Favorite Multiclass? [3.5]

[chomskola]

I'm fairly new but I think sorcerer/wizard looks good, also Druid/Ranger could be interesting as you get the shapechange and favoured enemy stuff and the classes are not so far apart. I'm a big fan of Druid already but not sure how it pans out at higher levels. SOw hat are your favorite 2 class multiclass combinations and why? (including prestige classes).

[eggynack]

Generally it's a bad idea to multiclass casters because you reduce your access to their abilities by a significant margin. I prefer to think of ideal multiclassing through dips. You can get a serious amount of stuff with a solid barbarian or cleric (based around the domains rather than the casting) dip. The latter even has a fancy handbook about nothing but dipping a single level. Rogue/swashbuckler is nice, as is anything else that allow stacking class abilities through feats. Also, in answer to your question as to how druids pan out at higher levels, the answer is magnificently. They start out very powerful between casting and their animal companion, and get more and more powerful as the level increases. In terms of build they're one of the easiest classes in the game, only really needing natural spell at 6th to excel, although they can be tricky in game due to all of the homework.

[Morph Bark]

Casters are fun together if you have a PrC you can go into that combines them, like Arcane Hierophant, Ultimate Magus, Eldritch Theurge, Eldritch Disciple, Noctumancer, Psychic Theurge, Cerebremancer or Mystic Theurge (though when arcane vancian casters are involved, preferably with Precocious Apprentice).

I like combining Monk and Barbarian, just because. BRAWLING GALORE, BABY!

My first character was a Rogue//Wizard. First to die, too.

Fighter/Anything.

[chomskola]

yes, I never understand the handle animal to "push" the Druids animal companion. I mean wouldnt it be easier to just let the player "control" the animal without performing these checks, almost like making a diplomacy roll everytime you want your PC to do something. maybe i'm misreading it, but it seems this way.

[eggynack]

You get some bonus tricks, so I think you can just have it use one of those like attack. You can't go wrong with a war-trained riding dog. A riding dog has an int of two, and starts with a bonus trick, which adds up to 7 tricks. You can get your animal companion to do pretty much anything with that many tricks as a free action. I generally just skip it and control it directly, because the alternative is a bit of a hassle, but it shouldn't get in your way too much. The real winner where a druid is concerned is the fact that it is a full caster. At first level you can cast entangle which is an incredible spell throughout the game, and it only gets better from there.

[chomskola]

YEs I've only just started my first campaign, and as a DM and using 3.5, and already entangle HAS been used. And yes, it changed the conditions of the combat hugely.

[Gwendol]

Ranger works better with Scout using the Swift Hunter feat. Along that line you have Rogue/Swashbuckler (Daring Outlaw feat).
Bard and Paladin are popular combos.

In general, Druids and Clerics are awesome in their own right and don't really need multiclassing, not that it can't/shouldn't be done though!

Monk 2 is a popular dip, as is fighter (dungeoncrasher ACF). Barbarian 1 or 2 is often used to get rage and/or pounce.

[Togo]

Marshal (Minature's Handbook) / divine chamption (Complete Warrior).

Mix in melee classes and other p-classes to taste, since Marshal works well as a 1, 2, 3, or 4 level dip, and divine champion requires BAB.

e.g.
Marshal3/barbarian 1/fighter 1/occult slayer 2/divine champion X

[chomskola]

Is Fighter/Barbarian worthwhile? I think its harder to justify in RP terms as the two have different outlooks and ethos, but i'm sure theres an explanation waiting to be built. The rogue swashbuckler seems a bit odd, my campaign has a rogue who keeps running around setting things off, soudns more like a swashbuckler to me...my point was that arent rogues supposed to be careful? or are they supposed to be daring?

[JadePhoenix]

Daring Outlaw ftw

[Aeryr]

Daring outlaw and swift hunter.

If you are thinking of prcing then a bamboo spirit folk transmutation domain wizard archivist into mysthic theurge and arcane hierophant. But that is rather... specific.

