I was thrilled when I first bought my 3.5 Ed PHB II purely because of the beguiler class. It spoke to me, and I had planned to play one as soon as I rotated out of my DM role and into my player role (I usually DM but I like to take a break every couple of months and let someone else do all the hard work).
But of course, 4th Ed came out and put the kibosh on any beguiling designs I had.
So of course, the obvious question is, does anybody know if there is a planned beguiler class for 4th ed? I'd heard it was reasonably popular class as a non-core class, so I'm hoping that'll be enough to get it printed in an expansion book somewhere, but I was wondering if anyone has heard anything official.
Any hints/rumors would be appreciated (as would any WIZO blotto voice tip offs ;) )
Any links to information about that proposed class? I've been out of the loop these last couple of months.
Thanks.
As they're the crux of the class, no, I think Beguiler has gone the way of the Craft Skill - it's gone, and not coming back.
I'm surprised at these responses. I'd say no, never expect a 4e Beguiler. It seems a lot of the defenders believe the designers consciously removed charm and dominate spells from the game for balance reasons.
As they're the crux of the class, no, I think Beguiler has gone the way of the Craft Skill - it's gone, and not coming back.
Or, you know, you could actually read what the designers have written. They probably won't have a dominate that works like the 3e dominate did, but I am sure they will have some sort of attack power that deals psychic damage and then forces the target to make a basic attack against its nearest foe, or powers that make you an give you the "ally" keyword for the purposes of which powers the target can/will use against you... something like what the Master Spy gets now with some of its paragon powers. There is a difference between giving a class an auto-win the enemy does whatever you want for the rest of the encounter power, or giving you a bunch of powers that allow you to command an enemy to perform a specific action or use one of its beneficial powers on you.
Or, you know, you could actually read what the designers have written. They probably won't have a dominate that works like the 3e dominate did, but I am sure they will have some sort of attack power that deals psychic damage and then forces the target to make a basic attack against its nearest foe, or powers that make you an give you the "ally" keyword for the purposes of which powers the target can/will use against you... something like what the Master Spy gets now with some of its paragon powers. There is a difference between giving a class an auto-win the enemy does whatever you want for the rest of the encounter power, or giving you a bunch of powers that allow you to command an enemy to perform a specific action or use one of its beneficial powers on you.
I would imagine the Charm and such in 4E is going to work like some of the new Talents in the latest Saga book; once you charm someone, you get to declare one of their actions (Minor or move, likely) each turn until they make their save. It won't be absolute control, which is a big step in the right direction.
I would imagine the Charm and such in 4E is going to work like some of the new Talents in the latest Saga book; once you charm someone, you get to declare one of their actions (Minor or move, likely) each turn until they make their save. It won't be absolute control, which is a big step in the right direction.
Yeah, I don't see the disappearance of *permanent* charm/dominate effects that give the caster an ally or a thrall with a separate set of actions (!) as the disappearance of enchantment magic. Saying so is like saying that Power Attack is gone from 4e because you can't use it to add 300 damage on a big crit anymore.
But seriously, I really want to see a beguiler type class in 4.0.
Since it's been suggested that the Enchanter class may be like the beguiler in some ways, does anyone have links to any announcements about what that class will be like?
Thanks.
I could definitely see it returning, perhaps divided up between a Enchanter and a Illusionist class or as just one complete whole. For myself the more illusion + improving natural talents side of the Beguiler is what I most want to see come back.
I also was going to play one in a 3e campaign, but a. his char concept conflicted with an established char that had planned to leave the group but then planned to stay, and b. 4e came out.
There is going to be a form of Beguiler/enchanter coming. It will be the new Psion, if I recall Races and Classes correctly.
As for the enhancing roguishness that they have honestly, the Rogue by default is kinda like a beguiler in that regard already, and putting him with Feylock certainly could convey the point and drive it home.
