3.P Never see Just Fighter/Wizard... Why?

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

I always see crazy Fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion.

I mean really, is Fighter/Wizard that bad? I mean, thats the way we used to do it, back when we just had mages... Do i really need all 4 attacks AND 9th level spells?

What tier is a Fighter 10 wizard 10 anyway? because i feel like that must be the problem. there is a more powerful option, so people play that. However, I feel that Fighter Wizard split down the middle must be tier 3-4 still, right?

I dont know. Any thoughts, anyone?

[MammonAzrael]

Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is essentially the same tier as Wizard 10, except sturdier (which is technically tier 1, but you're competing with people twice your level, so you lose, hard). You don't get access to 6th level spells or more. It is a terrible trade off.

The reason you see a lot of PrCs for gish-style characters is because spellcasting is just that much better, but hitting things with pointy metal is fun.

[Gnaeus]

I always see crazy Fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion.

I mean really, is Fighter/Wizard that bad? I mean, thats the way we used to do it, back when we just had mages... Do i really need all 4 attacks AND 9th level spells?

A fighter 10/wizard 10 is the worst of both worlds. He isn't actually very good at fighting, and he is a complete failure as a wizard. Way, way back in the day, when we were playing AD&D, a 10/10 fighter wizard multiclass would have been in a party with level 12-13 pcs. He only loses 1-2 levels of spells, and he gained some versatility at a time when it was actually possible for wizards to run out of spells. Today, he is in a party with level 20 characters, fighting pit fiends and balors, and his spells don't usually even work on those things, b/c his caster level is so bad. It fights much worse than a fighter2/wizard18 rocking shapechange. It is probably worse than a fighter 4/wizard 1/full BAB Melee PRC of choice 15, because really, all he is doing with those 10 wizard levels could be duplicated with wands and scrolls anyway.

And when you have classes like abjurant champion, which give d10s, full BAB AND good casting, why wouldn't you take them?


What tier is a Fighter 10 wizard 10 anyway? because i feel like that must be the problem. there is a more powerful option, so people play that. However, I feel that Fighter Wizard split down the middle must be tier 3-4 still, right?

I dont know. Any thoughts, anyone?

Probably 4. It is much, much weaker at fighting than tier 3 fighters (Psi Warrior 20, Warblade 20, Crusader 20, Ranger 10/MOMF 10). It loses in a fight to a bard, who has much better casting, the same BAB, and inspire courage.

[Evil the Cat]

Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would probably be a reasonable tier 3. 5th level spells, 3/4 BAB, ~d7 for hp, and a lot of bonus feats.

For a fighter this is a very good deal. For a wizard, not so much.

[Doc Roc]

Why? It is strictly worse than simpler builds like bard 20.

[Gnaeus]

Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would probably be a reasonable tier 3. 5th level spells, 3/4 BAB, ~d7 for hp, and a lot of bonus feats.


What exactly are you going to do with 5th level spells, cast at caster level 10, in an ecl 20 game? Buffs? If so, you are better off with a Bard, who is tier 3, has more spells per day, better buffs, and actual class abilities. His buffs can actually resist a dispel magic!

Gish? WAY, WAY worse than a duskblade. He also has more spells than you. At cl 20. with full BAB, actual class abilities, and the ability to cast in armor.

Touch attack spells? Look at Dread Necro. Now, this is the weakest way to play a DN, but the DN is also casting in armor. And he is rocking spells like Mass Harm, for 200 damage, will save for half, healing himself at the same time. And again, actual, good class abilities.

You are weaker, by a lot, than any combat type T3 caster. Honestly, you are weaker than a T4 Warmage, especially if the warmage has taken the slightest, remotest steps to broaden his versatility, like Arcane Disciple, a spell list enhancing PRC, or UMD.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

So... what i am gathering from this... is that a minimum of Eldritch Knight is needed to make a Fighter/wizard decent at all in 3.x?

Ive played a Duskblade before, never really got into the multiclass caster nonsense that is gishes, but i was thinking about it.

[MammonAzrael]

Duskblade is a class that is designed to be strong out-of-the-box, and is the incarnation of a gish. It was built with the express purpose of being a Wizard/Fighter hybrid.

[Gnaeus]

So... what i am gathering from this... is that a minimum of Eldritch Knight is needed to make a Fighter/wizard decent at all in 3.x?

Unless you are rocking dungeoncrasher, or a really, really specific high OP build that needs 20 feats to work, 1 level of fighter in a build is almost always better than 2, 2 is always better than anything more than 2. Feats scale badly with level. It is almost always better to dip other martial classes for their low level gems, then pick a nice PRC.

Are you familiar with Caelic's 10 commandments of optimization? :

I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.

II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.

III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.

IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.

V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.

VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.

VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.

VIII. When beseeching the Bretheren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.

IX. Invoke not "common sense," for it is not common.

X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build topped by the Bretheren within five minutes of posting.

Yea, verily.

-Caelic

Read rules 1 and 5. Those should only be broken for very, very specific reasons. Having +1 bab and a fighter feat is not one of those reasons.

[Malevolence]

What tier is a Fighter 10 wizard 10 anyway?

Mr. Ed tier: Even lower than tier 6. Characters in this tier are mocked by absolutely everyone, from the mighty Wizards in their towers to the lowly Commoners tilling their fields. Most people prefer to ignore them, pretending they do not exist at all. Perhaps it is best they do not get very much attention, as they are capable of being easily killed by those who are much lower levels than themselves, allowing the predatory character in question to feast on delicious, delicious XP.

A Wizard 20 is better at swinging a sword around than a Fighter 10/Wizard 10. They are also able to cast spells far better.

[Gnaeus]

Lets not go overboard. it is clearly better than commoner or warrior.

[Kobold-Bard]

Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Knight Phantom (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050706a&page=4) 7

gives Level 18 casting, +17 BAB, easier casting in armour & Knight Phantom is Eldritch Knight in disguise (the disguise being random Eberron fluff & actual class features).

