+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 11
Thread: 3 in 1 - Your Opinion
Wednesday, 30th May, 2007, 06:23 AM #1
Novice (Lvl 1)
3 in 1 - Your Opinion
Do you agree with me that the Sorceror, Beguiler and Bard are classes very similar one to another?
If you would be to all put that into only one core class and leave the others as PrC, how would you see it built?
How would you name it?
I would see it as follow:
"The party's disabler & jack-of-all-trades"
- poor BAB
- good will and reflex saves
- bard's skills
- 4+int mod skill progression
- spells based on cha
- spell progression to level 8
- utility spells (haste, charm, hold, invisibility)
- no spells from necromancy
Some ideas of the special features:
- bonus hit on sneak attacks
- find/disarm trap spell
- inspiring spells (like metamagic, spells would trigger inspiration. It uses up higher spell slots)
Does anyone know a link to a class that would look like what I am looking for?
What other special features would you see included or excluded?
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Wednesday, 30th May, 2007, 07:43 AM #2
I don't really see too much overlap. The sorcerer is a real arcane caster. The beguiler is hyperspecialized in illusion and enchantment. And the bard is mostly a buffing class. About the biggest similarity I can see is that they all have bluff. Yes, there's some overlap in the skills and attack spells of the bard and beguiler. But bards are focused much more into buffing, especially with regard to their song effects - there's some good options now for really boosting that area of the bard. Plus bards are generally more physical, with a good phys save, decent attack bonus (plus self boosts from bard song).
"I'd like to shake the hand of the genius who invented that - just the hand, after it's been cut off from the now screaming man."
Wednesday, 30th May, 2007, 01:27 PM #3
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
another big difference is the number of spells, as a bard you really can't depend on using your spells for every action, like you can as a sorcerer or beguiler. Instead the bard relies on weapons and helping others (singing / healing)
Better sorcerers have a lot of utility spells and rarely seem to take either enchantment or illusions despite the focus suggested by using chr as a casting stat. (invisibility may be the early exception)
I have only played with a low-level beguiler and although it is possible to cast every round, there are many foes that will mostly ignore your magic.
beguilers are certainly the least important and the shallowest niche of the three. Just not allowing it would be a simple fix.
why the sneak attack/ trap finding? the non-magical rogue is its own archtype, and you should avoid spreading overlaps further.
Wednesday, 30th May, 2007, 02:43 PM #4
Scout (Lvl 6)
I'm not familiar with the Beguiler so can't really comment
but what you seem to be doing is looking at a way to combine these three into a single versatile 'Arcane Generalist' class
You might look at the Hyperspecialisation route of the Beguiler but apply it to different schools - Illusion/Enchantment for the Beguiler, Illusion/Divinition for the Bard and Evocation/xxx for the Scorcerer. along with a general set of utility spells
Reducing the spells per day of the scorc isn't a biggy imho as they will be getting Bard skills and a better BAb
This could be an interesting class
Originally Posted by IcyCoolSpoiler:
Thursday, 31st May, 2007, 07:03 AM #5
Novice (Lvl 1)
About your interogation, let me explain myself about the trap find and special sneak attack: it was to follow the idea of the beguiler who has access to these talents. However, I will agree with you that it's out of flavour with the class I really want to come out with.
Yes, this WILL be an interesting class if one ever makes it up.Originally Posted by Tonguez
If I'm interested to combine all of the three classes it's because I want one that has the power of the sorceror, the versatility of the bard and the flavour of the beguiler.
Yes, the bard and the beguiler lack of sheer power, don't you all agree on that? For having tryed the beguiler, it is an incredibly weak class when playing in solo.
The flavour of the beguiler sounds just plain right of what I'm looking for. It's the perfect law breaker, the totally opposite of his rival the most known arcane spellcaster, the mage. The bard is a bit the same, living on his own, traveling and never settling forever somewhere. Being the victim of some sort of chaotic forces that let him manipulate arcane energies, the sorceror is the same. Sadly, the way the class is built, the sorceror doesn't have quite every implements required to be the class it's supposed to be.
I left versatility as the last point to mention because I feel like you'll interupt your reading and immediately reply when that's not what I want.
Among the three classes, it is the sorceror who's the less versatile. Logically, though, if he was given his powers, what could he do to train as an adventurer? Many things, right? Well, don't tell me that all he learned was nothing more than a few simple weapon proficiency! (When comparing with the mage who studied for so many years...) Or was he so lazy and wasted all of his time that all he would do in his past is to get laid with the women he discovered he's able to charm?
The truth is that the sorceror has no skills, has no armor proficiency, he's not tough (HPs) and has not only no specialisation (blasting; aka hack and slash is reserved to fighters and barbarians) but also no versatility (don't speak, the mage owns him on that one). It isn't an unbalanced class but the first thing that shocks me is that the name for sorceror in my mother tongue is the Charmer but he's not in any way a charmer, he's not half of the beguiler or bard as a charmer. In the end, I called it the Retarded Blaster. Retarded because he gets his spells of the same level as the mage one level later.
Now that I'm finished, what do you say about that? Let's now build something that rocks.
Nothing like the arcananarchist class that I made alone and looks like a disaster.
If the sorceror had an average BAB progression, would that make it abusive?
What about the wizard?
Concerning the class,
Do you think that a double spell progression would be too complicated to play?
For exemple, having a bard spell progression added to a sorceror spell progression. Has someone ever dualed into two arcane casting classes?
Friday, 1st June, 2007, 07:31 PM #6
Novice (Lvl 1)
If a class would have the exclusivity of casting spell-like arcanes, how powerful would that be ?
To balance it out, what could be a fair drawback?
If we take the wizard, for exemple, would removing his acces to his spells of 9 (and of level 8, maybe) would be fair enough?
Tuesday, 5th June, 2007, 05:48 AM #7
Novice (Lvl 1)
Sunday, 10th June, 2007, 04:07 AM #8
Novice (Lvl 1)
Tuesday, 19th June, 2007, 10:42 PM #9
Novice (Lvl 1)
Wednesday, 20th June, 2007, 12:42 AM #10
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
I don't see much similarity, sorry. The spell lists are just so different, and their roles are quite different too.
Bard is best as an area-buff with a lot of utility functionality; Sorcerer is a walking boom-stick with the ability to spam a small sub-set of Sorc/Wiz spells, and the ability to use magic items from the whole Sorc/Wiz list; Beguiler is a skill monkey and a caster, but with a very specific spell list, and emphasis on melee combat with Humanoids.
Bards do very well as archers, or 2nd line melee support (like a Cleric).
Sorcerers do very well standing back and throwing spells.
Beguilers do very well as second-rank tumbling melee guys -- they play more like Rogues than Bards or Sorcerers.
So, I'm not seeing the similarity.
Sorry, -- N
By Sykyrys in forum Eternity Publishing Hosted ForumReplies: 5Last Post: Tuesday, 9th February, 2010, 06:23 PM
By gizmo33 in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 34Last Post: Wednesday, 26th September, 2007, 03:39 PM
By [no code] in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: Tuesday, 20th July, 2004, 07:17 AM
By questionmark in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 14Last Post: Thursday, 10th April, 2003, 10:28 PM