# Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!



## Mark Chance (Apr 2, 2003)

Check out:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030402a

Question: Why play any other sort of spellcaster? Full spell progression in two classes!


----------



## Corinth (Apr 2, 2003)

The time/date stamp is today (4/2/2003) so it's not an April Fool's joke.

It's about bloody time that WotC posted something like this and officially incorporated it into the D&D game.  Now multiclased spell-casters need not suck, but the price is that do little else but cast spells.  (Skill points, Hit Die and Save progression of a wizard w/ the class skill list that only a sorcerer could love.  But they do get Decipher Script.)  I'd love to play this class.


----------



## aurin777 (Apr 2, 2003)

My jaw is still sitting in my lap, to tell you the truth. I always thought multiclassed spellcasters were under powered, but this is rediculous the way they delt with that. Who needs a wizard or a cleric? I can do both 

I thought the true necromancer dealt with this the right way. They were able to add their levels together to get spells, rather than all of both.
~~Brandon


----------



## Krug (Apr 2, 2003)

Man I really don't know about this one. But I guess they do lose out in other areas... 
Perhaps someone should create a sample NPC with this Prestige Class in mind and see how it looks.

Also I don't quite understand why they say this:
_While a mystic theurge doesn't have the uninterrupted spell advancement that a cleric, wizard, or sorcerer has, he makes up for this with versatility. _

But he HAS uninterrupted spell advancement!


----------



## Drake_DM (Apr 2, 2003)

Don't worry, this class is very balanced.
 There reason it is uninterupted is because you are always three levels behind in one class. We have been using a variation like this, and you can also get a similar effect with the Eldritch Master (Dragon mag) prestige class.
 Being 3 levels behind in your caster level is pretty harsh, especially for purposes of spell penetration etc - and your archmage or heirophant levels etc only apply to half your spells.
 This is great! 
 Plus you sacrifice all your cleric abilities and good stats.

 Note no knowledge (nature) skill - no wonder druids don't like this class


----------



## Crothian (Apr 2, 2003)

I don't have a problem with the abilities, but it is way to easy to get into.


----------



## Dark Eternal (Apr 2, 2003)

I'm already working on building this guy for play-test.

On the surface: to me, this looks like a _very_ bad idea.  However, I'm going to spend some time crunching the numbers before I judge one way or another.

Unless I'm very surprised, however, I'll probably have to say that this one just won't work.  I can already see every wizard or cleric player I know jumping to multiclass so that they can take this PrC - after all, why not?  With the prereqs that this asks for, a 20th level char with 10 levels in the PrC can still cast 9th level spells of one kind, and 7th level spells of the other.... and who wouldn't want to have that kind of power?!?


----------



## Quixon (Apr 2, 2003)

Krug, I think what they mean about his spell progression is you have to be  a 3rd divine/3rd arcane caster. So at 16th level a single caster has a caster level of 16, this guy has 13th/13th, so has 3 less caster levels than a single class caster(in one class).

Not that I wouldn't trade a 16th single caster level for a 13th Divine/13th Arcane caster level LOL.

I admit I am surprised to see this from WotC, for it seems really overpowered, like some thing we would see from certain Third Party D20 companies, not WotC.


----------



## Krug (Apr 2, 2003)

Drake_DM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Note no knowledge (nature) skill - no wonder druids don't like this class *




Well it's easy to create variations of this class for the Druid. Just find the right name.


----------



## Drake_DM (Apr 2, 2003)

The question is will it work in epic levels?
Remember now that you can only cast 1 spell a round, having tonnes of lower level spells isn't as useful (sorry sorcerors!) You will never be able to use half your spells in one day.
 We are playing an epic campaign right now and we have a rogue/wizard character who is 2 or 3 caster levels behind and he has great trouble penetrating SR or dispelling effects. 
 Having said that we had an eldritch master PC who was 3 or 4 levels behind but it seemed balanced by around level 21.
 The scarcity of epic feats mean that this character will have trouble getting both his spellcaster classes to level 10 magic and beyond, but I admit having 2 lots of level 9 spells is great.


