Beguiler/Prestige Bard Spell List... Madness?

[Chaosblade]

Player's Handbook II: "...you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler's spell list."

(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeBard)
SRD: "any character who enters one of these prestige classes should gain access to spells unique to that class's spell list, at the same levels indicated for the standard class."

So... by RAW, a Beguiler 6/Prestige Bard 1 would have and know all level 1 bard spells? And Beguiler 6/Prestige Bard 7 would have and know all 1st through 3rd level Bard spells? Is there any errata to this? Because if not... I'd like some feedback on just how broken this might be. I think they're both tier 4 classes anyway, so this might just bump it to low 3, IMO. Then again, I know almost nothing about optimizing a bard.

[Psyren]

Actually, Beguiler is already T3, and is pretty close to T2. Bards are also already T3.


As for your reasoning - overall you are correct, a Beguiler who enters Prestige Bard will learn all Bard spells. But there is some debate over the meaning of the passage you quoted:

"any character who enters one of these prestige classes should gain access to spells unique to that class's spell list, at the same levels indicated for the standard class."

"at the same levels" is ambiguous - it could mean class levels, in which case you would need PrC Bard 7 to learn 3rd-level Bard spells (as you indicated) because that's the level a standard bard would have to be to learn them. It could also mean spell levels, and simply means that a first-level Bard spell stays first-level even if you learn it through Prestige Bard. This would mean that your Beguiler 6/PrC-Bard 1 would already know 3rd-level Bard spells.

The power level of these two options is of course vastly different, so I would check with your DM.

[Flickerdart]

I find it unlikely that it means class levels, because the Prestigious classes have no means of reaching level 20. It's clear that they make every attempt to reach the same, or at least similar, bonuses that their originals gave. I would interpret it as character levels, so a Beguiler 5/Prestige Bard 2 would, as a 7th level character with bard casting, have access to 3rd level Bard spells.

[Psyren]

I find it unlikely that it means class levels, because the Prestigious classes have no means of reaching level 20. It's clear that they make every attempt to reach the same, or at least similar, bonuses that their originals gave. I would interpret it as character levels, so a Beguiler 5/Prestige Bard 2 would, as a 7th level character with bard casting, have access to 3rd level Bard spells.

Yep, this is how I read it as well. (Or Beguiler 6/PrC Bard 1 if you wanted the swift action feint for some reason.)

[nedz]

Prestige Bard just advances your existing arcane casting, in this case Beguiler. It does not add Bard spells into the mix.



Spellcasting

When a new prestige bard level is gained (except at 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 13th level), the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class.

[Flickerdart]

Prestige Bard just advances your existing arcane casting, in this case Beguiler. It does not add Bard spells into the mix.
You missed the section talking about this, further up the page.




Unique Spells

The bard, paladin, and ranger spell lists contain a number of spells that don't appear on other classes' spell lists. In general, any character who enters one of these prestige classes should gain access to spells unique to that class's spell list, at the same levels indicated for the standard class. At the game master's discretion, spells unique to that class's spell list found in other books may also be available, but on a case by case basis. The game master may require such spells to be researched or learned specifically by the character, rather than simply making them freely available.

[Cog]

I think the word 'Unique' is pretty important here. The Summon Monster line, for example, is on the Bard list. It's not unique to that list, though, showing up on the Sor/Wiz and Cleric list as well, so a Beguiler/Prestige Bard wouldn't pick that up.

[nedz]

You missed the section talking about this, further up the page.

Ah — I did read that section of the SRD three times, if only I'd scrolled up.:smallconfused:

However; as well as unique it also says At the game master's discretion

So it requires a houserule then ?

[Flickerdart]

The "game master's discretion" bit is only for new spells in non-core books.

[Spuddles]

I think the word 'Unique' is pretty important here. The Summon Monster line, for example, is on the Bard list. It's not unique to that list, though, showing up on the Sor/Wiz and Cleric list as well, so a Beguiler/Prestige Bard wouldn't pick that up.

I've always assumed the same thing, but I've never seen that caveat mentioned on the boards. In fact, several times in this thread, "all bard spells" has been posted, when really it'd just be a handful of bard spells that aren't on other lists.

[nedz]

One build that is closer is
Beguiler 6/Prestige Bard 4/Sublime Chord 10
This gets Sorcerer like 9ths, but doesn't build on the Beguiler base; so no madness here.

