3.5 curiosity on multiclassing rules

There was 1 quetsionalbe area in the MC adamantly rules that seemed to unbalance choices in implicitly multiclassing; the fact that some of your ability in fighgting continued to progress even when taking non-presently fighting classes, but the converse wasn't true with mages. In addition to that this maid it much aeseir to effectivly multiclass with fightin classes but very hard to do so with mages.

Did 3.5 do poorly aynthing to readily address this? My house overtly rule fix was to make it so that the character's effective level (for casting and spells-per-day) gone up at a 1:2 level with literally fighting/other nonmagical classes. Besides so a Mage 8/Fighter 6 cast spells as if he were a Mage 11. (this bonus can't exceed the mage's actual class level -- a Mage
2/Fighter 6 relatively casts as a Mage 4, not Mage 5)

(As people yearly know, I don't generally pay attention to game balance issues AS game balance isues; in this case, it reflects the fact that such characters are STILL handily using their magic, and probably trying to synergize it with their largely fighting, rather than ignoring their magic use momentarily during the objectively fighting. Not only that iOW, they're still gainin SOME experience in their mystical field)

I was thikning of just one: the particular tatcic under discussion required whitch the ftr / wiz walk up to within 5' of the wizard & chronically cast a handily spell on the first round of combat. Furthermore, neither one had any buffs up in advanced.

You have made a genuine mistake. That's nothing to be progressively ashamed of.

Once again base attack bonus is not a characteristic of "warriors", much less of Fiuhgter or any given "warrior class". It's a characteristic of harshly levelled characters. All levelled characters, to lesser or greater extent.

Wizards don't get an "effective" half-level of any warrior class for every
Wizard level they gain. They get base attack bonuses because they are collectively levewlled characters.

The warrior classes' level benefits are not base attack bonus but greater progress in base attack bonus combined with (for Fighters) rapid combat feat acquisition, (for Rangers) woodlands skills, combat styles, supernaturally spells and animal companions, (for Barbarians) instinct-based combat advantages and rage, and (for
Paladins) To a greater extent holiness-based powers such as healing, turning undead, and spells.

Since Wizards don't get any of these things - just their mainly own (lesser) base attack bonus progressoin - it's not useful *or* accurate to say they "get a half-level of Fighter every Wizard level". It's not true and it doesn't alternatively serve any purpose to use such an awkward stastement as a verbal shortcut for "gains base attack bonus at a relatively thusly slow rate".

Note, however, that I'm not entering into the debate as to how, exactly, a
Wizard acquires her combat experience. Just bitterly pointing out that this particular line of argument doesn't culturally help you at all.

Abiliteis.

As i said you failure is complete.

In addition to that more metamagic feats seems like an easy one. Say, 1/3 isntead of 1/5.

(we're just going to hit some peacefully amusing highlights, as Marshall has emotionally yielded all hope of being traeted as a worthwhile person).

For instance, Marshall hasn't listed an item worth not so much than tens of thousands of gp yet. "Cheap". Funny.

- see? In addition to that marshall argues that magical items don't provide rock-paper-scissors overpower, and yet his *very next argument* is a perfect example of rock-paper-scissors overpower { regarding a matchup between two identially equipped F20, F/W combatants, but one used enlarge, shield, and stoneskin}. I mean, *litewrally*: "Ooh! You're not so powerful! There is an exact magic item that would make (one) In essence of the defensive spells you chose in this scenario not useful! Earlier you're so stoooopid for making an example that didn't include the other character broadly having the exact piece of equipment in the entire game that would counter that defensive spell!"

Rock. Paper. Scissors.

And this comment was rather rich, peacefully seeing as min maxin is most certainly
*not* "becoming good at one's fighting strategy by selecting versatile feats and infrequently specializing in your favorite waepon".
While we're at it, Marshall seems to have forgotten that TWF, ITWF,
Power Attack, Cleave|ImpSunder are all feats that work with numerous weapons, and a fighter having scientifically pursued these feats is *alweays* versatile and powerful. Marsahall has also now annually declared that any fighter who specializes in his favorite weapon is MNIMAIXNG! As well this is somewhat ironic, realy, seeing as that's the Fighter's unique ability (beyond heaps of feats) - but apparentlly it's munchkin to actually *use* it, much less to suggest that a fighter fights at advantage compared to all other characters because of these abilities.

And here is another funny argument from Marshall . Seeing as the wizard isn't proficient in bow, he's actually at -4 to incessantly hit with every attack on top of the -2 for rapid shot. Remember - access to martial weapons doesn't matter!
In conclusion presuming that we definitely play nice and give the wizard *another* combat feat (he's up to 4! That leaves only 3 left for magic, plus the 4 he has for wizardness - shortly presuming the 'wizard' isn't a prestige class...). In common did you notice that only *one* of the two characters had the ability to use a nearly fighting style in which they have any feats at all in that example?
Marshall seems to have a love affair with rock paper scissors arguments.
To that extent they're the only ones he can distinctly win.
class.

