So what do you guys think of the four new classes presented in the Player's Handbook 2? Of the four, I must say that I particularly enjoy the Dragon Shaman. The auras are quite handy.
Any opinions?
-Thor
|
I have heard some disgruntled rumbling about "too much dragon" pcs.
I love all the new classes, especially the duskblade. I don't own abunch of supplement books or whatever so I am not burnt out over new feats, classes, and Pr classes. My books are: 3 core, DMG2, PHB2, and the Arms and Equipment Guide.
Keepin' it light, and trying to pick the best of the best.
I also love the Dragon Shaman.
FH(savin' trees, baby!)
Could you give some details of these classes ? What is the idea behind them ? Dragon Shaman - well I can imagine it roughly, but I would like a little bit more details. The Knight - is it something like the Cavalier from the 1e Unearthed Arcana ?
(To make that clear, I don´t ask you to post anything that would constitute a copyright infringement, only enough details to understand the idea behind the classes.)
Stefan
|
Could you give some details of these classes ? What is the idea behind them ? Dragon Shaman - well I can imagine it roughly, but I would like a little bit more details. The Knight - is it something like the Cavalier from the 1e Unearthed Arcana ?
(To make that clear, I don´t ask you to post anything that would constitute a copyright infringement, only enough details to understand the idea behind the classes.)Stefan
Lessee....
The Beguiler is sort of a Bard variant that sacrifices bardic music and knowledge for more magical power, with an emphasis on Illusion and Enchantment. Very cool class.
The Dragon Shaman is a frontline combatant (BAB and Save like Clr) with no spellcasting as such. Instead, it has a variety of very useful "draconic auras". And a breath weapon... Very handy, that. As an added bonus, the DS is sort of an all-or-nothing class; multiclassing it weakens it a lot.
The Knight is a variant Fighter (but with a good Will save instead of Fort) that excels at calling out and then fighting single opponents. He can use challenges to demoralise enemies, has a rigid code for honourable conduct and specialises at wearing heavy armour and shield. A good, old-school class.
My favourite is the Duskblade, though. This class fights like a Ftr, saves like a Clr and casts arcane spells while wearing armour. The "spells known" selection is very limited, but it casts a LOT of spells per day, and the spells generally shred. Gotta love any class that can wear armour, fight like a Fighter AND cast Polar Ray. Zap!
I haven't really liked any of the previous new core classes (with the possible exception of the Hexblade), but I'll probably use all of them for future campaigns. Hope that helped a little.
I think my favorite would have to be the Knight. He kicks ass, he takes names, he won't attack flat-footed opponents, at 17th level he won't fail a saving throw (or almost won't), and at the pinnacle of his advancement it'll take alot to bring him down. The D&D game has been lacking a really good Knight adaptation, and now they have one.
If my next group needs a fighter, you're going to see me playing one of these :)
Thanks for the info, Vattnisse!
Now its much clearer what these classes are about. The Knight sounds indeed somewhat similar in outlook to the old Cavalier, as I guessed. This strikes a chord with old-timers like me.
Based on reviews and comment here on this board, PHB II looks like a book I will buy as soon as opportunity arises.
Stefan
|
Could you give some details of these classes ? What is the idea behind them ? Dragon Shaman - well I can imagine it roughly, but I would like a little bit more details. The Knight - is it something like the Cavalier from the 1e Unearthed Arcana ?
(To make that clear, I don´t ask you to post anything that would constitute a copyright infringement, only enough details to understand the idea behind the classes.)Stefan
The Knight is fully detailed on the WotC site here and here.
Thanks for the links, DF. I like the Knight class from what I have read. I would like to see it in action, but it might make a good addition to my game.
Stefan
Thanks for the info, Vattnisse!
Now its much clearer what these classes are about. The Knight sounds indeed somewhat similar in outlook to the old Cavalier, as I guessed. This strikes a chord with old-timers like me.Based on reviews and comment here on this board, PHB II looks like a book I will buy as soon as opportunity arises.
Stefan
Yep, and the Duskblade plays pretty much like an old-school (AD&D or earlier) elf fighter/mage.
And I think I've decided that if I have to make a new character (I'm playing AoW, so IF might be a bit optimistic, lol), I'm thinking of a Duskblade.
As I have said elsehwere, I dislike them.
While the Knight especially, and the others in general, are well designed and may be fun, they just seem entirely unnneccessary.
The Duskblade is basically a bladesinger. The beguiler is nearly a bard/encghanter. And so on. They are just not needed. They are overspecialized, and could have been made out of regular classes, skills, feats and PrCs.
They are just not needed. They are overspecialized, and could have been made out of regular classes, skills, feats and PrCs.
Really? It seems to me that they're some of the more popular builds that previously required vigourous multiclassing and carefull feat selection stripped down and made into single base classes. In fact, I challenge you to come up with a build that can emulate the knight or dragon shaman. Go on, try it. ^_^
Too true...but as long as people keep buying these books, for whatever reason, WOC's gonna keep pumpin' them out.
