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

[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")

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?

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

Toughness, et.al. (to include FoI), does indicate otherwise in the description.

[Kaelik]

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")

Show me where it adds to your base IP.

[John Magnum]

Actually wot, it doesn't specifically say in its description that it stacks with itself. See how in "Toughness" it explicitly says "Its effects stack"? FoI doesn't have that language. So you get a new, different effect by taking it multiple times, but that new different effect doesn't stack with the older effect.

[zugschef]

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)

what exactly makes you see any difference with psionic talent? there is none.

it says: "When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 2 power points." and "You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat after the first time, the number of power points you gain increases by 1."

since dnd stacking rules apply, the bonus to your powerpoint reserve, of the second time you take the feat, overlaps with the bonus you got from the first selection, as would the bonuses of any further selections.

[wotmaniac]

what exactly makes you see any difference with psionic talent? there is none.

That was my point. (there is a nominal difference in that the 1st iteration of PT gives you 2 points and the 1st iteration of FoI gives you 1 point -- but that difference is 100% irrelevant in regards to the function <I only mentioned that difference to head-off the stupid faux-literalism of someone going "PT gives 2, FoI gives 1 - see, there is a difference dumbass">)

Being my point -- if PT functions in triangular fashion (which it does), then FoI, which has the exact same wording, also works in a triangular fashion.
However, because PT gives 2 points with its 1st iteration, then the listed example in the "special" description is a bit clearer as to the intent.
(I pointed that out for the benefit of those who are apparently too lazy to compare the 2 feats)

Yes, the wording could be a little better; but that doesn't give someone free reign to completely ignore the obvious intent.

[zugschef]

Yes, the wording could be a little better; but that doesn't give someone free reign to completely ignore the obvious intent.

the intent isn't obvious because they didn't use the word "stack", which they usually do when a feat stacks with itself.

[wotmaniac]

Yes. However, the verbiage appears to suggest that such is the base assumption?

More to the point, stacking doesn't necessarily seem to be a part of it. The verbiage suggests that the assumption is made that when you take the feat, the IP gained are simply subsumed in to your base IP pool; giving future IP gained from future iterations of the feat nothing on which to stack other than your base IP pool -- at which point, those IP are also subsumed (and at that point, can it even be considered "stacking"?).

[Kaelik]

Yes. However, the verbiage appears to suggest that such is the base assumption?

More to the point, stacking doesn't necessarily seem to be a part of it. The verbiage suggests that the assumption is made that when you take the feat, the IP gained are simply subsumed in to your base IP pool; giving future IP gained from future iterations of the feat nothing on which to stack other than your base IP pool -- at which point, those IP are also subsumed (and at that point, can it even be considered "stacking"?).

So you are arguing that multiple uses of the feat do stack (or don't trigger the stacking rules) because a level 12 Factotum that has taken the feat twice, spent all his IP and then enters an encounter has exactly the same IP as a level 12 Factotum that has taken the feat zero or one times?

I agree that is the RAW, but at that point, why are you even talking about the feats existence when characters with the feat have the same IP as characters without the feat?

[wotmaniac]

So you are arguing that multiple uses of the feat do stack (or don't trigger the stacking rules) because a level 12 Factotum that has taken the feat twice, spent all his IP and then enters an encounter has exactly the same IP as a level 12 Factotum that has taken the feat zero or one times?

I agree that is the RAW, but at that point, why are you even talking about the feats existence when characters with the feat have the same IP as characters without the feat?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

I'm saying that a 12th-level factotum that has never taken FoI has a base IP pool of 6; and a 12th-level factotum that has taken FoI 3 times has a base IP pool of 12.

[zugschef]

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

I'm saying that a 12th-level factotum that has never taken FoI has a base IP pool of 6; and a 12th-level factotum that has taken FoI 3 times has a base IP pool of 12.

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

This means that RAW, you gain 1 inspiration point when you take the feat and as soon as you spend this point, it is gone for good.

[wotmaniac]

I'm talking about RAI at this point.

It has been well established that RAW is incomplete and is otherwise poorly written; and is thus subject to (apparently) all sorts of inane interpretations.

FUCK!

[John Magnum]

Why do you always pull the stupidest, most twisted shit out of your asshole and try to say that you're talking about RAI? Weren't you doing this same stupid crap for Alter Form?

[Kaelik]

I'm talking about RAI at this point.

It has been well established that RAW is incomplete and is otherwise poorly written; and is thus subject to (apparently) all sorts of inane interpretations.

