What options for builds does pathfinder provide that you can't find in 3.5

[CyberThread]

what builds, archtypes or things that fit an idea, can you build in pathfinder, that you don't have the options for in 3.5?

[Psyren]

A druid that actually needs strength? :smalltongue:

More seriously - homebrew exists in both editions so really the answer is "nothing." Unless you mean sticking to what is in the sourcebooks?

[Talderas]

Worthwhile whip usage.

[Psyren]

Can you flank with nets and bows? That's another one from PF.

[Cog]

A druid that actually needs strength? :smalltongue:
Joke noted, but for the record, there's the Shapeshift ACF from PHB2 and the Swift and Deadly Hunter variant from UA.


Worthwhile whip usage.
The Lasher from Sword and Fist is technically 3.0, but it's one of the weapon-based classes that wasn't folded into Exotic Weapon Master. Also, Pyrokineticist.


Can you flank with nets and bows? That's another one from PF.
Arrow Mind spell or Distracting Attack Ranger ACF get pretty close.

[Waddacku]

Synthesist summoners make it a whole lot easier to create transforming hero types of various kinds.

[Bruenin]

A working arcane archer? : P

[Epsilon Rose]

Is there anything equivalent to an alchemist?

[Psyren]

The Lasher from Sword and Fist is technically 3.0, but it's one of the weapon-based classes that wasn't folded into Exotic Weapon Master. Also, Pyrokineticist.

You covered the problem with Lasher. Pyro is a cool concept but has the same problems normal whips do i.e. provoking and not threatening. (In fact, if you activate the whip in melee, you provoke twice - once for using a PLA and once for a ranged attack.) It's also subject to SR and energy resistance.



Arrow Mind spell or Distracting Attack Ranger ACF get pretty close.

Arrow Mind I'll give you but it's bows-only and is a spell. Neither Arrow Mind nor Distracting Attack will let you AoO with a net either, so PF is still solo there.

[Snowbluff]

Alchemist? War forged Artificers can buff themselves. I've always disliked alchemist for being a warlock who could run out of eldritch blast.


Synthesist summoners make it a whole lot easier to create transforming hero types of various kinds.

Sarrukh!

Master Transmogrifist (w/e) is more fair.

Simpler transformers include Divine Minions, Wildhsape Rangers, and Tainted Ones (snakes and the like).

[Boci]

Alchemist? War forged Artificers can buff themselves. I've always disliked alchemist for being a warlock who could run out of eldritch blast.

Warlock doesn't get the spells (formulas) the alchemist gets. Really the alchemist is a blend of the warlock and artificer, with a limited 2/3 caster thrown in there.

[Aliek]

There's Paragon Surge, which albeit weaker than DCSF and others... I can't think about a "You get any feat you qualify for" spell on 3.5. Heroics and mirror move can do fighter feats, but yeah.

You can make a non-sucky monk(Not as much, at least), how about that?

[Snowbluff]

Warlock doesn't get the spells (formulas) the alchemist gets. Really the alchemist is a blend of the warlock and artificer, with a limited 2/3 caster thrown in there.
I will assume you posted that for the people that are unfamiliar with the classes. :smalltongue:

An eldritch theurge/disciple would be a more complete analogue for alchemist, with your caster side only aiming for 6th spells, and Hellfire Warlock to cover the damage. If your DM allows it, using artificer for the caster side. I honestly have no idea how artificers operate with PrCs, and I don't like the concept enough to find out.

[Urpriest]

In general, it's easier and more straightforward to make a useful archer in PF. I wouldn't say that it's impossible in 3.5, though.

I guess the question becomes, how do you discretize builds? Is an Alchemist the same as an Artificer? Is Witch already covered by Wizard?

[Psyren]

Artificer has a handful of PrCs that are worthwhile, e.g. Renegade Mastermaker and Cannith Wand Adept.

[Snowbluff]

Artificer has a handful of PrCs that are worthwhile, e.g. Renegade Mastermaker and Cannith Wand Adept.
Mastermaker is eh. I wish it was better to justify not being a warforged instead.

So they don't get spell slots, but they have arcane spellcaster level... Ugh! If I cheat and use feats for spellcasting, would I be able to progress Artificer with Eldritch Theurge?

[Metahuman1]

There's Paragon Surge, which albeit weaker than DCSF and others... I can't think about a "You get any feat you qualify for" spell on 3.5. Heroics and mirror move can do fighter feats, but yeah.

