Ever since I read the DragonLance Chronicles with Dragon Highlord Ariakas, I, and friends of mine, have loved the thought of blending sword and sorcery, wielding fire, lightning, and blade with equal skill against foes.
Obviously, I'm not alone in this interest, as testified to by the existence of the Eldritch Knight, the Spellsword, and the Duskblade, amongst others. However, is it just me, or do all of these things seem actually inferior to a straight fighter or mage?
What are the experiences of other people here at Paizo? Have you had great fun and thrills playing or playing along side with or DMing for various combinations of fighter mages? Or does mixing slowed spell progression and essentially reduced base attack bonuses always end up sucking compared to training in one field or the other? Do your fighter mages suffer from identity crises, seeming pulled and unable to decide whether to lead with spell or blade? Or do they function coherently and succintly?
I feel fighter mages can deffinately be viable if their spell selection is centered around self-buffing spells, such as Bull's Strength, Mage Armor, Stoneskin (which should be Transmutation!) and the like. However, is it actually still a good idea to select spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt?
I know that a character doesn't need to be of optimal statistical output to be fun and viable. But it doesn't seem fair to me that such an iconic character concept should force its player to actually sacrifice real power. And if they play alongside a pure wizard or fighter, or both, will the player of the fighter mage end up feeling subpar?
If that's the case, what's causing it? Is it the staggered caster level that cuts too deep? The spell failure chance on armor (or foresaking it entirely to avoid that percent chance)? A combination? Are these aspects of multiclassing too strict?
Here's an interesting thought: many people say the duskblade is overpowered. But, if every other fighter mage combo turns out to be underpowered, perhaps giving the duskblade abilities that other characters couldn't have at its level is just the ticket to making it capable of standing toe-to-toe with its sword-wielding or spell-slinging brethren in overall capability.
Or is all this just rambling nonsense brought on by the fact that it's 11pm and I still haven't had supper?
Saern, mah man - get some munchies! What might be interesting is to have an arcane cleric (cleric in the saves/BAB progression aspect of it), but use the sorcerer/wizard spelllist, but limit spells to those with non-somatic components. OR, you could give them the Still Spell feat automatically at X level. You could use spell progressions as they are with Sorcerers - less known spells, but more per day.
Hmm...going off the arcane cleric aspect, you could replace Turn Undead with a Power Attack-style class feature. Spontaneous heal/inflict spells could be replaced with a combat spell of some sort - true strike, keen edge, etc.
Saern, mah man - get some munchies! What might be interesting is to have an arcane cleric (cleric in the saves/BAB progression aspect of it), but use the sorcerer/wizard spelllist, but limit spells to those with non-somatic components. OR, you could give them the Still Spell feat automatically at X level. You could use spell progressions as they are with Sorcerers - less known spells, but more per day.
Hmm...going off the arcane cleric aspect, you could replace Turn Undead with a Power Attack-style class feature. Spontaneous heal/inflict spells could be replaced with a combat spell of some sort - true strike, keen edge, etc.
On the reference of Sorcerer Cleric, how about looking up Unearthed Arcana Sorcerer Variant on page 56, the Battle Sorcerer- the Cleric's d8, light armor (without spell failure chance) and single weapon proficiency, fewer spells though...
Multiclass anything or gish anything will never be stronger then their full classed counterparts. That is all.
Unfortunately, 11pm and no super is common in my late-night lifestyle.
At this point, I'm really looking for things like Arcmagik's post, relating experiences of whether or not fighter mages, as outlined in the rules now, are actually all that great or not. However, the input about alternate routes to making them is fine, too, since I'm sure the conversation would have headed there anyway. :)
Multiclass anything or gish anything will never be stronger then their full classed counterparts. That is all.
Full agreement. But these characters get the limelight when they can use both sets of skills in unison. The full fighter might have a hard time trumping the Ftr/Mage if he's had time to cast mirror image and a suggestion or two. Part of the problems wizards and sorcerers face is the ability to employ their spells without putting themselves at foolish risk. Ftr/mage has what it takes to use his spels anywhere in combat. He can't stay there as long as the fighter but he can get the job done.
Hopefully someone will post with a personal experiance though. I seem to remember us coming to this conclusion together Searn but (as you know) we never got to see the idea in action. And I too am curious.
