Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thurbane 08-05-06, 09:14 PM	OK, I just got PHB II yesterday (yes, I'm slow), and first thing I read is the Beguiler base class. I have a friend who enjoys playing "trickster" type Sorcerors, so I thought this would be a great class for him. After reading it, though, I was horrified at the imbalance of the class against a plain vanilla Socreror. Let me break it down: Soceror vs. Beguiler BAB: Same Saves: Same Spells Per Day: Same (both spontaneous casters) ...and that's about it for equal footing... Hit Die: d4 vs. d6 Weapons: All simple vs. all simple + extras Armor: None vs. light Skills: 2 from a list of 6 vs. 6 from a list of 29 Special Abilities: Summon Familiar vs. Armored Mage, Trapfinding, Cloaked Casting, Surprise Casting, Advanced Learning, Silent Spell & Still Spell Spells Known: (this is the real killer) - A very small amount, max 5 per level, vs. ALL SPELLS ON LIST PER LEVEL, 0 x 7, 1 x 14, 2 x 19, 3 x 20, 4 x 11, 5 x 11, 6 x 8, 7 x 8, 8 x 7, 9 x 6 Is it just me, or does the whole package seem insanely unbalanced against Sorcerors? The only real disadvantage is that a Beguiler can't chose to know as wide a variety of spells as a Sorceror, like Fireball, Stoneskin, etc etc. But to me, this is a fairly small price, basically nonexistant if you want to play a stealth or charm based caster. (Also, between UMD, Decipher Script, Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana, he can easily use scrolls or wands of prohibited spells anyway). The only other thing that Beguilers dont get is a famailiar, not a huge thing, and easily remedied by taking 1 level of Wizard or Sorceror. Am I missing the bigger picture here?
archerpwr 08-05-06, 09:26 PM	on paper you are correct a trickster beguiler is way more powerful than a scorcorer. reallity no. while a beguiler is prolly a much more rounded character a scorcorer can get a few really vital spells off the beguiler list as well as pure destructive power that because of his big spd is good with combinations such as charm monster then fireball his boss while ur happy llittle troll gives ur rogue a flank for Sneak Attack. if you want to play a completely arcane trickster type scorcorer (very few would) take beguiler and be happy for most people that crappy spell list (it doesnt even have true strike) means that outside of RP npc interaction spells beguiler sucks. he gets into combat and hes gunna need that light armor because hes not killing anything (unless he gets phantasm killer i dont know havent looked in which case the class is broken cuz with good feats he can cast save or dies all day long). Take a list on the spell list unless there are save or dies or big dmg spells on it the class sucks in combat. might as well be a bard
Osedox 08-05-06, 09:42 PM	Its not like the entire beguiler concept is new. Warmages(evocation) and Dread Necromancers (duh) have been around for a long time and they are almost the same as a Beguiler (different area of expertise). Yes a Beguiler is good at being sneaky and charming, but can he do much else? What if he has to fight undead or constructs? Vermin? anything able to cast true seeing or mindblank? Im not trying to downplay the class, cause im not, I love it just as much as the next guy; its just never going to take the place of a Sorcerer IMHO. In all honesty you should be comparing the class to the Rogue, I see them as being more encroached on by the Beguiler than the Sorcerer.
TavishArtair 08-05-06, 09:51 PM	Is it just me, or does the whole package seem insanely unbalanced against Sorcerors? The only real disadvantage is that a Beguiler can't chose to know as wide a variety of spells as a Sorceror, like Fireball, Stoneskin, etc etc. But to me, this is a fairly small price, basically nonexistant if you want to play a stealth or charm based caster. (Also, between UMD, Decipher Script, Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana, he can easily use scrolls or wands of prohibited spells anyway). The only other thing that Beguilers dont get is a famailiar, not a huge thing, and easily remedied by taking 1 level of Wizard or Sorceror. Am I missing the bigger picture here? Your complaint, essentially, is that the beguiler is so much better for someone who wishes to play a "sneaky" or "charming" caster. I find this to be analogous to complaining that the rogue is so much sneakier than the sorceror, so if someone would want to play a sneaky character, why would they ever play a sorceror? Yes, the beguiler IS much better than the sorceror at being stealthy or subtle with magic, however, that is the entire point of the class. The sorceror pays for potency in one area with increased versatility. Yes, a strange word to refer to the sorceror by, but relative to the beguiler it has that! The beguiler does not have the option to fireball an opponent unless given a magic item to do so, in which case there are numerous persons who could do it anyways. And sometimes you really need a fireball. Simply, a sorceror will never be as good a blasto mage as the blasto mage class (arguably warmage), nor will he be as good a sneaky mage as the sneaky mage class (arguably beguiler), because that is the entire point of those classes, and unlike them, he can pick powers that either have, as well as powers that neither have, and mix them together for his own combination, which is a large part of what makes the basic arcane spellcasters (wizard, sorceror, etc) so powerful in the first place.
Nephlite 08-05-06, 10:01 PM	on paper you are correct a trickster beguiler is way more powerful than a scorcorer. reallity no. while a beguiler is prolly a much more rounded character a scorcorer can get a few really vital spells off the beguiler list as well as pure destructive power that because of his big spd is good with combinations such as charm monster then fireball his boss while ur happy llittle troll gives ur rogue a flank for Sneak Attack. if you want to play a completely arcane trickster type scorcorer (very few would) take beguiler and be happy for most people that crappy spell list (it doesnt even have true strike) means that outside of RP npc interaction spells beguiler sucks. he gets into combat and hes gunna need that light armor because hes not killing anything (unless he gets phantasm killer i dont know havent looked in which case the class is broken cuz with good feats he can cast save or dies all day long). Take a list on the spell list unless there are save or dies or big dmg spells on it the class sucks in combat. might as well be a bard Actually, a really good Begiiler spell Whelm deals lots of damage, but all nonlethal/ I think mind affecting. But yeah, Beguiler is more for beguiling than damaging/killing.
Crimson_Concerto 08-05-06, 10:41 PM	Sorcerer Spell List > :surrender > :OMG! > :crazy: > :looloo: > :eek: > :uh-huh: > Beguiler Spell List. THAT is your answer.
Thurbane 08-05-06, 11:29 PM	Personally, I believe that Beguiler's should only know a limited number of spells of each level, the same way Sorcerors and Bards do. That would go a long way to balancing the class in my eyes. Also, the Beguiler's spell list will be ever growing - we know every time a new supplement comes out it will include a few new Beguiler spells.
Alekzandr 08-06-06, 12:06 AM	Personally, I believe that Beguiler's should only know a limited number of spells of each level, the same way Sorcerers and Bards do. That would go a long way to balancing the class in my eyes. Also, the Beguiler's spell list will be ever growing - we know every time a new supplement comes out it will include a few new Beguiler spells. Because we've seen Warlocks, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers receive so much love already. The way it works is that Beguilers have advanced learning (Same as the Warmage and Dread Necromancer), and they get access to, what? 5 more spells over the course of a 20 level progression? All taken form the Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List, which will continue to expand. The only ways for Beguilers or Warmages or Dread Necromancers to add to their spells known (that I recall) are their inherent Advanced Learning class feature (Which only works for spells of specific schools), the Extra Spell feat, the Arcane Diciple feat, and the Necrotic Cyst feat. Beguilers, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers are the Sorcerer's answer to the Specialist Wizard, except more X-treme (the deliberate misspelling and capitalized "X" makes it cool!). They take weak concepts that sorcerers think they can pull off and actually make them do what was intended: not suck at their single pony antics.
__DnD4Life__ 08-06-06, 01:06 AM	The beguiler appears overpowered because, as alot of people already know, the sorcerer is weak. Compare this class to the wizard, and it is weaker.
Crimson_Concerto 08-06-06, 02:06 AM	...the sorcerer is weak. Are you kidding me? The sorcerer is STILL better than the Warmage/Dread Necromancer/Beguiler. Their spell lists are much to specialized to ever fill the roll of primary arcane caster for a party, and their versatility will never match that of the Sorcerer because of their magic school restrictions.
Witch 08-06-06, 08:27 AM	Also, the Beguiler's spell list will be ever growing - we know every time a new supplement comes out it will include a few new Beguiler spells. Ahahahaha No, it won't. There will never be more than five new beguiler spells printed... never ever. Personally, I believe that Beguiler's should only know a limited number of spells of each level, the same way Sorcerors and Bards do. That would go a long way to balancing the class in my eyes. Go read the Dread Necromancer, or the Warmage. They all have far more class features than sorcerers, and the same lists. And they don't break the game at all. Infact, double the sorcerer's spells known, and the game wouldn't break either. The fact is that the sorcerer is just not powerful enough compared to other casters. Argueably, I could point you towards a neutral cleric, which might be a prepared caster, but can cast every single cleric spell ever printed. Seriously: allow this class in your game, and see how "imbalanced" it is.
Thurbane 08-06-06, 08:47 AM	Ahahahaha No, it won't. There will never be more than five new beguiler spells printed... never ever. Really? Quite frankly, I'm amazed some boffin at WotC hasn't already released errata for the Spell Compendium redifing some of the existing spells as Beguiler... ...and for everyone who has directed me to the Dread Necromancer et. al. apologies, I don't have those books, the Beguiler is the first such class I've come accross...
ReluctantDragon 08-06-06, 09:02 AM	I'm surprised that something else hasn't been mentioned. Two of the class features that the Beguiler has make it extremely different from the sorceror as well. Cloaked Casting and Surprise Casting make it so that you have a caster that *HAS* to get into melee. :eek: Have you even built a beguiler yet? You should, because unless you have a high roll system or a high point buy, then you are going to be extremely hesitant to get in the middle of a battlefield with this guy. Sorcerors can sit behind their meatshield and cast away, but a beguiler, just like the rogue has to get into the thick of it and try to use his abilities to feint against a guy, *then* get a spell off. Lamest system for a caster ever. Now someone might say that you don't *HAVE* to jump into melee to cast, but if you don't then you're ignoring the two biggest class features of the beguiler, ostensibly what they built the beguiler around. And I'm sorry, his spell list does not make me shiver. I would pit a sorceror against a beguiler anyday. What's that? you say I can use a battle sorceror? Yes, Please! :D
Witch 08-06-06, 09:13 AM	Really? Quite frankly, I'm amazed some boffin at WotC hasn't already released errata for the Spell Compendium redifing some of the existing spells as Beguiler... Warlocks have been out for over a year - there have been 3 new invocations published, all pretty much crap, and only for Incarnum. Dread Necro's don't get new spells either. Neither do Warmages. Or any of the special classes. You must realise - when Blizzards publishes a new supplement, they want to publish a supplement for the core. Other stuff is ignored. Hence the only way for the Beguiler to gain newly published spells is through advanced learning (which is believed to be the main reason the beguiler has been given this feature).
runestar 08-06-06, 09:21 AM	Just wait till you run into your first undead, plant, or mage protected with mind blank. Then you will know... :P Extremely single minded character concepts are really the easiest to defeat, because they are so narrowly focused in a single area, meaning that it will be a snap for the dm to roll out a challenge that makes your beguiler nigh useless. The beguiler will excel in a certain area, but expect him to be nigh useless in a large number of other scenarios. :( Conversely, a wizard, and to a slightly lesser extent, sorcs, are more versatile since they know a much wider range of spells, or in the very least, can procure wands/scrolls/staves etc to expand their repertoire(possible by virtue of their superb spell list). This allows them to deal with virtually any situation as circumstances dictate, making it harder for a dm to screw them over. I suppose you could always find some way to pump UMD for a beguiler... ;)
Elbethamore 08-06-06, 12:00 PM	Really? Quite frankly, I'm amazed some boffin at WotC hasn't already released errata for the Spell Compendium redifing some of the existing spells as Beguiler... ...and for everyone who has directed me to the Dread Necromancer et. al. apologies, I don't have those books, the Beguiler is the first such class I've come accross... Do you even have the Spell Compendium? If you do, look at page 4. Next to "Warmage" it says "Expanding the warmage spell list isn't recommended." I won't quote further because that material is not open license, but suffice to say that WotC knows that expanding the Beguiler, Warmager, or Dread Necromancer list would be devestating to game balance (I'm very glad they included those remarks in the Spell Compendium... someone there knows what they're doing). Expanding Warlock invocations is not a problem, however. They get "invocations known," so new invocations create options, but do not expand the number of invocations they can use. And to the poster who mentioned Phantasmal Killer, it's not on the spell list, but is available through Advanced Learning.