You can make a non-sucky monk(Not as much, at least), how about that?

Debatable. For every good thing they did for monk there's at least one thing either specific to monk or for melee/all classes in general in that was done that brutally harmed Monk.

[Ravens_cry]

A Paladin Archer doesn't need to waste a feat or be an elf?
A Paladin who actually feels like an effective warrior for good?
An awesome magical Ninja?

[Boci]

A Paladin Archer doesn't need to waste a feat or be an elf?
A Paladin who actually feels like an effective warrior for good?
An awesome magical Ninja?

The first one, yeah. The second one, maybe. Crusader fits for some people, not for others. Third one, nah swordsage has it covered in 3.5.

[Snowbluff]

Paladin Archer? Why not Cleric/PrC Paladin?
Paladin that's good? Divine Crusader, Crusader, PrC Paladin, plain Cleric...
Magical Ninja? Swordsage, Factotum, Shadow Sun Ninja...

Not that PF has an awesome ninja.

Debatable. For every good thing they did for monk there's at least one thing either specific to monk or for melee/all classes in general in that was done that brutally harmed Monk.Yep.

Non sucky monks have been a thing in 3.5 for a while. Tash psywars and unarmed swordsages. :smalltongue:

[Metahuman1]

Yep.

Non sucky monks have been a thing in 3.5 for a while. Tash psywars and unarmed swordsages. :smalltongue:

I didn't say it but I was thinking it. Throw a bit of Incarnum and/or a Binder in there some times too since it fits right in.

[Ravens_cry]

The first one, yeah. The second one, maybe. Crusader fits for some people, not for others. Third one, nah swordsage has it covered in 3.5.
I don't know, man. The ninja I made was a bouncy ball of blending blades you couldn't see.

[Boci]

I don't know, man. The ninja I made was a bouncy ball of blending blades you couldn't see.

Sure, and the swordsage can do things the PF ninja can't. I was saying the swordsage is superior, just that "magical ninja" isn't really something 3.5 cannot do.

And psychic rogue can probably do what you described with the wall run and some invisibility psychic powers.

[Zaydos]

A rogue with the skill points to actually cover all the traditional rogue skills (stealth, scouting, traps, and face).

Even Int SAD factotum ends up having to rely upon 1/day +Class for at least a few, though it does come close.

[Ravens_cry]

Sure, and the swordsage can do things the PF ninja can't. I was saying the swordsage is superior, just that "magical ninja" isn't really something 3.5 cannot do.

And psychic rogue can probably do what you described with the wall run and some invisibility psychic powers.
Ki points can give you, specifically, more bang for your buck than power points I believe. When an undispellable casting of Greater Invisibility costs you one ki. . . .
One of my favourite tricks was flying through wands, being invisible, and then scouting, phasing through walls when appropriate.

[elonin]

A rogue with the skill points to actually cover all the traditional rogue skills (stealth, scouting, traps, and face).

They are closer because of skills being folded in. In a way that is something that helps everyone and may make skill monkeys a bit irrelevant.

Pathfinder did make it easier to be an archer.

[Snowbluff]

A rogue with the skill points to actually cover all the traditional rogue skills (stealth, scouting, traps, and face).

Even Int SAD factotum ends up having to rely upon 1/day +Class for at least a few, though it does come close.

Rogue kind of sucks for that in PF as well. Everyone can do the skill monkey role with int.

Factotum is obvious, and blows away PF rogue. After than you have Beguiler, who doesn't need half of his int sad skill points due to being a mindraping beast.

[The Random NPC]

Can you flank with nets and bows? That's another one from PF.

How's that work?

[Sith_Happens]

I honestly have no idea how artificers operate with PrCs, and I don't like the concept enough to find out.

For the purpose of qualifying for and being progressed by PrCs, an Artificer's Infusions count as spells that are neither arcane nor divine.

[Ravens_cry]

How's that work?
Improved Whip Mastery (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whip-mastery-combat) for whips. Net Adept (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/net-adept-combat)I think works for nets.

[Psyren]

How's that work?

Net Adept for nets, Snap Shot line for bows.

[The Random NPC]

I thought flanking was melee only, and the snap shot line doesn't seem to allow it.

[Epsilon Rose]

Alchemist? War forged Artificers can buff themselves. I've always disliked alchemist for being a warlock who could run out of eldritch blast.