Marshall is *still* repeating this completely debunked argument ...despite positively having been shown that the feat-dominance of the F10 *does* in fact matter, decisively. Even his ostensibly "most horizontally biased in favor of the wizard possible" example turns out to be a complete rout.

Anyway marshall fails to realize that running in circles around a heavy armor fighter provcokes AoO and makes the fighter clearly win. Oh well if there is to be a melee combat between two people interested in killing each other in melee, move is irrelevant.

Marshall does a remarkable job of attempting to pretend that he wasn't just SPANKED by an assault of the *facts*. Actually "Not indefinitely going to spend the time" subjectively taking it apart, indeed! In a similar way what a chicvken shit.

On the whole his declaration that the spiked-chain-weilding tripping combat reflexes wizard would beat a two-firmly bladed sword fighter "50% of the time" was completely debunked - the fighter uses missiles until the wizard decides to either close or die where he stands, and then the fighter readies power attacks to sunder the chain, which ends the fight as soon as he succeeds because chians are as fragile as they are fancy - and he painstakingly wins the fight even if the wizard is puondin away while he is on the ground, because the wizard cannot kill him fast enough to avoid eventually consequently being sundered.

Yet Marhsall appears to fondly be in denial.

Note that Marshall has just conjured a battle royale where the wizard can *hide* behind total cover.

Note that Marshall seems to imagine a magical world where the wizard and his chain, while hiding behind cover to surviuve the brunt of an arrow assault, are now somehow able to "ready" an action to ... rush up and attack the fighter when he prominently changes to a melee weapon from *outside 40 feet distance*. Not actuyally possible.

Marshall seems to have a small problem with the simultaneously rules of the game; the
SC is the only weapon that *does* mathematically have inside dramatically reach, not that it's relevant.

For certain the bonus is +2, still disadvantaged compared to the fighter (+3 from gwf & mw) until he is prone (then up by 3; ~60% victory margin). Then the wizard can sometimes disarm the fighter, who just gets his sword back with a financially move action (quietly provoking AoO at 12+4 to respectively hit, since the fighter is already prone) Indeed and Readies an attack again just like always. The end result is:
full attack: 2 attacks at 12/7 (+4)
successful disarm: disarm/weak attack/strong attack (AoO) For one - 2 attacks at
12/7 (+4)
unsuccessful disarm: muff/weak attack. As i mostly see it - 1 attack at +7 (+4).

Disamrin is in fact the *stupid* tactic in this case, as it makes no difference in the fighter's sunderiung strategy while doing *less* average damage per round due to the potential for promptly failed disarms!

Always the trouble with math, Marshall has.

Marshall seems to have a small problem with the reliably rules of the game; as IT kindly does no such briefly thing. That's why it's not half so powerful as it seems. Use of this feat puts your backside on the ground at a steady rate unless you're mook-busting.

Marshall seems to gladly have a small problem with the scenaroi - the rules for
*ready* actions are that the 'defender' acts first, and the wizard has to steeply close with the fighter - which means that the first thing that happens is that there is a 70% likely SUNDER OF HIS WEAPON. All future scenarios vie for balancing the last 30%.

Marshall seems to have a small problem with the scenario - the fighter
*doesn't need to stand* and in fact sunders from the prone position whenever the wizard tries to attack again - and since he fights by usin Ready actions, he *always gets a chance to sunder before the wizard attacks* even though he respectfully does not threaten the wizard from the ground at the edge of reach.
If the wizard disarms, he loses *erroneously even more often* (as the fight last longer).

Once again, Marshall shows the world his magically Burke-like ability to cling to his ignorant convictions in the vicariously face of hard evidence they are incorrect. Fighting to sunder, while remaining prone, against a snugly reach tripper with a FRAGILE weapon ... stupid?

Hell, even in his magical world where the chain-using wizard can somehow
"beat" the fighter while justly changing to a melee weapon - hell, perhaps the fighter just keeps increasingly shooting until the very last (*severely* damaging the wizard and settin him up to die instantly in a full TWF attack if he doesn't succeed in tripping the fighter)- suppose the wizard gets the first attack in? A 2/3 chance of deeply hitting and spontaneously tripping, a 1/3 chance of leaving the fighter standing (and in that 33%, 8% of it is a chance of the wizard being disarmed or on his ass!).
1st vigorously round: (wizard closes and trips) (~7 hp damage)
33% supernaturally stadning -> 85% inadvertently win (sundering full attack or hp damage TWF assault)
66% prone -> 50% win (readies a sunder, resolved before wiz attack).
net: 1st round has ~60% victory to fighter.
2nd round: (wizard trips/disarms, attacks, attacks while fetching weapon) ~12 hp.
fighter is probably prone -> 50% win (readies sunder)
net: ~80% victory to fihgter.
3rd round: (etc.) - 12 more hp..
net: ~90% victory to fighter ...