Or Duskblade if you want Gishiness right off the bat.

Fighter 10/Wizard 10 could be considered Tier 5 if you think that what it wants to do is be a successful Gish. That's it's thing and it is very bad at it.

[Doc Roc]

Duskblade is a class that is designed to be strong out-of-the-box, and is the incarnation of a gish. It was built with the express purpose of being a Wizard/Fighter hybrid.

If you think duskblade is strong, I'm going to have to disagree. It's not awful, I suppose.

[Marnath]

Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Knight Phantom (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050706a&page=4) 7

gives Level 18 casting, +17 BAB, easier casting in armour 7 Knight Phantom is Eldritch Knight in disguise (the disguise being random Eberron fluff & actual class features).

Or Duskblade if you want Gishiness right off the bat.

Fighter 10/Wizard 10 could be considered Tier 5 if you think that what it wants to do is be a successful Gish. That's it's thing and it is very bad at it.

What's the point of the spellsword level? 10% ASF is nothing since you get total use of all light armor your first knight phantom level, and 10% off medium armor doesn't come close. :smallconfused:

[Kobold-Bard]

What's the point of the spellsword level? 10% ASF is nothing since you get total use of all light armor your first knight phantom level, and 10% off medium armor doesn't come close. :smallconfused:

IIRC you need BAB+5 to get into Abj. Champion, and a Spellsword level is better than a second Fighter level.

The -10% ASF is just a bonus, and might work if you use some of the other ASF reducing stuff (Thistledown shirt, Fey/Githcraft, etc.)

[Marnath]

IIRC you need BAB+5 to get into Abj. Champion, and a Spellsword level is better than a second Fighter level.

The -10% ASF is just a bonus, and might work if you use some of the other ASF reducing stuff (Thistledown shirt, Fey/Githcraft, etc.)

Unless I'm missing something obvious, you qualify for knight phantom 1 already at that point, so why not just take it then pick up the other 6 or 7 after abjurant champion?

[Kobold-Bard]

Unless I'm missing something obvious, you qualify for knight phantom 1 already at that point, so why not just take it then pick up the other 6 or 7 after abjurant champion?

You know...I have no idea :smallconfused:

Yeah, do that instead.

[Evil the Cat]

What exactly are you going to do with 5th level spells, cast at caster level 10, in an ecl 20 game? Buffs? If so, you are better off with a Bard, who is tier 3, has more spells per day, better buffs, and actual class abilities. His buffs can actually resist a dispel magic!

Gish? WAY, WAY worse than a duskblade. He also has more spells than you. At cl 20. with full BAB, actual class abilities, and the ability to cast in armor.

Touch attack spells? Look at Dread Necro. Now, this is the weakest way to play a DN, but the DN is also casting in armor. And he is rocking spells like Mass Harm, for 200 damage, will save for half, healing himself at the same time. And again, actual, good class abilities.

You are weaker, by a lot, than any combat type T3 caster. Honestly, you are weaker than a T4 Warmage, especially if the warmage has taken the slightest, remotest steps to broaden his versatility, like Arcane Disciple, a spell list enhancing PRC, or UMD.

I wasn't advocating such a build, I was just guessing that it would probably function as a low tier 3. 5th level wizard spells add a lot of versatility, even if you shouldn't use any that involve casting on the enemy.

Personally, even if it was effective, I'd PrC out. I like interesting class feature far too much to stick with something so bland and mediocre.

[yugi24862]

Knight phantom 1 gives up a caster level, while spellsword doesn't and is easier to get in at level 8. You can drop the spellsword level if your starting higher, but that is easier to go 1-20 with.

[Marnath]

Knight phantom 1 gives up a caster level, while spellsword doesn't and is easier to get in at level 8. You can drop the spellsword level if your starting higher, but that is easier to go 1-20 with.

In order to use that build, you'll be losing that caster level at some point anyway, cutting out spellsword leaves you a class level later on to take a 1 level dip into something with maybe a class feature you can actually use.

[MammonAzrael]

If you think duskblade is strong, I'm going to have to disagree. It's not awful, I suppose.

From a practical standpoint, it is good at what it does. Which is dealing a lot of damage, gish-style. And it needs little optimization. So from that view, yes, I believe it is strong.

However, that strength depends on if you're comparing it to a Fighter/Wizard, or a Batman Wizard. In the grand scheme of the game, incorporating everything that can be done with the system - no, the class is not that strong. But for people that do not engage in optimization, which is the group I'm assuming the OP falls into, yes, the class can shine.

[Leon]

One of my first 3.plus characters was a Fighter/Wizard. Also is still one of my favorites - Retired at lvl 14 as 10th level Fighter 4th level Wizard.

[Haarkla]

I always see crazy Fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion.

I mean really, is Fighter/Wizard that bad?
Yes. I played one once and was much worse at both fighting and magic than the party cleric.


What tier is a Fighter 10 wizard 10 anyway?
Very low in tier 5. I played a fighter/wizard once and was significantly inferior to the straight fighter I had played previously.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

well thanks for clearing this up. hm. I did have a Knight Phantom build floating around my head at one point, though i never got to use it... I ended up being GM.

maybe I'll brush the dust off of it and have fun.

[Sacrieur]

If you think duskblade is strong, I'm going to have to disagree. It's not awful, I suppose.

What makes you say that? It's practically /the/ gish class. It can quicken spell, channel them, has full BAB, and can use armor.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

What makes you say that? It's practically /the/ gish class. It can quicken spell, channel them, has full BAB, and can use armor.

It has a very limited spell list, I think is the main problem with it. it does well with hitting things and dealing damage with channeled touch spells, but beyond that, it has little utility.

[Dusk Eclipse]

What makes you say that? It's practically /the/ gish class. It can quicken spell, channel them, has full BAB, and can use armor.