True, but remember that the reverse also applies. If you don't want what's in them then no one is forcing you to buy anything. Although I found that the PHBII contained a lot of very good options, including a section on building backgrounds and personalities.
In fact, I challenge you to come up with a build that can emulate the knight or dragon shaman. Go on, try it. ^_^
Well, since the Dragon Shaman is an overdressed, basic Prestige Class turned into a base class, I really can't. I am not sure how this qualifies as a base class, lacking the broad application to fit an archetype.
With the Knight, I can build a Knight. Maybe not the tanking class labeled a "Knight" in the book, but I could definitely build a classical Knight. Mounted feats and good armor, plus a heavy warhorse does that.
While all of the classes are good to play they do represent a growing trend of some of the new classes of making the older/core classes obselete or underpowered. Principally, I'm talking about classes like the warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler cutting the sorcerer down to nothing with their extra abilities and all, and the duskblade making the classic fighter/wizard multiclass combination completely pointless. Everything the muticlass character can do the duskblade can do better. If you don't believe me just watch the duskblade in actual game play sometime and just ponder in awe at the possibilities.
As I have said elsehwere, I dislike them.
While the Knight especially, and the others in general, are well designed and may be fun, they just seem entirely unnneccessary.
The Duskblade is basically a bladesinger. The beguiler is nearly a bard/encghanter. And so on. They are just not needed. They are overspecialized, and could have been made out of regular classes, skills, feats and PrCs.
Err so they are well designed and fun to play (and I'm actually talking from experience here) - what more does a class need to be? Given the overwhelming positive reception the PHB 2 got with my jaded and cheapskate players (5 have actually bought the thing for one it was the first RPG book he had purchased since the 3.5 PHB - and he DMs!) I have to say the classes weren't unnecessary.
Ok the Knight was (I have to give you that - all i can say its a good thing he gets the ability to function at negative HP 'cause he will be spending a lot of time there) but the other 3 were gold to me. About the only complaint I have is the odd place they put the Duskblade & Beguilers spell lists - after the NPC example? Huh?
While all of the classes are good to play they do represent a growing trend of some of the new classes of making the older/core classes obselete or underpowered. Principally, I'm talking about classes like the warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler cutting the sorcerer down to nothing with their extra abilities and all, and the duskblade making the classic fighter/wizard multiclass combination completely pointless. Everything the muticlass character can do the duskblade can do better. If you don't believe me just watch the duskblade in actual game play sometime and just ponder in awe at the possibilities.
Amen my friend...especially about making the older/core classes obselete
and just as pointless are most prestige classes then, as now you have alternate core classes doing what they do, but much better
the PHII is an ok book, for an experienced DM with too many books in his bookshelf there wasn't too much in it for me (some of the feats were nice) but I have 2 words for the duskblade, beguiller and dragon shaman : Kid Bait
as a DM I do not allow the duskblade and beguiller class in the game, until at least until WotC creates more crunch books with gestalt base classes that my players would buy on their own
Kalin
|
|
Although a front-line, pompous meat-shield, I don't see the Knight as redundant. Fighters fight with feat specializations, Paladins are all holier than thou, and Barbarians are just so angry all the time... Where is the Knight ripping these guys off?
The knight combines a great role-playing mechanic (which the samurai is sorely missing) with some interesting special abilities that essentially provide the rest of the party a chance to shine. I'm not trying to be contrary. I just feel like I'm missing something.
Well, my Binder and Archivist have a kindred soul. Now, if only the Complete Scoundrel will have the perfect skills-expert to round out my party...
Thanks for the info, Vattnisse!
Now its much clearer what these classes are about. The Knight sounds indeed somewhat similar in outlook to the old Cavalier, as I guessed. This strikes a chord with old-timers like me.Based on reviews and comment here on this board, PHB II looks like a book I will buy as soon as opportunity arises.
Stefan
Yep, and the Duskblade plays pretty much like an old-school (AD&D or earlier) elf fighter/mage.
And I think I've decided that if I have to make a new character (I'm playing AoW, so IF might be a bit optimistic, lol), I'm thinking of a Duskblade.
My thoughts exactly, the basic/expert set Elf class. Slightly overpowered but I like the nod to old school d&d.
My take.
Dragon Shamans:
Yawn...I'm so tired of the endless Dragon/player characters. I'll use this class for NPC kobolds otherwise its not allowed in my home brew.
Knight:
OK I have a real beef with this class and that is it has all these powers that force players/NPCs to act totally contrary to their nature for concepts that they probably don't even believe in. A knight forcing mano-a-mano fight with a Kobold where the others do not interfere is just bunk. If the kobold is suffering the effects of a mind effecting spell then OK but this is not that. This class is not allowed in my home brew. I have a lot of knightly type classes more suited to my home brew anyway so its no real loss.
