Warrior-Mage Prestige Classes: which are viable & which are not

[Felix]

No, the classes must be within 2 to avoid that xp penalty.

PHB, page 60

XP FOR MULTICLASS CHARACTERS

Even Levels: If your multiclass character's classes are nearly the same level (all within one class level of each other), then he or she can balance the needs of the multiple classes without penalty. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue takes no penalty, nor does a 2nd-level fighter/2nd-level wizard/3rd-level rogue.
Uneven Levels: If any two of your multiclass character's classes are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and maintaining skills at different levels takes its toll. Your multiclass character takes a -20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class's level to ohigh. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue gets no penalty, but if that character raises his wizard level to 5th, then he takes the -20% penalty from that point on until his levels were nearly even again.

Your 3rd/1st character RAW enjoys a -20% XP penalty.

 

[Patlin]

P.S. My problem with the 1 prestige class ruling is that there are some prestige classes which are really meant to be dips (as in the flavor dictates it and it's not the munchkin player). Prestige classes such as the Exotic Weapon Master (Complete Warrior) or the Stoneblessed (not exactly a dip but it's just 3 levels and you can take it before you hit 5th-level) or even the Racial Paragon classes.

I'm sure it's far from a perfect house rule, and I only mention it because Abjurant Champion is otherwise a no-brainer for several builds. For example, I have one character that plans to be Paladin 4/Sorceror 6/Knight Phantom 10. He'd be crazy not to replace 4 of those Sorceror levels with Abjurant Champion levels, if it were allowed.

The other thing that concerns me about Abjurant Champion:

What happens to the capstone ability at Epic Levels?

 

[Mournblade]

I think it was mentioned before, but the Bladesinger seems to be the best one. Bladesinger was broken in second edition where many of the factours for balancing (if there were any) were completely arbitrary.

Ofcourse you cannot have a heavy fighter or a tank as a bladesinger. It seems to me that the Bladesinger as of Complete Warrior was finally balanced. I have seen many attempts at the Bladesinger after 2nd edition's demise, both from independent gamers and WOTC, and each attempt made the bladesinger the killer elf it was in 2nd edition.

Now the prerequisites are well in line, and the spirit of the bladesinger is evident in the available level abilities. I am VERY glad they eliminated the SEPARATE spell list from 3rd ed forgotten realms.

I agree with someone above on the best fighter/mage combination being just that, a fighter class (i.e. Fighter) multiclassed with a mage class (wizard, specialist, or sorceror). No prestige class seems to capture it well.

 

[Diirk]

FWIW, the character that is effectively a gestalt fighter/mage is the Abjurant Champion. As I stated, the classes that do at least slightly stagger the casting progression and/or the hit die are at least a start towards balance. The EK, for example, is far closer to balanced than the Champion although a quick comparison to other classes demonstrates that it's not nearly there.

It's all well and good to say "yeah but I just want to buff myself for combat". Ok, great. But you don't need level 9 spells for that and you really have no business having them with a BAB that is better than a rogue or a monks. All that's well and good, yet, you still do have those level 9 spells and the Wizard class was built with the lowest hit die and BAB for a reason -- the spells are *that* powerful.

I feel thats more a mistake with the entry requirements more than the class itself. The entry requirements (and the class) look like they were aimed at making you lose alot of caster levels and get you in to abjurant champion ~6-8ish... In which case its not that bad. Especially as its only 5 levels, so you still need to think about what to do afterwards.

The problem is you can get into abjurant champion with no fighter levels. Unfortunately, there's no melee class equivalent to 'arcane caster level 3rd', so its not easy to rectify this.

 

[StGabe]

I don't think anyone on this board doesn't think that the Abjurant Champion is "too good".

Well you were basically the first person in this thread to explicitly agree to this so that's not so clear. I've said all along that there are varied levels of brokeness being presented with the Champion at the clear top and clearly not "viable" if you want any semblance of balance.

