Drawbacks for a Fighter/Mage Kit

[Stormonu]

This class you are proposing is very similar to the 2E bard, trading the bard song and thief abilities for better THAC0 and armor. Their prime abilities should probably be Strength and Intelligence; they should still get bonus XP for high ability scores. Also, I think I'd go with a min Str 13, Con 12 and Int 15 (compare to Bard requirements)

Combined with say, the paladin's XP advancement chart, that ought to be about right, if a little underpowered (depending on if they can pick up specialization).

<EDIT> Well, the paladin advancement would fit if you use the bard's spell advancement. You might need to use wizard + XP bump if you give them wizard spell progression.

 

[Gamling]

Honestly that whole rule never made sense to me, why the hell couldnt you cast spells in armour? There is no justification for it, armour doesnt really restrict movement or anything...its as silly as the mages weapon restrictions, yet another non sensicle rule..

Anyway, that sounds fair, just doesnt make sense why those restrictions are in place, youd be better off restricting the spells themselves, say which schools of magic you can learn, which can be justified in the role playing elements of
the kit

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Level limits handle this quite nicely.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You might not like this idea, but here it is:

Mage Armor, as a spell-like ability. Perhaps 1/day at 1st-level, 2/day at 5th-level, or whatever you think is balanced. I'm a fan of giving out a few extra spells to low-level spell-limited wizards, and restricting this to just Mage Armor means you don't have a wizard running out tossing out Sleep spells left and right (and also matches the flavor of a fighter/mage).

This could work well with restrictions (based on school?) for spells used by the fighter/mage. Do they ever need to cast Enchantment spells, or Monster Summoning? I rather doubt it. You might even assemble a list of "allowed" spells rather than base it by school.

Honestly that whole rule never made sense to me, why the hell couldnt you cast spells in armour? There is no justification for it, armour doesnt really restrict movement or anything...its as silly as the mages weapon restrictions, yet another non sensicle rule..

Niche protection, of course. I don't recall the exact wording for wizards not having armor, but I'm pretty sure the only reason wizards got such bad weapon proficiencies was flavor (specifically, wizards generally don't spend time learning to use swords, unless they've multiclassed).

 

[Shingen]

Why? .. Fighter/Mage is a pretty power mullti-class, even with the effective level lag...

I've always found that armor restrictions and the Hit Point trade off makes things difficult for them, at least at pre-questing-for-Elven-Chain levels.

 

[Jiggawatts]

I had a 2E Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief character (my first D&D character) who eventually retired at level 13/13/15 after a decade of on and off play with the party. I used the Armor spell in the beginning, then got some Bracers of Defense AC 5, then Elven Chain +2, and finally some robes that gave him AC 1 and lowered his casting times by 3. I always felt that the DM did a good job on my armor progression.

I have always agreed with the fact that mages (including fighter/mages, with the exception of elven chain) couldn't cast spells in armor. D&D (especially the earlier editions) is all about the archetypes, the mage archetype denotes robes and a staff, not a dude in full plate, that is treading too much on the fighters archetype. A fighter/mage rocking splint mail at level 1 just doesn't feel right (IMO).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I have always agreed with the fact that mages (including fighter/mages, with the exception of elven chain) couldn't cast spells in armor. D&D (especially the earlier editions) is all about the archetypes, the mage archetype denotes robes and a staff, not a dude in full plate, that is treading too much on the fighters archetype. A fighter/mage rocking splint mail at level 1 just doesn't feel right (IMO).

Though oddly that fighter/mage archetype starts with 2E. F/M-Us could cast inarmor in B/X, BECMI, and 1E AD&D.

 

[Shingen]

Though oddly that fighter/mage archetype starts with 2E. F/M-Us could cast inarmor in B/X, BECMI, and 1E AD&D.

F/M was not possible in BECMI or B/X. Multi-classing began in 1e.

 

[Roland55]

This is what I did so far.

Ability Scores: 13 Str, 13 Con, 15 Int. Not difficult, but the 13 con (14 since you need to be an elf) is essentially dumping a stat.

No bonus XP for high ability scores
For purposes of spellcasting (learn spell, spells known, spell level) treat their intelligence as two less (so a 13 gives the bonuses of an 11).

Sounds fair?

I would say it is. Why not try it out ... and see how it plays?

 

[Remathilis]

F/M was not possible in BECMI or B/X. Multi-classing began in 1e.

Check out the "ELF" class in B/X or BECMI. Fighter Abilities, casts M-U spells.