So what's this Fighter/Mage/Thief thing all about?
Zaruthustran
The tingling means it’s working!
Wilphe said:
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:
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.
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:
trancejeremy
Adventurer
The Grey Mouser was a Fighter/Thief/Mage. Very little on the Mage part, though.
Wilphe
Adventurer
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?
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.
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.
Similar Threads