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-06, 12:05 PM	The Sorceror can win out over the Beguiler because of those vital spells from other categories that he can grab. For example, the Sorceror can scry and die, while the Beguiler cannot. However, saying that there's a balance discrepancy with the sorceror is nothing new; the wizard clearly trumps it, even in "spontanaity" in actual play. The Beguiler only has one thing in it which is offensive to me, and that's that it, in practice, has more skill points than the rogue as a full caster. It's not really so much unbalancing, but it doesn't seem right, y'know? See, full int casters always have lots of skill points. You can assume that with an average, 25 point buy, or typical 4d6 rolls, an int-based caster will get a 16-18 int. On top of this, you can count on them buying the point to up the trait every 4 levels. This means that a wizard has 5-9 skill points in practice, while a Beguiler has 9-13. The poor sorceror is stuck with the SMALLEST SKILL LIST IN THE GAME, no class features that you give up for getting into a full casting PrC, and a typical 2 skill points per level. It really makes us sad :( Oh yeah, and by comparison to the wizard: They lag a spell level behind, they get far less spells, they can't do item creation half as well (Especially because odds are the sorceror can't just get his hands on the spell he needs to create item x), they get less feats, and preparation doesn't actually stop the wizard from being more versatile, the way things are set up now. In typical play, I've found that the wizard is far more ready for "any situation" than a sorceror, and has no trouble being surprised at decent levels. Besides that, you don't really feel the glory of spontanaity and versatility when you get to choose from *one or two* spells to cast. It bothers me a bit, but I wouldn't say the Beguiler is unbalanced. Limited spell lists go a long way, and it's still definitively weaker than the wizard. Anyways, WotC doesn't love sorcerors :( It's not vanilla for balance, it just gets no love. (Not to say that sorcerors are *weak*. They're still one of the more powerful classes, behind Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Artificers) However, keep in mind: Mind blank or things immune to mind-affecting will negate almost all of a Beguiler's arsenal.
runestar 08-06-06, 12:17 PM	Well, a sorc could in theory survive off concentration, spellcraft and knowledge: arcana alone, so a human sorc would get by just fine with 10int. :)
EvilVegan 08-06-06, 12:29 PM	I'm surprised that something else hasn't been mentioned. Two of the class features that the Beguiler has make it extremely different from the sorceror as well. Cloaked Casting and Surprise Casting make it so that you have a caster that *HAS* to get into melee. Actually, no. You get the bonus to DC/SR overcoming if they would be denied their dex. This includes if you are invisible. Also if they're grappling, climbing, swimming, flatfooted, etc. Granted the class has an ability to feint, but doing so wouldn't really be a good idea. But I'm currently playing one and yes they do have a lot of things to make them seem over-powered, but last game the party favored soul asked me if my character would ever be able to do anything useful. And yes, I find the high skill points + int being the only useful stat they need kind of lame (but not so lame that I won't enjoy it while playing one).
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-06, 12:35 PM	I would have made the Beguiler Cha-based, OR knock the skills down to 4+int. It's not really much of a power thing, since spells completely overlap skills (Knock, Silence, Invisibility, Find Traps, etc) but more that I think they shouldn't always have more SP than the rogue, and that... they seem like they should be Cha-based, but WotC seems to like int-casters way more.
Fabius Maximus 08-06-06, 12:47 PM	The problem with Warmage, Dread Necromancer and Beguiler is that they are specialised sorcerer variants. Therefore, they should be Prestige Classes rather than Base Classes.
EvilVegan 08-06-06, 12:50 PM	I would have made the Beguiler Cha-based, OR knock the skills down to 4+int. It's not really much of a power thing, since spells completely overlap skills (Knock, Silence, Invisibility, Find Traps, etc) but more that I think they shouldn't always have more SP than the rogue, and that... they seem like they should be Cha-based, but WotC seems to like int-casters way more. Its also interesting that they have several spells for charming/swaying people and are the only one of the trio of specialist sorcerers (including War Mage and Dread necro) that aren't charisma based.
Osedox 08-06-06, 01:23 PM	As a houserule I have made Warmages Int based (including their edge), and Beguilers Cha based. Based on everything from mechanics to fluff it seems to fit way better.
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-06, 01:28 PM	Definitely should be Cha based. It just makes A LOT MORE SENSE.
josephbt 08-06-06, 01:40 PM	As a houserule I have made Warmages Int based (including their edge), and Beguilers Cha based. Based on everything from mechanics to fluff it seems to fit way better. I'm playing a beguiler at the moment. We got a standard array at 1st lvl and you know what? I need more skill points. If i had an INT 18 at 1st lvl I wouldn't have enough skill points. Just look at that skill list. eg - Diplomancer Diplomacy Bluff Sense Motive Gather Info Listen Concentration Disguise Hide Move silently UMD Guess what? When your stat is 15 and you're human you get 8 skill points. So tell me which skill from the list would you remove. This happens to any beguiler build. Try it yourself before dooming the class to non existence with "balance changes".
FeceMan 08-06-06, 01:51 PM	Do you know WHY the sorcerer appears weaker than the semi-spontaneous casters? Because sorcerers are bad. They have no way to specialize, unlike the wizard, and their spells known list is really bad. The reason Wizards are publishing classes like the dread necromancer, beguiler, and warmage is to replace the bastard child sorcerer--it gives players the ability to specialize and have a lot of class features, which the sorcerer is severely lacking. (At least, that's my reasoning.)
Gworraent 08-06-06, 01:51 PM	Beguiler is unbalanced when you compare it to a trickster sorcerer becuase the beguiler was designed for that exact purpose. Remember, the Beguiler has hardly damage dealing spells, it's all enchantement, illusion, and non lethal. The only thing I'm wondering about is legion of sentinels. 10*10 area, incorporeal, uses the casters bonuses on saves and threatens the area as well as making AoO. They wield longswords but how much damage do they deal besides d8 and what bonus do they get to attack? I say for attack they get caster level plus the caster's int modifier and for damage they deal d8+ caster's int modifier. Awesome combo for beguiler. Be a gnome and take spell focus enchantment and illusion. You then get +2 on your illusion DC's and +1 on your enchantment spells. Remember how all beguiler spells are enchantment or illusioin. Get improved feint and put alot of ranks in bluff so once you are 6th level and you get suprise casting it takes a swift action to bluff so then your illusion DC rises by three and your enchantment DC's rise by 2. Muwhahahah. It's works, I've played it.
Osedox 08-06-06, 02:35 PM	1. Diplomacy 2. Bluff 3. Sense Motive 4. Gather Info 5. Listen 6. Concentration 7. Disguise 8. Hide 9. Move silently 10. UMDWell, for starters, get rid of Hide, you have invisibility as many times a day as you want. Disguise, is useful, but Disguise self can give you a flat +10, so i could see putting some ranks into that but not full ones. Move Silently is nice, but then again you do get silence, and Silent Spell so thats a good way to get around that. I agree it is a Skill intense class, but that doesent mean that the flavor doesent point towards a Cha based caster. Thats also why I was clear to make the distinction that it was a houserule. if you dont like it then dont use it. Because sorcerers are bad. They have no way to specialize, unlike the wizard, and their spells known list is really bad. The reason Wizards are publishing classes like the dread necromancer, beguiler, and warmage is to replace the bastard child sorcerer--it gives players the ability to specialize and have a lot of class features, which the sorcerer is severely lacking.Dont let your ignorance of how to properly play a Sorcerer cloud your judgement. And what is the bolded section all about? Sorcerers are all about specialization, and I dont know how you can call 1 extra spell per day in exchange for 1-2 banned schools "specialization"
aramis80 08-06-06, 02:56 PM	Just wait till you run into your first undead, plant, or mage protected with mind blank. Then you will know... :P Extremely single minded character concepts are really the easiest to defeat, because they are so narrowly focused in a single area, meaning that it will be a snap for the dm to roll out a challenge that makes your beguiler nigh useless. The beguiler will excel in a certain area, but expect him to be nigh useless in a large number of other scenarios. :( Conversely, a wizard, and to a slightly lesser extent, sorcs, are more versatile since they know a much wider range of spells, or in the very least, can procure wands/scrolls/staves etc to expand their repertoire(possible by virtue of their superb spell list). This allows them to deal with virtually any situation as circumstances dictate, making it harder for a dm to screw them over. I suppose you could always find some way to pump UMD for a beguiler... ;) You can always take one level in the sandshaper PrC (sandstorm) to get abetter spellist. when using advanced learning: not all illusion types are mind-affecting (figment, glamer, shadow) see also http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060207a
__DnD4Life__ 08-06-06, 05:02 PM	Are you kidding me? The sorcerer is STILL better than the Warmage/Dread Necromancer/Beguiler. Their spell lists are much to specialized to ever fill the roll of primary arcane caster for a party, and their versatility will never match that of the Sorcerer because of their magic school restrictions. I highly doubt this class is meant to be a primary party spellcaster. So, when comparing those aspects, it is obvious that the warmage et al is extremely weak. They are meant to be specialized secondary casters. But, when you put the 3 of them together in a party, and against 3 sorcerers of equal level, the specialist groups will win. That is because they do not have to try to see into the future when picking their spell list, and they have a larger number at their disposal. The sorcerer spell list may be more broad, but the specialist has more.
Zagreen 08-06-06, 07:44 PM	The problem with Warmage, Dread Necromancer and Beguiler is that they are specialised sorcerer variants. Therefore, they should be Prestige Classes rather than Base Classes. Not really, no. Anyhow, yeah, the beguiler is pretty extreme. Sure the warmage has the same thing going on with the huge spell list, but 98% of the warmage's spells do the exact same thing, so they end up being vastly less versatile than the sorcerer in spite of having a vastly larger spell list. The beguiler still gets tons of utility spells but still gets plenty of spells to cripple enemies (or even damage/kill them, if they wanted). Class features aren't quite as big a deal, since sorcerers going to be taking PrCs as much as possible (since there's essentially no benefit to being a plain sorcerer), whereas a beguiler actually has to sacrifice class features in order to take a PrC. Still, that's a pretty weak defense for sorcerers.
Gworraent 08-06-06, 07:56 PM	Who The Frog? Is there a Dread Necromancer base class? I know there's a PrC in Tome and Blood, but that's a PrC and an older edition.
General_Ridley 08-06-06, 09:26 PM	Who The Frog? Is there a Dread Necromancer base class? I know there's a PrC in Tome and Blood, but that's a PrC and an older edition. Dread Necromancer is in Heroes of Horror. suffice it to say that compared to the True Necromancer, it rocks. Compared to the specialist wizard, It rocks more. Compared to any necromancer (besides maybe clerics) IT ROCKS. As far as optimization goes, it lasts 8 levels (if you don't want to become a lich). 20th level gives you the lich template for free (although every class feature you gain throughought the class (minus 2 or 3, maybe 5) is just building into that lich). It is a class I like. killing spells, undead-raising (and hence a small army), and it does its job beautifully.