PrCs are meant to be slightly underpowered, despite the fact that many are overpowered. I've never had much interest in the fighter-mage icon but the eldritch knight looks reasonable. A 1st level EK casts as a 5th level mage and fights as a 3rd level warrior...not the way I'd set the class up but it seems fine.
|
Unfortunately, 11pm and no super is common in my late-night lifestyle.
At this point, I'm really looking for things like Arcmagik's post, relating experiences of whether or not fighter mages, as outlined in the rules now, are actually all that great or not. However, the input about alternate routes to making them is fine, too, since I'm sure the conversation would have headed there anyway. :)
I think the Duskblade finally did the fighter/mage combo right. A 15th level fighter, a 15th level wizard, and a 15th level Duskblade all seem to be roughly equal in power to me. I have been studying the Duskblade pretty intently because my next PC will be one, whenever I get the chance. I really don't see a problem with them being overpowered. I also heard someone on another thread several months back complain that clerics were underpowered. All a matter of perception.
just my 2
FH
I have not found my warrior/mage ->spellsword to be lacking in a battle; maybe because it is a fairly high power game and I am playing a half vampire; I am a bit lower level than the rest of the party but am still good in combat. Feats really make all the difference and channelling a good damage spell is only moderately helpful; sure kills your first guy; but you cant do it very much and have to make a lot of spell rolls for armor even with the spellsword benefits; with a two hand sword I just munch things with the warrior feats prolly same as a warrior; but better saves and armor class.
|
|
Hopefully someone will post with a personal experiance though. I seem to remember us coming to this conclusion together Searn but (as you know) we never got to see the idea in action. And I too am curious.
Why don't you guys get together and make several different PC's of congruent levels and test each in the same situations and see who does it better/faster/easier.
You could use 4 different characters of various levels:A fighter/4
A wizard or sorcerer/4
A fighter/2 wiz/sor/2
A duskblade/4
Then try 'em at 10th and 16th to see what you come up with.
Sounds like a cool way to spend a session and maybe get an extra game on or a break from the norm.
wadda ya tink?
FH
A favorite of mine has always been the bladesinger from FR fiction. The PrC from (I think) Races of Faerun was pretty good... It had limited spell casting from a small list of spells that couldn't be expanded on. The caster level sucked, but a bladesinger would get access to spells at comparable or advantageous character level. The 3.5 update in Complete Warrior nerfed the class, though. The salient abilities are still there, but the spell progression is now pathetic - one advancement every other class level. In this style, the bladesinger won't cast as well as a mage of his character level, will fight almost as well as a fighter of the same level, but will get clobbered more often due to lousy AC and hit points. A better build might use a warmage from Complete Arcane, but the bladesinger class abilities I think require no armor.
the best thing about a Duskblade is quick casting Disentigrate and then casting it again as a normal spell kills just about anything
In my experience, multiclassing a spell-caster with a melee type has worked out okay a few times:
* Sorcerer/Monk/Enlightened Fist who focused a lot on the Draconic Feats (and if the Draconic feat in 'Dragon Magic' that healed you 1 hp for every level of spell you cast had been available back then, woo!)
* Sorcerer/Fighter/Spellsword who stopped fighter once she hit specialization (ie: 4th level) and also took 'Practiced Spellcaster' so that all her spells had her full levels of Fighter and Sorcerer behind them as she stepped into Spellsword.
* Wizard/Fighter/Spellsword who did pretty much the same as the above.
Now, in all three cases, the spellcaster lagged behind in spell levels compared to pure casters, but they didn't lack too much in damage output type spells and the lower-level buffing spells, and between that and their ability to mix it up at the front line of battle for not-as-long-as-the-main-fighter but not an inconsequential amount of time, it worked out fine.
As a 'fifth' character, mixing spell-caster and a melee type can be a lot of fun, or, in a smaller party, a necessity. But I didn't find that the 8th level Wizard or the 8th level Fighter totally outclassed the 4th/4th Sorcerer/Fighter - just that they had different strengths than each other.
One thing was for sure - it was fun to have the villains (I DMd all three of these examples) toss Will-save spells at the apparent fighter type in armor wielding a bastard sword and have her make it no problem... thanks to her impressive sorcerer-based will saves.
Well, Sexi and I are now clear across the state of Indiana, and I'm minus a real group at the moment (the campus gaming club's Greyhawk game is filled and the DM doesn't want new players, and I haven't been able to get hold of the FR game's DM yet). Then again, I do have two loose players that would be interested in trying this combo- maybe we can get together over a weekend and experiment.
