Post/Author/DateTime	Post
chaotic_easy_going 06-23-06, 04:21 PM	Hi I was just wondering about the new classes in the PHB2. Are they balanced and fair? Is there any class that is just gross or unbalanced? Thanks!
frasmage 06-23-06, 05:27 PM	No, they are all pretty decent and balance. There was a little period of everyone thinking duskblade was overpowered, but I think people view it as being fine now.
Fabius Maximus 06-23-06, 05:56 PM	The problem is that they are pretty redundant. Except for the Dragon Shaman which can be nice if used in specific settings like Eberron. Maybe the Knight could work where Paladins are not available. But that's all that can be said about them. These classes all substitute mechanics where roleplaying would be called for. Instead of playing a beguiler, you can create a sorcerer with a faible for enchantment and illusion spells. Instead of playing a Knight, you could create a Fighter with a similar outlook. Instead of playing a Duskblade, create an elven fighter/wizard and head for the Bladesinger PrC. I'm especially disapointed about the Beguiler. It's just another spontenaous caster class that makes the sorcerer look bad.
AvaronGansdell 06-23-06, 06:19 PM	then again there should be no basic sorcerer. I think they need to remove sorcerer and come up with a bunch of sorcerer paths like the begiler, the dread necro, the warmage, add in a summoning specialist, a true diviner, a transmutation master, and a abjuration focused character....hmm mabye mix the abjuration and divination together for a class specalized in seeing the future and protecting there party from danager. in essence some people are born with a talent for magic and that talent manifests itseslf in a way. where as wizards learn magic by study and thus have a more compleat understandign of it.
Subedei 06-23-06, 06:26 PM	And you can make a swashbuckler without using the actual Swashbuckler class, but aren't you glad it exists? Now you can use whichever one you like better or even both. Other classes make the Sorcerer look bad because the sorcerer is a pretty bad class, the only thing that makes it reasonably good is Races of the Dragon but most races can't benefit from that.
Flack Jack 06-23-06, 08:05 PM	Whats wrong with sorcerers?
Jell_Moo 06-23-06, 09:46 PM	I have to politely disagree with Fabius Maximus. I see the PHB2 classes quite differently. The Beguiler cannot be created adequately with a Sorcerer for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the lack of skill points really makes it difficult for the Sorcerer to work the deception angle. Plus the horrible skill list kills the notion of playing a true trickster. Then take into account the fact that the Sorcerer has zero reason not to jump into a PrC ASAP, where the Beguiler has actual class features, interesting class features that can keep it in the class for a full 20 levels. An eleven Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger is a horribly bad substitute for a Duskblade. For starters, it requires you to be an Elf, which excludes the majority of standard races from playing it. Also, it requires a really bad staggering of classes. Do you start as a Fighter or as a Wizard? Until you gain second level, your character isn't able to be played as you envisioned it at all. The Warrior-Mage is a very common fantasy archetype, one that most certainly deserves a core class to back it up. The Dragon Shaman, on the other hand, offers very little to me. No matter how hard I look at it, I can't figure out what fantasy archetype it is supposed to represent. Out of all the fantasy lit I have read, I can't recall a single archetypal character that the Dragon Shaman seems to portray. It's an interesting enough class I suppose, but I can't see why this class exists when there are still other common archetypes that do not exist as a core class (Tinker, Assassin, Gunslinger, Dark Knight...) The Knight to me, is a character class that I think has potential as a class, except that it is complete and utter mechanical garbage. The Fighter can portray the archetype well enough for my liking (though I completely disagree that the Paladin can sub for it). Balance wise, they balance absolutely fine. The Beguiler is not particularly powerful, but it is surprisingly versatile. The Dragon Shaman may be slightly underpowered, I won't be sure until I see it playtested. The Duskblade is a fairly powerful class, but not really any more powerful than any other. It is abuseable, for sure, but so are most other classes too. The Knight... Well, is garbage. :-)
Nobunaga Oda 06-23-06, 10:04 PM	An eleven Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger is a horribly bad substitute for a Duskblade. For starters, it requires you to be an Elf, which excludes the majority of standard races from playing it. Also, it requires a really bad staggering of classes. Do you start as a Fighter or as a Wizard? Until you gain second level, your character isn't able to be played as you envisioned it at all. The Warrior-Mage is a very common fantasy archetype, one that most certainly deserves a core class to back it up. I agree with that. Itīs a very commom archetype that really deserves a specific class. But...Have you read the fluff for the class? I just hate it. Why only the elves and their friends are having fun with the class? It could be way more brand.