The thing is that a gish is expected to self-buff and rip faces, all while still getting 9th level spells; and a Duskblade can only deal damage, true some ridiculous amount of damage; but it still doesn't does the original gish archetype. (At least in my opinion). Besides a Duskblade can't compete with a properly built gish.

[Doc Roc]

What makes you say that? It's practically /the/ gish class. It can quicken spell, channel them, has full BAB, and can use armor.

Slow spell progression, weak list with no real support, no meaningful access to the action economy, few meaningful native defenses, limited ability to pursue feat heavy paths like mounted combat, thrown weapons, twf, or charging.

Their quicken is basically a trap due to their limited list. I think I'd rather play SOTAO+battle blessing paladin, which is saying... A lot.

[Sacrieur]

It has a very limited spell list, I think is the main problem with it. it does well with hitting things and dealing damage with channeled touch spells, but beyond that, it has little utility.

It's a gish, and you can cast an enormous number of spells. It has a limited spell list, but it only takes out stuff that's useless to a gish. What, are you going to Tiny Hut the enemy to death?

Shocking Grasp + Channel = lotsa damage.


Slow spell progression, weak list with no real support, no meaningful access to the action economy, few meaningful native defenses, limited ability to pursue feat heavy paths like mounted combat, thrown weapons, twf, or charging.

And you need those as a gish why?

The Duskblade Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=525.0) can explain.

---

As for Spellsword, it is very respectful. By level 7 you can negate medium armor entirely. During that you'll receive +4 existing levels of spellcasting, a bonus feat, and the ability to channel spells through your sword.

[Bobikus]

The emphasis of "Do not lose Caster levels!" as being two commandments on that list always made the love of stuff Malconvoker and Anima mage seem a bit odd to me.

[Doc Roc]

It's a gish, and you can cast an enormous number of spells. It has a limited spell list, but it only takes out stuff that's useless to a gish. What, are you going to Tiny Hut the enemy to death?

Shocking Grasp + Channel = lotsa damage.



And you need those as a gish why?

---

As for Spellsword, it is very respectful. By level 7 you can negate medium armor entirely. During that you'll receive +4 existing levels of spellcasting, a bonus feat, and the ability to channel spells through your sword.

I wouldn't mind having overland flight as a gish, or celerity, or polymorph, or solid fog+FoM+Mindsight.

[Dusk Eclipse]

It's a gish, and you can cast an enormous number of spells. It has a limited spell list, but it only takes out stuff that's useless to a gish. What, are you going to Tiny Hut the enemy to death?

Shocking Grasp + Channel = lotsa damage.

---

As for Spellsword, it is very respectful. By level 7 you can negate medium armor entirely. During that you'll receive +4 existing levels of spellcasting, a bonus feat, and the ability to channel spells through your sword.

Not tiny hut them to death; but becoming a Firebolg (IIRC something along the lines of 30+ STR) and make a full attack, targeting touch AC (wraithstrike), all while being virtually untouchable (Mirror image + Displacement+ Greater Mage amor + Shield) or if the enemy is way from you teleport towards them or if you are feeling lazy just dropping in some black tentacles.

[Boci]

It's a gish, and you can cast an enormous number of spells. It has a limited spell list, but it only takes out stuff that's useless to a gish. What, are you going to Tiny Hut the enemy to death?

Shocking Grasp + Channel = lotsa damage.

So does an uber charger.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

It's a gish, and you can cast an enormous number of spells. It has a limited spell list, but it only takes out stuff that's useless to a gish. What, are you going to Tiny Hut the enemy to death?

Shocking Grasp + Channel = lotsa damage.

And you need those as a gish why?

As for Spellsword, it is very respectful. By level 7 you can negate medium armor entirely. During that you'll receive +4 existing levels of spellcasting, a bonus feat, and the ability to channel spells through your sword.

okay... can the duskblade fly? no. Thus, a wizard with fly, some invisibility and some actual spells just killed your duskblade. And your duskblade couldnt do anything except run around stuck on the ground, uselessly wishing he had bought an item that was way overpriced, but would allow him to compete with a straight wizard.... in one scenario. there are many more where your duskblade loses just as hard.

Tiny Hut enemies to death... seriously?

[Jarian]

The emphasis of "Do not lose Caster levels!" as being two commandments on that list always made the love of stuff Malconvoker and Anima mage seem a bit odd to me.

People enter Anima Mage without pure feat entry?

:smallconfused:

...are you sure?

[Bobikus]

I always see Binder 1.

Even then, Malconvoker is a straight caster loss just when taking the PrC.

[Boci]

People enter Anima Mage without pure feat entry?

:smallconfused:

...are you sure?

A single dip into the binder class is pretty good.

[Jarian]

A single dip into the binder class is pretty good.

Full caster levels with 10 soul binding is better. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

People enter Anima Mage without pure feat entry?

:smallconfused:

...are you sure?

Yes they do, at least the ones who don't want to be hit on the head with a DMG by an angry DM (I know crazy people, but they exist):smalltongue:

A Binder 1/Wizard 4/Anima Mage 10/ Archmage 5 is a great build in my opionion and not liable to get yourself in trouble

[Boci]

Full caster levels with 10 soul binding is better. :smalltongue:

Do you get advanced soul binding without a level in binder?

[Doc Roc]

Do you get advanced soul binding without a level in binder?

Also, if you rig it right, you can add delicious endless summons to your repertoire, on top of inappropriate uses of metamagic.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Also, if you rig it right, you can add delicious endless summons to your repertoire, on top of inappropriate uses of metamagic.

Zceryl (ab)use right?

[Jarian]

Do you get advanced soul binding without a level in binder?


At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class.

There is no "existing class" clause anywhere, oddly enough.

[The Glyphstone]

Do you get advanced soul binding without a level in binder?

It's on mildly shaky ground (mainly due to, as quoted above, a unique and odd wording of the class-advancement column), but for optimization purposes, the answer is always 'yes'.

