I'm rather partial to the knight.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the knight. D&D really lacked a true "defender" class until this one came out. Sure, you could tailor a fighter or paladin (or even a cleric) to act as a protector but both of those options will fall short of the knight's sheer protective capabilities, especially at the lower levels.
I despise the Dragon Shaman and have banned it from my table as part of my crusade against the irritating dragon-mania that seems to have taken over D&D, but that's just me
Aside from that, Dragon Shaman is a little overpowered, IMO.
I like the knight - it's the archetype I always wanted to play in D&D. The duskblade comes a close second.
Duskblade!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
i like the duskblade for style, but the beguler is the most powerful class in DnD i think.
Agreed on both counts. Gnome Beguilers are just sick.
The duskblade suffers from variety of spells, but is very good at direct damage. the fact that he's an Int based caster just adds skillpoint gravy.
Forgot to add, I love Blue Dragon Shamans, but I like the Blues
What does the Beguiler do? Is that some sort of enchanter/illusionist?
I never had any interest in this book, but if I end up sticking w/ 3.5 (my hope), maybe I should pick it up for a read.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
it's a mind-control wizard with decent offensive spells, and though the BAB sucks, it has decent combat abilities if you can overcome (there are many ways).
it's an intelligence caster with 6 skill points, so it can break the game open and fill any hole in your party.
it has tons of synergy, and really is beggin for an eldritch knight or somesuch combination.
Its probably a shock, but I'm partial to the knight. While I like the principal of a versatile hard bitten warrior type like the fighter, I usually end up playing Lawful good types that tend to be damage sponges, so the class is a good fit.
The only one I've played is Beguiler, but just love the flavor of the class. My favorite thing is being a beguiler that pretends to be pure rogue or even a fighter, using his magic to disguise the fact that he can cast magic...
*cough*
Its probably a shock, but I'm partial to the knight. While I like the principal of a versatile hard bitten warrior type like the fighter, I usually end up playing Lawful good types that tend to be damage sponges, so the class is a good fit.
I never would have guessed!
Cool, thanks for the Beguiler information. I should probably pick this up even if I don't actually play one of the new core classes. Just so my D&D "lexicon" stays up to speed, when people talk about these classes etc. Though I have a friend running a duskblade IIRC.
When I was introducing myself to 3.5 this late summer, somebody wanted to play a knight and it pretty much spooked me.
It has sort of a 'control aggro' effect doesn't it? Please correct me if I'm mistaken. It sort of spooked me as a class, so I forbade it at the time. I was learning all changes from 1st edition and it seemed overwelming the first time out. I'd probably reconsider now that I have my sea legs..
I do like the Shapeshifting Variant for the Druid. The buzz seemed to suggest that my players wasn't trying to exploit, but actually be more fair. I've enjoyed seeing it played.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
When I was introducing myself to 3.5 this late summer, somebody wanted to play a knight and it pretty much spooked me.
It has sort of a 'control aggro' effect doesn't it?
Ummmm... well... yes and no. It has an ability that allows the knight to issue a challenge to all enemies within 100 ft. (I believe). Enemies in the area of effect must succeed on a Will save (DC determined by the knight's level and CHA mod) or be forced to direct all of their attacks at the knight.
Ummmm... well... yes and no. It has an ability that allows the knight to issue a challenge to all enemies within 100 ft. (I believe). Enemies in the area of effect must succeed on a Will save (DC determined by the knight's level and CHA mod) or be forced to direct all of their attacks at the knight.
That's it.
Seemed daunting at the time, dealing with multiple combats.. but not so much now.
It was for the best anyway, they needed a cleric.
Hmm, the only one I've actually played is Beguiler, but it's a really good arcane spellcasting class if you don't mind giving up some versatility for greater defensive combat potential.
Unlike some of the other splatbook arcane classes, the "flavor" of the class doesn't really constrain your roleplaying. Your character background and introduction can take any form, without having to blow your cover with any particular spells/abilities. For instance, you can pass yourself off as a non-spellcaster and sort of blend in, using generic skills & combat abilities, then use your disguise/illusion spells and social skills to be the ultimate "faceless" spy/assassin/intel broker (in secret, or not, depending).
My personal preference is to go the mind-manipulation route, but really, Beguiler is just a really versatile social-oriented class.
D&D really lacked a true "defender" class until this one came out.
