Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 LinkianGSU Apr 04, 2009 15:38:26	I was wondering today how to recreate one of my favorite classes from 3.5 in 4th edition. The Beguiler from 3.5 PHB II was a versatile Rogue/Illusionist style class. They were only able to use Enchantment and Illusion spells, but were also able to use sneak attack and armor like a rogue, as well as an extensive skill selection. I'm not sure whether this would best be reimagined as a rogue/wizard or a wizard/rogue multiclass. Other likely variations could replace wizard with warlock or sorcerer. Has anyone managed to recreate the Beguiler or have any interesting ideas on the best way to do so?
#2 daidojitaidoru Apr 04, 2009 15:52:28	Hm... Id say warlock/rogue or rogue/warlock would be best. Warlocks have a bunch of psychic/radiant stuff (what most illusions are typed now) and lots of little tricks to aid in stealth and mess with peoples heads. Rogues of course have the shankings and whatnot. I'd say warlock base rogue multi would be my go at it. Grabbing fleeting ghost to combo with the Warlock's natural concealment and using weapon training to use Cha with the pact blade.
#3 LinkianGSU Apr 04, 2009 16:01:44	To be honest, Warlock did seem the immediate choice mechanics wise, but the Beguiler seemed to me something more of a controller, as most of his spells really did no damage (They did have a number of spells that actually did nonlethal damage). This seems to me that wizard spells such as Thunderwave (since it really is just sound), Sleep, and Color Spray may make more sense. Also the Warlock's pacts don't really seem to fit in with exactly what a Beguiler was supposed to be, so that may take some reflavoring.
#4 Zardnaar Apr 04, 2009 16:06:31	Doesn't work so well. Warlock is about the closest you can get. Beguilers never really done much damage with their spells and theres not enough non damaging powers in 4th ed.
#5 krownhunter07 Apr 04, 2009 16:08:24	Well, going rogue/wiz would work too. There was a ddi article that had a lot of wiz spell just for illusions. It would also show up in the CB, if you have that.
#6 stevem22 Apr 04, 2009 16:14:00	I was wondering today how to recreate one of my favorite classes from 3.5 in 4th edition. The Beguiler from 3.5 PHB II was a versatile Rogue/Illusionist style class. They were only able to use Enchantment and Illusion spells, but were also able to use sneak attack and armor like a rogue, as well as an extensive skill selection. I'm not sure whether this would best be reimagined as a rogue/wizard or a wizard/rogue multiclass. Other likely variations could replace wizard with warlock or sorcerer. Has anyone managed to recreate the Beguiler or have any interesting ideas on the best way to do so? I'd recommend Gnome Sorcerer/Rogue Multiclass, with the gnome racial paragon path (which is called Fey Beguiler).
#7 LinkianGSU Apr 04, 2009 16:16:44	I'd recommend Gnome Sorcerer/Rogue Multiclass, with the gnome racial paragon path (which is called Fey Beguiler). I've seen the Fey Beguiler, and it is actually what spawned the idea in my head in the first place. If I were to play a gnome, that would certainly be my goal for 11th level, but sadly doesn't add option for non-gnome characters.
#8 Marcus_Majarra Apr 04, 2009 16:56:52	I'd say this works quite well as a simple stand-alone warlock, preferably a fey pact one. They get truckloads of psychic effects and tend to be more elusive than their counterparts from other pacts (Eyebite is just THAT good).
#9 stevem22 Apr 04, 2009 17:21:55	but sadly doesn't add option for non-gnome characters. Ohhhhhhhhhh. My bad. I'm a big gnome fan, and didn't even consider that non-gnomes would want to do this. Hmmmm. I think maybe you could homebrew a beguiler PP, using the gnome racial one as a base, and then that could get it to work for non-gnomes?
#10 rickvigorous Apr 04, 2009 17:36:54	Bards get plenty of psychic and charm spells, bonuses to diplomacy as a class feature, and can dominate enemies starting at level 5. I'd say cunning bard, multiclassed to wizard (and taking illusory ambush) and/or warlock (taking eyebite or spiteful glamor). Granted, the bard's healing abilities are not in line with the old beguiler, but the power choices are spot on.
#11 LinkianGSU Apr 04, 2009 21:20:20	I hadn't even considered Bard, thats a very interesting possibility.
#12 digitalruse Apr 08, 2009 14:19:41	This has come up recently in my group as well. I have a player trying to port their 3.5 Beguiler/Swashbuckler to 4e and we are stumped. The character played like a Privateer/Diplomat for the group (on top of the obvious Illusion/Charm/Melee damage). Maybe it is something he will have to get over, but he can't reconsile a Warlock being where he gains his "magic" from, and he played the feinting mechanic (with acrobatics) really well and feels he will miss it. Any followup from the others trying to make something like this class work in 4e? Thanks.
#13 mellored Apr 08, 2009 14:42:43	Hybrid, drow rogue|feylock.