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 2, 2003)

You'd have to be 6th level to qualify (Wiz3/Clr3, for example); at 16th level, as a Wiz3/Clr3/Mystic Theurge10, you'd cast spells as a Wiz13 and Clr13. But you'd have the other class abilities (undead turning, bonus feats, familiar, etc.) of a 3rd level character, and a base attack & hp only slightly better than a wizard (i.e., slightly better than the worst in the game). And you're spellcasting ability would be 3 levels worse than your pure wizard & pure cleric pals. 

At 20th level, as a Wiz5/Clr5/MT10, you'd have the spellcasting ability of a Wiz15 & Clr15 -- and be lagging 5 levels behind your pure caster pals. You could also be a Wiz7/Clr3/MT10 (or switch the Wiz & Clr levels), and then be Wiz17 & Clr13 in spellcasting -- which looks like a much smaller loss of power, since you'll still get a 9th level spell or two a day. You trade in 3 feats, 13 levels worth of familiar abilities, one 7th, 2 8th, and 3 9th level spells per day, in return for the spellcasting ability of a 13th level cleric. 

My first reaction is that it seems a bit too strong, especially (and mainly) for a non-even split character (the Wiz7/Clr3/MT10 case). However, I'd have to see it in play before I'd say for sure. I definitely like the basic idea -- making a cleric/wizard multiclass a viable combination at higher levels. As a straight cleric/wizard, you end up with 75% of the spellcasting ability, and other class abilities are nearly non-existent.

Maybe if the 3.5e wizard or cleric's special abilities are a little more interesting, it'll be alright -- after all, they'd then be losing more. 

OTOH, I didn't have a problem with the Arcane Trickster.


----------



## Krug (Apr 2, 2003)

Quixon said:
			
		

> *Krug, I think what they mean about his spell progression is you have to be  a 3rd divine/3rd arcane caster. So at 16th level a single caster has a caster level of 16, this guy has 13th/13th, so has 3 less caster levels than a single class caster(in one class).
> 
> *




I see. I thought they meant uninterrupted while taking this PrC...

And yeah it does look quite overpowered, particularly at high levels.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 2, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> *But he HAS uninterrupted spell advancement! *




Not quite.  In order to take this class, you do have to multiclass for a while.  A clr3/wiz3/Theurge10 is a 16th level character, but casts spells of each type as if he were 13th.  

For example, this theurge can cast one 7th level wizard spell, while the striaght wiz16 can cast two 8th level spells.  That's not insignificant, given that people gripe about losing even a single level of spellpower.  

Also, this theurge will have to try to keep two primary casting stats up to snuff at once.  If you are using point buy, that's not an easy task.


----------



## Quixon (Apr 3, 2003)

I see this thread going thru the roof with posts lol.

Of note in one of those "Third Party D20" books, they have a PrC for Cleric/Wizards. It does the same thing(you get +1 to two spellcasting classes). But they made sure it had disadvantages. Like _really_, _really_ bad saves (I think you got a +3 for 10 levels to your _Good_ save lol, and Bab was +3 for 10 levels as well). 

This seemed a little strong still to me, but now WotC comes along and does same thing but doesn't even bother with the disadvantages.


----------



## Nareau (Apr 3, 2003)

Man, this is so broken!!!  My Ranger/Bard is gonna start kicking some major butt with this PrC!!!


----------



## Aloïsius (Apr 3, 2003)

Spider said:
			
		

> *Man, this is so broken!!!  My Ranger/Bard is gonna start kicking some major butt with this PrC!!!
> 
> *


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Apr 3, 2003)

I'll get excited about this PrC when I can cast multiple spells/round.


----------



## Oni (Apr 3, 2003)

While I've been hoping for something to beef up multi-class casters (sorcerer/wizards in particular which this still doesn't address, though I don't see why you couldn't use it for that too, since there doesn't seem to be anything particularly clerical about it), this is nutty.  I'm going to hope this is some horribly misguided April Fools day prank that will haunt DM's for ages to come as munchkin after munchkin approaches them with this "official" class.


----------



## Olive (Apr 3, 2003)

<a href="http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=000452">This thread</a> on the wizards board has Mark A Jindra (WotC Web Developer) saying that it is not an april fools joke...


----------



## Drakron (Apr 3, 2003)

... 2 years from now ...

Welcome to the revised revised edition, also know as D&D 3.9.


----------



## WattsHumphrey (Apr 3, 2003)

I'm kinda split.  Half arcane/half divine casters are really really bad in 3rd ed, IMO, and this at least tries to fix it.