(especially Beguiling Tongue... I mean come on.... :D)
As for the other posters, you could be right. Mental Manipulation does tend to be Psionic, and illusions a shadow type magic. The great thing about the beguiler was that it was a nice mix of both. With all the wacky things they came out with in 3.5, is it really too much to hope that they'll resurrect my favorite and (going by this thread) reasonably popular hybrid? Here's hoping.
Anyway after I finish my dervish and necromancer (after I remix my death knight) I'll work on your beguiler...so give me 2~3 months...teehee...
Lol. Sure why not? If you can manage to keep the flavor of the 3.5 beguiler, it should be very interesting.
As for the other posters, you could be right. Mental Manipulation does tend to be Psionic, and illusions a shadow type magic. The great thing about the beguiler was that it was a nice mix of both. With all the wacky things they came out with in 3.5, is it really too much to hope that they'll resurrect my favorite and (going by this thread) reasonably popular hybrid? Here's hoping.
In many ways, they already did. It's the Fey Pact warlock. It has charms, it has illusions, it manipulates enemies all over the place. I wouldn't look twice at you if you crossed 'Fey Pact Warlock' off your character sheet and wrote in 'Beguiler'.
I'm surprised at these responses. I'd say no, never expect a 4e Beguiler. It seems a lot of the defenders believe the designers consciously removed charm and dominate spells from the game for balance reasons.
3.5 version charm and dominate spells were a balance issue. Depending on the DM (and the out of game leverage of the player) they were either hideously overpowered or completely underwhelming. One of the reasons I often disliked playing a "Beguiler" (or other illusion/charm/dominate based caster) was that it often felt less like my character was dominating an NPC and more like I was dominating the DM.
4e has redefined the way that charm and dominate spells work so that they work identically regardless of DM preference. Out of combat, charm spells allow bonuses (or even automatic successes) to skill rolls against the charmed NPC. In combat, they allow you to dictate a specific number of the NPCs actions within given parameters. So there will be charm spells, they will just be... you know... balanced.
I would actually say that chances are very good for a Beguiler. I would also suggest that you keep your eyes open for the new Psionic power source, since the designers have said that these classes will focus very heavily on charm and dominate effects.
In many ways, they already did. It's the Fey Pact warlock. It has charms, it has illusions, it manipulates enemies all over the place. I wouldn't look twice at you if you crossed 'Fey Pact Warlock' off your character sheet and wrote in 'Beguiler'.
mmm... I'm not convinced. I look at a feylock and I see a warlock (blaster type class) dabbling in combat control.
I look at the beguiler class and I see a skillmonkey with illusions and enchantments to back it up. It's not really a front line caster (which a feylock can be), but it can do the job when done right. It's really the possibility for intrigue and the non-combat applications and subtle puppet-mastery that got my motor running.
Let's face it. So far 4.0 has focused near exclusively on combat orientation. Don't get me wrong, that's an important and laudable thing. DnD in most groups is combat heavy. It's important to make that smooth, reliable and easy to manage (sounds like a shampoo commercial doesn't it?). However, I say that's been done sufficiently by the current classes that exist. Why have more of the same for the rest of the classes in production?
I say a 4.0 Beguiler is an excellent opportunity to create a class that is adequate on the battlefield (primarily as a support class), and outstanding in the less bloody elements of DnD.
beguiler would be a sweet take on a leader role. (we need some mage themed leaders)
agreed. Although I imagine that a really good beguiler wouldn't actually LOOK like the leader. They'd be the one who convinces the one who THINKS they are the leader what the best way to do something is. :D
As a side note, I don't think they'll ever make a class that is forced into a support-only role (or that is only adequate at combat). The designers feel, and I agree with them on this, that all classes should be able to contribute meaningfully to combat and at about the same level (for their role, of course).
mmm... I'm not convinced. I look at a feylock and I see a warlock (blaster type class) dabbling in combat control.
I look at the beguiler class and I see a skillmonkey with illusions and enchantments to back it up. It's not really a front line caster (which a feylock can be), but it can do the job when done right. It's really the possibility for intrigue and the non-combat applications and subtle puppet-mastery that got my motor running.