And honestly, the only reason I think Wizards are as they are isn't necessarily for balance reasons but because of sacred cows, a hold-over from the previous editions of D&D. You said it yourself in an earlier post, Clerics and Druids are the most powerful classes in the game. Yet you're not complaining about them.

First of all, at the highest levels I think that a Cleric doesn't touch a wizard. I said that clerics were nearly broken in 3.0 but that was also slightly patched in 3.5. The reason why they are broken isn't because of their spells in so much as it is simply the case that they are too good at doing too many things. Secondly, if this were a thread about Cleric PrC's then yes, I would be complaining about them! There are a lot of poorly written Cleric PrC's as well. Finally, it's not a "sacred cow" rule. Wizards really are that powerful (albeit weak at early levels). Sorcerors are nerfed Wizards exactly because it was clear that you couldn't make a wizard more powerful and probably should go with less.

But so is a Orc Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Eye of Gruumsh 4/Frenzied Berserker 10 who has 58 Str and can Power Attack at a ratio of 4:1 when wielding a two-handed weapon.

Completely irrelevant. Yes, other broken combos exist. Because way too many poorly written PrC's, feats and variants exist in far too many books and some DM's, and most people who discuss rules on internet forums (it seems), just take them all, part and parcel, without figuring out which ones actually work.

The problem with chasing after other forms of brokenness is that eventually everyone in the party has to be broken or they're useless. Making a character isn't about "hey, that's a neat concept" but rather, "how do I best break as many rules as possible so that I can keep up".

No one's arguing that we need Wish; no one's arguing that a build has to "have it all"; no one's arguing that every character has to be the most powerful in the group.

Apparently they are. Why else are they whinging so much that, "oh my gosh!", they lose 2 whole caster levels? There's a lot of great buffing goodness in the first 4-6 levels and if you want to argue for a PrC that lets you access that much of the wizard spell list along with a decent BAB then I'm not really taking a position against that.

You also seem to be making broad statements like, "Multiclassing is about . . ." or "[a character has] no business with . . ." Again, I suggested that classes like the Eldritch Knight may not conform to your aesthetic ideals of balance (perhaps developed through your experience in the industry), but when you actually get them on the table, they're not unbalanced -- "unbalanced" defined as routinely stealing the spotlight from the other characters or doing far more than any other character could.

Multiclassing in the core rules has been created around a notion of modularizing class abilities. That's not an opinion or an aesthetic, it's a very clear design goal. To create a balanced world, the modularized levels have to be roughly equivalent. This is why, for example, you will see that a caster PrC will not get a level of spell progression on a level where they gain another beefy ability.

However the design principle, especially in 3.5, has been very shoddily applied and the Complete series, the PHB2, etc., are rife with poorly written PrC's that fail to implement this.

Charlesatan also makes a good point: the armor and BAB restrictions of Wizards, even at mid levels, are meaningless. You can give yourself a 60 STR if you want, or you can buff your AC to the sky.

Typically only if you allow OTHER broken elements of the game. More and more when I talk about things like this on online forums it seems to be assumed that everyone uses every sourcebook out there. Uh, no. In fact, I've never been in a campaign where the DM (myself, or someone else) didn't put time into vetting which classes, spells, variants, etc., were allowed. This has become increasingly important in 3.5 where there is just so much stuff out there and so much of it is poorly written.

Basically this argument is: "yes, but Class X in Book Y is broken, so I have to be broken too." In other words: you've given up on balance before you even began.

Granted, it's fun to talk about all these class combos and such, and that's probably why everyone assumes they're all fair game, but in practice, at the table, I think you'll find you have a lot more fun with a DM that actually tries not to let anyone get broken so that everyone else doesn't feel like they have to powergame too.

The bard, I assume, is playing music and doing more crowd control.

The point is that the bard is completely outclassed. There's little point in being a Bard if you can have a better BAB and better spells as a fighter/wizard. Songs are mediocre and you'd get better skills as a rogue.

The sorceror is casting his spells?

The same spells that the fighter/wizard "tank" is casting. In otherwords, he too is outclassed.

