Beguiler conversion for Pathfinder


Conversions

801 to 835 of 835 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ertw wrote:
That said, the increase to save DCs was (on a gut level, at the very least) the hardest of these provisional changes for me to swallow. As always I value your input and would love to hear from others about whether they think the increased save DCs are too much.

I'm on the fence about whether it's too much, but you could always offer the old progression as a variant rule. Or even the new progression for that matter.

I also really like the new archetype. It has a very good mix of ninja and beguiler abilities. One issue I see is with the new artifact: it seems like a single user could continuously use the stone to move as many people or items through the gate simply by continuously walking back and forth between them. You might want to put a cooldown of a few hours (maybe days) to prevent a situation where you would only really need one or two Heimdall-style gatekeepers to disrupt the need for a passage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ertw wrote:
However I think a potential late game, race locked, school locked build isn't necessarily grounds to hold the change back.

That's a fair point. It still feels like a bit much, but I do like Sylver's idea of offering it as an optional variant.

ertw wrote:
Another quick update: I've just pushed an update of the BotIS document which includes the ikiryo (a new ninja themed archetype from distant Tian Xia) and a new artifact to aid ikiryo in moving between the Inner Sea and their home continent. I've also moved all non-core race FCBs over to the BotIS document.

This looks really great. I especially like that it slots right into the order patronage spot, so it plays nice with any archetypes that don't displace orders. I'm thinking about how I'd build a badass ikiryo/shadowgraft skirmisher right now. I agree with Sylver that the artifact needs a serious cooldown to keep it from breaking the world wide open, either a day at least or possibly just making it work for a single one-way trip (could be great for Jade Regent players who want to return to Avistan after the AP is finished).


ertw wrote:

Alright, so after thinking over some of Nicholas' comments I've put together a new provisional update to get feedback. I'm curious to hear from all about how these changes look. Are they too much, too little, or just right?

Changes:

  • Hide in plain sight now comes online at level 9.
  • Swift feint now comes online at level 11.
  • Cloaked casting now grants +1 bonus to save DCs at level 2, increasing by 1 every 6 levels thereafter. At level 8 rolls to overcome SR gain the same bonus. At level 19 SR is automatically overcome.
  • New ability phantom bulwark allows 3/day negation of crits or sneak attack, gained at level 15.
  • New ability aura of indiscretion causes those within 30 ft. to suffer a -4 penalty on Sense Motive checks against you and -2 on Will saves against your abilities, gained at level 17.[/list]

    One nice thing about this arrangement is that it fills in the class features table well, leaving gaps only at 12, 16, and 18 (where you're still getting new spells and order spells). As always, I'm excited to hear what people think of the changes and where they think things could be further improved.

  • Hi ERTW,

    I'm glad you advanced the HiPS.

    I agree with Penumbral Shadow, that we need to be careful with stacking too many bonuses or penalties. It's not clear to me why Aura of indiscretion offers penalties within 30ft.
    But as I just introduced some bonuses and penalties myself, I'm not that worried that in the end it might be too much. It seems all pretty balanced to me, under the condition that the Spell-list that the Beguiler uses is short and focussed. The Beguiler is nowhere as flexible and powerfull as the Sorceror, so higher DC's are okay in my book. But, the current list of Beguiler spells is a bit long IMO.

    About phantom bulwark: it's an ability that is nearing the effects of Improved uncanny dodge or Blurr. I'm not very keen on abilities that have x/day use. Maybe you could consider a more thematic and (semi) permanent Blurr?


    Penumbral Shadow wrote:
    I've been reading over Nicholas' comments in the thread and they've been quite interesting and thought provoking. From where I sit it seems like what you want from the class doesn't quite dovetail with what Ertw has been trying to do with it over these years. You want a laser focused spellcaster, while Ertw has been building something more in line with pathfinder's updated meta of more expansive options and focuses for their classes. In the end it may well be that this might not be the conversion for you, or that limiting yourself to just the Arcane Hand is what is necessary to get it to work for you.

    Hi PS, it might be that our group has gradually formed a liking to a more simpler setup. But I really don't have any objections to all the Order variants. Actually, I like most of the Orders I read and that's why I'm committed to making them better: in terms of playability and balance. Something for another post. The Arcane Hand it really just one of them.