Let's face it. So far 4.0 has focused near exclusively on combat orientation. Don't get me wrong, that's an important and laudable thing. DnD in most groups is combat heavy. It's important to make that smooth, reliable and easy to manage (sounds like a shampoo commercial doesn't it?). However, I say that's been done sufficiently by the current classes that exist. Why have more of the same for the rest of the classes in production?
I say a 4.0 Beguiler is an excellent opportunity to create a class that is adequate on the battlefield (primarily as a support class), and outstanding in the less bloody elements of DnD.
I think the idea behind designing a class such as this is to make sure it's effective both in and out of a combat situation. That said, I think there should be more classes with abilities that are usable out of combat (such as the wizard's cantrips). The trick is making sure they don't come at the cost of combat effectiveness, and making sure they don't turn into an 'I Win' button that instantly ends a battle or skill encounter.
I think the idea behind designing a class such as this is to make sure it's effective both in and out of a combat situation. That said, I think there should be more classes with abilities that are usable out of combat (such as the wizard's cantrips). The trick is making sure they don't come at the cost of combat effectiveness, and making sure they don't turn into an 'I Win' button that instantly ends a battle or skill encounter.
Good post!
It looks to me like the Cunning Bard is very close to the Beguiler of 3.5. He uses illusions and enchantments, has a wealth of skills (and a bonus to untrained skills), and has the flavor of a trickster. One of his at-wills tricks the opponent into thinking one of the Bard's allies attacked him! Of course, the Bard is a leader, and I'm not really sure where one would fit the Beguiler into the more defined roles of 4e.
As a side note, I don't think they'll ever make a class that is forced into a support-only role (or that is only adequate at combat). The designers feel, and I agree with them on this, that all classes should be able to contribute meaningfully to combat and at about the same level (for their role, of course).
I believe I chose my words poorly in that post. Adequate was not the best way of describing what I mean. I'm more interested in seeing a 4.0 Beguiler that, rather than being a spell-slinging killer (like a warlock/wizard can be) and more of a drainer/buffer like some of the warlord/cleric/wizard elements. Their role should be mostly giving striker type classes the openings they need to be deadly, and slowing/hindering enemies from squishing the casters/low hp classes, with a few avenues for doing damage themselves for when the strikers are unable to do so. This should be a beguiler's role in combat. the rest of their abilities should be focused on engineering non-combat situations to their advantage.
Call it a support class if you will, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If the beguiler could give the striker/fighter an edge in combat, or distract a big fat enemy from squishing the wizard long enough for the encounter to be won, wouldn't you be happy to have one on your team? Wouldn't you be happy to be one? I would, but maybe that's just the way I roll. I enjoy the subtlety and complexity of the class, and of the game, more than I do the potential to do huge amounts of damage or being a shieldwall. *shrug* to each their own.
I think the idea behind designing a class such as this is to make sure it's effective both in and out of a combat situation. That said, I think there should be more classes with abilities that are usable out of combat (such as the wizard's cantrips). The trick is making sure they don't come at the cost of combat effectiveness, and making sure they don't turn into an 'I Win' button that instantly ends a battle or skill encounter.
^ This sums it up for me reasonably well.
I believe I chose my words poorly in that post. Adequate was not the best way of describing what I mean. I'm more interested in seeing a 4.0 Beguiler that, rather than being a spell-slinging killer (like a warlock/wizard can be) and more of a drainer/buffer like some of the warlord/cleric/wizard elements. Their role should be mostly giving striker type classes the openings they need to be deadly, and slowing/hindering enemies from squishing the casters/low hp classes, with a few avenues for doing damage themselves for when the strikers are unable to do so. This should be a beguiler's role in combat. the rest of their abilities should be focused on engineering non-combat situations to their advantage.