#14 digitalruse Apr 08, 2009 17:07:15	Could you elaborate a little more? I assume you are suggesting a Rogue main, with the Warlock Pact feat? Maybe I misunderstand multiclassing... but that doesn't exactly give the... scope of abilities that a Beguiler had. Well, spellwise I mean. Also, IIUC, you cannot go down the Fey Paragon Power path as a Rogue.
#15 umcorian Apr 08, 2009 17:34:51	I was wondering today how to recreate one of my favorite classes from 3.5 in 4th edition. The Beguiler from 3.5 PHB II was a versatile Rogue/Illusionist style class. They were only able to use Enchantment and Illusion spells, but were also able to use sneak attack and armor like a rogue, as well as an extensive skill selection. I'm not sure whether this would best be reimagined as a rogue/wizard or a wizard/rogue multiclass. Other likely variations could replace wizard with warlock or sorcerer. Has anyone managed to recreate the Beguiler or have any interesting ideas on the best way to do so? I'm kinda in the same boat with my Enchanter, if I were to ever bring him over to 4e - these type of characters just don't translate well at all into 4e.
#16 mellored Apr 09, 2009 12:14:53	Could you elaborate a little more? I assume you are suggesting a Rogue main, with the Warlock Pact feat? Maybe I misunderstand multiclassing... but that doesn't exactly give the... scope of abilities that a Beguiler had. Well, spellwise I mean. Also, IIUC, you cannot go down the Fey Paragon Power path as a Rogue. Hybrids are in playtest now, it's different from mutliclassing. You take some rogue abilites and some warlock abilites. You also have to take powers from both classes. So taking fey/illusion powers, and sneaky powers seems to fit nice.
#17 digitalruse Apr 10, 2009 14:18:34	Ah. I see. I don't have access to playtest, and I wouldn't expect those rules to be legal for another year-and-a-half I assume. Oh well... For the sake of keeping the group happy, we'll just wait to transition to 4E. Thanks for the input.
#18 undrave Apr 10, 2009 19:40:01	Bards get plenty of psychic and charm spells, bonuses to diplomacy as a class feature, and can dominate enemies starting at level 5. I'd say cunning bard, multiclassed to wizard (and taking illusory ambush) and/or warlock (taking eyebite or spiteful glamor). Granted, the bard's healing abilities are not in line with the old beguiler, but the power choices are spot on. Yeah get BOTH Wizard and Feylock MC feat! Go at it with a Doppleganger for extra mind screwing.
#19 jeffepp Apr 11, 2009 9:24:48	The 3.5 Beguiler is, in essence, a hybrid of the rouge and sorcerer classes. The two classes were multi-classed together enough that WoC made the new class to fill the need. So, using the new hybrid rules sounds like a good start for 4E. But only a start. The 3.5 spells (the combat ones) were more often ones that effected the opponent, rather than doing damage outright. So, for 4E, we would need powers that, rather than doing extra damage, would set up opponents for combat advantage, as well as push/pull effects. The real strength of the 3.5 Beguiler is in a non-combat role, though. The class conversion to 4E would have more of an emphasis on social Utility powers than most classes. This class is more geared to a RP role than that of a combat one (not that it should be a slouch at fighting). The Striker vs. Controller question comes down to the place in combat. If we are to follow the 3.5 pattern, then we are dealing with a close in fighting character more in line with the striker than the area effects of a controller. I have an interest in this project as well. Some years back, I came up with a character consept that could only work as a sorcerer/rouge. That wouldn't have been that much of a problem, but I was using a bloodline from UA. I never got very far in the build, as there were just to many variables in how to go, and all ended up with the multiclass BAB penalty. When I got the 3.5 PHB2, I found the beguiler to almost be tailor made for what I wanted to do with this character. I would love to be able to recreate that character in 4E.
#20 undrave Apr 13, 2009 19:58:20	I think the bard fullfills the controller aspect of imposing condition rather than damage AND is the ultimate party face (with words of friendship for exemple and Glib limerick). So anything using a bard as the main class or as part of an hybrid would work wonders if you ask me.
#21 digitalruse Apr 17, 2009 0:21:16	I was showing my friend the Bard. It looks exactly like what he wants to play, but he (and I admittingly) have a prejudice that bards are flakey trubadors that pratter on while strumming a lute... not cunning wordsmiths who cloud the minds of foes and can sneak about. And maybe that is a vision we have to strike from our minds. From a roleplaying POV, there is nothing that says his character has to sing or play an instrument to use his abilities... atleast... I dunno... maybe I misunderstand. I was reading over the Begulier entry in PHB2 3.5 and trying to figure out what made it so damn appealing. My conclusion was the harmonious blend of stealth and illusion in a nice neat package. No complicated spell lists or casting rules, and was more skill driven... like a rouge. I also realized that many of the advantages the Beguiler had were not in the class itself per se, but the access it had to Skill Tricks. Concealed Spellcasting, and their ilk made dropping a suggestion using a spell fun and interesting... even as a DM. Any thoughts on how I can get him (and me) past the vision of a Bard we have? Should I just let him go about using "abilities" without much presure on the specifics? Thanks -DR P.S. - The conversion to make a 4E class has presented some interesting challenges... but if something looks respectable, I'll post a draft or something.