I've always just found myself thinking I'd have an identity crises as a fighter mage. Should I lay on with the sword and use spells only in emergencies, or the inverse of that? Then there's the issue of AC, which tends to be lower due to the mage's restrictions. Spell can counter this, but that takes time out of a battle, time a fighter would have spent hacking and a wizard would have spent casting.
The duskblade seems fine; the weaknesses of combining warrior and mage types have, in thought experiments, seemed to outwiegh the benefits, so by increasing the power of the duskblade at level X to be more than the power of another character at level X seems to have worked well to make them balanced with the other classes.
Anyway, that's been my experience. I'm glad to hear that other people haven't found the concept so limiting. Now I'm itching to get together and try those encoutners!
What has been your experience of the best combat situation for a fighter mage? Single BBEG, hordes of small foes, a fairly small number of relatively strong creatures?
I think a fighter/mage type of character works best if you can "soften up" the opposition with debilitating-style spells, such as daze, hold person, etc, then follow-up with melee combat.
I don't own the PHII, but I did catch Skip's Character Class
article on the Duskblade on the Wotc web site and after reading it I am thinking of making one.
One of the first characters I ever made way back 1E was a f/m and he was also one of my favorites. Granted, we didn't restrict spell-use wearing armor ( sue me, I was 15 ), but Tallus Darkhold was fun to play.
I don't think the standard f/m was meant to be as strong in combat as a straight fighter or as good at spell tossing as a wizard, BUT he would reap the bennies of having good combat skills and the ability to cast some spells which is pretty much what you want if you wish to play a f/m or variant thereof.
I do agree with Lilith in that the idea of a f/m may be more in making his/her spells condusive to combat by using spells such as daze, mirror image, hold, slow, haste, etc...A hasted duskblade would be quite scary on his own, but with the addition of a full party of characters watch out!
Howdy Y'all,
Yup, I'm from Texas, but that's beside the point. The initial question was "does the multiclass suck v the true class". Well that's a yes and no answer. Yes, when you compare one and one per class abilities. No, when you compare versatility. Another hit upon the nut of it! Use your abilities to complement your skills. As an arcane user combined with fighter you just have to plan intelligently.
Just remember that the fighter who runs into a magical barrier gets stumped, just an arcane user in melee! I had great enjoyment playing a sorcerer 10, monk 2. I was the only arcane player in the party and had to concentrate heavily on the sorcerer part, but wanted to equalize the monk part. The monk evened out all my saves, gave great feats and AC bonuses for an elf who wouldn't wear armor. I had too many spell failures due to armor. I roll really badly.
The point being is multi class is never as strong as true, but can be used as a jack of all trades type that kicks butt.
Well, the playtesting commenced yesterday, and here are the following results:
1. Quick casting for Duskblades is far overpowered. Using a spell-storing longsword with Vampiric Touch, channelling the same spell into the weapon, and also using quick casting, the duskblade was able to deal 15d6+1d8+4 in one round, and get that 15d6 back as temporary hp. That's not powergamed at all. The class is inherently able to do that. That was at 10th level, and I've got to say that I feel such a thing is overpowered. At 13th level, they can unleash a full attack while channeling, and quick cast to boot! At 17th level, they could do a full attack and get two disintigrate spells off, all in one round. No other class comes close to being able to do that.
That said, there is a simple, easy solution to the whole thing: remove quick casting. That takes out approximately half of the duskblades damage potential per round. With that gone, everything comes back down to a more rational level, and the class seems fine.
2. A 5th and 10th level duskblade was compared to a Ftr1/Wiz4 and a Ftr1/Wiz5/Eldritch Knight 4. The end result, discounting quick cast, was that the duskblade had a far better base attack, and thus total attack, as well as much better AC and substantially, but not tremendously, better hp. However, the eldritch knight had one thing that the duskblade couldn't hope to match: versatility.
The EK can access any spell on the Sor/Wiz list, and any magic item based off that. The duskblade essentially boils down to a one-trick pony: damage dealing. Going strictly by class abilities, it can't even cast fly or invisibility, save for the much weaker swift versions of the spell. The EK was constantly hovering around, invisible. The EK took longer to get the job done in any given situation, but was still quite fun to play and had so many more options than the duskblade. The EK proved quite capable in toe-to-toe combat, as well, with just minor magical augmentation.