Call it a support class if you will, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If the beguiler could give the striker/fighter an edge in combat, or distract a big fat enemy from squishing the wizard long enough for the encounter to be won, wouldn't you be happy to have one on your team? Wouldn't you be happy to be one? I would, but maybe that's just the way I roll. I enjoy the subtlety and complexity of the class, and of the game, more than I do the potential to do huge amounts of damage or being a shieldwall. *shrug* to each their own.
Have you seen the bard preview? Because it seems pretty close to beguiler from what you describe you want.
The druid preview has a bit of this as well, but it's more elemental based than illusion/charm based, like the bard.
*EDIT*
Having read the article:
*YAWN.*
To be perfectly honest, when I picture that class, I picture a warlord huffing on a tuba. That's it. Song of Discord and Veil are really the only things that even vaguely interested me. the Song because it reminds me of a 3.5 Beguiler type ability and Veil because it has non-combat potential.
When it comes to the Beguiler, let me try and explain why I found it so compelling.
When I imagined myself playing a beguiler, I had absolutely NO intention of even telling the other players what class I was. Every opportunity I could exercise a spell with the silent spell/still spell feats, I would. So I could hide the fact that I was actually casting. I had absolutely no intention of letting the other players even know I was a spellcasting class. Only the DM would know. If I couldn't do it with those feats, every spell cast would be covered by a bluff/sleight of hand check to hide the somatic and verbal components (for example; dusting off his coat and adjusting the lapels of his collar while muttering about the weather as an activation for a spell) Whenever my character would be asked exactly what he does, he would smile wanly (bordering on a smirk) and answer; "A little o' this, and a little o' that."
I LIKED the fact that the class had almost NO offensive spells, and the ones that were offensive, were almost exclusively non-lethal. I LIKED the fact that the most powerful spells the class had depends entirely on your imagination with illusions. I really liked the opportunity to branch out with advanced learning. I liked the sheer number of skills available. I liked the fact that with the "use magic device" skill and some clever illusions, a beguiler can masquerade as any other class. There is no better class for a sneaky, evil grand vizier, or a selfless anonymous benefactor/hero. My character would be playing a character. Nobody would know what he's truly like. Even the personality i present to the group would be an illusion.
I had already imagined how I would finish the character at lvl 20. I had envisioned a scene where after many long adventures together with my group, my character might intentionally let his guard down for a split second, and then they'd get the slightest glimmer as to what he really is. At that time they might finally realise why the BBEG's assassins almost never seemed to find them. Perhaps it wasn't sheer coincidence that the party's wagon broke down at a crossroad, thereby ensuring a delay that allowed a key NPC to catch up with the party and pass on vital information which gave them an advantage against the evil Black dragon of the Depthless Bog. Perhaps my character was the reason why there was a little bone in the evil Lord of the Vale's fish pie, thereby choking and killing him and allowing his more gentle and just nephew to inherit his estate, much to the relief of the people of Grufton and the Vale in general.
Then, as realization comes, my character would leap from the balcony of the BBEG's sky fortress, and when the party runs to the ledge to look down, expecting to see a flailing, falling torso they instead find nothing by the freezing winds and the sickly sensation of vertigo when they witness the green pastures of the Plains of Durav 10,000ft below. Perhaps later, as they sit by their fires in their comfortable long-halls bought with the loot of years of successful adventures, they might hear a tale of strange set of coincidences leading to a great victory of the Crimson Alliance against the bloodthirsty horde of the Damned, or how the enchanted zirconium of Pelor, once thought lost forever, appeared miraculously in its place of glory on the pinnacle spire of the great temple of the holy city and wonder...
No other class so immediately clicked with me in that way. With this class, I felt it would be possible to be the proverbial nudger of fate. The class was custom built to pander to my anonymous "butterfly effect" god-complex.
When I think of a Beguiler in books I've read or movies I've seen, these characters immediately spring to mind:
The 'Prophet' from R. Scott Bakker's "The Prince of Nothing" series. Mostly for the near supernatural manipulative abilities the character has. I would have my character's use his skills and spells to replicate this aspect of that character.