Osedox 06-23-06, 11:41 PM	While I like the specific arcane spontaneous casters (Dread Necro, Beguiler, Warmage) I dont think they can really ever remove the sorcerer from play. While the Beguiler is definatly very versitile there are just some things that only a Wizard or Sorcerer can do. In regards to the OP, I love all of the classes especialy Dragon Shamans, they are so cool. I love how they can act as a Healer and at the same time be filling so many other roles. Their Auras are just crazy and can realy benifit any party in the same way as a Bards music. Since I hate playing clerics in the first place I really like the way that they can fill the Healing roll to a certian extent. Duskblades are slightly overpowered IMO, and I have been toying around with making them have 3/4 BAB, but that might be too much of a Nerf for the class though. I could see them being very abusable with the Extra Spell feat, but if kept under control I dont think they could effect the game in too much of a negative way (I do intend to modify their spell lists a little bit). Knights are a character Archetype that I have never been drawn too, I hate Heavy armor and would rather be casting a spell anyday, but I like the class and think that it is a good replacement for the CW Samuari and a good alternative for the Paladin. Beguilers are just plain fun, although I houseruled that they cast off of Cha, while Warmages cast off of Int (Kuraito thanks for the idea!). I just felt that the descriptive text of both classes was pointing it in that direction anyways.
shadowkiller5 06-23-06, 11:43 PM	Well Nobunaga, that's where you come in. I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I feel strongly about the duskblade. In fact, were I to play one, I would take the fluff, and pile more on. Say that they were guardians of elven empires, exclusively full elves at first, then began allowing humans and half elves into their ranks. They began creating items and weapons that greatly increased their power (this is where I would talk to the DM about allowing a knowstone type item, maybe even allowing a signature weapon like the kensai at higher levels...but your character would need to find the right info and such), and were on the verge of mastering their art even more (here would be great place to, once again, talk the DM into letting the PC go on a quest to find this info, which could lead to your duskblade getting Wraithstrike on his spell list) when a great evil descended upon them, almost completely destroying the followers of the class, looting their great treasures, and leveling their bastions. Enemies? Eh, ogre mages and blackguards with a sprinkling of the Suel Arcanamach's from Complete Arcane sounds like a good tag team. Hope this gets your creative juices going.
shadowkiller5 06-23-06, 11:50 PM	Osedox, I dunno about the 3/4 BAB, the DB is pretty balanced to begin with. Sure they get the whole armored mage thing and the neat channel spell, but to each his own... I do agree with you about the Extra Spell feat...it can be abusable IF the feat is read the way some on the board want it to. But if common sense prevails and you only pick spells that are on the character's (or class...don't matter) spell list...truthfully...that feat kinda becomes useless to a duskblade. I'd be glad to expound further, but I think I've stolen enough of the OP's thunder.
Osedox 06-24-06, 12:00 AM	I am beginning to agree, about the BAB, but I just cant help but feel that what a DB gets in addition to the full BAB, is more valuable than any of the other stuff that a Fighter or Barbarian gets. I know that fighters and Brabarians are underpowered, I just cant help but feel sorry from them. :(
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-06, 12:30 AM	For now I'm not allowing my players to play Duskblade because so much of their description is unclear, mostly how their 13th level ability works but also their problem with somatic components. That being said, I do like the concept of the class, and I don't think it's overpowered as of right now. The Knight looks like an interesting class to me, and I'd take it over the Paladin any day. Peopel complain that their abilities make no sense, but what's the most hotly debated thing on the boards? The Paladin Code of Honor. Knights are less troublesome and still a great class (though I still think they need good Fortitude saves). The Dragon Shaman is an enigma to me. I don't quite see what party niche it's trying to fill, but I do think it shall be interesting either way. One of my players is plannign on playing one, and I'm looking foreward to it. I can't say too much else, as I haven't quite completely fogured the class out yet. It seems liek it coudl go in a few different directions... The only class that has me disapointed is the Beguiler. Sure, some people take one look at it and ask why ever play a Sorcerer again, but it has the same problem the Warmage and Dread Necromancer had. It has a crappy and constrictive spell list. The sorcerer spell list is worth much more than the Beguiler's spell, better HD, better skill points, and even its class features. Bottom line: The Beguiler looks sort of okay on paper, but in practice I don't think it can measure up to the Sorcerer.
shadowkiller5 06-24-06, 12:38 AM	I think that's in part why the PHB II was published...to give all classes some more options. Some people get queezy when you bring homebrew stuff to the table, but feel better when you have a hardbound book that contains info that will make your character shine like the sun. The Fighter and Barb are what the players make them. If you play the same sword and boarder or dumb rager, it's gonna get repetitive, and make the classes seem boring. But give them some nifty moves that replace the older ones, and viola(sp)! Easy peasy. And hey, a duskblade vs a barb of the same level is gonna have his hands full, as will he with a fighter. You just gotta look at it as a whole...feats and all.
