PDA

View Full Version : A question for those of you with a million books



Breaw
2008-08-15, 12:22 AM
Hi hullo,

I've played in 5 different campaigns to date, and they all have been core books only. (PHB, MM & DMG) I appreciate that many on the boards sneer at such 'limited' play, but I've enjoyed it to date. To be fair, each of those campaigns had (at times extensive) homebrew included. Anyway, was taking a look at PHB II and had a question to you about the beguiler class.

Am I missing something, or are Beguilers a pretty big slap in the face to core spontaneous casters everywhere? I mean they appear to be a caster that progresses like a sorc except with a 20ish spells per tier to choose from rather than 2 to 5... And armor... and very likely three times as many skill points... and trap finding... and free metamagic feats.

I know, I know, beguilers only get to choose a few of their spells from limited schools, whereas the sky is the limit for sorcs. But there does not seem to be any attempt at balance here.

Before I get jumped on too hard here, I didn't really mean 'balance' just there. Balance is not really something to strive for in DnD in my opinion. It's about having fun, and with a good group of players it's the players that balance everyones contribution... but still... I mean, it seems to me that a skillmonkey rogue or bard would feel pretty damned useless beside a Beguiler who has more than enough magic to make up for have 6+int rather than 8+int skills/level.

Anyway, if the truth is that the class just shouldn't be played unless the party is without skillmonkey or party leader then I can accept that. It just seems to me that the class steps on a whole lot of toes at once without all that many drawbacks.

To be clear, I'm looking at the class and it looks like a lot of fun. I'm just thinking I would have to be really careful to make sure everyone else was having fun too...

Frosty
2008-08-15, 12:30 AM
The Beguiler is superior in every way to the Sorcerer until bout level 10. But to be honest, the Sorcerer is a WEAK caster anyways. After level 10, there are just too many good high level spells that the Beguiler misses out on in terms of pure power. In terms of fun, it's hard to beat the Beguiler.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-15, 12:34 AM
The Rogue will, assuming his INT is half-decent, have more free skill points (the Beguiler needs things like Concentration, should probably have Sleight of Hand, etc). Also, he melees.

A sorcerer taking illusions/enchantments will probably feel put out by the beguiler, but a sorcerer taking good spells can cherrypick the best spells printed (like Wings of Flurry).

It's a fun, strong class. All the things it can do are more likely to irritate the DM (who'll know that you can spontaneously cast or skill your way through a very wide variety of situations, that then stop being challenging) than anyone else.

Chronicled
2008-08-15, 12:43 AM
Sorcerers are actually more powerful than Beguilers with proper spell selection. Beguilers are more fun to play (in my experience). If in the same party as a Rogue or Bard, they'll can either work together to cover all the skills, or compete at the best ones. If the Rogue doesn't enjoy stabbing, they're likely to not have as much fun, likewise for the Bard if they're trying to outskill or outcast the Beguiler--but they still can Buff/Melee/do certain offensive casting better. Also, while the Bard can do just fine in an undead-heavy campaign, both the Rogue and Beguiler will be having some troubles.

Other than having a tendency to screw over a DM's plot ideas and having a spell list made almost entirely of Save-or-Loses (which means that they can either rock incredibly or suck horribly, depending on the DM), they're one of the best designed classes for D&D 3.5.

Irreverent Fool
2008-08-15, 12:51 AM
I don't feel the beguiler is a slap-in-the-face at all. I think most of the PHBII classes allow players to play the two-class combinations we were so fond of in 2e that are not really viable in 3.x

The beguiler is a rogue/sorcerer and has a built-in spell selection of the types of spells we'd expect that class combination to use. Run into some undead or things with good will saves and see what happens to the beguiler.

Now, duskblades...

Covered In Bees
2008-08-15, 12:55 AM
The beguiler is a rogue/sorcerer and has a built-in spell selection of the types of spells we'd expect that class combination to use. Run into some undead or things with good will saves and see what happens to the beguiler.
Illusions, Haste, Displacement, Solid Fog, Slow and Glitterdust (for undead)... a good Will save progression isn't enough to really stop a beguiler. You'd need a good progression and a high WIS.

