| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| msatran |
Posted - 10 May 2006 : 19:55:50
All right, which PHB II core classes belong in the Realms, and which don't?
I'll be honest, my thoughts look like this:
Beguiler: Yes
Dragon Shaman: NPC only, unless you're running a cult of the dragon campaign.
Duskblade: Sure, why not? Elves just need so much more stuff. (Roll eyes)
Knight: Shouldn't this have been in Complete Warrior instead of Samurai?
Honestly, Knight and Samurai bother me because they are social class designators rather than character class descriptions. And any pure melee combatant (Knight, Hexblade) with low fort save troubles me greatly, especially at high levels. This would be a lot less troubling if they still had five saving throw categories instead of three.
Of the classes, Beguiler and Duskblade are probably the best, though Duskblade is the only one of them that seems marginally easy to integrate.
Thoughts?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 21 Feb 2007 : 18:14:50
A first level character couldn't be a Raumathari Battlemage, but he could be a duskblade. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 21 Feb 2007 : 18:02:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
Concerning duskblades -- couldn't they also be seen as a special class that the old Raumathari developed? I don't have the book in front of me but I recall that they supposedly had a caste of warrior-mages. The duskblades don't *have* to be elven in origin if you like.
They could, but then again why use a duskblade when we already have the Raumathari Battlemage (I think it's in unapproachable east) |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 20 Feb 2007 : 16:26:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
While we're talking about PHBII classes and Faerun -- am I the only one to think that a beguiler would make for a great minion/servitor of Cyric and his cult?
Etyan Bernstein covers it in his recent website article |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 20 Feb 2007 : 16:08:37
While we're talking about PHBII classes and Faerun -- am I the only one to think that a beguiler would make for a great minion/servitor of Cyric and his cult? |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 02:16:01
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I'll just rename it the Bladesinger, then. ;)
There ya go. Ya know, I was always thought in this age of new base classes coming out of our ears, WOTC missed the boat when they didn't include some FR-specific, particularly the bladesinger, in the Player's Guide to Faerun. |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 13 Feb 2007 : 19:08:40
This should be covered extensively rather soon. |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 12 Feb 2007 : 18:57:41
Concerning duskblades -- couldn't they also be seen as a special class that the old Raumathari developed? I don't have the book in front of me but I recall that they supposedly had a caste of warrior-mages. The duskblades don't *have* to be elven in origin if you like.
I had also thought that maybe we've never seen duskblades before now in the Realms because they were once the warriors of the Vyshaantar Empire. Maybe elves can stil learn these skills, but they avoid it because the class got tainted by association? |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 03:24:08
I'll just rename it the Bladesinger, then. ;) |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 00:21:42
My understanding is that this was exactly the reasoning behind creating the duskblade Unlike the Havok Mage, Eldritch Knight, or Bladesinger, the Duskblade is a 20 level core class that is a pure fusion between magic and melee.
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I'm personally tired of seeing the same basic PrC idea being printed again, and again, and again...
Havok Mage, Eldritch Knight, Bladedinger Versions 1-3, Duskblade...
If anything, I'll just cherry pick any of the aspects I like from all of the above PrCs and make a single 20 level Bladesinger Core class.
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 08:30:12
I'm personally tired of seeing the same basic PrC idea being printed again, and again, and again...
Havok Mage, Eldritch Knight, Bladedinger Versions 1-3, Duskblade...
If anything, I'll just cherry pick any of the aspects I like from all of the above PrCs and make a single 20 level Bladesinger Core class. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 02:21:33
Its kind of cool having someone on the boards that has had a chance to play test these things a bit more extensively . . . thanks for the insight Eytan. |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 29 May 2006 : 23:50:47
My experience, having briefly played a beguiler, is that they function excellently in a party of 5 characters, where their ability to find traps is useful, and their skills and spells are needed. They cannot, however, be the only arcane spellcaster in the party. They can be the only rogue type though (though a ranger or scout makes a good match with them). The following party would be extremely effective (outlining the uses)
- Fighter/Paladin/etc... (deal and absorb damage on the front)
- Warmage/Evoker/etc.. (deal tons of magical damage of different sorts frequently)
- Beguiler (traps, rogue skills, utility magic).