[Doc Roc]

It's on mildly shaky ground (mainly due to, as quoted above, a unique and odd wording of the class-advancement column), but for optimization purposes, the answer is always 'yes'.

Generally, actually, we like to assume no, hence the level of binder.

[Jarian]

Generally, actually, we like to assume no, hence the level of binder.

Is there a particular reason for that, other than it being in bad taste?

Because I can think of about fifty other PO tricks that are in worse taste, yet commonly approved of.

[Bobikus]

So, assuming you have to take the caster level hit, what PrCs actually are worth the loss of caster level?

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

so... not talking about Fighters or Wizards now, eh? :smallbiggrin:

[Doc Roc]

Is there a particular reason for that, other than it being in bad taste?

Because I can think of about fifty other PO tricks that are in worse taste, yet commonly approved of.

Just because my homeland has fallen into deep disrepair, and brigands sit upon the great throne of iron, does not mean that we approve these things.

[Sacrieur]

okay... can the duskblade fly? no. Thus, a wizard with fly, some invisibility and some actual spells just killed your duskblade. And your duskblade couldnt do anything except run around stuck on the ground, uselessly wishing he had bought an item that was way overpriced, but would allow him to compete with a straight wizard.... in one scenario. there are many more where your duskblade loses just as hard.

Tiny Hut enemies to death... seriously?

In that case why not just play a wizard or sorcerer? It's great that you can do that, but I thought the goal was to play a gish.

If you want something that will take out a wizard go PrC in Occult Slayer from the CW.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Is there a particular reason for that, other than it being in bad taste?

Because I can think of about fifty other PO tricks that are in worse taste, yet commonly approved of.

Care to mention just a few? the only similar thing I am thinking of, is treating Dragonwrought Kobolds as true dragons for the purpose of sovereign archetypes.

[Claudius Maximus]

Is there a particular reason for that, other than it being in bad taste?

Because I can think of about fifty other PO tricks that are in worse taste, yet commonly approved of.

There's a difference between bad taste and something that depends on actually shaky RAW. My eyes threaten to roll right across the room when I see people seriously suggest Incarnate Construct Warforged, but as far as I can tell it is in fact completely legal and therefore "approved" for optimization.

Edit: Ninja'd by five people. Good lord.

[Doc Roc]

so... not talking about Fighters or Wizards now, eh? :smallbiggrin:

Fighter is a Frame of Mind. ;)


In that case why not just play a wizard or sorcerer? It's great that you can do that, but I thought the goal was to play a gish.

If you want something that will take out a wizard go PrC in Occult Slayer from the CW.

I must respectfully disagree. I don't think Occult slayer ever won a ToS match, did it? And that's with casters deprived of a lot of prototypical tricks.

[Runestar]

Eldritch knight basically lets you replicate the 2e fighter/mage under 3e conditions.

Let's see.

Wiz16 - +8bab, 16th lv spellcasting.
Fighter1/wiz5/EK10 - bab+13, 14th lv spellcasting.
Fighter16 - +16bab

So you give up 2 lvs of spellcasting for +5bab. Seems that is the standard set by wotc. Of course, you can do much better (eg: a otherworldly elf wiz5/eldritch knight10/abjurant champion5 is bab+17 and wiz19 spellcasting.) :smallamused:


The emphasis of "Do not lose Caster levels!" as being two commandments on that list always made the love of stuff Malconvoker and Anima mage seem a bit odd to me.

They were more of just guidelines anyways. :smalltongue:

There are a few cases when it can be worth it to give up 1 lv in spellcasting. The thing is that such scenarios are few and far in between, since that really has to be heck of a benefit to compensate for the lost spellcasting.

Case in point, malconvoker. Or taking rogue1 for unseen seer. I had one friend who swore by monk1 with kungfu genius for his wizard (for int to AC).

[Doc Roc]

There's a difference between bad taste and something that depends on actually shaky RAW. My eyes threaten to roll right across the room when I see people seriously suggest Incarnate Construct Warforged, but as far as I can tell it is in fact completely legal and therefore "approved" for optimization.

Edit: Ninja'd by five people. Good lord.

Sharpen your blades, C_M. We have grave need of you. The great clarion call rings again. The stars wheel in their heaven, and our hour is now.

[Boci]

In that case why not just play a wizard or sorcerer? It's great that you can do that, but I thought the goal was to play a gish.

A wizard / fighter / abjurant champion is a gish and it is a hell of a lot more versatile than the duskblade.

[navar100]

Prestige classes are not inherently bad. A prestige class that you go in as class X/class Y is a patch to facilitate multiclassing because multiclassing base classes has an inherent flaw of power level if you keep them even. At level 20 a 10 class X/10 class Y is significantly weaker than 20 class X or 20 class Y. Exception: 10 martial adept /10 other martial adept is weaker but not significantly weaker than 20 any martial adept, but it proves the rule because martial adepts use modified multiclassing rules. The prestige class combines aspects of the base classes and allows you to improve both at the same time with one level, and often with an added shtick you can do unique to the prestige class. Your power level then becomes on par with 20 class X when you reach character level 20.

The problem with prestige classes is a failure in the rules. The rules do not restrict multiclassing prestige classes. That allows you to play class X/class Y/Prestige Class A/Prestige Class B/Optional Prestige Class C. It brings back the one level dips people complained about 3.0 rangers. While some DMs do not have issue with multiclassing prestige classes, DMs tend to do so and make house rules for it. While they won't limit you to one, they'll insist you finish one before you go into another. My DM is stricter and requires you finish all the levels of the prestige class before you can even gain a level in a base class you had before. Maybe some DMs do restrict you to one.

[Claudius Maximus]

Sharpen your blades, C_M. We have grave need of you. The great clarion call rings again. The stars wheel in their heaven, and our hour is now.

Wait, what?

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

A wizard / fighter / abjurant champion is a gish and it is a hell of a lot more versatile than the duskblade.