Kruppe of Darujistan from Steven Erikson's "A Tale of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" series. Mostly for Kruppe's cunning ability to engineer situations that work out best not only for Darujistan, but for the world as a whole through the actions of others. That and the way hides that he is a caster.
Jaqen H'ghar of George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. I liked the disguise ability this character had, and the way he managed to make every assassination look like an accident so he was never suspected.
WARNING! Spoiler for "The Usual Suspects Movie"!!
Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint/Kaiser Soze from "The Usual Suspects." For the outstanding way Kaiser masquerades as Verbal Kint and engineers every situation to his advantage. For the outstanding manipulation of his co-conspiritors, the FBI and basically everyone, to up and disappear, never to be heard from again once his goals are achieved. The sheer mystery and genius of the character. I pictured the "revelation" I mentioned earlier to be much like the "revelation" scene from this movie.
Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint/Kaiser Soze from "The Usual Suspects." For the outstanding way Kaiser masquerades as Verbal Kint and engineers every situation to his advantage. For the outstanding manipulation of his co-conspiritors, the FBI and basically everyone, to up and disappear, never to be heard from again once his goals are achieved. The sheer mystery and genius of the character. I pictured the "revelation" I mentioned earlier to be much like the "revelation" scene from this movie.
A class that can't remove hit points is a class that's not going to be printed.
Besides, DnD doesn't HAVE to be all about the monster mash. I can't speak for your play group, but for mine, a full session spent bumping uglies to progress the plot is a session wasted. Meeting weird and wonderful NPCs, exploring strange and exotic places, deftly negotiating the exchange of goods with shady merchants are ALL just as vital as slamming a broadsword into the head of a nasty villain. Don't get me wrong, DnD wouldn't be DnD without the combat, but it's not ALL about the combat.
Furthermore, one of the nastiest spellcasting classes I've ever seen was a build for 3.5 wizard by TreantMonk. The build was either a conjuration or transmutation build which was designed to control the combat arena, drain the enemy, buff your allies, and generally be a pain the backside. The build had no time whatsoever for doing damage itself, but by golly could it cause trouble for the enemy by tactically screwing them out of victory with debuffs, while by the same token, turning the strikers and meatshields into unholy terrors. A spell spent doing direct damage was essentially a spell wasted. The point is, a class does not have to be super aggressive to be a valuable member of the team.
The thing I really liked about the Beguiler was that it seemed to have enough combat orientated abilities to make a good contribution to combat scenarios in a non-traditional way while still having enough skill-based abilities and enchantments/illusions to be interesting and effective out of combat. To me, it was the perfect hybrid class. It took the best elements of being a rogue, and complemented it with a sorcerer's spell capacity and a list of perfectly matched spells and abilities. It was an excellent skill-specialist/controller hybrid.
In 4.0 "hybrid" seems to be a dirty word. Either you do damage, or you go home. I will be the first to assert that a game is only as good as the DM and the players involved, but the group needs a steady, stable and effective platform to launch from. 4.0 is certainly that; to a fault. It's still early days yet as wizards still has plenty of opporunities to expand with other books, but I'm still worried. Sure 3.5 could be ridiculously complex if you stepped out of "core" material, and even if you didn't it could be messy. But I'll tell you this; it was never dull, and I applaud Wizards for taking a chance with all the weird and wonderful things that came out of it. Sure a lot of it was dross and ineffective, but the upside was, occasionally you got a gem; like the beguiler.
If Wizards doesn't come out with a 4.0 Beguiler, or WORSE, if they do but they strip it of everything that made it interesting, then I guess I may have to make a choice. I can choose to continue forcing down the plain old white bread that is 4.0. Safe, predictable and bland. Or I can go back and take another slice of the 3.5 chocolate cake, and close my eyes and swallow when occasionally the mouthful contains something multi-legged and wriggling.