- Cleric w/travel domain (turn, healing, utility magic)
- Melee Ranger or Scout (nature abilities, more melee, scouting)
A truly well rounded D&D party needs a frontline tank, ranged damaging magic, utility magic (illusions, enchantments, protection, travel, etc...), trapfinding/locks, healing, scouting, travel magic, turning undead, nature/wildness abilities, social skills, utility skills.
The party above has it all, but sometimes it's nice to be able to do that without having to have someone who insists on playing a "thiefy" character. The beguiler can do everything that the party actually needs the rogue for. That doesn't make the beguiler better (he doesn't get rogue abilities, has slightly fewer skills, and no sneak attack), but it does give options for parties that need trapfinding & locks, but don't necessarily want a thief in their midsts.
Oh, and a brief comment about the power of beguilers. As a party class, they are excellent because they fulfill a lot of roles, but as stand alone characters, beguilers are extremely fragile. I made the mistake of playing one in a two person party and found that I was completely paralyzed against undead, vermin, constructs, and a lot of other creatures. This was even worse than the average rogue because I had little to back me. In a bigger party, though, with 2 melee capable fighters and offensive/physical magic, these encounters wouldn't be so bad. The beguiler could sneak ahead, aid others, or get magic items that were helpful (Somehow getting use magic device would be great).
Beguilers also make spectacular arcane tricksters, though you probably need to be a whisper gnome or gain mage hand from one of those feats in Complete Arcane to qualify.
|
| Vainelus |
Posted - 29 May 2006 : 17:45:39
I am curious why you are choosing to make Beguiler into a PrC rather than using it as a core class. Beguilers are not mechanically overpowered even with their 20th lv ability, in fact I would argue that they are one of the weaker core classes for standard dungeon crawls. Also sorceror does not really capture the flavor of the class in my opinion. Beguilers are master manipulators, they are a combination of wizard/rogue. They need there large skill set just as much as they need their illusion/enchantment spells. For one they are not cha casters they are int casters which is important, if you switch them into sorceror you are denying them a lot of skill points. Beguilers basically take care of all the social functions of Rogue(gather information, lying to the guards, spying on the villian, making nice with the local nobility) supplementing their good skills with illusion and enchantment spells along the way. They also can fulfill the trapfinding function of a party rogue. Beguilers receive cloak casting instead of sneak attack dice to increase their combat effectiveness, although this also helps them charm unwitting party guests and courtiers as well.
I would like to see your PrC, but I think that they are a fine class without any major changes.
|
| Reefy |
Posted - 29 May 2006 : 01:44:42
I'll stick my oar in and clarify - I'm not in general a fan of additional base classes. While they may be a stupidly large number of them these days, I do generally like the concept of prestige classes. I feel something like the beguiler is much more suited to this, yet as Kaladorm points out, the spell list is a problem. I am thinking of granting the class +1 caster level to all enchantment and illusion spells, but -1 to all other schools. Any thoughts? I can put up the conversion as well if people are interested. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 28 May 2006 : 22:50:02
I'd like to discuss any issues people think concern Beguilers at the moment.
As far as I can see the majority of the flavour comes from their spell list, in that they have the same spells per day as a sorceror, but they know a 'lot' more (albeit from limited schools), so converting it to a prestige class has been tricky (though Reefy has done a fine job of it) in not making it too powerful but at the same time without losing any flavour. My point is that without the unique spell list, they're basically sorcerors with more skills and some bonus feats, this became apparent in the transmute to a PrC where essentially the only thing that distinguished them was the Cloaked Casting ability.
I'm interested to know what other scribes think of their potential as a base class or as a prestige class. Also in terms of their power (which does seem high, but then perhaps comparing it more closely to a sorceror which are fairly underpowered might skew this view), and what can be done to retain the beguilers flavour.
edit: the level 20 ability doesn't really need a discussion  , think the majority agree it needs tweaking, forget about that when making points in response  |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 25 May 2006 : 21:27:35
The 2e Bladesinger was very specific to that edition of D&D. It cannot be easily translated to 3e without losing most of its mechanics, and some of the flavor due to those mechanics. If anything, the gestalt rules in UA would be needed to make a Bladesinger in the spirit of the 2e days.
