What's the best fighter/mage class/Prc?

[freyar]

I love the Battle Sorcerer. Some of my favorite NPCs have been of that class. Combined with some [Reserve] feats, they can be easy to run, yet also unleash havoc when required.

About the battle sorcerer: only recently looked at these, and they actually seem a little underpowered compared to the beguiler (again, not mage/fighter hybrid, but a point of comparison), basically because the battle sorc doesn't know as many spells or get as many per day (that's the biggy). Anyone thought about that?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, the Battle Sorcerer has a wider variety of spells available, including ones that do a lot of direct or AE damage.

 

[freyar]

OTOH, the Battle Sorcerer has a wider variety of spells available, including ones that do a lot of direct or AE damage.

Yeah, true, I guess thinking at lower levels only knowing a couple is a big hindrance. Just wondering...

 

[Arkhandus]

Look at Draconomicon, specifically the Dragonslayer PrC. One level dip preserves spellcasting and gives you proficiency with all armor and martial weapons.

The Psychic Warrior, along side the Rogue, is often held up as an example of how to make a balanced class.

Fighters are outclassed at 1st-level by a Druid's riding dog. "Better than a Fighter" is weak praise indeed.

Cheers, -- N

1, don't have that book, unfortunately. Something I wanted to get but could never afford without giving up the ability to buy something more frequently useful.
2, can be broken once they get to the point of double-Expansion slaughterfests, outperforming a barbarian in damage output and more or less the same in durability (Vigor, Biofeedback, heavy armor, Force Screen, et al). They're alright for the first few levels, definitely, but outclass any mundane warrior after that.
3, Fighter, Barbarian, Knight, Swashbuckler, Scout, whatever, same difference. Still outclassed by the Duskblade. Fighter is just the most traditional/core version of that archetype to use for that comparison. Though high-level Barbarians may exceed a Duskblade in physical durability regardless of spells, but still remain behind in terms of utility and offensive power.

 

[Nifft]

About the battle sorcerer: only recently looked at these, and they actually seem a little underpowered compared to the beguiler (again, not mage/fighter hybrid, but a point of comparison), basically because the battle sorc doesn't know as many spells or get as many per day (that's the biggy).

Beguilers cast from a smaller total list, even if their spells known are larger. They don't get much use out of wands, for example, unless they invest ranks in UMD.

Beguilers can't cast teleport, plane shift, dimensional anchor or planar binding. They can't scry, they can't astral project, they can't even identify... let alone limited wish, poly any object, or shapechange.

Try to find some [Reserve] feats that a Beguiler could "power" using his spell list. Now look at all the ones he can't.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

3, Fighter, Barbarian, Knight, Swashbuckler, Scout, whatever, same difference.

You're quite wrong. Barbarians can fight on par with Clerics; to use the term you seem fond of, they can "nova". Scouts may be okay too, I haven't looked at them in depth.

You should never lump Fighter & Swashbuckler in the same group as Barbarian if you want to be taken seriously regarding balance issues.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Holy Bovine]

Let me second this. The duskblade rocks. I'm also fond of the beguiler in PHB II. Great illusionist/thief class.

Thirded. I have a player playing a Duskblade Warforged in my Eberron game and he is working out beautifully. We've talked about how the DB is built and it really does seem to be the 3.5 answer to the classic Fighter/Mage class combo. Good fighting combined with good spellcasting equals great class, imo.

 

[Arkhandus]

Jeez. I didn't say they were equal either, I was just listing most of the mundane warrior types. A 1st-level fighter will generally destroy CR 1 threats in one hit (or two if he rolls poorly), as would any other warrior with a greatsword and some Strength. A duskblade is better equipped to handle bigger threats, and has much more utility.

A barbarian is roughly on par with a duskblade in offense for the first few levels, but still doesn't compare so well at most levels. Though there are probably a few levels later on where the barbarian is equal or slightly better over the course of several fights.

And I know full well that druids are overpowered in 3e, there's been at least one druid in just about every 3e/3.5e campaign I can remember. That doesn't mean that anything less powerful than a druid is automatically just fine compared to everything else not-druid. If the DM wanted to keep things reasonably balanced, it'd be best if he only had to houserule or restrict one or two classes in total rather than 1-2 classes per book out of the entire collection of books his group has accumulated.

 

[pawsplay]

Now this discussion has gotten weird. At least on the CO boards over at wizards.com, it was conventional wisdom that a fighter could take a barbarian any day of the week.

 

[Nifft]

Now this discussion has gotten weird. At least on the CO boards over at wizards.com, it was conventional wisdom that a fighter could take a barbarian any day of the week.

PvP, the chain-gun tripper wins.

Against non-humanoids (which you'd expect PCs to fight every now and again), the Barbarian wins. Heavily.

That was my understanding, and it includes time spent over at the CharOpt board.

Cheers, -- N