Zagreen 06-24-06, 12:49 AM	The Dragon Shaman is an enigma to me. I don't quite see what party niche it's trying to fill, but I do think it shall be interesting either way. One of my players is plannign on playing one, and I'm looking foreward to it. I can't say too much else, as I haven't quite completely fogured the class out yet. It seems liek it coudl go in a few different directions... I think it's supposed to be a general support character. 3/4 BAB and good HPs? It's a secondary tank. AoE attack every 1d4 rounds? Secondary blaster. Fast healing up to 50% and beefed-up lay on hands? Secondary healer. Free skill focus feats and skill buffing auras? Secondary skillmonkey (OK, very secondary; only 2 + Int skill points per level). Plus other auras to buff up allies' attack and defense.
danielinthewolvesden 06-24-06, 01:15 AM	It looks to me like the DS is supposed to take over the Bard's slot as the perfect "5th member". Looks cool to me. Oh, and thanks to our OP for starting this interesting thread.
Osedox 06-24-06, 01:57 AM	It looks to me like the DS is supposed to take over the Bard's slot as the perfect "5th member". Looks cool to me.That is probably the best description of what a Dragon Shaman is good for. :)
neth2 06-24-06, 03:41 AM	the beguiler/warmage/dread necro classes aren't inherently beter thsn a sorc by themselves, but if there was a class for all of them, then i think the sorc could be replaced i only see a need for 2 more abjurer/diviner and conjurer(summonerer)/transmuter(buffer mostly) which im praying for because i would take the class in a heartbeat personally i am a big fan of the Ultimate Classes by Szaty or somethin like dat i think yes, the beguiler is fun and very good at what it does, but sometimes you just go, i really wish i was a sorc and had x spell right now the main spell my party lacks is fly, which is problematic we have a beguiler, warmage, cleric, and druid as our casters, so most niches are filled
wi1dfire_b1ue 06-24-06, 04:09 AM	I saw the Dragon Shaman as a divine version of the Warlock. It does only a handful of tricks, but it does them all day long. It also has that whole "manifestion of my ancestors" flavor that the Warlock also had. My only problem is that it isn't as particularly powerful all by itself, a properly played Dragon Shaman will always have a few of his closest friends nearby to hit their maximum potential.
Shedeo 06-24-06, 04:27 AM	I run a weekly game with just two players. One is a wood elf monk/paladin, the other is a (homebrew) orc D.Shaman. They just tear stuff up, both of them. The D.Shaman is a great class all-around, really, with good hit points, decent attack, and excellent abilities. Its like the binder in a sense.
stsword 06-24-06, 04:50 AM	I'd say the Dragon Shaman is for any player who got tired of wasting their cleric's spells because their party never learned how to duck. :) They can buff and heal without affecting their other abilities at all, although I'm not sure they have enough other abilities to prevent PC boredom in the long term. Breathe, smack, smack.
Count Arioch the 28th 06-24-06, 05:43 AM	Personally, I really like the Beguiler. I think that ALL spellcasters should be replaced with similiar themse to Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer. Spellcasting should have more limits than it does now.
Fabius Maximus 06-24-06, 02:07 PM	I have to politely disagree with Fabius Maximus. Thanks for doing it politely. ;) The Beguiler cannot be created adequately with a Sorcerer for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the lack of skill points really makes it difficult for the Sorcerer to work the deception angle. Plus the horrible skill list kills the notion of playing a true trickster. Then take into account the fact that the Sorcerer has zero reason not to jump into a PrC ASAP, where the Beguiler has actual class features, interesting class features that can keep it in the class for a full 20 levels.So, essentially, the upside of the Beguiler is the downside of the sorcerer? I agree. The sorcerer is horribly boring. That's why it looks bad in comparison with the other spontaneous casters, including Mystic and Favoured Soul. You could add two levels of rogue to your build and take Arcane Trickster levels. An eleven Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger is a horribly bad substitute for a Duskblade. For starters, it requires you to be an Elf, which excludes the majority of standard races from playing it. Also, it requires a really bad staggering of classes. Do you start as a Fighter or as a Wizard? Until you gain second level, your character isn't able to be played as you envisioned it at all. The Warrior-Mage is a very common fantasy archetype, one that most certainly deserves a core class to back it up. There is always the Battle Sorcerer. The Dragon Shaman, on the other hand, offers very little to me. No matter how hard I look at it, I can't figure out what fantasy archetype it is supposed to represent. Out of all the fantasy lit I have read, I can't recall a single archetypal character that the Dragon Shaman seems to portray. It's an interesting enough class I suppose, but I can't see why this class exists when there are still other common archetypes that do not exist as a core class (Tinker, Assassin, Gunslinger, Dark Knight...) It's fantasy. Why limit yourself to archetypes? The Knight to me, is a character class that I think has potential as a class, except that it is complete and utter mechanical garbage. The Fighter can portray the archetype well enough for my liking (though I completely disagree that the Paladin can sub for it). No. The Knight could subsitute the Paladin. Not vice versa. And you can make a swashbuckler without using the actual Swashbuckler class, but aren't you glad it exists? Now you can use whichever one you like better or even both.No. Every additional base class that has no distinct flavour is a waste of space and time. then again there should be no basic sorcerer. I think they need to remove sorcerer and come up with a bunch of sorcerer paths like the begiler, the dread necro, the warmage, add in a summoning specialist, a true diviner, a transmutation master, and a abjuration focused character....hmm mabye mix the abjuration and divination together for a class specalized in seeing the future and protecting there party from danager. Oh, the horror! Why not create a base class for every possible (and impossible) class build or character archetype? Because if you do this, the system will be cluttered beyond recognition. No. The base classes should be customisable, so you can build your characters with a minimum of effort. But the designers did not even accomplish this in the PHB.