Personally I prefer a bit of excitement, even if from time to time it results in me paying homage to the porcelain god.
;)
Having read the article:
*YAWN.*
To be perfectly honest, when I picture that class, I picture a warlord huffing on a tuba. That's it.
My honest opinion, Kitsuna, is that you really aren't even trying. You are seeing pretty much what you expect to see and not even attempting to see anything more.
IMO, the biggest hurdle for 4th Edition is 3rd Edition. Too many people have been stuck in a box where they can only do explicitly what the system allows them to do. They see a lack of "Profession" on the skill list and assume that they can't have a professional life rather than feeling that they can have any kind of professional life that their ability scores would allow for.
So, no offense intended, but if you can't use the Bard to fill every expectation that you have stated for the Beguiler, its because you aren't trying.
When I imagined myself playing a beguiler, I had absolutely NO intention of even telling the other players what class I was.
Then it really doesn't matter which class you play as long as it fullfills your other expectations.
Every opportunity I could exercise a spell with the silent spell/still spell feats, I would. So I could hide the fact that I was actually casting. I had absolutely no intention of letting the other players even know I was a spellcasting class. Only the DM would know. If I couldn't do it with those feats, every spell cast would be covered by a bluff/sleight of hand check to hide the somatic and verbal components (for example; dusting off his coat and adjusting the lapels of his collar while muttering about the weather as an activation for a spell) Whenever my character would be asked exactly what he does, he would smile wanly (bordering on a smirk) and answer; "A little o' this, and a little o' that."
Bardic powers have no specific somatic or verbal components (remember, flavor text is not rules text and can be changed with absolutely no consequence). In fact, they fit this specification significantly better than the Beguiler, since what you are describing is not an innate characteristic of the Beguiler class and rather something you tacked on afterwards.
I LIKED the fact that the class had almost NO offensive spells, and the ones that were offensive, were almost exclusively non-lethal.
None of the bard's powers deal any substantial amount of damage, and a great many deal no physical damage at all. In fact, with only the given powers (which are not the complete Bardic power list) I can make a Bard 10 almost incapable of inflicting physical damage... and I can flavor everything to be either an illusory or mundane trickery.
W Attack 1: Vicious Mockery (damage is flavored as mental manipulation)
E Attack 1: Fast Friends
D Attack 1: Stirring Shout (mental)
Utility 2: Hunter's Tune or Inspire Competence
E Attack 3: Dissonant Strain (mental)
D Attack 5: Song of Discord
Utility 6: Alegro or Trickster's Healing
E Attack 7: Deflect Attention (mental) or Unluck (mental)
D Attack 9: Hideous Laughter (mental)
Utility 10: Illusory Erasure or Veil or Word of Life
I LIKED the fact that the most powerful spells the class had depends entirely on your imagination with illusions. I really liked the opportunity to branch out with advanced learning. I liked the sheer number of skills available. I liked the fact that with the "use magic device" skill and some clever illusions, a beguiler can masquerade as any other class. There is no better class for a sneaky, evil grand vizier, or a selfless anonymous benefactor/hero. My character would be playing a character. Nobody would know what he's truly like. Even the personality i present to the group would be an illusion.
You can still do that, except you don't require the Use Magic Device skill. You may, however, want to train in Bluff and Disguise and take the Ritual Casting feat and the Hallucinatory Item/Creature rituals, as well as potentially Silence and some others.
I had already imagined how I would finish the character at lvl 20. I had envisioned a scene where after many long adventures together with my group, my character might intentionally let his guard down for a split second, and then they'd get the slightest glimmer as to what he really is. At that time they might finally realise why the BBEG's assassins almost never seemed to find them. Perhaps it wasn't sheer coincidence that the party's wagon broke down at a crossroad, thereby ensuring a delay that allowed a key NPC to catch up with the party and pass on vital information which gave them an advantage against the evil Black dragon of the Depthless Bog. Perhaps my character was the reason why there was a little bone in the evil Lord of the Vale's fish pie, thereby choking and killing him and allowing his more gentle and just nephew to inherit his estate, much to the relief of the people of Grufton and the Vale in general.
