Font of Inspiration is the worst designed feat in D&D

[Jacob_Orlove]

Yup, there's a feat worse than Natural Spell. People kept randomly mentioning the "Font of Inspiration Factotum" so I went and googled the feat.

Now, remember, Factotums start with 2 inspiration points per encounter at level one, and end up with 10/encounter at level 20. If we go ahead and assume that they actually meant that as your encounter maximum (as opposed to talking to every random person on the street to add 2 points to your pool), then it's pretty clear that 8 inspiration points is a huge deal. For reference, the going rate of a bonus standard action is 3 inspiration points.

So anyway, Font of Inspiration:

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: When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point.

Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

I'm not sure I can even start going into how many levels of terrible that feat manages to encompass. It is simultaneously awful if you take it just once and utterly broken if you take it a whole bunch of times (which makes it the lose at low levels and the win at high ones), it actively punishes organic or concept characters, while rewarding people who set all their feats on fire forever. Ugh.

[Voss]

I don't think its that broken, honestly. Actually, I think they need more inspiration points and those extra standard actions and other bonuses just to keep up at high levels.

Look at it this way, at 8th level, a factotum has 5 IP. So he can use cunning surge and get an extra standard action for 3 IP. He can use 1 to cast his single 3rd level (not even level appropriate!) spell. And another 1 to cast a 2nd level spell with his extra action. Not bad for one round's worth of actions, but not exactly Evard's Hentai Tentacles broken. And for the rest of the encounter, you're running an 8th level expert. (And used half your spells for the *day*, including your one spell of maximum level) If you've taken that feat a couple times, you can still contribute.
(I wouldn't take it more than 4 or 5 times though. After that you're probably wasting the extra points)

As for organic or concept characters... its 3.x. If you're trying to make characters that way, you're making them full of fail. The system actively punishes *any* character not designed with optimization in mind. Just trying to qualify for PrCs is the character building equivalent of punching yourself in the balls. Unless you aren't actually leveling up that character through games, and are building a paper character for a Xth level campaign.

[Crissa]

Honestly, it's a waste of a feat. At level one, you've increased by 50% for a feat - great deal. But 20th, your feat is worth 5%. Woo.

If you have the points, you pretty much want to burn your feat on this, 'cause otherwise it'll suck. Later, you don't care, because encounters don't last that long.

But that's more a problem with the class in general.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

1200896882[/unixtime]]Unless you aren't actually leveling up that character through games, and are building a paper character for a Xth level campaign.

Yeah, it's just about worth saying "Rebuild your character every level." so that people don't spend any level sucking.

There are many reasons why I hate low level games, but one of them is "If I want to take a prestige class, I want to actually have levels in it now." instead of slogging through five levels taking shit prerequisites and getting punched in the tit every two minutes as a reminder of how shit the requirements are. Especially when the first level is always craptastic - "Here, have no abilities AND don't get a caster level!"

[Judging__Eagle]

Maybe Font of Inspiration should provide +50% more Inspiration Points, instead?

That would make some of the powers more interesting; like the sudden strike one; it could plausibly be used by a Factotum with this feat more than once to make an, at least an ambusher/assassin feasible.

Although, at higher levels, even +8d6 damage could help trigger a death by massive damage rule on smaller targets like humanoids, ~+3.5 damage per d6 is on par with what humanoid HD tend to get.

And against a single target, the Factotum could clobber people like the Batman.... the Batman is a Factotum. D: ?

[Username17]

Whoa. This thread is five years old. Holy necromancy.

Here are the problems with Font of Inspiration:

• Despite obviously adding only one Inspiration Point each time you take it, it's worded in such a way that low-skill powergamers are constantly trying to convince you that when you take it multiple times it adds a triangular value to your Inspiration pool.
• The Factotum's Inspiration Pool is already broken on first principles, because the refresh period and the maximum value are both undefined because 3.5 doesn't actually have an "encounter" period defined anywhere.
• Factotums are terrible mechanically. They do shitty things, and they do them poorly.
• Factotums are garbage from a flavor standpoint. They are "dabblers", but their range of dabbling is defined from a purely mechanical standpoint and doesn't actually make any story sense.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

I've actually used 2 different rewrites for this:
1) change the # of IPs to follow the same progression as a strong save (netting +2 IPs @ 20th). This seems to have reduced dependency on FoI;
2) eliminate the feat, and simply add a class feature that gives bonus IP based on INT bonus. And that I've seen done 2 ways:
-a) bonus IPs equal to 1/2 your INT bonus
-b) bonus daily pool equal to INT bonus

I still haven't made up my mind as to my preference.