    My only two conceptual difficulties lie with introducing necromancy with the Beguiler (a big no in my campaign) and maybe I'm not enthusiastic about melee-variants for Beguilers. But if people want to play them: be my guest.

    My main concern is balance.

    Penumbral Shadow wrote:
    Just as a sidenote, I'm pretty active on the pathfinder subreddit and the pathfinder general thread on 4chan and this conversion is very popular among both groups. I've rarely seen any mention of it being turned away from games for any reason beyond a blanket ban on non-Paizo materials.

    Different folks, different strokes. I just wanted to share my experience with you: the orders could tip the balance. A good base-Beguiler, as it stand now, doesn't need an Order from a impact perspective.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I just had an idea for a potential replacement for aura of indiscretion that wouldn't be as potentially problematic with the new CC progression. What if you gave them an aura power akin to the antipaladin's aura of cowardice that broke immunity to mind affecting spells. That would help mitigate the potential save stacking and simultaneously cancel out one of the beguiler's greatest weaknesses.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Since we're at the top of the page again here are the most recent links for newcomers:

    Beguiler Conversion - main conversion document
    Beguilers of the Inner Seas - Golarion themed options for your beguiler

    And the current provisional update can be found here.

    SylverFox wrote:
    One issue I see is with the new artifact: it seems like a single user could continuously use the stone to move as many people or items through the gate simply by continuously walking back and forth between them. You might want to put a cooldown of a few hours (maybe days) to prevent a situation where you would only really need one or two Heimdall-style gatekeepers to disrupt the need for a passage.
    Penumbral Shadow wrote:
    I agree with Sylver that the artifact needs a serious cooldown to keep it from breaking the world wide open, either a day at least or possibly just making it work for a single one-way trip (could be great for Jade Regent players who want to return to Avistan after the AP is finished).

    That's something I hadn't thought about, but I think you're right it needs some type of restriction. I think making it one use would be a touch too restrictive, but a cooldown would definitely be in order.

    SylverFox wrote:
    I just had an idea for a potential replacement for aura of indiscretion that wouldn't be as potentially problematic with the new CC progression. What if you gave them an aura power akin to the antipaladin's aura of cowardice that broke immunity to mind affecting spells. That would help mitigate the potential save stacking and simultaneously cancel out one of the beguiler's greatest weaknesses.

    I really like that idea. Let me draw it up tonight.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    ertw wrote:
    SylverFox wrote:
    I just had an idea for a potential replacement for aura of indiscretion that wouldn't be as potentially problematic with the new CC progression. What if you gave them an aura power akin to the antipaladin's aura of cowardice that broke immunity to mind affecting spells. That would help mitigate the potential save stacking and simultaneously cancel out one of the beguiler's greatest weaknesses.
    I really like that idea. Let me draw it up tonight.

    A new provisional update has been uploaded with aura of indiscretion replaced by disarming aura.


    Okay, maybe my overlong post wasn’t very clear. I think I wanted to show that the mechanic behind ‘Hidden Signs’ (Conceal Spell) could become more streamlined. But I also realized that some parts of ‘Cloaked Casting’ in relation to ‘Silent Spell’ and ‘Still Spell’ aren’t clear to me.

    First I think there’s a small error in the current description of Silent Spell and Still Spell in the Conversion. In the CRB it says that A ‘stilled’ or ‘Silent’ spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. In the conversion it says the Beguiler doesn’t suffer increased casting time, but I assume you mean that the Beguiler doesn’t suffer the increase in casting level for his spells. Is this correct?

    As I said in my long post, this means that the Beguiler will always use Silent Spell (from 5th level) and Still Spell (from 10th level) when casting spells with Cloaked Casting. Why shouldn’t he.