Now, duskblades...[/QUOTE]
...aren't overpowered in the least, and wind up being vastly less powerful than traditional fighter/casters.

Breaw
2008-08-15, 12:56 AM
Interesting interesting... I figured I'd get a few responses right off the bat since beguiler is spoken of so frequently on these boards. I'm currently looking at future character that I may or may not get to play (depends if an appropriate campaign shows up). For a change of pace I'm thinking of playing a high int high cha character who will be very strong in the social aspect of the campaign.

I had been looking at a Bard, but beguiler would also clearly fit that role nicely. Part of me is tempted to stick with bard simply because no one in their right mind would tell me that my class is overpowered on the rare occasion that I castrate my DMs plan. That and I would have to get my DMs ok for a Beguiler, as I said earlier we tend to stick with core books.

The real drawback to Bard that I'm seeing is the painfully slow caster progression. ... I'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks for your input guys.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-15, 12:57 AM
Core bards suck like woah.

Breaw
2008-08-15, 12:59 AM
Core bards suck like woah.

*Nod* I'm a bit more of a planner than the majority of my group, so starting with a handycap isn't much of a problem.

I hold back at times to make sure my Arcane Archer doesn't shine too bright at the moment if you'll believe it.

Chronicled
2008-08-15, 01:00 AM
I had been looking at a Bard, but beguiler would also clearly fit that role nicely. Part of me is tempted to stick with bard simply because no one in their right mind would tell me that my class is overpowered on the rare occasion that I castrate my DMs plan. That and I would have to get my DMs ok for a Beguiler, as I said earlier we tend to stick with core books.

It's not hard to make a powerful Bard. A lot of the Bard hate is carryover from previous versions. For instance, Glibness used right is an auto-win for any social situation, whether you're a Bard or Beguiler. Glitterdust can shut down enemies hard and fast.

Either can be extremely fun to play.

Edit: Bards get a heckuvalot better with splatbooks (the Sublime Chord is the biggie), but hardly suck core-only. I mean, you've got the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue worse off; the Barb, Pally, and Ranger equalish; and the big 4 way ahead. Core only game, Bard is just fine.

Frosty
2008-08-15, 01:02 AM
The slow spell progression doesn't cut it for me. If I bard it out, it'd be for a gish-build with Crusader or something.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-15, 01:06 AM
Are Duskblades really weaker then Fighters? I thought they looked better (admittedly, I've not used either class yet, but I'd like to use a DB in the future).

Covered In Bees
2008-08-15, 01:09 AM
Are Duskblades really weaker then Fighters? I thought they looked better (admittedly, I've not used either class yet, but I'd like to use a DB in the future).

They're better than Fighters. They're worse than fighter/caster hybrids (Eldritch Knights, Abjurant Champions, etc) at higher levels, although they start better (since being a Fighter 1/Wizard 2 is pretty lame).

Telonius
2008-08-15, 08:58 AM
There are a few big problems with Beguiler. One is that the spell list draws heavily from mind-affecting spells. A second is that a lot of the offensive spells allow both a save and spell resistance. SR will be a problem all the way up to level 20. And while the Beguiler does have some nice "escape" spells, there are some important mobility spells such as Fly that it just doesn't have.

In general, Beguilers and Sorcerers are trying to do different things. Sorcerers, at least in most campaigns, are the designated blasty-mages. You throw fireballs (or energy substitution, if the thing is immune), area effect spells, big flashy things. Or, if you're trying to be a Batman mimic, you take the same sorts of spells a wizard would but look stylish while you're doing it. But Beguilers are trying to be as sly as Bards, without the team focus. They're just generally fulfilling different functions.

