Haitch Kay's page

I guess if you don't agree with how it's been done or if you think it's broken, you don't have to use it? I'm perfectly content with nobody else wanting to use this, I just figured that I would share it and see what people thought about it. I, personally, don't see this class as being broken and unbalanced.

Concerning the criticism, I don't personally consider an Int based spontaneous caster to be "nonsensical". It's a unique aspect of the class that aside from the amount of skill points gained (and considering that the Beguiler is designed to stand in for a Rogue in terms of skill use, it's not a flaw so much as it is a design decision that you seem to disagree with) is not mechanically too different from casting from Cha and provides a really interesting thematic difference to Cha based spontaneous casters. Edit: Thinking on it, you can even make the Sorcerer an Int based spontaneous caster, so I don't really see your argument here.

As for it being Int reliant....that's the point? How is it any more broken than an Investigator, doubly so if you look at the Empiricist archetype. If a Beguiler takes Clever Wordplay then it becomes two skills that now use Int instead of Cha, their spellcasting, and two class abilities. I don't see this being a flaw so much as "It's an Intelligence based class, therefore, it uses Intelligence primarily".

Edit: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but honestly it seems like you just don't like the Beguiler and/or think the original is terribly broken.

BAB & HD

It should probably be a d6. If you want 3/4 bab and d8, then change to 6 level casting.

SKILLS
If you're going to have 9 levels of casting and Int-powered casting, you should probably drop the number of skill points to 4. If you insist on staying at 6, then it needs more skills on the list, and you should diminsh the class somewhere else.

TRAPFINDING
Part of the original, I know, but feels out of place.

MANIPULATOR
adding 1/2 his level the skillls (minimum 1) would be easier.

SPELLS
Cast spontaneously and knows all spells on beguiler list? I think a spell known progression is in order.

The HD bump is simply because it had an HD bump originally and I do really feel that it's needed. The class really does not have a lot of offensive spells, a grand total of about eight or nine of them with half being NL, and is typically in melee range more than other casters. I do realize that I might be alone in thinking they need an HD bump, though

As for skills, I don't think I'm going to change that. The class is meant to be able to stand in for the Rogue in terms of skill use (which is why they also get Trapfinding). I don't also see your point in adding more skills since they have almost the same skill list as the Rogue.

For Manipulator, I didn't want to go with 1/2 level to all three skills because that feels like a tad bit much since they do get 6+Int skills.

I don't think I'm going to budge on spells. They get, basically, a Sorcerers spell progression and spontaneous casting and while they get more spells known, they don't get to choose those spells outside of Advanced Learning and even then they have to pick from two schools. If their list wasn't so small and specialized I'd agree that a Spells Known progression would be needed, though.

I can see a few problems here: it should have a d6 hit die like all other 9 level casters with the slow base attack bonus setup. Also it seems to be a spontaneous caster, since it's casting arcane spells it's casting stat should be cha not int. You're missing the spell list altogether, and it seems way too powerful for a 9 level spontaneous caster to know all the spells on its list, maybe knock it down to 6 level casting or give it a spells known table like the sorcerer.

It seems like a good first try, but you've got a lot of work to do if you want it to be balanced.

I've updated the doc with the spells-per-day table and the original, un-revised spell list from 3.5.

Also, I feel like you don't know the original class? The complaints you have are just default things for the class. Higher HD than other full casters, spontaneous Int caster, etc.

The Beguiler was one of my favorite classes back in 3.5 and for a while I've been wanting to give it a faithful conversion. I considered going bare-bones at first but after some thinking I decided to go with a 'Pathfinder-ized' conversion; one that remained mostly the same but with added class abilities that play off of the theme of the class and help bolster it up enough to make it a viable class to play.
Currently, all that's left to do is some minor tweaking on class abilities and finishing up converting the spell list.

Criticism, opinions, and advice are welcome, and I really hope that some people like it.

Beguiler Conversion

I just really want to see more things done with the Gunslinger and more info about Alkenstar. We have aliens and laser weapons now, lets get to more western gunfighting action!

The difference is just a matter of degrees really. Barroom brawler with no finesse would certainly be a fighter, but a professional boxer could easily be counted as a monk.

I'd say figure out which side of the spectrum the character falls closest to and go with that.

Her backstory would be that she was an orphan and was raised from a very early age to be a pit-fighter for money. Basic training when she was young, and from then to the present it would be a combination of training through sparring and fighting.

Good news is that I've, more or less, decided on Monk(Martial Artist) and Barbarian(Brutal Pugilist&Urban Barbarian). Bad news is that for right now this character is scrapped until I find a game that she'd fit in.

Thanks for all of the advice, though. If I ever play her I guess I'll jot down the build and tell how well it did.

I appreciate all of the suggestions and the build that Damocles linked, but I think I might have caused confusion with how I described the character.
In combat terms, what I'm wanting to do would be a lot of unarmed strikes and just as much grappling. Taking people down, keeping them there, and hammering on them. A pit-fighter.
I've been looking at Brutal Pugilist and Urban Barbarian to mix in with Martial Artist, and Brawler would be good but I like what both Monk and Barbarian brings to the character.

One of my friend was GMing for the first time, Avatar d20, and I managed to throw out a one-liner thatwe still crack jokes about these few years later.

There was four of us, five including the GMs NPC. I won't go in to character details because the joke happened to be out of character, but it centers around one of the party members and the GM.
I don't know if we were uniquely "blessed" with this, but we had a guy who -always- made creepy, mentally unstable, andfor some reason really young characters. This time he made a Waterbender, Bloodbending to be specific. Creepy little 13 year old psycho that lived alone in the desert and murdered people. The GM's NPC was a Lawful Good Waterbender who was trying to convert the kid from evil to good. One night everybody is around the campfire and the two start talking. The conversation continues until about this point;

Creepy Kid: "I've never used anything but blood before."
Waterbending Lady: "It's -pause- not normal. People like us use water to bend."
Kid: "-pause- Have..have you ever used blood?"

The GM turned the second he heard it, like he knew what was going to happen, but before he could open his mouth I leaned in and said in a really awful falsetto, "Once a month!"

We had to cancel the session for the night because nobody would stop laughing, except the GM and the now furious Bloodbender.
It was 2 years ago and the GM still lets out an irritated sigh when he hears the joke.

I'm trying to build a boxer/brawler type character for a friends upcoming game. Fights for money in underground rings, no rules, bare knuckle stuff.

I've got race down, Half-Orc, and originally I was just going to go with Monk, Martial Artist, but I've been looking around at Fighter and Barbarian and it seems like they might be good options too. Any ideas on if I should just go with straight Monk, or if I should mix together a few things.

Any advice would be appreciated.