The issue of the EK having to take the time to buff turned out to be a false problem as well. With a party backing him and a simple extended mage armor spell, the EK needs not worry about casting too many more protections on himself until the stuff hits the fan.
However, I did notice that the EK's hit points were possibly too low for their job. Thus, I've resolved to implement the house rule of giving the PrC a d8 HD, rather than a d6. This brings their total hp to almost equal the duskblade's.
The Eldritch Knight also gets faster spell level progression than the duskblade, even though the actual caster level is a little lower. Practiced Spellcaster removes this concern entirely.
In the end, the result was that the duskblade is much better at straight damage-dealing, but is actually more like a fighter in execution and quite limited. Given that, I don't have a problem with it having a noticeable edge over the Knight in Base Attack and AC. The Eldritch Knight is a very fun and versatile prestige class that remains viable at its job, whether you split fighter and wizard levels more evenly and take longer to enter, or if you systematically knock out the prerequisits and get in ASAP. I would rather play an Eldritch Knight than a duskblade, although the later will remain a viable option in my games, as it does present defferent enough abilities to merit its continued existence.
Also, Spell Storing weapons are extremely fun. :)
the nice thing about the spellsword as fighter/wiz combination is you can buff the heck out of yourself; cast sheild; and use a two handed weapon and still have the shield spell bonus; you get a better ac; better stats; do more damage than a regular fighter. If you are high enough to load a spell into your sword; you can cast that spell that gives you +20 to hit; forget its name right off; and load up on damage with a feat since you can give up several points of to hit bonus and really do a telling hit that will really, really hurt. What I always wondered is; if I load a fireball into my sword; and hit my target; how can it make sense that he gets to make a reflex save to avoid half damage; the whole point is he got hit and he takes the damage nobody else. There is no avoid possible.
The spell your talking about is my personal favorite, true strike. Unfortunately, you can only channel a spell that affects the target into your weapon. True strike affects you, not the target, so the combo won't work (ie: use Power Attack, etc...) or so I read into the rules.
As I understand it, if you channeled, or stored by any other means, a fireball in your sword and then hit someone with it, it goes off with that person as the center of the effect. You and everything else in 20 feet gets roasted. Personally, I don't follow the rules to the point of blatantly not making sense, and would disallow the save from the person hit with the sword. I might also disallow your save when it goes off, too.
We didn't test the spellsword because 1) the duskblade seems to negate the need for that PrC, and in my eyes anytime you can negate the need for a PrC that's a good thing, and 2) no one brought the complete warrior.
hmm; am pretty sure the rule says it only affects the person hit by the weapon so there is no explosion; and in the prior example; you can cast true strike manually; not channel it; then hit with the sword that has a damage spell; thought this was obvious but guess not.
Multiclass anything or gish anything will never be stronger then their full classed counterparts. That is all.
True. That's always been my biggest gripe with 3E; the need to go crazy specializing in one aspect in order to stay viable. Before 3e I ran a variant campaign in which there were two (2) PCs, and each "bought" class features, combat ability, etc. a la carte. They ended up with slow progression but an extremely wide skill set, which was necessary because there were no dungeon crawls: everything was urban- or investigation-based. We loved it, and ran two more campaigns using the same rules. There were no sorcerers; such a character would not have been viable due to lack of versatility.
Saern, I share completely your love of versatility and gripe with the min-max assumption in current adventures that basically prevents multiclassing. I would recommend that you (a) start a new campaign, with one (1) buddy and a bunch of beer, and each of you gets one character; and (2) design or use adventures that are less combat-heavy (Ian Fleming's books are surprisingly easy to convert to D&D, I find). You might also use a gestalt or a-la-carte class system.
Hope this was of some help; remember, this is coming from a guy who was reduced to playing RPGs using Victory Games' "classless" skill-based rules, and later invented his own game system for just this reason.
One way the fighter/mage can maximize especially in a point buy system is go with an ok int(14 or 15) then have a high constitution. A mage with a constitution 6pts higher than a fighter has the same average hp (5.5), this is an extreme example but a mage could have more hps than a rogue, easily with a high constitution. Since your DCs are not going to be too great opt for spells without saves (spell compendium has tons of these) You still have damaging spells (conjuration), buff spells, and divinations. Throw in practiced spellcaster and you don't have to worry about a low caster level. Maybe multiclassing is better?
