The Beguiler was one of my favorite classes back in 3.5 and for a while I've been wanting to give it a faithful conversion. I considered going bare-bones at first but after some thinking I decided to go with a 'Pathfinder-ized' conversion; one that remained mostly the same but with added class abilities that play off of the theme of the class and help bolster it up enough to make it a viable class to play.
Currently, all that's left to do is some minor tweaking on class abilities and finishing up converting the spell list.
Criticism, opinions, and advice are welcome, and I really hope that some people like it.
Beguiler Conversion
Huh, I remember the Beguiler class from back in the day, was always an interesting one. Definitely some good ideas on the revamp, I like the Arcane Deceit mechanic and how it works with Surprised Casting. All in all, a good re-work!
I can see a few problems here: it should have a d6 hit die like all other 9 level casters with the slow base attack bonus setup. Also it seems to be a spontaneous caster, since it's casting arcane spells it's casting stat should be cha not int. You're missing the spell list altogether, and it seems way too powerful for a 9 level spontaneous caster to know all the spells on its list, maybe knock it down to 6 level casting or give it a spells known table like the sorcerer.
It seems like a good first try, but you've got a lot of work to do if you want it to be balanced.
Toland's Juju wrote: I can see a few problems here: it should have a d6 hit die like all other 9 level casters with the slow base attack bonus setup. Also it seems to be a spontaneous caster, since it's casting arcane spells it's casting stat should be cha not int. You're missing the spell list altogether, and it seems way too powerful for a 9 level spontaneous caster to know all the spells on its list, maybe knock it down to 6 level casting or give it a spells known table like the sorcerer.
It seems like a good first try, but you've got a lot of work to do if you want it to be balanced.
I've updated the doc with the spells-per-day table and the original, un-revised spell list from 3.5.
Also, I feel like you don't know the original class? The complaints you have are just default things for the class. Higher HD than other full casters, spontaneous Int caster, etc.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BAB & HD
It should probably be a d6. If you want 3/4 bab and d8, then change to 6 level casting.
SKILLS
If you're going to have 9 levels of casting and Int-powered casting, you should probably drop the number of skill points to 4. If you insist on staying at 6, then it needs more skills on the list, and you should diminsh the class somewhere else.
TRAPFINDING
Part of the original, I know, but feels out of place.
MANIPULATOR
adding 1/2 his level the skillls (minimum 1) would be easier.
SPELLS
Cast spontaneously and knows all spells on beguiler list? I think a spell known progression is in order.
Ciaran Barnes wrote: BAB & HD
It should probably be a d6. If you want 3/4 bab and d8, then change to 6 level casting.
SKILLS
If you're going to have 9 levels of casting and Int-powered casting, you should probably drop the number of skill points to 4. If you insist on staying at 6, then it needs more skills on the list, and you should diminsh the class somewhere else.
TRAPFINDING
Part of the original, I know, but feels out of place.
MANIPULATOR
adding 1/2 his level the skillls (minimum 1) would be easier.
SPELLS
Cast spontaneously and knows all spells on beguiler list? I think a spell known progression is in order.
The HD bump is simply because it had an HD bump originally and I do really feel that it's needed. The class really does not have a lot of offensive spells, a grand total of about eight or nine of them with half being NL, and is typically in melee range more than other casters. I do realize that I might be alone in thinking they need an HD bump, though
As for skills, I don't think I'm going to change that. The class is meant to be able to stand in for the Rogue in terms of skill use (which is why they also get Trapfinding). I don't also see your point in adding more skills since they have almost the same skill list as the Rogue.
For Manipulator, I didn't want to go with 1/2 level to all three skills because that feels like a tad bit much since they do get 6+Int skills.
I don't think I'm going to budge on spells. They get, basically, a Sorcerers spell progression and spontaneous casting and while they get more spells known, they don't get to choose those spells outside of Advanced Learning and even then they have to pick from two schools. If their list wasn't so small and specialized I'd agree that a Spells Known progression would be needed, though.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Haitch Kay wrote: Also, I feel like you don't know the original class? The complaints you have are just default things for the class. Higher HD than other full casters, spontaneous Int caster, etc. I'm familiar with the original class, but it seems like you're not familiar with the differences between pathfinder and dungeons and dragons. Pathfinder has done away with a lot of nonsensical things that WotC did like Int based spontaneous casters and normalized others like how they treat base attack bonus, hit dice, armored casters and spell levels.
