My warrior-mage has 4 Fighter levels--let's make them count!

[Dannyalcatraz]

Datsana first appeared in Oriental Adventures, then in Arms & Equipment guide. They may exist elsewhere as well.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Seems like your definition of "synergizing" revolves around using spells exclusively to trick out your melee attacks. It's sort of like saying a fighter with two-weapon fighting shouldn't prepare himself for situations where he needs a bow, because all that preparation fails to augment his ability to use melee weapons. I don't agree that's the only good use for magic. I think offensive spells compliment a warrior's combat ability because there is no one attack that's ideal for every situation.

No. I think that synergizing means that one set of abilities helps the other. For instance magic improves the character's physical attacks (ranged or melee) or defenses (AC, etc). Another example would be a better base attack bonus and feats like Point Blank and Precise Shot improving the utility of ranged touch spells and better than usual AC and hit points making touch range spells more practical.

Synergy is important because in a D&D combat, you don't just need to be able to do something, you need to be able to do something well. To use your example, a fighter who wants to do two weapon fighting should have a bow and a selection of arrows in DR penetrating materials, but he shouldn't ignore feats essential to his fighting style (Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc) in order to pick up Point Blank Shot. If the character does that, he's trading being a good two weapon fighter and a mediocre archer for being a mediocre two weapon fighter and a slightly less mediocre archer. Given that the character wants two weapon fighting to be his main tactic (maybe 75% of the time), it doesn't make sense to sacrifice significant amounts of TWF ability (75%) for a minor increase in archery ability (10-15%). As you later note, a multiclass character has to sacrifice some of the abilities that a single classed character would have in order to achieve flexibility. If the multiclassed character still wants to be good at the role he's sacrificing, he needs to get something out of the new class that makes him better at what he does as well as give him flexibility.

Hehe--well, of course the build's going to sound like crap if you just compare it to a single-classed character and then focus on the relative shortcomings. Multi-classed characters have shortcomings. A warmage/fighter will be tougher and more capable in melee than a straight warmage, and will have much more offensive flexibility than a guy who just swings a sword.

Well, if you're set on playing a multiclassed warmage/fighter, I can't stop you. But you should think about whether being tougher and more capable in melee than a straight warmage really means anything. After all, a warmage is tougher and more capable in melee than a straight commoner, but warmage is still not a frontline class. A fighter/warmage is tougher than a straight-class warmage, but that doesn't mean that he can hold his own against a fighter or a fighter/sorcerer. Similarly, a fighter/warmage will have more offensive flexibility than a guy who just swings a sword but that's only relevant to the degree that the offensive flexibility is useful. A fighter who can cast 5d6 fireballs is more flexible than a fighter who can't but by the time he's 10th level, those 5d6 fireballs won't be worth much. You can have all of the options you want, but in the end it's only the ones worth choosing that actually matter. That's why it's important to avoid the situation where your choices are "A. Cast a spell that's not very effective at this level or B. Swing your swords and get slapped silly by the bad guys."

 

[Bront]

I think the idea is more about his concept of the character, and that's fine. I think it will be a fun character to play. May not be perfect, perhaps could be better, but just because it's not tweeked to the max doesn't mean it can't be fun to play, and that's the goal.

 

[Tessarael]

Two-Weapon Fighting is definitely a poor choice. You will always be short on feats to spend and TWF is an expensive chain, that is not better than using a two-handed weapon and spending the feats elsewhere.

As you need a free hand, you should either use buckler (defense) + one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon (offense, which you can hold one-handed while spellcasting).

Side note: Arcane Strike seems an over-powered feat to me, and as a DM I would quickly ban it once I saw a munchkin character using it.

 

[Joker]

I second the Battle Sorcerer Variant from Unearthed Arcana.

Gain: Casting in Light Armor, Prof with one one-handed martial weapon, d8 HD and Cleric Bab

Lose: 1 spell per day/level (minimum 0), 1 spell knows per level (minimum 1).

With those four levels of fighter and some of low level defensive spells I think it can be quite potent.

 

[Thanee]

With the Battle Sorcerer one would probably stay away from those fighter levels completely.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Joker]

I wouldn't . Depending on the concept and my role in the party I would either take a lot of fighter levels and a few BS levels or I would take a lot of BS levels and just a few (max 4 ) levels of fighter.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I, also, suggest the battle sorcerer.

 

[Felon]

Synergy is important because in a D&D combat, you don't just need to be able to do something, you need to be able to do something well. To use your example, a fighter who wants to do two weapon fighting should have a bow and a selection of arrows in DR penetrating materials, but he shouldn't ignore feats essential to his fighting style (Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc) in order to pick up Point Blank Shot. If the character does that, he's trading being a good two weapon fighter and a mediocre archer for being a mediocre two weapon fighter and a slightly less mediocre archer.