All I can see as a boon is the low hp and saves, which isn't something a wizard would normally worry about, but is something a cleric/druid/bard/etc would worry about.

I think I'd allow this class if it had a low will save as well.  Hopefully that would make the character really weak defensively with the boon of being horribly versitile.  

Well, I'd allow it that way until it proved to be too good.  Then I'd ban it like almost everyone else here.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 3, 2003)

When I saw it, I thought "Wizards has to be on crack if they think I'll allow that."

Don't look at it as a cleric-wizard, think of it as a wizard.

You keep the same progression in most ways, but lose a pair of bonus feats. You give up three levels of arcane casting in order to gain 13 levels of cleric casting.

For a cleric, you're losing stuff, for a mage, your familiar isn't advancing... woo hoo...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Apr 3, 2003)

Well, at first glance, it certainly seems excessive...  however (bear with me for a second)...

What do you _really_ gain?

You get a much expanded spell list, and roughly double the number of spells per day, at the cost of (at a minimum) one level of spell power.

What does the expanded spell list and double spells give you?

It gives you flexibility, and the ability to keep casting after other casters are out of spells.  But how valuable is that?  Certainly, I've played spell casters who ran out of good spells, but most often, the group retreats at that point, and the Mystic Theurge would likely have to as well.  

And never understimate the value of that extra level of spell.  As a spellcaster, you hate to be throwing 5th level spells when you're buddy the regular mage is tossing 6th level stuff around.

I'm not sure it isn't outrageous, but I'm not sure it is, either.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 3, 2003)

I actually might even go for something like at first, you get an arcane level, at second a divine, at third, both. Etc..


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 3, 2003)

Your reactions are all a bit premature. As other more thoughtful posters have mentioned, you loose out on 3 levels of advancement, which entails a smaller chance of bypassing SR, lower duration and damage die on many spells, and, here is the clincher, a SIGNIFICANT DROP IN HIGH LEVEL SPELLS. Ask yourselves how often you use lower than max spells at any given point in the game other than to buff or even magic missle? Now note that spell reistance still applies to armor, so to use arcane spellcasting while fullfilling the same role as a cleric (frontline, armored, etc) would be somewhat inefficient. Now note the d4 hit die; you have hp as low as 13th level cleric as well, let alone one of an appropriate level.

A character who goes all the way with this will have a lot of lower-level spells and could make a half-way decent buffer, but its actual in game round by round or even day by day output is hardly extrordinary.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 3, 2003)

Basically, at any given point of a game, the last benefits gained from the last three levels will outweigh the prior three levels. So saying "Well, I gain 13 levels for 3. Case closed." Is kind of simpleminded and doesn't really follow the balance logic of the game.


----------



## Malin Genie (Apr 3, 2003)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sad that they tried to 'fix' multiclass spellcasters by means of a (n inflexible) Prestige Class rather than providing rules that would generally make the combination more viable (there have been several good threads on the topic in House Rules.)

While this class might work for a Wizard/Cleric thematically (not sure about the power balance issue, bt giving it the BOTD for the moment) it completely fails to work for Druid multiclasses (even leaving aside the loss of Druid special abilities, it doesn't give any of the druid's wilderness/animal skills) and a Druid/Sorceror (supposedly more common than Druid/Wizard) can't even qualify till 9th level as Knowledge(Religion) is cross-class for both of them!


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2003)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> *Well, at first glance, it certainly seems excessive...  however (bear with me for a second)...
> 
> What do you really gain?
> 
> ...




I agree with you.

It looks a bit powerful to me, but not overwhelmingly so.  

There is really no way to equate even a high number of low level spells with 8th and 9th level spells.  

Bump it up to requiring 3rd level spells in each type and the set back would be more notable.    That would also push access to the class back to 10th level, further limiting abuse.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 3, 2003)

Huh. I had made up this exact same PrC when working up the stats of some old NPCs, basically as a placeholder until I came across a PrC that would more closely follow the NPC's concept without being munchkiney. Now, I guess I don't need to switch. 

It's not overpowered (under 3.5), nor is it underpowered, IMO. You trade sheer power for flexibility, and in quite a few D&D games I've read about on the internet, power is preferred to flexibility. Time will tell, though, after it shows up in the new DMG.

Edit: Also note that Scry is not a class skill. Diviners need not apply.