Looking at the other obvious option
Beguiler 5/Prestige Bard 1/Lyric Thaumaturge 10
(which I think is correct, if you take extra music at 6th)
This doesn't work either because LT specifically advances Bard casting — and Prestige Bard is not Bard.
If this did work, then you would have a mad build of Beguiler+Bard exclusive+6 from the Sorc/Wiz list — but it doesn't.

Virtuoso and FL are of even less interest.

[Psyren]

I've always assumed the same thing, but I've never seen that caveat mentioned on the boards. In fact, several times in this thread, "all bard spells" has been posted, when really it'd just be a handful of bard spells that aren't on other lists.

To be honest, it never occurred to me that it would be restricted to "bard-only" or "paladin-only" spells. I suppose it makes sense though.

I think then that the prestige paladin becomes much more useful than the prestige bard - the bard list has a lot of overlap with the sorcerer, wizard and cleric lists, with the primary difference being spell level for various effects.

[Norin]

This made me all very excited, and then i got a bit sad. :smallfrown:

[Tvtyrant]

To be honest, it never occurred to me that it would be restricted to "bard-only" or "paladin-only" spells. I suppose it makes sense though.

I think then that the prestige paladin becomes much more useful than the prestige bard - the bard list has a lot of overlap with the sorcerer, wizard and cleric lists, with the primary difference being spell level for various effects.

I thought having the same named spell at different spell levels made them different spells? I could be wrong of course, but I was under the impression that a Trapsmith couldn't hand off a scroll of Haste to a Wizard and have the Wizard cast it...

[Cog]

I thought having the same named spell at different spell levels made them different spells? I could be wrong of course, but I was under the impression that a Trapsmith couldn't hand off a scroll of Haste to a Wizard and have the Wizard cast it...
All that matters is whether the spell is on your list and if the scroll is arcane if you are, or divine if you are. A Wizard could use a Trapsmith's Haste scroll, but couldn't use it to scribe Haste as a 1st level spell in his own spellbook - the latter is likely what you were thinking of.

[nedz]

This made me all very excited, and then i got a bit sad. :smallfrown:
Well you would get lullaby — oh and Glibness — and possibly a few others.


I thought having the same named spell at different spell levels made them different spells? I could be wrong of course, but I was under the impression that a Trapsmith couldn't hand off a scroll of Haste to a Wizard and have the Wizard cast it...

I have come across people who interpret the rules like that, most people interpret it differently.

Consider Spellcraft: If the Trapsmith casts haste then a Wizard can make a spellcraft check to work out what the spell is. If it was a completely different spell then he couldn't do that.

[Psyren]

I thought having the same named spell at different spell levels made them different spells? I could be wrong of course, but I was under the impression that a Trapsmith couldn't hand off a scroll of Haste to a Wizard and have the Wizard cast it...

I think the point is that Haste is not a "unique spell" - since Trapsmiths, Wizards, Bards etc. all get it.

But you could possibly make the argument that "1st-level Haste" is a unique spell, as only Trapsmiths get it. Similarly "1st-level Lesser Restoration" would probably be unique to Paladins, even though Lesser Restoration itself is not.

In short, it's just one more notch in WotC's poor-editing-belt.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Eh, even if you get the entirety of the Bard spell list at the same spell levels that Bards get them, it's still not as powerful as Rainbow Servant cheese. Porting the entire Cleric spell list over? Yes, please!

[Spuddles]

Eh, even if you get the entirety of the Bard spell list at the same spell levels that Bards get them, it's still not as powerful as Rainbow Servant cheese. Porting the entire Cleric spell list over? Yes, please!

¿Por qué no los dos?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

¿Por qué no los dos?

Mucho con queso.

[nedz]

El truco de prestigio Bard es queso muy bajo en grasa

[Spuddles]

Hay no mucho queso si tu leés "unique" mas estricto. Hay mas queso, como shneeky dice, con el rainbow servant.

[nedz]

Exactamente

[Urpriest]

Unique can't actually mean that, though, because the question of whether or not a spell is on other lists can change. There are feats and PrCs which can add a spell to someone's list, and additional books can create new lists with new spells. Heck, every Bard spell is on the Sublime Chord list, that alone means there are no unique Bard spells.

Unique must mean that the spell is unique to the bard list, as opposed to shared between the bard list and the list of the entering class. Otherwise the rule is simply applicable.

[olentu]

Unique can't actually mean that, though, because the question of whether or not a spell is on other lists can change. There are feats and PrCs which can add a spell to someone's list, and additional books can create new lists with new spells. Heck, every Bard spell is on the Sublime Chord list, that alone means there are no unique Bard spells.