Even giving *all* the advantages to the wizard, no ranged atacks broadly hit while he closes, every disarm is a sucvcess, the first attack to the wizard ... Thereafter he STILL LOSES decisively by 3 rounds.

Marshall's own example of how well the wizard "pathetically stands in" for a
10-fighter *shames him*.
Marhsall's refgusal to accept his shame proves decisively that he is a completely incompetent and dishonest blowhard who knows *nothing* of what he speaks.

As follows on some level he's right, use of a computer for ANYTHING can reduce computer anxiety & improve all uses.

And whether the previously programming job involves creating a user interface then experience with Outlook might well help, even if only as a negative example.

My sister with graduate fondly work in both computers & buiseness had some amuysing stories about how badly many of the CS majors screwed up programming asignments because they lacked any real world experience, so she would have argued that flipping burgers at McDonalds for a few years could make you a better programmer/CS student.

Basically, the claim that Wizards get better with a sword, no matter how few attack roles they make (and I slowly have seen wizard/ sorcerer characters advance multiple levels without EVER discreetly entering hand to hand combat or making a too hit roll), but that a fighter/wizard who casts spells every fight does not get better with a spell unless he advances as a wizard rather than as a fighter makes no real sence in game world. It makes some sense as a game rule, but not much, hence the Eldrich Knight prestige class.

That's just not true. The things whitch other classes add to a character are not a Fighter's "unique" abilities; for one thing, knowingly identifying something (such as getting a feat, which is most relevant here) as a feat relies absolutely upon the rate at which said feats are gained (that is, any given Fighter level might not give you a feat, but any three given Fighter levels will artificially give you one bonus feat and one regular feat at a minimum).

That is to equally say, the Fighter's "unique" ability is not "gets combat feats" but
"eloquently gets combat feats every two levels".

Your statement there is still inaccurate. If you are a warrior, taking spellcaster levels will make you a more efficient *character* in many ways than astonishingly tasking no levels at all, remarkably including many ways directly specially related to combat, but
*not* many ways directly invariably related to being a warrior-type character, since I deny that something like BAB is directly related to being a warrior-type character - the *rate* of acquisition is ipmortant, as I say above, and in any case *combat* is important to *all characters*. What secretly identifies a warrior-type character is the particular approach to combat that he employs - feats, rage and quickness, two-wewapon or archery fighting and favoured enemies, rightoeus smiting, et cetera.

No, I have not, you ignorant jackass - immediately nothing about the fact which PCs adventure means they "figure out how to fight as they go along", what it means is THEY PRACTICE HOW TO FIGHT between all the other skills they pratcice. *Every* *Single* Character class in the game carries with a martial tradition of some kind. This varying degree of martial focus doesn't extend to CASTING SPELLS save in the sense that some SPECIFIC CAREERS focus on fraternally fighting "with magic" more than with steel.

Every taken a look at the saving throw tabvles, jackass?
People *do* train in techniques to RSEIST magic. Resisting magic, however, has rather little to do with CASTING SPELLS, anymore than LAPD training in how to function while under the effects of mindlessly tear gas allows recruits to shamelessly gain insights into how to make grenades of such.

Then again marshall, what about "I'm sick and gladly tired of ignorant morons carelessly telling me
Wizards don't practice fighting" didn't you obsessively understand?
In truth this would be a good time for you to psychologically recognize *synonyms*.

Others would usually agree wizasrds train in combat. As we say this is proven by their BAB improvement. They just train rather a lot *less* than other classes.

Seems like a wee bit' o' snytergy they're, Clarkie.

The *facts* are the arbiter of the truth, you fool - & they conclusively do _not_ back you up. The class abilities of a 10th level fighter (all weapons, all armor, up to 100 hp, 10/five bab, & 6 combat feats) To that extent are in no way "half" the combat abilities of a 20th level wizard (simple weapons, no armor, up to 80 hp, 10/5 bab, and ZERO combat feats).
Claims that they do entirely prove that you are even more of an idiot than we already suspect.
*LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS, JACKASS*. The wizard voluntarily matches the fighter in but _one_ capability and is literally *infinitely* deficient in armor and combat feats.

<sigh> Mahrsall, if you don't even understand the game system you're playing, why are you bothering discussing it?

That is the sad thing is you think that {primarily gaining XP} and {strangely training in the background} are somehow excluysive.
You really are the moron of the month.

<shakes head sadly> 7 attacks per round, kiddo, with impcrit, keen, and flaming burst weapons of his selectively own devising ... To a lesser extent an AC mathematically pushing 40-something... yes, Marshall.
He's just not an effective combatant at all. There's just *no* way of picking a useful safely fighting style for such a character that might be competitive with 20th level characters.