[Marlowe]

I keep wanting to do Ranger 1(first level)/Druid everything else. Just to get a Druid with a longbow.

I just like longbows. And spears. But longbows are a lot more useful if you don't have a good strength.

[eggynack]

Is Fighter/Barbarian worthwhile? I think its harder to justify in RP terms as the two have different outlooks and ethos, but i'm sure theres an explanation waiting to be built. The rogue swashbuckler seems a bit odd, my campaign has a rogue who keeps running around setting things off, soudns more like a swashbuckler to me...my point was that arent rogues supposed to be careful? or are they supposed to be daring?

Fighter/barbarian is a pretty worthwhile combination as far as melee builds go. You take fighter for 2 levels to pick up the feats (or more if you're working with the fighter's acf's) and then you take between one and two levels in barbarian for pounce, (spirit lion totem acf from complete champion) whirling frenzy and improved trip (whirling frenzy and wolf totem acf's from UA). After that it's usually best to move on to a different class or a prestige class if you have the prerequisites.
Rogue/swashbuckler is good because it's directly supported by the daring outlaw feat from complete scoundrel which allows you to stack the rogue's sneak attack onto the swashbuckler's base attack bonus and other mediocre class features.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Cloistered cleric/crusader/ruby knight vindicator/divine oracle is one of my favorite combos, good in melee, 9th level spell casting, evasion in heavy armor, bonus domains.

In core it's probably Wizard/Archmage, lots and lots of possibilities.

[eggynack]

I keep wanting to do Ranger 1(first level)/Druid everything else. Just to get a Druid with a longbow.

I just like longbows. And spears. But longbows are a lot more useful if you don't have a good strength.

Why don't you just use an elf or one of its variants to get the proficiency for free? There's probably a good elf for druids out there, and you don't have to waste a class level on it. The con hit is irritating, but there's probably one that gives a wis bonus so it balances out.

[Answerer]

Cleric is the best class in the game to have 1 level of. It's one of the best classes in the game to have 20 levels of, but no class gives you as much as Cleric does with just one level. I've seriously made characters with Wis 10 – or less – who still have a Cleric 1 dip for the Domains/Devotions or Turn Undead uses. Travel Devotion alone would be a good reason to dip Cleric, and they get so much more.

Barbarian is probably the second-best 1-level dip. Rage is a not-insignificant bonus (and Whirling Frenzy is excellent), plus you can get Pounce with Complete Champion, which, not coincidentally, also had Travel Devotion.

After that... Monk gives a lot for 2 levels; more than two is bad. Fighter gives a fair bit in 2 levels, but Psychic Warrior gives most of that and more. But these aren't dips I'd usually take.

Outside of core classes, Incarnate and Totemist from Magic of Incarnum are solid for 2-3 levels (or 10-20...), and Binder from Tome of Magic similarly can give you useful stuff for any number of levels taken.

The kings of multiclassing, though, from 1-level dips to fully half a character or more, are the martial initiators from Tome of Battle. Far and away, the best at this, thanks to the multiclass-friendly Initiator Level mechanic, plus their general awesomeness. Strongly recommended.


As for the combinations you suggested: Druid has everything significant that the Ranger has, but better in every way. You gain almost-nothing by switching to Ranger. Actually, it's really hard to justify multiclassing Druid at all – between the Animal Companion, Spellcasting, and Wild Shape, you lose a lot no matter where you go (excepting Planar Shepherd, which is just dumb).

Wizards and Sorcerers have the same spell list, which means switching between them does almost nothing for you – you get low-level spells you could have already gotten with your first class, instead of high-level spells if you'd stayed single-classed. The Ultimate Magus from Complete Mage is solid though.


Generally speaking, non-spellcasters are front-loaded and scale poorly; these multiclass well (but are weaker in general). Spellcasters depend on maintaining their spellcasting progression; these multiclass poorly (but are much, much stronger in general, plus Prestige Classes that fully advance Spellcasting are not uncommon).