My opinion - any kind of multi class character should be weaker than the single class character - it adds to the reality of the game - if you were for example to split you time between training as a boxer and doing research in organic chemistry - you are probably not going to do as well as you would pursuing one of these activities. Doesn't mean you can't, or even that you shouldn't but it should be roleplay, because the multiclassing follows the story arc of the campaign, and because it adds flavor to the character, NOT because it makes a more powerful character than a single classed individual. To think that it should is just silly. To advocate that it should even worse - again - this is just my opinion. PrCs offer solutions to keep multiclassed characters on an even keel with single classed characters.
Now I like variety, and I think their should be other options for spell casting adventurers - the balancing factors could be different - limited proficiences, limited armor, fewer magic item slots, lower hit dice (than straight fighters), etc., limited spell lists, longer casting times, lower effective caster level, etc. And those new classes are being written all the time.
But to want all the good fighter stuff and all the good mage stuff in the same PC (while understandable) is unbalancing - and will IMO diminish the game. But thats me, I don't think an unbalanced game is fun.
My opinion - any kind of multi class character should be weaker than the single class character - it adds to the reality of the game - if you were for example to split you time between training as a boxer and doing research in organic chemistry - you are probably not going to do as well as you would pursuing one of these activities...
But thats me, I don't think an unbalanced game is fun.
We've really got two issues here: realism and game mechanics (the two don't usually correspond: look at combat rules, for example). For balance, mechanically speaking, a good generalist should be able to pull his or her own weight. This can easily work out if you make your own adventures, but in playing many of the scenarios designed by the death merchants at Paizo (I love them, mind you), you need every edge you can get-- multiclass spellcasters are pretty well ruled out (although I'd argue a Rogue 5/Fighter 5/Assassin 10 is about equal to a Wizard 20... but that's for a different discussion). That's not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it's a lot of fun to play those go-for-broke apocalytic scenarios. But a lot of time it's even more fun to play a more versatile character who doesn't have to worry about being totally optimal.
Saern, I share completely your love of versatility and gripe with the min-max assumption in current adventures that basically prevents multiclassing. I would recommend that you (a) start a new campaign, with one (1) buddy and a bunch of beer, and each of you gets one character...
:) The only problem there is that I'm 19 and, after seeing my buddies do some pretty stupid stuff under the influence, have a great deal of respect for the legal drinking limit. But, thanks for the advice!
:) The only problem there is that I'm 19 and, after seeing my buddies do some pretty stupid stuff under the influence, have a great deal of respect for the legal drinking limit. But, thanks for the advice!
(Quickly backpedals, attempting to remove foot from mouth)... From the excellence of your advice w/regards to the vampire LA thread (which I'm putting into effect ASAP), I had assumed you were extremely experienced, and thus, um, well, older :) Goes to show how much that "wiser" adage is worth (< 1 cp)! Anyway, you wouldn't happen to live near Houston and be looking for new gaming partner(s)...? I like a good beer, but don't, as a general rule, get drunk. You can have mineral water.
No problem. :) I've gotten comments like that on these boards before.
Looking for players? Yes.
Live anywhere even remotely close to Houston? No. =/
I've been in a group with a duskblade, a regular wizard, and a multiclass cleric/wizard. Frankly, Saern is right when it comes to the duskblade being better than a regular fighter/mage. A 10th-level duskblade has more hit points, a better attack bonus, and a lot more abilities than a 5th-level wizard/5th-level fighter (if everything else is even). The multiclass character has more spellcasting versatility and more feats, but that's about it. Frankly, if I wanted spellcasting versatility I would play a straight wizard, and if I wanted straight combat abilities (particularly feats) I would be a straight fighter.
Of course no one has talked about combining the duskblade with the bladesinger, eldritch knight, or spellsword PrCs. In the end these PrCs are just as compatible with the duskblade as the multiclass fighter/wizard, if not more compatible. A duskblade/bladesinger is a combination to drool over!
So, really, it all depends what kind of campaign you play in. A duskblade is a miniatures-playing min-maxing combat-oriented wet dream. A rogue/wizard is an ideal secret agent. A single-class wizard and cleric are sort of necessary for the high-level Paizo adventures.
Take your pick.
But to want all the good fighter stuff and all the good mage stuff in the same PC (while understandable) is unbalancing - and will IMO diminish the game. But thats me, I don't think an unbalanced game is fun.D&D is not a balanced game. Some classes are more powerful and more versatile than others, even more if you're using only the 3 core books.