[edit]

[*] Despite obviously adding only one Inspiration Point each time you take it, it's worded in such a way that low-skill powergamers are constantly trying to convince you that when you take it multiple times it adds a triangular value to your Inspiration pool.

You're flat wrong on this point -- it is clarified by the example: "for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time"
-- it doesn't say "you gain a 2nd inspiration point the 2nd time you take it"
It works just like that psionic feat that gives you extra PP. If they intended for it to be linear, why didn't they just say "each time you take this feat, you gain 1 inspiration point"?

[John Magnum]

Yeah, as much as I hate to agree with wotmaniac, it is not obvious at all to me that the feat gives you one additional Inspiration Point per copy of the feat. Why wouldn't they just say "Benefit: You gain 1 inspiration point" and say you can take it multiple times? Why do they explicitly say that the number of inspiration points you gain--not that you have, but that you gain--increases by 1 each time you take it? It may be obvious to someone who knows the history that they meant it to be 1 per copy of the feat and they just wrote it unbelievably poorly, but it's not evident in the text itself.

[wotmaniac]

It may be obvious to someone who knows the history that they meant it to be 1 per copy of the feat and they just wrote it unbelievably poorly, but it's not evident in the text itself.

Yeah, I absolutely reject the premise that even Eytan Bernstein would fuck up describing linear feat-stacking.
The wording is just way too close to that of Psionic Talent to not work that way.

[Kaelik]

Hey wot, you forgot to fix the class's shitty shit.


You have zero IP. You punch a commoner in the face, now you have how many IP?
Some guards (who may be level appropriate, or may be level 2 to your level 20) show up because you punched a commoner in the face, how many IP now?
You don't spend any IP, and you run away from the guards.

Later, you fight four encounters in a row without spending IP, these ones are definitely encounters. How many IP now?

Ect.


Also, on what Font of Inspiration does, you are factually wrong. Font of Inspiration lights all your feats on fire, allow me to demonstrate.

You are a level 11 Factotum who gains (this number is made up) 5 IP every time an encounter starts. You took FoI one time in the past, and when you took it, you gained one IP.

Note how you totally didn't add one to the number of IP you gain at the start of the next encounter, because that is a different value that FoI does not interact with in any way.

So you level up, and you take FoI for the second time, either you gain one IP, or you gain 2. But it doesn't fucking matter, because in neither case does it increase the number of IP you actually gain each time a new encounter comes, so after you spend that IP, that feat ceases to have any effect of any kind ever.


Bottom Line: Factotum is the shittiest shit of shit classes because every single part of it from the shittily concepted shit feat on the web enhancement to the core fucking mechanic of how you even gain fucking IP is written like shit by shitheads.

Like, at the very lowest baseline, if you are going to write a class that has a token pool and uses that pool to do shit and get payed to write that class, you should fucking meet the level of design chops of random internet designer #8, who is by the way, me, and you should write an actually clear maximum pool size and define what it takes to fucking add points to the pool, like my Elementalist class.


EDIT: Thanks JE, for contributing to my enjoyment for the first time fucking ever. You dredged up for me, and caused me to reread the Factotum vs Rogue thread that was super hilarious.

I think my favorite part ever was when some random JaronK fanboi described using Black Tentacles and Solid Fog, then Rope Trick on encounters at 10th level.

This is, a) not allowed at 10th level, and b) Actually defeats exactly zero CR 10 enemies in the entire fucking MM. Hilariously. And it doesn't even minorly inconvenience most of them.

[wotmaniac]

Jesus, dude -- did you snort a line before you started typing?

Hey wot, you forgot to fix the class's shitty shit.

I simply don't care enough about the class to put actual effort in to it. If someone wants to play it, then fine, whatever.