Crimson_Concerto 08-07-06, 01:57 AM	I highly doubt this class is meant to be a primary party spellcaster. So, when comparing those aspects, it is obvious that the warmage et al is extremely weak. They are meant to be specialized secondary casters.Yes, exactly. That was my point. They're sort of like bards in that they'll always be a secondary class as their skills are not necessary and actually fall up short a lot of the time. The sorcerer does not have this problem. It's a popularity thing in addition to a power thing. Unless the party is large and already has a primary arcane caster, the presence of any of these three over the sorcerer is generally a bad idea. But, when you put the 3 of them together in a party, and against 3 sorcerers of equal level, the specialist groups will win. That is because they do not have to try to see into the future when picking their spell list, and they have a larger number at their disposal. The sorcerer spell list may be more broad, but the specialist has more.See, here I'm not sure whether I agree or not. The sorcerer STILL has access to many spells these three will never have. Dispel Magic, Banishment, Summoning spells, Dimension Door, Plane Shift, True Seeing, Telekinesis, Shapechange, Baleful Polymorph, and Wish are all amazing spells not even these specialists have access to. And the sorcerers can STILL know all the great necromancy, evocation, and illusion spells as well. The sorcerers don't need to beat these secondary casters at their own game, because they can always beat these imposters at the sorcerer game, knowing a few spells, but having those spells all be the best there are. I'm on the fence as to where this 3 vs 3 woudl go, but I'm still leaning towards the sorcerers...
Fabius Maximus 08-07-06, 07:29 AM	Not really, no. Why not? You said yourself that a sorcerer will take a PrC as soon as possible. Why not make some that are based on the same spellcasting philosophy?
zae 08-07-06, 09:26 AM	Why not? You said yourself that a sorcerer will take a PrC as soon as possible. Why not make some that are based on the same spellcasting philosophy? Because some people like to actually have their concept reflected mechanically from level 1 onwards. Likewise, some games start at level 1. None that I play in, though if WotC keep releasing new classes that represent my idea from level 1, that might possibly change. But the point is, it's good to be able to say "I'm playing X" and then actually play X from whatever level the game starts. I prefer more base classes (even specialists) to more prestige classes. I'm sure others agree. Anyway, I think they're all better than the sorcerer at their field, and they actually have class features to make prestige classing a real decision instead of a given. But the Sorcerer does get Polymorph and Shapechange, whereas they don't, so it probably comes out on top (of those classes. I'm not comparing it to the Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Artificer here).
Zagreen 08-07-06, 12:09 PM	Why not? You said yourself that a sorcerer will take a PrC as soon as possible. Why not make some that are based on the same spellcasting philosophy? Indeed, why not? But that's not what the warmage, beguiler, and dread necromancer are set up to be. To some degree, they are an extension of this line of reasoning--a sorcerer who wants to be a pure blaster wants to get into a blaster PrC as soon as possible, so why not skip the PrC and let them be a blaster specialist from level 1? However, these classes are more than merely specialized sorcerers; they cast spontaneously, but their spells known function on a completely different mechanic. If they were converted to PrC classes, then one of the following would have to happen: -You level up sorcerer 1-5, then go into the warmage/etc. PrC, keeping all your previous spells known and progressing through level 6-15 sorcerer casting with just warmage spells. You end up with a "warmage" that knows several level 1 and 2 non-blasting spells. OK, not a terrible thing, but certainly quite different in concept than the pure blaster warmage base class. (In fact, given that the warmage is probably the weakest of the three, this might actually be better than the existing warmage; however, given that beguilers are probably the most powerful of the three and possibly even better than sorcerers, giving them any more versatility would definitely be overkill. And it's not like it's impossible to come up with ways to fix the warmage as a 1-20 base class). -You level up sorcerer 1-5, but the warmage/etc. PrC requirements prevent you from taking any spells other than those of the same school(s) of magic the PrCs represent. So you're handicapping yourself during levels 1-5 and not getting any benefit from it. Weeeee, what fun! -You level up sorcerer 1-5, and as soon as you entire the warmage/etc. PrC any spells known that are not appropriate for the specialty PrC are lost in return for the specialty PrC's spells known. OK, I know there are rules for sorcerers swapping out spells as they level up, but it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you reach level 6 and suddenly all your previous class features are rewritten. In short, zae said it better. If you can create a good level progression from 1 to 20 for a class, why try to cram it into a floating 10-level progression for level 6 or so instead? Sorcerer PrCs specializing in different schools would be cool, yes, but they would be by definition different from the warmage/beguiler/dread necro; sure, these classes could all use some tweaking, but they're cool ideas that can't be directly replicated in PrC form.
solbergb 08-07-06, 01:46 PM	================= Spells Known: (this is the real killer) - A very small amount, max 5 per level, vs. ALL SPELLS ON LIST PER LEVEL, 0 x 7, 1 x 14, 2 x 19, 3 x 20, 4 x 11, 5 x 11, 6 x 8, 7 x 8, 8 x 7, 9 x 6 ===================== But...it is NOT THE SAME LIST. The situation with Beguiler is identical to Warmage. Looks great on the surface until you try to fill the arcane caster role with an inadequate spell list. A beguiler is very, very good at doing an enchantment oriented character (just as warmage is fantastic artillery). But a "Real" sorcerer can build an enchantment-heavy character that can still dimension-door the party, defend itself from attack, haste the fighters and analyze magic items (if not from spells known in all cases, at least from scrolls without resorting to UMD). These superspecialized arcane caster classes are not sorcerer replacements. They're a way to make a stronger character in a very narrow niche without being simply an inferior sorcerer (a sorcerer with ALL his spells as artillery is an inferior warmage AND an inferior arcane caster in general. A warmage makes up for his lack of breadth with no "holes" in his offensive spells - he is at least supreme in his narrow area. Beguiler is much the same, just in a different niche).
General_Ridley 08-07-06, 02:08 PM	See, here I'm not sure whether I agree or not. The sorcerer STILL has access to many spells these three will never have. Dispel Magic, Banishment, Summoning spells, Dimension Door, Plane Shift, True Seeing, Telekinesis, Shapechange, Baleful Polymorph, and Wish are all amazing spells not even these specialists have access to. And the sorcerers can STILL know all the great necromancy, evocation, and illusion spells as well. The sorcerers don't need to beat these secondary casters at their own game, because they can always beat these imposters at the sorcerer game, knowing a few spells, but having those spells all be the best there are. I'm on the fence as to where this 3 vs 3 woudl go, but I'm still leaning towards the sorcerers... actually, Dread Necromancers get Dispel Magic and greater Dispel magic on their list. just thought I'd point that out. Now, I was looking through my books yesterday. Sorcerer has 43 spells known at 20th level (barring feats to add spells). Warmage has 90 spells known at 20th level (4 through Advanced learning, barring feats like Extra Spell) Dread Necromancer has 90 spells known at level 20 (5 through Advanced learning, barring feats like Extra Spell) I don't have the PHBII, so I can't comment the Beguiler. I expect it has 90 spells known at level 20, with 4-6 of them through Advanced Learning. the Sand Shaper PrC, mentioned earlier, adds 43 spells known at the cost of 1 level of spellcasting. now, where those numbers may look horribly unbalanced against the sorcerer, there is hope. Sorcerers get to choose what spells they know. Sure, they can't be as good at blasting as the Warmage (no Warmage Edge, no free sudden metamagic) or as good at necromancy as the Dread Necromancer (no rebuke undead, no Undead Masery, no becoming a Lich for free), but the sorcerer can get spells none of these guys can. The sorcerer can wish. The sorcerer can get that important charm person cast that the others couldn't. These classes are, I expect, to phase out the standard wizard specialists. They do what the specialists should have been doing all along. I expect, as far as arcane classes go, that when 4e rolls around, we will see such: Warlock Wizard (always generalist) Specialists (taking place of specialist wizards, possibly sorcerers too) Sorcerer (maybe)
UnknownMourner 08-07-06, 03:46 PM	But if the game is designed well, any array a sorcerer choses should be valid. A sorcerer that picks to specialize in Illusion and Enchant should not be second fiddle to the beguiler. And all of this is avoiding most of the original post: +4 skill points per level, a bigger hit die, armored casting, and all the tricks. A familiar doesnt equal all that jazz. But having said that, I agree the problem is the sorcerer, not the beguiler. I throw them some bones to comp.
solbergb 08-07-06, 05:29 PM	But if the game is designed well, any array a sorcerer choses should be valid. It is, as long as the sorcerer doesn't have excessive duplication in spells. A sorcerer with 60% of his spells known in illusion/enchantment and 20% in stealth/disguise spells can do pretty much anything you'd want to do with that AND have enough arcane spell slots left to have a way to fly, to teleport, to do area damage, to do direct damage, and to defend himself without NEEDING a bigger hit die or light armor. And all of this is avoiding most of the original post: +4 skill points per level, a bigger hit die, armored casting, and all the tricks. A familiar doesnt equal all that jazz. No, but the freedom to pick a decent selection of spells MORE than compensates for all that jazz. All of the super-spececialist classes have multiple versions of what are essentially a very small number of effects. Which means the number of situations they can handle is more limited than what a normal sorcerer (who picks a variety of spells+metamagic to cover many situations) can bring to the table. A sorc won't be as good as them at their main schtick, but he'll be "good enough" 95% of the time (and he shouldn't be 100%....you have to get SOMETHING for all that specialization)
KirkBb 08-07-06, 05:58 PM	The things that you are comparing are to different. If the beguiler had the same variety of spells as the sorcerer, then, there would be balance issues, but, they don't. Saying the beguiler is a better sneaky type caster than the sorcerer and that because of that it is overpowered isn't valid, its like saying the sorcerer is overpowered because it is a better arcane spellcaster than the fighter.
EvilVegan 08-08-06, 10:17 AM	A beguiler is good because it can be a decent primary caster and also fill the sneaky/trapfinding role as well as a rogue (if not better). I'd say it is overpowered because it is a specialist in both massive enchantment/illusion spells (which may or may not make it better than a sorcerer, but better than a sorcerer attempting to be an enchanter by far) AND it can also out skill-monkey the rogue AND it can often out "face" the bard. It can replace 3 character concepts and not only do their job well, typically it can do it as good or better than the original class in that area. And since it IS supposed to be a specialist it really shouldn't out perform 3 classes at 3 different skill sets (diplomacy, trapfinding, spell versatility). Its also got a more varied spell list than both the war mage and the dread necro, because those classes focus on damage dealing and necromancy only, where this class has spells for charming/dominating and illusions and still has self-buffs like expeditious retreat and mage armor, as well as several schools of magic at every level. Also has spiderclimb, knock, dispel, freedom of movement, break enchantment, greater dispel, etherealness, true seeing, spell turning, mind blank, and time stop. Add to this class abilities at every level and bonus metamagic feats and beguiler comes out pretty much ahead of the sorcerer. Has more skill points than a rogue often. Has a BETTER class skill list than a rogue. Has trapfinding and all the skills you need to be good at it PLUS spells that do the same thing often times, which means you don't have to get certain skills as high to perform the same task. The only thing a bard can beat it at are 1) healing 2) knowledge checks 3) party buffs. It beats a bard at 1) diplomacy 2) combat enchantment 3) spells known 4) spells per day 5) Spell level 6) save DCs (excluding fascinate) 7) skills The only thing a sorcerer MIGHT be better at would be blasty spells, summoning, and maybe teleportation. And of course at 18th level they get wish, which isn't that great of a spell. And to be better at those areas they have to give up other things because they have so few spells known. Also with proper PrC and feat selection a beguiler can be a better summoner than any other class and a better blaster than a war mage, all without sacrificing much at all in the other aspects of his class abilities that make him better than bard/rogue/sorcerer, all at the same time. It is definitely NOT a specialist class. It is a very good generalist with a specialized spell list that still has a lot of good spells outside of his claimed arcane specialization. So if you're trying to balance it against a sorcerer, go ahead and stop. A sorcerer isn't better than a rogue at trap finding, nor is it as good as a bard at being party face. The only thing it might be able to claim is spell versatility, which isn't going to be that much more versatile than a beguiler (and can actually weaken the sorcerer if it tries too hard), and his lovely familiar (which a beguiler can pick up with a feat).