    This opens up some questions, which I hope you could answer. I hope you agree with me that Stealth/Invisibility and ‘Hidden Signs’ are the main conditions by which the Beguiler will use Cloaked Casting. It is unclear to me what Silent Spell and Still Spell will have in these situations, namely
    - Silent Spell (5th): When you always will use Silent Spell, what would this mean for your checks for Hidden Signs?: the Beguiler no longer uses verbal/sound, so that would probably mean that the Bluff-roll could disappear and only the SoH-check remains;
    - But, when you always will use Silent Spell, what would this mean for your checks when casting in Stealth/Invisible?: the Beguiler no longer uses verbal/sound while not visible, so that would probably mean that doesn’t need to make a (Stealth) check at all….making the Cloaked Casting and automatic success. Isn’t that too powerful, already at 5th?
    - Still Spell (10th): When you always will use Silent Spell and Still Spell (from 5th), what would this mean for your checks for Hidden Signs?: the Beguiler no longer uses verbal/sound ánd somatics/ movement, so that would probably mean that doesn’t need to make a check at all from 10th. ….making the Cloaked Casting and automatic success when Invisible and using Hidden Signs. Isn’t that too powerfull?

    So, that’s why I suggested in my previous (overlong) post to set this clear into rules to avoid discussions, primarily about balance. I earlier suggested an additional bonus (in stead of automatic successes) when Silent Spell and Still Spell were available at 5th and 10th.

    Maybe I'm nitpicking, since nobody commented on this before. But Could you please clarify what’s your view on this?


    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:
    Okay, maybe my overlong post wasn’t very clear. I think I wanted to show that the mechanic behind ‘Hidden Signs’ (Conceal Spell) could become more streamlined.

    The sole reason Hidden Signs exists is because of a singular FAQ post that says that one can still tell that a spell's being cast even if there's no components. It was linked to somewhere in the thread, idk where. It's not as important as anything else, so any method to fixing it should be okay.

    Also, sorry for appearing out of nowhere, I've been following this for a couple weeks now, and I need to make a couple responses.

    EDIT: Just realized that the only part of Hidden Signs that was for that post was where it says that they wouldn't recognize a spell would be cast, and the rest of the features are actually very important.


    ertw wrote:


    Changes:
  • Hide in plain sight now comes online at level 9.
  • Swift feint now comes online at level 11.
  • Cloaked casting now grants +1 bonus to save DCs at level 2, increasing by 1 every 6 levels thereafter. At level 8 rolls to overcome SR gain the same bonus. At level 19 SR is automatically overcome.
  • New ability phantom bulwark allows 3/day negation of crits or sneak attack, gained at level 15.
    And the disarming aura thingy.
  • I'm fine with the changes, mostly. I'd agree with Nicholas that the overcoming SR should be a capstone and not level 19, but I'm also a proponent of filling in every empty level.

    All of the changes are fine so far... but I'm concerned about the balance.

    Every argument of the beguiler's balance (slightly under a sorcerer) were in page 5 or below, and the class is basically a whole new beast altogether now. Several more spells known than a sorcerer, a surprisingly big spell list (!!!), 4+Int on an Int-based character (which will land around 8-9 skill ranks per level, only second to Rogue and 3.5 Factotum), and the orders. Oh, the orders. We had an argument that the Ghastly Claw (I think it was) was too weak compared to the others, so we buffed it - then buffed everything else to catch up with it - then buffed Arcane Hand because it seemed more "bland" than the others. On top of the increase to save DCs with Cloaked Casting, I feel like something has to give before we have ourselves a 3.5 Druid.

    I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, because I love this class to death and want to use it myself in my next campaign, but it just seems too strong. The medium BAB and casting in light armor was fine until the spell list expanded, IMHO, and the class has only gotten better and better from there.

    This is where I disagree with Nicholas - I think that the class, were it to get anything more powerful, like from the Provisional document, it will surpass almost every other class, even Wizard. Definitely be better than a sorcerer. It needs no balancing. Agree/Disagree/Ideas?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Nicholas to answer some of your questions:

    Silent Spell and Still Spell still require the higher spell slot, they just don't suffer the increased casting time that any spontaneous caster suffers when applying metamagic. This is purposeful, it prevents exactly what you're talking about (applying Silent and Still to every spell cast).

    Conceal Spell gives no provisions for ignoring the Bluff/Disguise check even if silenced. Only the Sleight of Hand check can be ignored for spells without somatic components (usually done through either Still Spell or with the Sleight of Blade feat).