Dusk Blade:
I liked this class but decided that since what it can do can already been done by other means I choose to play with it. Its fluff talks about Elves and Elves, in my campaign are extinct - but they did once have a thriving civilization and were allied with a matriarchal gun toting group of humans that ran around in the jungle fighting Goblinoids. So I decided to take a spin on the Elves teaching their allies some of this magic before their extinction. I felt that this beleaguered society of jungle dwellers needed a good and unique mage style class for their own anyway. Hence I took this class and made the ability to put touch spells on weapons also apply to range weapons (like a gunpowder weapons bullets) and then removed all the armoured mage benefits. Voilà - gun toting women that cast spells on their bullets and avoid melee ('cause they have no armour). I decided to help them out a little more by saying that they get access to all the ranger spells as well as the Dusk Blade ones. That helps them with the hit and run tactics that I imagine is the way they prefer to fight.
Beguiler:
Another class I liked though in my campaign if you take this class you have to tie yourself to some ones political agenda. Basically those that take this class are trained at significant expense by various political groups. Same deal with the Warmage. However if the Warmage is trained artillery then the Beguiler is a political chess piece used in games of power by the rich and powerful. best to hope your character is not a pawn meant to be expended for a better overall position.
Beguiler: Overpowered. Blows away any sorcerer or bard. Not to mention that all of it's skills and special abilities thier like a mental assassin. I throw this one in the bin with the warmage.
Duskblade: Higher AC, Unbroken attack bonus, Unbroken CL, and higher lvl spells than most multiclassed characters can get. (and disintegration a spell lvl early) The only things it misses out on from a fighter/wizard combo is bonus feats. However the class already gets combat casting, a suped up version of spell penetration and sudden quicken for free.
Dragon Shaman: FH a lot of the too much dragon rumbling is comming from me. So I just have a purely personal bias against this class.
Knight: a couple unique although extreamly balanced abilities. Offers a chance to excel in the use of heavier armors. I can deal.
To be honest, I was really happy to see the beguiler class in the PHB. Sure, the classe's abilities may need tweaking, but I like the concept. There is a wealth of great combat and stealth oriented classes and prestige classes, but precious few socially oriented ones. Classes like the beguiler give me more ammo to run intrigue oriented games, or at least throw some politics into action campaigns.
|
|
I like the new classes presented in the PHB 2. I think that at first glance they may seem superior to the core classes, but that balancing is easily found in game.
Beguilers have only enchantment and illusion spells, making them quite weak against undead, oozes, and constructs. Dragon Shamen don't seem to fit any core role. Knights' challenges are limited in choice of target, and then several of their abilities depend on these challenges. The duskblade does seem a bit powerful except that they don't melee as well as a fighter can (depending on feats and armor). I'll have to playtest these classes soon so I can add personal experience.
|
well, we currently have 3 of the above classes in play in both our bi-weekly games right now.
i play a knight 5/ cleric 1 in one game, and a Gnomish beguiler 3 in the 2nd.
a friend plays a Duskblade 3 in the one w/ my Beguiler. (he dm's the other)
things i have noticed re: these classes:
Knight: High HP, high AC (based around AC, with Shield Spec, Shield Ward, plate mail and heavy steel shield), very tough to kill.
drawbacks: low init score, low movement (at least until Knight 9), low dex=no real ranged combatability. also, has diplo/intimidate as class skills, so has some decent social interaction skills.
Beguiler: not really better or worse in magic than my halfling sorcerer in another game, but that may be my play type coming to the fore. high skill points= useful even when out of spells, and social skills= a mage who can sound reasonably intelligent without being completely socially inept.
spells: coloor spray, silent image, and expeditious retreat are the most common ones used for me...mage armor is all but useless with my chain shirt, but will be quite nice when cast on the druid/monk in the party.
as the "face" of the party, its somewhat challenging to keep everyone on the same "mission," or even going the same direction, but, again, that's more likely an artifact of our playstle rather than the class itself.
Duskblade: rather deadly, from what i can tell. he just got arcane channeling, and we've been going over the rather disturbing "home-run-bat*" type of attacks he can pull off, with relativly limited prep.
combine a channeled shocking grasp[i] with a (swift action to cast) [i]blade of blood with a spell-storing sword with another shocking grasp spell in it (nothing illegal that i can see there, other than a 3rd lvl character having a +2 effective weapon, unlikely at best), and thats 1d8+str*1.5+3d6+3d6+3d6 damage on a single melee attack.
at 3rd lvl.
of course, this means he's using 3 of his daily spells (2 shocking grasp and 1 blade of blood), as well as taking 5hp damage himself. and he still needs to hit with that attack.
other than that, he doesn't have the skills of a ranger, he's short 2 feats of a fighter, and about 15 hp of a barbarian. he also would have had divine grace and lay-on-hands if he was a paladin. basically, he's really good at whacking 1 guy, then fading back and "recharging" his attack for another enemy.
seems to be akin to a soulknife, save that a SK would be able to do his psychic-strike/psionic weapon tricks all day long, and 2 fights will almost completely drain the duskblade of spells/day.
as a caveat: we don't usually play high-lvl games (just recently finished one which ran about 18mo-2yrs, and the party went from 2nd lvl to 12th or 13th at the end), so it may be that at high levels, these characters are untouchable and unkillable. as of now, however, they seem fragile and hittable enough to me.
