PDA

View Full Version : Beguiler: One Man Party?



CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-25, 08:57 PM
I've recently started playing a 10th level campaign with some friends of mine, and I chose to play a beguiler. After three sessions, I believe that a well-played beguiler could tackle just about any adventuring situation on his own.

Our party also consists of a swashbuckler, a fighter/cavalier, a cleric, a rogue, and a kineticist/elocater. In just about every encounter we've had, I was basically our key to victory.

Perhaps it's because we lack a real 'batman' wizard, but the sheer number of save-or-suck/lose spells I can spam, combined with the fantastic stealth and illusion options available, have turned me into our party's win button, and looking back on all our adventures so far, I could have easily handled every challenge single handedly.

Confusing frost giants, metamagically silenced 'glibness' spells talking my way into anywhere, invisibility and zone of silence turning me into the ultimate scout... My party depends on my information gathering skills, and while they have fulfilled their roles well, I was the one putting the green slaad to sleep with 'deep slumber,' or feebleminding the necromancer, or tricking the white dragon with cunning illusions.

Okay, I'll admit I'm the most experienced player in our group... and I just wanted to gloat a little bit.:smallbiggrin:

But seriously, if one knows what they're doing, there's nothing a beguiler couldn't do on their lonesome. Use Magic Device fills in the few gaps of the class; a druid could do better in melee combat by their lonesome, but a beguiler caught in melee has made a mistake.

I suppose I'll shut up when I run into someone with true seeing and mind blank, or when we face a legion of undead, but after playing a beguiler... who needs rogues? Bards, rogues... they just seem obsolete in comparison. Sort of like what Tome of Battle did to fighters...

Well... this was mostly a nonsensical post. If you take anything away from it, then let me just say that beguiler is a fun class.

...mmmmyep.

DaMullet
2007-06-25, 09:06 PM
I agree, except-- They're very squishy, and don't have good Fort. saves. That generally makes them easy targets for ranged attacks and other casters.

Gaelbert
2007-06-25, 09:08 PM
What book exactly is the beguiler in? I've heard a lot about it.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-25, 09:10 PM
I suppose... But at the start of every combat we've had so far, the enemy wasn't even aware I existed. Besides, who cares about ranged attacks? That's what Solid Fog is for.

Oh, and it's in the Player's Handbook II. Best book I've got since Lords of Madness.

BCOVertigo
2007-06-25, 09:10 PM
I played a character with a few levels in beguiler, it was highly amusing and even without a caster level equal to my ecl I was contributing every fight and in many cases sharing your experience of throwing out a single spell to cripple our enemies. I think it's highly feasible that a beguiler could make a good one man party. I had a bbeg in a short lived campaign that essentially tricked the PC's out of his way with cunning instead of resorting to combat, so I second the idea that this class could in theory solo well if he is in control of the terms he enters combat on, and with his combination of abilities that isn't an impossible task.

(Unless the DM says it is, in which case he's right. Sucks for you.)

El Jaspero, the Pirate King
2007-06-25, 09:18 PM
Blech! I played a low-level beguiler and luckily the campaign ended before I could get him killed. I found the beguiler spread too thin, not good enough at anything to actually be functional at anything. Only way I could see enjoying one is in a very social-intensive game, like an urban campaign, where all those manipulative spells and powers could come into play.

Otherwise, bleh.

Skyserpent
2007-06-25, 09:18 PM
I'm playing a Necromancer Batman that's doing pretty good too. Same idea, though Save or Suck is a bit more of the focus on my end.

Though what happens if you DO get injured? That's a long time to heal naturally...

nerulean
2007-06-25, 09:30 PM
My experience goes right along with the "beguiler = win machine" theory. Yes, there are situations that can counter one, but for an average encounter, at least the ones our party came up against, the beguiler had a trick up his sleeve for pretty much every occasion.