Something you should learn: if you're going for power, and are playing a spellcaster, thou shalt not lose spellcasting levels. If that sounds like one of the Ten Commandments, that's because it's on the list of optimizing commandments – twice. It's that important. Spells are the most powerful things in 3.5. You don't want to give up on spells ever. The benefits have to be massive to justify even one level loss. Only a handful of classes actually have benefits that significant.

[J.Gellert]

Monk 1/Wizard X
or
Rogue 1/Wizard X

Depending on the campaign.

[Marlowe]

Why don't you just use an elf or one of its variants to get the proficiency for free? There's probably a good elf for druids out there, and you don't have to waste a class level on it. The con hit is irritating, but there's probably one that gives a wis bonus so it balances out.

For the same reason I don't just blow the bonus human feat on Longbow proficiency. A starting Druid can't afford a Longbow. And you can never guarantee the DM will give you a break and give you some extra cash in those first few levels. I've read campaign reports where people were stuck with their starter gear at level 8, and I've played in one where we could not get alchemical silver weapons at level 13 before going off to fight devils.

[Answerer]

For the same reason I don't just blow the bonus human feat on Longbow proficiency. A starting Druid can't afford a Longbow. And you can never guarantee the DM will give you a break and give you some extra cash in those first few levels. I've read campaign reports where people were stuck with their starter gear at level 8, and I've played in one where we could not get alchemical silver weapons at level 13 before going off to fight devils.
Those are terrible games with awful DMs. You shouldn't waste your time playing those to begin with.

[chomskola]

ahhh ok!! So for a starting group, would you stick to the feats given in the core books for the first feat increases or would you use the whole panoply of feats from all published material all the way? Im guessing the second since it gives you the most choice. IM sure in some places people sacrafice in game power/advantage just for roleplaying/aesthetic reasons. worthwhile other characters picking up levels in Cleric, for more healing+ turning potential in other domains i.e. fire based creatures, water based etc. maybe not, maybe for RP reasons, everyone having a level in CLC would become lame.

[Marlowe]

The level 8 example was the SilverClawShift campaign journal "second tale", which is probably one of the best campaigns I've ever read.

My own personal example, yeah. Terrible, terrible DM. Don't get me started. Anyway, starting gold is too low and leads to some silly things at first level (such as everyone having to start with Scale or Studded Leather in spite of knowing full well they'll be upgrading within the first few days on the road), but that's a different issue.

[Answerer]

The level 8 example was the SilverClawShift campaign journal "second tale", which is probably one of the best campaigns I've ever read.
SilverClawShift's DM is an example of an adage that if you're talented enough, you can break the rules. Turns out it applies to DMs as much as with authors and other artists.

But still, you're right that it's not quite automatic that such a DM/game is terrible. Just the overwhelming majority of cases.



ahhh ok!! So for a starting group, would you stick to the feats given in the core books for the first feat increases or would you use the whole panoply of feats from all published material all the way? Im guessing the second since it gives you the most choice. IM sure in some places people sacrafice in game power/advantage just for roleplaying/aesthetic reasons. worthwhile other characters picking up levels in Cleric, for more healing+ turning potential in other domains i.e. fire based creatures, water based etc. maybe not, maybe for RP reasons, everyone having a level in CLC would become lame.
It... depends. The PHB feats, for the most part, are pretty weak (and the spells are rather too strong), but there are a lot of 3.5 books out there. If everyone's got the time and interest to look into other books, then I'd say definitely yes. If not, though, it seems unfair to a new player with limited time to invest in the game to expect him to have to try to compete with a character who's gotten the benefit of all the other books.

Even for a first-time group, though, I'd strongly consider adding at least Complete Champion, Expanded Psionics Handbook (which is part of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/)), and Tome of Battle (of which, the Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and all of the Maneuvers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) are available freely online, giving you all you need to play a Warblade). CChamp and ToB do more to attempt to "balance out" casters and melee than any other books, and are relatively well-designed compared to the rest of 3.5. XPH is freely available to anyone with an Internet connection, very well designed, and has some nice benefits even for non-psionic characters.