<excessive rant about shittily written class feature>

I think that the intent is that your chart-listed IP pool is what refreshes.
And yes, basing your refresh mechanic on a nebulous, undefined concept is shitty -- I don't think anyone will ever argue to the contrary.

Font of Inspiration lights all your feats on fire

Uh-huh .... for all practical purposes, no argument here.

Though, I will add that I'm 99.99% positive that the intent of the feat was to add to your base, chart-listed IP pool, and adjudicated accordingly.
I mean, it may take some inference on the readers part, but it doesn't exactly take groundbreaking revelations in theorycraft to get there.
I chalk all the problems with this class up to 2 things:
1) it was a hastily thrown together book towards the end of the production cycle (and as such, the entire volume was rife with problems), written by some freelancing hacks ;
2) the class was yet another beta test for 4e; which .... yeah.

All that being said, I'm really not invested in the class enough to really care about a full-on critical analysis discussion.
I was just throwing out my random 2-cents. It's really not that big a deal.

[Winnah]

A Rakshasha is cr10

[Username17]

Yeah, as much as I hate to agree with wotmaniac, it is not obvious at all to me that the feat gives you one additional Inspiration Point per copy of the feat. Why wouldn't they just say "Benefit: You gain 1 inspiration point" and say you can take it multiple times? Why do they explicitly say that the number of inspiration points you gain--not that you have, but that you gain--increases by 1 each time you take it? It may be obvious to someone who knows the history that they meant it to be 1 per copy of the feat and they just wrote it unbelievably poorly, but it's not evident in the text itself.

I gave up reading Wotmaniac because he's a twat and don't know or care what his argument is. But you realize that in D&D math, larger numbers replace smaller numbers, right? Yes, it would have been a fuck of a lot easier for them to have have written it "Benefit: You gain 1 inspiration point per Font of Inspiration feat you have", but if you just wrote the thing you just wrote, every additional Font of Inspiration would give you the same bonus and that would add nothing. Remember the basic D&D stacking rules:

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies.

The core of D&D math is that adding 1 and then adding 2 from the same source gives you two and not three. It's weird as fuck, but that is how Dungeons & Dragons has worked since before 3.5 even happened.

Whenever anyone tells you they found some part of the rules that goes exponential or triangular or something, always take that with a spoonful of salt. Because while Dungeons & Dragons has many problems, it does have specific modifications to how math works with repeated addition and multiplication that prevent it from accelerating growth in most cases.

-Username17

[erik]

A Rakshasha is cr10

They only deserve a CR 7 or 8 but I suppose the fact remains. Man I just read them again, they're so sad. It's a level 7 sorcerer who in lieu of other equipment has donned a cursed furry suit that gives DR and SR.

My nostalgia remembers (correctly or not) when they were badasses who could represent and inspire adventurers to actually list a crossbow and some blessed bolts in their inventory.

[Red_Rob]

Frank, you are just wrong, and your logic to defend this is getting really tortuous. Look at the wording on the feat:

Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

It clearly says "you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time". Not "You will have gained" or "your total gain will be", it says that when you take the feat the second time you gain 2 inspiration points from that feat choice.

As regards your second argument, it fails on multiple counts. Firstly, the section you quoted specifically says it refers to modifiers to checks or rolls, not points pools. When I gain D6 hit points at second level, I don't say "darn, rolled a 3, I already got 6 at first level so no hit points for me!". Secondly, the section you quoted also specifically says they stack if they have "no type at all". I don't see a type specified when it is giving you additional Inspiration points.

It's a shitty feat for a shitty class, but it does work the way it seems to work.

[Istred]

Secondly, the section you quoted also specifically says they stack if they have "no type at all". I don't see a type specified when it is giving you additional Inspiration points.

The type matters for different sources - the only thing it mentions in relation to bonuses from the same source is that they don't stack.

Also

A bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything except itself. This is always true, but it's sometimes hard to remember. For example, many feats provide unnamed bonuses, so don't panic when you read a feat description and it provides a bonus without a name. An unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice.

[Username17]

It clearly says "you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time".

Yeah. It does say that. it doesn't say "you gain 2 more inspiration points". It doesn't say "you gain 2 inspiration points in addition to the 1 you gained earlier". It says you gain 2 inspiration points. Which since it is from the same source as your previous gain, is a replacement rather than a cumulative addition.