And that is exactly the point i was trying to make. gishes dont just have to hit things like a Duskblade. gishes can hit things, fly, be invisible, enter other Planes, cast illusions, etc.

[Sacrieur]

If we're going to play it that way. Again, my level 20 Wizard is much better than that. A lot better.

I'm asuming you're doing Fighter 5 / Wizard 10 / Abjurant Champion 5. In which case why take the fighter at all? It /sucks/ at fighting. So far all you've come up with is spells, which at level 20 you're terrible with anyway because you're only a level 10 wizard. A CR 20 monster would destroy you.

[Claudius Maximus]

If we're going to play it that way. Again, my level 20 Wizard is much better than that. A lot better.

I'm asuming you're doing Fighter 5 / Wizard 10 / Abjurant Champion 5. In which case why take the fighter at all? It /sucks/ at fighting. So far all you've come up with is spells, which at level 20 you're terrible with anyway because you're only a level 10 wizard. A CR 20 monster would destroy you.

Straight wizard is probably better in the end, but people play gishes because gishes are cool.

Anyway nobody going for a decently optimized gish plays Fighter 5/Wizard 10/Abjurant Champion 5. It'd be one of the far better builds listed elsewhere in this thread. And the build you listed casts as a 15th level wizard, not 10th.

[Doc Roc]

If we're going to play it that way. Again, my level 20 Wizard is much better than that. A lot better.

I'm asuming you're doing Fighter 5 / Wizard 10 / Abjurant Champion 5. In which case why take the fighter at all? It /sucks/ at fighting. So far all you've come up with is spells, which at level 20 you're terrible with anyway because you're only a level 10 wizard. A CR 20 monster would destroy you.

The modern gish builds rarely involve fighter, and are often divine casters, actually, in my experience. Why build to hit things? Because it's iconic, and hitting things is a renewable resource, which spells may not be.

So swordsage'd.

[Boci]

If we're going to play it that way. Again, my level 20 Wizard is much better than that. A lot better.

I'm asuming you're doing Fighter 5 / Wizard 10 / Abjurant Champion 5. In which case why take the fighter at all? It /sucks/ at fighting. So far all you've come up with is spells, which at level 20 you're terrible with anyway because you're only a level 10 wizard. A CR 20 monster would destroy you.

Fighter 4, not 5. And why take fighter level? Bonus feats. It won't suck at fighting with the right buffs, and why take it? Because you like gishes? And no, your a 16th level wizard (wizard 11 + AC 5).

[Runestar]

A wizard / fighter / abjurant champion is a gish and it is a hell of a lot more versatile than the duskblade.

The problem is that a eldritch knight takes quite a while before it becomes playable. Before that, you are just a wizard with 1 lv in fighter. You will probably need to be ~ lv10 before you start feeling like a gish.

The duskblade is playable at 1st lv right from the start, with his full bab and limited spellcasting. This makes him easier to play and manage. :smallsmile:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think the archetypical Gish build is something like Fighter 2/ Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight(or Knight Phantom) 9

Cast as a 17th level Wizard with 18 BAB

[Boci]

The problem is that a eldritch knight takes quite a while before it becomes playable. Before that, you are just a wizard with 1 lv in fighter. You will probably need to be ~ lv10 before you start feeling like a gish.

The duskblade is playable at 1st lv right from the start, with his full bab and limited spellcasting. This makes him easier to play and manage. :smallsmile:

I'd say level 3 with arcane channeling, but yes that is an advantage for the duskblade. I'm not saying its a bad gish, just limited one.

[T.G. Oskar]

Trying to get out of the tangent and into the discussion...

Yes, 9th level spells are necessary if you're going with full spellcasting. Or at least, a caster level that stands up with your level.

Reasons are many. One is that a wizard is expected to use its actions to fire and forget, and Wizards thrive upon action economy because they can unleash two or three spells on a single turn. As a Fighter/Wizard, you not only have delayed access to that action economy, but limited access AND options that are contrary to that.

Second is how the spells themselves work. A Wizard gains more from debuffs than from direct damage spells, in order to reduce the impact on multiple battles at a longer scale. Another thing that Wizards and full spellcasters provide are buffs that aid other such characters in doing their job (if not just using calling spells to replace them entirely). As a Fighter/Wizard, your dependance on non-synergistic ability scores (Strength for damage, Intelligence for spells) means you'll probably have low scores on both, so you'll be half effective on both. Thus, when making a gish, the idea is to buff yourself and not depend on buffing others, so as to save whatever few high-level spells you get.

Third is just how different optimization for both sides are, if you're going strictly through the path of Fighter base/Wizard base without PrCs in-between. Eldritch Knight, Abjurant Champion and similar PrCs are effective not because they provide just 9th level spells AND 16+ BAB, but because the two options complement each other. You may think 9th level spells are a little too much for a gish, but there are good self-buffing spells there (not necessarily Freedom, but Foresight is phenomenal, and being capable of using Celerity for a full-round action afterwards is just as phenomenal). However, when trying to blend both, you must think on magic as the boost to combat, and not as someone who equally masters sword and spell, because you'll have some weak points regarding both sides (which is minimized by the PrCs). 8th or even 7th level spells are great, but only if the build is done in a way that you don't need to make deep optimization to make an effective build. Fighter 10/Wizard 10 could work, but the class features of Fighter are not comparable to the class features of Wizard, and you'll delay your access to said class features by taking class features in an entirely different class. But that's largely a problem of multiclassing, one that's mostly patched through class features.

And finally, the large distinction between one side and the other. A Fighter is expected to soak damage and deal damage, a Wizard is expected to deal area damage and place buffs/debuffs, but in practice the former requires some specialization whereas the latter requires only a keen choice of spells.