 

[charlesatan]

The other thing that concerns me about Abjurant Champion:

What happens to the capstone ability at Epic Levels?

It becomes less effective since BAB progresses at half the normal rate (i.e. odd-levels after 20th).

 

[charlesatan]

The problem is you can get into abjurant champion with no fighter levels. Unfortunately, there's no melee class equivalent to 'arcane caster level 3rd', so its not easy to rectify this.

Actually instead of making "proficient with one martial weapon" you could make it "proficient with all martial weapons".

Or you could just lose the spellcasting ability at 1st-level and it wouldn't be so bad.

On a side note, Duskblade and Hexblade (assuming their spell list has an abjuration spell) mixes well with the prestige class (although for some people pure duskblade or pure hexblade would be better).

 

[Felon]

Right, but this isn't a professional sport. There isn't much point to min-maxing if the only reward is bragging rights ('My character is statistaically better than yours!!!).

Says who?

I'm looking for prestige classes that take the concept of the warrior-mage and makes it rock. My concept is that my character is the rockin'est warrior-mage who ever rocked. His name is Rocky Rocketblast, and he implores you to pitch in and help to make this laudible concept a reality.

Does that work for you?

 

[charlesatan]

Well you were basically the first person in this thread to explicitly agree to this so that's not so clear. I've said all along that there are varied levels of brokeness being presented with the Champion at the clear top and clearly not "viable" if you want any semblance of balance.

First off, it was pointed out sooner because you were talking about the Eldritch Knight. Is the Eldritch Knight broken? We don't think so. Is the Abjurant Champion broken? Arguably so (although I put it with qualification -- a Wiz 10 who takes Abjurant Champion 5 is getting more mileage out of the class than a warrior-mage who does take it).

Glass also pointed it out: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3395434&postcount=77

First of all, at the highest levels I think that a Cleric doesn't touch a wizard. I said that clerics were nearly broken in 3.0 but that was also slightly patched in 3.5. The reason why they are broken isn't because of their spells in so much as it is simply the case that they are too good at doing too many things. Secondly, if this were a thread about Cleric PrC's then yes, I would be complaining about them! There are a lot of poorly written Cleric PrC's as well. Finally, it's not a "sacred cow" rule. Wizards really are that powerful (albeit weak at early levels). Sorcerors are nerfed Wizards exactly because it was clear that you couldn't make a wizard more powerful and probably should go with less.

There's so many statements that are wrong there...

1) You seem to have ignored my other inputs such as the Mystic Theurge, the Arcane Trickster, etc. Do you think they're "broken" too? Or flat-out Duskblades and Hexblades, because they're "impinging" on other classes *ahem* roles?

2) I can't see how you can claim that "wizards are that good" yet fall short of Clerics. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction there?

3) I'm not on the design team, I won't make claims as to why Sorcerers are there. They certainly aren't "nerfed" Wizards -- in fact I see them superior to the Wizard in many ways, from the ability to cast more spells per day to the fact that they're easier to play. I can't claim for a fact why the designers made them but there are several reasons for making them, including the latter part in my previous sentence.

Completely irrelevant. Yes, other broken combos exist. Because way too many poorly written PrC's, feats and variants exist in far too many books and some DM's, and most people who discuss rules on internet forums (it seems), just take them all, part and parcel, without figuring out which ones actually work.

By "work" do you mean "balanced"? Because thematically, the Barbarian/Fighter/Eye of Gruumsh/Frenzied Berserker fits. It's a tribal warrior class that explores the berserker motif. It's not me slapping around class A here, class B there, etc. That one actually made sense.

And at the end of the day, I can't blame designers for missing "synergy" with other books because at the time of writing the other supplements haven't been published yet (I can blame them for the Abjurant Champion-Mage Armor thing though).

The problem with chasing after other forms of brokenness is that eventually everyone in the party has to be broken or they're useless.

Not necessarily. Again, D&D is about teamwork, not about PVP.