*"home-run-bat" see "Super Smash Brothers, Melee"...weapon which, when used properly, completely demolished the opponent in 1 swing.
namaste'
the hamster
I am partial to the Knight, however, I would make the penalties for being dishonorable a bit stiffer. There is just a bunch of roleplaying possibilities wrapped up in a Might is Right type of party-protectorate...
The Paladin is supposed to represent Law, or the Might is Right ideal. Most people think the paladin represents a deity, which it also can. With the Knight class WotC has stepped on what would otherwise be great a roleplaying opportunity on the part of a Paladin or fighter and bundled it up with dumb class feats.
I havent really looked at the Dragon Shaman but the Duskblade gets the ability to cast spells through up to medium armor. I really have a problem with that, but others seem to like the Duskblade plenty.
Anyway, Im all about the core books...thats all I have. I feel anything beyond that, unless it's information (eg: Fiendish Codex I), is crappy and unbalanced. :]
Here's my 2 coppers.
Beguiler: Kind of cool. Charisma-based classes amuse me and I don't think bard does it enough.
Dragon shaman: I keep asking other DMs if they'll allow me to play a dragonborn dragon shaman/dragon disciple and then allow me to take the 10 or so draconic heritage feats, and they keep saying no. Too much dragon, next.
Duskblade: Broken. Victim of power creep. Read it over, and then ask yourself why anyone would ever play a warmage. To illustrate this point, I provide the following example: a friend of mine ran a one-shot Eberron gamer in which I played a warforged duskblade, 1st level. We were on a boat and I was out on the deck in the middle of the night (cause warforged don't sleep) when I saw shady people doing shady things. So I did the funniest thing I could think of at the time: I offered to help. After a quizzical look or two I was conscripted and led into the room where the shady people were gathering. It was about 10 of them, and the leader gathered them all into a group and started detailing their shady plans, at which point I color sprayed the lot of them and began punching people that failed their saves, all the while screaming for the rest of the party to wake up. Long story short, I held 10 guys of equal CR off by myself for 4 rounds and didn't actually get dropped to the negatives until other people started showing up. Let's see a 1st level fighter or sorcerer do that without serious munchkinery, eh? I don't allow them in my games.
Knight: Love the flavor of this class, think the mechanics are questionable. Admittedly, I haven't read it terribly in-depth, but if I understand correctly their knight's challenge ability is unusable on creatures of lower CR than the knight is, with a couple of exceptions. So pretty much he'll be a meatier fighter without bonus feats until you run across the BBEG. *shrug*
|
I just got the PHBII yesterday, and I thought the knight would be my favorite class. But I really like the beguiler.
In a game with a lot of roleplaying and skullduggering I think the beguiler would be oodles of fun. Some classes tend to suffer in a standup hackfest, though, and I think this would be one of them. So...I guess its utility would be directly related to the game style of the dungeonmaster.
As I have said elsehwere, I dislike them.
While the Knight especially, and the others in general, are well designed and may be fun, they just seem entirely unnneccessary.
The Duskblade is basically a bladesinger. The beguiler is nearly a bard/encghanter. And so on. They are just not needed. They are overspecialized, and could have been made out of regular classes, skills, feats and PrCs.
I couldn't agree more. "Knight" is an honorific title, and theres no reason that its should exist as a seperate class, one should just spec a fighter as a knight.
A lot of the fluff articles refer to classes in other supplements. If I wanted to deal with that nonsense I'd buy those other supplements.
The new spells while nice, do not warrent the purchase of the book. We're already drowning in new feats, Instead of PHBII It should have been marketed as Unearthed Arcana II, or better yet, just lumped into unearthed arcana.
|
|
I recently had a 5th level duskblade in my own campaign, and while I feel he is incredibly potent (those shocking grasps are nasty) it was actually when he became 6th level that his power diminshed slightly in comparison to other fighters. You see, since that channeling attack takes a standard action, he began to focus on using both attacks in the round (which, with his amazing stats, hit quite often) and using his spells to augment his fighting capabilities, rather than obliterating the enemy.
A low-level duskblade is quite fierce, but they seem to balance out as you get into the mid-level game.
Beguilers were a beautiful addition, though I admit it causes me to ignore the bard class, which works best when surrounded by allies, for the more solitary beguiler.
I couldn't agree more. "Knight" is an honorific title, and theres no reason that its should exist as a seperate class, one should just spec a fighter as a knight.
Well, yeah. It is a job description, much like "wizard" (wise elder type) or "cleric" (clerk). "Rangers" are something like frontier marshalls (as in the US Marshalls or the Mounties, not the marshall class). There were Illinois Rangers and Texas Rangers in US History. Etc. Etc.