Zagreen 06-24-06, 08:09 PM	No. The base classes should be customisable, so you can build your characters with a minimum of effort. But the designers did not even accomplish this in the PHB. Er... say what now? The "prepackaged character concept" classes like Knight and Swashbuckler are considerably simpler to build characters with than a more open-ended class system. Unless when you refer to effort you're referring to the effort it takes to get the specific package of abilities you want, in which case having different base classes for specific builds does indeed prove a bit more restrictive--but then, it's just been established that there's a tradeoff there, as "do-it-yourself" classes require more player input as well. Personally, I very much like the "base class + feats" model over the idea of more open-ended base classes, although I freely admit that the system could use some tweaking. I could see maybe introducing a "specialist" system similar to what wizards have for each class, but anycustomization on a deeper level than that starts to defeat the purpose of having a class system--and in spite of its faults (restrictiveness being one of them), having character classes is an excellent mechanic for modelling progressive abilities. Feats, or any other a la carte building system... not so much.
WayneTheGame 06-24-06, 08:55 PM	I think most of the new classes are pretty sweet.. I absolutely LOVE the Duskblade (finally, a viable Gish from 1st level!), despite the pro-Elf fluff for it. My DM allowed me to come up with the background for our FR game, so I made the Duskblades like the "Sith" version of the Bladesingers.. more aggressive... it's worked out pretty sweet.
MaximumHavoc 06-24-06, 09:30 PM	the beguiler/warmage/dread necro classes aren't inherently beter than a sorc by themselves, but if there was a class for all of them, then i think the sorc could be replaced i only see a need for 2 more abjurer/diviner and conjurer(summonerer)/transmuter(buffer mostly) which im praying for because i would take the class in a heartbeat If you were to use the particular core class variant for clerics in Unearthed Arcana that allows clerics to spontaneously cast domain spells instead of cure/inflict spells, then a cleric with the summoning domain could become a great summoner, nearly on par with the druid (granted, it would be summon monster instead of summon nature's ally). I know that you were referring to arcane casters, but nonetheless, I thought it was worth mentioning.
Mordar 06-24-06, 09:49 PM	well, personally I think the duskblade is one of those perfect dual classes that doesn't need to actually multiclass with PRC's and the like with the fear of losing caster level's and BAB, saves and etc, you can go straight 20 levels and with the right combination of good magic items and feats you can challenge lots of things the beguiler just like the warmage and dread necro is an incredible class that actually "fully" specializaes in one school of magic, but like any "specialized" class you need to be the 5th party member with another full caster like an utilitarian wizard or another rogue, you are not "everything" yourself, mostly you are the one helping the weakness of the hole party The knight is a very colorfull class, is actually a paladin without the "holy" theme and more straightforward, althought I haven't see his full power at 20th level, but for a low level mid 10's adventure is actually a pretty good and decent class for roleplaying The dragon shaman I haven't see his true power, I agree is a very versatile character but somehow I see him as the fighter with "on battle" supporting powers (like the auras and the lay on hands), not like the WoTC describes him "you can fill the role of the cleric", also the breath attack could be extremely powerfull if you use the metabreath feats on draconomicon and the PRC's on the Races of the dragon, you just need to plan very ahead of time to not actually make a "worthless" character as "written on the book"
Ziggaraut 06-25-06, 12:16 PM	The Dragon Shaman I see as being a good leader in some kobold tribe somewhere, fighting against turnip farmers. All these new base classes like the Swashbuckler is basically a 'for dummies' way of making one. Sure, You could make a fighter/rogue thats a swashbuckler, but taking levels in the Swashbuckler class is not only way easier, but you get that shiny "Swashbuckler" label up there on the Class line on your character sheet.
