Beguilers - too powerful?

[moritheil]

Weird.

Most of those roles can be supplemented heavily with spells. Take a bit of Hide and Bluff, sure... but don't max them out. That's what Invisibility and Glibness are for...

-Stuart

But then I won't have the absolute joy of rolling a 1 for Hide and still forcing opponents to make epic Spot checks!

I don't actually tend to max Bluff, but I do tend to keep Hide maxed. Many enemies can see invisible or notice magic anyhow.

 

[Arkhandus]

Well, you nerfed illusion than didn't you.

Pay attention to what people are actually saying, for a change.

Re-read what he had posted. He KNOWS that Figments aren't mind-affecting. That's what he was saying in the first place.

You weren't correcting him, you were repeating the same point that he had just made.


Regarding Beguilers: They're probably a bit too strong in terms of manipulative prowess, eclipsing the Bard in one of the only two things it does well (manipulation and buffing), but overall they're kinda gimped.

They suffer the Rogue's problem, but often worse; they can't do much against undead, constructs, oozes, and similar, as well as many vermin and plants. They can use UMD like a Rogue, but also need other stats besides Charisma in order to be effective and survivable. Their abilities are largely defeated by Mind Blank or similar effects, as well, while lacking an Enchanter Wizard's ability to still hurl Fireballs or Summon Monster VIIs or the like. They also have some trouble dealing with enemy spellcasters, who have high Will saves.

A Beguiler in a group should probably just replace the Rogue, rather than being considered a Wizard-replacement, because they're really not a full-fledged caster, they're a Rogue who happens to do a lot of his Roguish trickery through magic.

 

[szilard]

They suffer the Rogue's problem, but often worse; they can't do much against undead, constructs, oozes, and similar, as well as many vermin and plants. They can use UMD like a Rogue, but also need other stats besides Charisma in order to be effective and survivable. Their abilities are largely defeated by Mind Blank or similar effects, as well, while lacking an Enchanter Wizard's ability to still hurl Fireballs or Summon Monster VIIs or the like. They also have some trouble dealing with enemy spellcasters, who have high Will saves.

A Beguiler in a group should probably just replace the Rogue, rather than being considered a Wizard-replacement, because they're really not a full-fledged caster, they're a Rogue who happens to do a lot of his Roguish trickery through magic.

Remember, some illusions work perfectly well against mindless things.

Also, with UMD, a Beguiler can replace a Wizard if needed. I don't quite see your point about Charisma. Beguilers have less MAD than Rogues in my mind. Without UMD, another blaster-type (Sorcerer or Warmage or Warlock with blast invocations, usually) is advisable to replace a Wizard (though the Beguiler makes a decent arcane-utility caster).

Don't forget that Beguilers have some nice buff spells and a bunch of battlefield-control spells. Even if their enchantments are useless in a particular fight, they can still be very useful in the hands of someone who knows their spell list well.

-Stuart

 

[Thurbane]

My one experiece with a Beguiler was DMing one. Almost every encounter the party faced (except for undead or creatures with massive SR, which were in the minority) were hammered by a barrage of Confusion spells before they had a chance to fight back.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm actually curious as to whether or not you've used it. It looks good on paper but I find that in actual campaign use my beguiler feat slots always go towards survivability and increasing save DCs. I do suppose that something like Whelming Blast would be better if you had that feat, but the spells that you ordinarily use in enchantment are save or lose, and IMO it would be worth it to instead increase your save DC if you are casting those spells.

I've seen a mid-level bard with it. It was kinda weak, because she didn't have the spell slots to toss around enchantments every round and really get use out of it. Myself, I used a slightly houseruled version, "Unsettling Telepathy" for a Telepath I played. Same feat, just works on Telepathy. Because well...the XPH basically said they're the same thing effectively. For Telepaths (well, it's on the general list, so any psion, really...), this feat is AMAZING. One power makes it very useful - Demoralize.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/demoralize.htm

For a single PP, targets all foes in 30 ft, AND doesn't affect allies. The possible shaken effect with min/level duration already is good. Adding -2 attacks/AC for a round, save or not? Priceless. I'm not saying it's broken. No one else ever complained about it being too good. But, it is very, very, very cost effective. I've never seen as much "bang for your buck" for one PP. Any round where things aren't all going to hell, when you feel like conserving PP and not blowing through (ML level) of it in one shot, it's just such a great plan B. Just summon your astral construct, sit back, pop up unsettling telepathy demoralizes each round, and let your minions...err...party members do the dirty work!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, and the flip side of it is that they don't gain that much from going into PrCs, with the exception of perhaps three (Mindbender, Shadowcraft Gnome, and possibly Divine Oracle.) They therefore should not be compared to straight sorcs or wizards, but multiclassed ones. Comparing a beguiler to, say, IoSV, I don't really think they are too powerful. They are useful, but in terms of raw power, a carefully built wiz or sorc can do more. The inability of the beguiler to deal direct damage and use spells like disintegrate limits his or her contributions at higher levels (assuming a standard "dungeon crawl" campaign.)

Wait, let me get your line of reasoning straight here. If I took a Cleric and gave it all kinds of class features at various levels, like evasion, mettle, sneak attack, divine grace, and more, and then wanted to compare it to a straight 20 normal Cleric, you'd tell me it's not a fair comparison? That multiclassing is a much better deal for the normal Cleric and thus I should be comparing my uber Cleric 20 versus some optimized Cleric / PrC mix? I think base classes should be comparable to other base classes, on their own merits.