----------



## RigaMortus (Apr 3, 2003)

I'm not so convinced that this isn't an April Fools joke.  Ok, so it's a day late.  Well, that is only because we'd EXPECT this to be a "joke" on April 1st.

If it really isn't a joke, then...  egads!


----------



## Aloïsius (Apr 3, 2003)

I think I have found the biggest drawback of this Prc, even more than the lost three level : you have TWO spell list to deal with. How much time (IRL) will you loose to choose and prepare your spells ? I can already hear the non spellcasters saying "hurry up, we wanna play"! Unless you have a computer in your head, you will loose a great part of the Prc power due to slapdash prepared spells list.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 3, 2003)

I don't think it's that bad.  At the higher levels and epic it might get out of hand, but since I haven't seen a campaign get over 10th level in about a year I'm not that worried about.  Plus, it's on the web site.  I worry more with what I see in print as for some reason PCs seem to think that print means it is somehow better or more balanced.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 3, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *I don't think it's that bad.  At the higher levels and epic it might get out of hand, but since I haven't seen a campaign get over 10th level in about a year I'm not that worried about.  Plus, it's on the web site.  I worry more with what I see in print as for some reason PCs seem to think that print means it is somehow better or more balanced. *




The intro says it's from the revised DMG...


----------



## Crothian (Apr 3, 2003)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The intro says it's from the revised DMG... *




Then I have a few months before I get mad at it


----------



## Dark Eternal (Apr 3, 2003)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, after working the numbers and playing with the possibilities for a couple of hours, I'm going to give this PrC a big, fat *"Not in MY campaign!"* and let it go at that.

The single biggest reason?  It doesn't actually turn out to be as ridiculously overpowered as I thought it would.  But it _does_ turn out to be overpowered _just enough_ that many (if not a majority) players with spellcasters are going to want to take it.

Which leads to the biggest problem, IME - blurred and overstepped 'roles' in a party.  

Consider if you have a party with the classic "1 rogue, 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 mage" in your group.  Now consider what happens once the mage, at 4th level, multiclasses to cleric.  Then at 7th level, takes Mystic Theurge.  

From 4th level on, the guy playing the cleric *only has a few spells that the other character doesn't.*  And for the rest of the campaign, he'll only *ever* be able to do a very, very few things that the mage/theurge can't.  That's _assuming_ for whatever reason that the cleric player doesn't decide to do the exact same thing - and I don't have to enumerate the problems if he does.

This may seem like a "so what?" kind of issue to some.  But I guarantee: in the majority of groups where this situation comes up, it's gonna cause problems.  

Besides, as a second place problem - at higher levels, the Theurge becomes an absolute terror as a support caster.  And there are enough headaches with excessive support casting IME anyways.  So, I'd rather not throw into play a way to compound the problem, thank you anyways...

At least I'll be able to warn my senior DM and his/my players that this PrC won't be an option before the book ever comes out.  Thanks, WotC!


----------



## Umbran (Apr 3, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *While this class might work for a Wizard/Cleric thematically (not sure about the power balance issue, bt giving it the BOTD for the moment) it completely fails to work for Druid multiclasses *




Yeah, and the text recognizes that fact.  They didn't intend it to be real great for druids.  And it isn't like you would expect a single prestige class to handle every possible spellcasting multiclass combination.  

As for not doing anything for special abilities, I'm quite sure that's intentional.  It doesn't help with the wizard's feats which can be a substantial loss.  I think the idea is that if what you really want is spellcasting, you' can have it, but you're going to have to give up a few frills for it.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 3, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then I have a few months before I get mad at it   *





  Good answer.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 3, 2003)

The straight cleric will have a better BAB, hp, turning ability and 3 levels of spellcasting, and ALL of his spells can be used with through armor consistently. All of those compliment each other, especially given Harm and other key touch spells, let alone the supporting healing role. I don't think he has anything to worry about.


----------



## Dark Eternal (Apr 3, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *The straight cleric will have a better BAB, hp, turning ability and 3 levels of spellcasting, and ALL of his spells can be used with through armor consistently. All of those compliment each other, especially given Harm and other key touch spells, let alone the supporting healing role. I don't think he has anything to worry about. *




{blink...blink...}

Uh, right.  

How many of those can the Theurge make up for using arcane support spells that the straight cleric cannot, of course, cast?  