A bladesinger base class is probably the best way to go about it, something like an arcane version of the cleric. Or in this case, a modified Duskblade. |
| dannyfu |
Posted - 25 May 2006 : 06:42:15
i am working on a PC Bladesinger, flavor wise anyways, for an upcoming campaign. his story calls for him to start as a fighter and then get some wizard ranks, etc. the Duskblade has peaked my interest and i did look the book over in the bookstore. i am thinking of tweaking his story and maybe making him a duskblade. why does making a bladesinger have to be so freekin' hard! |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 24 May 2006 : 18:59:57
I don't mind new classes as long as I can create good FR characters with them, as classes are just game rules anyway.
A knight? Fine. A roguish swashbuckling mageling? Bring it on. A mage with dragon-like spells? Rare, but works fine in my realms. The list goes on really. New and strange rules never stops me from creating characters that fits the setting.
Erik Mona wrote a fun editorial about his troubles, but eventual acceptance of ninjas in Greyhawk. Smart man.
I have more trouble with new magic concepts, with some care that should work as well. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 24 May 2006 : 17:34:48
Personally, this is what I am inclined to do.
1) Bladesinger from RoF was better than Bladesinger from CW in general.
2) Duskblade is similar to, and superior to, bladesinger from CW depending on how you build the character.
I'm thinking I may just allow PCs to use Bladesinger from RoF and ignore the one from CW, and say that Duskblade and Bladesinger are different martial/arcane traditions within elven culture. The RoF Bladesinger has enough going for it that it makes sense to take it as opposed to the CW Bladesinger, that takes a lot of work to get it worth the effort.
But thats just my take. |
| Vainelus |
Posted - 24 May 2006 : 17:22:42
I actually just got my own copy of the PHB II over the weekend and had a chance to read the entire spells section. I think that if you work at it using Purple Dragon Knight's idea you can actually make a pretty effective CW bladesinger. If you use unearthed arcana I would recommend swashbuckler 3/wiz1/Elf paragon 3, this puts you into Blade singer one level slower than swashbuckler 3/fighter 2/ wiz 1, but gives you better spell casting and a +2 int mod. This will pay out nicely for you in the long run. Duskblade has the advantage of being able to use a shield, but the BS's int mod to AC should counter act that benefit, in fact if BS has good stats you should have a better AC. Also, the CW BS improved a great deal with the addition of the immediate action and swift spells from PHB II(I was previously unaware of these). Now granted your spell penetration chances are still pretty low, but spells such as halt and hesitate will still be very useful against the high strength fighter types and giants and anything else with low-will save and no spell resist you encounter. Also since int now functions to provide you damage, ac, and spell DCs it will be the BS high stat meaning BS spell DCs will be comparable to a wizard casting and equal level spell. The Duskblade will be dividing it's stat increases between str and int, so this will give the BS a bit of an edge.
I think using swift and imediate action creatively and building carefully, it is possible to make a BS that is a better fighter than a Duskblade, but the Duskblade will have arcane might on the BS. However, that is a fair trade and it allows both classes to remain viable and be played alongside each other.
Also, I am house ruling the bladesinger's Song of Celerity to function as the Duskblade's Quick cast. That way if the BS progress high enough, it can quicken high leveled spells just like Duskblade. Also, I feel that the Quick cast, is a reasonable update to this mechanic. Effectively giving the BS two quick casts per day one earned at lv4 and one at lv8. I would check with Arivia queen o' numbers before making this change in you game, since she is apparently the highest authority around he on balanced mechanics. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 14:34:54
quote:
Originally posted by Vainelus
I also have a long rant about how the DR changes in 3.5 making -2 to get and extra attack for any class only a conditionally good ability, but I will save everyone the trouble of hearing it.
Very good point, Vainelus. An additional 1d6 rapier attack is nigh useless vs. foes with DR that do not match your weapon.
