[4e] My little wizard rant

[Skaven]

Hiya folks.
[deleted first part due to folk nitpicking at a non-issue]

I'm just having problems.. my party has 3 fighters, and all of them see to be better damage than me. I'm ok I suppose.. I mean, my class says battlefield control.. however my spells just dont say that. I see a lot of nukes and AoE's which deal usually around as much damage as a fighter does normally, or less. sometimes a little more, but the fighter is consistent and these ae my dailies. thats not the problem though. The few crowd control abilities I see are not overly great. I suppose that's only one problem though.

The problem is the cleric is throwing around nukes like crazy that dont hurt any but the enemies and all mine blast everything inside.. and I have no had a chance in 2 play sessions to do anything but hit with my few non-AoE abilities (which is like 20% of my spel list) or those that choose targets (because otherwise I would be blasting the fighters who ALWAYS wade right into a cluster of enemies before me as they have huge initiative and an ability that boosts their initiative etc).

I dont know who gave fighters all these abilities that gave them an advantage when surrounded or the ability to 5ft step between attacks so they dance round enemies dealing damage I would only dream of and have huge advantages being in AoE's while making wizards so AoE reliant.. I half of the time feel like just blasting into the middle anyway, but i dont do that.. that would piss him off. However I am here really annoyed too because I dont get to really play otherwise. I'm tired of standing back and saying. 'Oh.. that huge group I was going to blast now has you in it..lets see.. AoE.. AoE.. I could hit one with my AoE without hitting anyone but its a waste for little extra damage.. I suppose i'll.. magic missile that one..' I'm tired of it.

This class just seems crummy designed. The cleric is a more useful AoE attacker, The fighters are all doing more damage than I could hope to and I think they're also controlling the battlefield better than I think I could anyway. Where are my battlefield control abilities anyway? I see a couple holds and stuns, but mostly sub-par AoE damage that I never get to use.

When I think Battlefield control I see the Enchanter from EQ.. lots of stuns (single and AoE target enemies only) or real mesmerises or brief mind control etc.. not 'they ake a save or stand in that spot they were going to stand in anyway till your next turn' while still throwing fireballs at you'.

Bleh.. thats my rant anyway. I should have made a fighter will Sorcs were released and crossed classed into the only abilities I get to use anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem is the cleric is throwing around nukes like crazy that dont hurt any but the enemies and all mine blast everything inside..

Because of this, I've seen claims on the charop board that the wizard is the weakest class in 4E. That would certainly fit WOTC's habit of overcompensating

[Covered In Bees]

What level are you?

Wizard->Fighter multiclass is one of the poor ones, BTW.


Basically, you're doing it wrong. Our group's wizard doesn't have these problems.


Edit: from Paragon tier on, the wizard is one of the strongest, especially with the Orb. In the Heroic tier, they're equal.

[tumble check]

With each day, I'm thinking more and more that "Controller" basically means "ability to clean up minions". The 4e Wizard is hardly more than a blaster (while not taking Rituals into account). If properly made, a Cleric can "control the battlefield" quite well.

However, 4e is designed mathematically for Wizards to do their damage on the multiple targets that there are, so if your party's fighter is always getting in the way, he's denying your party part of the firepower that each encounter's CR takes into account. You need to tell the Fighter (in-character or out-) that he needs to move unless he's a fan of fiery wrath. If he refuses, let the spells rip anyway. An @$$hole player shouldn't get in the way of other players' contributions, ESPECIALLY in 4e.

On a side note, if you haven't check out the Illusionist 4e spells that WotC released on their website, much of them are alot more "Control-y" than what the stock 4e Wizard has.

[wodan46]

4e Wizards are quite powerful, and possibly the best class in the game. First, let me remind you that every class has positioning powers, and that 4e emphasises moving around tactically a lot more. Do so right, and you'll be able to repeatedly blast most of the enemies in the encounter at once while inflicting disables on them.

I suggest you read Treantmonk's guide to Wizards:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1041166

It suggests the following spells as optimal

At-Will: Scorching Burst, Illusory Ambush
Encounter 1, 3, 7, 13, 17, 23, 27: Icy Terrain, Ice Rays, Winter's Wrath, Prismatic Burst, Crushing Titan's Fist, Acid Storm, Confusion
Daily 1, 5, 9, 15, 19, 25, 29: Sleep, Bigby’s Icy Grasp, Wall of Fire, Bigby’s Grasping Hands/Wall of Ice, Evard’s Black Tentacles, Elemental Maw, Legion’s Hold
Utility 2, 6, 10, 16, 22: Shield, Levitate/Wall of Fog, Blur, Stoneskin/Displacement, Mass Fly

[Prophaniti]

Wizard->Fighter multiclass is one of the poor ones, BTW.