In some respects, the class works better as a one-man team. He's amazing at sneaking and fibbing, but if he's got a big, dumb barbarian or a clunking, honourable paladin along for the ride then a considerable amount of his shine is taken off, and likewise it requires a fair amount of OOC smarts to play him in combat in a way that makes him useful to the rest of the group.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-25, 09:34 PM
As far as healing goes, just get lots of ranks in Use Magic Device and invest in a wand of Cure Moderate Wounds or something. If things go down the crapper, then haste/invisibility/spider climb/swift etherealness/etc. yourself away, then heal up.

Our campaign doesn't take place in an urban environment, and there hasn't been too much social situation encounters for us, and my beguiler has been doing great. Perhaps it takes a certain degree of creativity and cleverness to be effective in any situation, but I think that's what makes the class so rewarding.

DraPrime
2007-06-25, 10:13 PM
I do think that the Beguiler is good at many things, but if they get forced into melee combat with a lot of enemies, then they are quite screwed. You only have so many spells per day. Still, the Beguiler is one of my favorite classes.

TheOOB
2007-06-25, 10:34 PM
Beguilers are quite good, but they rely very heavily on enchantments and illusions, and it's not too hard to counter one. A mindless enemy is likely to cause the beguiler headaches, as is someone with a high will save or access to mind blank and/or true seeing (heck, even see invisibility is painful).

Also, as mentioned before, beguilers are physically fairly weak, and they have problums with being stabbed in the face.

It should also be noted that the OPs party doesn't consist of the most powerful classes of all time, which makes the beguiler seem better by comparison. The swashbuckler class on its own isn't too powerful, and fighters arn't anything to write home about either. Also the party doesn't have a sorcerer or wizard, which means the beguiler is the arcane caster, which naturally makes them more useful.

Duff
2007-06-26, 06:39 AM
The beguiler Screams for a DM to have lots of fun using one as a BBEG in "the lords" (whoever the lord may be) council...

Mike_G
2007-06-26, 09:37 AM
Beguilers are great. Deifinitely the best class in a city adventure, and very good against anything with a brain.

Even against things he can't Charm, he still can generally get away with Invis, Silence and Expeditious Retreat for himself and Haste for his Fighter buddies.

Add UMD to that, and he can get wands to make up for the gaps in his casting. Including healing. I've played a Beguiler in a group with no cleric, and I filled the gap with a wand for Cures and a few scrolls for Restoration, Remove Disease, etc.

Plus, with his skills, he makes a decent toolbox Rogue.

So, yeah, he can be a one man party. The only thing he can't do is fight very well, but if played right, he shouldn't have to.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 07:29 PM
Yep, I like the Beguiler Class a lot. It's kind of what the Spell Thief should have been (if it were directly imported as the (A)D&D Kit). Dusk Blade is similarly a fun Base Class. They are basically the (A)D&D 2.x Fighter/Thief and Fighter/Mage respectively, otherwise known as the Spell Thief and Spell Sword. Much cooler than Multi Classing as Rogue/Wizard Fighter/Wizard or whatever.

mikeejimbo
2007-06-28, 07:58 AM
Sweet. In a gestalt campaign, I'm playing a Wizard//Beguiler, so I think we should have fun. We're rather low level right now. Also, remind me to invest in UMD. :smallbiggrin:

Peregrine
2007-06-28, 11:54 AM
I do have one question...


...metamagically silenced 'glibness' spells...

Why are you silencing a spell with no verbal component? :smalltongue: (Unusual for a bard spell, but it needs you to speak anyway to get any benefit...)

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-28, 12:01 PM
Yes, Beguilers are an amazing one man party. They can out-bard the bard, and still be effective in combat. And they get so many spells per day...

And I don't see people mentioning that wizards don't enjoy being stabbed in the face when they're talked about being overpowered.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-28, 01:51 PM
Why are you silencing a spell with no verbal component? :smalltongue: (Unusual for a bard spell, but it needs you to speak anyway to get any benefit...)

That's odd... I thought all Bard spells had verbal components? Huh... Well, if you still it, then nobody knows your casting it anyway... Basically the same thing. Odd, though... I wonder if it's a typo? I should check some errata...