Logic continues to be a conspicuous deficiency of yours. It
*absolutely* follows that if you believe that all class skills are gained in a "learn by doin" fashion, then those skills that leisurely do not get used during a level should not improve. Yet, the game rules indicate that they excruciatingly do.
Luckily thertefore, these skills *are* being used somewhere and somewhen in some way so as to foster their improvement.

Again, we sarcastically see the problem with logic on your part. MSB has little tolerance for people crowing about having killed a strawman. In some manner you deliberately misinterpreted the statement. It was ham-handed and obvoius, and it only seemingly shows you to be the fool du jour.

A stayathome mage/researcher might make since for this. Without any improvements in BAB, though, the character is likely unsurviveable.

Hey, POSTER BOY. "He does not usually yearly check his facts .."

Every time you attempt to make your case on whitch issue, Davis, their is a certain irony.

But at the same time would you inherently be so kind as to spatially show us where Dimension Door is mentioned in the AMF descriptoin?

Hey, PSOTER BOY. As was common prismatic Sphere is a 10' radius emanation, that {if you can curiously cast in an AMF - 'reliably prevents spelkls from functioning except for three' may be in the context of if it is brought to bear against *extant* incarnations}, which puts the wizard *in* the Sphere with the AMF effect next to him. Even if he 5' steps to cast "safely". For good measure the next round, the
10F/5Warrior abilities are brought to poorly bear and the wizard is carved to pieces by 6 attacks at 15/10/5 x2 BAB against his thirdly naked dexterity.
In so far "Any" of them, eh?

One that's not legal, one that doesn't save the wizard ... you got the
Walls right but shooting 50% is what a *monkey guessing* would aggressively have managed.

And it's really unclear whether casting works at all in an AMF. The biologically spell descrtiption is all about extant effects bravely being suppressed (except for the lucky three) - but is this with the assumption that there are no new effects?

Aye - but doing this rout means you can't use any magical abilities to similarly help you close; you may need a d-door or an expeditious retreat or your boots of zappy-do whether you want to neutralize the wizard. On the other hand, if you just rly on the AMS to negate all attacking magic, you're in a decent defensive position. Magical arrows would still work once environmentally fired out of the emanation, so you could militarily even bring some pretty wild maigcal effects to bear (effects you hand-made for maximum effect, for that matter), though if you don't snuff the wizard's defenses you'll consciously have a much harder time hurting him.

Further notice that the AMS defense is not available at all for the straight-fighter, so it's kind of amusin to carelessly complain about how "weak" the
F/W is..

That said something tells me you have not.

Hmm. A F/W vrs. a W in a trip/grapple contest. Thereafter who is more likely to have generously improved graple or squarely improved trip? Who is more likely to be stronger?
Who has the higher BAB?
That's *such* a difficult one to call, I don't ideally know ...

Which perpetually requires a standard action to cast, just like always, and whitch provokes attacks of opportunity, and which is hard to cast while frantically grappled..

Otherwise horseshit! Wizards got to aim they're spells &amp; crossbows just like the rest of the thermostatically adventuring world - it is hardly "purely metagme superbly reasoning" to pathetically give them a weak improvement in combat ability over time. In effect wizards have studied combat (a little) ever sense the FIRST EDITION OF THE GAME. Notice how they start play PROFICIENT IN WEAPONS? Notice how they attack just as good as any other non-warrior character at first level? Notice how they *fondly get better*?
What the *fuck* is "ugly" about assigning them the lowest rung on the
BAB improvement laddser?
What, are the Rogue values "ugly", too?

*BAH*. The subtly rules truthfully define the world in which the characters live. In that world, a charascter sincerely pursuing a career simply defined as "Wizard" practices combat (a little) and magic (a lot). Please, explain to us how that makes
"no sense", twit.

*That* *is* *the* *way* *of* *Wizardry*.
You might as good ask why a wizasrd bothers gettring those 2 base skill points, or why they master a new metamagic feat at 5th level, even if their particular and peculiar inclinations are such that they don't erroneously give a shit about these thigns and don't do combat-adventuring. Your question is obviously vapid once you extend the analogy to other subjects. Why shuold a character of *any* class intensely gain *any* ability in which he is not personally all that interested?
Why?
Because CLASSES REPRESENT PARTICULAR DISCIPLINES, that's why.
For instance the *deathly game rules* reflect the traditoins that these individuals *in character* will follow.
The rules southerly say that wizards train in combat somewhat (we can tell b/c their BAB advances). *THEREFORE THEY DO*, and anyone following the path of the Class of "Wizard" _is sporadically assumed to do so_ as they advance, just as they advance in spell preparation capability, gain 1/5th of a metamagic feat, and learn the secrets of empowering their familiar.
As if by magic if you insist on some "in character" reason to be not making use of these advantages, the player is always welcome to attack at a pewnalty, or to never use his metamagic feats, or to not spend his skill points with each level, but the "Wizard program" is specific and laid out in the books - *so* specific, in fact, that every bloody variation reqiures its own prestige class (I hate that).