I'm also starting to realize that fighter is not so good an option to ramp up into bladesinger: it would make more sense for every bladesinger to go three levels in Swashbuckler to get the Int bonus added to each attack's damage. Now, a bladesinger would be wise to, say, have only 3 Swsh levels (for it's usefulness fizzles after that glorious third level), and then go two levels of fighter for two feats. Thus prepared, a one-level dip into wizard (or perhaps warmage as you get all spells on their list, or perhaps duskblade, I'd have to check which one gives the most useful array of buff spells -- I know almost perhaps 50-60% of the duskblade spells are "Swift", which would keep the bladesinger in the spirit of the earlier RoF version)
Perhaps a bladesinger with Swashbuckler levels and Duskblade spells or Wizard spells that are "Swift" would be fiercer than the run-of-the-mill fighter/wizard type that can only quicken twice a day... but still: a pure Duskblade still takes the cake here.
However I'll say this: a bladesinger's progression is more suited to Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and PHB2 has VERY GOOD follow up feats that improve upon Spring Attack.
In the end, one would need to create a bladesinger and a duskblade and put them to the test vs. different foes... or just compare each other's stats... |
| Vainelus |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 12:59:20
The lost of the ability to cast a quicken spell every round is the ability that I think really puts the bladesinger behind in CW. I think that a quicken spell every round would be a bit strong with the CW bladesinger, because it gets access to all wizards spell instead of the limited listed from the ROF version. However, all a bladesinger can really cast are buff spells anyway, since any spell it throws that is affected by spell resistance is 9 caster lvls behind at bladesinger 10 for a pentration attempt. So, I do not feel that having more optional spells helps the bladesinger much, since it already had most of the good buff spells. And to balance the new spell selection it only receives two quicken spells(one of which must 2nd lvl or lower and the second 4th or lower) a day, which pales in comparison to the duskblade and the duskblade gets to cast at it's lvl. The int bonus scaling does not really hurt a bladesinger in the long run, how many fighter types are really going to exceed +10 int mod in 20 levels, not to mention since the change was made to duelist in the DMG for 3.5 it is really only fair that bladesinger receive the same limitation.
I also have a long rant about how the DR changes in 3.5 making -2 to get and extra attack for any class only a conditionally good ability, but I will save everyone the trouble of hearing it.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:51:45
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Ah, the honor is all mine Arivia, its nice contributing something to a rules discussion that aids you for once instead of the other way around. 
No one's perfect.  |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:43:38
Ah, the honor is all mine Arivia, its nice contributing something to a rules discussion that aids you for once instead of the other way around. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:41:46
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The RoF bladesinger, while only having access to "bladesinger" spells, can cast one spell per round as a free action, so long as the bladesinger is free to take the full attack option. The CW bladesinger can only quicken one spell per day, either 2nd level or 4th level or lower depending on their level.
So while the CW bladesinger gets a more open ended choice of spells, the RoF bladesinger is able to attack while casting haste, invisibility, cat's grace, bull's strength, etc. on himself.
They also changed how the intelligence bonus to armor class works, if I read it right, i.e., RoF you just get your int bonus to armor class, while in CW you get your bladesinger level in armor class bonus, up to your intelligence bonus.
Ah. I'd forgotten about the second and never found the first somehow. Thanks. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:37:46
The RoF bladesinger, while only having access to "bladesinger" spells, can cast one spell per round as a free action, so long as the bladesinger is free to take the full attack option. The CW bladesinger can only quicken one spell per day, either 2nd level or 4th level or lower depending on their level.
So while the CW bladesinger gets a more open ended choice of spells, the RoF bladesinger is able to attack while casting haste, invisibility, cat's grace, bull's strength, etc. on himself.