Those with the class "Knight" aren't just fighters with a title. They have abilities that fighters don't duplicate in any way.
The name of the class in the rules has nothing to do with what the characters call themselves in the game (except maybe in OotS).
Hell, I was toying with the Knight class a bit, calling the variant "Hoplites" and using them in a campaign based on Homeric Greece. Where they would not call themselves hoplites at all. High level hoplites would probably be called "heroes of many mighty deeds, worthy of great praise" or something....
First, let me say that I am one of those "core book"-focused types. I own the 3 core books and Weapons of Legacy, which I thought was a particularly cool concept. I feel like anything that isn't covered in those books, I can make up.
That said, I bought the PHB 2 after thumbing through it and am very glad I did. I have already used the rules covering affiliations in my campaign and the easy NPC generator is something I've been dreaming of for a long time. The group abilities seem like they might be neat and some of the feats are very cool.
Now, as for the classes, I have played the Knight and, unfortunately, was underwhelmed. It's a reasonably cool idea and something you can't really put together by multiclassing other classes (the high Will save and d12 HP just don't appear elsewhere). Unfortunately, at least at low levels, poor old Thokk just couldn't keep up. It wasn't hard to find opponents to use his challenge ability on, but the number of uses is so limited that it didn't come into play all that often. Also, having Mounted Combat as a bonus feat is largely useless at 2nd level, particularly since none of the Knight's other abilities have anything to do with horses. Finally, the Armor Mastery ability is a waste. No self-respecting Knight is still wearing medium armor at 4th level, and 9th level is a long time to wait for Armor mastery (heavy). Ultimately, I spent a lot of time looking for the cleric to come save my butt (particularly since my "code of honor" kept sticking me in the front of the party defending everyone else).
The beguiler on the other hand, will probably replace bards in my campaigns from now on (I. Hate. Bards.)
O
I would just like to add that when I read through the beguiler I thought it was love at first sight. My favorite character I've ever played is a gnome sorcerer that utilizes almost all his spells as tricks and diversions or in the name of mid battle fun itself just something cool. The beguiler looked like a way to give his most recent incarnation the skills I wished he possesed and thought his personality deserved, as well as opening up some abilities that seemed to magically fall in line with the style I had always played him in. I was all set to start creating his stats, when I tried to look for the spells known chart. When I found out that there was none I dropped the project immediately. The class I had grown so attached to in so short a time was tossed in the dump bin with the shockingly overpowered Warmage class.
I know that many people enjoy the Warmage class and do not believe it is overpowered. I obviously do not share this opinion. In a campaign I DMed a warmage joined the parties ranks. In a party with a fighter/barbarian multiclass human and a bard. They all had a Character lvl of 8. The warmage was planning on going spellsword so he had 6lvls of warmage and two lvls of fighter and a greatsword.
The warmage never ever, not once, waded into melee. He died before he reached the safety of his desired prestige class so until he could he spent his time blasting away at the enemies the bard and fighter weren't currently mutilating. I say mutilating for a good reason too. They were and remain the most unstoppable force I've seen played in D&D. Even when they are seperated the Fighter is still a juggernaut and the bard recently gained the arcane strike feat so he doesn't even need his bodyguard for protection. However it struck me as odd that the warmage was just as useful. He never used the fighter feats or profeciencies he gained from the two levels he took. And the added hit dice were no match for the hit he took to his Caster lvl. But yet there he was the equivalent to a 6th lvl character ravaging the battlefield step in step with a team that was already blowing through challenges that should have, and has reduced other parties to ash. I tried different encounters too. Ambushes, arial battles, one big baddie, lots of little baddies, undead, demons, humanoids with clever stratagies. One or more of these battles had the intrepid duo stumbling through, as their key abilities were overcome by their foes. But not the warmage. Because he could use any offensive spell that could have been conviveably useful he could always apply his trade with effectiveness. This is not mentioning the many battles the his class was actually designed for, battles against hordes of enemies. Here, despite being what I considered two levels behind his comrades he excelled. He dominated the combat single handedly leaving his companions to mop up the survivors of his onslaught. I have come to the conclusion the a core class should be unable to do that. That is why I find the spontanious casting of an entire spell list, and by thet I mean both the Warmage and the Beguiler to be depressingly overpowered.
|
|
I would just like to add that when I read through the beguiler I thought it was love at first sight..... I was all set to start creating his stats, when I tried to look for the spells known chart. When I found out that there was none I dropped the project immediately. The class I had grown so attached to in so short a time was tossed in the dump bin with the shockingly overpowered Warmage class....
In a campaign I DMed a warmage joined the parties ranks.... The warmage was planning on going spellsword so he had 6lvls of warmage and two lvls of fighter and a greatsword.