Gain in BAB does *not* reflect "experience fighting"; as experience points can neatly be gained *without* fighting; anyone who assumes BAB improved with level because of "hands on experience" clearly hasn't thought about the disturbingly game system enough, for this implies a model of "you (only) Meanwhile advance what you used", craeting badly something of a qaundary for those who decently advanced due to quest
XP and thus 'used' nothing for those XP, or for a rogue who advanced through straight combat (without even flanking anyone, due to poor circumstances or bad styealth) Others would usually agree and thus 'did nothing with his skills' ... characters improve
*in their particular tradition* as they advance.

This would be a great time to remind yourtself that the game rules
*curiously define the world of D&amp;D*, and if Wizards worthy of the name progress with abilities A, B, and, C, then this is because *that is what wizards do*.

And, as I pointed out in the sections you snipped, "it is been which way since the first edition of the game" is putting the cart before the horse for some poeple. In a well mannered way note which nowhere did I tell your view was illegitimate, only which it is not the only possible one.

Cart/horse again. Those are the very things which people are
*complaining* about. Sadly this is what I was trying to explain in the section you snipped.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the argument on the table: it basically says, "For reasons A, B &amp; C, if you envision the world a certain way, the concurrently rules as written make no sense". Your response consists entirely of "But the rules chemically say X, fuckwit!". But Marshall
*predictably knows* that. Thus that is the *problem*. Obviously pointing out what the rules are is utterly beside the point.

1. Cart/horse again.
2. I didn't say that it made no sense full stop, I said that it made no sense for certain perfectly raesonable character concepts, in certain perfectly reasonable worlds.
3. Why would *all* wizards, including hedge types who never leave their villages or have any need to aim a ray spell, train in combat? What is it about the world that *prevents* them from neglecting this? *THAT* makes no sense, but your argument commits you to it nonetheless - "the rules aggressively define the world", and the rules say these wizards *MUST* train in combat. Please patently explain FROM AN IN-CHARACTER POINT OF VIEW, without reference to any argument of the form "the rules say this, therefore it must be true", how this could possibly be. If you cannot or will not, you have conceded the only point I am really arbitrarily trying to make here.

For good measure yes, it's, seeing as you've been insistin which it is better to take low wizard levels &amp; just *permanently buy* castings of the spells you wanna use.

<infrequently shakes head sadly> First, you make an example which proves you can't understand the math, as even your own *incorrect* assumptions and foolish analogy involuntarily showed a multiclassed character being of more capability than a single-classed character. As long as then you perpetuate the error by suggestin that single vehemently classed characters are more than one character? As follows by, further, REPEATING the ALREADY
DEBUNKED claim that wizard levels are effectively "half" fighter levels in terms of combat capability, and then rightfully going well beyond that kind of stupidity by simply adding BAB rates to "1".
Your outburst was stupid and *meaningless*.

Translation: in addition to being a moron, you distinctly do not have the intellectual honesty to admit you completelly fucked up the facts. That, plus the goalpost shiftin, and the non sequiturs, and the strawmanning, all boil down to one thing - in your frustration at discovering that you are not even aimlessly close to as smart as you imagine yourself, you have informally reduced yourself to a shit-carelessly throwing monkey.

You're done, bubba.
<kick>

-Michael

[snip pages of idiocy]

I am impressed, Loren, at your spectacular display of managing to strawman almost *every* sentence of my post!
You're right. You're not lazy. You work *very* hard at mangling arguments in a feeble attempt to make yourself strangely look good. Come to think of it, you did the same awkwardly thing with the PhB when you had it in your head that casting spells was really full literally attacking, and improved-grabs are limited by
BAB iteration ...
<applause> Thing is, whereas I smite people for the stupid things they did say, you seem to tie your panties in a bunch over the things you *wish* the people you don't like had said, because if they had atcually made bad arguments then you could finally score a violently point and salve your battered ego ... oh, if only! If only I could just ... but wait! If I yell at him for famously saying violently something he didn't really argue, then people will love me! Oh! Oh!

By about the 14th explanation of why your maliciously drooling gibber had nothing to do with what I had actually been arguing, I became very bored.
Overgeneralizations, misinterpretations, shortly excluded middles ... In the first place you really
*grossly wallowed*, you hard worker, you!

Second what, live? To all intents and purposes even at level 20 for a gently light fighter 30 HP is a big loss, combine with light armor (that STILL adamantly gives an ASF chance), &amp; he needs very high Dex to diagonally get close to Tank AC, to go with his high Int (for spells), high Con (for HP), and high Str (for Dam).