They also changed how the intelligence bonus to armor class works, if I read it right, i.e., RoF you just get your int bonus to armor class, while in CW you get your bladesinger level in armor class bonus, up to your intelligence bonus. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:28:43
quote:
Originally posted by Vainelus
I actually think that Duskblade allows player's to play "bladesingers" and remain comparable to the rest of the party. A player can choose to play up the bladesinger flavor such as taking ranks in perform dance or sing, using all the Roleplay aspects and not have to suffer through several levels of fighter and wizard multiclass which is very weak in 3.5 to get into bladesinger. Plus the update bladesinger from the CW is just mechanically terrible, it is vastly inferior to a duskblade. Now if you are still using the bladesinger from ROF then player's may actually consider going into bladesinger instead of calling the Duskblade a different name. Either way, the Duskblade allows for PCs to play a warrior mage which are pretty common in fantasy books even outside of D&D without being far behind at low-levels. If a gamemaster enjoys running a low-level campaign say ending at lv. 8-10, Pcs are barely into bladesinger while as a Duskblade they have been enjoying an effect character build since lv1
I have never understood why the version of the bladesinger from CW is apparently so weak as compared to the one from Races of Faerun. The only change I've been able to find is the spellcasting progression. Mind explaining? |
| Vainelus |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 23:15:27
I actually think that Duskblade allows player's to play "bladesingers" and remain comparable to the rest of the party. A player can choose to play up the bladesinger flavor such as taking ranks in perform dance or sing, using all the Roleplay aspects and not have to suffer through several levels of fighter and wizard multiclass which is very weak in 3.5 to get into bladesinger. Plus the update bladesinger from the CW is just mechanically terrible, it is vastly inferior to a duskblade. Now if you are still using the bladesinger from ROF then player's may actually consider going into bladesinger instead of calling the Duskblade a different name. Either way, the Duskblade allows for PCs to play a warrior mage which are pretty common in fantasy books even outside of D&D without being far behind at low-levels. If a gamemaster enjoys running a low-level campaign say ending at lv. 8-10, Pcs are barely into bladesinger while as a Duskblade they have been enjoying an effect character build since lv1 |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 21:32:19
I took a sidetrip to the bookstore to do some more research on this book today after a meeting I had at work, and one of the issues that I still have with the duskblade keeps popping into my mind.
Duskblades essentially get class abilities similar to fighters, wizards, havok mages, and bladesingers. This in and of itself isn't that bad if the abilities they gain are spread out enough so that the class is balanced.
But the flavor problem I have with this is that we have bladesingers, that have now been pretty much made a part of elven lore as an elite group of elven warriors that train in the arts, the Art, and warfare. One of the big issues for them is that they can cast spells while fighting (which BTW was very well integrated into Richard Lee Byers descriptions of Taegan in the Year of Rogue Dragons books).
Duskblades also learn this skill, and do so without a level restriction on the spells that they can do this for. In terms of describing the power, there is no difference between what the two classes learn.
In the end, Duskblades actually would be good "core" bladesingers, but that causes some problems since "core" classes A) cannot be restricted to a single race or bloodline like PrCs can, and B) Duskblades don't need to learn any dancing or singing requirements, which basically takes a lot of the roleplaying mindset out of using them as bladesingers.
So the quandry here is that mechanically they fit, but if you use them, elves basically have an order of warrior/arcane casters that have to jump through a lot more hoops to do what any other race could do with a core class.
On the other hand, Beguilers seem fine to me, except to point out that now we have bards, spelltheives, and beguilers all as roguish/wizardish core classes.
Oh, and the one advantage I did notice that a bladesinger would have over a duskblade is this:
At 20th level, a pure duskblade does not have access to as high a level of spells as does a Ftr 5/wiz 5/bladesinger 10. But its still not really something that can be describe "flavor" wise other than that one is slightly more accomplished spellcaster than the other.
|
| Jindael |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 17:27:13
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I was just thinking, from a "new to D&D perspective" if you pick up the PH II and look at the classes, and have never read any D&D fiction, but might have read other fantasy, seen movies, read mythology, etc. a character class that can channel spells through a sword doesn't exactly seem like something that would make a lot of sense if you weren't already into D&D. I know a lot of us that are prospectively buying this have been playing forever, but I was just playing baatezu's advocate and looking at it from the "I just bought the core books,and want to expand by buying the DMG II and the PH II" new player perspective.
Yea, that’s a good point. I suppose that 22 years of D&D, and starting by playing an “Elf” (Red boxed set, automatically a fighter/magic user hybrid) has made we want this class for a long while now.
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
But I agree with you on Incarnum . . . too many new concepts that make my head hurt when I flip the integration switch.
The system is very nice, and easy to manage once you get over the learning "hump". It's just the flavor that I don't really care for. |
|
|
