Talk:Jack of All Trades (3.5e Prestige Class)

Prereqs
Unless you're making up skills, I don't think there *are* 80 skills to take ranks in... --Ghostwheel 04:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Going through the Player's Handbook, I count 96.--Ideasmith 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, token change is token. You still have to blow goats for pocket change in return for nothing anyone cares about in the long term. - MisterSinister 03:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Holding back on rating due to excess wat
Pre-reqs of +6 all saves.

Doable, but unless you multiclass a lot, the soonist you get in is monk 10. Somehow, I don't think that is intentional.

"The jack of all trades has no class skills. All skills are cross-class for the jack of all trades."

Wat. But... this is a skill class isn't it?

"The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a jack of all trades spell is 1-+the spell level + jack of all trades caster level."

Your first spells (at possibly ECL 10 or higher) have a DC of 1 and 2? Why does this have a nonstandard DC? Why not "10 + 1/2 HD + highest ability score", so its valid regardless if you get in at 4th or 40th?

I was expecting some kind of super skillful class with max ranks in all skills or a mixed bag class like factotum. I got the poor man's Red Mage. -- Eiji-kun 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "unless you multiclass a lot, the soonist you get in is"
 * Quite intentional. Why else would anyone make Base Saving Throw Bonus a prerequisite?


 * "But... this is a skill class isn't it?"
 * This class is intended to have ranks in a lot of skills (jack of all trades), but not be terrific at any one of the skills (master of none).


 * "Your first spells (at possibly ECL 10 or higher) have a DC of 1 and 2?"
 * Because of typo. Thank you for catching that. --Ideasmith 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ratings Still Valid?
Most of the ratings talk about this class being underpowered. But now with the versatile advancement thing, you're no longer giving up advancement in your previous class. As it stands right now, there is no reason to not take the class when eligible.--Quey 20:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since ThunderGod Cid's rating was entered well after versatile advancement was added, it is very probably valid. You appear to be both overestimating verstile advancement and underestimating the difficulty of meeting the prerequisites. I am certainly happy to tone down versatile advancement, or even take it back out, if that seems to be the consensus of the discussion. --Ideasmith 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Let's take a look at versatile advancement. A monk can take a level in JoAT after 8th. Sure, that's nice, whatever. What really splodes to me is, say, Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1. Cleric, Druid, and Ranger each give +2 Fort; Bard, Ranger, and Rogue each give +2 Ref; Bard, Cleric, and Druid each give +2 Will. That's entry after level 5, and mayhaps one with the time could figure it out how to fit monk in there to make it lvl 4. Anyways. So what does this mean? A Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Rgr1/Rog1/JoAT10 would have the class abilities of Brd11/Clr11/Drd11/Rgr11/Rog11, plus a pile (let me be precise: twelve) of extra feats and a large haul of cantrips. So what does the party Cleric have over this character? Taking Clr15 vs. Clr11, yeah, the lvl 15 character's going to be better in a lot of respects. one or two more 1st through 6th spells, access to 7th and 8th level spells, and better turning. But then consider what the trade gives. Base saves are only 9/5/9 (for Clr15, compared to 13/13/13 for JoAT), and, oh, dang, you get a pile of Druid spells and two smaller but nice piles of Bard and Ranger spells, Bardic music, Wild Shape, a 16th level animal companion, 6d6 sneak attack, and so on (LOTS more). The only other thing you're missing is some BAB. Do this analysis comparing this build with any mixture of the core classes used above. So tell me: is that a fair trade?--Quey 06:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Higher level spells are really neat. Your mishmash might be stronger in a stand-up fight, but the Cleric 15 has two whole levels of new tricks to make that not happen. --Foxwarrior 06:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Potentially even worse--crazy MAD. --Ghostwheel 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Even ignoring other factors, taking away two levels of spells for godly saving throws and 12 (I missed that the first time around) extra feats don't sit well. And this is just one aspect of versatile advancement. There's also that 8th level monk. If a monk did go JoAT after 8th, it continues to be a monk, just with bonus feats and nice(r) saves with spells tacked on. I'm sure a monk could deal with newfound mage armor and enlarge person.--Quey 07:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably worse is when a Wizard X/FortandRefBoosting PrC Y/JoAT 15-X-Y takes this class, because they get heaping handfuls of extra feats for no real cost. If they're Wizard-level feats, that's sure to be more powerful than almost any other option; that's maybe more of a problem with letting characters have more than one or two Wizard-level feats total though (proper ones that you could reasonably write before your class names to indicate their importance in the build, like Natural Spell, DMM, and Mother Cyst, that is). --Foxwarrior 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, Races of War classes are supposed to be mighty fine by theirselves, but multiclass very nicely. Tome Fighter 1/Tome Samurai 1/Cas' Commando 1/Tome Knight 1/Tome Ranger 1/JoAT 10 would lose Array of Stunts, Greater Combat Focus, and 3 BAB in comparison to a straight Tome Fighter, but would otherwise be stronger than a 5-way gestalt. The comparison would be a little bit less favorable at level 16 (no +16 BAB abilities for you), but that's in exchange for getting one more class, so it wouldn't be too shabby. --Foxwarrior 17:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is now obvious to me that versatile advancement needs toning down, especially with single-class entry. What is not so obvious is how much toning down it needs, or how to make it moreso with single-class entry. Will be cogitating, and looking at any suggestions that might be made. --Ideasmith 01:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)