I would say that they're really not stepping on the Rogue's toes all that much, either. Rogues still have a superior skillset. And if the Beguiler takes the Party Face skils (Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Know Local...) those are several other skills that the Rogue doesn't have to take. Even with 8+INT skills maxed out, Rogues will often feel they never have quite enough skill points. And I don't know of any Rogues that would refuse a +2 Aid Another bonus to Search, that only another person with Trapfinding can give.

Person_Man
2008-08-15, 09:34 AM
The Beguiler is the definition of balance and fun for my games. It does a few things very well, but other things poorly. It requires no house rules or multi-classing. It's generally good regardless of your feat choices, but a savvy player can optimize it well. If WotC wanted to save Vancian casting, they could have eliminated the generic Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer designed 4E around the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necro model, giving each caster its own niche. But alas, it was not to be.

Frosty
2008-08-15, 10:24 AM
The Beguiler is the definition of balance and fun for my games. It does a few things very well, but other things poorly. It requires no house rules or multi-classing. It's generally good regardless of your feat choices, but a savvy player can optimize it well. If WotC wanted to save Vancian casting, they could have eliminated the generic Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer designed 4E around the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necro model, giving each caster its own niche. But alas, it was not to be.

Beguilers typically don't want to multiclass, but a one level dip in Mindbender is very fun.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-15, 10:33 AM
The Beguiler is the definition of balance and fun for my games. It does a few things very well, but other things poorly. It requires no house rules or multi-classing. It's generally good regardless of your feat choices, but a savvy player can optimize it well. If WotC wanted to save Vancian casting, they could have eliminated the generic Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer designed 4E around the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necro model, giving each caster its own niche. But alas, it was not to be.

Ditto great post. The class is a lot of fun to play like Frosty said plus the Beguiler class can be powered up with feats and quite a few multiclassing builds to address the few class weaknesses.

valadil
2008-08-15, 10:52 AM
Out of core, the arcane rogue thing hardly works. I've tried it with mediocrity and seen others do worse. I really like the idea of a thief with magic as his swiss army knife, but rogues and sorcs progress slowly enough without multiclassing. I honestly think you're better off as a pure rogue with UMD.

Beguiler provides a way to play that sort of character effectively. Yes you get a ton of spells, but they're all circumstantial at best. The combat spells are almost entirely will based. Even with full caster levels, a Beguiler is not a replacement for a sorc or wizard. It's just another way to play a rogue.

As far as game balance goes, Beguiler and Duskblade were something new for WotC. They're powerful right out of the book. You can play either class out of the box and it works. This can't be said for core classes. I like this as it makes the game more accessible for newer players who may not have even heard of the charops board. That said, WotC is new to characters who were designed to be powerful as written, so they may have gone a little overboard. I have yet to see a DM that lets me even try a duskblade.

Frosty
2008-08-15, 10:59 AM
I have yet to see a DM that lets me even try a duskblade.

Because they're afraid you'll be underpowered compared to Mr. Barbarian.

Knaight
2008-08-15, 12:41 PM
I have yet to see a DM that lets me even try a duskblade.

Huh. They're about even with rogues, and have a slight disadvantage to psychic warriors. Granted they dwarf CW samurai and soulknives, but the fighter does that. Oh and they have a bit of an edge against a hex blade, are balanced with barbarians and tome of battle classes(they look powerful, but the damage a full attack can deal is usually higher, and they typically suck at range, having to pick up a weapon proficiency feat).

Telonius
2008-08-15, 01:11 PM
If DM isn't that experienced with Duskblades, or doesn't look too closely, this is what he'll see:

"Hm, casts like a sorcerer, but can fight in armor. Sounds like a more powerful version of either the Fighter or Sorcerer. And no arcane failure? Sounds like somebody doesn't want to have any limits put on him. Denied!"

Point out to the DM that the spell list only goes up to fifth level, and that the spell list is pretty limited. Say that the lack of feats and strength synergy isn't going to put the Fighter in danger of being overshadowed. He's not as good of a sorcerer as a sorcerer, and not as good of a fighter as a fighter. But he's an interesting, pretty well-balanced mix of the two.

valadil
2008-08-15, 01:12 PM
You're preaching to the choir. I don't think Duskblades are all that powerful, just cool. And I've always thought the Beguiler was the more powerful of the two classes. That said, Duskblades to have the potential to nova for crazy damage in one turn.