FUCK!

Oh well, in that case I agree with you completely.

If you completely ignore what the feat actually does and just make something stupid up based on your magic telepathy powers that you used to read the mind of Eytan Bernstein then you are definitely correct that you think the feat was supposed to do whatever you think the feat was supposed to do.

But if someone told you that they thought the RAI of the feat was to have a 12th level Factotum that had taken the feat three times have a base IP of 9, how would you possibly dispute that, since you have already stated that you don't give a shit about what the feat actually does, or what the words on the feat are actually trying to convey?

[nockermensch]

Come on, guys. This is 2013.

Whoever wrote the damn feat must have a facebook or twitter account. Could someone please write the author and ask what was their fucking intention?

[Username17]

Come on, guys. This is 2013.

Whoever wrote the damn feat must have a facebook or twitter account. Could someone please write the author and ask what was their fucking intention?

Yes. This was done like five years ago. The author's intention was for it to do exactly the thing it obviously is supposed to do once you realize that feats not stacking with each other when you take them multiple times in succession is the normal rules of the game. Taking it four times gives you a total of four extra Inspiration points. But you see, that makes it terrible and not abusable at all, so the people who jerk off about the Factotum on the internet refuse to accept that. And then when people bring up the author's obvious and confirmed intentions, they rant about how it does something stupid and quadratic "by RAW" even though it totally doesn't do that either.

It's very mysterious. In many ways, it's exactly like the Sarrukh bullshit. It doesn't do that by RAW. It doesn't do that by RAI. It doesn't do that at all. But a sloppy reading of it makes it look like it does something amazing, and armchair optimizers would feel very foolish if they admitted that they had fallen for a scam. So they never, ever, ever admit that they don't have a killer combo on their hands. Not when people walk them through the rules as written in a step by step fashion to show that they are wrong. Not when the authors or editors come out and tell them they are wrong explicitly. Not under any circumstances.

It's just really weird. Especially considering how many of these people will flip their shit if you suggest sneak attacking with alchemist fire or some other actual moderately cool combo that they don't know about. My personal theory is that it is all about pride and echo chambers. Probably not one person in a hundred who rants about Sarrukhs or Factotum Fonts actually owns a copy of Serpent Kingdoms or Dungeonscape. They haven't personally done any of this scholarship, they just get these combos prepackaged for them by their "in-group", and acknowledging the fact that the combos don't work and never worked would be simultaneously admitting that they had been taken for a ride and admitting that their "friends" were totally full of shit. Simultaneously betraying "the group" and showing personal weakness. And they just aren't going to fucking do that.

Even though the text is right there and it totally doesn't fucking say what they claim it says.

-Username17

[Rawbeard]

But they can totally say it intends to say what it is not saying for great profit.

[wotmaniac]

Why do you always pull the stupidest, most twisted shit out of your asshole and try to say that you're talking about RAI? Weren't you doing this same stupid crap for Alter Form?

First -- I don't know that I've ever discussed anything about Alter Form on the internet.

Second -- I see these stupid-ass arguments over stupid-ass shit; and the round-and-round that results in stupid-ass shit.
Aaand now you've pushed me to get all verbose .....

Let's take a fairly benign, random example: the sentence "I walked heavily today."
On its face, looking at the grammar and punctuation, that simple sentence has (at least) 2 very different possible meanings:
1) the manner in which I walked today was such that I applied great pressure upon the ground beneath my feat. ; -or-
2) I did a notable amount of walking today.
And let's say I put that sentence out in some publication. Invariably, a reader is going to say "what the hell does he mean?" To which someone will say "It means exactly what it says." And someone else will say "It means #1, because ...."; and someone else will say "It obviously means #2, because ....". And now we have an argument, and one which is often devoid of any discussion of any surrounding context. However, without the proper context, that original sentence is completely meaningless .... which means that any discussion of it (again, devoid of proper context) is also meaningless.

Now, I usually try to keep my posts fairly simple and straight forward. But, invariably, someone wants to try to play the contrarian, and that's when I get all long winded and shit. Eventually, the discussion gets so muddled in "yeah-huh"-vs-"nah-uh", that I feel compelled to try to come at explaining things from a different angle, which often involves going around the long way to get to it. Because most arguments (especially on the internet; and TGD is no exception) really never rise above the level of a 3rd-grade mentality. So, my verbosity is usually my attempt to try to inject a conversational tone, instead of succumbing to the usual guttersniping that everyone else seems to comfortable with. And since TGD tries to pass it self off as some sort of intellectual bastion, you would think that actually discussing ideas in a conversational manner might be something that could be received. But, this is still the internet, so ....