Unique must mean that the spell is unique to the bard list, as opposed to shared between the bard list and the list of the entering class. Otherwise the rule is simply applicable.

Hmm, are there really that many feats that change a class's spell list. Not a character's spell list that is but a class's spell list. In either case the massive amount of complication that changing the spell list of a class would entail is so great that I do not think it much of a reason to rule one way or another on the matter of the prestigious character classes.

Also I do not think that sublime chords have a spell list. Rather I believe that they are given the ability to chose spells from the lists of other classes.

Anyway, even if I am wrong about all that stuff it is not like WotC have not written things with parts that are superfluous.

[Psyren]

Heck, every Bard spell is on the Sublime Chord list, that alone means there are no unique Bard spells.

Nitpick - the Sublime Chord list (if there is indeed such a thing) starts at 4th-level spells, so 3rd-level and below would still be fair game even under this interpretation.



Unique must mean that the spell is unique to the bard list, as opposed to shared between the bard list and the list of the entering class. Otherwise the rule is simply applicable.

Yeah, this is how I read it. "Bards get it and you don't? Here you go!" And as pointed out above, it's hardly the most broken thing a Beguiler could be doing with their time anyway.

[IdleMuse]

... and Prestige Bard is not Bard.

Sorry to nitpick a little on a slightly off-topic point, but I'm not so sure about this any more. Prestige classes are listed as Variants in UA, and although it does refer to it as 'the Prestige Bard' all the way through, I'm not sure what the RAI is here. Does it count as levels of 'Bard' or not?

[nedz]

Nope — and this has been debated quite a bit.

[MesiDoomstalker]

However, the section on the variant PrCs says that they are to be used in campaigns where the regular class does not exist. So no Bard/PrC Bards (which would be silly). If Bard does not exist, then anything calling out "Bard" would not be applicable if we say PrC Bard does not count as "Bard"

On Rainbow Warsnake: Isn't half the Warsnake's power extreme early entrance cheese and Text-Trumps-Table arguments? Something like entry at level 2 and getting full casting instead of the horrific casting the table gives.

[Spuddles]

Unique can't actually mean that, though, because the question of whether or not a spell is on other lists can change. There are feats and PrCs which can add a spell to someone's list, and additional books can create new lists with new spells. Heck, every Bard spell is on the Sublime Chord list, that alone means there are no unique Bard spells.

Unique must mean that the spell is unique to the bard list, as opposed to shared between the bard list and the list of the entering class. Otherwise the rule is simply applicable.

I've never been a fan of this argument, mostly because it gets applied so asymmetrically.

It doesn't really matter what it means, the rules are clearly written. Some things are clearly useless as written. Just because they're RAW useless doesn't magically change RAW to be whatever you think is useful.

[Jeff the Green]

I've never been a fan of this argument, mostly because it gets applied so asymmetrically.

It doesn't really matter what it means, the rules are clearly written. Some things are clearly useless as written. Just because they're RAW useless doesn't magically change RAW to be whatever you think is useful.

If "unique" means "only appears on the bard/ranger/paladin list" as opposed to "appears at a different level" or "doesn't appear on your base class's list," then the passage on unique spells is nonsensical. It says "The bard, paladin, and ranger spell lists contain a number of spells that don't appear on other classes' spell lists." In core, which in general is the only thing each individual supplement refers to, there are no spells that appear only on the Ranger list, so unless you want to argue that the writers made such a boneheaded mistake, you have to take one of the latter interpretations.

[olentu]

If "unique" means "only appears on the bard/ranger/paladin list" as opposed to "appears at a different level" or "doesn't appear on your base class's list," then the passage on unique spells is nonsensical. It says "The bard, paladin, and ranger spell lists contain a number of spells that don't appear on other classes' spell lists." In core, which in general is the only thing each individual supplement refers to, there are no spells that appear only on the Ranger list, so unless you want to argue that the writers made such a boneheaded mistake, you have to take one of the latter interpretations.

Why would you assume that the writers didn't make a mistake. Having an interpretation that "functions better" is no excuse for an interpretation that is wrong.

[Norin]

Well you would get lullaby — oh and Glibness — and possibly a few others.


Glibness is 3rd lvl Beguiler spell too. ;)

[nedz]

Glibness is 3rd lvl Beguiler spell too. ;)

Hmmm, so you only get Glibness in a core (SRD) only game.