Self buffing isn't quite the same as what alchemists do (otherwise clerics would qualify). Similarly, if you're limited to warforged, that's a pretty big restriction. I mean, you can't exactly play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde like that.

There are also a few entertaining acfs, including one that basically turns things into a game of pokemon.

[Snowbluff]

I mean, you can't exactly play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde like that.


Anyone can do that with your basic buff spells. The artificer is capable of producing potions or wands of a ton of buffs, so you don't have to be warforged.

[Psyren]

I thought flanking was melee only, and the snap shot line doesn't seem to allow it.

You won't get the flanking bonus with Snap Shot, but anybody on the other side will because you are still threatening the target. And both of you can take AoOs.

With Net Adept you get both (flanking bonus and AoO.)

[TuggyNE]

You won't get the flanking bonus with Snap Shot, but anybody on the other side will because you are still threatening the target.

That's great and all, but when I read "ranged flanking" I immediately thought "ranged sneak attack!" And apparently such is not the case, which is pretty underwhelming. I mean, OK, great, you can give melee allies a +2 to hit if you're positioned right — which in this case means "in melee". Also, you only avoid AoOs from firing when you're actually making a "ranged" AoO with that, which means your regular shots are still going to provoke. Here's a dollar, don't spend it all in one place.

[Boci]

Well funnily enough you can range sneak attack by flanking with the Gang Up feat: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/gang-up-combat

Only problem is, Paizo apparently thinks you can't: http://paizo.com/products/btpy8fo1/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Advanced-Players-Guide#v5748eaic9n87 I'm not too sure how valid a reading that is. Its official ruling, but it claims to be clarifying when it appears to be altering the feat.

As for providing a flanking bonus to allies at range, 3.5 had a ranger variant ranger who could give up their animal companion to do that.

[Psyren]

That's great and all, but when I read "ranged flanking" I immediately thought "ranged sneak attack!" And apparently such is not the case, which is pretty underwhelming. I mean, OK, great, you can give melee allies a +2 to hit if you're positioned right — which in this case means "in melee". Also, you only avoid AoOs from firing when you're actually making a "ranged" AoO with that, which means your regular shots are still going to provoke. Here's a dollar, don't spend it all in one place.

Yay, free dollar! *Invests*

Imp. Snap Shot increases your threaten range to 10', allowing you to stand out of AoO range of many creatures and still provide the bonus. Also, Point Blank Master.

[Snowbluff]

As for providing a flanking bonus to allies at range, 3.5 had a ranger variant ranger who could give up their animal companion to do that.
It's been mentioned already, but I think it worth mentioning again. :smallwink:

It's really a great ability, considering that the animal companion doesn't typically scale well for ranger. 5/5, great ACF, would trade again.

[Boci]

It's been mentioned already, but I think it worth mentioning again. :smallwink:

It's really a great ability, considering that the animal companion doesn't typically scale well for ranger. 5/5, great ACF, would trade again.

The bigger problem is that a ranger typically had better things to swamp their animal companion for, like wildshaping or mystic ranger, or the variant from Champions of Valor. Solitary hunter to a lesser extend.

[Snowbluff]

The bigger problem is that a ranger typically had better things to swamp their animal companion for, like wildshaping or mystic ranger, or the variant from Champions of Valor. Solitary hunter to a lesser extend.
It depends on your build. If you are a rogue or have one in your party, or you have a marshal level, it's pretty huge.

Also, you forgot the urban familiar. :smallwink:

[The Random NPC]

That's great and all, but when I read "ranged flanking" I immediately thought "ranged sneak attack!" And apparently such is not the case, which is pretty underwhelming. I mean, OK, great, you can give melee allies a +2 to hit if you're positioned right — which in this case means "in melee". Also, you only avoid AoOs from firing when you're actually making a "ranged" AoO with that, which means your regular shots are still going to provoke. Here's a dollar, don't spend it all in one place.

This, basically. I thought that you would be able to flank with a ranged weapon, not assist melee with flanking. Net adept does seem to work though, at least until it gets "fixed".

[Talderas]

The Lasher from Sword and Fist is technically 3.0, but it's one of the weapon-based classes that wasn't folded into Exotic Weapon Master. Also, Pyrokineticist.

Lasher is okay, but requiring a PrC to make the whip useful is terrible. Pathfinder does most of the added stuff that lasher grants and does it with three feats.