Aha! Thank you! As I've made known a few times before, I had a real problem with this class based on its name alone (knight is position to be earned through roleplaying and story, not through mechanics). The only other name I'd heard proposed was "champion," but that left me flat. "Defender" has the right ring to it. Now I can think about the class and enjoy it! From a world-building perspective, I see this as being a popular choice for dwarves. And of course, the duskblade screams elf.
I like both of the aforementioned classes, but not the dragon shaman. It's just one more piece of dragon bloat, and poorly executed at that (other than a breath weapon and skill points, what do they even have to do with dragons?). What type of role is this thing supposed to play within the game? Is it a priest? No, we already have clerics and it's not a divine caster. Is it a shaman, as the name suggests? No, druids already cover that. So is it just a draconic-race only class (i.e., kobolds, maybe lizardfolk too) and everything else just doesn't make sense? Gee, that's useful.
I just can't get into something if I can't look at it and see it making sense from an in-game perspective. I know there's a kind of "wide-world" philosophy out there, where theoretically anything is allowed on the bases of it making in-game sense due to the assumption that the world is big enough for all these strange things to co-exist. I don't follow that philosophy. There's a lot of room in the worlds I run, but not infinite. There's just not enough space for the dragon shaman. If that makes any sense. (I still have a little bit of that same feeling for the knight; I think it kind of invalidates choices and characters players might have already made. If someone worked to make a defense-oriented fighter, then the knight comes out, it kind of steals their thunder for choosing a core class).
Plus, I don't like some of their auras.
The beguiler I dislike for the same reason I dislike the warmage. It treads on the sorcerer. Unlike many others, I do see the sorcerer as a distinct and viable class, separate from the wizard, and think it is a very good class. Anything that steals its thunder is a bad thing in my eyes.
|
|
The Beguiler I dislike for the same reason I dislike the warmage. It treads on the sorcerer. Unlike many others, I do see the sorcerer as a distinct and viable class, separate from the wizard, and think it is a very good class. Anything that steals its thunder is a bad thing in my eyes.
The Beguiler doesn't appeal to me at all, personally, but I like the idea.
As for treading on the Sorcerer's toes, I see the entire Sorcerer class as an option for the Wizard class. Rather than getting it's own write up, a 1st level Wizard should just be allowed to choose whether he's going to be a prepared caster (spellbooks, unlimited spells known, not as many castings / day) or a spontaneous caster (no spellbooks, few spells known, more castings / day). Otherwise, they can have the same spell list, same hit points, same armor (none), same weapons (few), same saves, same Familiar and (bonus for the Sorc option) same Bonus feats / five levels.
I'd be thrilled to see the same option for the Bard. Some might be dragon-blooded spontaneous casters, while others have less spells / day, keep spellbooks and be educated magical dilettantes, who collect scraps of arcane lore the same way they collect tales and legends of lands they pass through in their travels.
The divide between Spontaneous and Prepared casting, IMO, doesn't warrant an entirely different class. It's not like the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard is as significant as the differences between Cleric and Druid, after all.
I liked the Duskblade. It reminded me a lot of the elf class from the red box. We had one in play from level 4 to level 10 and they were pretty neat.
The Beguiler I dislike for the same reason I dislike the warmage. It treads on the sorcerer. Unlike many others, I do see the sorcerer as a distinct and viable class, separate from the wizard, and think it is a very good class. Anything that steals its thunder is a bad thing in my eyes.The Beguiler doesn't appeal to me at all, personally, but I like the idea.
As for treading on the Sorcerer's toes, I see the entire Sorcerer class as an option for the Wizard class. Rather than getting it's own write up, a 1st level Wizard should just be allowed to choose whether he's going to be a prepared caster (spellbooks, unlimited spells known, not as many castings / day) or a spontaneous caster (no spellbooks, few spells known, more castings / day). Otherwise, they can have the same spell list, same hit points, same armor (none), same weapons (few), same saves, same Familiar and (bonus for the Sorc option) same Bonus feats / five levels.
I'd be thrilled to see the same option for the Bard. Some might be dragon-blooded spontaneous casters, while others have less spells / day, keep spellbooks and be educated magical dilettantes, who collect scraps of arcane lore the same way they collect tales and legends of lands they pass through in their travels.
The divide between Spontaneous and Prepared casting, IMO, doesn't warrant an entirely different class. It's not like the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard is as significant as the differences between Cleric and Druid, after all.
As I said, I don't feel this way. I think the sorcerer has more than enough reasons, both in-game and meta-game, to justify it being its own unique class.