Recent Posts
That question strikes me as odd. This qestion has no absolute answer, as survival of the PCs depends too much on the campaign in question to answer that in an absolute and abstract way. Is the danger melee based or do you need good saves to survive? Is melee ability crucial, or spellcasting, or survival skills? Depending on just these few question, the answer is wildly different.
Stefan
Agreed, not enough data. You would have to define your campaign world, your DMs standard preferences, the rest of your party's composition and usual tactics, and a greater detail of your own "build" and how your tactics interact in the parties, for us to even begin to give an answer that would have any chance of being over 50% true, and thus likely to be correct.
Not trying to be a snooty intellectual. Answering your question with the data I currently have would be the same as saying "That way" and pointing in a random direction if I were asked by someone how to get to a gas station.
It definately depends, and mostly it depends on exactly what you want to do as your tactics.
Fighter/Sorcerer 4/4 compared to 2/6:
The first has more HP, better BAB and More feats. This makes him tougher and at first glance a better chance to survive. On the flipside the second has 3rd level spells, there is a big jump in power vs large groups between 2nd and 3rd level spells, the fact that you can pick up fireball matters, a lot.
Also Fighter/Sorcerer 2/6 if the GM lets you take the Battle Sorcerer option from Unearthed Arcana is the start of an almost horriffic advancement. If you want the details on how to do it let me know.
But why are you multi-classing the characters at all? Multi-class characters are much weaker than single class characters unless you know exactly what you are planning on doing and how to do it. I could be wrong but if you are coming on here to just ask "how tough is this combo" it doesn't sound to me like you've put enough thought into what you are trying to achieve and are better of just picking one of the classes.
It's 2 of my players who have multi-classed. It's our third attempt at 3.5 overall and the first that we've allowed multi-classing.
The campaign is based in Greyhawk and has been running since 1982. It's a blend of role-play and melee, as I assumed all D & D campaigns were. We rotate DM's about every 3 years and never fudge rolls. The players are experienced enough to know when to fight, parley, or run.
Currently they are a Ranger/Druid : 2/1 and a Fighter/Scorcerer : 2/1. Both are 1/2 elves.
I'm sorry if the question was poorly worded.
It definately depends, and mostly it depends on exactly what you want to do as your tactics...
Also Fighter/Sorcerer 2/6 if the GM lets you take the Battle Sorcerer option from Unearthed Arcana is the start of an almost horriffic advancement. If you want the details on how to do it let me know.
Don't just leave us hanging here. You can't just tease me with this you know! ;)
Cap'n's right. Multiclass chjars are generally weaker. So unless you have a specific idea or style you're going for I generally steer people away. In older editions, they just advanced slower. 3.5 changes this severely. (I noticed you're still new to 3.5) My friend still insists that 2nd edition was better than 3.5 if for no other reason than he hates how the classes split in 3.5.
My suggestion is that if they're going to do it, they should have a plan or some goal in mind before going into things.
If the players have a specific Prestige Class in mind (if you use them), then multiclassing has its merits, of course. Generally speaking, I second the view that multiclassing makes overall weaker characters, especially spell casters, as these gain access to higher spell levels later, which hurts themselves and the party in the long run. OTOH, having a level or two in a fighting class can help survive initially. If your campaign heavily depends on skills, multiclassing can give you access to different skillsets. Check for saving throws as well.
Starting from the point your players are at, I would recommend sticking basically to one class and leave the other one fall behind - so they become either fighters with a little spell casting or spell casters with a little fighting ability - I would not recommend progressing in both classes. However, you have to keep watching for balance issues, as most commercially produced adventures take characters with just one class as granted. If you look at a adventure for, say, fifth level, having one character each of the four base classes is a much easier design challenge than having to keep in mind four characters with 2 levels there and 3 levels here.
Generally, the multiclassing system in 3e is far from being an optimal design, but this is something a lot of others have already worked upon - I have yet to see a good solution. (I don´t consider "gestalt" characters a good solution).
Stefan
That reminds me - I liked the "apprentice levels" in the 3.0 DMG, and think about trying something like that if I ever get around to running the paizo adventures D0 etc. I would love to start my PCs out as not being heroes in making, but rather let the "learn by doing". Of course, even D0 would be hideously dangerous to apprentice level characters, so this would take quite some consideration to make it work.
Stefan