#22 undrave Apr 17, 2009 1:17:54	Flakey troubadour? Tell that to the Tiefling shown on the first page of the Bard section. Bards can inflict psychic damage with HARSH WORDS, make foes believe they are marked by someone else or just cut you with the right flourish to make you lower your guard! They also have that neat daily that turns an enemie into a hit point pinata! The bard only needs an instrument to use the Song of Rest and his Bardic Ritual. Anything else can be done with either a weapon or a wand. Some instruments can be enchanted to become implements and there is some Songblades in the book. So no you don't need to go the 'flakey troubadour' path, and unless you really want the Song of Rest or those rituals (you can trade in Ritual Caster for Alchemy instead). In fact since Bards have so many weapon powers you don't need to use any implement ones if you don't want to and vice versa. They are also skill monkeys that can inspire their own competence. So really, throw in some Rogue multiclass or some Warlock if you wish (Half-Elf dilentante!) and you can have a pretty tricky Bard that doesn't feel like a flakey troubadour.
#23 mplindustries Apr 17, 2009 1:59:19	I'd say Bard or Wizard or both. In either case, make sure you somehow have Bluff and Stealth trained. Bonus points if you can manage Diplomacy and Thievery as well. Anytime you would have had your Beguiler use a charm spell in 3.5, roll a Bluff or Diplomacy check and describe it as casting a small charm spell. Anytime you would have cast an invisibility or silence or camouflage or whatever other vision obscuring spell, roll a Stealth check and call it a spell. Whenever you would have cast a spell to change your appearance, roll whatever skill it is to disguise yourself (Bluff I think), and call it a spell. Anytime you would have use any knock spell or whatever, Thievery and call it a spell. Anytime you would have used any non-combat spell, roll an appropriate skill check and call it magic. 4e's abstraction-based system makes everything better.
#24 mellored Apr 17, 2009 10:52:58	Should I just let him go about using "abilities" without much presure on the specifics? This 4e is intended to be re-flavored, the description of each power is just a description and can easily be changed (in fact a few of the default descriptions don't make much sense) I've seen wizards who had magic missiles described as flaming skulls, or a turkey legs (all his spells looked like food). They both did 2d4+int force damage. I've had a warlord who used a whip and "pushed" creatures by snapping it at their feet. The default description says shove, which you can't really do with a whip. I've seen a cleric who's renamed all his powers to be valientine's day/sailor moon-ish, like "love tap" and "power of the heart". So have him play a bard, and style it however you'd like. Start by calling it a beguiler.
#25 digitalruse Apr 17, 2009 11:03:24	Thanks for the input Undrave, mellored and mplindustries. If only skills that specifically state "song" or "singing" mean he has to use his voice or an instrument, I think he can get by on that. Maybe he'll just carry a pocket flute to casually play for that purpose. I think more than anything, the word 'Bard' invokes a ren-fair like quality... cause seriously... if they called this class anything other than Bard, I am pretty sure he would play it in a heartbeat. I'll work with him. There are enough interesting options (like Jack of All Trades to have +3 total to any untrained skills, or the fact that they can multi-multiclass) that I can probably make him look past it. Trying to create a new class is more trouble than I think I am ready to endure. Especially since we are so wet behind the ears with regard to 4E. Thanks again. -DR EDIT: That just may be the ticket, mellored.
#26 undrave Apr 17, 2009 14:05:40	Thanks for the input Undrave, mellored and mplindustries. If only skills that specifically state "song" or "singing" mean he has to use his voice or an instrument, I think he can get by on that. Maybe he'll just carry a pocket flute to casually play for that purpose. I think more than anything, the word 'Bard' invokes a ren-fair like quality... cause seriously... if they called this class anything other than Bard, I am pretty sure he would play it in a heartbeat. I'll work with him. There are enough interesting options (like Jack of All Trades to have +3 total to any untrained skills, or the fact that they can multi-multiclass) that I can probably make him look past it. Trying to create a new class is more trouble than I think I am ready to endure. Especially since we are so wet behind the ears with regard to 4E. Thanks again. -DR EDIT: That just may be the ticket, mellored. Like I said, only Song of Rest and the Bard Rituals specifically mention you need to play an instrument. Any power, even with names like 'Song' or 'Refrain' or even Stirring Shout don't actually force you to sing. You could always check out the Hybrid class playtest. I'd say mixing a Faylock with a Bard would give you some neat effects, picking Vicious Mockery and Eyebite as At-Wills for exemple. If you don't want to create a class wholecloth you might still want to check out the Utilities for the Rogue and the Warlock and let your player pick from them since a lot of them are about skills and being sneaky.