log in or register to remove this ad

 

So what's this Fighter/Mage/Thief thing all about?

Wilphe

Explorer
I have no 2E experience apart from BG and BGII, so it's rather odd to me.


So, what's the archetype for a Fighter/Mage/Thief?

What's the rationale?

What would one look like in 3E or 3.5E?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zaruthustran

The tingling means it’s working!
Wilphe said:
I have no 2E experience apart from BG and BGII, so it's rather odd to me.


So, what's the archetype for a Fighter/Mage/Thief?

What's the rationale?

What would one look like in 3E or 3.5E?

The idea was to get a character that could fight and wear armor, cast spells, and have cool thief abilities. Early editions of D&D allowed casting in armor, and everyone likes to do double damage when attacking from behind.

Well, in 3E it'd be pretty easy: a fighter/mage/thief is a fighter1/wizard1/rogue1. You'd probably start as rogue for the skill points, then fighter for the feat, hps, armor, and +1 BAB (can draw a weapon during a move), then wizard for spell access.

The rationale remains the same: to have a character that has lot of abilities and options. The most common reason for taking just 1 level of Wizard is so you can use wands and scrolls. Casting 2 spells/day (with armor failure chance) is not that big a deal, but it's fun being able to blast away with a wand of Fireballs.

-z
 

AeroDm

First Post
In 2e you could multi-class into certain class combos depending on your race. Each class had seperate xp requirements and by multiclassing you leveled seperately when you hit each marker. Because experience increased exponentially, the earlier levels were easier to hit than the higher. Hence, having three classes meant you got a lot of powers quickly.
 

AeroDm

First Post
Also- if you used skills and powers it could get pretty ugly when you played a thief with one or two thief abilities, but then ported your remaining 100 points later into the character generation process to purchase traits, skills, and other assets. It was totally against the spirit of the rules, but it worked.
 

MrFilthyIke

First Post
You could sorta replice it by going Fighter/Bard. Cast in light armor, wield weapons good saves in all three categories. Your spells are limited, but you could focus on two classes instead of three.
 
Last edited:

Azlan

First Post
RE: Fighter/Mage/Thief (or Fighter/Wizard/Rogue)

Such a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" character works well for small groups, with two or three players. But if you have five or six players, then it works better for each character to have a specialty, i.e. for each player character to have only one or maybe two classes, because it makes for better and more interesting teamwork.
 
Last edited:

Eolin

First Post
or just go cleric with magic and trickery domains.

Sure, simple weapons. So? If necessary, pick up a martial weapon prof.
 
Last edited:


Wilphe

Explorer
Given the complaints that most Fighter/Spellcaster combos cause a significant drop in caster levels, isn't taking two non-spellcasting levels to a useful level a big hit?

Ftr2/Rge3 would seem a good base to build on and quite strong.

but is adding 5, 10 or 15 levels of Wizard on top a viable choice?
 

AFGNCAAP

First Post
Well...

The fighter/mage/thief in previous (pre 3.X) editions of D&D was a nifty class that allowed a player to do most anything, but as per older versions of D&D (rather I should say AD&D), any XP you earn would be split 3 ways, making for an extremely slow character progression. The only other variation on the 3-multi-class combo was the cleric/fighter/mage. For the F/M/T, only elves & half-elves could select this as a multi-class option; & only half-elves could choose the C/F/M combo.

As for an archetype, the only example I could guess would be the Gray Mouser, though he's human. Otherwise, I'd gather that it was an extention of the "elf" class from earlier versions of D&D, which was essentially a fighter/mage with some unique racial abilities added on.

The 3-way multi-class PCs were a great boon for a small group of players--it was a way to "cover all the bases" for AD&D games. Also, it was a way to have "back-ups" in larger groups that weren't doubles, per se.

For example, a group of 6 players could have a fighter as the main combatant, a mage as the main arcane spellcaster, a priest as the main divine spellcaster, and a thief as the main trap disarmer/lockpicker, plus have a fighter/thief/mage and a fighter/cleric present as "back-ups"--basically characters able to cover when the single-focus PCs are, for example, running low on spells or getting overwhelmed by opponents.