I disagree - I think it is pretty balanced. Aussuming your PCs are all reasonably compotent. Bonus feats, access to weapons (including magical weapons), armor (including magical armor), hit points, BAB, weapon selection.
Yes, if you play, "me fighter go smash" a wizard is more powerful - but that 15th level fighter hits him with a power attack and it probably over. AND fighters can use tactics, stealth, range, and magic that enhances all of the above, just as well as anybody else (note stealth in this context does not mean "move silently").
The situation will dictate which character is more powerful or more important in any given story/game arc. If you play the same thing over and over, if the PCs play stereotypes, if the NPCs don;t plan but are just thrown at the party - yeah wizards at high level are more powerful.
HMMM. but wizards have to have their spell books - theres a weak point a decent DM won't leave alone. Can't study can't get spells back.
HMMM. need a good nights rest to recover spells - pretty easy for a decent encounter to screw that one up too.
HMMM. track material components - how many live spiders does the guy keep on him. Or god forbid damage them. Or even snicker snicker - maybe the guy at the magic shop sold him a fake one - horror of horrors. Or his dropped his component bag.
HMMM. Maybe an area of silence or an oppoonent who can cast it? Oooh that could be an issue. Yes that can be addressed withh a feat - what the level adjustment - what other feat would he prefer to have?
Add a little spell resistance, some anti magic areas, some wild magic, plus a few spell casters as opponents - and the fighter is looking pretty good.
Balance - is not just math - it requires an engaged DM and some imagination.
And a lot of classes other than the core classes are overpowered - there has IMO been a general creep up of power (at least in specific contexts) some of this is (I think) by design to allow a spell casting fighter than can keep up - also in part to keep min/maxers buying books (hey I am in marketing I get that and have no objection - as long as its not too waccky) most of the executions of this are (again just my opinion) either weak in their concept or execution. But they are closer to on par power wise.
All of this is with te caveat that I don;t play min/max games, nor do I routinely save the world. I think both are copouts, I like character and story - so perhaps this is less of an issue.
If I wanted to play min/max scenarios rather than adventure I would pick another past time.
situations you described is not about balance but about screwing a wizard.
No not really.
Spell books are HIGH VALUE items as are magic weapons - thieves would go for both.Yes there are just as many situations that screw a fighter or a cleric or a rogue.
The point was that the situation determines potency not the class. True in the real world as well in a courtroom you want a lawyer, in the mountains you want a sherpa - you are in trouble if they are swapped.
And if you are not challenging the players with the type of scenarios I described, well never mind thats your perogative.
I would like to clarify my original comment - though spells seem to advance in potency on an accelerating curve - while fighter progression is more linear. Where those lines cross will vary with the style of campaign. Even so there is a place for the pure fighter.
It takes time to cast spells, and as I mentioned there are innumerable scenarios that limit there effectiveness.
I would like to jump in and say, I agree with Kyr. You have taken one part of what he said. Yes if you take a mage's spell book it is comparable to a fighter without his weapon and armor but the jist of what Kyr was saying from my perspective is magic can be taken away more easily or only has x number of uses each day. Here are two examples, if a mage is in an antimagic shell he is pretty much in deep. If you retire from a dungeon because you are low on spells (cleric and mage) the fighter will still fight at 100% ability while the mage and priest will be using backup spells or wands, etc.
So the fighter has staying power. The rogue will wipe anyone else out if he can sneak up and catch them without armor or magic. The mage, druid, and cleric deliver the most whallop especially when they have prep time. In the end the classes are balanced but not always equal in the same situation.
Well I grant that I am operating without benefit of knowing what a gish is. But my guess is that if is as good at combat as a fighter and casts spells - it is broken.
Fighters are specialists granted - but they pretty much always do their job.
For a a wizard (as an example) to be effective - he needs to have access to his spell book (and has the additional cost of keeping it up - probably a backup as well, and maybe even enchanting it), needs to be well rested, need time to collect components and cast, nees to have the right spells prepared without the proper components, and need to have the right spells prepared, and need to be protected in combat from having his concentration broken.
And these are just few of the limitiations the class has.
A fighter (will probably) have the strength to remove obstacles with there strength - if a spell caster uses his spells - probably faster but now he is down a spell for the day - if trouble shows up.
A fighter has ride as a class skill - a big deal in many games.
Spell books (plural - because each only has so many pages), the time and cost of their upkeep (and a back-up at least the campaigns I have been in), protecting them form damage and thieves (especially other wizards who both seek the spells within and to hamstring their foes).