Basically, you're doing it wrong. Our group's wizard doesn't have these problems.

See, now I have a serious issue with this statement. Picking classes or multiclasses based on character concept is NOT doing it wrong. It is, in fact, doing it absolutely RIGHT. It is the game's problem if such a concept cannot be made effective in it, not the player's. The excuse 'splat books aren't out yet' will only get you so far before you're forced to admit, at least to yourself, that the game does not allow you to play what you want to play, simply because of mechanical limitations cause by their overzealousness and the idea that NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT BALANCE. A philosophy I could not disagree with more.

Skaven, I feel for you. I too ran a kobold sorcerer in 3.5, and the one time I played 4e I simply despaired of being able to play him in this system, so I ran something else. 4e does not have what is needed to run many of these concepts effectively, though there might be a 'yet' in there.

[wodan46]

There are limits to what the system can do if you want to be a Paladin who throws daggers at people.

Multiclassing now allows you to pick high level powers from other classes without investing in them that much, and not have to worry about things like BAB. This comes with the price that you can't really build a class that's half and half without having to simply make a new class entirely, due to the more clearly defined lines between classes and their features, and unless the 2 classes have overlapping ability scores it will be difficult to gain much effectiveness.

The most effective way to multiclass is to simply take the multiclass feat, than follow the paragon path of the class you multiclassed to. You will get a nice set of features and powers, and you won't have to waste a slew of feats to get them.

Not to mention that Kobolds use Dex and Con, which makes them very poorly suited for being a Wizard-Fighter, as Dex and Con are secondary scores for both classes.

[MaximumTaco]

See, now I have a serious issue with this statement. Picking classes or multiclasses based on character concept is NOT doing it wrong. It is, in fact, doing it absolutely RIGHT. It is the game's problem if such a concept cannot be made effective in it, not the player's. The excuse 'splat books aren't out yet' will only get you so far before you're forced to admit, at least to yourself, that the game does not allow you to play what you want to play, simply because of mechanical limitations cause by their overzealousness and the idea that NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT BALANCE. A philosophy I could not disagree with more.

Skaven, I feel for you. I too ran a kobold sorcerer in 3.5, and the one time I played 4e I simply despaired of being able to play him in this system, so I ran something else. 4e does not have what is needed to run many of these concepts effectively, though there might be a 'yet' in there.

I have to say, I disagree with your point. 3.5 ended up allowing people to create basically any character concept they wanted, reflected in some combination of exotic prestige classes, feats, and the like. I always felt that expecting a game to facilitate every possible character concept was at best, unrealistic (unless you're playing in an RP-based game system with little combat or few mechanical elements), and at worst, an easy excuse for people to complain about a system without addressing their own choices for a build.

My favourite thing about the 4th edition set-up is that I feel they remembered they were making a game, not a simulator, and that there was no need to tie everything they created back to the 1st edition archetypes and rules ideas. I love how the classes can work together and how roles are more clearly defined than before, although I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble, OP. If you try to consider the problem as if you were merely playing a board or video game instead of a role-playing game, things look a little different. No-one would say it's WoW's fault that your character doesn't work well if you spread your talent points haphazardly through the trees, and I think that similarly, no one should say it's the d20 system's fault if you choose your abilities in a way that robs you of synergies and abilities you are expected to have.

In 4e, there are a lot of ways you can have the "fluff" you want without hurting your character mechanically. If you want to use a sword, use one! Be a human and spend your extra feat to get a sword proficiency, but don't dilute your class-based powers and fall out of your role by making that counterintuitive combo a part of your core build. There's no reason why you can't represent those things you want your character to do using small "on-sheet" touches supplemented mainly by your in-character actions. To do otherwise is expecting the system to do your role-playing for you, on paper, which is not what the gaming experience is all about.

If you're not having fun with your character, try to reflect on what's going on without clinging to any one aspect of your sheet based on how you want your character to be. Design your character to be functional and take advantage of the things it has going for it, and then address your flavour and RP goals in concert with that - don't let your concept make your character un-fun to play.