Crimson_Concerto 08-08-06, 12:29 PM	EvilVegan, there's so much I do't agree with about what you said that I don't even know where to begin, where to end, or what I'll miss in between. :P First of all, how it does compared to the rogue depends on the type of rogue. It will beat out the DEX-based rogue at search and disable device, as well as having a few more skill points, but the DEX-based rogue will still be better at all those those DEX-based skills they share that are perhapse more iconic than even search and disable device (like Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock). The INT-based rogue, however, will do much better than the beguiler at skill points and just as good at Search and Disable Device. This really depends more on what rogue style you're comparing to, and either way, I think they about balance out. Second of all, Beguilers are NOT better than the Bard at being the party face. Maybe if beguilers were CHA-based you would have a case to argue, but then you would lose the one for them being better skill-monkey than the rogue. The bard's better CHA will always make it the better diplomat. However, the bard is commonly seen as a rather underpowered class, and even the sorcerer will beat it out at most of the things you said the beguiler does. Finally, and most importantly, Beguilers do not have better spell-versatility than the sorcerer. I have trouble seeing where you came up with that. The Sorcerer has more and better spells all over its spell list. Sure, a sorcerer who tries to be a beguiler will likely not measure up, but that's not what sorcerers are supposed to be trying to do. Sure, sorcerers aren't better at enchantment or illusion, but they're better at every other school of magic, not just conjuration and evocation. Also, prestige classes should be kept out of the debate, as sorcerers can likely make more use of them than beguilers. Basically, it appears to me Beguilers are actually more generalists than specialists. It can be a back-up rogue, bard, or sorcerer, but all of these classes do better at being themselves than the beguiler do, at least in my opinion
sigma999 08-08-06, 03:32 PM	The problem isn't with class balance, it's your refusal to use house rules to remedy. In fact topics like this would not exist if you, yes you readers who have no imagination, think outside The Box just a little. D&D was designed to be changed but you seem to follow Official Material to the letter. So, if you want sorcerers to be more powerful, then do it, just like I did with my group. And it works fine. But a majority of other unimaginative players will ignore you and continue to post lawyer-like disputes about "class balance". WOTC will NEVER change the Sorcerer no matter how many threads drag on about "alternative sorcerers" and "is the sorcerer not powerful enough?" so get over it. Yes these new classes just might be too powerful, but without a system of direct comparison it's all opinions. Leave them out of your own campaigns and ignore their existence if you don't like them.
Gworraent 08-08-06, 05:02 PM	Dread Necromancer is in Heroes of Horror. suffice it to say that compared to the True Necromancer, it rocks. Compared to the specialist wizard, It rocks more. Compared to any necromancer (besides maybe clerics) IT ROCKS. As far as optimization goes, it lasts 8 levels (if you don't want to become a lich). 20th level gives you the lich template for free (although every class feature you gain throughought the class (minus 2 or 3, maybe 5) is just building into that lich). It is a class I like. killing spells, undead-raising (and hence a small army), and it does its job beautifully. I believe that you just made me buy that book :D
Vaelan 08-08-06, 07:02 PM	I'd like to note that I don't have my books at the moment and am thus working off of memory in regards to the Beguiler spell list. I'd say it is overpowered because it is a specialist in both massive enchantment/illusion spells (which may or may not make it better than a sorcerer, but better than a sorcerer attempting to be an enchanter by far) Effective Sorcerers take a few good spells rather than every spell in a school. What is the Beguiler doing in the field of enchanting that Dominate along with two other spells in the field don't do just as well? AND it can also out skill-monkey the rogue It has two fewer skill points per level and a slightly worse class skill list than a Rogue. Unless the Rogue in question is a Half-Orc with an Intelligence of 6, I don't see this happening. AND it can often out "face" the bard. Bards are more likely to have high Charisma. Further, they have a number of spells that grant bonuses to skill checks. I believe the Beguiler gets access to exactly one of them (Glibness) while missing out on spells like Friendly Face, Improvisation, the various morale-based spells that give bonuses to all skill checks, and Voice of the Dragon. I am led to believe that you have never seen a Sorcerer, Rogue, or Bard played competently, EvilVegan.
Pandaemoni 08-08-06, 07:39 PM	Really? Quite frankly, I'm amazed some boffin at WotC hasn't already released errata for the Spell Compendium redifing some of the existing spells as Beguiler... ...and for everyone who has directed me to the Dread Necromancer et. al. apologies, I don't have those books, the Beguiler is the first such class I've come accross... The reason they don't do things like that is they hate to assume that anyone owns a non-Core book...because so many gamers don't own the full panoply. The Spell Compendium was a prime time to expand the spell list of the Warmage and several other classes, but they made the choice to stick with the core classes only. I doubt they will go back and update anything for the beguiler or the duskblade...and that's one of the drawbacks to those classes.
Votan 08-08-06, 11:44 PM	It has two fewer skill points per level and a slightly worse class skill list than a Rogue. Unless the Rogue in question is a Half-Orc with an Intelligence of 6, I don't see this happening. It is an INT based caster. I think that such a character will tend to have a higher INT than a srtandard rogue because the payoff is extremely high as it maximizes both skills and spells. This makes me suspicious that this class will end up being a little better at skills than one might otherwise expect. It is true that the rige also has sneak attack as an option that the Beguiler does not. However, cases where sneak attack is effective will also be pretty optimal for the Beguiler's spell list. I don't know if the Beguiler will push out a skill based rogue (like the warmage tends to push on the archer) but the print edition looks like a bad sign. Splitting INT and CHA (i.e. by CHA based casting) appears, at first glance, to be more logical. This is different than the Duskblade which looks strong but appears to play about right overall.
General_Ridley 08-09-06, 12:26 AM	The reason they don't do things like that is they hate to assume that anyone owns a non-Core book...because so many gamers don't own the full panoply. The Spell Compendium was a prime time to expand the spell list of the Warmage and several other classes, but they made the choice to stick with the core classes only. I doubt they will go back and update anything for the beguiler or the duskblade...and that's one of the drawbacks to those classes. besides, they get advanced learning. That's their way of adding spells. It's a way of keeping them in line compared to every other class.
Thurbane 08-09-06, 03:37 AM	The problem isn't with class balance, it's your refusal to use house rules to remedy. In fact topics like this would not exist if you, yes you readers who have no imagination, think outside The Box just a little. D&D was designed to be changed but you seem to follow Official Material to the letter. So, if you want sorcerers to be more powerful, then do it, just like I did with my group. And it works fine. But a majority of other unimaginative players will ignore you and continue to post lawyer-like disputes about "class balance". WOTC will NEVER change the Sorcerer no matter how many threads drag on about "alternative sorcerers" and "is the sorcerer not powerful enough?" so get over it. Yes these new classes just might be too powerful, but without a system of direct comparison it's all opinions. Leave them out of your own campaigns and ignore their existence if you don't like them. Wow, house rules, why didn't I think of that. Thanks, o-wise sage! [/sarcasm] It was a discussion about the balance of the class as it stands. Naturally I can (and do) houserule things that my group agrees will make the game better. Been doing so for the better part of 20 years now. :D ...just wanted to get some feedback on the balance by the RaW... ;)
Crimson_Concerto 08-09-06, 03:44 AM	It is an INT based caster. I think that such a character will tend to have a higher INT than a srtandard rogue because the payoff is extremely high as it maximizes both skills and spells. This makes me suspicious that this class will end up being a little better at skills than one might otherwise expect.Well I have trouble agreeing based on the fact that about half the rogues I've seen were more INT-based than DEX-based exactly because of skills, DEX simply being an important but still secondary stat, just like CON is for just about everything else. The the class with more skill points will depend on what style rogue we're talking about here. Also, I may be mistaken as I don't have the PHBII on me, but if I recall correctly, the Rogue has a lot more class skills than the Beguiler.
Fabius Maximus 08-09-06, 07:36 AM	@Zae: I know that some people want more base classes, but I think there are enough already. I have nothing against base classes with a different flavour, but stuff like Warmage, Dread Necro and Beguiler seem redundant to me, because they are similar in flavour to the sorcerer. And they make the sorcerer look bad. @Zagreen: -You level up sorcerer 1-5, but the warmage/etc. PrC requirements prevent you from taking any spells other than those of the same school(s) of magic the PrCs represent. So you're handicapping yourself during levels 1-5 and not getting any benefit from it. Weeeee, what fun! -You level up sorcerer 1-5, and as soon as you entire the warmage/etc. PrC any spells known that are not appropriate for the specialty PrC are lost in return for the specialty PrC's spells known. OK, I know there are rules for sorcerers swapping out spells as they level up, but it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you reach level 6 and suddenly all your previous class features are rewritten. Think farther ahead. The PrCs would make use of the sorcerer progression but would encourage taking appropriate spells through incentives like Spell Focus as prerequisite, or low skill prerequisites. It actually would have been quite easy to build these base classes as PrCs.
Zagreen 08-09-06, 11:28 AM	@Zagreen: Think farther ahead. The PrCs would make use of the sorcerer progression but would encourage taking appropriate spells through incentives like Spell Focus as prerequisite, or low skill prerequisites. It actually would have been quite easy to build these base classes as PrCs. Except if that's the case you're not building PrC versions of these classes at all. These classes aren't merely variant sorcerers, because their spellcasting actually works differently; if you build them using a variant on sorcerer progression, then you're building a wholly different class.
Elendur 08-09-06, 11:57 AM	@Zae: I know that some people want more base classes, but I think there are enough already. I have nothing against base classes with a different flavour, but stuff like Warmage, Dread Necro and Beguiler seem redundant to me, because they are similar in flavour to the sorcerer. And they make the sorcerer look bad. They certainly do. I think the sorcerer is on it's way out. I don't think the current designers like the sorcerer as written, and are replacing them with these type of classes. To which I say, about time. I've been using Monte Cook's variant sorcerer for about 4 years now.