The cost in both time and cash for components.
Even familiars have their drawbacks.
If these things aren't being exploited, then its not that the fighter is weak, its that the DM is screwing the fighter.
Plus you don;t have to play a stupid tank - you can play a clever archer (with intelligance rather than class based skill points), a finesse fighter, etc.
Plus there is the 1st level factor - its one thing to create a 10th level whatever. It is quite another to get them their from first level. A fighter is in my experience much more likely to make it to 10th level than a wizard - and if the wizard does its probably because the other memebers of the group have taken lots of punishment to get him there.
Mulitclassing Monks, and Multiple PrCs to make the point?
Ok you win.
|
|
All this eldritch knight stuff slightly misses the point - you don't get to cast spells in armour with that PrC. Oh, and a barbarian cannot rage and cast spells at the same time. Yes, you can use spells to improve your AC and attacks (though, arguably, that is much better performed by a cleric rather than a mage) but as Kyr points out you don't get to use those spells for offence. And a fighter gets the feat selections which improve in the actual fighting department.
I also disagree that a fighter just "gets to tank". This isn't WoW, and while there is something in the comment there is much greater versatility in what a fighter can do that just stomp around in armour and stand in the way of the spellcasters. And even if that is what they do, they are better at it than anyone else. Barbarians get a limit on their rage ability as to how often they can use it, and they suffer a bit in the AC department. Rangers don't last five minutes as front line combatants, due to low AC. Paladins get the armour but not the feats, and are best in specific situations (like vs undead). Clerics are a bit better, but have relatively lower hp, damage and BAB, and rogues can't hack it out fromt at all. A suitably buffed druid is OK (people tend not to play them in my group, so I find it hard to comment) but still suffer the same problems as clerics but with slightly greater spell offense and lower AC.
And, let's fact it, fighters kill people. And mages kill people. It is what the game is overwhelmingly predicated upon. They are basically doing the same thing, just in different ways. Most of the way a party works is about teamwork - the desire to have a high AC/high BAB/high caster level character seems to stem from a desire to be the "star", rather than engage in cooperative playing. I'm not decrying that, but D&D is a social game and everyone needs to play to a niche, not complain that they can't do everything.
|
|
i am showing examples of gishes. some are viable, some not (or unless you have a group willing to help you until you become useful).
It's not about winning or losing (at least for me), it's about explaining why, for me, gishes are not unbalanced.To solve the problem of ASF : still spell. You need one slot higher but you can cast in armor. and some spells can be cast in armor as they don't require somantic component (like true strike).
I don't really disagree but there are still disadvantages to that approach which reduces the effectiveness. I think you work it round the individual spells and feats and see what works.
I had a 3E elven fighter wizard (this was before the eldritch knight PrC was created in the 3.5 DMG) and he was pretty effective. But he concentrated on buffing spells (like Bulls' Strength and Bear's Endurance) and the build became unviable when duration of these spells dropped from hours/level in 3.0 to minutes/level in 3.5. The eldritch knight make things more viable, but I have never played one so can't comment on the effectiveness. And, in line with the original post, there is something attractive about a guy with a big sword and mighty arcane power at his fingetips - guess I read too much Elric as a kid.
Gish Characters that can both hack and manipulate the arcane or divine mana are very cool as a concept, and with the different babs, spell progression, feat progression etc...i think WoTC did a great job trying to keep them as balanced as humanly possible (ok so there are people out there that spcialize in "breaking" character builds...but most people do it via concept and not min maxing). Anyways i guess what i'm trying to say is that thought you may be more versatile as a PC if you can do both, it is only logical that you will never be as good at any ONE of those factes as a specialist who only does that one thing (nor should you be!). So in summary I agree with Kyr that IF your arcane caster/melleer can outshine the wizard in magic and out fight the fighter in mellee then something is VERY wrong.
Just my 2 copper. Be safe all.
And, in line with the original post, there is something attractive about a guy with a big sword and mighty arcane power at his fingetips - guess I read too much Elric as a kid.
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!
Good lord, I turn my back on this thread for a night and flames start flying! :)
Being able to wield a weapon, wear armor, and cast powerful spells is just fun. Will one be as good as a straight fighter or wizard? No, but the point of the thread was to see if fighter-mages (or gish, as they are apparently known ((where did that come from, anyway?))) remained a fun and viable character concept in 3.5 D&D.