Anyways, I've got to run to work, but I hope this is at least a bit helpful. I'm just trying to say that as much as you want your sword-swinging mage to be awesome, if you choose a set of abilities that don't complement each other (and if your party members are unintentionally blocking your powers) then you'll be having less fun than you should, and that's something that needs to change. Good luck!

[ghost_warlock]

I have to say, I disagree with your point. 3.5 ended up allowing people to create basically any character concept they wanted, reflected in some combination of exotic prestige classes, feats, and the like. I always felt that expecting a game to facilitate every possible character concept was at best, unrealistic (unless you're playing in an RP-based game system with little combat or few mechanical elements), and at worst, an easy excuse for people to complain about a system without addressing their own choices for a build.

My favourite thing about the 4th edition set-up is that I feel they remembered they were making a game, not a simulator, and that there was no need to tie everything they created back to the 1st edition archetypes and rules ideas. I love how the classes can work together and how roles are more clearly defined than before, although I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble, OP. If you try to consider the problem as if you were merely playing a board or video game instead of a role-playing game, things look a little different. No-one would say it's WoW's fault that your character doesn't work well if you spread your talent points haphazardly through the trees, and I think that similarly, no one should say it's the d20 system's fault if you choose your abilities in a way that robs you of synergies and abilities you are expected to have.

In 4e, there are a lot of ways you can have the "fluff" you want without hurting your character mechanically. If you want to use a sword, use one! Be a human and spend your extra feat to get a sword proficiency, but don't dilute your class-based powers and fall out of your role by making that counterintuitive combo a part of your core build. There's no reason why you can't represent those things you want your character to do using small "on-sheet" touches supplemented mainly by your in-character actions. To do otherwise is expecting the system to do your role-playing for you, on paper, which is not what the gaming experience is all about.

If you're not having fun with your character, try to reflect on what's going on without clinging to any one aspect of your sheet based on how you want your character to be. Design your character to be functional and take advantage of the things it has going for it, and then address your flavour and RP goals in concert with that - don't let your concept make your character un-fun to play.

Anyways, I've got to run to work, but I hope this is at least a bit helpful. I'm just trying to say that as much as you want your sword-swinging mage to be awesome, if you choose a set of abilities that don't complement each other (and if your party members are unintentionally blocking your powers) then you'll be having less fun than you should, and that's something that needs to change. Good luck!

Yes, I agree, the OP needs to abandon a character concept of his own and only play within the imaginations of the devs...just like in WoW!

[Tsotha-lanti]

Why can't I successfully play an unarmed, unarmored martial artist in Cyberpunk 2020?! I always get shot and killed at 20 feet when I try to call out my opponents to a fistfight! WAAH! CYBERPUNK SUCKS!

Every single RPG in the world forces you to create characters according to the basic assumptions of the system. There's no way, for instance, to play a character not focused either on combat or casting in D&D 3.5. A cerebral investigator? Nope. A chirurgeon - a healer who doesn't use magic? Nope. Well, you can be an Expert, I guess, and be completely useless... the party cleric is beating you in both fields at the same time.

[ghost_warlock]

Why can't I successfully play an unarmed, unarmored martial artist in Cyberpunk 2020?! I always get shot and killed at 20 feet when I try to call out my opponents to a fistfight! WAAH! CYBERPUNK SUCKS!

Every single RPG in the world forces you to create characters according to the basic assumptions of the system. There's no way, for instance, to play a character not focused either on combat or casting in D&D 3.5. A cerebral investigator? Nope. A chirurgeon - a healer who doesn't use magic? Nope. Well, you can be an Expert, I guess, and be completely useless... the party cleric is beating you in both fields at the same time.

Except that the OP's character concept of a sword-using spellcaster is an icon in the genre of fantasy games 4e seeks to emulate.

If you don't think there's 'cerebral investigators' in 3.5, you need to investigate psionics. And you can heal without magic in 3.5 as well...it's just a lot slower than magical healing.

[Storm Bringer]

I love the way that the first half a dozen people have jumped into this thread and completly missed the OP's point.

He is NOT saying 'I wanted to make a wizard/warrior, but I can't cos I'm worse at fighting than a fighter'. He IS saying 'I wanted to make a wizard/warrior, but I can't cos cos I'm worse at fighting than a fighter and I'm worse at controling than a Cleric'. His point is that a different class with a supposedly different party function is able to outdo him in his primary function.