Hmm...  just about all except the extra 3 levels of spellcasting... and he'll still have arcane spells left over for other fun stuff after he's done so.

You _really_ don't think that the straight cleric has anything to worry about?

If you still don't, then I'm happy to let it go at that.  I just wanted to make sure you'd looked at it from both sides before deciding.



I still won't be using or allowing the PrC, though.


----------



## Platinum (Apr 3, 2003)

*Sample:*

Wiz20 vs. Clr3/Wiz3/MTh10/Xyz4 (where Xyz is another PrC that grants +2 caster levels per XP level) = no contest.

...even: Wiz3/Clr3/MTh10 (a level 16 PC) is gross. Few PCs reach 17th level anyway. That's level 7 spells in 2 classes folks! Quite the badboy at level 16, wouldn't ya say? 

Worst case sinerio is you wait until epic level to gain two more levels of MTh and 9th level spells: 
Clr3/Wiz3/MTh12/Geomancer4 (w. geomancer levels split between Clr & Wiz).

Yep, worst case situation, I'm level 22 before I have max spell level in two classes. Just a small differance than the old 34 levels it use to take to get this, wouldn't you say?


----------



## 8XXX{0}====> (Apr 3, 2003)

I dont know what to say about it, except that i need to playtest it. But i can already see a nice loophole it makes viable:

A specilaized wizard looses some schools of magic.

His cleric spells are unaffected by this. But clerics have domains that basically take the best wizard/cleric spell of that level for the domain. So couldnt a Theurge just take apropriate domains to lessen the blow of the loss of an entire school?


----------



## Platinum (Apr 3, 2003)

*The fix.*

With ANY prerequisite, it's still TOO powerful, because at epic level, the abuse potential is mind boggling.
The fix lies within the granted caster levels.

My fix is:
Only grant the +2 caster levels once every 5 levels and for the other levels, the class must choose which class's caster level improves.

L . Bonus 
.1. +1 any one caster level
.2. +1 any one caster level
.3. +1 any one caster level
.4. +1 any one caster level
.5. +1 any TWO caster levels
.6. +1 any one caster level
.7. +1 any one caster level
.8. +1 any one caster level
.9. +1 any one caster level
10. +1 any TWO caster levels

Cool?


----------



## Droogie (Apr 3, 2003)

Hmmm. I kinda like it. I'm one of those guys who wonders why there's a distinction between arcane and divine magic anyway, and this PrC is one more step towards my idea of what magic should be. 

 I could see this being an exclusive PrC for worshippers of Boccob.


----------



## Drake_DM (Apr 3, 2003)

Those who are advocating that straight clerics are worse than this class need consider one thing:
 Miracle

High level clerics can cast 7th level wizard spells and lower ANYWAY. Except they have none of the disadvantages of this class.

Also note that the eldritch master has been around for ages and is probably better than this class, yet my group has never found that class overpowered.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 3, 2003)

Dark Eternal said:
			
		

> *How many of those can the Theurge make up for using arcane support spells that the straight cleric cannot, of course, cast?   *




And how many spells does it take to do it properly?  How many rounds will it require to set up, and for how many will it last?  How many spells will he have to effectively give up to do this?

In general, the fact that a set of disadvantages can be temporarily overcome is not a compelling argument, unless they are easy to overcome, and that power is available whenever the PC needs it at little cost.  

If it requires a significant portion of the character's spell power to keep the work-around "on hand", then the character is throwing away a goodly part of his gains to overcome his losses.  What the devil is the point in that? 

If he'd wanted HP and AC and BAB, he could have had them by being a cleric.  It makes little sense to turn around and use theurge power to turn yourself back into the cleric you could have been.


----------



## AuraSeer (Apr 3, 2003)

Holy mother of monkey-loving crapweasels.

Do you all hear that weird noise? It's the sound of a million spellcaster munchkins squealing in orgiastic glee. WOTC has really got to stop huffing those paint fumes.


----------



## Grog (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: The fix.*



			
				Platinum said:
			
		

> *With ANY prerequisite, it's still TOO powerful, because at epic level, the abuse potential is mind boggling.
> The fix lies within the granted caster levels.
> 
> My fix is:
> Only grant the +2 caster levels once every 5 levels and for the other levels, the class must choose which class's caster level improves.*




IMO that's way too weak. You're drastically underestimating the importance of the lost caster levels.