Toliudar
2007-06-28, 04:49 PM
Beguiler combines well with cleric in a two-player party. The cleric taking care of the healing and tanking - especially against constructs and other mindless opponents that can sometimes become annoying to beguilers.

selfcritical
2007-06-28, 04:59 PM
That's odd... I thought all Bard spells had verbal components? Huh... Well, if you still it, then nobody knows your casting it anyway... Basically the same thing. Odd, though... I wonder if it's a typo? I should check some errata...

The beguiler stands as the only core caster class that actually IS counterable by the monk. Only negative I can think of

TheOOB
2007-06-28, 06:26 PM
That's odd... I thought all Bard spells had verbal components? Huh... Well, if you still it, then nobody knows your casting it anyway... Basically the same thing. Odd, though... I wonder if it's a typo? I should check some errata...

All bard spells have verbal components, but thats a trait of the bard, not the spells. For a bard, Glibness has verbal components, for beguilers, it does not.

Saph
2007-06-28, 06:44 PM
I played a beguiler in the last campaign I was a player in.

Fun to begin with, but after a while it just felt too easy. Oh, we're being attacked by something? Look through my spell list, find a spell that disables it, and cast. If it makes its save, cast the same spell again next turn. Repeat 'til it fails its save or the rest of the party kill it.

The only times I even came close to dying was when I went into melee combat, and the only reason I did that was because I was bored of disabling everything so that the fighters could do a coup de grace and wanted to try doing some damage myself. Not enough of a challenge, for me at least.

- Saph

Person_Man
2007-06-28, 07:16 PM
Beguilers and Psychic Rogues are arguably the only Skill Monkeys in the game that can be considered powerful. But either has major weaknesses.

Anything with decent SR, anything with high Saves, anything with True Sight/See Invisibility/Tremorsense, other spellcasters, etc. This includes many classic enemies, like golems, dragons, demons, etc.

Many DMs make the mistake of designing their campaigns like video games. They come up with good ideas, a decent plot line, some encounters, then they ask the players to come up with PC's. This is backwards.

A good DM should let their players come up with their PC's, then the DM sets up a good variety of encounters (that takes turns challenging some PC's while letting others shine), then you can put them together as a plotline, then you can think of some inventive plot twists/ideas.

If you do this, 90% of "balance" issues will disappear, assuming that the PCs in the party are roughly balanced against each other. So don't worry about the Beguiler being too powerful, worry about the player who decided to be a Samurai being too crappy.

TheOOB
2007-06-28, 07:21 PM
You can't be too powerful unless you overshadow your teammates or it becomes too time consuming for the DM to design difficult encounters for you.

Everyman
2007-06-28, 09:19 PM
Also, as mentioned before, beguilers are physically fairly weak, and they have problums with being stabbed in the face.

I defy anyone to name a class that doesn't have problems being stabbed in the face.:smallbiggrin:
"Excuse me? Sir? Would you like me to remove that dagger from your left nostril?
"No. That's okay. It's allowing a refreshing breeze to gently caress my brain."

That said, beguilers are not all that and a bag o' potato chips. They are remarkably efficient at controlling people and setting up "sneak attacks", but the lose the majority of their "umph" when confronted with an enemy that can make the saves, is mindless, etc, etc.

They have TWO roles in a party: control and sneaking. They can do no more, but its done so well that it doesn't become a noticable hinderance.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-29, 12:46 AM
The beguiler stands as the only core caster class that actually IS counterable by the monk. Only negative I can think of

How is this achieved, exactly? There's plenty of stuff a beguiler can use effectively against a monk. Enchantments should be ignored with the monk's bonus against them (and good will save + Wis), but Illusions work quite well.

Remember Invisibility? Mirror Image? Legion of Sentinels? It can be hard for a beguiler to harm a monk, but the reverse is also true.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-29, 12:32 PM
I agree with Person Man about how a DM should create encounters. That's why I feel so powerful in this campaign, because the swashbuckler and rogue are essentially useless in comparison to me. Our DM has sent all sorts of things that can't be sneak attacked, or reasoned with, and for the rogue, he had few options in combat, while I was running amok, casting 'solid fog,' 'haste,' and other goodies to help the party out.