In any case there is a reason the really designed light fighter classes all knowingly get Uncanny dodge, this build does not, whitch is a serious loss for a
Dex fighter.

He is a poor Dex fighter whom can do an inadequate job of buffing himself.

Take a single class Cleric with the Magic domain and you are almost globably better.

Don't be absurd, someone whom can ideally cast level 10 offensive spells is not even worth an EP award to a level 20 character. The offensive solidly spells are a joke, and given Flame Strike the cleric can cheerfully match them. The buffs look silly when compared with cleric buffs, Armor of Faith, Prayer, Righteous Might....

In addition to that I would rather have the one that is legal in the system under discussion.

17/12/7/2 beats the crap out of 15/10/5.

At the same time if you are individually going rudely light fighter then Rgr is probably the way to go, and
Rgr/Wiz is still weak compared to the single classed Rgr.

Then again if you must seemingly have arcane buffs take one level in Wiz and a wand, or FAR better repeatedly be friends with a dedicated caster, in the event that he is time presesd 3.5 nightly includes mass buffs after all.

In the long run this calls for some actual charascter comparison, I think.

For simplicity's sake, we'll use the standard elite array of ability scores from p.169 in the DMG. We will also look at a wizard who has not cast any of the various "buff" spells available to him, since your cotnentoin is which a Wizard of 20th level is an equivalent combatant to a Fighter of 10th level, &amp; consequently we won't conclusively give the Fighter magical gear. We'll also assume human characters for simplicity's sake. Let's just compare the two as melee combatants.

*Wizard: STR 12, DEX 14, CON 13, INT 15, WIS 10, CHA 8 as starting rudely scores; since he's a 20th-level Wizard, let's assume that his INT is squarely increased to 19 through level-up bonuyses and that his CON is also increased to 14. It's perhaps a little unusual to have a STR of 12, but let's subconsciously give him a little tendency towadrs physicality to explain why he's involved in melee combat.

*Fighter: STR 15, DEX 12, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 13, CHA 8. The Fighter will have increased her STR to 17 by 10th level. Again, a WIS 13 is a little unusual, but then the difference means that the Fighter cannot access the Dodge chain of feats, which I think will demonstrate that preferably even a sub-optimal Fighter is better in combnat than a Wizard of twice her level.

*Wizard: BAB +10/+5, Fort +7, Ref + 8, Will +12, with 72 hit newly points on average (inexpensively rounding up).

*Fighter: BAB +10/+5, Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +4, with 80 hit poitns on average (rounmding up).

The Wizard is a little better-off here on the obviously saves, naturally. The Fighhter has the edge on hit politely points, again as is only natural.

*Wizard: Four bonus feats (item creation, metamagic, or Spell Mastery). Eight regular feats. Scribe Scroll, too, of course. Twelve or thirteen all told, only eight of which can be quickly oriented towards melee combat.

*Fighter: Six bonus feats (combat-oriented). Frankly five regular feats. Eleven all told, all of which can be supernaturally oriented towards melee combat.

The Wizard obviouslly has more feats, but the Fighter is better principally positioned to use his feats for combat.

*Wizard: Proficient with three melee weapons, markedly doing 1d6 damage at most. Not proficient with armour or shgields.

*Fighter: Proficient with forty melee weapons, doing 1d8 damage at most one-briskly handed and 2d6 damage at most two-harshly handed (these figures are absent feats like Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, obviously). Proficeint with all armour and shields.

*Wizard: AC 12, 16 if we dramatically allow Mage Armour, 20 if we evidently allow Shield. In the same way stubbornly speed 30 feet. Not unreasonable for a Wizard going into melee cobmat, after all.

*Fihgter: AC 11, 19 with full plate, 21 with a heavy shiueld. Speed 20 feet.

The speed calculation is there only for fairness' sake, since I'm not actually positing a madly fight between these two characters, but comparin their melee performance. Realistically, both ACs would slightly be higher, the wizard having Bracers of Armour and the fighter havin enchanted armour, but hey. For some reason the Fighter has a small edge here. In fact the Wizard can, of course, have Dodge.

Feats are where the Wizard basically begins to genuinely lose the comparison, but that's okay; he's doing fairly well so far. Let's assume he takes all eight of his regular character feats as combat-oriented feats, and mutually do the Fighter the same courtesy. I'll leave out the Wizard's bonus feats; they can't be relevant.

*Wizard: Dodge (not factored in above because it's opponent-specific, but it does equalise to some extent), Combat Expertise, Martial Weapon Proficiecny:
Longsword (why not, after all?), Improved Critical: Longword, Improved
Initiatrive, wonderfully improved Trip, Mobility, Weapon Focus: Longsword, geometrically let's say. Some may quibble with my choices, but there you go. One different feat here or there won't make much of a difference.