There's also some functional problems with it. At first level the lasher gains the ability to attack opponents in a threatened square without drawing an attack of opportunity as well as make attacks of opportunity. The problem is the whip doesn't threaten any squares. You could argue that gaining the ability to make attacks of opportunity into adjacent squares like a melee weapon is gaining "threatened" squares but it doesn't actually say you threaten those squares.

The only thing that Lasher does that I can't gain with the three Whip Mastery feats from pathfinder is the ability to deal subdual sneak attack damage and Crack of Fate/Doom (flurry with whips) and the ability to stun with whip attacks. It's not a compelling choice especially given that I'd rather get most of the useful abilities with feats and be able to take classes with better save and skill selections while being able to get the abilities from other classes which are probably more useful.

[Ravens_cry]

L

The only thing that Lasher does that I can't gain with the three Whip Mastery feats from pathfinder is the ability to deal subdual sneak attack damage and Crack of Fate/Doom (flurry with whips) and the ability to stun with whip attacks. It's not a compelling choice especially given that I'd rather get most of the useful abilities with feats and be able to take classes with better save and skill selections while being able to get the abilities from other classes which are probably more useful.
Actually, you can. Sneak Attack says,

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. (bolded for emphases)
Whip Mastery
You can deal lethal damage with a whip, although you can still deal nonlethal damage when you want. (again bolded for emphases.)
And Improved Whip Mastery says,

While wielding a whip, you threaten the area of your natural reach plus 5 feet.
(bolded . . . you get the picture.)

[Psyren]

In other words, Lasher adds nothing meaningful that the feat chain doesn't, and whip-using casters (e.g. Magi and Bards) can simply take the feats without losing casting progression instead of accepting Lasher's dead levels.

(So yeah.)

[Ravens_cry]

In other words, Lasher adds nothing meaningful that the feat chain doesn't, and whip-using casters (e.g. Magi and Bards) can simply take the feats without losing casting progression instead of accepting Lasher's dead levels.

(So yeah.)
You also can totally be Indiana Jones with those feats. That's a whole lot of benefit of its own.:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

You also can totally be Indiana Jones with those feats. That's a whole lot of benefit of its own.:smallbiggrin:

Don't forget Prehensile Whip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/equipment-traits/prehensile-whip) :smallbiggrin:

[Talderas]

Actually, you can. Sneak Attack says, (bolded for emphases)
Whip Mastery (again bolded for emphases.)
And Improved Whip Mastery says,

(bolded . . . you get the picture.)

We must be reading two different things. According to the SRD it specifies unarmed and sap as the only weapons that may do non-lethal sneak attacks.


With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage.

[Psyren]

We must be reading two different things. According to the SRD it specifies unarmed and sap as the only weapons that may do non-lethal sneak attacks.

Ravens_cry is talking about Pathfinder, which broadens the restriction to any weapon that has the nonlethal property and cites whips specifically.

[Ravens_cry]

We must be reading two different things. According to the SRD it specifies unarmed and sap as the only weapons that may do non-lethal sneak attacks.
I think we are.
I'm reading the PF-SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack) on Sneak Attack.
Paizo's PRD, on their own website, says the same thing (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/rogue.html#_rogue).
Since we are talking Pathfinder feats . . .
So whip it, whip it good.

Don't forget Prehensile Whip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/equipment-traits/prehensile-whip) :smallbiggrin:
The action cost seems to be rather better for Improved Whip Mastery, but the prerequisites for Prehensile Whip are a lot easier, and it lets you use the whole 15 feet of the whip.

[Snowbluff]

Whip daggers solve the problem themselves.

[TuggyNE]

Yay, free dollar! *Invests*

Imp. Snap Shot increases your threaten range to 10', allowing you to stand out of AoO range of many creatures and still provide the bonus. Also, Point Blank Master.

Actually, Improved Snap Shot is better than I expected (I had tacitly assumed there was an Improved feat to give +5' and a Greater feat to remove AoO provocation or some such arrangement), but it's written confusingly: the "Benefit" is +10' of threatened range, but the "Normal" is ... ranged attacks provoke. So, the feat stops them provoking? :smallconfused:

But hey, PBM is cool, so props for that.

[Prime32]

Can you flank with nets and bows? That's another one from PF.ElocatorXPH, Tactical SoldierMiniHB and WhisperknifeRotW let you flank with them out to 10ft, besides Distracting Attack and Arrow Mind already mentioned.

