Skip Williams' Beguiler Article

[lukelightning]

Unless it catches them on fire, which it will very likely do. Why couldnt you Reduce the vampire and hit him with the decanter. On gyser I dont see why it wouldnt count as immersion.

Immersion is not being sprayed with water. It's being submersed in water. Vampires aren't the Wicked Witch of the West. Immersion means to be dunked or put under the surface of the water. A vampire can stand in water no problem, or be sprayed.

The rules for alchemist's fire and oil specifically state they only burn for one extra round. There are no special rules for "catching on fire."

Reducing a vampire and then submerging it in water is a valid tactic... but it's not exactly something most rogues can do.

 

[HeavyG]

Interesting that you think a Cleric backing up a rogue is enough against undead (no mention of all the other types of things immune to sneak attacks), but you think it takes the entire rest of the party to back-up the beguiler under virtually the same circumstances.

Yes, but if you have both a Beguiler and a Rogue, then the Cleric must compensate for both of them.

 

[HeavyG]

Why couldnt you Reduce the vampire

Is there a Reduce Undead spell I'm not familiar with ?

 

[Henry]

Yes, but if you have both a Beguiler and a Rogue, then the Cleric must compensate for both of them.

And if you have a beguiler in the party, you might well not have a rogue; they cover many roguish functions, especially with such high skill points (practically as many as a rogue).

On the other hand, a rogue without UMD can't buff anyone, whereas a beguiler could (and I believe the beguiler also has UMD as class skill, so no worries there). A beguiler also has access to wands with any of its spells in them without need of a roll, so a lot of that illusion/enchantment is usable at all times of the day or night off the bat.

I'll be honest, though -- I don't think in a game whose focus is strictly dungeon-crawling-critter-bashing that a Beguiler would be as good a fit as a rogue; the rogue can do double duty as scout/trapspringer and as combat aide. In a city campaign, or a campaign where politics can be important, a Beguiler can hold its own, and be even superior to a rogue.

Rules-wise, a beguiler in an orc-lair is darned nasty. making oneself up as an orc, or using illusions to misdirect orc scouts, etc. the Beguiler would allow a party to get MUCH deeper into an installation with much fewer resources and casualties spent. Tonight I may comment more on that, once I get hold of my PHB2 again.

 

[Ipissimus]

Heavens forefend that a party would actually have to (gasp!) work together or (erk!) *think* in order to defeat an encounter.

Beguilers have even more options than rogues do in encounters with mindless/immune creatures. A small legion of charmed creatures can at least slow down such monsters while the party rallies. Beguilers are just as useful against Golems as any spellcasting class, which is to say almost not at all. Oozes generally have energy weaknesses such as fire; Undead are either fodder under your fighter's blades or crushed with the holy might of your cleric; Vampires are harder than a coffin nail no matter what your party composition is...

If you look at a party as a whole, a Beguiler is a good replacement for the rogue... not perfect, but then the whole game's built around the standard F/R/C/W party. If your fighter can't bash it on the head and the cleric can't destroy it with his holy symbol, the Beguiler can turn it to your side. And if all else fails, the mage can still nuke it.

 

[Christian]

Henry & Frank: Yes, the Beguiler has UMD as a class skill ...

 

[Particle_Man]

I would love to see a party of the 4 PHB II base classes, and see how they do.

 

[shilsen]

I would love to see a party of the 4 PHB II base classes, and see how they do.

I'm seriously considering using an NPC group of the four PHB2 classes against my PCs. Not the same as seeing them in play as PCs, of course, but it should be an interesting exercise.

 

[two]

Rogues when they can't sneak attack

I have to agree with the Rogue thing.

When they can't sneak attack... yes there are "things" they can do. Throw caltrops. Tanglefoot bags. UMD (maybe, if it works) some wand or item. You can be clever as a rogue and help flank and trip and be a pain.

But bottom line: if you are not doing damage, (and a rogue - sneak attack = trivial damage), you are treading water. Yes, you can help. But not very much, not on a consistent basis.

It's much worse as the levels rise. Not only are 1/3 of monsters immune to sneak attack, but enemies start casting spells/have abilities which also nullify sneak attacks (simple blur spell, fort armor, other concealment).

As levels rise Rogue become increasingly binary. Either then can sneak attack regularly in a combat and do lots of damage... or they can't, and are ignorable.

At high levels (15+) any reasonably intelligent enemy with standard equipment can be immune to sneak attacks most of the time.

At very high levels (18+) there isn't any excuse (barring a suprise ambush) for any slightly intelligent and capable monster to get sneak attacked ever. Between spells, buffs, items, etc. stopping sneak attacks is trivially easy and the payoff is huge. (not just vs. sneak attacks but, of course, for other reasons as well).

I'm exaggerating a bit... but no other class is so easily nullified as the Rogue.

Imagine if 1/3 of the monsters in D&D were totally immune to spells cast by wizardly types?
And that it was pretty easy to cast a spell or get an item which then rendered you immune to spells cast by wizardly types?

That's kinda the Rogue's situation.

(as a bonus, skills get less important as levels rise and magic becomes increasingly common and all-powerful).

 

[lukelightning]

Is there a Reduce Undead spell I'm not familiar with ?

Um, yeah! It's the "Microvamp" spell, that, uh, makes vampire turn diminutive....