    Cloaked casting is an ability that innately comes with a cost, even though there are numerous avenues to activate it. Be it action economy (feinting), skill investment (hidden signs), feat investment (initiative), customization options (subtle casting), or spells (invisibility).

    chronoquairium wrote:
    Every argument of the beguiler's balance (slightly under a sorcerer) were in page 5 or below, and the class is basically a whole new beast altogether now.

    I personally feel a lot of the balance arguments still hold true. Yes the spell list has gotten bigger, but most of these spells are more flavourful than powerful. Still no flight, long range teleport, binding, polymorph, or antimagic spells. Direct damage and summoning (almost always behind shadow spells), as well as scrying spells are limited to orders and archetypes. Skills have always been part of the beguiler kit and have actually done down since the conversion started. Orders still mostly provide breadth rather than depth into the beguiler's key strengths in spellcasting.

    chronoquairium wrote:
    I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, because I love this class to death and want to use it myself in my next campaign, but it just seems too strong. The medium BAB and casting in light armor was fine until the spell list expanded, IMHO, and the class has only gotten better and better from there.

    I think that in the end, balance is a continuum and everybody has to find their game's place on that line. I've tried to provide options that fit a wide range balance points. If you think the spell list is too big, switch to the all spells known variant rule. If you think some of the orders give too much, limit yourself to a handful of options you think are in line with what you want.

    chronoquairium wrote:
    This is where I disagree with Nicholas - I think that the class, were it to get anything more powerful, like from the Provisional document, it will surpass almost every other class, even Wizard. Definitely be better than a sorcerer.

    From my experience DMing friends who have played the class I'd have to disagree with this assessment, but that's the funny thing about balance - everybody has their own take. I'm sure there are other regulars in the thread with similar feelings to mine, and there are probably people who would throw this conversion in the trash out of hand declaring it overpowered as is.

    From where I stand: yes a beguiler use skills or spells to sidestep an encounter, but so can a sorcerer with almost as much efficiency (and if that fails he can also fly around the room flinging fireballs at his enemies).


    okay, more things are clear to me. Thank you.

    ertw wrote:

    Nicholas to answer some of your questions:

    Silent Spell and Still Spell still require the higher spell slot, they just don't suffer the increased casting time that any spontaneous caster suffers when applying metamagic. This is purposeful, it prevents exactly what you're talking about (applying Silent and Still to every spell cast).

    This is clear now

    ertw wrote:
    Conceal Spell gives no provisions for ignoring the Bluff/Disguise check even if silenced. Only the Sleight of Hand check can be ignored for spells without somatic components (usually done through either Still Spell or with the Sleight of Blade feat).

    If you could put this explanation of Still Spell at 10th, that would really help and avoid unnecessary discussions.

    What about 'Silent Spell' in combo with and Invisible/Stealth Beguiler?

    Also, Hidden Signs is in fact mostly an adaptation of the Conceal Spell feat. I think it really helps when you add this together in one clear explanation of Hidden Signs. Again, this help to avoid unnecessary discussions

    ertw wrote:
    Cloaked casting is an ability that innately comes with a cost, even though there are numerous avenues to activate it. Be it action economy (feinting), skill investment (hidden signs), feat investment (initiative), customization options (subtle casting), or spells (invisibility)..

    That was clear to me and is how it should be.

    As said earlier, I think Feinting/Surprise Casting remains a very ineffective, inefficient and risky way of doing this: IMO, it's a subpar ability that will loose its application very fast. Even melee-Beguilers (heavens forbid) are better of using Hidden Signs or (later) Improved Invisibility. I even think it might be a waste of a 1st, 2nd and 11th level ability.

    Might my earlier remarks be swamped in my overlong post, let me rephrase some of it:

    - cloggy mechanics of Hidden Signs: The Conceal Spell feat requires two rolls for every opponent that you try to affect with Cloaked Casting. I still think this will be cloggy and might ruin the fun of Cloaked Casting. I suggested you make it into one (possibly harder) roll. Could you consider this?

    - auto-nerfing of Cloaked Casting and Subtle Casting by the 0-level cantrip Detect Magic: This will ruin an important ability of the Beguiler at te hands of a unwilling DM. I think that a decent bonus is more then enough and I suggested some more spells that might be applicable. A Beguiler who lets himself be seriously hampered by a simple Cantrip, isn't a master of deceit and subtlety IMO.