Now, the simple answer for his problem to tell the fighters about thier rushing in and hope they are willing to be acommodating (and if they aren't, why the F*** are you playing with jerks like that?).

wether his problem is just one a play-style, one of a mechincaly poor build not propley optimised (due to it being an unfamiliar system), or actually a flaw with the rules themselves is not something i can comment on. I havn't played 4th ed yet and refuse to pass judgement on it until i do.


oh, and Covered in Bees?

Basically, you're doing it wrong. Our group's wizard doesn't have these problems.

1) the fact you have or have not had any problems doesn't mean HE hasn't or that his problems don't matter. I, for one, never had trouble with 3rd wizards being hugly overpowered.

2) 'knowingly choosing a mechanicaly poor build for RP reasons' and 'Doing it wrong' are NOT the same thing.

[wodan46]

If you want to be a sword using spellcaster, be a Swordmage. That's a magic using swordsman whose been specifically balanced to be playable without being over or under powered by the multiclass system. Your basic character build should be based on your class, multiclassing is just the cherry on top.

Also, training in Sniper Tactics and Submarine Operation is perfectly legal in the real world, but its not that useful, and you better have rolled good ability scores.

[tumble check]

I'm not sure I'm understanding the problem here.

A Wizard/Fighter is a fine combination, certainly just as fine as any other class combination one might cook up.

The only thing that would make such a move non-functional is if the Wizard had a low STR. If this is the case, then it really has little to do with multi-classing, and more to do with the fact that the player chose Powers that are based on a dump stat.

And if he's doing it for flavor purposes, awesome. That sort of unorthodoxy keeps things interesting. Just know that you might be indeed "outshined" by someone.

Basically, you're doing it wrong.

There's no way to do anything wrong in D&D, so long as it's in the rules. If there were, then why the hell are we given the choice? There are only optimal and sub-optimal, and the choice between those is a matter of taste.

[ArmorArmadillo]

See, now I have a serious issue with this statement. Picking classes or multiclasses based on character concept is NOT doing it wrong. It is, in fact, doing it absolutely RIGHT. It is the game's problem if such a concept cannot be made effective in it, not the player's. The excuse 'splat books aren't out yet' will only get you so far before you're forced to admit, at least to yourself, that the game does not allow you to play what you want to play, simply because of mechanical limitations cause by their overzealousness and the idea that NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT BALANCE. A philosophy I could not disagree with more.

Skaven, I feel for you. I too ran a kobold sorcerer in 3.5, and the one time I played 4e I simply despaired of being able to play him in this system, so I ran something else. 4e does not have what is needed to run many of these concepts effectively, though there might be a 'yet' in there.

Well, considering that the build that the OP refers to relies heavily on Abjurant Champion, something that didn't come out until the tail-end of 3e, that's a pretty significant yet.

And if you're trying to say that 4e is limiting character choices for balance, that's ridiculous. A wizard with Multiclass fighter feats in 4e is much better off than a Sorcerer Fighter multiclass is. (Without cheese like Abjurant Champion, anyway)

Yes, 3e allowed freer multiclassing, but it was a trap. Cool concepts like the monk turned sorcerer ended up useless while optimized builds combined classes in disgusting, abusive ways.

[JellyPooga]

The first thing I noticed about 4e is that everyone is a warrior. Aside from weapon proficiencies, everyone has exactly the same chance to hit in combat as everyone else (PC wise) because everyone (to use 3e terms) has 1/2 level BAB. So to play a character with 'combat training' or a 'military background' or who 'fought in dark elf fighting pits' or whatever, just play one of the Character Classes...simple as. If you want to be a little better at fighting, take Feats like Weapon Focus. If you want to be a better than average warrior or exceptional fighter, that's when you start taking the multi-class options to get the Fighter/Ranger/whatever Powers.

To the OP, I think your problem might be the fact that you've taken multiclass Feat(s) because you have a concept in mind of a Warrior/Wizard and the only way you see you can do that is to have Fighter Powers...this is not the case. As I said, being a PC automatically makes you a Warrior (if not a Fighter). This has not only compromised your Feat selection, but also your Power selection....if you're bandying only half your Powers as Wizard, you're effectiveness as battlefield control is only 1/2 that of someone without those Feats.