OneWinged4ngel 08-09-06, 12:55 PM	I'm playing a beguiler at the moment. We got a standard array at 1st lvl and you know what? I need more skill points. If i had an INT 18 at 1st lvl I wouldn't have enough skill points. Just look at that skill list. eg - Diplomancer Diplomacy Bluff Sense Motive Gather Info Listen Concentration Disguise Hide Move silently UMD Guess what? When your stat is 15 and you're human you get 8 skill points. So tell me which skill from the list would you remove. This happens to any beguiler build. Try it yourself before dooming the class to non existence with "balance changes". Actually, if your stat is 15 and you're human you get 9 skill points. On top of that, I could drop Gather Info or Disguise or the completely useless Hide... And this also doesn't really reflect what usually happens, which is that you have 16-18 int and 9-13 skill points. That's more than the rogue. The Beguiler generally has more skill points than ANYTHING ELSE as it is now, and if that's not enough skill points for you then the problem is that everything needs more skill points (Which can certainly be argued) A Bard gets 6-8 skill points (And feels lame for it). Why shouldn't a Beguiler get something comparable, since a Bard is supposed to be a skill monkey as well? Anyways, the Beguiler is like a magic rogue, not a sorceror replacement, and this has to do more with the spell selection. You can replace a rogue in the party roster, and cover a bit of the arcane side. The lack of those key spells for variety cut you down some against a real sorceror. Also, remember that even though the sorceror has no real special abilities (Which is lame) people make him get those with PrCs. You can supplement your limited spells known with scrolls and magic items. A Beguiler has to use UMD for this (Which doesn't actually make a big difference...) Anyways, the Beguiler won't die from being Cha-based, but it's not completely game-breaking as it is, compared to other classes. If you're looking for the uber classes, I should point out those four over there... (*points to the wizard, cleric, druid, and artificer*)
EvilVegan 08-09-06, 02:51 PM	To the two people who tried to poke holes in my argument and ignored the point: I said that the beguiler beats the sorcerer because it CAN be better at other classes forte's and still be AS GOOD as a sorcerer, if not slightly better. You can contend that a bard could out-face a beguiler, but it would be a tough battle, and if a bard has to waste his very few spells known to get spells just to beat a beguiler at the diplomacy game he is hurting himself elsewhere. An int-based human rogue COULD beat a beguiler at finding traps and disabling, but they wouldn't have the stat points they'd need to compete elsewhere (such as combat, which is their other class focus). If there is a party with a rogue and beguiler, I'd suggest that the rogue spend more points on str/con/dex and let the beguiler do the job he's just as good at, and if there were a bard in the party he could save his skill points for knowledges and let the beguiler do the talking. So yes, SOME rogue and bard characters can certainly out perform a beguiler some of the time, but a sorcerer can never claim to out face a bard or out skill a rogue, where a beguiler gives most of them a very good run for their money, while still having more spells than a sorcerer. And I didn't say beguilers have better spell versatility. I said that sorcerers beat them in this area, but in doing so may sometimes be weaker (or less useful) in the process. The point (which you missed) is that a beguiler (balance-wise) is more powerful (or at least has better/more uses/crunchy superiority) because it can do things equivalent to 3 classes typical roles, has better armor, skills, hp, class abilities, and still has as many spells per day as a sorcerer and merely gives up spell "versatility" to gain access 47 more spells of various schools. So it may never get teleport, wish, or disrupt undead. . . But it could just dominate someone with access to those spells (after dispelling their mindblank). 20 sorcerer vs 20 beguiler How many ways does a sorcerer have to completely ignore spell resistance with spells that are affected by SR? ---- Beguiler wins How many ways can a sorcerer remove a trap? ---- Beguiler wins Who's got better armor? ---- Beguiler wins Who gets bonus metamagic feats (or any bonus feats, or any class abilities other than FAMILIAR)? ---- Beguiler wins Who's got more spells known? ---- Beguiler wins Who can cast mass hold monster, powerword kill, etherealness, and time stop (and still have more 9th level spells in ye olde repertoire)? ---- Beguiler wins Who MIGHT have a better spell on their paltry list? Sorcerer wins (maybe!) Who can cast wish? ---- Sorcerer wins -5000 xp! (maybe!) Who can cast fireball without magic items? ---- Sorcerer wins (maybe!) Who benefits MORE by not being FULL 20th LEVEL in their class? SORCERER FTW Sorcerer 1 vs Beguiler 1 Who's got more hp? ---- beguiler wins Who's got more spells to cast? ---- beguiler wins Who's able to fulfill a VITAL party role when all of his spells per day are gone? --- Beguiler wins (TWICE) Who's got a better AC? ---- If a sorcerer takes both mage armor and shield he wins, but can't do anything else, otherwise they're EVEN for up to 3-4 hours and then the Beguiler wins again! Who's got more starting gold? ---- . . . (seriously, I can't remember, but I'll guess that the beguiler does, and he doesn't have to burn 100 gold to get his only class ability to work)
Crimson_Concerto 08-09-06, 04:53 PM	EvilVegan, this is getting old, and it's becoming more and more clear that you're just stubborn. You're trying to poke holes in our arguments when it's you who is clearly ignoring the point of our rebuttles. The beguiler does not beat the sorcerer because it CAN'T be as good at other classes' fortes and ISN'T anywhere near as good as the sorcerer when it comes to spellcasting. The Bard outfaces the Beguiler no contest. I don't even see why this is an debatable point. He doesn't even HAVE to use his spells to do it if the beguiler doesn't either, because he's CHA-based. Saying is rogue could focus on one thing at the expense of others is exactly the same as with every other class. Just like if a Berbarian focuses more on STR than CON, he will do more damage but won't live as long. It's the same thing. Characters haev to make choises, and so does the beguiler. INT will be the primary concern for most but then you lose out on being the party face or being able to sneak around as well as a DEX-rogue. Granted, if both a Beguiler and a Rogue are in the same party (not the best party balance unless you have 5 or more players), You could cover more bases by having the rogue be a DEX-rogue. The bard argument, however, STILL doesn't hold. That's what the bard is there for, and the begulier simply can't measure up no matter how hard you try and make it seem like it can. I still don't see how in the world you're figuring greater spell versatily makes the sorcerer weaker, so I'm gonna just skip that part... The point which you are missing is that the Beguiler has the potential to beat out ONE of these classes at what it does best, and only half the time. Also, you say it "merely gives up spell 'versatility'" like spell varsatility means nothing. On the contrary. That is what makes the sorcerer a superior spellcaster. It's because the Beguiler loses so much that it gets more stuff to compensate. In all of your comparison, you STILL don't get it: THE BEGUILER SPELL LIST IS CRAP! THAT is where the sorcerer wins and wins by a lot; by some much that it's worth it to be a sorcerer instead if you aren't looking to specialize, and are actually looking to be a good sorcerer. The only casting class with a spell list arguably better than the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is the Archivist. The Beguiler has all that extra stuff because it gave up so much to be a Beguiler. Do you get it now? These specialist class have so much more than the sorcerer because they give up so much. Yes, the Sorcerer is still a sub-par casting class... when compared to the Wizard, but when compared to these specialist classes, unless you have a large party, the sorcerer will be much more valuable than any of them.
__DnD4Life__ 08-09-06, 05:39 PM	...The Bard outfaces the Beguiler no contest....Ha...ha..ha....thats good. A first level beguiler has first level spell right? What does the bard get? 0th level spells. Ya. Thought so. 20th level? Bard gets 6th. Beguiler gets 9th. Ya. THE BEGUILER SPELL LIST IS CRAP! True, which balances out the increased spell/day and spell list. But, it will still beat the bard. Seriously people. This class is balanced. There is nothing wrong with the specialist classes. If you dont like them, dont use them.
Fabius Maximus 08-09-06, 06:00 PM	Except if that's the case you're not building PrC versions of these classes at all. These classes aren't merely variant sorcerers, because their spellcasting actually works differently; if you build them using a variant on sorcerer progression, then you're building a wholly different class. I don't care. A base class less is worth it.
EvilVegan 08-09-06, 06:06 PM	EvilVegan, this is getting old, and it's becoming more and more clear that you're just stubborn. You're trying to poke holes in our arguments when it's you who is clearly ignoring the point of our rebuttles. The beguiler does not beat the sorcerer because it CAN'T be as good at other classes' fortes and ISN'T anywhere near as good as the sorcerer when it comes to spellcasting. The Bard outfaces the Beguiler no contest. I don't even see why this is an debatable point. He doesn't even HAVE to use his spells to do it if the beguiler doesn't either, because he's CHA-based. Saying is rogue could focus on one thing at the expense of others is exactly the same as with every other class. Just like if a Berbarian focuses more on STR than CON, he will do more damage but won't live as long. It's the same thing. Characters haev to make choises, and so does the beguiler. INT will be the primary concern for most but then you lose out on being the party face or being able to sneak around as well as a DEX-rogue. Granted, if both a Beguiler and a Rogue are in the same party (not the best party balance unless you have 5 or more players), You could cover more bases by having the rogue be a DEX-rogue. The bard argument, however, STILL doesn't hold. That's what the bard is there for, and the begulier simply can't measure up no matter how hard you try and make it seem like it can. I still don't see how in the world you're figuring greater spell versatily makes the sorcerer weaker, so I'm gonna just skip that part... The point which you are missing is that the Beguiler has the potential to beat out ONE of these classes at what it does best, and only half the time. Also, you say it "merely gives up spell 'versatility'" like spell varsatility means nothing. On the contrary. That is what makes the sorcerer a superior spellcaster. It's because the Beguiler loses so much that it gets more stuff to compensate. In all of your comparison, you STILL don't get it: THE BEGUILER SPELL LIST IS CRAP! THAT is where the sorcerer wins and wins by a lot; by some much that it's worth it to be a sorcerer instead if you aren't looking to specialize, and are actually looking to be a good sorcerer. The only casting class with a spell list arguably better than the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is the Archivist. The Beguiler has all that extra stuff because it gave up so much to be a Beguiler. Do you get it now? These specialist class have so much more than the sorcerer because they give up so much. Yes, the Sorcerer is still a sub-par casting class... when compared to the Wizard, but when compared to these specialist classes, unless you have a large party, the sorcerer will be much more valuable than any of them. Saying things in a larger font makes you right. You are wrong. A sorcerer is not more valuable than a beguiler. In some cases, if played and built properly, and with a good party backing them up a sorcerer could possibly be as useful as a beguiler, but the beguiler has more mechanical advantages, it is built into the class. How does spell versatility make a sorcerer weaker? Well. . . if I have to choose spells to be more versatile and I only have 3-5 spells per spell level I'm going to give up spells that could potentially make me more useful in favor of other ones to cover more situations (ie more versatile). For instance: A 10th level sorcerer could pick teleport. This would be VERY useful, but he could also take baleful polymorph, which would be useful, but not versatile. Or wall of force for battlefield control. Telekinesis? Which spell makes them versatile? Which one makes them useful? They're all nice, but taking ones that make you very good in combat limits your usefulness in other areas, taking one for other areas makes you less useful in combat, and so on. A beguiler doesn't have this problem, they get all of their spells at 10th level, but sure a lot of them overlap with other spells, but they have battlefield control, they've got single-target save or dies (or mind-affecting equivalents), they've got long distance communication, they get a long distance travel spell, they get dimension travelling spells, they get dispel magic, and of course they get illusions. They've got spells from almost every school. They're incredibly versatile and you are ignoring this in favor of trying to out argue me. They're much more versatile than war mage and dread necromancer. The only things they'll have trouble against are constructs, plants, and undead. And what campaigns have those creatures? (/sarcasm) The beguiler has several of the best spells in the game on his list, along with several good ones. OH NOES at 18th level he doesn't get wish! ! I can do it too! And when did you ever show that sorcerers can out skill a rogue? How about coming close to being a party face on level with the bard? All you've shown is that bards and rogues CAN be better than a beguiler in those areas (not something I'm going to argue, its entirely obvious). How about class abilities? How about armor? HD? Skill points? Oh wait, its obvious that they lose this battle. Spells per day are the same. Spells known isn't even a contest. What spells are SO good that they balance these aspects out? I can't think of any spells that are better to the degree that it would be worth sacrificing half of these benefits, let alone all of them.
archerpwr 08-09-06, 06:44 PM	{Wizo_Cat: Ok, let's keep it nice ...} A sorcorer is a combat focused wizard. a Beguiler is a stealth/secondary skill monkey wizard. in combat a beguiler always wins even with the higher hp. a sorcorer simply casts fireball at beguilers low touch ac after a trueshot for insta fried beguiler. a begiuler always loses to the combat oreinted caster (sorcerer is jus the arcane artilery wizard is utility magic) because the combat caster is better at combat spells (he can cast them) therefore beguiler is balanced (maybe a lil weak) because it gives up almost all the standard blaster spells in favor of trickery spells. beguiler jus fills in another niche that has up until this point been unfilled. the spell list for beguilers is crap for combat so it is just another balanced class.
archerpwr 08-09-06, 06:46 PM	PS for a stealth character the warlock pwns both sorcerer and beguiler because he can be invisible and fly all day long for scouting (flying doesnt make much noise). he could even hover 12 inches above the floor and take 20 on his move silently check and be invisible at same time. warlock for the win on replacing scouting.
