Why Fighter/Mage?

[InVinoVeritas]

I was reading the Fighter/Mage thread, and thought... Fighter/Mages are popular, so popular, people are inventing shorthand to describe them (gish et al.). There is always plenty of discussion regarding how to do a fighter/mage well--somehow, both melee combat and arcane magic together are important.

But I don't see as many discussions regarding other combos. What makes a good Cleric/Ranger? Fighter/Rogue? Just plain Rogue?

Why do we need to combine melee and arcane might in the same package? Why can't it be left to, say, a fighter and a mage?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I love Fighter/Rogues.

Always have to take the Rogue class at first level. They're skill monkeys and you want to multiply those 8 rogue skill ponits x4, not the crappy 2 fighters get. After that I usually take more fighter than rogue levels. I want the rogue to reach Evasion but beyond that I'm not too worried. ANd I'm not worried about Evasion until AoE attacks become more common (circa 5th to 6th level) so I don't rush it.

And I like fighters for the feats. ANd the hit points and BAB of course. But mostly the feats. IN many ways Fighter/Rogue makes a better Ranger than a Ranger. They have the sneakiness to move around in the woodlands and the sneak attack to make use of all those ambushes. Of course a Ranger/Rogue is pretty durn nice for this too. But I'd miss the versatility that a fighter can have.

ANd I'd go human. The extra feat and extra skill points are just so good.

 

[Kesh]

Because a guy/girl slashing someone with their blade and then flinging another opponent across the room with telekinesis is cool.

Just look at Star Wars.

As for "why not others?" Well, the other combinations don't really contrast much. Cleric/Ranger is… well, a cleric with a sword in the woods? Fighter/Rogue is one of those that more people want (lightly armored, dextrous swordsman) but hasn't worked so well in previous versions of D&D. Maybe 4e can help that.

 

[FireLance]

I'd say it's because the archetype of the fighter (physical power) and the archetype of the mage (mental or magical power) seem so diametrically opposed that any character who can pull both off at the same time seems a bit more exceptional.

One edition of Tunnels and Trolls that I played over 20 years ago had two base classes, the warrior and the wizard, and a third (the warrior/wizard) that combined them both and required exceptional ability scores to get into (IIRC, 13+ out of 3d6 in every score).

Historically, the Basic D&D Elf class was also essentially a fighter/mage, so this gives the combination a bit more traction with some older players.

 

[Nifft]

But I don't see as many discussions regarding other combos. What makes a good Cleric/Ranger? Fighter/Rogue? Just plain Rogue?

Most other combos don't need a lot of discussion.

Want a great Cleric/Ranger? Elf Cloistered Cleric with the Travel and Plant domains. Your first level feat is Track. Later, take Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. Done.

Cleric/Rogue? Cloistered Cleric with Travel and Trickery. Take actual Rogue levels if you want, or not. Shadowbane Stalker is there for you if you want sneak attack.

Want a great Rogue/Full BAB class? Just multiclass; it will probably be good. Rogue mixes very well already, without much fiddling.

Want a great Divine tank? Play a Cleric or Druid. They're already Godzilla, right out of the box.

With arcane + melee, there's at least something to talk about.

Cheers, -- N

 

[FalcWP]

Well, Fighter/Mage (I'll use the word for Wizards and Sorcerers, since both are viable) types are big because there's so much difference between them. A Fighter/Rogue isn't a big difference... its a pair of physical combat classes. The two get features that naturally compliment each other - more feats gives a rogue extra options in combat or frees up general feats for other stuff, and sneak attack lets a fighter hit harder. You might play a fighter/rogue a bit different than a fighter or a rogue... but you might not.

A Fighter/Mage, though... the two aren't complimentary on the surface. The fighter who takes Wizard levels loses out on BAB and HP, the Wizard who takes Fighter levels gains combat feats which aren't as big for him... and takes a casting hit. So the Fighter/Mage relies on exotic combinations - he buffs himself or his weapons, or hinders his opponent, to make up for what he's sacrificed. A Fighter/Mage can't be played like a fighter or a mage, so it merits more conversation and consideration.

There are some other combinations like this, of course. Basically, anything that adds a few levels of a wizard or sorcerer without concentrating fully on casting has to be played different, from rogue/wizards to ranger/sorcerers. Most other combinations can get by focusing on melee, particularly one where half of the combo is a melee-focused class. If the other half is a cleric or druid, they can go heavy on melee and just use some spells to supplement their attacks, or heal, etc.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think it goes back to 2E, when the multiclassing rules for non-humans were so beneficial that a non-human could outshine a human with no effort at all, unless the game actually when on to a level where the human was several spell levels ahead of the wizard/warrior.

In 2E an elven wizard fighter wcould acheive massivel evels in both classes, and was far more effective than any single class.

Human; 15th level wizard
Elf 14th level wizard and 14th level figheter(or rogue, or anything)

Big power difference.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Prob'ly goes back to the old 'you can't do that', answered with the equally old 'in that case, I want to.'

Plus, D&D has had perhaps the weakest reason of any system for mages not being able to cast spells while wearing armour, on top of the insisting that it's so in general. There are lesser offences too, but that one stands out. So, there is the angle of 'well, why the hell not?' as well.

 

[Darkness]

In 2E an elven wizard fighter wcould acheive massivel evels in both classes, and was far more effective than any single class.

Human; 15th level wizard
Elf 14th level wizard and 14th level figheter(or rogue, or anything)

Big power difference.

Well, big XP difference. A single-classed wizard who's as experienced as that Wiz14/Ftr14 guy would be level 18, not 15.

The issue you mention certainly exists in 2e, but it's somewhat less pronounced at levels as high as these.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Easy. 'Cause you get to do cool magic stuff, then when you run out of magic tricks you're not useless. Plus the rolemodels are cool: Dilvish, Fafhrd, Corwin, and so on.