On the subject of Wizards specifically, yes they do little damage 1:1, but their strength doesn't lie in that direction...for that take Warlock. Your strength is in 1:9/12/15/or more damage without having to get anywhere near those 9/12/15/or more dudes. Sure Clerics can do similar effects, but whilst their Utilities deal almost solely in Healing, yours deal in a far wider range of effects...Jump, for example is usable 1/Encounter and can literally catapult one of those Fighters you were complaining about from one end of the battlefield to the other...kinda handy. Expeditious Retreat is horribly good; Shift 2xSpeed (no OA's!), though only a Daily. That's just your Lvl.2 Utility, let alone anything higher...also remember that Wizards also get more versatility than any other class (at the mo) 'cos they can choose 2 Powers every time they get a new one (Daily and Utilities anyway) and choose which to use every day...that's not to be underestimated.

The other thing to consider is that Wizard Powers tend not to only do damage...most of them create lingering AoE's like difficult terrain or concealment, either that or have ongoing effects, like dazed or stunned...when you consider that these are affecting multiple enemies (as opposed to the Fighter equivalent that only Dazes a single foe...most Fighter Powers that have AoE only deal damage), it's not to be sneezed at.

Anyway, I hope I've helped in some way...just remember, Wizards aren't really about damage...that's what Rogues, Warlocks and Rangers are for...so don't worry about that. Nor are they about getting 'stuck in'...that's what Fighters and Paladins are for...so don't worry about that. What they are for is doing the weird and wonderful, the unexpected and impressive. Bear that in mind and you might appreciate the capabilities of Wizards better...

[RukiTanuki]

i was mostly a party support type (ehanced mage armor for all, haste, slow, etc) with a couple nukes.

I could see this done as some combination of wizard and warlord with the warlord powers reflavored as spells.

I'm just having problems.. my party has 3 fighters, and all of them see to be better damage than me.

If you want to cast spells and do lots of damage to individual targets, you want to be a Warlock. I don't think it's significantly harder to reflavor a sorceror as a 4e Warlock than to make them a 4e Wizard. Either way, remember that just because a spell does damage, doesn't inherently mean that the point of the spell is to do damage. The status effect often changes the battle more significantly. (The durations may seem short to a seasoned 3e player, but when well planned, your teammates take advantage of them more than they could in the past.) Either way, if you're judging your contribution purely by HP damage directly caused by you, you may be disappointed, but that's not inherently a class flaw.

I do feel the need to heavily stress your real problem below:

I have no had a chance in 2 play sessions to do anything but hit with my few non-AoE abilities (which is like 20% of my spel list) or those that choose targets (because otherwise I would be blasting the fighters who ALWAYS wade right into a cluster of enemies before me as they have huge initiative and an ability that boosts their initiative etc). [...] I half of the time feel like just blasting into the middle anyway, but i dont do that.. that would piss him off. However I am here really annoyed too because I dont get to really play otherwise. I'm tired of standing back and saying. 'Oh.. that huge group I was going to blast now has you in it..lets see.. AoE.. AoE.. I could hit one with my AoE without hitting anyone but its a waste for little extra damage.. I suppose i'll.. magic missile that one..' I'm tired of it.

You selected AoE spells, and you have allies that insist on wading into the middle of things before you get AoE spells off, and you choose not to hit them. This is a group problem, not a class problem: other players are actively preventing you from using your primary abilities. This would have been a problem in 3e if you had the same spells and your allies took the same actions. You might want to talk things over to find a compromise which allows everyone to get involved.

4e stresses teamwork, and allies working together to make the most of each other's abilities. If you've got someone doing the complete opposite of that, they're not really being a team player. You need a change of tactics, or you need a class that works with the group dynamic you've set up.

[The New Bruceski]

However, 4e is designed mathematically for Wizards to do their damage on the multiple targets that there are, so if your party's fighter is always getting in the way, he's denying your party part of the firepower that each encounter's CR takes into account. You need to tell the Fighter (in-character or out-) that he needs to move unless he's a fan of fiery wrath. If he refuses, let the spells rip anyway.

This. You have three fighters, folks built for defense. They can take it. High fort, and Reflex probably isn't bad either. Will's gonna be the lowest but with Wisdom boosting OAs they should have some points in it.

And if any of them are tieflings, all the better.