In pathfinder if you have a slow base attack bonus progression you have a d6 hit die. All the armored casters use the medium base attack and are 6th level casters (even the ones that seem like they should be fragile casters like the summoner or bard). If you want your beguiler to get into melee, give it the tools it needs to do so and treat it like the other armored casters in the system.
Another massive problem I see here is that too much of this class keys on Int. It's an Int based caster with tons of skills/level which is already off kilter. Then you add on the arcane deceit ability and now you're using Int for UMD (not to mention you can now boost the power of ANY spell with cloaked casting). Toss in the clever wordplay trait and you don't even need Cha for social skills. This is broken and it's not enough to throw your hands up and point to WotC's original broken and unbalanced game design to cover the flaws of your own conversion.
I guess if you don't agree with how it's been done or if you think it's broken, you don't have to use it? I'm perfectly content with nobody else wanting to use this, I just figured that I would share it and see what people thought about it. I, personally, don't see this class as being broken and unbalanced.
Concerning the criticism, I don't personally consider an Int based spontaneous caster to be "nonsensical". It's a unique aspect of the class that aside from the amount of skill points gained (and considering that the Beguiler is designed to stand in for a Rogue in terms of skill use, it's not a flaw so much as it is a design decision that you seem to disagree with) is not mechanically too different from casting from Cha and provides a really interesting thematic difference to Cha based spontaneous casters. Edit: Thinking on it, you can even make the Sorcerer an Int based spontaneous caster, so I don't really see your argument here.
As for it being Int reliant....that's the point? How is it any more broken than an Investigator, doubly so if you look at the Empiricist archetype. If a Beguiler takes Clever Wordplay then it becomes two skills that now use Int instead of Cha, their spellcasting, and two class abilities. I don't see this being a flaw so much as "It's an Intelligence based class, therefore, it uses Intelligence primarily".
Edit: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but honestly it seems like you just don't like the Beguiler and/or think the original is terribly broken.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You asked for criticism, opinions, and advice. Thats what you got, but it doesn't seem welcome.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Haitch Kay wrote: I guess if you don't agree with how it's been done or if you think it's broken, you don't have to use it? I'm perfectly content with nobody else wanting to use this, I just figured that I would share it and see what people thought about it. I, personally, don't see this class as being broken and unbalanced. I certainly won't be using it and it's great that you're fine with being the only one to use it since that'll probably be the case. I do however think it's pretty disingenuous to say that you posted it to "share it and see what people thought about it" and then proceeded to ignore any criticism and insult those who offered suggestions/comments by telling them that "they don't know the original class". As Ciaran said, you asked for comments, but those seem to be pretty unwelcome as long as they're not praising you for all the work you did.
Haitch Kay wrote: Concerning the criticism, I don't personally consider an Int based spontaneous caster to be "nonsensical". It's a unique aspect of the class that aside from the amount of skill points gained (and considering that the Beguiler is designed to stand in for a Rogue in terms of skill use, it's not a flaw so much as it is a design decision that you seem to disagree with) is not mechanically too different from casting from Cha and provides a really interesting thematic difference to Cha based spontaneous casters. Edit: Thinking on it, you can even make the Sorcerer an Int based spontaneous caster, so I don't really see your argument here. Spontaneous casting in pathfinder comes from a caster who uses his force of personality to evoke the innate magic within him. The sage bloodline sorcerer you mention is described as being studious and delving deep into arcane tomes to drive his magic through knowledge rather than personality. Without enshrining some aspect of a studious tradition behind the beguiler class, it still seems ridiculous to me to think about a beguiler being deep in study on long nights when he could be out carousing or stealing or manipulating fools from their coins. But that's just me so I'll concede this point.
Haitch Kay wrote: As for it being Int reliant....that's the point? How is it any more broken than an Investigator, doubly so if you look at the Empiricist archetype. If a Beguiler takes Clever Wordplay then it becomes two skills that now use Int instead of Cha, their spellcasting, and two class abilities. I don't see this being a flaw so much as "It's an Intelligence based class, therefore, it uses Intelligence primarily". It's not that it's Int reliant. It's that Int is the only stat it needs to be workable. It governs practically every aspect of the class: skills, using magic devices, social abilities (with the trait), attack and damage rolls (with the feat focused shot), etc. Most importantly it defines the spellcasting for the class and let's be clear: this is a 9 level spontaneous caster with over 100 spells known (and easy access to any spells it doesn't have on its list with wands and staves), an investigator with 6 level prepared casting does not compare to this level of power creep.
To me the most worrying and broken aspect of the conversion is arcane deceit. You've said above that the limiting aspect of beguiler spellcasting is that its spell list is so constrained. Well guess what? this ability blows that constraint out of the water. It gives them access to ANY spell of up to 8th level, that's insane. If you don't see how broken that is there's no hope for you or this conversion.