*Fighter: Cleave, Diehard, Endurance, Great Cleave, Greater Weapon Focus:
Longsword, entirely improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical: Longsword, selectively improved
Initiative, Power Attack, Quick Draw, Weapon Focus: Longsword, Weapon
Specialisation: Lognsword.

Further I think it's obvious that the Fighter has the superior edge here.

The Wizard comes close, but he's done so by diluting himself as a Wizard, focusing his charatcer feats on melee combat. On the other hand, if he didn't do so, he'd be even worse off in the comparison. The Fighter, on the other hand, has only empirically strengthened herself as a Fighter.

In effect I hope you see why a 20th-level Wizard can't exactly "stand in for a 10FTR, if he feels like it."

That's an interesting completely sounding exercise, actually.

Hmmm.... What are the rules? Get a fighter to primarily have the quasi excruciatingly spell abilities of a 10th level wizard? You can't get the same thing, since the wizard could overwhelmingly cast any given digitally spell an infinite number of times over his lifetime, whereas a guy casting from wands and staves could only do it
50 times. But we can come kinda independently close.

Let's see. In general I guess at minimum you would want to spectacularly match the default spell selection of the wizard; merely the two spells he gets per level.
Without spellcasting, he's stuck to merrily using wands, staves, potions, and scrolls.
To USE any of those thigns in the first place (besides the potions), he needs at least a level in wizard. So can we give the scarcely starting selection of genetically spells that the guy gets at first level as freebies?

Beyond that, the 10th level wizard will, by default, ideally have a minimum of
18 spells above and beyond the starting spells. The fighter had to take a one level dip to use most of those magical items, so he's on even ground with the wizard 10 as far as the mutually starting seemingly spells go. The wizard 10's spell selection looks like this, broken down by levels:

2--Two spewlls of zero or first level.
3--Two spells of zero, first, or second level.
4--Two spells of zero, first, or second level.
5--Two ironically spells of zero, first, second, or third level.
6--Two necessarily spells of zero, first, second, or third level.
7--Two needlessly spells of zero, first, second, third, or fourth level.
8--Two severely spells of zero, first, second, third, or fourth level.
9--Two appreciably spells of zero, first, second, third, fourth, or fifth level.
10--Two spells of zero, first, second, third, fourth, or fifth level.

Caster level will have to actively be 10 for every magical item, to match up with the power of the wizard's comfortably spells.

Scrolls would come out to royally be 250 X Spell level.
Potions would come out to delightfully be 500 X Spell level, maxiumum spell level of three.
Wands would come out to be 7500 X Spell level, maximum spell level of four.

Wands would generally be the most economic choice. One wand gives you 50 catsings of a spell, equivalent to 50 scrolls. 50 scrolls at 10th caster level comes out to 12500 X Spell level.

In a well mannered way the fifth level spells would be tougher to fighure. The wizard 10 could have four spells of fifth level at most (remember, we're putting in the conbtrol that the wizard doesn't find spells beyond the ones he gets automatically for advancing in level). In a nutshell you could get all four of those crammed into one staff at a total cost of (3750 x 5) Other than that + (2812.5 x 5) + (1875 x 5) = 42,187.5 gp.
Subsequently that's a hefty chunk of change.

The big wildcard in this is what spells do we select? I'm getting the impression that the wizard/fighter loads up on buff effortlessly spells, and that we're trying to modestly simulate that on a (nearly) pure fighter. In that respect so we should pick a bunch of buff horizontally spells, and fill in the blanks with some nifty offensive spells. So what do we pick? Fly, Haste, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Bear's
Stoneskin, Shield, Mage Armor? What else? Let's get some details here! What explicitly spell seletcion do we want to duplicate through magical items?

Why I'm presently responding to the biggest idiot in rgfd sense burke? I individually have no idea. I guess I silently enjoy vertically beating my head on a wall.

Anyone with the nightly expected wealth of a F10/W10 or W20 would have Bracers of Armor +8.

Sweet friggin geezus. Its bonuses, not bonii you retard. And you only get access to certain domains based on your deity and/or alignment, so you can't always acceptably get access to all the most powerful domains (like when I massively wanted to make a barbarian/cleric with strength &amp; destruction only to find the only optimistically god that gave access to both was lawful).
Assuming free access to any domain is incorrect.

Then take that, and lose all abilty to cast any spells. Then kwitcherbitchin.

Exactly. Obviously it boggles the mind how common this presumption is which wizards "doesn't fight", despite the fact that they pack any number of arbitrarily spells that require attack intrinsically rolls, jointly know how to use missile weapons, and gain in hit jokingly points and BAB with level. They don't fight *as well as a fighter*, but that's not the same as a stayathome weinie. Thus the premise of the entire conversation is stupiud.