[Starbuck_II]

If you want to cast spells and do lots of damage to individual targets, you want to be a Warlock. I don't think it's significantly harder to reflavor a sorceror as a 4e Warlock than to make them a 4e Wizard. Either way, remember that just because a spell does damage, doesn't inherently mean that the point of the spell is to do damage. The status effect often changes the battle more significantly. (The durations may seem short to a seasoned 3e player, but when well planned, your teammates take advantage of them more than they could in the past.) Either way, if you're judging your contribution purely by HP damage directly caused by you, you may be disappointed, but that's not inherently a class flaw.

Agreed, his problem is not that he madea poor character, but he didn't think outside the box.

Just because you were a Sorc or Wiz in 3rd; doesn't mean those classes best fit your character in 4th.

My topic: They made a Conversion Guide has all the links to discuss this.

A Bard could be a Warlord or a Warlock. Both can fit the class.

Use the abilities of the class as a guide not a straightjacket.

Maybe, a Cleric/Fighter would make a better Sorceror/Fighter in 4th. After all, you said you were a Buffer (read Leader) not a Controller in Third Edition.

[Covered In Bees]

oh, and Covered in Bees?
2) 'knowingly choosing a mechanicaly poor build for RP reasons' and 'Doing it wrong' are NOT the same thing.

No, but knowingly choosing a mechanically terrible build for RP reasons (even though there are other ways to represent it mechanically!) and then complaining about it is. If you're gonna be That Guy, the one who maeks his character unhelpful to the party "because it's GOOD ROLEPLAYING", at least don't complain about it.

He's apparently playing at Paragon levels. He didn't just take Fighter multiclass feats--he took the Pit Fighter paragon path, and he did it to "hold his own in a scrap", not because he felt it would most accurately represent his character or something.

Regardless, that's not what I meant. I meant that he is controlling wrong, not that he's building his character wrong. He's playing the wizard part of the character wrong.


OP: try and redo your power selection to suck less. Wall of Fire and Wall of Ice are very powerful; you can either surround a single target, or lay them down to get many enemies (and tell your allies to push people into the wall).

Ask the DM to switch Paragon Paths. Battle Mage or Wizard of the Spiral Tower fit flavor-wise, and Closing Spell from Battle Mage does the damage you seem to be craving.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Um, I see no problem with multiclassing with fighter with your wizard, as long as you have a semi-decent Str-score then its not that big of a deal. Can work fairly well if you are a wand wizard and picking finesse fighter powers. But, wizard/ warlord works much better as a swordy magic guy. Just be glad that swordy-magic guys work so much better in 4e than in 3e. In core at least (Yeah, ever try playing an eldricth knight? Good luck ever using a melee attack when you have full spell progression and no-fighter bonus feats.) As for not being able to hit things with your AoE attacks, I offer a few suggestions:

1. Get Improved initiative. Gives you a better chance of going first and setting off your AoE's before the fighters get too intertwined. And even if your not first, just ask the melee guys to postpone their initiate till after yours. Work as a team.
2. Pick small scall AoE's, close burst 1-2 stuff. With clever positioning, you should be able to get these off no-sweat. Again, if you see a good chance to use a certain power, but the fighter wants to move within the area, just ask him to take up a different positon.

So basically, teamwork is very important with your team. With so many fighters, you need to have them communicate where they want to go so you can better position your AoE's.

Also, your DM just may not be catering to your Wizard needs. I cant know what the encounter's you have been fighting in have been like, but if he is constantly just sending 1-3 strong monsters at a time, then of course your wizard is going to feel gimped.

[Covered In Bees]

Um, I see no problem with multiclassing with fighter with your wizard, as long as you have a semi-decent Str-score then its not that big of a deal.

He's a kobold, so he doesn't have a bonus to either INT or STR. He's a wizard, so if he's raising STR he's not raising, say, WIS (for Wizard abilities/powers).

And he's a wizard, so getting melee powers he has to get in melee just to use instead of wizard powers that help him do his job better?
It's not exactly a good idea.
"Wizard with a splash of Fighter" is what the Battle Mage and Wizard of the Spiral Tower paragon paths are for, depending on how big your splash is.

Also, your DM just may not be catering to your Wizard needs. I cant know what the encounter's you have been fighting in have been like, but if he is constantly just sending 1-3 strong monsters at a time, then of course your wizard is going to feel gimped.

Or he could switch to the Wall spells (Wall of Fire and Wall of Ice are both BRUTAL) and single-target spells like Icy Grasp, Spectral Ram, Mordenkainen's Sword, Mesmeric Hold, etc.