    Hi ERTW,

    I like the the 'Order of the Balefull Shadow' a lot. It reminds me of a 'Shadow Fey' or 'Shadow Gnome' that was a character in a campaign long past.

    If you're open to it, I am willing to rewrite this Order somewhat into an alternative adaption that is less focussed on melee and more on schadow-based mobility and trickery. It's up t you what you do with it, but at least some feedback would be nice.

    If that's okay with you, could you send me a Word-version of that particular text? I'm a novice in the workings of this forum, so I'm not sure how this is done.


    Hi ERTW,

    I've already put some rough ideas on paper. I guess it turned out to be a mostly new 'Umbral Fey' Order altogether. I hope it fits the mold somehow. Please let me know how you would like me to share this.


    Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Nicholas, we've been dealing with an ice storm here all weekend. If you want to share the umbral fey order, you can definitely post it in the thread if you like (either plain text in a post or uploaded to something like google docs if it's a .doc or .pdf file). If you'd rather just share it with me personally, you can send me a PM through this site.


    Hi ERTW,

    I've sent you a word-link to a draft of the Order of the Umbral Fey

    Nicholas


    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:

    Hi ERTW,

    I've sent you a word-link to a draft of the Order of the Umbral Fey

    Nicholas

    Thanks Nicholas, I got it and I'll try to look it over this weekend.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Quick update:
    I've pushed the provisional update into the main conversion document with the classic cloaked casting variant rule included for those who don't want the increase to cloaked casting's power level.

    Also Nicholas, I'm sorry I haven't been able to look over what you sent me yet since my daughter has been sick with an ear infection all week.


    ertw wrote:
    Also Nicholas, I'm sorry I haven't been able to look over what you sent me yet since my daughter has been sick with an ear infection all week.

    Hi ERTW, I hope your daughter is doing well again.

    Did you have the chance of looking at my proposal for the Beguiler Order I sent you a few weeks ago? It could even be an Archetype. Some feedback for my own use would be nice. I have put some genuine work in this 'Dark Fae Beguiler', so I think it's worth your time. It might even have elements that could be of value to your beguiler-conversion.

    Thanks!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    After getting a few questions I've made some minor edits to clear up issues with the function of the phantasmal conduit spell as well as the pricing of magical tattoos. The updated version of the beguiler main conversion document can be found here.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    After getting comments about balance concerns on phantasmal conduit, I've limited the free action teleport effect to once per round. I've pushed that edit out alongside a few other minor edits to the main conversion and BotIS documents, including a couple of new magic items: the extradimensional anchor and impostor's cufflinks.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    While on door duty this Halloween I had an idea pop into my head, a baleful shadow focused archetype that mirrors the old spellwarp sniper. I still need to sit down and flesh out all the details, but I'd like to get a feeling about whether or not people would be interested in such an archetype.


    ertw wrote:
    a couple of new magic items: the extradimensional anchor and impostor's cufflinks.

    I really like these two items. The anchor is an excellent alternative to permanency for a beguiler on the move and I can think of many really cool uses for the cufflinks that really fit the flavor of the counterfeit blood.

    ertw wrote:
    While on door duty this Halloween I had an idea pop into my head, a baleful shadow focused archetype that mirrors the old spellwarp sniper. I still need to sit down and flesh out all the details, but I'd like to get a feeling about whether or not people would be interested in such an archetype.

    The baleful shadow always felt like it was brushing against the spellwarp sniper to me, so I'd say this would probably be a great fit. Likely you'd only have to replace the 1st and 13th level order powers to make it work, too.


    Hi ERTW,

    I didn't check on my Paizo account recently, so now I see that you've send me feedback on my Umbral Fae Beguiler (already) 3 months ago. Too bad I didn't see it earlier.
    But, Thanks for the compliments! I certainly will consider all your suggestions and have already drafted a new version based on your feedback

    Also, I've given the Umbral Fae Beguiler some playtime and I really enjoyed it a lot. I would like it to be accessible and playable for others too. I'd gladly share the fun. Would you be interested to adopt the Umbral Fae Beguiler in your conversion/Handbook?