I question your use of the word "mediocre". Just because a character doesn't dump every resource he has available into one area of focus that does not make him mediocre. He comes out a good two-weapon fighter and a good archer. Yes, there are basics to cover, certain essential elements that are essential to avoiding mediocrity--I sure wouldn't be attempting this without the Practiced Spellcaster feat--and my character will acquire those.

As you later note, a multiclass character has to sacrifice some of the abilities that a single classed character would have in order to achieve flexibility. If the multiclassed character still wants to be good at the role he's sacrificing, he needs to get something out of the new class that makes him better at what he does as well as give him flexibility.

The position you seem to be advocating is that characters must be extremely specialized in order to be effective at all. I just don't share that outlook.

A fighter/warmage is tougher than a straight-class warmage, but that doesn't mean that he can hold his own against a fighter or a fighter/sorcerer. Similarly, a fighter/warmage will have more offensive flexibility than a guy who just swings a sword but that's only relevant to the degree that the offensive flexibility is useful. A fighter who can cast 5d6 fireballs is more flexible than a fighter who can't but by the time he's 10th level, those 5d6 fireballs won't be worth much.

EB, it sounds like you're heaping criticism without even having read the discussion up to the point where you joined in. He won't be casting a 5d6 fireball at 10th level, he'll be casting a 10d6 fireball. And in melee, his foes will get chewed up by a ring of blades or fire shield while he makes the exact same number of attacks per round as the straight fighter and enjoying the same benefit of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization he is. That's synergy, my friend. The build has plenty going for it.

There's no point served in you lecturing on how the game works. Fact is, I actually know how to play this game very well--as well as you do, I suspect. This character will be very viable. Will he be outright broken and abusive like the polymorph fighter that I've seen engender resentment from both players and DM as he constantly tries to rush everyone through the dungeon at a breakneck pace before his minute/level spell runs out? No. He'll actually be what a warrior-mage should be; potent at wielding both arms and spells, able to overcome many of the shortcomings of both classes.

Two-Weapon Fighting is definitely a poor choice. You will always be short on feats to spend and TWF is an expensive chain, that is not better than using a two-handed weapon and spending the feats elsewhere. As you need a free hand, you should either use buckler (defense) + one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon (offense, which you can hold one-handed while spellcasting).

Yes, the feat-sink element of 2WF is a big concern. So, the question is, what am I missing out on? Personally, I don't sweat not getting Greater 2WF, because I don't think having to invest in a 19 Dex is worth an extra attack at -10.

I, also, suggest the battle sorcerer.

It's cool, it's just not an option at this time.

 

[Thanee]

@Felon: I don't think EB means over-specialization there.

Take, for example, a multiclass sorcerer 5 / wizard 5 and a multiclass fighter 5 / barbarian 5.

The second character has two classes, that complement each other, therefore the character as a whole is about the same as any other 10th level character (roughly). A viable multiclassing concept, meaning that it has a power, that matches its ECL.

The first one, however, has two classes, that complement almost none. The character is probably more like a 7th~8th level total. This multiclassing concept is not viable, meaning that it has a power, that does not match its ECL.

The warmage / fighter is probably not as bad as the sorcerer / wizard, since the ability sets at least cover somewhat different areas, but it goes in a similar direction.

You have two sets of abilities (purely offensive spellcasting, weapon use), which are independant of each other and one cannot be used to enhance the other, you can only use either the one or the other at a time. The big downside is, that each of those ability sets is greatly limited by the multiclassing, so you basically end up having two sets of 'inferior' (meaning... sub par; not matching your ECL in terms of power level; etc) abilities, which cannot even be combined. That's similar to the sorcerer / wizard, who also can only use either a sorcerer spell or a wizard spell, they just do not mix well.

Unfortunately, D&D does require some sort of specialization in the sense, that you better have abilities matching your power level (or ECL). You need an attack modifier sufficient to hit AC common for your level, you need to deal high enough damage to contribute in a meaningful way, and so on. Every two level ups the overall power of a character doubles in D&D.

Now, power isn't everything, and noone can tell you not to play or enjoy such a character, but you were asking for advice and that's the most obvious piece of it. With such a class combination, you will be multiple levels behind in total power compared to a single class or complementing multiclass concept. Practiced Spellcaster will make up for some, but not even close to all of this lack for the warmage side. I don't know of anything, that will make up for the loss on the fighter side. You get some nifty magical range attacks as a compensation, but as explained above, those are just another form of weaponry.

And especially when it comes to combat, such a weakness is bound to show, and then the question is, whether you will enjoy playing a character with such a weakness in his main focus (combat).

If you don't have a problem with it, that's cool, but it's still helpful to point that out, I think.

Bye
Thanee