EvilVegan 08-09-06, 06:50 PM	since one of u is being a stubborn child (whoever keeps insisting that beguiler is better) i will spell it out to you. A sorcorer is a combat focused wizard. a Beguiler is a stealth/secondary skill monkey wizard. in combat a beguiler always wins even with the higher hp. a sorcorer simply casts fireball at beguilers low touch ac after a trueshot for insta fried beguiler. a begiuler always loses to the combat oreinted caster (sorcerer is jus the arcane artilery wizard is utility magic) because the combat caster is better at combat spells (he can cast them) therefore beguiler is balanced (maybe a lil weak) because it gives up almost all the standard blaster spells in favor of trickery spells. beguiler jus fills in another niche that has up until this point been unfilled. the spell list for beguilers is crap for combat so it is just another balanced class. Nice arguing strategy. Insults work for you often? If so, by all means keep up the insults, the poor spelling/grammar, and the poorly thought out arguments. A sorcerer is not a combat focused wizard. This is a completely unfounded claim. The sorcerer above seems to have a poor understanding of both how fireball and truestrike work if he thinks he needs either for the other to work. Since when does invisibility give you a low touch AC? Also, why is the beguiler in your example not getting to cast any spells? So yes, a beguiler without actions versus the worst played sorcerer in the world may lose. Also, I never said the beguiler was "better" I'm saying they aren't "balanced", which isn't the same thing at all.
Eela6 08-09-06, 07:22 PM	Basically, it boils down to options. Now, a Sorcerer may seem to have more options. He has a far wider spell list, for one. But it comes down to the fact that when a Beguiler, a Wizard, and a Sorcerer hit level eight, here is what happens. Sorcerer: "Sweet! Fourth level spells. I take Greater Invisibility as my *one* fourth level spell. I took Fireball and Fly as my third-level ones, so I can fly around while invisible and blast people." Beguiler: "Shiny. Fourth level spells. Okay, Sorcerer, you've got Greater Invisibility. So do I, but I also have skill points, armor, and many more spells to cast." Wizard: "You guys are all losers. I've had Fly, Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, and Polymorph for a level already." Now, theoretically a Sorcerer with well-chosen spells can out-perform a Beguiler. That same Beguiler can sigh, grab an Amulet of Wisdom +6, put his thirteen into Wisdom and use pick up the Travel and Luck domains [I believe there's a diety or two with both] and have fun with spontaneous casting of Fly, Teleport, Dimension Door, and Miracle (Also Known as every single Cleric spell of 8th level or lower and every single wizard/sor spell of 7th level or lower). A Sorcerer could do this too - but then he has to spend his precious spells known slots on Cleric spells, many of which he could've taken anyways (but now he wasted a feat). A Beguiler has direction and purpose. The Sorcerer, thanks to certain people in design [Yes, you, Skip Williams], is basically just a gimped wizard who looks like an idiot and fumbles around with spell components, even though he supposedly has 'internal' casting.
neostrider 08-09-06, 08:05 PM	Sorcerer: "Sweet! Fourth level spells. I take Greater Invisibility as my *one* fourth level spell. I took Fireball and Fly as my third-level ones, so I can fly around while invisible and blast people." Beguiler: "Shiny. Fourth level spells. Okay, Sorcerer, you've got Greater Invisibility. So do I, but I also have skill points, armor, and many more spells to cast." Ok, Beguiler has all those 'extra' things, but none of those matter when the sorceror casts fireball. I agree that sorceror is the spellcasting artillery because a wizard entering a fight will have a predetermined list of spells to cast in the fight, and fewer attack spells no matter what he has memorized. A sorceror can pick up a few spells, and as long as there's 1 attack spell on that list he'll always be armed with several deadly attacks. Not just the ones he has memorized. Beguiler has mind-affecting attack spells, which render's him the least likely to survive an undead encounter. Beguilers are good for people who want to play a bard but want to trade in the bardic music for other interesting abilities. Sorc vs. Beguiler could go either way depending on the sorceror's strategy and spell list, but sorceror has more options like summon monster and magic missle. Now, theoretically a Sorcerer with well-chosen spells can out-perform a Beguiler. That same Beguiler can sigh, grab an Amulet of Wisdom +6, put his thirteen into Wisdom and use pick up the Travel and Luck domains [I believe there's a diety or two with both] and have fun with spontaneous casting of Fly, Teleport, Dimension Door, and Miracle (Also Known as every single Cleric spell of 8th level or lower and every single wizard/sor spell of 7th level or lower). A Sorcerer could do this too - but then he has to spend his precious spells known slots on Cleric spells, many of which he could've taken anyways (but now he wasted a feat). Wha? Now we're taking cleric spells? I'm not sure how you're doin that, but I'm assuming it's something from exalted deeds. If you look at the description of that feat, are you sure it adds the spells to the spell's known list or the spell's available list. There's an important distinction, because I remember this coming up in my game. If its only added to spell's available, then Beguiler would never learn those spells. Maybe, if you DM overlooks the line in advanced learning that specifies sorc/wiz list. A Beguiler has direction and purpose. The Sorcerer, thanks to certain people in design [Yes, you, Skip Williams], is basically just a gimped wizard who looks like an idiot and fumbles around with spell components, even though he supposedly has 'internal' casting. Sorcerer needs to stop getting picked on. Wizard has a book full of useful tool type spells. Sorcerers have a smaller list of spells that will get used more. I understand this as a wizard with a list full of spells like fly, flesh to stone, teleport. Stuff you'd sit down for 15 minutes to learn and then use once. The sorceror is going to pick spells like fireball, scorching ray, combat spells that will get used again and again in combat. Wizards don't know what they'll run into, and if they memorize all attack spells then that 1 puzzle you run into will halt the group for at least a day.
DragonChild_ 08-09-06, 08:08 PM	Beguiler has mind-affecting attack spells, which render's him the least likely to survive an undead encounter. Actually, so long as the undead are mindless, the Beguiler should be able to completely school them over with illusions. If the goal is "survive an encounter against mindless undead", I'd give the Beguiler the BEST chance to win - more so than any other class, cleric and wizard included.
neostrider 08-09-06, 08:11 PM	Since when does invisibility give you a low touch AC? Also, why is the beguiler in your example not getting to cast any spells? Also, I never said the beguiler was "better" I'm saying they aren't "balanced", which isn't the same thing at all. I think he's taking into account that if he's invisible, then the beguiler is caught denied his dex. How would the beguiler know where to attack? are they starting 10 paces apart? If they are, the beguiler would probably cast invis too, but then we can speculate on every option in the book and how it would end. If they aren't balanced, then one has an advantage over the other, ie one is better. Honestly, it depends on how its played and where its played. I think we can all agree that in an undead heavy campaign the beguiler wouldn't be so cool.
neostrider 08-09-06, 08:15 PM	Actually, so long as the undead are mindless, the Beguiler should be able to completely school them over with illusions. If the goal is "survive an encounter against mindless undead", I'd give the Beguiler the BEST chance to win - more so than any other class, cleric and wizard included. Un-intelligent undead don't get saves. Intelligent undead still do. So agaisnt skeletons and zombies we can lead them around with an illusion and sneak past. there's an article in 'Rules of the Game' discussing illusions that explain in detail every aspect of illusions, and half the illusions spells are mind-affecting cleric should win that, 2 turning attempts tops. Wizard could fireball or use illusions just as well, depending on the school. Depends on spell's known and what he has memorized
DragonChild_ 08-09-06, 08:19 PM	A beguiler is at a disadvantage against intelligent undead. No denying that. However, I take an issue with your claim that 'half of illusions are mind-affecting'. Silent Image and that line of spells, Invisibility, Shadow Evocation/Conjuration, etc - all those spells aren't. Phantasmal spells are, but how many of them are there? Far less than half of illusions are mind-effecting. Edit: The rules of the game articles are lame, too. Skip Williams thinks you get all of a nymph's spells if you polymorph into one, and that both 'pain' and 'touch' are included in the five senses.
neostrider 08-09-06, 08:38 PM	I don't know about the Skip Williams thing. I honestly just shake my head whenever I hear polymorph because we had a character abuse it (using the 3.5 rules before all the articles and discussion on the deal) and luckily it scarred us enough we don't bother anymore. Ok, I exagerrated a bit with the illusions thing, but I'm just saying that Beguiler isn't as good as it sounds, and sorceror is not as bad off. If one is better than the other, the gap was never big enough that our game with one of each never really showed it. They each had fun doing their parts and teamwork always won the day. In combat, the sorceror was always on top, with beguiler being almost the worst, seconded only maybe by the cleric who was doing critical healing. Each class fills a role well, and I don't think either cancels out the other, so comparing them isn't that easy because they do different things
Crimson_Concerto 08-09-06, 09:40 PM	And when did you ever show that sorcerers can out skill a rogue? How about coming close to being a party face on level with the bard? All you've shown is that bards and rogues CAN be better than a beguiler in those areas (not something I'm going to argue, its entirely obvious). How about class abilities? How about armor? HD? Skill points? Oh wait, its obvious that they lose this battle. Spells per day are the same. Spells known isn't even a contest. What spells are SO good that they balance these aspects out?I didn't show Sorcerers are better at skilsl than the rogue, because they're not, and I didn't show they were better than Bards at being the party face, because they're not. If the Sorcerers had both of those and their spellcasting, they woudl be pretty overpowered. Do you seriously still not understand what I'm debating? I'm trying to show you that while the Beguiler can be better at the Rogue at being a skill-monkey half the time, it has no hope of being a better parts face than a Bard, and it also has no hope of being as good a primary spellcaster as a Sorcerer. I'm not denying that the Begiuler has options. You're just denying that the Sorcerer has more or them. For the last time, The Beguiler has better skills, HD, and armor than the sorcerer, and some even some class abilities, because the sorcerer has a much better spell list. The fact that you wrote that paragraph shows me one of three things: A) You aren't reading what I'm writing. B) You're reading it but don't get it. C) You're reading it and getting it but are too stubborn to admit you're wrong. Now, I'm hoping it's not C, I really am, but no matter which it is, I'm done arguing with you about it, because you either don't understand what I'm saying or don't care, so there's no further purpose.
Zagreen 08-09-06, 10:00 PM	I don't care. A base class less is worth it. Nah. If you can make a more balanced and diverse game by building something as a base class rather than a feat chain or prestige class (and you usually can), go for it. Deliberately limiting the number of base classes just for its own sake was never a particularly solid design goal and I'm heartily glad WotC has been throwing that concept to the wind lately. [EDIT] Anyways, back to the original subject: the beguiler's spell list is much smaller than the wizard/sorcerer list, but not exactly crap. Compare what the beguiler gets to what the warmage gets--sorcerers beat warmages hands down in spite of the warmage's armor, better HD, extra class features, etc., because warmages are purely a one-trick pony; a sorcerer will always have more utility spells than a warmage. A beguiler is not a one-trick pony; a beguiler will always have more utility spells than a sorcerer. This is not to say that the sorcerer is suddenly obsolete, but beguilers have a bit of an edge because they have both a greater depth of specialty and a greater breadth of general usefulness.