They are.
And Spell Storing weapons rock.
My feelings on balance are that the game is extremely balanced as far as combat goes. However, the "villain factor" reveals some interesting things. The villain factor is what kind of challenge an enemy NPC can present pretty much based just on his class abilities and a few minions. When considering the villain factor, one does find that the fighter really can't do anything but glorified hit-with-stickery. He's frighteningly good at it, but it's still all he does.
Wizards can ward their lairs with magical alarms and traps, make magic items for their minions, summon/call more of them, spy on the party from afar to find out their weaknesses, and still blast the holy hell out of them in the final confrontation, not to mention buff themselves out that wazoo to actually make it harder to hit themselves than a fighter. All in the same day? Not just with spells alone, but the item creation feats they get ARE part of their class features, so minor interventions on the part of these things are allowed in comparing villain factors.
Note that clerics and druids are almost equally powerful on this scale.
The end result is what most people that I know will generally concede- while combat may be balanced, in the big picture of the entire world, having powerful magic at your fingertips makes you "da boss."
Also, Spell Storing weapons are great.
Re: Arcane Spell Failure (known as ASF to the Senate of Abbreviations who makes these things ((also known as (((a.k.a.))) the S.o.A.))) is easily taken care of by mid levels with an extended mage armor and a mithril shield. The AC is comparable to a secondary combatant's, and the fighting style generally follows suit. Stay at range and prep/shoot the mook, then close when he's weakened and you can stand to go toe-to-toe for a few rounds. Or take the small spell failure chance and wear a mithril shirt. Trade a much higher AC for a little less spell reliability.
In addition, I fail to see the need for spellswords anymore. It seems that everything they can do, the duskblade can do better, and from 1st level almost. Of course, the "gishes" shown were just from the core books, so that's understandable.
While duskblades can indeed go into eldritch knight or some such, I fail to see the reason to do so. The eldritch knight helps fighter-mages be fighter-mages. Duskblades already are. Going into such a PrC with one would only weaken it, I think. I've not seen the dreaded bladesinger that everyone always talks about (I know there's a copy in the Complete Warrior, but I don't have that book), so I don't know about the feasibility of mixing the two.
Finally speaking of duskblades again, what I was saying is that the versatility of the fighter/wizard/eldritch knight (my prefered combos for getting into that PrC are Ftr1/Wiz5 for quickest entry, or Ftr4/Wiz5 for weapon specialization) seems to outweigh the admittedly better (striaght-damage-dealing-wise) but more limited focus on the duskblade.
And in conclusion, Spell Storing weapons are awesome.
The only real experience I have had with playing a fighter/wizard class is a friend trying to pull it off in another game (that I do not run).
He decided to go into the spellsword class, but took only two levels in fighter and five (I think) in wizard. The drawback of this build is that he lacks a good deal of hit points and BAB that would be great to allow him to actually hit things. He also prefers to use spells such as scorching ray and voice of the dragon.
An ideal build if you wanted to go this route would be to keep your fighter and wizard levels equal, and primarily use buffing spells (such as magic weapon, bull's strength, etc) to give you a nice boost. At low levels you can slap on mage armor and shield for a good AC without armor, and when you can get 2nd level spells you can use alter self and get a natural armor bonus.
All in all the method I suggested to him could have gotten him an AC of almost 30 without actually using any armor at all (and a bite attack).
Basically, if you are smart and think ahead (and dont try to spread your spells out too thin) I think it can be done, and can be done well.
Hmm
There is a way to get a good fighter mage combo without the need for PrC's but it will require significant changes to an ongoing campaign: gestalt characters from UA. If combined with certain specialist fighters from Dragon ... I forget which issue and possibly UA specialist wiz variants you could have a powerhouse but then EVERY character would be a powerhouse compared to normal. Also using the gestalt variant, class combo PrCs are banned. But using gestalt you have to split feat choices (not much of an issue with FTR/WZD due to bonus feats) ability increases and gear selection. Also assigning ability scores at character creation can be tricky.
Gish is a term derived from the Githyanki, I think (might be Githzerai) that are Githyanki/-zerai multiclass fighter/mages found among mindflayer hunting parties.
EDIT: Saern, take a trip to Canada at some point. Legal drinking age is 19 in most provinces, 18 in Quebec. While there lookup Ultradan and others and you can get drunk while you game with no worries.
For Spellsword and Bladesinger in 3.5 check Complete Warrior