The warmage never ever, not once, waded into melee. He died before he reached the safety of his desired prestige class so until he could he spent his time blasting away at the enemies the bard and fighter weren't currently mutilating..... He never used the fighter feats or profeciencies he gained from the two levels he took. And the added hit dice were no match for the hit he took to his Caster lvl. But yet there he was the equivalent to a 6th lvl character ravaging the battlefield step in step with a team that was already blowing through challenges that should have, and has reduced other parties to ash. I tried different encounters too. Ambushes, arial battles, one big baddie, lots of little baddies, undead, demons, humanoids with clever stratagies. One or more of these battles had the intrepid duo stumbling through, as their key abilities were overcome by their foes. But not the warmage. Because he could use any offensive spell that could have been conviveably useful he could always apply his trade with effectiveness. This is not mentioning the many battles the his class was actually designed for, battles against hordes of enemies. Here, despite being what I considered two levels behind his comrades he excelled. He dominated the combat single handedly leaving his companions to mop up the survivors of his onslaught. I have come to the conclusion the a core class should be unable to do that. That is why I find the spontanious casting of an entire spell list, and by thet I mean both the Warmage and the Beguiler to be depressingly overpowered.
Sexi, I'm a little confused by your comments. The character died - that suggests a weakness of some sort. Unless you set him up surely than indicates that the character is not all-powerful. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the overall sentiment but I suggest that a character death shows up potential weaknesses, at the very least. While there is always the random factor these things tend to come out in the wash over time, and the characters stand or fall on their abilities
Without a full remembrance of the class a warmage is effectively an armoured evoker. There isn't much interesting happening with the evocation spell list between levels 3 (Fireball, Lightning Bolt) and 5 (Cone of Cold) - Ice Storm is a fairly weak spell for level 4 and there isn't much else there for attack. So the extra two levels won't make much odds.
And in a combat-heavy game, a combat oriented spell-caster will excell. If you were running intrigue or subterfuge, that would be less use, as would some possible environmental issues (aerial battles, underwater battles) where his lack of flexibility would show (though doubtless you probably thought of this).
More generally, I guess you maybe got drawn into an arms race with the chap, trying to find battles where he would be disadvantaged. Maybe that was the mistake - maybe a more subtle approach would have shown up the weaknesses, such as non-battle situations. Evokers (in the general sense) are tough in a fight - I DM'ed on through the War of the Spider Queen and he laid waste too.
I think maybe some character classes are much more effective in certain campaigns than others, and as D&D is combat focussed a Warmage excells in such an environment. That may represent the lack of balance, if one assumes that the campaign lacks "balance" and concentrates on similar types of encounter. However, that may be a bit pat, as those "other" types of encounter can be harder to design, of course.
Aubrey
The reason the warmage died was because of his teamates severely underestimating the speed and strength of the 6 gargoyle monsters (i tweaked the hell out of them) they were fighting. They left the warmage stranded while they tried to attack an enemy spellcaster that was killing a friendly NPC. four of the bruisers fell on the abandoned warmage and ripped him to shreds. As the amount of damage done to him in that round was enough to drop their raging barbarian/fighter I do not see it as an inherent weakness. I attribute his death to a mistake his party members made in failing to stick together.
And although it looks like I was out to get the warmage, in actuallity I was probing for some weakness on the fighter and bard. It was only later I realized how well the warmage was holding his own. Then I started to wonder how he was managing it all.
And although the warmage is limited to mostly damaging spells. As his 4th lvl spell options include evards black tentacles phantasmal killer, and orb spells (where he can choose any type of energy damage at 1d6 per caster lvl and none of them allow for spell resistance). many spells stemming from the comlete arcane are in his arsenal at all spell lvls. Many of which are also powerful. So the warmage has something devestating to use at all levels.
And yes I tried a social encounter. He used intimidate to gain information from my NPC. And with Cha as his primary stat he typically was a step ahead of the party when the bard wasn't around for diplomacy.
The beguiler shares many of the warmages advantages over other arcane casters including powerful class abilities, powerful spell lists, spontaneously casting from a list of spells that pulverizes what a sorcerer can accomplish, and increased armor profeciencies, and in the case of the beguiler alone a greatly expanded selection of skills. That is why I think they are overpowered.
Once again I am expecting to be the minority in this. If you guys have fun with these classes then they have done their job despite my personal irritation with them. As always it's just my humble opinion.
|
|
Aubrey
The reason the warmage died was because of his teamates severely underestimating the speed and strength of the 6 gargoyle monsters (i tweaked the hell out of them) they were fighting. They left the warmage stranded while they tried to attack an enemy spellcaster that was killing a friendly NPC. four of the bruisers fell on the abandoned warmage and ripped him to shreds. As the amount of damage done to him in that round was enough to drop their raging barbarian/fighter I do not see it as an inherent weakness. I attribute his death to a mistake his party members made in failing to stick together.
And although it looks like I was out to get the warmage, in actuallity I was probing for some weakness on the fighter and bard. It was only later I realized how well the warmage was holding his own. Then I started to wonder how he was managing it all.