AvaronGansdell 06-25-06, 02:54 PM	I like shiney things.....and kobolds.....with races of the dragon you can make a truly scary kobold sorcerer.
Silverthumb128 06-25-06, 03:44 PM	I agree with that. Itīs a very commom archetype that really deserves a specific class. But...Have you read the fluff for the class? I just hate it. Why only the elves and their friends are having fun with the class? It could be way more brand. Pfft, the fluff be damned. I'm making a Changling Beguiler. :D
Echodork 06-25-06, 04:52 PM	I think the Dragon Shaman is a monster at low levels, and a kitten later on. This is a class that WotC suggests you take straight through 20, but in reality, I would probably only splash one level on a Cleric or "5th member." For your one level, you get d10 hp, +2 Fort/Will, medium armor and shield proficiency, and 3 auras. For your auras, you'd take Vigor as a no-brainer. Vigor aura says that none of your allies within 30' will ever die due to bleeding after being knocked below 0. And any time where the party can find a safe corner to hide for 5 minutes after combat, the Cleric can start healing people from half their hit points rather than near-death. Using Senses aura as a default dungeoneering aura gives everyone a small bonus to Spot and Listen, as well as a nice little Initiative boost. And then you pick a third aura based on your adventure and party... +damage, energy shield, +bluff/intimidate/diplomacy, energy resistance, etc. Not all of these bonuses are useful through 20. Certainly DR 5/magic stops being useful entirely, as does energy shield. And while fire resistance 25 and fast healing 5 are useful, let's face it... these aren't on par with the level 20 skills obtained by most other classes. The breath weapon is neat, but 10d6 (save for half) every 1d4 rounds isn't setting any records. So were I to use the Dragon Shaman with one of my characters, I would be tempted to splash just one level. DS being a standard class, you can only really splash it if your character is progressing along his Favored Class. However, I could see playing a Human DS 1/Bard X or DS 1/Cleric X.
Midnight_v 06-25-06, 06:59 PM	Better than the other classes with the Good Bab? Does it get the good Bab and full spell progression or somthing? People make it sound like that. How does it stack up to the base fighter or... to be fair here... the ranger. Duskblade vs. Ranger. How do they stack up?
The Livewire 06-25-06, 07:53 PM	Pfft, the fluff be damned. I'm making a Changling Beguiler. :D Oh yes, those two go together like... Well Changeling and psionic Rogue ;-)
AvaronGansdell 06-25-06, 10:16 PM	I have been tossing around the Idea of a DuskBlade/Barbarian/Dragon Deciple. with blade of blood and the huge strenght from DD and rage with power attack there would be some good damage output and a few neat tricks.
chaotic_easy_going 06-26-06, 09:48 AM	Hey, Thanks for all the replies everyone. You've given me a pretty good overview of the new classes and some general opinions. Perfect. :-) I'll know what to look for, watch out for, and read more closely when I get my hands on the book.
MonkeyPaladin 06-26-06, 12:12 PM	Beguiler- Interesting class, 9 levels of spells and six skill points per level, along with a couple nice abilities like trapfinding. I'm wondering how it would do in play, the majority of what they can do requires the opponent to have a mind and to fail their will save. They don't have sneak attack or any damage spells to fall back on, it would really depend on the campaign. I think you'd be very useful a lot of the time to the party, but have to sit out the occassional dungeon room. I think it gives you the social niche without having the bard's baggage of singing and dancing and generally being goofy. Dragon Shaman- First off, I want to say that flavor wise, I'm not sure how these guys get their powers. Clerics get them from gods, wizards study ancient tomes, sorcerors have the bloodline thing going, where do dragon shamans get powers from? Just wanting to be like dragons? Anyway, the class is pretty cool. I like that someone besides the cleric can provide decent healing, and the skills and minor abilities are useful flavor without being too powerful. As a player, I just know there's monster immune to different energy types, so I'd want some kind of way to substitute the energy for the breath weapon, which is really the class's main form of offense. I think their best ability is the auras, which not only the shaman but the whole party can benefit from. In the right group these could be sick. Duskblade- First off, I should point out that a bunch of d20 companies have already done this concept. Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has the mage blade, which is conceptually pretty similiar. I guess Wizards can come in as late as they want and still have theirs be "official" but for the DM who decides himself what is and isn't allowed at his table rather than buying that line like so many people on this message board, this might not be a huge deal. The class itself is designed pretty well. As party roles go, I'd say the duskblade is still up near the fight like the other fighting classes. Spells pretty much work as his offensive tool, much like the barbarian's rage, the fighter's specialization, or the paladin's smite. For the most part you have touch spells that can be cast through your blade, or attack spells that go for a single opponent. I'm thinking, more than any other class, you're going to want to push concentration through the roof. You're not really going to replace the fighter or the wizard, but it's a pretty useful class to have in the party and should make anyone who wants a gish type happy. Knight- I guess everyone already saw the preview of the class and has their opinion about it. It pretty much fills the fighter role in the group, with more of a defensive approach than an offensive one. You can call out the opponents to face you, and then make it hard for them to move past you to anyone else. As you've got heavy armor, a d12 hit die, and a bonus when using your shield, I guess that makes you the ultimate "meat shield," which could be good or bad. At least you're getting your bonus to hit and damage the guys you're challenging. I could see myself playing a knight, mainly for the roleplay. With the high will save and heavy armor, Wis and Dex aren't too big a deal and you'd be safe to focus on strength, con, and charisma. I'd be pretty tempted to take a two level dip in either fighter or paladin, the former for the feats and the latter for the saves, with both at least helping the fort save some. The one thing I'd wonder about it what feats to use with the knight; it's a sword and board class all the way. It could make a strong mounted character with the bonus feats in that direction, but we all know mounted characters can't go into dungeons. I suppose the book has armor and shield specialization as feats if you want to go all in.