[Myatar_Panwar]

He's a kobold, so he doesn't have a bonus to either INT or STR. He's a wizard, so if he's raising STR he's not raising, say, WIS (for Wizard abilities/powers).

Yeah that is a problem. Forgot about not having any-sort of prominent attribute bonus. How did you EVER get this concept to work in 3e? I mean, a koblold actually has a minus to strength there, and melle sorcerers sucked already.

[Crow]

He could use an ability array that looks like this;

Str 16
Con 11
Dex 10
Int 16
Wis 13
Cha 8

Which as a kobold becomes;

Str 16
Con 13
Dex 12
Int 16
Wis 13
Cha 8

Which isn't exactly a terrible array for such a MAD race/class combo. 16 is about as low as you want to go on any stat that governs your ability to hit. In most cases though, it's plenty good enough. Kobold doesn't look terrible at all. There is excellent potential for passively meeting feat pre-reqs in there.

[Yakk]

Wizard sub Ranger might be better.

Aim for Wisdom based powers. Then you need:
Str for melee attacks
Wis for secondary Ranger/Wizard powers
Int for spell attacks

The only downside is "where will you hold your implement" -- you could ask that you treat your Staff as a double-weapon at lower levels, then get Wizard of the Spiral Tower at higher levels?

...

Have your fighters form lines against which the enemy will fall

[Crow]

Wisdom helps with many Fighter abilites also. Now for a ranged combatant/wizard, I'd definately say Ranger.

If not though, Fighter is the better choice since he won't have to spend wealth on an extra weapon (most ranger melee powers require you to be wielding two melee weapons, and as you mentioned, that makes it hard to use his wizard implement, which is really sub-optimal.

[ArmorArmadillo]

No, but knowingly choosing a mechanically terrible build for RP reasons (even though there are other ways to represent it mechanically!) and then complaining about it is. If you're gonna be That Guy, the one who maeks his character unhelpful to the party "because it's GOOD ROLEPLAYING", at least don't complain about it.

Being unpleasant in return when it doesn't even affect you is worse.

He is playing a build because he chose to. And, if you pay attention, the majority of his complaints have to do with how wizard powers work regardless of his fighter multiclassing, primarily the difficulty of utilizing his AoE powers.

He's apparently playing at Paragon levels. He didn't just take Fighter multiclass feats--he took the Pit Fighter paragon path, and he did it to "hold his own in a scrap", not because he felt it would most accurately represent his character or something.

Unless holding his own in a scrap is a part of his character.

[Kiara LeSabre]

You know, I'm having a similar problem.

I started a melee ranger, but I want to be like Drizzt, so I focused on Dexterity first and chose drow as my race. I also love all of those stories about magic-using people who also swing swords, so then I multi-classed into warlock after. Then I thought it'd be neat to explore that whole "dark drow heritage" thing, so I picked a couple of infernal powers along with some fey ones too, because I'm sort of like fey myself, being a dark elf and all.

I make sure to keep pumping Dexterity every chance I get so I can be uber-defensive and agile just like Drizzt, but I alternate out raising Charisma and Constitution for my infernal and fey powers. I even raised Strength just enough for Scimitar Dance, but I somehow I still seem to be falling behind everyone! What am I doing wrong?

Thanks!

[Frosty]

Kiara, your sense of sarcasm is mucho appreciated around here, but some of the fuddy-duddies may not understand it.

[Crow]

You know, I'm having a similar problem.

I started a melee ranger, but I want to be like Drizzt, so I focused on Dexterity first and chose drow as my race. I also love all of those stories about magic-using people who also swing swords, so then I multi-classed into warlock after. Then I thought it'd be neat to explore that whole "dark drow heritage" thing, so I picked a couple of infernal powers along with some fey ones too, because I'm sort of like fey myself, being a dark elf and all.

I make sure to keep pumping Dexterity every chance I get so I can be uber-defensive and agile just like Drizzt, but I alternate out raising Charisma and Constitution for my infernal and fey powers. I even raised Strength just enough for Scimitar Dance, but I somehow I still seem to be falling behind everyone! What am I doing wrong?

Thanks!

You've got some serious MAD there. Once you get to paragon, take Stormwarden for some extra guaranteed damage to at least take advantage of that high DEX. All your to-hit attributes are spread thin. You will probably want to focus on either infernal or fey powers rather than both, so you can concentrate ability points.

Edit: Whoops. Totally missed the sarcasm there. Probably because it's quite stale and not all that funny. My mistake.