If the player decides to split their caster levels evenly, at 16th level, they'll be casting spells as a 9th level cleric and a 9th level wizard. So a 16th level caster will only be able to cast 5th level spells tops, and not very many of those to boot. And they'll have a caster level of 9, which means penetrating SR will be almost impossible, dispelling will be almost impossible, and their spells can be dispelled with ease.

Utterly, utterly useless.

Or they could put all the levels in wizard, and end up as basically a 13th level wizard and a 5th level cleric... But are the spellcasting abilities of a 5th level cleric worth dropping from 16th to 13th level as a wizard? I don't think so.

I think the class as written is slightly overpowered, but not too much. It's only really a problem if the player goes Wiz7/Clr3/MT10. It's pretty well-balanced if the character takes even progression in both classes (i.e., Wiz5/Clr5/MT10). It might even be a little on the weak side at that point.

Oh, and I do agree with you that this class becomes very problematic at epic levels. If I were running an epic campaign, I probably wouldn't allow the class past level 10, even though the rules allow 10 level PrCs to continue advancing.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 3, 2003)

It actually looks fine enough if the prereqs were changed to "must be able to cast 3rd level divine spells and 3rd level arcane spells".  Because then the Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10 combinations can't happen.


----------



## Vaxalon (Apr 3, 2003)

Dark Eternal said:
			
		

> *How many of those can the Theurge make up for using arcane support spells that the straight cleric cannot, of course, cast? *




Name them.

See how long it takes for the Mystic Theurge to buff himself up to the same attack bonus, saves, and hit points as the cleric has.  At that point, the cleric is up by that number of rounds of melee.

I'm with the minority.  I don't see anything wrong with the MT.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 3, 2003)

This goes back to playing a cleric/wizard combo in 2e, you give up speed for alot of friggin spells. Your three caster levels behind at minimum, 5 at even progression. 

Jury's still out on this one.


----------



## Grog (Apr 3, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *This goes back to playing a cleric/wizard combo in 2e, you give up speed for alot of friggin spells. Your three caster levels behind at minimum, 5 at even progression. *




Exactly, this is pretty much just like the 1e/2e cleric/wizard multiclass. Was that class horribly overpowered and game breaking?


----------



## Dark Eternal (Apr 3, 2003)

Vaxalon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Name them.
> 
> ...




I chose not to go into detailed argument with jasamcarl, I chose not to with Umbran, and I choose not to with you, either.   The reason: because it's entirely too subjective a question.  What abilities are better than or equal to what abilities?  Everyone feels differently.  There is no hope whatsoever of reaching a concensus on this issue.  I have simply stated my perspective on the matter - and I have already yielded that I don't consider my opinion to be the alpha and the omega.

However, this point only addresses a portion of my original concern.  And, I have yet to see anyone address my secondary  point at all.  (And it was only marginally secondary, at that!)


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 3, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Exactly, this is pretty much just like the 1e/2e cleric/wizard multiclass. Was that class horribly overpowered and game breaking? *




One major difference: XP was split evenly between classes in previous editions. A multiclass PC was consistently one or two levels behind the curve compared to single-classed PCs.

The MT looks to be giving a PC 1.5 character classes for the XP per level needed for just 1. That could be a problem.

One other thing: I don't really see the MT being problematic at high levels (except for possibly epic levels). At 20th level, any character is obnoxious.

Where I see real balance issues for the MT compared to other characters is the mid-levels, say, 8th to 13th.

Of course, I could be wrong.

But if something seems to good to be true, it probably ought not be true.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 3, 2003)

My problem with the Mystic Theurge is the sheer number of buffs + healing that it is capable of producing.  Especially the long-duration 1 hour/level buffs that effectively last the whole day anyway.  Think of it this way: a Wiz3/Clr3/MT10 is basically a 16th-level character that casts offensively as a Wiz13 and buffs like a Clr13.  Sound scary?

If you're comparing the MT to the Eldritch Master in the Dragon magazine, don't forget that the EM doesn't get so may spells per day.  Yes, he may be able to select spells known from several spell lists, but his actual spell slots will be about half (estimated - I don't have the time to do the math) that of a MT.