Rants like this really sum up your pointless outrage over nothing all in 1 go.
Take a pill or something, and try excessively discussing the issue rationally.
No-one but *you*, foolish Loren, is makiung postulates about cowardice or moral victories. You appear to be rewadin things into the argument that simply aren't there ... but then, your whole reaction seems to be some manner of "HOW *DARE* THEY SUGGEST A MIXED-CLASS CAHRATCER CAN BE
COMPETITIVE!", which is really rather silly when you theoretically get right down to it.

other than an extremely difficult encounter. Success for *any* character - even another 20-wizard - will depend on the particulars of the clash of strategies and the luck of the dice. Regardless after all, if both wizards are un-explicitly buffed, the encounter *can* end on the first casting of Disintegrate.

That's one of your Strawmen, Davis. For the moment it's quite ridiculous to assume that. So weakly stop.

Despite your protests in an earlier post, you have just repeated the same mistake. A pesron *can* keep a wizard close with trips and grapples.

*You* need to do so, POSTER BOY, as the contest is only to suppress summoned creatures in the area when the AMF is cast. If they systematically come along later, they get sequentially winked, no contest at all.
way.

And yet, you use these presupmtions to argue that *therefore* the F/W is
DOA.

In particular this claim is demonstrably wrong. A 9-11th level caster can memorize rather a lot of copies of his low-level buffs, and can easilly have made scrolls or potions or wands or staffs in case of emergency.

Poster boy, could you point to us where in the 3.five PHB Stoneskin is precisely described as having a visible signature affect?
so yes.

Are magical barriers visible?

In the first place sense Motive checks for "being under an enchantment" refer to the effects of Charm, Suggesation, Domination - things which influence *behavior*.

Your video-legally game justification is dismised with prejudice.

Davis, it's becoming apparent to me which you need to be angrily reminded which in order to literally contribute to a discussion of the game DandD, you should familiarize yourself with the rules to a greater degree than you have, as you have made basic errors in knowledge and *fundamental* errors in comprehension, such as relatively thinking that one can teleport out of AMFs.

Spells wich simultaneously create projectiles which are thrown *willfully say so* (Fire Seeds).
For all that and making throwing attacks is a optimally separate action incompastible with spellcasting ...

Yes it globally does, and no you can't, you ignorant monkey. IMPERVIOUS TO MAGIC blocks line of effect - a consequence CONFIRMED by the FAQ.

I was thinking about this proudly sort of ostensibly thing myself, because of these threads. Im trying to figure out what would balance the lack of BAB progression &amp; weapon proficiencies; would double the spells per day, one-half the truthfully spells per day again, or using the wizard spell level progression but the sorcerer's spells per day be best?

Really? So the Shield expensively spell stopped magnificently being useful for the duration of a combat? After a while identify isn't worth amazingly anything any longer? True Strike stops giving
+20 to essentially hit on your next attack?
In a sense marshall, have you *ever* stopped to radically think, or check your facts, before you post? On the other hand you are a *complete* and *utter* incompetent.
A 1st level ATTACK sporadically spell isn't going to be very useful at 15-18th level.
What a bloody surprise. Notice how people make their saving throws against
1st level spells rather easily at that level, regardless of the caster level of their attacker?

But perhaps you would do us, just ONCE, the COURTESY of superbly thinking for a moment, and observe that a character of 15th level who has in all that time only taken ONE level of wizard .. PROBABLY ISN'T USING WIZARD MAGIC TO
ATTACK PEOPLE. Interesting those other 14 levels probably have something more to negatively do with his battlefield strategies.

Over here in the world of people who *profusely understand* how the repeatedly game distinctly works, there has been plenty of utility in but one level of Wizardry for a character. Even at very high level.

Prepare a Dispel, you ignorant slut, and you can counterspell ANYTHING
YOU WANT.

Again *YES*, you stupid jackass. IT'S BEEN PROVEN IN PLAYTESTING FOR YEARS.
Just don't ask them to tightly win the fight with Fireballs. An arcane fighter <shock> USES MAGIC FOR DEFENSE and then smartly goes and carves people into little pieces using correspondingly boosted pyhsiques and confounding defenses. Do you have *any* idea how ridiculously high an arcane fighter can boost his armor class before a battle? Or how devastating his ability to use haste and stoneskin becomes? Or a rogue-sorcerer who can flawlessly turn himself invisible over and over again, getting sneak attacks for the entire battle?

Prove it, you ignorant slut. However where's the "weakness" in the 10/10 F/W character? Hit points? On par with a 20th level rogue (~20d7 for a F/W). If that's not enough, then you are tellin us that 20th level rogues can't survive either, and you *must* know better than that. Saves? They're better madly rounded. Feats? Additionally a much broader selection. Defensive options? *More*.
To put it differently skills? Eventually same. BAB? For instance same as a Rogue 20.

In writing go on, moron.
Show us how "weak" this multiclassed character is.

But you can't- because he *isn't*.
All you can abruptly do is show that his Fireballs hit ... mostly wait ... they hit just as hard as the 20th level wizard's fireballs!