EvilVegan 08-09-06, 10:11 PM	I didn't show Sorcerers are better at skilsl than the rogue, because they're not, and I didn't show they were better than Bards at being the party face, because they're not. If the Sorcerers had both of those and their spellcasting, they woudl be pretty overpowered. Do you seriously still not understand what I'm debating? I'm trying to show you that while the Beguiler can be better at the Rogue at being a skill-monkey half the time, it has no hope of being a better parts face than a Bard, and it also has no hope of being as good a primary spellcaster as a Sorcerer. I'm not denying that the Begiuler has options. You're just denying that the Sorcerer has more or them. For the last time, The Beguiler has better skills, HD, and armor than the sorcerer, and some even some class abilities, because the sorcerer has a much better spell list. The fact that you wrote that paragraph shows me one of three things: A) You aren't reading what I'm writing. B) You're reading it but don't get it. C) You're reading it and getting it but are too stubborn to admit you're wrong. Now, I'm hoping it's not C, I really am, but no matter which it is, I'm done arguing with you about it, because you either don't understand what I'm saying or don't care, so there's no further purpose. I am reading it. I do get it. I admit that a sorcerer has a better spell list. The beguiler is STILL unbalanced in favor of the beguiler. There aren't enough spells given up that super-charge the sorcerer enough to balance the issue, mostly because the sorcerer can't know enough of the really good ones to compete with the class abilities. A better spell list to CHOSE from doesn't mean a sorcerer is balanced mechanically to a beguiler, because the beguiler spell list is above-average (I'd even say it is great) and they know all of them automatically, AND they still get everything else. An individual sorcerer could perhaps beat a beguiler. This would be in the arena of buffing and area damage. The first is better handled by bards/clerics and focusing in this would be a waste of a sorcerer potential (though a few on the list wouldn't hurt), the second is quite important, but not really worth a complete lack of class abilities, hit die, skill points, and bonus metamagic feats. A beguiler gets more efficient use of feats that he does take, such as spell focus (Enchantment) and due to a few bonus feats he can take other feats to be even better. A sorcerer has potential to be almost as good as a beguiler if he has very good spells and PrCs, but a straight 20 sorcerer is mechanically under-powered compared to a straight 20 beguiler. And you haven't shown that a beguiler "has no hope of being a better parts face than a Bard " to be a party face you need 5 ranks each in bluff, sense motive, and knowledge (nobility) and max ranks in diplomacy, and maybe speak languages (if you don't want to waste a spell). Sure, At 20th level a focused diplomacy bard can get +100 or higher on a diplomacy check, but guess what you don't need over 60 DC to turn someone from hostile to friendly in one round, which is easy to achieve with 23 ranks in diplomacy, +6 synergy, +3 charisma, and a +30 item, which are all very easy to obtain. If both roll a 1 the exact same thing occurs. That to me makes them as good a party face, or at least gives him "hope" to compete. At most I could see a bard having a charisma about 6 points higher than a beguiler, maybe higher end game, which nets. . . oh yea, +3 Maybe +6. WOW. Oh wait, that's right he can waste his spells known for diplomacy boosting spells, good idea, that will make him a much better buffer/healer.
Fuzzy_Logic 08-09-06, 11:58 PM	First of all, I'll concede that a low-levle beguiler is VASTLY better than a low-levle sorcerer. more HP, mroe skills, mroe spells known, and many fo teh esbt ones, like sleep. But, I think someone asked "what spells do sorcerers get that are so good?" Bull's Strength Fly, Fireball Polymorph Summon Monster That's just five spells out of the forty-three, and yet already the sorcerer is ten times more versatile than the beguiler will ever be.
Fabius Maximus 08-10-06, 06:48 AM	Nah. If you can make a more balanced and diverse game by building something as a base class rather than a feat chain or prestige class (and you usually can), go for it. Deliberately limiting the number of base classes just for its own sake was never a particularly solid design goal and I'm heartily glad WotC has been throwing that concept to the wind lately. Oh yeah. Back to 2nd edition with its myriads of class kits. Hell, I wish they'd banish classes at all. Systems without classes work much more smoothly.
Anauroch 08-10-06, 07:23 AM	And still the discussion continues... :P I don't think one can compare the Beguiler to the Sorcerer by imitating a duell between the two. I also think that IF one wants to compare those two, then one has to agree on certain parameters... it all boils down to what the campaign is like! At the moment I'm playing in an investigative city campaign where we don't have much combat and if so, then our enemies are human for the most part. This is not a standard D&D setting at all, but in this setting the Beguiler just rocks!! Bull's Strength Fly, Fireball Polymorph Summon Monster What do you need Bull's Strength for? If you're talking about party buffs, then the Beguiler has enough of them at the ready! A few examples from levels one to three: Mage Armor (Monk, rogue, sorc might be thankful), Blur, Invisibility, Spiderclimb, Displacement, Haste Fireball? Pfff... How about mass whelm? A will save with a DC of above 20 probably? Ouch! And all those incredibly useful spells the Beguiler has on his list... Agreed, they're only useful at times, but then they really rock! Raw power facing different opponents? Look at the 4th and 5th level spells: Confusion, Mass Whelm, Charm Monster - Dominate Person, Feeblemind, Hold Monster, or swift Etherealness... wow... One more thing to remember... IF the sorcerer can be a 'more powerful' character than a beguiler (whatever that may mean under whatever parameters), then it all depends on the players being able to make a very good to perfect build for one. A player with a beguiler just gets an awesome character without input from himself! :D
Thurbane 08-10-06, 08:00 AM	The beguiler is STILL unbalanced in favor of the beguiler. There aren't enough spells given up that super-charge the sorcerer enough to balance the issue, mostly because the sorcerer can't know enough of the really good ones to compete with the class abilities. A better spell list to CHOSE from doesn't mean a sorcerer is balanced mechanically to a beguiler, because the beguiler spell list is above-average (I'd even say it is great) and they know all of them automatically, AND they still get everything else.My point exactly. Well said.
Votan 08-10-06, 09:22 AM	I am still unclear as to how bad the Beguiler list is. I have a similar problem with the Dread Necromancer but it isn't as bad. I do notice that a very high percentage of the "must have" sorcerer spells are on the list: both low level ones like Color Spray + Glitterdust + Spider Climb and high levels ones like Moment of Prescience + Time Stop. This is not a helpful start. Add in whlem and they can do damage (albiet in an unusual way). Now, I notice that a Beguiler will have better HP and AC than a Sorcerer. Sure, they have powers usable in melee. I mostly ignore these. Now skills: The beguiler has 29 class skills; the rogue has 29 class skills. Carefully note the same number. Now, the Beguiler has a few like Knowledge(Arcane) and spellcraft that the rogue doesn't while the Rogue has craft and perform. Add in INT based casting syngergy and it is unclear just how much those 2 skill points hurt. So the issue that balances the Beguiler is limits. These limits are spell list based. They are transportation and damage spells. Advanced learning isn't perfect because the Spell Compendium has so many useful spells to add to Illusion and Enchantment. Arcane Disciple can do amazing things to fix this; Travel or (even better) Portal fixes the transport spells problem. Slime is an amazing domain with anti-undead as well as anti-person options. Evard's Black Tentacles and Melf's Acid Arrow are a tough combination to make work but they do wonders. Add in Grease, Poison (if you are going to melee why not kill), Destruction and Implosion. If you want to add in anti-undead look closely at Glory. It isn't the joy of Slime but it leaves the Beguiler with useful anti-undead options. Also possibilites are Fire and Destruction. In any case, one feat and the lack of a terrible wisdom score can solve a high percentage of these problems by shoring up at least one weakness. This is very different than the warmage where this trick gets you much less relatively speaking. It may not be unbalanced but it is very good.
Witch 08-10-06, 09:27 AM	What all you people argueing about "imbalanced compared to sorcerer" etcetera seem to be forgetting is the following: So-called imbalance is only relevant if it's noticeable ingame. Now, will your sorcerer feel useless because there's a beguiler in the game? Will your wizard? Your fighter? No. The only ones who have a remote chance of feeling useless is the bard and the rogue. This is because both are underpowered. The rogue might still be useful, however, in combat. Especially at low levels. He's also likely to have a high dex score, and hence will be better at some of the skills. In other words: none of all this "balance" will matter in an actual game, it'll only matter on paper. Even -if- the beguiler is superior to other classes, it wouldn't actually matter ingame, since it's not in a way that obviously outshines everyone else.
ff6shadow 08-10-06, 09:31 AM	In my personal experience, the cover on the beguiler is good, but inside it isn't so great. I've run my campaign from level 1-6. The party is well balanced, if slightly skewed for damage dealing. (Barbarian, Warlock, Favoured Soul, Beguiler) The character playing the beguiler is my most talented, skilled, and experienced player, with 90% of his characters being full or damn near full arcane casters. Yet, despite all or your claims of the beguilers superiority, his character can't pass muster. He manages a functional party face, but his charisma lacks to much to be truly effective here. He constantly lacks decisive spells that he would have otherwise had (Scorching Ray, Summon Monster, Ray of Enfeeblement, Web, Darkvision, Identify, Blink, Fly) and can't be consistent enough on UMD to count on scrolls for these spells in combat. And for the finisher, despite his increased hit die, he can't muster enough AC or HP to make a stand in combat to feint and activate his class abilities. Over the entire campaign, the Favoured Soul, with nothing but healing and restoartive spells and a 10 Str, has been more effective in combat and out. The beguiler's typical combat actions have been Haste, then hide while hoping that an enemy will actually fail a save. While I personally think they overstepped the Beguiler's specialty when selecting spells for it's list (examples below), I stand by the statement that it looks good on paper, but doens't run that well. *The Beguiler seems flavoured as the spontaneous Enchanter/Illusionist, along the same lines as the Warmage being Evoker/Conjurer, and the Dread Ncromancy was a Necromancer/Conjurer. Thus the following spells don't really belong, and this is just the 1-4th level spells. Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, Obscuring Mist, Undetectable Alignment, Detect Thoughts, Fog Cloud, Glitterdust, Knock, See Invisibility, Silence, Spider Climb, Arcane Sight, Clairaudience, Dispel Magic, Glibness, Halt, Haste, Nondetection, Slow, Zone of Silence, Freedom of Movement, Locate Creature, Solid Fog. To finish up, while I believe that these focused spellcasters are a good addition to the game, each one seems to fall just under par, or appear to be over par, balance wise. Whether this is the Warmages inability to deal with anything that can't simply be blasted, the Dread Necromancers automatic loss to anything with a simple potion (Protection from Evil) and immunity to Necromancy effects, the the Beguilers to spread abilities and loss the mindless creatures. If fact, I think I may start working on my own varient of these specialists now.
EvilVegan 08-10-06, 10:09 AM	I've run my campaign from level 1-6. The party is well balanced, if slightly skewed for damage dealing. (Barbarian, Warlock, Favoured Soul, Beguiler) The character playing the beguiler is my most talented, skilled, and experienced player, with 90% of his characters being full or damn near full arcane casters. Yet, despite all or your claims of the beguilers superiority, his character can't pass muster. He manages a functional party face, but his charisma lacks to much to be truly effective here. He constantly lacks decisive spells that he would have otherwise had (Scorching Ray, Summon Monster, Ray of Enfeeblement, Web, Darkvision, Identify, Blink, Fly) and can't be consistent enough on UMD to count on scrolls for these spells in combat. And for the finisher, despite his increased hit die, he can't muster enough AC or HP to make a stand in combat to feint and activate his class abilities. Over the entire campaign, the Favoured Soul, with nothing but healing and restoartive spells and a 10 Str, has been more effective in combat and out. The beguiler's typical combat actions have been Haste, then hide while hoping that an enemy will actually fail a save. He really shouldn't be in melee, regardless of what class abilities he has. He is better off letting other people deny dex or turning invis to get that to work (all very easy). But that doesn't change the fact that a sorcerer in that party would be even worse than a beguiler, because you wouldn't have a face or trap-finder, and the damage would still lag behind after a few encounters. The only party I could see a beguiler useless in is one with both a rogue and another arcane caster, especially a sorcerer or bard. But in three man groups I'd rather have warrior, healer, beguiler than warrior, healer, sorcerer or bard or rogue. In 4 man groups with a warrior, healer, beguiler, I'd rather have a monk as secondary melee (over rogue), especially if the healer is a cleric archer, if there isn't ranged I'd like a ranger or a warlock (over monk/rogue/bard). And if you want to be extremely sassy I think fighter/barbarian, cleric (archer), beguiler, and warmage or dread necro wouldn't be too bad of a party, and would be better than having a rogue and a sorcerer. Beguilers don't do damage directly, except non-lethal (great for exalted games), but if the only thing a party is concerned with is killin the mobs, grabbin the loot, and levelling up you would probably be better served by playing mmorpgs. I'm not saying that those campaigns aren't fun, though. But what is the value count of dealing absolutely 0 damage to an enemy and taking him completely out of the combat, or better yet turning him to fight his friends? Its like an automatic kill + damage to others. Are you guys playing an undead/construct/plant heavy game or are there no traps and few encounters with talking?
ff6shadow 08-10-06, 10:14 AM	Actually, he's wanting to replace the character with a Human Rogue 1/Wizard 7, with the Able Learner feat. Better skill access, though less skill points, much better spell list, and the level of rogue, delays the spell level same as the Beguiler. And no it's not heavy on the mindless types, but the party manages to straight talk their way through talking encounters without skill checks, and the babarian and warlock actually are decent faces.