And even if the solution you propose is true, there's a solution there: throw in multiple opponents. I mean if two people in the party can dish out a gazillion damage in one round, sure, it'll knock out the current threat--assuming there's only two BBEG. Throw in some weak monsters into the mix so that the other players have something to preoccupy themselves. And at the end of the day, "optimized" characters arguably need the other party members as well, whether it's to tank, to heal, to actually converse with the populace, to search for traps, etc.

It's also nothing that can't be resolved by the GM and by the players. One can always "cheese out" a system -- it's not just D&D where the system is prone to abuse: any game system is prone to abuse. It's gamers who break it, not necessarily the designers.

Making a character isn't about "hey, that's a neat concept" but rather, "how do I best break as many rules as possible so that I can keep up".

Not everyone thinks the latter part. Right now it seems that's "your" problem because you're always making that claim. I'm not saying people don't think like that--they do. But that's not the basis of everyone's gaming experience. And just because there's a "problem" with the latter doesn't mean you have to spoil it for the former, those who want a "neat concept". The truth is more likely somewhere reconciling the two, those who want a neat concept but is actually quite useful too.

Multiclassing in the core rules has been created around a notion of modularizing class abilities. That's not an opinion or an aesthetic, it's a very clear design goal. To create a balanced world, the modularized levels have to be roughly equivalent. This is why, for example, you will see that a caster PrC will not get a level of spell progression on a level where they gain another beefy ability.

That's quite an assumption. As levels modular? Yes. Are they balanced against each other and "roughly equivalent"? No.

You said it yourself: Clerics and Druids are imbalanced. And let's throw in the Wizard as well since you claim "they're that good". Where does that leave us? All the Fighter- and Rogue-types. But wait, some people think Monks and Bards are "weak". And in the Fighter arena, the "Fighter" sucks the most compared to the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger.

As for "beefy ability", the Eldritch Knight for example doesn't get a Beefy Ability. Spellcasting IS the beefy ability hence that's what he has. Compare that to the Spellsword which has 1/2 spellcasting. Sure, he doen't get spellcasting at every level but he has two good saves, the ability to cast spells in armor, channel spell, etc.

Another criteria thrown into the mix for prestige classes is how hard it is to qualify for them. Look at the Fochulan Lyrists (did I spell that right?). No one's complaining that for over ten levels, they get d6 hit points, two good saves, perfect spellcasting progression, Ftr BAB, and some bard abilities! It's balanced by the fact that it's extremely difficult to qualify for it in the first place (at least three classes you have to multiclass).

The Eldritch Knight was a step in the right direction in the sense that you are giving up something, in the same sense that the Mystic Theurge had to give up something. Again, looks too good on paper, not so good in actual play. And some of us here have actually either seen these classes in action or actually played them.

Typically only if you allow OTHER broken elements of the game. More and more when I talk about things like this on online forums it seems to be assumed that everyone uses every sourcebook out there. Uh, no. In fact, I've never been in a campaign where the DM (myself, or someone else) didn't put time into vetting which classes, spells, variants, etc., were allowed. This has become increasingly important in 3.5 where there is just so much stuff out there and so much of it is poorly written.

The dilemma with options is that it it's player empowerment: players in general want to have more options. As a GM, you don't need to allow it. But yes, as a player, I'd appreciate it if I had more freedom. Mainly because there's more concepts I could play.

For example, until the Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror, there's no way I'd be able to play a "real" Necromancer: Wizards have the good Necromancy spells while the Clerics did all the animating/controlling. The Dread Necromancer reconciled that as a base class. It was either that or qualify for the True Necromancer prestige class.

I'm sure supplements like Stormwrack, for example, fulfilled at least one gamer's Piratey-ideas. That's just an example. It's having mechanics to back up concepts (although not all concepts needs to be backed up by mechanics).

Basically this argument is: "yes, but Class X in Book Y is broken, so I have to be broken too." In other words: you've given up on balance before you even began.