[eggynack]

Even in that worst case scenario, you're still better off with one of the elves then you are with a ranger dip or using the bonus feat to get one out of several elf proficiencies. If you've built a character around archery, then not handing out a mundane bow seems somewhat cruel. I don't really see druids as being good rangers anyway. You'd probably be better off going straight ranger at the low end and maybe a cleric with zen archery or something at the high end. Also, druids have craft on their list, so if you ever get money then making a bow is down to a trivial dc 12 check. If you don't get money, then druids are one of the best classes in the game to play itemless.

[chomskola]

I remember cringing and gritting my teeth at the line in the core book that says wizards like to "magic up" fighters and send them into battle. At 1st level with a handful of spells most of them 0 level, you wont be magicking up anything unless its a gallon of water to wake the fighter from his pre-encounter morning slumber.

[Answerer]

I remember cringing and gritting my teeth at the line in the core book that says wizards like to "magic up" fighters and send them into battle. At 1st level with a handful of spells most of them 0 level, you wont be magicking up anything unless its a gallon of water to wake the fighter from his pre-encounter morning slumber.
Actually, buffing allies is one of the best ways to play a Wizard. It's a bit tough from very-early levels (though don't forget about your bonus spells for high Int), but once you get to about level 5, it's a fantastic way of doing things. Haste is very-often the best spell to cast in the first round of combat.

If you're interested in learning Wizards, I suggest reading Being Batman: The Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002).

[eggynack]

Even at level 1 a wizard gets access to some decent buffs like mage armor, enlarge person and magic weapon. They're not the best options in the world, but it's a valid strategy. An enlarge person on a dedicated tripper can be pretty great at level 1. The best stuff at that level are spells like grease, color spray and sleep, all of which can fundamentally change the nature of a battle despite the low level. I'd prefer a wizard casting enlarge person on a melee character to one casting magic missile for trivial damage.

edit:Today I am both the swordsage and the swordsage'd.

[DeusMortuusEst]

I remember cringing and gritting my teeth at the line in the core book that says wizards like to "magic up" fighters and send them into battle. At 1st level with a handful of spells most of them 0 level, you wont be magicking up anything unless its a gallon of water to wake the fighter from his pre-encounter morning slumber.

Enlarge person says hi...

[eggynack]

If you're interested in learning Wizards, I suggest reading Being Batman: The Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002).

That's a good guide, and is a classic, but in general I prefer Treantmonk's guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0) on the topic. The spell ratings are invaluable and it's the guide I always reference before making spell suggestions. I also prefer the "god" style caster that is focused on helping the team to the "batman" style caster that is intent on overshadowing everyone. The spells that the guides favor are pretty similar in most places, but I like friendly wizards.

[Answerer]

That's a good guide, and is a classic, but in general I prefer Treantmonk's guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0) on the topic. The spell ratings are invaluable and it's the guide I always reference before making spell suggestions. I also prefer the "god" style caster that is focused on helping the team to the "batman" style caster that is intent on overshadowing everyone. The spells that the guides favor are pretty similar in most places, but I like friendly wizards.
....yeah, have you actually read TLN's guide? It has a lot of focus on party-oriented play: it's the guide for not blasting, because everyone else is doing that. He even mentions, IIRC, that even if you get good at blasting you're just stealing the Fighter's only schtick.

At any rate, treantmonk's guide is also good.

[eggynack]

That's true. I just prefer Treantmonk's casting philosophy, and he goes into more detail on the spells he thinks are good. Also, he gave a decent arguement for specializing in evocation which gives him a pile of points in my book. I also prefer Treantmonk's stance on save or die's over that of Logic Ninja's. They're both great, but I usually recommend god over batman if I want to show someone a great wizard handbook.

[Gavinfoxx]

Cloistered Cleric Dip! Spirit Lion Whirling Frenzy Barbarian Dip!

[eggynack]

Pounce and pounce-like abilities are pretty great on a dip.

[Particle_Man]

Right now my favourite multiclass is incarnate/cleric/sapphire hierarch, but I really like the SH prestige class right now.

A close second is cleric/crusader/ruby knight vindicator.