Witch 08-10-06, 10:14 AM	*The Beguiler seems flavoured as the spontaneous Enchanter/Illusionist, along the same lines as the Warmage being Evoker/Conjurer, and the Dread Ncromancy was a Necromancer/Conjurer. Thus the following spells don't really belong, and this is just the 1-4th level spells. Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, Obscuring Mist, Undetectable Alignment, Detect Thoughts, Fog Cloud, Glitterdust, Knock, See Invisibility, Silence, Spider Climb, Arcane Sight, Clairaudience, Dispel Magic, Glibness, Halt, Haste, Nondetection, Slow, Zone of Silence, Freedom of Movement, Locate Creature, Solid Fog. The beguiler is also themed as a sneaky schemer. As such, this encompasses almost all of the spells you have just listed, excepting mage armor, glitterdust, see invisibility, arcane sight, dispel magic, clairaudience, halt, haste, slow, locate creature. Dispel magic is a requirement because of the danger of mindblanks at high levels. Dispel those. In other words, let Dispel Magic on the list. See Invis, Arcane Sight, Clairaudience, Halt, Locate Creature could serve as an infiltrator type. Keep them on the list, they fit. Haste, Glitterdust, Slow & Mage Armor were given to the beguiler, imo, so he doesnt feel entirely useless against creatures immune to mind affecting :)
Todd 08-10-06, 10:44 AM	Haste, Glitterdust, Slow & Mage Armor were given to the beguiler, imo, so he doesnt feel entirely useless against creatures immune to mind affecting :) Agree. My impression is that the Beguiler doesn't seem overpowered ... though I would have felt a bit better if it had Cha as a casting stat rather than Int. Folks wouldn't be complaining about the skill points so much if that were the case I think. I do think that the Beguiler is "better" than the Warmage or Dread Necromancer in most parties but that's largely due to the fact that he can fill one or two of the primary party roles, namely Trapfinder & Face. Warmage is nearly always suggested as a 5th party member & I feel roughly the same about the DN. None of the three really replace a true Sorcerer or Wizard as a party arcanist. In addition to pure class compairsons I think that it's useful to see what you can do with multiclassing or PrCs. And to me it seems like the Beguiler is a more useful fit over more levels than the Warmage ... at least in my builds anyway.
EvilVegan 08-10-06, 12:00 PM	Actually, he's wanting to replace the character with a Human Rogue 1/Wizard 7, with the Able Learner feat. Better skill access, though less skill points, much better spell list, and the level of rogue, delays the spell level same as the Beguiler. And no it's not heavy on the mindless types, but the party manages to straight talk their way through talking encounters without skill checks, and the babarian and warlock actually are decent faces. That makes sense then, but its not due to any fault of the beguiler. Rogue/wizard is good too (same spell progression almost, with infinite flexibility). He could even be a specialist enchanter if he wanted to stay with the feel of the class and get a few extry spells.
archerpwr 08-10-06, 12:02 PM	umm... so has everyone come to the conclusion that the beguiler isnt overpowering compared to sorcorer because of its lack of a broad (types of spells not number) spell list being traded in to make it somewhat cover the rogue and bard roles?
ff6shadow 08-10-06, 12:16 PM	Witch, I agree with you on Dispel Magic, I've house rules that the Dread Necromancer and Warmage have both Dispel and Greater Dispel on their spell list as well. I meant to delete it from the spells I think they shouldn't have, but forgot to. No spell caster is complete without the ability to eliminate opposing magic. And while those spells make sense for a stealthy rogue spellcaster, the Beguiler was formed based on the model of the warmage and dread necromancer. Which implies an excellent knowledge of one to two schools of magic, and few abilities added on top, thrown in with and increased HD, and light armor, penalized by the lack of versatility a standard spellcaster would have. I'd like to believe that the primary problem with the beguiler is that they chose to unit two schools of magic that both share the exact same weakness, and are blocked by the exact same immunities and spells. Thinking about it some more, I'd call it a case of looking powerful but suffering from that single poor design choice that many thing suffer from. Its a one trick pony when relying on it's own spellcasting abilities, making it far to easy to defend against, same with things such as tripping fighters, power attacking ragers, sneak attack rogues, war mages, and everything else tht only has one method of shutting down its opponents.
Zagreen 08-10-06, 12:29 PM	Oh yeah. Back to 2nd edition with its myriads of class kits. Hell, I wish they'd banish classes at all. Systems without classes work much more smoothly. I reiterate: nah. Functioning smoothly is the advantage of class systems. Character creation? OK, I'm a bard. DING! I'm halfway done. Classless systems of similar complexity don't work nearly so smoothly; that's the price they pay for greater flexibility. And again, back to the topic: umm... so has everyone come to the conclusion that the beguiler isnt overpowering compared to sorcorer because of its lack of a broad (types of spells not number) spell list being traded in to make it somewhat cover the rogue and bard roles? This argument works against the Warmage and to a lesser extent the Dread Necromancer, but it does become a bit shakier against the Beguiler. Beguilers do have a spell list that can at least compete with sorcerers in terms of breadth; the difference is that although beguiler's spells can cover a wide base, there are still things it absolutely can't cover without feats/PrCs to expand their spell list. So they're still not overpoweringly overpowered, but they are generally better.
EvilVegan 08-10-06, 12:46 PM	umm... so has everyone come to the conclusion that the beguiler isnt overpowering compared to sorcorer because of its lack of a broad (types of spells not number) spell list being traded in to make it somewhat cover the rogue and bard roles? Overpowering is a bit of a misnomer. I think it isn't balanced compared to them. Compare the difference between a specialist wizard (gives up 2 schools for 1 extra spell per day) and a specialist sorcerer (such as the beguiler : gives up spell access for greater spell knowledge, better class abilities, higher hit die, better armor, and better class skills). This difference is staggering. The balance issues are easy to overcome with moderate house rules, I suggest any of the following: Change to beguiler to balance: Charisma based casting or 4+int skill points or both No bonus metamagic feats Change to sorcerer to balance: Increase HD to d6 Improve class skill list Eschew materials for free Increase spells known Bonus metamagics
General_Ridley 08-10-06, 01:28 PM	Witch, I agree with you on Dispel Magic, I've house rules that the Dread Necromancer and Warmage have both Dispel and Greater Dispel on their spell list as well. I meant to delete it from the spells I think they shouldn't have, but forgot to. No spell caster is complete without the ability to eliminate opposing magic. And while those spells make sense for a stealthy rogue spellcaster, the Beguiler was formed based on the model of the warmage and dread necromancer. Which implies an excellent knowledge of one to two schools of magic, and few abilities added on top, thrown in with and increased HD, and light armor, penalized by the lack of versatility a standard spellcaster would have. I'd like to believe that the primary problem with the beguiler is that they chose to unit two schools of magic that both share the exact same weakness, and are blocked by the exact same immunities and spells. Thinking about it some more, I'd call it a case of looking powerful but suffering from that single poor design choice that many thing suffer from. Its a one trick pony when relying on it's own spellcasting abilities, making it far to easy to defend against, same with things such as tripping fighters, power attacking ragers, sneak attack rogues, war mages, and everything else tht only has one method of shutting down its opponents. Dread Necromancer already has Dispel and Greater Dsipel.
Votan 08-10-06, 03:26 PM	The only ones who have a remote chance of feeling useless is the bard and the rogue. This is because both are underpowered. The rogue might still be useful, however, in combat. Especially at low levels. He's also likely to have a high dex score, and hence will be better at some of the skills. In other words: none of all this "balance" will matter in an actual game, it'll only matter on paper. Even -if- the beguiler is superior to other classes, it wouldn't actually matter ingame, since it's not in a way that obviously outshines everyone else. Interestingly, I think low level is where the biggest difference would be faced. The Beguiler has a good assortment of low level spell (Mage Armor, Glitterdust, Sleep, Color Spray) and very low level arcanists have very few spells (Sorcerer has 2 first level spells known total until level 3). The rogue has the same BAB until level 3 and sneak attack doesn't start to come into play until slightly higher levels. If the DM is fair with save or die spells, a Beguiler with 15 INT has a DC 13 save for a 1st level spell and many 1st level opponents will have will saves of +0 or -1 (55-60% chance of failure). Every second spell cast should drop an opponent. That isn't bad. Also, the assortment of skills is very noce. It's actually higher level play where the sorcerer will have been able to diversify their list (and thus not have gapng holes) and some really tough encounters can show up where it is hard to use the Beguiler list that I think the class begins to be less special. I am less impressed with the 4th-7th level spells available to the Beguiler than the near perfect pick of top 1st and 2nd level spells. It picks up again at 8th and 9th level and I think 3rd level spells are a bit of a push. But the low levels seem to make this obvious unless undead are routine.
__DnD4Life__ 08-10-06, 03:56 PM	Change to beguiler to balance: Charisma based casting or 4+int skill points or both No bonus metamagic feats So, are you going to do this with the Dread Necro and Warmage too? Or do you just have beef with this one? Change to sorcerer to balance: Increase HD to d6 Improve class skill list Eschew materials for free Increase spells known Bonus metamagics Sure! Lets give it Full Bab, all good saves, and casting in heavy armor too! [/sarcasm] This 'fix' (if it can be called that - looks more like a problem causer, not a problem solver) will completely overpower the sorcerer. It will outshine the wizard, and that is what we are trying to avoid - not outshining the wizard, but one class outshining another. So, re-think your proposition, and get back to us with a more sane idea.
EvilVegan 08-10-06, 11:51 PM	So, are you going to do this with the Dread Necro and Warmage too? Or do you just have beef with this one?Well, this is a BEGUILER thread. And I don't technically have beef. I'm vegan. Sure! Lets give it Full Bab, all good saves, and casting in heavy armor too! [/sarcasm] This 'fix' (if it can be called that - looks more like a problem causer, not a problem solver) will completely overpower the sorcerer. It will outshine the wizard, and that is what we are trying to avoid - not outshining the wizard, but one class outshining another. So, re-think your proposition, and get back to us with a more sane idea.So you equate minor improvement to HD or armor to full BAB, all good saves, and heavy armor? Interesting approach. Perhaps before posting next time you should take into account the thread topic. I was trying to balance the sorcerer with the beguiler, not balance it against the wizard. Also you may want to reread my statement, especially the part that states to do "any of the following" not "all of the following". Your response was complete over-reaction (and knee-jerk from the looks of it), but thank you for noticing that I'm not sane. Maybe you should put some ranks in reading comprehension before attempting to function in a text only environment.
__DnD4Life__ 08-10-06, 11:59 PM	Also you may want to reread my statement, especially the part that states to do "any of the following" not "all of the following". Your response was complete over-reaction (and knee-jerk from the looks of it), but thank you for noticing that I'm not sane. Ahhh...Didnt see that. Ok, ignore my post then. A popular fix for the sorcerer usually involves the spell progression(2nd at 3rd, etc.), and giving it Eschew materials for free. I wouldnt change the Beguiler's casting to CHA. INT based casting is alot better, and meshes really nice with the skill-based part of the Beguiler. If you really want to change it, drop the skill points to 4+int. And, as for the wizard, it is generally acceted that the wizard is the most powerful arcane caster, correct? So, if an arcane casting class were to outshine the wizard, it would be way too powerful.