    Ofcourse I realise that this means that you might want to adapt it to your tastes. That's really okay. I could also draft new versions and discuss it with you, untill you'd consider it fitting.

    Best regards, Nicholas


    Happy New Year! May your year be full of trickery, mischief ... and happiness.

    To translate my earlier words to deeds, I've added the link to the Umbral Fae Beguiler.

    Link to "Umbral Fae Beguiler" Google-doc

    It's an addition to ERTW's version that has already given me a lot of RP-fun. Feel free to use it or make comments.


    Hi ERTW,
    We've been using your conversion in my home game for years now and all my players have really enjoyed it. Right now we're in the process of starting up a new campaign and we're bringing the Spheres of Might system into our game to replace Path of War. I had a few questions regarding how you feel the beguiler should interact with SoM:
    1) On the Spheres Wiki it outlines the process of trading feats for a spheres progression, but explicitly prohibits the use of this for classes with "High Caster casting progression (including classes that grant 9th level spellcasting or an equivalent)". This would include the beguiler, but given the limitations on a beguiler's casting do you feel that the class should be exempt from this limitation?
    2) I noticed you offered a few PoW and psionics based templates in your conversion, is a SoM archetype or template for the beguiler something you would consider?
    3) Do you have any intention of making a Spheres of Power or Champion of the Spheres (a combination of SoP and SoM) version of the beguiler?


    Hey everybody,
    Sorry for vanishing off the face of the earth for the last few months, life's been busy. I guess the 5th anniversary of the conversion is an appropriate time to reappear, but sadly I don't have a trove of new goodies for you this year. I haven't really had time to work on any of the beguiler ideas I've been tossing around in my head lately.

    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:
    I've given the Umbral Fae Beguiler some playtime and I really enjoyed it a lot. I would like it to be accessible and playable for others too. I'd gladly share the fun. Would you be interested to adopt the Umbral Fae Beguiler in your conversion/Handbook?
    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:

    To translate my earlier words to deeds, I've added the link to the Umbral Fae Beguiler.

    Link to "Umbral Fae Beguiler" Google-doc

    I might consider adapting it for the Beguilers of the Inner Sea document, but I'd need to take a fair amount of time to figure out how best to incorporate it into that world. That said, I'm more than happy to have you post the document and updates here for public consumption and comments.

    ErichTehRed wrote:
    1) On the Spheres Wiki it outlines the process of trading feats for a spheres progression, but explicitly prohibits the use of this for classes with "High Caster casting progression (including classes that grant 9th level spellcasting or an equivalent)". This would include the beguiler, but given the limitations on a beguiler's casting do you feel that the class should be exempt from this limitation?

    I would say that that would be a fair exemption. The beguiler doesn't have anywhere near the power of most full casters, and a bit more of a martial bent as well. My group has been playing with SoM for about six months now and I don't recall seeing anything in there that would break the game significantly in combination with what the beguiler brings to the table. I might add a blurb about it in the variant rules section.

    ErichTehRed wrote:
    2) I noticed you offered a few PoW and psionics based templates in your conversion, is a SoM archetype or template for the beguiler something you would consider?
    A SoM archetype may be something I'd consider. If you're looking for a little guidance in homebrewing, off the cuff I'd say something along the lines of:

    • Drop proficiencies and reduce spells known to the sorcerer progression for combat training (proficient progression using best of Int or Cha as practitioner modifier) and a martial tradition (if it's the character's 1st class level).
    • Possibility to drop savvy preparation at 2nd level to improve to an adept progression.

    ErichTehRed wrote:
    3) Do you have any intention of making a Spheres of Power or Champion of the Spheres (a combination of SoP and SoM) version of the beguiler?

    I don't have very extensive knowledge of the SoP system as I've never personally used it, but from what I do know of it I don't think it would be a good fit for the beguiler. Much of the limited spellcasting options that define the beguiler can just be done out of the box with SoP with your choices of spheres.


    ertw wrote:

    Hey everybody,

    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:
    I've given the Umbral Fae Beguiler some playtime and I really enjoyed it a lot. I would like it to be accessible and playable for others too. I'd gladly share the fun. Would you be interested to adopt the Umbral Fae Beguiler in your conversion/Handbook?
    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:

    To translate my earlier words to deeds, I've added the link to the Umbral Fae Beguiler.