You're welcome.


Oh, and I took the time to take nockermensch up on his idea. It appears that the author originally did intend it as I have described it; but in retrospect, if given the chance to rewrite it, would have it worded to work the way Frank said.
Here's the whole of the email correspondence (I'm just copy-paste the response, with the original attached to the bottom):

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:36:48 -0700
From: eytan.bernstein@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Please excuse the imposition ...
To: [wotmaniac]

Hi Jason,

I'm going to do my best on this one. It was a while ago. But looking at what you've written below, I believe that it is the correct
interpretation. Keep in mind the maximum Intelligence limitation, which means that if you have an Intelligence of 20 (not including
magic items), you can take it 5 times.

Looking back on it, it's not my favorite feat design ever. It probably shouldn't have been cumulative. Instead, I would prefer that the
character just gains 1 inspiration point each time s/he takes the feat, so 1 the first, an additional 1 the second, 1 more than third, and so on.

Also, I'm saying here is not in any way official. It's just my interpretation.

Thanks!
Eytan

---

From: [wotmaniac]
To: "eytan.bernstein@yahoo.com" <eytan.bernstein@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:12 PM
Subject: Please excuse the imposition ...
I'm amidst a debate about something that you wrote, and it was suggested that we attempt to get the answer from the author.

Font of Inspiration, from THIS article -- how does it work?
I've proposed this:
- 1st iteration: 1 inspiration point added to your base pool, via the class advancement chart
- 2nd iteration: 2 IPs added to your base pool, + the 1 from the first iteration, for a total of 3 IPs added to your base pool
- 3rd iteration: 3 IPs added to your base pool, + the 3 from the first 2 iterations, for a total of 6 IPs added to your base pool
etc., ...

I know that it was from 5 years ago; but I'm sure you know how us gamers can get sometimes.

Again, I really am sorry to bother you with this bit of insignificant rambling.
Your insight would be of great help.

Thank you,
Jason Johnson
Game Enthusiast

(the only change I've made was to redact my personal contact information ... his is right there on his website, so I didn't bother with his)

Make of it what you will.

Yeah, that just happened.

[John Magnum]

Sorry, I meant Manipulate Form.

[nockermensch]

[RobbyPants_avatar.jpg]

>sees Frank's reply
>sees wotcmaniac's reply
>mfw

[wotmaniac]

Sorry, I meant Manipulate Form.

Oh, yeah.
But the spoilered verbosity still applies.
(especially so, in light of your correction)

[Judging__Eagle]

Sorry about the necromancy, I thought better to post this idea to this thread, and not to my character sketching in the other thread.

so...

If I take it 3 times, I get +6, and will generally fail forever b/c I've set up to my level 6 feats on fire.

Good to know.

On the other hand.... if I go Archivist 8//Factotum 5/Chamelon 3 on my gestalt character; that's most divine magic on the one half; and then arcane spells "whenever?", and at level 8 I would have an I.P. pool of 11 (4 base, from level 5, +6 from feat).

Either way, it's not good. Possibly

In any case, copied from the online source:

[url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606]Class Chronicles 06/06/2007
Factotums and Spellthieves

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.

Well 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 more inspiration point per character level, whenever you would normally refresh your I.P. pool.

Special: You can take this multiple times. The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Biggest "problem" with this? A higher level Factotum (lvl 8) can Cunning Surge for 3 I.P.s for an extra standard action.

However, that can't actually break their "spellcasting" which has less spell slots than even the Frank/Suijin Sorcerer does.

Also, a Factotum with this new feat could be equivalent to some Rogues/Assassins for a single attack.

[zugschef]

your feat still doesn't increase the base amount of inspiration points and is thus useless, once you've used these points.

[Kaelik]

JE, your feat is complete trash.

No one claims the problem with FoI is that it doesn't give enough IP. The problem is it is worded like shit. You feat is also worded like shit.

[ishy]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here. But if you're homebrewing anyway, why not just change the base class?
Having mandatory feats to be able to play a class feels terrible.

[RobbyPants]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here. But if you're homebrewing anyway, why not just change the base class?
Having mandatory feats to be able to play a class feels terrible.

Other than that a home-brew class less likely to pass by a DM than a feat, I agree totally.