However, the race/class restrictions with AD&D pretty much made elves & half-elves very popular choices for players who wanted to multi-class, esp. if they wanted to select mages for multi-classing. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs pretty much were stuck either being fighter/thieves or fighter/clerics (though, IIRC, half-orcs could be cleric/thieves, and gnomes could be multi-classed illusionist specialist mages). The slower movement rate didn't help the smaller races much, nor did the chance of magical malfunction for gnomes & dwarves (well, from what I could tell/have experienced, at least). Humans were popular since there were some human-only classes, & since they didn't have to deal with level limits at all (&, if a PC was lucky enough, he/she could opt to dual-class if his/her stats were high enough).

In 3.X D&D, it is feasible to go with such a multi-classed character, but more likely than not, it'd be either a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of character, or it'd be a a character of 1 class who dabbled a bit in a couple of other classes.

There are some PrCs that augment certain multi-classing choices, like the arcane trickster for rogue/arcane spellcaster combos, the mystic theurge for divine spellcaster/arcane spellcaster combos, and the eldritch knight for a warrior-class/arcane spellcaster combos. But, more often than not, it's just for a 2-core class combo.

The bard class is the closest thing that I can think of for a "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of character--a skilled character with some weapon & armor abilities, some spellcasting ability (which isn't penalized for wearing armor), and some healing spells even though the bard's an arcane spellcasting class.
 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...
Wilphe said:
Given the complaints that most Fighter/Spellcaster combos cause a significant drop in caster levels, isn't taking two non-spellcasting levels to a useful level a big hit?

Ftr2/Rge3 would seem a good base to build on and quite strong.

but is adding 5, 10 or 15 levels of Wizard on top a viable choice?

Rog3/Ftr1/Wiz5 qualifies you for both Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, but it costs you 5 caster levels (including EK1).

Rog1/Ftr1/Wiz5/Asn1 saves you a caster level, but it's evil only.

Someone with Complete Warrior will have to say how a Rog/Hexblade/Arcane Trickster looks.

-Hyp.
 

Rog/Ftr/Wiz can also focus on one particular subset of the Rogue or Fighter roles, rather than being a generalist. Take invisibility, spider climb, and some archery feats and you have a scout with some good first strike ability to take out sentries. Or suit up in fullplate, pick up W1 (diviner for True Strike) and R2 for evasion, and you have a capable melee combatant with a lot of bonuses and options at the cost of 2 BAB and 5 hp.
A level of Fighter often helps a rogue, as does a level of Wizard. I think the build is best for a rogue-focused character, but it's also good for a fighter. It isn't so good for wizards, especially since you can get evasion from a ring.
It is certainly good for the "lone wolf" type. You could do a Batman-type character quite easily, with magic filling in for Batman's technology (normally, I can't stand the magic-as-technology concept, but comic-book technology really is magic dressed up as science).
 

Viktyr Gehrig

First Post
Hypersmurf said:
Rog3/Ftr1/Wiz5 qualifies you for both Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, but it costs you 5 caster levels (including EK1).

But, I would say that it's probably the only situation in which losing five caster levels could possibly be worth it. You'd have a wide range of skills, a good BAB (you'll average out to a bit over a Rogue BAB), massive Sneak Attack, and fifteen caster levels gives you all the ugly tricks you can use to take advantage of your high BAB and Sneak Attack.
 

apsuman

First Post
also...

in 2e, iirc xp requirements bascially doubled each level.

fighters had to get 2000 for level 2, 4000 for level 3, etc.
mages had to get 2500 for level 2, 5000 for level 3, etc.
thieves had to get 1250 for level 2, 2500 for level 3, etc.

So if you had a straight fighter, a straight mage, and a straight thief, and our F/M/T and everyone earned 24000 XP

The fighter would be level 5 (8000 shy of level 6)
The Mage would be level 5 (16000 shy of level 5)
The thief would be level 6 (16000 shy of level 7)

The F/M/T would be F4/W3/R4 (according to 3e thought, this is 11 charater levels, not bad)

If everyone had 96000 xp, we get

A level 7 fighter
A level 7 mage
A level 8 thief

or a F6/W5/R6 (17 character levels)

So the multi classes chars in 2e were behind, but not that far behind.

Again, iirc.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top