All of this is mostly opinion, but it leads to think: it's mostly a question of classes which is solved through builds. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 might be useful, but it requires a conscious definition of the build: if you're trying to make a build that's only slightly less effective in combat as a Fighter and spellcasting as a Wizard, that's not the case because of the multiple "halves" on each side (half BAB on Wizard, adding Fighter levels cuts on CL, spell level and spell acquisition), and so on, which when coupled leads to a character that might fight better than a Fighter but is an ocean behind in spellcasting compared to a full Wizard or even a well-built gish. A Fighter 8/Wizard 12 is slightly better at spellcasting but less effective as a Fighter; a Fighter 12/Wizard 10 reaches the coveted BAB 16 and thus gets all possible attacks but it's spellcasting will be highly crippled because most of the buffs will last less than normal. Thus, a proper build that goes a different path than the established multiclass system reaps greater benefits: a Fighter 2/Wizard X/Eldritch Knight x/Abjurant Champion 5 (ECL 20) reaches BAB 16 and potentially grants 9th level spells, reaching roughly a power potential of a Fighter 16/Wizard 17, or as better explained, Fighter 16||Wizard 17 (what you'd get as a 16th level gestalt character with one extra spellcasting level as a Wizard), which does represent what the original concept of dual-classing or multi-classing granted.

[jguy]

Question that will probably be really obvious but why is it Fighter 1/X other classes? Why not like Warblade or Crusader or other stuff that gives you useful maneuvers and junk. Is it the bonus feat? Heck, with the way martial levels act, you could do Wizard 6/Crusader or Warblade1/ and then the rest of the prestige line.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Question that will probably be really obvious but why is it Fighter 1/X other classes? Why not like Warblade or Crusader or other stuff that gives you useful maneuvers and junk. Is it the bonus feat? Heck, with the way martial levels act, you could do Wizard 6/Crusader or Warblade1/ and then the rest of the prestige line.

Depends, some builds get some pretty good benefits from Initiator levels; but since there is only one class which advances maneuvers and spellcasting (Jade Phoenix Mage) in most cases it is not worthwhile, and besides almost all Gishy prestige classes need full proficiencies, which Warblade at the least doesn't give (I am not familiar with crusaders so I don't know if they get full proficiencies).

[Boci]

Question that will probably be really obvious but why is it Fighter 1/X other classes? Why not like Warblade or Crusader or other stuff that gives you useful maneuvers and junk. Is it the bonus feat? Heck, with the way martial levels act, you could do Wizard 6/Crusader or Warblade1/ and then the rest of the prestige line.

Most of the low level maneuveres for a warblade/crusade are strikes, were as a gish will get more from full attacking.

[jguy]

I was thinking more of having the Diamond Mind Maneuvers to crush every safe ever that you are forced to make (Since at high levels you make yourself immune to as much as possible) and Iron Heart Surge on those you cannot.

[Andion Isurand]

I'm surprised the Swiftblade PrC hasn't yet entered the fray of this thread.

combat wizard 6/swiftblade 9/abjurant champion 5 = a decent build

17 BAB, 17 wizard levels... a little shy on HP, but has nice defensive miss chance abilities

[Claudius Maximus]

Combat Wizard?

If that's a thing then I'm genuinely surprised I never heard of it.

[Andion Isurand]

UA variant, where the wizard trades scribe scroll and standard bonus feats for feats selected from the Fighter feat list

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard

[Leon]

People get way too hung up on needing to have the exacting details of what they are going to be doing at level 20 worked out when they are playing a level 5 PC.
Have a idea of what you want and let the character develop.

I have a PC that is a spell caster with 2 non caster levels - yes it maybe sometimes nice to have that extra spell level but over all the character is more interesting with the other class in there.

When i started playing i had no idea that my PC would spend 2 levels worth of time as a Werewolf and adjust the feel of the PC to suit that experience, just as i didn't know that i would change my entire original class at level 8 since the DMs choices made the original class largely unplayable.

With my Fighter/Wizard it was a natural progression for the PC to pick up spell casting levels as it was a PC based of a background of warrior magic - i did not then and still don't now care that its not going to cast XYZ at what level, a small selection of utility spells was all that Character needed. Combat problems were solved with a Large sword and some leverage.

[Doc Roc]

People get way too hung up on needing to have the exacting details of what they are going to be doing at level 20 worked out when they are playing a level 5 PC.
Have a idea of what you want and let the character develop.

I have a PC that is a spell caster with 2 non caster levels - yes it maybe sometimes nice to have that extra spell level but over all the character is more interesting with the other class in there.

When i started playing i had no idea that my PC would spend 2 levels worth of time as a Werewolf and adjust the feel of the PC to suit that experience, just as i didn't know that i would change my entire original class at level 8 since the DMs choices made the original class largely unplayable.

With my Fighter/Wizard it was a natural progression for the PC to pick up spell casting levels as it was a PC based of a background of warrior magic - i did not then and still don't now care that its not going to cast XYZ at what level, a small selection of utility spells was all that Character needed. Combat problems were solved with a Large sword and some leverage.

I'd find this a lot more compelling if a lot of the published adventures were a bit less brutal. Particularly some of the RPGA stuff. The other thing is that I am glad you are having fun. So are we, you know?

[Veyr]

The emphasis of "Do not lose Caster levels!" as being two commandments on that list always made the love of stuff Malconvoker and Anima mage seem a bit odd to me.
There are a few rare exceptions. Sand Shaper, Recaster, Swiftblade, and Jade Phoenix Mage are others that I'd think are reasonably worth their lost level.


People enter Anima Mage without pure feat entry?

:smallconfused:

...are you sure?
Two completely burned feats is pretty harsh. Sure, the spellcasting level is worth it, but the costs there are pretty significant, plus I'd be shocked if you found a DM who allows it.