Prestige Bard obviously is in want of fixing.

[Jeff the Green]

Why would you assume that the writers didn't make a mistake. Having an interpretation that "functions better" is no excuse for an interpretation that is wrong.

If you have a choice of two interpretations, one of which requires that the author made a mistake, you should pick the one that doesn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity).

[olentu]

If you have a choice of two interpretations, one of which requires that the author made a mistake, you should pick the one that doesn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity).

Eh, like I said an interpretation that "functions better" is no excuse for a wrong interpretation.

But if we must force the interpretation to be absolutely valid then clearly you are wrong that the author of that section was talking only about the PHB. In fact he was merely talking about some specific and unstated set of books greater then the PHB that makes his statement about unique spells valid. There your principle has been satisfied.

[Psyren]

But if we must force the interpretation to be absolutely valid then clearly you are wrong that the author of that section was talking only about the PHB. In fact he was merely talking about some specific and unstated set of books greater then the PHB that makes his statement about unique spells valid. There your principle has been satisfied.

Except the passage goes on to say that it shouldn't apply to non-core spells automatically, and that those should be approved on a case-by-case basis by the DM. So if it was meant to include spells outside the PHB by default, this additional line wouldn't have been necessary - they would either all be case-by-case, or none.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

If you have a choice of two interpretations, one of which requires that the author made a mistake, you should pick the one that doesn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity).

Until you realize that this is Wizards of the Monopoly that is the author, and that the examples listed in most of the PrC descriptions are mechanically incorrect...

When the author has shown themselves to have all the accuracy of an Imperial Stormtrooper, the principle of charity gets left behind in the Degoba system.

Actually... this gives me an idea...

[olentu]

Except the passage goes on to say that it shouldn't apply to non-core spells automatically, and that those should be approved on a case-by-case basis by the DM. So if it was meant to include spells outside the PHB by default, this additional line wouldn't have been necessary - they would either all be case-by-case, or none.

No. You see it says other books not non-core spells (at least in the version we are discussing) and so, as long as the specific and unstated set of books that the person in question is assumed to be talking about does not contain all books then there should be no problem. You've got to remember that we are doing our best to make up an interpretation that makes the statement valid even if that requires a rather unusual choice. I mean, if we weren't going out of our way to do that I would just say it is a mistake and that would be that.

Edit: Or perhaps the set of books being discussed happened to have changed between sentences and we were merely not informed. That is also a possibility.

[Psyren]

No. You see it says other books not non-core spells

What else could it mean? There are no spells in UA, so if you're going to be that literal, we come right back to either every single spell needing approval or none of them.

For the full statement to make sense, there must be two sets of spells - a list that is automatically approved, and those that require the DM to exercise judgment. Though core is not explicitly stated, it's the logical assumption to fall in the first category - every splat assumes you have them.

[olentu]

What else could it mean? There are no spells in UA, so if you're going to be that literal, we come right back to either every single spell needing approval or none of them.

For the full statement to make sense, there must be two sets of spells - a list that is automatically approved, and those that require the DM to exercise judgment. Though core is not explicitly stated, it's the logical assumption to fall in the first category - every splat assumes you have them.

Well first off you seem to be misunderstanding the situation. There is a list, a list that only the author knows exactly what it contains. However we do know that the list is tailored to allow for the statements to be correct in such that the list of books contains at least one spell for the paladin, bard, and wizard that does not appear on other lists and simultaneously is missing other books that contain at least two spells which appear only on a list of one of the classes and no other.

Or alternatively the list of books being spoken about changed between the sentences and the reader was merely not informed. Either should be fine.

[Psyren]

Well first off you seem to be misunderstanding the situation. There is a list, a list that only the author knows exactly what it contains. However we do know that the list is tailored to allow for the statements to be correct in such that the list of books contains at least one spell for the paladin, bard, and wizard that does not appear on other lists and simultaneously is missing other books that contain at least two spells which appear only on a list of one of the classes and no other.

Or alternatively the list of books being spoken about changed between the sentences and the reader was merely not informed. Either should be fine.

Eh, I'd rather loosen the definition of "unique" than jump through hoops like that. "Spell from this list that isn't on your base class' list" works fine.

[olentu]

Eh, I'd rather loosen the definition of "unique" than jump through hoops like that. "Spell from this list that isn't on your base class' list" works fine.

Personally I would consider that to be more of a stretch. But than again I would go with it just being wrong so, you know.