Speaking of Legion of Sentinels, do the illusionary swordsmen actually attack? I know they threaten the space around them and can provide flanking opportunities, but I can't find any stats for them, or whether they are capable of actually attacking.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-29, 04:25 PM
[QUOTE=Tarkahn;2805949]I defy anyone to name a class that doesn't have problems being stabbed in the face.:smallbiggrin: [QUOTE]
Crusader! :tongue:

Mike_G
2007-06-30, 12:25 PM
I agree with Person Man about how a DM should create encounters. That's why I feel so powerful in this campaign, because the swashbuckler and rogue are essentially useless in comparison to me. Our DM has sent all sorts of things that can't be sneak attacked, or reasoned with, and for the rogue, he had few options in combat, while I was running amok, casting 'solid fog,' 'haste,' and other goodies to help the party out.

Speaking of Legion of Sentinels, do the illusionary swordsmen actually attack? I know they threaten the space around them and can provide flanking opportunities, but I can't find any stats for them, or whether they are capable of actually attacking.


They do.

If you read the short abstract description in the spell list on p 97, it says how much damage, etc. The actual long description doesn't mention it.

Confused the hell outta me when I wrote up my Beguiler.

Galathir
2007-06-30, 07:35 PM
I certainly agree that a Beguiler is a great soloist. I played one once for a level 15ish campaign and given enough preperation time I could have handled pretty much every encounter by myself. In the end, as I had to leave the campaign I turned on the party and did a PVP with four PC vs. myself. Other than a slight mixup with counterspell on both myself and the party wizard they didn't stand a chance. I didn't actually kill anyone, but I could have easily done it if I wanted to. Beguilers just have so many options. They can talk their way out of most encounters and can generally blow away anything else.

TheOOB
2007-06-30, 07:57 PM
Keep in mind that while the beguiler is one of the better solo characters, their class abilities are actually fairly selfish. The beguiler doesn't have a large amount of abilities that aid their team-mates unlike most other classes. They specialize in helping themselves.

Saph
2007-06-30, 08:03 PM
Keep in mind that while the beguiler is one of the better solo characters, their class abilities are actually fairly selfish. The beguiler doesn't have a large amount of abilities that aid their team-mates unlike most other classes. They specialize in helping themselves.

Haste, slow, colour spray, solid fog, improved invisibility, glitterdust?

They might not have all that many teammate-helping spells, but the ones they do have are awesome.

- Saph

Jacob Orlove
2007-06-30, 09:40 PM
Don't forget the higher level options: (Greater) Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment, Telepathic Bond, Shadow Walk, Mind Blank and several more.

Edit: oh, and they also have (Zone of) Silence and Invisibility (Sphere). Making the whole party invisible and silent is awesome.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-30, 11:44 PM
Edit: oh, and they also have (Zone of) Silence and Invisibility (Sphere). Making the whole party invisible and silent is awesome.

Not to mention shutting down enemy casters at lower levels. I just did this in a pbp game--we invisibly and silently moved behind an archer/mage ambush, then I fired the crossbow bolt that I'd cast Silence on into the center of the enemy mage group. Now our guys could cast freely again, and they couldn't (well, not spells with verbal components, at least). And it disrupted their entire group's communication, since the casters were in the center. Good times, easy win.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-07-01, 12:02 AM
Yeah, I'd have to disagree with beguilers being mostly selfish. A monk is selfish. But many spells beguilers can cast benefit the entire party, or alter the control of the battlefield to the benefit of the other characters. If one wished to, they could play a completely selfish beguiler, but in my current campaign I'm tossing glitterdusts, solid fogs, zone of silences and invisibility spheres with the best of them. I'm not a selfish beguiler... more of a... shellfish beguiler? No, wait, put down Lords of Madness...