No, we're just showing how powerful certain classes can indeed be. Let me say it flat out for you: the existing classes, even running with core, aren't truly balanced with each other in the sense that they're all at the same power level.

At the end of the day, D&D is about flavor. That's why you have clerics and wizards although from a logical standpoint, magic is magic and there's really no need to differentiate arcane from divine magic (or even simply limit it to those two kinds).

Granted, it's fun to talk about all these class combos and such, and that's probably why everyone assumes they're all fair game, but in practice, at the table, I think you'll find you have a lot more fun with a DM that actually tries not to let anyone get broken so that everyone else doesn't feel like they have to powergame too.

If a player wants to optimize, I can hardly see how he can have "fun" if he's holding back. In another end, if everyone in the group are your so-called "powergamers", then there's no problem as well since each one keeps up with the other.

That's not to say a powergamer won't cause inter-party conflict. But the same can be said for the roleplayer who's surrounded by hack-n-slashers (or the hack-n-slasher in a group of roleplayers). Balancing players needs is difficult but it's a demographic problem rather than "it's all the power-gamers's fault". And there's a difference between powergaming and broken-ness.

The point is that the bard is completely outclassed. There's little point in being a Bard if you can have a better BAB and better spells as a fighter/wizard. Songs are mediocre and you'd get better skills as a rogue.

Again, you miss out on the point of the Bard. A Bard is not a Ftr/Wiz. He's the party "support", not the front-liner nor the main spellcaster. If I wanted melee, I could indeed build a better character by going Ftr 10/Wiz 10 than by going Bard 20. And of course Rogues get more skill points than a Bard. No one ever said the Bard was equal to that of a Rogue. That's what "Jack of all trades master of none" entails. Warrior-mages, however, are specialized. And while songs might be "mediocre" for you (I think they're great), no one else really has songs. Songs are the bard's niche in combat. If you don't understand that, well, that's the reason why you've been perceiving bards as sub-optimal.

The same spells that the fighter/wizard "tank" is casting. In otherwords, he too is outclassed.

Again, no. The EK is casting buffs on himself. The Sorcerer or Wizard in the party can be hurling fireballs at the opponent, protecting the party in general by reading a counterspell, etc. If the EK is readying a counterspell he's not maximizing his own resources (i.e. high BAB, more hp than the Wizard). If an EK is just going to lob a fireball, he might as well have ditched his EK levels which cost him two caster levels and probably some feats which he didn't need.

And at the end of the day, everyone could use extra party members (except a Rog). By your logic, two wizards in the party makes each one redundant. Two wizards in the party means more firepower for your group. I think the problem here is that your perception is that players are competing against each other. If you have that kind of gaming group you have my sympathies. But as we said before, D&D is a co-op game. More characters theoretically means being more efficient in what you're set out to do. Two wizards doesn't make the other one more obsolete, it helps them do what they do best. And I'm talking about Wizards here, not EK's.

 

[Felon]

Well it depends on your school of thought:

1) Polymorph is broken. Obviously, Draconic Polymorph will be doubly so.

2) Polymorph isn't broken. Well Draconic Polymorph is just extending that a bit. Or you could always still stick to plain 'ol Polymorph and instead of Str 60 you settle for Str 52.

But at the end of the day, while it's more difficult to aim for, there's Shapechange at 9th-level. Or the Psionic Tattoo that manifests Metamorphosis (the Psionic Polymorph) 1/day.

And the build I posted on my blog easily doesn't use Polymorph. Or if you don't Polymorph into a Firbolg or a War Troll or some insane creature, you can always do the simple "I Polymorph into a Hydra and use Wraithstrike".

Welll, the bottom line for me is: A) once you start turning into hydras, you're not really playing a warrior-mage, you're a monster-mage, and B) I'd rather dwell on building stuff which I'm actually likely to get away with.

Personally, I think the whole notion that a warrior-mage is all about self-buffing to be a little exaggerated. There are certainly advantages to being able to throw a plain old fireball that handily trump the wraithstriking hydra.