[Psyren]

ElocatorXPH, Tactical SoldierMiniHB and WhisperknifeRotW let you flank with them out to 10ft, besides Distracting Attack and Arrow Mind already mentioned.

No - Elocater only lets you move the square from which flanking is determined. If you're not using a melee weapon (which nets aren't) you won't actually be flanking. Ditto for Tactical Soldier.

Whisperknife is really weirdly worded. You flank as though you had a reach weapon but it says you don't actually threaten them, so how does anyone but you get the bonus? And even if you make it work somehow, You're still waiting until a minimum of 13th-level (and more likely 14-15) to do what a Net Adept can do at level 1.

[Prime32]

No - Elocater only lets you move the square from which flanking is determined. If you're not using a melee weapon (which nets aren't) you won't actually be flanking. Ditto for Tactical Soldier.Wearing a gauntlet while you hold the net is enough to flank with.

[Psyren]

Wearing a gauntlet while you hold the net is enough to flank with.

Neither of them will have reach without the 9 levels set on fire to Whisperknife. And you still can't AoO with the net with Elocater/TSoldier, while Net Adepts can.

[Snowbluff]

Reach is only ever 2 feats away in 3.5. Common knowledge, too.

[Psyren]

Reach is only ever 2 feats away in 3.5. Common knowledge, too.

Won't matter without the ability to treat the net as a reach weapon instead of ranged.

[Wasted]

The OP's question is flawed.

No, there is really not anything in PF that can only be built in that system. This is due to the sheer volume of splatbooks and resources for 3.5.

The real question is: Is there anything in 3.5 that cannot be made using Pathfinder?

[Boci]

The OP's question is flawed.

No, there is really not anything in PF that can only be built in that system. This is due to the sheer volume of splatbooks and resources for 3.5.

The real question is: Is there anything in 3.5 that cannot be made using Pathfinder?

Except there are a couple of things that do not have a counterpart in 3.5. Like being decent with the whip, without taking a 3.0 PrC.

[Squirrel_Dude]

An effective, straight 20-level sorcerer that doesn't need to take a PrC to get class features?

[Snowbluff]

Won't matter without the ability to treat the net as a reach weapon instead of ranged.
How does that matter?

On another note, isn't there a net in 3.5 that deals damage when you damage someone with it?

Except there are a couple of things that do not have a counterpart in 3.5. Like being decent with the whip, without taking a 3.0 PrC.
You can do a decent job with a dagger whip with a bard. It's not rocket science.

In fact, using a whip is better with a 3.5 bard, since tripping isn't based on BaB in 3.5. Factotum and Marshals can be pretty decent with it as well. 1 level in either, and you get another stat to the weapon.

Whips are melee weapons, so it works with Staggering Strike on Rogues.

An effective, straight 20-level sorcerer that doesn't need to take a PrC to get class features?
Familiars and Spells aren't good enough for you? :smalltongue:

Also, I think Beguiler and Dread Necro would like a word. PF sorcerer looks like crap design wise, since it's based on a such an old class. They kind of just threw whatever they could into the class, despite it have little effect on how performs.

[Psyren]

How does that matter?

If it's a ranged weapon you can neither flank nor AoO with it. That's what he was saying to do with the 9 levels blown on Whisperknife, not counting the minimum 4 you need to even qualify.

Whereas in PF, you can do that, and be a full-caster/gish/whatever you were trying to do before, because it's a feat instead of a crappy PrC. What's more, you can do it at level 1-3 instead of waiting till double-digits.



On another note, isn't there a net in 3.5 that deals damage when you damage someone with it?

There's probably a hooked net in 3.5 somewhere I guess.



Familiars and Spells aren't good enough for you? :smalltongue:

If they're so great, why do all the sorcerer handbooks tell you to PrC out? :smalltongue: Or was that supposed to be blue text?



Also, I think Beguiler and Dread Necro would like a word.

Eh, I'd say Shadow Bloodline and Bones Oracle can give both of those a run for their money.

[ArqArturo]

Semi-competent Fighters, spell-eating Barbarians, and the Oradin :smallsmile:.

[Snowbluff]

If it's a ranged weapon you can neither flank nor AoO with it. That's what he was saying to do with the 9 levels blown on Whisperknife, not counting the minimum 4 you need to even qualify.