JayDubya 06-26-06, 05:04 PM	With regards to the Duskblade, I'd have to see one played before rushing to judgement, but my first instinct is that it seems rather overpowering for a base class. Beguiler seems interesting and not unbalanced, though I do worry no one would ever use a mere sorcerer again, when you have Warmages, Warlocks, and Beguilers available. The Dragon Shaman I rather like. Auras, a little bit of healing, a good ranged attack, medium bab, and decent hp, medium armor... they're a darn good 5th party member, and probably very amazing in a solo or duo campaign. If I was playing in Eberron, however, I'd rather have an artificer over a DS if it was an either / or proposition. * * * As for Knight, I rather like the class. I currently have a defensively built Warforged Fighter 9, and I wish PH2 had been around at campaign start... all those "shield ally" abilities, the d12 hp, the good will saves... The Knight's Challenge mechanic is cool... Test of Mettle is a simply amazing "aggro" ability... all significant enemies within a 100' radius have to roll will saves or target you. For a primarily defensive character like mine, that would be simply awesome. In general, these new classes are very videogamish, but then, the whole book is like that. Things like Shield Sling (Captain America, anyone?) and Ki Blast (Ryu from Street Fighter) are giant nods to pop culture action. I'm surprised there's no Legolas-style "Slide down stairs on a shield" feat or "stab a guy with an arrow before shooting it at another guy" feat. :rofl: But it's all in good fun. These classes look like they're fun to play, and perhaps that's what is most important. * * * And back to my favorite class, the Fighter, this book made it worthwhile to be one again. :D I may not be a Knight, but in a couple of levels I can get Counterattack, and I already have Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing). Weapon Supremacy looks so darn tempting if I stay the course, too!
DeathRowChris 06-26-06, 05:17 PM	The only quam i have so far with the PHB2 classes (i like them all very much) is the Beguiler's Surprise Casting ability. Its states that after a Feint Bluff check you can deny a character Dex bonus to your next attack or spell. WTF is the use of this?? There melee abilities are not through the roof and ALL OF THEIR SPELLS REQUIRE WILL SAVES. Someone please explain. EDIT: Reason to play Sorcs. A: Flexibilty(Beguilers and Warmages have extremely limited zones) B: Still the most spells throughout the levels {6s for level 0 spells to level 9}(Warlocks and Duskblades only go up to about level 5 with their spell(s)/like abilities.)
Aexalon 06-26-06, 06:41 PM	The only quam i have so far with the PHB2 classes (i like them all very much) is the Beguiler's Surprise Casting ability. Its states that after a Feint Bluff check you can deny a character Dex bonus to your next attack or spell. WTF is the use of this?? There melee abilities are not through the roof and ALL OF THEIR SPELLS REQUIRE WILL SAVES. Someone please explain. There's no need to get all rude & loud about it ... It's actually fairly easy: Once the beguiler has successfully feinted against her intended target through Surprise Casting, and said target looses its dex bonus against her next spell, the beguiler's Cloaked Casting ability kicks in, increasing the DC of the spell by 1 or 2, and possibly effectively lowering (by 2) or even negating the target's SR. A decent benefit (though I vastly prefer getting those same benefits from being invisible over being in melee range to a possible big bruiser).