That is how D&D math works. It's stupid and counterintuitive, but that is how D&D math has worked for 8 years before this stupid feat was even written.

Firstly, the section you quoted specifically says it refers to modifiers to checks or rolls, not points pools.

That is the stupidest fucking argument anyone has ever made about anything. Are you actually trying to argue that the stacking rules don't apply to ability scores because they aren't "modifiers to rolls"? For serious? Go fuck yourself. The rules for stacking apply to everything, the example in the description of stacking is modifiers to rolls. But bonuses and penalties to anything else work the same way. That's what D&D math is and has been for more than a decade. I am honestly shocked that there are still mouth breathing holdouts to whom this is even news.



-Username17

[Red_Rob]

Okay, fair point about ability score modifiers. Also things that increase static values, like AC or spell DC's still fall under that rule I guess. Weird that it calls out rolls and checks if that is the case? Maybe it's like the Enhancement bonus rules, because it was "obvious" how it was supposed to work it was never really clarified in the text and ended up not working that way at all.

Given we accept the supposition that the text refers to any numeric increase gained from a source, how do you reconcile that with Cure spells? I don't think anyone is saying that multiple Cure spells in quick succession should not heal the target - even though the hp are a "bonus" from the spell.

[Istred]

Given we accept the supposition that the text refers to any numeric increase gained from a source, how do you reconcile that with Cure spells? I don't think anyone is saying that multiple Cure spells in quick succession should not heal the target - even though the hp are a "bonus" from the spell.

The effect is an instantoneus one - there is no stacking involved (and if you'd want to rule restoring lost HP as a lasting "bonus", you're retarded).

[erik]

Given we accept the supposition that the text refers to any numeric increase gained from a source, how do you reconcile that with Cure spells? I don't think anyone is saying that multiple Cure spells in quick succession should not heal the target - even though the hp are a "bonus" from the spell.

Removing damage is not the same thing as stacking hit points. There is nothing to reconcile.

If you want an honest example, compare stacking of temporary hit points. You cast Aid twice, and you take the better result of the two.

[Koumei]

At first I thought "What, only now it's been noticed?" when I saw the title.

Then I saw that it was a massive revival and was unimpressed.

But then people decided to argue about it again, and everything became wonderful.

Also, it gets better: I've seen people seriously argue that if you take it a second time, it retroactively changes it so both instances give you two, so you go 1, 4, 9, 16 and so on. Quadratic growth? You just know that they did not honestly look at it and assume that's what it meant - that in actual fact they twisted it about in their head until it did all they could get from it.

[Red_Rob]

Looking at it again I guess the wording was making me think it was a case of "gaining" something physical rather than just a numeric increase. But gaining one inspiration point is just +1 to your Inspiration points total, which is a stat on your character sheet like any other. I was looking at other feats that increase things like this, such as Toughness, but they all have specific text stating they stack if taken multiple times, which this doesn't have.

Okay, colour me convinced, they don't stack they overlap. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their intention, otherwise they would have just used the text from Toughness et. al, rather than the convoluted version they used, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have limited it by your Int modifier. But RAW they fucked up if that was their intention.

[John Magnum]

Frank, thanks for the correction on D&D math. I'd known that they have weird math kludges to prevent too much stacking, but I wasn't intuitively aware of just how deep that shit went.

[wotmaniac]

1) It's not a bonus; therefore, bonus stacking rules have nothing to do with this. It just adds to your base IP. (pretty please, somebody show me where it says "bonus")
2) Note the similarities between FoI and the Psionic Talent feat. Yes, it's a triangular increase. (the only reason that the intent is clearer in PT is because you start with getting 2 with the first iteration of the feat -- that's literally the only functional difference)

3) could someone please tell Frank to stop acting like such a petulant child.

[Istred]

1) It's not a bonus; therefore, bonus stacking rules have nothing to do with this. It just adds to your base IP. (pretty please, somebody show me where it says "bonus")

By this logic Toughness doesn't need the rule about its effects stacking, as there is no mention of "bonus" in there as well. Yet they added a line about that. And I guess I should be able to cast things like Empowered Empowered spells - no bonuses there, why shouldn't it stack?