3.5 Player's Handbook 2: New classes similar to prestige classes?

[Kafana]

I've started reading the PHB 2 for the 3.5 system. While I find the new classes interesting, I feel that they are somewhat similar to the prestige classes in the DMG, only without the need to multiclass.

For example, I'd say that both the Arcane Trickster and the Beguiler are versions of a rogue spellcaster. While the arcane trickster improves the combat talents of the rogue, as well as his thief abilities, the beguiler expands on the swindler side, while still having the thief abilities via spells. The only problem here, is that the beguiler is a base class, meaning that you can take it at level 1, while the arcane trickster needs two classes as prerequisites.

On the other hand, we have the dragon shaman that is rather similar to the dragon disciple, if not better. While not as tough as the dragon disciple the dragon shaman is far more versatile and, in my opinion, a far greater asset to a party with his auras and restorative abilities. Add to that the fact that you can take him at level 1, well, it just doesn't make sense to me to have both classes available.

I was tempted to say the same for Eldritch Knight and the Duskblade class, but seeing how late the Duskblade gets higher level spells and lacks the true destructive force of the Sorcerer or Wizard, I can safely say that this class seems balanced on first glance.

Would you agree with my assumptions regarding the first two classes? I suppose the biggest problem I have with all of this is that they seemed like they expanded on these two classes in the PHB 2, described them in great detail and rendered these somewhat useless in comparison.

[Carth]

Would you agree with my assumptions regarding the first two classes? I suppose the biggest problem I have with all of this is that they seemed like they expanded on these two classes in the PHB 2, described them in great detail and rendered these somewhat useless in comparison.

Well, yeah. Those PHB/DMG classes were poorly written in the first place. Especially the dragon disciple. So it's a good thing they were superseded in a way.

[White_Drake]

A beguiler loses a lot compared to a wizard, especially if a wizard can get into arcane trickster without losing caster levels. Also, the dragon disciple is terrible, so it's no fair to use it as your balance point. Now some nice people that are far more helpful than me will explain this to you, unless I've been ninja'd, in which case they already have.

Edit:
I was tempted to say the same for Eldritch Knight and the Duskblade class, but seeing how late the Duskblade gets higher level spells and lacks the true destructive force of the Sorcerer or Wizard, I can safely say that this class seems balanced on first glance.

Also, you use "not as good as the other classes" as a sign that something's balanced? It doesn't seem like that statement was couched in such a manner that you are trying to move the focus away from tier one.

[WhatBigTeeth]

What are you asking? The classes have superficial similarities, but a beguiler doesn't play like most arcane tricksters, and a dragon shaman doesn't play anything like most dragon disciples.

[Kafana]

What are you asking? The classes have superficial similarities, but a beguiler doesn't play like most arcane tricksters, and a dragon shaman doesn't play anything like most dragon disciples.

I know that they don't play the same, but I was looking at the classes purely from a game mechanic perspective - the new classes seem to outshine the prestige ones. I realize that when it comes to roleplaying this doesn't matter, but my opinion is that the new classes are better than the prestige counterparts. More detailed, if nothing else.

[ArcturusV]

Part of this is just the evolution of the system. When the PrCs in question came out in 3.0 (And this was still KINDA clung to in 3.5), they had two strikes going against them. 1) They were not intended as an Auto-Include in character builds. They were meant to be Roleplaying Related, thus why there are some "silly" prereqs that often get ignored like the Assassin's "Must kill someone just for the sake of being an assassin". Due to this I don't think there was a lot of pressure to balance the PrCs because they were supposed to be taken as flavor/IC fluff, rather than sheer mechanical power. Though also flubbing on the Balance as it was probably a low priority for balancing due to the reasons mentioned above. And they figured that since PrCs were all IC derived that if a DM had a problem with them, they could just never give someone the opportunity to get it.

2) Is that a lot of the "lame" PrCs from the DMG were throwbacks to 2nd edition. The Heirophant, for example. This was to mimic the old Druids in 2nd (Where there could only ever be ONE 15th level druid in the world, he had to force the other to retire/kill him), and when they reached 16th level gave up their spellcasting in return for a bunch of effective SLAs. So they were trying to match that flavor. So quite a few of the PrCs from the DMG are shackled to trying to match some legacy that no longer applied.

PHB2 however came out later. They gave up the pretense for the most part that groups would require IC actions to get PrCs as 3.5 really kicked into gear. They were realizing that most PrCs in the DMG weren't being used, not because of IC reasons but because most of them were actually steps down in power from the base classes you needed to acquire them. And of course they wanted to appeal to players who wanted to be able to play a concept from level 1 rather than requiring 5-6 levels of slogging before they can finally do their thing.

Thus why you have base classes that are basically mash ups like the Spellthief, Beguiler, etc.

Least that's how I understand it and have been able to follow it.

[WhatBigTeeth]

I know that they don't play the same, but I was looking at the classes purely from a game mechanic perspective - the new classes seem to outshine the prestige ones.
That's what I mean.

Dragon Disciple is a sticky case because it's a pretty bad class. But DS doesn't encroach on the niches of what it does do - make a natural weapon fighter with ability boosts, flight, supernatural senses and low-level spell spam. Beside the wings (and I guess the breath weapon, but the DD's sucks too much to really consider), the similarities are pretty superficial. Instead, DS is basically a buffer and healer with a breath weapon - granted, these are fields where the DD has trouble providing much of anything, but since the DS doesn't do what the DD does either, I don't think it renders the DD useless (any more than it would be without the DS in the game, anyway).

On the other hand, Arcane Trickster and Beguiler are a somewhat matched case for power, but just do different things: The AT will typically be a sneak attack focused blaster or gish with a much better spell list than the beguiler. It's usually all about damage in combat, with big flashy unsubtle tools like conjurations, transmutations and teleports outside combat as well as the illusion and enchantment effects that the beguiler can toss around. Beguiler, on the other hand, hardly has a damage effect on its list, and basically operates off of an even more subdued bard spell list, nearly completely reliant on mind effects and stealth in its noncombat problem-solving.

So they do tread the same ground, and look quite a bit alike from a fluff perspective, but their mechanics go in pretty different directions.


More detailed, if nothing else.
Yeah, that part I'd agree with. WotC really started filling in the fluff in the later half of 3e's run.

[Ivellius]

Just to throw more fuel onto the fire, I think you can argue that a Knight is close to what a Dwarven Defender was supposed to do.

[Urpriest]

Yeah, and the Ranger is totally a base-class version of the Horizon Walker. Your point?