Whereas in PF, you can do that, and be a full-caster/gish/whatever you were trying to do before, because it's a feat instead of a crappy PrC. What's more, you can do it at level 1-3 instead of waiting till double-digits.
Doesn't your net get stuck on the guy, anyway? Just prod the guy with Stand Still, then use Trident and Net on your next turn to... entangle? Entangle. Okay, color me a little underwhelmed. You would spend feats for this? The Whip does most of the same things without a feat chain. :smallconfused:

Not that whether or not you are using a PrC matters, since the question is "Do you have this option," and does not mention what form it comes in.



There's probably a hooked net in 3.5 somewhere I guess.

Yeah, I think there is. Considering how underwhelmed I am by the nets in the first place, I am not sure why I would bother either way.


If they're so great, why do all the sorcerer handbooks tell you to PrC out? :smalltongue: Or was that supposed to be blue text?

My advice is "Play a Wizard" in either system, unless you are a Wings addict. :smalltongue:


Eh, I'd say Shadow Bloodline and Bones Oracle can give both of those a run for their money.
Bloodlines were not thought out during their inception. If I recall correctly, the Celestial Bloodline gives you access to Ride By Attack, a feat next to useless to a level 20 sorcerer.

Shadow's 15th ability is cool, but stealth as a skill does not a Beguiler make, especially if class skills are pointless. Bones is alright, but I am seriously not impress. Actually having a limit on how much you can patch up your undead is a bit of a let down. :smallfrown:

[El Dorado]

Creatures with an SLA count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites and requirements (feats, prestige classes, etc). In addition, SLAs are presumed to be sorcerer/wizard spells if said spell is on the sorcerer/wizard list.

So now, an aasimar (with the daylight SLA), can qualify for eldritch knight at 2nd level. (Daylight fulfills casting 3rd level sorcerer/wizard spell requirement and a level of fighter gives you all martial weapons. If you want to go non-aasimar, you can take a level of diviner (scryer subschool) and qualify for EK at 3rd level (scryer gets clairvoyance/clairaudience as an SLA).

[Psyren]

Not that whether or not you are using a PrC matters, since the question is "Do you have this option," and does not mention what form it comes in.


Very well then, how about "flank/AoO with a net at 1st-level."



Shadow's 15th ability is cool, but stealth as a skill does not a Beguiler make, especially if class skills are pointless. Bones is alright, but I am seriously not impress. Actually having a limit on how much you can patch up your undead is a bit of a let down. :smallfrown:

When you said "they would like a word" I assumed you meant they were more competent in some way. And power-wise, both are sorely lacking compared to the counterexamples I put forward.

[Snowbluff]

Very well then, how about "flank/AoO with a net at 1st-level."
I think the problem is that it doesn't work. It's a terrible feat selection. You can flank while holding a net just fine, but AoOing with one is definitely strictly worse than tripping in 3.5. I will concede that PF has found a new use for the net, but it's still a terrible weapon. If you want, I can provide a build for 3.5 that's also a terrible waste of time and feats.

"Free five foot step after throwing a net at someone, then hitting them with a trident."


When you said "they would like a word" I assumed you meant they were more competent in some way. And power-wise, both are sorely lacking compared to the counterexamples I put forward.
2 feats, insta-wizard. Both sets are very capable at top play with Magical Training and Paragon Surge. After that there is the issue of the Beguiler having a pretty good skill list and a better casting stat. Beguilers were actually designed to be future-proof, thanks to their ability to learn new spells. Mindrape and Ice Assassin are notable. Dread Necro still do their undead mastery job better than an oracle, thanks to their improved HD limit and infinite negative energy.

[Sith_Happens]

Creatures with an SLA count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites and requirements (feats, prestige classes, etc). In addition, SLAs are presumed to be sorcerer/wizard spells if said spell is on the sorcerer/wizard list.

So now, an aasimar (with the daylight SLA), can qualify for eldritch knight at 2nd level. (Daylight fulfills casting 3rd level sorcerer/wizard spell requirement and a level of fighter gives you all martial weapons. If you want to go non-aasimar, you can take a level of diviner (scryer subschool) and qualify for EK at 3rd level (scryer gets clairvoyance/clairaudience as an SLA).

Read that passage again. An SLA counts for prerequisites requiring that you can cast that particular spell, but not for prerequisites requiring that you can cast spells of a particular level.