 

[moritheil]

Wait, let me get your line of reasoning straight here. If I took a Cleric and gave it all kinds of class features at various levels, like evasion, mettle, sneak attack, divine grace, and more, and then wanted to compare it to a straight 20 normal Cleric, you'd tell me it's not a fair comparison? That multiclassing is a much better deal for the normal Cleric and thus I should be comparing my uber Cleric 20 versus some optimized Cleric / PrC mix? I think base classes should be comparable to other base classes, on their own merits.

I think you have misapplied my statement. My point is for classes like duskblade and beguiler, a lot of being able to do what they do is tied into the abilities they get when they progress as the base class. However, this also functions as a built-in limitation. Their potential for growth via PrCs is not the same.

By default, any base class only grows stronger when you add in more PrCs (assuming you do not choose foolishly.) But this is not the case with Beguiler; the vast majority of PrCs are either unsuitable for it or do not offer enough to make them worth giving up Beguiler levels. Thus when considering actual characters (which are going to have PrCs mixed in, and which is the ultimate level at which things should be balanced) it's fair to compare Beguilers to PrC mixes. Your statement that it is not a fair comparison presupposes that Beguilers could go on to gain from PrCs in the same way that wizards can - and they really can't.

To answer your example, let's take an analogy. I think if you took the warlock in the old environment - before PrCs were adapted to make them actually advance warlock invocations - then yes, it might be fair to compare it to a PrC designed to fill a similar role. Why? The player of a warlock essentially had no choice, no options for PrCs. So the only thing you can do is to compare it to other characters as final products, because in the step where you add PrCs to the character the warlock player is twiddling his thumbs.

Or perhaps you think it's fair to say, "Here's a class that is unsuitable for pretty much every PrC, but because we want to keep base classes balanced, chars from this class get to be utterly screwed when other characters progress to PrCs and it can't." Is that result balanced?

 

[Arkhandus]

Remember, some illusions work perfectly well against mindless things.

Yes, and I did say that they "can't do much against undead, etc.", not that they can't do anything at all against them. Just very little.

Also, with UMD, a Beguiler can replace a Wizard if needed. I don't quite see your point about Charisma. Beguilers have less MAD than Rogues in my mind.

At the cost of many expensive scrolls and wands over time, sure. Whenever he can find a vendor nearby to purchase any scroll/wand he needs. A wizard doesn't have to shell out lots of money just to be useful on the occasional undead-infestation adventure. Or during high-level adventures where Mind Blank may be in use by the main bad guys.

Also, UMD doesn't apply much at low levels, where the Beguiler will have to deal with Zombies, Oozes, Monstrous Spiders, and Giant Fungi before he or she can become decent with the UMD skill. And he's got other things to spend feats on besides Skill Focus and suchlike, though he can if he wants.

They're not really more MAD-afflicted than Rogues, but they do really really need UMD if they're going to avoid MAD and do some damage. And even then it'll usually be with a relatively weak wand instead of an equal-caster-level Fireball, Magic Missile, Chain Lightning, or what-have-you. Unless they got money pourin' outta their ears and high-level spellcasters on their speed-dial for on-demand scroll-makin'. -_-

Don't forget that Beguilers have some nice buff spells and a bunch of battlefield-control spells. Even if their enchantments are useless in a particular fight, they can still be very useful in the hands of someone who knows their spell list well.

They have limited buffs, and limited battlefield-control spells. They're useful, and I've already said before that they're fairly powerful, but they're still rather limited in effectiveness. They can slow down the enemy or try escaping it, but if it can't be mind-controlled at the moment (or just has a high Will save), the Beguiler's about as effective as a Bard who's used up all their performances, most of their spells, and most of their Str/Dex from ability-damaging monsters.

The Beguiler's just too focused on being awesome in one area and only slightly useful the rest of the time. Too good at what he does for the rest of the party to do much in those situations, and too bad at everything else for when the rest of the party is active.

 

[shilsen]

I'm currently playing a gnome beguiler in a Shackled City game, where I joined at 10th level and he's currently 15th. I play the character as a midget Napoleon, functioning as the tactical linchpin of the group, strengthening allies, weakening enemies, and keeping the PCs working like a well-oiled machine. He's invested a lot in UMD and always has a plethora of wands and scrolls at hand. Due to the nature of the AP, we're constantly running into creatures which are resistant or immune to his enchantment spells (undead, outsiders, etc). And for a long time he was actually functioning as the party healer, since we had no divine caster. I've never had a problem being constantly effective in any of those situations.

In short, I personally find it an excellently designed class, effective but not too powerful, and playable from levels 1-20 without having to think of a PrC.

 

[roguerouge]

At the cost of many expensive scrolls and wands over time, sure. Whenever he can find a vendor nearby to purchase any scroll/wand he needs. A wizard doesn't have to shell out lots of money just to be useful on the occasional undead-infestation adventure. Or during high-level adventures where Mind Blank may be in use by the main bad guys.

Uh... doesn't the wizard have to spend 100s of gp and a day to scribe a single spell into their spell book?

SRD: "Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook.

Time
The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level.

Space in the Spellbook
A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.

Materials and Costs
Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page.

Note that a wizard does not have to pay these costs in time or gold for the spells she gains for free at each new level."

So to do much of anything, the wizard has to shell out a great deal of money, actually.