attributes="member: 8849">I think it's a silly class and I question its inclusion in Dungeonscape.The idea of a true 'jack-of-all-trades' is interesting and a worthy goal, but I don't think that anyone has truly 'hit the mark' (so to speak) as of yet. The Savant in the DC comes pretty close but it's still not 'it (I'm not even sure what 'it' is, but I have yet to see 'it' in class form yet <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).The problem, IMO, with the Factotum comes from the whole 'Inspiration Points' idea. As much as people may HAET the x/day mechanic, it provides a good, solid, and easy to use system for tracking use of recourses and attrition. These 'usable per encounter mechanics' just muddy up the entire process, although, IMO, the Bo9S classes don't really muddy it up as much because many of their abilities are based entirely around combat, which can reasonably be tracked with encounters. The factotum, IIRC, has some abilities that work well outside of combat, but since tracking 'encounters' outside of combat is a nebulous endeavor at best, the very system it relies on comes into question.That's no surprise then as I don't like the Akashic at all (flavor and mechanics wise).But that's just my semi-knee jerkish response. Take it as you will.</blockquote>

Verification