Then, as realization comes, my character would leap from the balcony of the BBEG's sky fortress, and when the party runs to the ledge to look down, expecting to see a flailing, falling torso they instead find nothing by the freezing winds and the sickly sensation of vertigo when they witness the green pastures of the Plains of Durav 10,000ft below. Perhaps later, as they sit by their fires in their comfortable long-halls bought with the loot of years of successful adventures, they might hear a tale of strange set of coincidences leading to a great victory of the Crimson Alliance against the bloodthirsty horde of the Damned, or how the enchanted zirconium of Pelor, once thought lost forever, appeared miraculously in its place of glory on the pinnacle spire of the great temple of the holy city and wonder...
Sure. Why not?
Honestly, it seems as though you are being very selectively creative. Why can't you do that with a 4e bard? Or a warlock? Or any number of classes.
When i look at 4.0 and when I see the way the bard is going, and the way the Feylock went, I get nervous. I can only hope that if/when they come to look at doing the Beguiler class they take a good long LONG hard look at what was so unique about the class and incorporate it into 4.0. I see it as an opportunity to do something completely different from the classes that have been done so far.
And I look at 4e and see just the opposite. I think to myself, "Thank GOD they got rid of all those force constraints and I can finally play whatever I want however I want to play it".
For example, the character I am playing right now... A gnome warlock who fights using his connection to the wilds to summon flocks of ethereal butterflies and packs of mystical green squirrels from the Feywilds, and who has a deep spiritual connection to the god of wine that allows him to inflict his enemies with a divinely powered drunkenness... would not be possible under a more restrictive ruleset.
I haven't used a single houserule yet. I have only changed the "flavor text" of my powers.
I worry however, that perhaps 4.0 is not the platform for the Beguiler I envisage. All I can do now is wait. At the very worst, perhaps I may have to beg for a 3.5 ed game so I can play a Beguiler the way I want to play it. If I get sufficiently desperate, I might have to create a 4.0 version of the class myself. Unless someone else does it first and better than I could (which would not be hard).
Again, I think you just need to put a little effort into it. It looks like if the flavor isn't handed to you, you're not willing to put in the footwork. If you want suggestions, I would be more than willing to lend a hand, just drop me a PM.
I've said it a number of times... 4e is a different style of game than 3.5 was. It is significantly more open, and that is throwing a lot of people off because they don't have experience roleplaying in that type of gaming environment. In 3.5 you could only do what the books said and how the books said to do it, unless you specifically worked with the DM to change it. In 4e you can do whatever you want, however you want, as long as it falls within the basic framework of the rules. 4e follows the more modern tradition of gaming, which has been established and proven wildly popular since the publishing of 3.5, which followed the more late 80s-90s model established (and dominated) by games like GURPS.
If you look at 4e through 3.5 glasses, you are bound to be disappointed.
Perhaps saying it was a warlord with a tuba was a bit of an exaggeration, but that was my first impression. Granted the class isn't even out yet, so we'll see how it goes.
As for 4.0 vs 3.5. Yes, they are very different breeds. 4.0 definitely has its advantages, sure. The streamlining of spells for simplicity is refreshing. The balancing of martial vs arcane classes, doing away with the weapon proficiency nonsense. Doing away with -+X on Condition Y but only where Label Z = 3.14 multiplied by the time of day. Now its +2 or -2 for just about everything. Simplified skill checks and getting rid of the ridiculously long list of skills. For a DM, 4.0 is much cleaner and easier to manage. This I know.
But for all that, I'm finding myself reminiscing of the "good ol' days" of 3.5. I don't know. Maybe I'm biased because 3.5 currently HAS a Beguiler built, exactly the way I want it, whereas 4.0 does not yet. I just hope Wizards DOES a 4.0 Beguiler, and it's as good as the 3.5 one.