    Link to "Umbral Fae Beguiler" Google-doc

    I might consider adapting it for the Beguilers of the Inner Sea document, but I'd need to take a fair amount of time to figure out how best to incorporate it into that world. That said, I'm more than happy to have you post the document and updates here for public consumption and comments.

    That would be an honour and you would make my day. I think that my 'Umbral Fae Beguiler' is a decent piece of work and I had loads of fun with it.

    Even though we don't play in the Inner Sea and i'm not familiar with the setting, I've done my homework (read the Inner Sea World Guide) and I have some suggestions.

    The Umbral Fae Beguiler might feel at home in:

    - Andoran: the Arthfell Forest would be fitting with the strong presence of Druids and were creatures. Also with cities nearby, in which a Beguiler could be at home.
    - Brevoy: same counts for the Gronzi Forest. But with the woodcutters from West Stretven ever getting deeper in the forest, there might be a nice campaignhook why a Beguiler is leaving the forest to get an idea of the urban threaths.
    - Cheliax: Barrowwood would make a nice setting were Fey creatures and fell Druidcircles are in direct contact with creatures from hell. It might take some conceptual tweaking given the fact that the Umbral Fae beguiler is linked wit the Shadow plane, but its possible
    - Druma: The Fey courts from the Palakar Forest and their direct dealings with the town of Macridi would give an almost ideal starting point for the Umbral Fae Beguiler
    - Galt: the history and culture of arts and roguish romantisism would appeal to many Beguilers in general. Since the country is in turmoil for decades, there's plenty of room for creatures of the Hymbrian Forest to thrive
    - Geb: This land filled with undead would be an unlikely place for many Fey creatures, but the twisted Axan Wood could be a haven for shadowy creatures and the more sinister Umbral Fae Beguilers that specialise in the power of the Plane of Shadow.
    - Irrissen: Irrisen in itself is a land with nordic fey origin. Umbral Fae Beguilers who don't mind the cold (or use their cold mitigating powers) would feel at home
    - Isger: The Chitterwood might be home to goblinoid Beguilers. Also see Cheliax
    - Kyonin: The elven lands of Kyonin would be an almost perfect setting for Umbral Fae Beguilers and elven and gnome beguilers foremost. The link with The First World of Fey is obvious, so Beguilers focussing on powers of the First World would be most fitting.
    - Lands of the Linnorn Kings: because of the many rifts between Golarion and The First World, there is an abundance of Fey creatures. See also Irrisen
    - Nidal: The beguiler might be a descendant of a cult of fled shadow-wielding arcanist form the city of Pangolais, now taking his refuse in the Uskwood
    - Nirmathas: the deeper reaches of the Fangwood gives home to many darker Fey creatures, with which the Umbral Fae Beguiler feels at home with. The city of Tamran gives the beguiler an ample amount of urban distraction, if she so desires.
    - River Kingdoms: the relative open-ended freedom in the River Kingdoms might appeal to the beguilers that want to care out a territory for themselves, using their influencing powers and connection to the natural world.
    - Taldor: Beguiler from the Verduran Forest will find plenty of work at the Brotherhood of Silence in the city of Oppara.
    - Ustalav: the darker kinds of Beguilers will find the fractious nation of Ustalav a fertile land of intrigue and self advancement. They might even be a follower of the Devil in Grey, a creature haunting Lozeri.
    - Varisia: the frontier region of Varisia will attract the more adventurous beguilers with affinity to the less darker Fey.


    ertw wrote:

    Hey everybody,

    Sorry for vanishing off the face of the earth for the last few months, life's been busy. I guess the 5th anniversary of the conversion is an appropriate time to reappear, but sadly I don't have a trove of new goodies for you this year. I haven't really had time to work on any of the beguiler ideas I've been tossing around in my head lately.

    Nicholas the ex-Paladin wrote:
    Link to "Umbral Fae Beguiler" Google-doc

    [... ...] That said, I'm more than happy to have you post the document and updates here for public consumption and comments.

    .