Do you get advanced soul binding without a level in binder?
RAW, absolutely. It never says anything about existing binder classes, simply that Anima Mage stacks with Binder levels for determining Soul Binding. Binder 0 + Anima Mage X = Anima Mage X. It's very poorly worded; I'd actually include a note somewhere in my houserules changing it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

As was mentioned earlier, I'm a big fan of 0-level fighter gishes. Generally, I cover my proficiencies with either crusader 1 for Jade Phoenix Mage or Human Paragon and Otherworldly, although that's not always kosher. In that case, I hope for LA buy-off and Tiefling. General thing is something like Human Paragon 1/Wizard 1/HP +2/Wizard +1-3/Ruathar 3/Abjurant Champion and other solid gish PrCs the rest.

As has been mentioned before me, yeah, prestige classes do a good job at bridging the gaps between just going Fighter X/Wizard Y or some other combination. Other prestige classes, like Malconvokor make you sacrifice something (In this case, 1 CL) to be a much better summoner than just another wizard.

[Leon]

I'd find this a lot more compelling if a lot of the published adventures were a bit less brutal. Particularly some of the RPGA stuff. The other thing is that I am glad you are having fun. So are we, you know?

Cant pass judgment on Published adventures as I've not really had much experience with them as a player and as a DM i normally use them for reference and maybe the maps. (I love a well drawn map or building layout)

[Kobold-Bard]

Just to show another popular direction you could go:

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6/Abj. Champ. 5/Eldritch Knight 7

BAB +17
Casting Lvl 18 (9th level spell, just)
Casting Lvl 17 (no 9th level spells :smallfrown:)
Uber-Charisma to Saves
Minor Healing (irrelevant basically, but mentioned because you get it at least)

You can of course use Knight Phantom if you like, but having Phantom Steed on your Sorcerer list of spells is a bigger payment than having it in your spellbook.

Edit:
Since I miscounted, you might as well take Battle Dancer as Andion Isurand said now for Cha to AC.

[Andion Isurand]

If you can squeeze it in, Battle Dancer is a good one level dip for a chaotic sorcerer gish, granting Charisma to unarmored AC (d8, high BAB, good reflex, 4+int skills, good unarmed damage)

[Runestar]

Cant pass judgment on Published adventures as I've not really had much experience with them as a player and as a DM i normally use them for reference and maybe the maps. (I love a well drawn map or building layout)

I think the paizo adventures series (what is the plural of series, BTW?) were fairly tough, routinely pitting the PCs against encounters of higher EL, and featuring fairly optimised foes. For example, non-associated class rules features a fair bit, undead often come with unholy toughness/extra attack bonuses and dragons even use their hoard intelligently.

[Eloel]

Wait a second. This is a thread about gishes, and people argue that Duskblade is THE gish base class?

Good gods...

Here (http://dndsrd.net/druid.html), I'll point you in the direction of what a real gish looks like.

[Gnaeus]

They were more of just guidelines anyways. :smalltongue:

There are a few cases when it can be worth it to give up 1 lv in spellcasting. The thing is that such scenarios are few and far in between, since that really has to be heck of a benefit to compensate for the lost spellcasting.

Case in point, malconvoker. Or taking rogue1 for unseen seer. I had one friend who swore by monk1 with kungfu genius for his wizard (for int to AC).

Correct. Or, as I explained when I posted them:


Read rules 1 and 5. Those should only be broken for very, very specific reasons. Having +1 bab and a fighter feat is not one of those reasons.

Things like swiftblade or anima mage are. For that matter, another reason to do it is to intentionally weaken yourself so as not to overshadow other party members. But a build like Fighter 2/wizard 18, or Duskblade 3/wizard 17, while not impressive from an optimization standpoint, is a million miles away from fighter 10/wizard 10.


The problem is that a eldritch knight takes quite a while before it becomes playable. Before that, you are just a wizard with 1 lv in fighter. You will probably need to be ~ lv10 before you start feeling like a gish.

The duskblade is playable at 1st lv right from the start, with his full bab and limited spellcasting. This makes him easier to play and manage. :smallsmile:

I don't really understand this. I have played fighter 1/wizard x gishes, usually armored, and I always felt like a gish at level 2.


okay... can the duskblade fly? no. Thus, a wizard with fly, some invisibility and some actual spells just killed your duskblade. And your duskblade couldnt do anything except run around stuck on the ground, uselessly wishing he had bought an item that was way overpriced, but would allow him to compete with a straight wizard.

Leaving aside the various ways to expand your spell list, Duskblades can blast just fine.

[Malevolence]

Duskblades do their thing straight from level 1, are reasonably straightforward, and decent at their job. They aren't good though. Real gishes are better. Bards are better. They have their uses, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

[VirOath]

The scale of arcane gish sits as Wiz/Sorc base> Duskblade> Battlesorc to sum it up quickly.

Duskblade is nice and fun because it works as a gish without needing any real grasp on Char Op. And it beats a Battle Sorc in the compared spell list because of the limited known and spells per day during the Battle Sorc advancement, Battle Sorc is worse than losing caster levels.

The Sorcadin is a good example of a staple gish build, but it's something you need to optimize for and you can't fall into the trap of your typical caster for. Combat spells are either going to be battlefield control or action economy abuse, you want to avoid needing to buff during the fight with standard actions.

A good Sorcadin can be built to do this well, but the draw of the Duskblade is that many of their support spells are swift action versions of the original and they almost always use standard action attacks by design, no real Char Op required.

On that note, more than one level of Spell Sword is a trap, not only do you lose out on caster levels naturally but the Sword Channel lets you cast a spell into your sword, you need to spend the action to cast into it then spend an action to swing. This was what the Duskblade was designed to fix and replace.

[FMArthur]

It really, really depends on what you want to do with your spells and what you want to do in melee. "Gish" is not a real build definition.

Do you want to support your melee attacks with spells?
Do you want to use spells to gain an action advantage in melee?
Do you want to use defensive magic on yourself and regular melee options to attack?
Do you want to improve your allies' performance in melee?
Do you want to bring additional creatures into the melee?
Do you want to have the option cast regular wizardly spells or swing a sword in melee, and divide your actions between the two on the fly? What spells?