JayDubya 06-26-06, 08:56 PM	It wouldn't be the strongest character ever, but a Beguiler x / Rogue y (where x > 5 and y = 20-x) with Combat Expertise => Improved Feint could feint as a swift action, attack with full SA damage, and then tumble away. That's pretty darn cool.
Sphyre 06-26-06, 10:20 PM	Better than the other classes with the Good Bab? Does it get the good Bab and full spell progression or somthing? People make it sound like that. How does it stack up to the base fighter or... to be fair here... the ranger. Duskblade vs. Ranger. How do they stack up? They both fulfill different roles. The Duskblade, in my opinion, has it's best role in combat. It does combat well. It does magic, melee, or both. It complements it's melee with arcane channeling, allowing it more damage or some neat side effects. The ranger gets divine spells, an animal companion, class features that allow it to go about things differently, and a few good skill points. while the duskblade does have int based casting, it has different skills than the ranger. I beleive the Duskblade is very powerful at low levels (1-3 so far). I'm currently playing one in a campaign, and Color spray (a spell reserved for commoners that cast spells... erm i mean wizards) and other such spells combined with the fact that you are basically are a fighter with 2 less hp, and one less feat (at level 1) In addition, at level 1, the at level 1 you don't have the money available to wear things like fullplate, so the fact that you don't have the ability to cast in medium or higher armor at level 1 isn't that big of a drawback. The Duskblade seems to be, in my opinion, a baby cleric.
DeathRowChris 06-26-06, 11:00 PM	Reason i bolded spell. Aside for the possible +2 to DC save or overcoming SR all of the beguilers spells require Will saves. Denieng them their dex helps their spells very little.
Aexalon 06-27-06, 08:17 AM	Reason i bolded spell. Aside for the possible +2 to DC save or overcoming SR all of the beguilers spells require Will saves. Denieng them their dex helps their spells very little. If beguilers didn't have surprise casting allowing them to feint (efficiently) in melee, they would be significantly harder pressed to make use of their cloaked casting ability once out in the open (i.e. once winning initiative or attacking from concealment become difficult/impossible). Instead, WotC saw fit to equip them with an existing mechanic to increase the applicability of their primary (non-spellcasting-progression-related) class feature. I call such rule reuse elegant. You seem to disagree. That the feint also reduces the target's armour class is of secondary importance; Even then, it might still be of use in case of ray or touch spells (e.g. Ray of Stupidity, SpC/167, or Touch of Idiocy, PHB/294).
DeathRowChris 06-27-06, 09:41 AM	I guess i can see the point, as raising the DC of a spell could have saved my ass in the last campaign i was in(even though it woulda only been a +1). I purely went of the spell list and the saw almost no spells where Dexterity would apply, or where it would be useful. I get the point now.
starfire311 06-27-06, 10:39 AM	An eleven Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger is a horribly bad substitute for a Duskblade. For starters, it requires you to be an Elf, which excludes the majority of standard races from playing it. Also, it requires a really bad staggering of classes. Do you start as a Fighter or as a Wizard? Until you gain second level, your character isn't able to be played as you envisioned it at all. The Warrior-Mage is a very common fantasy archetype, one that most certainly deserves a core class to back it up. I thought duskblade was an elf only class, maybe i am remembering wrong. as to the whole having to wait a level befor you can play your character as you envisioned it, big deal. I liked apprentice levels from 3.0 DMG, and those still work if you want that feel, or you can jsut play a fighter that has a "magical" backgorund and is learning spellcasting, or a Wizard with a "martial" background that is working on fighting. Or you could go with apprentice levels and suck at both for a level.
WayneTheGame 06-27-06, 10:43 AM	Duskblade is not Elf only, but the fluff as written says it was initially created by the Elves.
babysamurai 06-27-06, 11:57 AM	All these new base classes like the Swashbuckler is basically a 'for dummies' way of making one. Sure, You could make a fighter/rogue thats a swashbuckler, but taking levels in the Swashbuckler class is not only way easier, but you get that shiny "Swashbuckler" label up there on the Class line on your character sheet. Actually, the only reason people take levels in Swashbuckler (always 3), is to get insightful strike.
simon_tage 06-27-06, 12:04 PM	I think I have already gone on record as loathing all the PHB2 classes. If not, I just did.
scienceman47 06-28-06, 05:55 AM	The duskblade possess an assortment of swift action touch spells. That is, while you can be a fighter/wizard, you will never really blend them into one thing. The duskblade strikes with a magical sword that they channel magic energies through. Its just that better. I like the PH2 classes, even the beguiler. It sorta blends the sneak attack/ magic into a single cloaked casting. I happen to be very fond of synthesis. But... none of them hold a candle to the binder.