    The link above is still valid. Please copy or adjust the document as you see fit. If I can help, please let me know in a post or private message


    I have made a new version of the 'Umbral Fae Beguiler'

    See : Umbral Fae Beguiler v.0.3

    @ERTW, Since I assume that you would like to make it an archetype in your "Beguilers of the Inner Seas" doc, I made it in a format that's more fitting for an Archtetype.

    .

    Umbral Fae Beguilers have the ancestry of the Dark Fey coursing through their veins. Their distant ancestor might be a Hag, Spriggan, Unseelie, Satyr or other fey from the darker reaches of the world of fey. These beguilers have an close affinity with the darker parts of the The First World of Fey, the Shadow Plane and the subplane where both mirror-planes touch. It’s a place where morality is whimsical and cynical and a place where sly creatures of darker Fey meet with elusive creatures of shadow.

    This breed of Beguilers is a loosely formed network of Beguilers that live in various places, like cities, bogs and forests and therefore don’t have the level of organization and hierarchy that Orders have. The Umbral Fae Beguiler cannot be part of a traditional Order, but she’s part of a network of peers.

    Umbral Fae Beguilers specialize in increased mobility, trickery and manipulation of the mirror planes of The First World and Shadow Plane to support their spellcasting.


    Hi everybody, just dropping in to let you know I've just pushed out an update for the Beguilers of the Inner Sea document. I've added the spellwarp-type archetype in this one, it's called the stygian lancer. I also had to make some structural changes to the wayfaring haunter since I realized that the archetype replaced savvy preparation twice. The end result of this is that stygian evocation has been pulled from the archetype. I understand that those of you playing the haunter may feel as if the rug has been pulled out from under you to potentially lose such an ability in the middle of your campaigns, so I'm including a link to a legacy version of the wayfaring haunter which includes the extraneous stygian evocation ability. I'm sorry about the mistake, but I hope you'll find the new wayfaring haunter a little more focused than it had been.


    Hello all,

    Sorry to be jumping in on this thread with a somewhat unrelated question but I was really impressed with this conversion and am interested in trying a beguiler in the next game I play at my DM's suggestion, however, I'm not really sure how to play one.

    It seems like a full-caster focused character at first but between the limited spell list and the number of archetypes and orders that give so much melee focus, I'm not sure it's viable as a full-caster on its own. If you have any suggestions on how to go on a pure caster focus, I'd be all ears. It seems like the Arcane Hand order or Thuergic Brigand would be the way to go there, but I'm certain open to suggestions.

    I really like the flavor and the social/RP strengths of the class, I'm just concerned about magical ability in combat, particularly with enemies that are immune to mind-effecting. I appreciate any advice or insight anyone would be willing to provide here.


    Randomikari wrote:

    If you have any suggestions on how to go on a pure caster focus, I'd be all ears. It seems like the Arcane Hand order or Thuergic Brigand would be the way to go there, but I'm certain open to suggestions.

    I really like the flavor and the social/RP strengths of the class, I'm just concerned about magical ability in combat, particularly with enemies that are immune to mind-effecting. I appreciate any advice or insight anyone would be willing to provide here.

    Hi,

    My reply might come too late, but it might help you or others anyway.

    Let me first say, that I'm playing the 'Umbral Fae' archetype that is described above. It is an archetype that is focussed on spellcasting and mobility.

    But also without this archetype, I think that the Beguiler is effective as a caster. Until now, I have experience in playing until 3rd level spells at 6th level: with spells like Color Spray as 1st, Glitterdust as 2nd and Haste/Slow as 3rd level spells you'll be an addition in most situations. Combined with a higher DC due to 'Cloaked Casting' it will land often enough. I have never felt that the Beguiler was lacking. But, it's obvious that a Sorceror or Wizard might be more versatile, when it comes to their spell-repertoire.

    Out of combat the Beguiler really shines. That's probably an important reason why you picked him in the first place. The amount of spells/spellslots per days and 'Savvy Preparation', make him a improvisation guru.

    ERTW did his homework. By all means, give it a try!


    Question for ERTW: Are there any plans to update the conversion to pathfinder 2E?

    801 to 835 of 835 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Conversions / Beguiler conversion for Pathfinder All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.