Frosty
2008-08-15, 01:47 PM
That said, Duskblades to have the potential to nova for crazy damage in one turn.

And that's ALL the duskblade is good for. Whereas the Beguiler is good in like 8 out 10 situations.

Scaboroth
2008-08-16, 04:35 AM
And as much as I do so also love the Duskblade, they just have way too many dead levels for them to really shine. I think it's a class just begging for a conversion to Paizo's Pathfinder status: give it a couple of weak at-will abilities to keep it fun at low levels, some decent class abilities at levels 8 and 14 to break up some of those dead spots, and then a really kick-@ss capstone power at 20. What would you give a duskblade as a capstone?

Thurbane
2008-08-16, 07:15 PM
I also can't help but feel the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage are a slap in the face to the humble Sorcerer. Not so much that I wouldn't allow them, though.

The thing that gets me is not so much that they get every spell on their list as they level up, compared to the scant few the sorcerer knows, but all the extras that get thrown on top. Better HD, light armor, better weapons, more skills and topped off with a bunch of unique class abilities. I really just don't get the light armor and higher HD - I guess it's just WotC admitting "We made the Sorcerer too weak". I suppose you could always houserule that core Sorcerers get bumped to d6 HD and light armor, too...

Knaight
2008-08-16, 07:21 PM
The wizard is a slap in the face for the sorcerer. Most spell casters are(Wu jen), but the Warlock isn't.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-16, 08:00 PM
I also can't help but feel the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage are a slap in the face to the humble Sorcerer. Not so much that I wouldn't allow them, though.

The thing that gets me is not so much that they get every spell on their list as they level up, compared to the scant few the sorcerer knows, but all the extras that get thrown on top. Better HD, light armor, better weapons, more skills and topped off with a bunch of unique class abilities. I really just don't get the light armor and higher HD - I guess it's just WotC admitting "We made the Sorcerer too weak". I suppose you could always houserule that core Sorcerers get bumped to d6 HD and light armor, too...

Every spontaneous Fullcaster has improved on the base Sorcerer class.

3 good options for the Sorcerer IMO:

First use the Variant Spellcaster mechanics instead of the base Sorcerer class which generally works a lot better with the 2 open bonus feats at 1 & 5 especially if you are using the Flaw Variant if you want to do a lot of customizing.

Second use the Beguiler (D6, 6 SP.....) or the Warmage mechanics but swap out the Beguiler or Warmage known spell lists with the standard Sorcerer known spellcasting mechanic.

Use the Favored Soul mechanic with more known spells but keep D4, 2 SPs and Swap out Arcane Specials for the Favored Soul Specials (Look at Beguiler and Warmage for comparable specials).

Paul H
2008-08-16, 09:45 PM
Hi

It's all about choices.
If you want to specialise in Enchantment/Illusion, with very few spells of other schools of magic, then Beguiler is a good choice.

Here's the main differences between Beguiler/Sorceror.

Beguiler:
D6 HP, more skill points, armour, free feats & abilities, lots of spells from a very limited list.

Sorceror:
Only D4 HP, NO armour, very few skill points, but - Familiar, Draconic Feats access, hardly any spells known, but from a very BIG list. (Even if you don't know spell, you can still use wands etc if they're on your list).

As for the Duskblade/Fighter debate, treat Duskblades as light infantry, with some spells thrown in.They also have a good Will save. Fighters are more versatile, more feats, more HP & better with heavy armour. Also some feats (Wpn Specialistion, etc) are only available to Fighters.

Cheers
Paul H

Frosty
2008-08-17, 12:46 AM
You should have both a Beguiler AND a Sorcerer in a party. The Beguiler replaces Rogue, not Sorcerer anyways.