starfire311 06-28-06, 09:24 AM	The duskblade possess an assortment of swift action touch spells. That is, while you can be a fighter/wizard, you will never really blend them into one thing. The duskblade strikes with a magical sword that they channel magic energies through. Its just that better. I like the PH2 classes, even the beguiler. It sorta blends the sneak attack/ magic into a single cloaked casting. I happen to be very fond of synthesis. But... none of them hold a candle to the binder. I dont think you have played a fighter mage recently, there are tons of swift spells now for the Gish, the best among those IMO are Wraith strike oh and extneded wraith strike... my bladesinger virtually took done Archimadus in the shackled city adventure single handedly, well I did over 800 points of damage to him, and I did die once during the combat, but no one else was really able to hurt him. Wizards have access to much mroe useful spells than duskblade, and they get access to arcane strike much earlier, and they can metamagic their spells, extend spell is awesome for a gish. Also if you want the channel flavor you have spellsword for that. There are many many gish builds that I would take over the duskblade, I like bladesinger, but other like spellsword and eldrich knight, I think the clincher is that wizards are more versatile and have access to better spells. so what if the best I can milk is a BAB +17 with 17 caster levels or whatever they are doing these days on the CO boards... wizards give you many more good spells and now many great swift spells that duskblade doesnt have access to. Power attacking spellsword with wraith strike is a scary thing indeed.
WayneTheGame 06-28-06, 09:36 AM	Starfire311, while you're right, the main appeal of the Duskblade is that you can do a Gish from level 1. All of the "superior" Gish builds on the CO forums require you to be very high level to be that effective, and most of them suck until 10th level or so. I love the Duskblade because it allows me to play a Gish from the very beginning; my group barely lasts past 6th level so there would be no way I could ever do a "real" Gish; the Duskblade gives me that chance.
starfire311 06-28-06, 11:36 AM	Starfire311, while you're right, the main appeal of the Duskblade is that you can do a Gish from level 1. All of the "superior" Gish builds on the CO forums require you to be very high level to be that effective, and most of them suck until 10th level or so. I love the Duskblade because it allows me to play a Gish from the very beginning; my group barely lasts past 6th level so there would be no way I could ever do a "real" Gish; the Duskblade gives me that chance. I agree for the most part... it is hard to get a good Gish feel earlier than about 6th level... yeah fighter 2/wizard 2 is a Gish, but really you are just an ok fighter with bad spells(although I am a fan of Critical strike and golem strike at that level, and ofcourse shield is strong) but at 6th level you could be a swashbuckler 3/Wizard 3 and this is pretty decent, you get int bonus to damage and you have wraith strike. my current Gish, that just finished the shackled city I started at level 11 as swashbuckler 3/Wizard 3/Rogue 2/Bladesinger 3... I felt we needed some more rogue skills because we didnt have a primary rogue, so we ended up with 2 secondary rogues, I was able to aid him on his checks.
Kuraito 07-09-06, 12:43 AM	Beguilers are just plain fun, although I houseruled that they cast off of Cha, while Warmages cast off of Int (Kuraito thanks for the idea!). I just felt that the descriptive text of both classes was pointing it in that direction anyways. Hey, no problem. I'm just glad somebody agrees. Hey, somebody actually likes one of my ideas. This is new.
Witch 07-09-06, 05:16 AM	If everyone seems to think that beguilers should cast off charisma - I think I'll houserule that Fighters gain AC and HP from strength, because you know, the fluff seems to agree that fighters are strong.
Osedox 07-09-06, 12:57 PM	If everyone seems to think that beguilers should cast off charisma - I think I'll houserule that Fighters gain AC and HP from strength, because you know, the fluff seems to agree that fighters are strong.Dont be bitter man its a Houserule, that tends to mean if you dont like it dont use it. I think it actualy is a really good idea and dont understand why you think it is going to be so gamebreaking to do. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Aexalon 07-14-06, 07:33 PM	One can easily-enough reverse that reasoning: Warmages are more emotionally prone to outbursts, naturally good at blasting everything in site, and generally beating the opposition into submission with their force of personality (i.e. Charisma) Whereas Beguilers need to tackle most if not all situations with a calculating and analytical approach, carefully plotting elaborate schemes and fallback plans through detailed planning (i.e. Intelligence). Combined with the adages that Charisma is mental Strength, Intelligence is mental Dexterity (and Wisdom is mental Constitution, but that doesn't matter here), and that the Warmage is to the Fighter what the Beguiler is to the Rogue ... I'd say: keep the casting Attribs right where the RAW places them. As a final statement: "Imho, a Beguiler that relies on improvisation over planning, is a dead Beguiler." *plays a 12th-level Tibbit Beguiler with 18 Int and 18 Cha, so doesn't really care either way*