And although the warmage is limited to mostly damaging spells. As his 4th lvl spell options include evards black tentacles phantasmal killer, and orb spells (where he can choose any type of energy damage at 1d6 per caster lvl and none of them allow for spell resistance). many spells stemming from the comlete arcane are in his arsenal at all spell lvls. Many of which are also powerful. So the warmage has something devestating to use at all levels.
And yes I tried a social encounter. He used intimidate to gain information from my NPC. And with Cha as his primary stat he typically was a step ahead of the party when the bard wasn't around for diplomacy.
The beguiler shares many of the warmages advantages over other arcane casters including powerful class abilities, powerful spell lists, spontaneously casting from a list of spells that pulverizes what a sorcerer can accomplish, and increased armor profeciencies, and in the case of the beguiler alone a greatly expanded selection of skills. That is why I think they are overpowered.
Once again I am expecting to be the minority in this. If you guys have fun with these classes then they have done their job...
Well, I'm more interested in your view than anything else. I have a player who is flirting with the idea of a warmage and I am slightly uncomfortable, since we do play a combat-heavy game (the characters are about to start a war) and I remember how dominating the evoker was before.
To be fair, the main problem with the evoker was more a question of pace (the player took AGES to decide what spell to cast, and as he downloaded his PHB he didn't have the books to hand and wasn't that familiar with the effects). But when he got going, it was messy. I eventually found the best way to deal with him was attrition - throw piddly little fellas at the party and watch them succumb to Mordekainen's Sword - fun, but wasteful. Eventually even he had to draw a real sword and get blood on his robe when he ran out of spells for the big guys.
I couldn't agree more. "Knight" is an honorific title, and theres no reason that its should exist as a seperate class, one should just spec a fighter as a knight.
Well, yeah. It is a job description, much like "wizard" (wise elder type) or "cleric" (clerk). "Rangers" are something like frontier marshalls (as in the US Marshalls or the Mounties, not the marshall class). There were Illinois Rangers and Texas Rangers in US History. Etc. Etc.
Those with the class "Knight" aren't just fighters with a title. They have abilities that fighters don't duplicate in any way.
The name of the class in the rules has nothing to do with what the characters call themselves in the game (except maybe in OotS).
Hell, I was toying with the Knight class a bit, calling the variant "Hoplites" and using them in a campaign based on Homeric Greece. Where they would not call themselves hoplites at all. High level hoplites would probably be called "heroes of many mighty deeds, worthy of great praise" or something....
OK here is the crux of my argument.
I fully understand that due to the generic nature of the game some base classes are required to differentiate between "strong guy", "smart guy", "magic guy" etc, so I recongnize the terms fighter, cleric, ranger.
I can also get behind the perstige class idea. A fighter can be thrown into galdorial combat, or study under a kung fu master, or practice archery all his life. I can get behind a level of specialization that causes the term "fighter" or "rouge" to be modified to "Knight" or "Assassin". having a goal is what makes for a good campaign. Even in my group which for the most part sticks to the core rules I encourage the players to specialize to a PC on the off chance that it may be deemed not unbalancing.
To have classes such as these availible at level one, cheapens the need for Prestige classes, and the like, IMO and is bad for the game as a whole, unless you're out to sell more books.
I for one would rather have a PC come up to me with a "hey I'd like my magician to focus only on fae related spells", or "I'd like to gain some extra abilities for my cleric for worshipping an odd God" then "hey, can I play a halfling werecat that I got the rules for out of this book?!"
I second that!
That's the very reason I despise the Knight class and the Cavalier PrC- want to be a knight? Get a lord to ordain you as one! Want to be a cavalier? Get a horse and start charging things with a lance, dammit! Noooo, now if I say "cavalier", everyone thinks the guy is at least 8th level. There are some things that should be left to a chain of feats (useful ones, not a innundation of stupid page-fillers) and role-playing accomplishments, not classes/PrC.
I think there are far too many PrC out now, and most of them leave me thinking "cheese," "pointless," or just "what?" Most of them can be boiled down into a series of abilities that could easily be captured in a high specialized feat-chain. That would leave "concepts" as statistical "builds", giving much greater sense of freedom and personal responsibility for coming up with one's special powers (beyond core class abilities), and return feats more to what they were originally meant to be- ways to specialize your character.
Instead, it's almost as if they churn out PrCs just so that people can go spazoid and exclaim, "Blagh! Look at this new prestige class I'm in! Blaghghrg!", regardless of whether it's actually that great or not (or balanced at all- I'm looking at YOU, frenzied berserker!).
But, will that happen? Doubtful. For whatever reason, WotC, in all their infinite wisdom (and don't get me wrong, I'm not calling them evil), has decreed this is what people want.
Blaghrgh!
OK here is the crux of my argument.
I fully understand that due to the generic nature of the game some base classes are required to differentiate between "strong guy", "smart guy", "magic guy" etc, so I recongnize the terms fighter, cleric, ranger.