A Wizard-based gish may be stronger than some other kind, but so is a straight Wizard 20. You're looking to build a character who fights and uses spells in a certain style, then you better build the character around that style. A "gish" could be any number of different class compositions including Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Wizard, Sorceror, Psion, Ardent, Psychic Warrior, Duskblade, Warlock, Binder, Factotum, Beguiler, Archivist, Dread Necro, the list goes on.

[DeltaEmil]

Wait a second. This is a thread about gishes, and people argue that Duskblade is THE gish base class?

Good gods...

Here (http://dndsrd.net/druid.html), I'll point you in the direction of what a real gish looks like.That's not a gish. That's CoDzilla. It's a superior being who cleanses the worlds from the filthy fighters.

[Zaq]

Wait a second. This is a thread about gishes, and people argue that Duskblade is THE gish base class?

Good gods...

Here (http://dndsrd.net/druid.html), I'll point you in the direction of what a real gish looks like.

Duskblade is the Kraft Mac'n'Cheese of gishes. We're all keenly aware that you can do much better with the real thing, but you can at least slap it together in ten minutes and have something passable (if not exactly that good) on the table, ready to serve. A real gish, on the other hand, is like properly homemade macaroni and cheese. It takes more time and effort, more planning, and is easier to screw up, but we can all pretty much agree that it's worth the investment by the time it's sitting in front of us.

Well, unless you were raised on the Kraft stuff and never had the real stuff growing up. Then you might be a little suspicious when your gishes aren't an unholy orange color. Or something (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metaphorgotten). Warning: TV Tropes.

[stainboy]

The nice thing about Duskblade is that it fits cleanly into a T3 game. It's like why people play psychic warriors instead of illithid slayers. (Admittedly psywars are a bit stronger than duskblades, but still.)

Duskblades also play more cleanly at low levels. An Abjurant Champ/Eldritch Knight build spends the low levels as basically a wizard who gave up a CL. Most campaigns focus on levels 5-8.

[Eldariel]

I always see crazy Fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion.

I mean really, is Fighter/Wizard that bad? I mean, thats the way we used to do it, back when we just had mages... Do i really need all 4 attacks AND 9th level spells?

What tier is a Fighter 10 wizard 10 anyway? because i feel like that must be the problem. there is a more powerful option, so people play that. However, I feel that Fighter Wizard split down the middle must be tier 3-4 still, right?

I dont know. Any thoughts, anyone?

The reason Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is bad is that AD&D Fighter 10/Wizard 10 and D&D 3.X Fighter 10/Wizard 10 are totally different beasts. Back in AD&D, XP was split between the classes (or in the case of dual classing, just advancing the second class from ground up) so your Fighter/Wizard was like level 17 when your single-classed companions were level 20.

In 3.X, your multiclassed Fighter/Wizard is level 10 on both when the comparison is 20; you don't level both from 0 but basically, each level of Fighter and Wizard is now a part of the same advancement and Fighter 1 costs as much XP as Wizard 11 so you get two vastly differently powered options for the same cost; unification PrCs basically mean you get something closer to your money for the XP invested when you already paid the extra XP to get the Fighter-level over the Wizard-level.

It's a matter of scale; with PrCs you get effective Fighter 17/Wizard 17 or so by level 20, but even earlier on the paradigm remains the same. Like, with Eldritch Knight you get Fighter X and Wizard X-1 from the levels so when you waste ~2-3 levels of both while entering (3 BAB and 1 spellcasting level with second one lost to Eldritch Knight), you end up (EVENTUALLY) approximately where you were back in AD&D. Only difference being that the EK will, of course, have a slower start since you can't enter PrC before the early game.


But yeah, PrCs basically address the lack of multiclassing and Eldritch Knight is essentially what you'd consider Fighter/Wizard in AD&D, just made to conform to 3.X rules with unified XP advancement.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Well thank you very much everyone for their posts, very enlightening.

[wumpus]

A fighter 10/wizard 10 is the worst of both worlds. He isn't actually very good at fighting, and he is a complete failure as a wizard. Way, way back in the day, when we were playing AD&D, a 10/10 fighter wizard multiclass would have been in a party with level 12-13 pcs. He only loses 1-2 levels of spells, and he gained some versatility at a time when it was actually possible for wizards to run out of spells.

Ancient nit-pick. It was not possible to be a 10/10 fighter/magic user multiclass in AD&D (1, I don't think it was possible in 2e either, but don't have the rulebooks). Elves max out at 7/11 fighter/magic user.

There was a better way to do it, but I don't remember anybody playing that way at the time. Playing Baldur's Gate (2e rules, which work the same as 1e) you would want a 9/10+ fighter/magic user. The big catch is that your party has to carry a suddenly wimpy (with the hit points of a 9th level fighter) through enough adventures to level to 10th level wizard (roughly one level for everybody else, and the magic user can do some contribution after popping up a few levels). The other players will be anywhere from 9-11th level (AD&D classes each leveled at different amounts of xp).

You also needed an intelligence of 17 or more, and a strength of 15 or more. Depending on how you rolled up those points, I suspect that the party might be annoyed at your character before the metamorphosis into a 9/10 fighter/magic user. What you wind up with is a magic user [wizard] who can fight as a 9th level fighter (but can't wear armor), has the hit points of a 9th level fighter (which justifies the entire exercise), and only spends 250,000xp on those abilities. In Baldur's gate, this means that you can go to cap in BG2 with the same number of magic user levels as a pure magic user. In AD&D you are 2/3 of a level behind a pure magic user (of course, you could always give up 3 hit points* and be a 7/11 fighter/magic user 1/4 of a level behind a pure magic user.

* this assumes a purely random hit point roll and a constitution less than 17. Somehow I doubt either happened by anyone taking the few optimizations available in AD&D to this extreme.