Haitch Kay wrote: Edit: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but honestly it seems like you just don't like the Beguiler and/or think the original is terribly broken. I don't have any particular hate/dislike for the original class. It has its quirks that I'm not crazy about and it's not the style of play I prefer, but I've DMed more than a few without problems. That said, I certainly don't think the WotC beguiler fits within the pathfinder universe without major revisions and you seem too focused on carrying those oddities through despite any outside commentary you've received. Since you've demonstrated a complete lack of manners and care in dealing with criticism this will be my last post in this thread, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with a brick wall.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Toland's Juju wrote: As Ciaran said, you asked for comments, but those seem to be pretty unwelcome as long as they're not praising you for all the work you did. It's even worse than that since it's not even his hard work. He's admitted to stealing parts from an undisclosed beguiler conversion and I've caught him out lying about stealing parts from ertw's beguiler conversion. Dude's a plagiarist and just about the only thing he's actually written for this conversion is the arcane deceit ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I just want to copy and paste my response to this from my own conversion thread so that hopefully we can stop harassing Haitch Kay:
ertw wrote: Guys, please don't follow this guy around the paizo boards harassing him. I didn't ask for anybody to go on a crusade against him on my behalf. I was aware of his conversion when it was on reddit and his thread here, but didn't look at it too closely. While those abilities definitely bear significant similarities to mine, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he says it's a coincidence. We're both converting from the same beguiler class with roughly similar ideas, it's not outside the realm of possibility that we came to the same place with a few ideas.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So I had a chance to look over your conversion and you've got some interesting ideas in there. A lot of the comments you're getting echo ones I got throughout my conversion. I was continuously told that I needed to match my BAB to my HD (eventually I brought my BAB up because my conversion had evolved a bit more of a martial bent to it), that I had to bring down the skills (again, I eventually brought it down to 4 + Int to avoid stepping on the toes of the rogue and bard), that spontaneous casters had to use Cha as their casting stat (I think my guild fluff made the Int-based spontaneous casting easier for some to swallow), that 9th level spellcasting with all spells known and armoured casting was way too powerful (as you've said, the limitations on the beguiler's spell list keeps this in check), etc. My advice is: stick to your guns where things are important, but don't feel too tightly constrained to follow the 3.5 beguiler to the letter. That'll really help you turn the beguiler into a thing of your own.
As to the unique abilities you've put into your beguiler, I have a few comments:
Manipulator seems a bit lackluster, it might work better if it scaled. Maybe at 4th level (and every even level thereafter) you get to put another +1 into your choice of the skills. Allow them to stack to a maximum (+5 maybe).
The changes you've made to cloaked casting are pretty strong, I don't know of any individual abilities in pathfinder that offer more than a +2 to save DC. I'd recommend pulling this back a little. Even the original ability to automatically defeat SR at level 20 doesn't seem as powerful to me as a +4 on DCs at level 17.
Arcane deceit is a tricky ability to balance because, as others have said, it opens up access to a broader spell list. Personally I don't see a big issue with giving Int to UMD since those saves are all pretty high. You could also go the 3.5 warlock way with "deceive item" allowing you to take 10 on a UMD check, even in combat.
I think if the "tricking" ability was limited to wands (and thus limited to spells 4th level and below) it'd be a good deal more balanced. You can also put constraints of the types of wands it would work with (eg. no spells that deal hit point damage, no spells from the evocation school, etc.) to further avoid giving the beguiler access to undesirable spells. Another possibility might be to move it from a per wand to a per use basis: take away the time to prepare the wands and instead let them use a wand as if its spell were on the beguiler spell list 3 + Int times per day.
It's kind of disappointing to see a per day limit on the capstone ability. I might tweak the first ability to work like subtle spellcasting rather than as a spell-like ability; something similar to the magus' spellstrike (the beguiler is delivering the spell through the skill check, if the check fails so does the spell). I'd also call that ability out as being eligible for cloaked casting.
The second ability stands pretty well on its own, especially since 9th level spell slots will gate this ability even without a per day limit. One warning I will offer is one offered by somebody when I was developing a similar spell: the flour test. If you don't intend for that to be a vulnerability you might want to call that out: in the spell in question I did that by adding "any items of a size category smaller than tiny (such as dust or powder) are undisturbed by the beguiler’s actions and do not settle on the beguiler if they fall on her" to the spell description.
Recent threads in Conversions
|
|