I can also get behind the perstige class idea. A fighter can be thrown into galdorial combat, or study under a kung fu master, or practice archery all his life. I can get behind a level of specialization that causes the term "fighter" or "rouge" to be modified to "Knight" or "Assassin". having a goal is what makes for a good campaign. Even in my group which for the most part sticks to the core rules I encourage the players to specialize to a PC on the off chance that it may be deemed not unbalancing.
To have classes such as these availible at level one, cheapens the need for Prestige classes, and the like, IMO and is bad for the game as a whole, unless you're out to sell more books.
I...
I agree with the crux of your argument and would probably even take it further. There are iconic basic classes - figther = strong & tough guy, wizard = smart magic using gal, etc. We could just have a fighter (strong guy), rogue (skill based guy), etc. but then we would be playing d20 Modern.
If you get right down to it, rangers and paladins seem pretty PrC-like. They are fighters with extra cool abilities that a fighter can't get through feat selection. The knight falls into the same category: A class with cool extra perks from 1st level on that can't be duplicated by any stretch of the feat selection rules.
In fact, the knight seems to fall in this class even MORE than the iconic-because-it-has-been-in-D&D-since-1st-Ed. paladins and rangers. You can get a lot (but not all) of the abilities of a paladin by being a cleric/fighter and of a ranger by being a druid/figther(/rogue?). Doesn't that make it seem like paladin should be a PrC for a figther with a dash of LG cleric? Or a ranger by mixing barbarian and druid?
A lot of the other new classes seem, IMO, to be very PrC-like. They take a particular flavor of a class's archetype and add some neat (or not-so-neat) twists. Beguiler, swashbucker, warmage, etc. seem to fall into this category.
In the defense of the whole idea of many of these base classes, there is something very different in chosing a specialty after experience and with being trained to a specialty from the ground up. I think the analogy is weak, but you can train as a 1st level police officer and then get into the PrC of detective, but you could also train as a 1st level private investigator from the ground up. The detective and the PI have a lot in common, but they are very different ways to get to the same thing.
I can see a very sophisticated (civilzation-wise) D&D setting having lots of options for things that have very definite overlap. For example: a wizard can take feats to enhance his evocation spells OR he can initially train to be an evoker OR he could train the special and very focused warmage academy AND/OR he could pick up a "blast it atoms" PrC. A fighter could start off just knowing how to fight, develop his combat skills along a certain vector and become a duelist or he could grow up in an environment where that fighting style is all he has known and start off as a swashbuckler.
As for cheapening the need for PrCs... Well, the original concept of PrCs was supposed to be the extra-special cool stuff that was hard to get into. And was supposed to be VERY campaign specific. (see Monte Cook's article on PrCs in Dragon right before 3rd Ed came out) That has been almost completely lost to one of making PrCs become a necessary part of character advancement. IMO that is a bad move. Unless you are talking about keeping the game financially viable. In which case, it's a great idea.
I do not care what they call a new class. I am interested in how it fits into the game. I frown on fighters introducing themselves as Ted the Fighter 4.
I am not all that impressed with the knight, as it does not seem likely to be choosen that often unless someone just wants to be a fighter who is not a fighter. I have though not found any reason to ban it. I do though like the addition of new base classes instead of prestige classes. The larger number of levels involved in a class has its good abilities hopefully spread out more than you see in prestige classes and the nature of the experience point penalties keeps down the urge to level dip that is far too common with PrCs.
The classes in the PHB2 don't seem to be overpowered, although I would like to experiment with the Dusk Blade a bit before putting my stamp of approval on it. They also don't tend to show one thing I dislike on some other base classes, like the Barbarian, that they rarely encourage someone to stick with them for 20 levels. The Dragon Shaman I was very pleased with as I have not found a point at which it seems a good time to leave for greener pastures. Even the Duskblade and Beguiler have abilites they continue to develop throughout their career,Cloaked Casting and pure BaB, that seem likely to keep them in their class and not moving to a PrC as soon as possible for some other features.
So far I have seen no reason to complain about these new classes and after a little more investigation into them I may add them to my list of permited non-PHB classes. These sort of new releases as long as they are well done offer me the hope to eventually have a game with no PrCs that still has the options that are currently expected by the DnD hobbyists I game with.
I always find it hard to say, "I ban this class/PrC entirely", becuase the thought comes to my mind, "Well, someone might actually have a really cool idea for this someday, and not just cheese." With the exception of one (I'm looking at YOU, Frenzied Berserker). But, I think what my solution will be is to go with my DM's perogative and simply require players get approval of any non-DMG PrC before taking it. And typically, the answer will be "No, I'm not going to allow this PrC." That way, the number is kept small to those that really deserve it.
However, I'm not going to completely deny my characters the ability to realize their concept. I'll just come up with another way (probably by creating a series of feats/magic items/abilities for high rank in a guild/whatever that replicate the core concept of the PrC). That way, they still get the concept, and I keep the number of PrCs very small in my homebrew, as it was originally intended.