----------



## Grog (Apr 3, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> *One major difference: XP was split evenly between classes in previous editions. A multiclass PC was consistently one or two levels behind the curve compared to single-classed PCs.*




And the MT is consistently three levels behind the curve compared to a single class caster. Plus he doesn't get the benefit of d8 hit dice every other level and cleric fighting ability like the 1e/2e multiclasser did.



> *Where I see real balance issues for the MT compared to other characters is the mid-levels, say, 8th to 13th.*




Well, at those levels, I'd think the slowed access to higher level spells would be even more of an issue. I mean, a single class cleric gets Heal at 11th level, the MT has to wait until 14th. A wizard can teleport around at 9th level, the MT can't do it until 12th. And so forth. Heck, the MT has to wait until 8th level just to cast a 5-die fireball.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Apr 3, 2003)

Too bad this is not an AFD joke. Sheer munchkinism.

I wonder if it would work if the caster needed 3rd-level spell casting skill and had all saves poor. Really ... his Will save at 20th level +11 base, +12 if he were to single-class. Not much sacrifice in my book. The WotC version, at 20th level, is +15. I know this is a "feature" of PrCs and multiclassing, but with this PrC, one would need to tone everything down.


----------



## WattsHumphrey (Apr 3, 2003)

Vaxalon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Name them.
> 
> ...




I don't want to get into an argument, as I don't tend to win them   but I would like to try to answer your question as I'm curious to know if the class really is that good or not.

Attack Bonus: Divine power.  The cleric/wiz can have as low a bab as possible, but it's all made up for by divine power, and at higher levels persistant divine power.

Saves: Well, I generally prefer the tactic of not being hit over the tactic of buffing saves, but here's my take.  As far as saves go, either character stands about the same chance as buffing them, so the only workable comparison is base saves.  This guy'll have higher will than either of the other two would alone, what with three classes all having high will.  He'll have lower base ref than either of the other two would have.  He'll have lower fort than a straight cleric, but higher than a wiz... and not by all that much.  Summary: this guy won't be avoiding ref saves without some buffs and he's more vulnerable to fort than a cleric, but not than a wizard.  Saves appear to not be an issue.

HP: Hmm, not much I can say there.  While there are a few spells that a wiz can use to buff his hps, there aren't enough to make up for the amazing lack that this guy'll be getting.  I'd rectify this as follows:

AC: Wowza.  As far as AC goes, this guy has all the benefits of both types of magic to keep him from being hit.  Between Magic Vestment, Shield, Mage Armor, Haste, and everything else, his AC should skyrocket.  Though this doesn't totally fix the problem of low hps (i.e. power words... suprise rounds... crits... etc), it generally can keep you far away from being hit.

I can see some problems of the class myself... the number one being that as a melee character, this guy'll have some problems.  His HP will probably prevent him from going into melee whenever someone might dispel him.  The second problem is that he'll be stuck taking feats that'll compensate him for his weaknesses.  Spell Penetration and Spell Girding pop into my head first and foremost.   The second third is that as far as offensive capability goes, he'll have his share, but it'll never equal someone who went for PrC's that better suit that purpose.  Take the Spell Power ability (archmage, red wizard)... take Improved Metamagic (incantatrix)... this character'll lose out on all of them.

On the flip side, think of versatility.  This person's a walking ball of abilities.  He can cure, attack, buff, move(teleport or plane shift)... do just about everything that anyone would normally purchase items to do if they didn't have the ability themselves.  Metamagic feats will probably be your friend, as you'll have two classes to get a lot of use out of.  Crafting will also be majorly useful, as you have the ability to make almost any item in the game (no monk's tatoos *sob*).

So basically, you lose out on a LOT of oomph from a straight wizard's blasting power to get a lot of versatility.  You lose out on a LOT of oomph from a straight cleric's ability to hit things in physical combat.  You lose out on a LOT of oomph from what someone with other PrC's would get... depending on what beyond the DMG is allowed.  You gain an absolute TON of versatility.

So if you value versatility, this class is somewhat overpowered.  If you value sheer power... I dont' think there's anything to worry about.  Because of this tradeoff, I'd like to see it in play before I completely crusify it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 3, 2003)

Dark Eternal - how often does the cleric complain that having to use all his spells up for healing is bad? Wouldn't he be far happier if there was a second cleric in the group?

Next: What the hell do you think the cleric does to almost every other class? It's entirely possible to produce a cleric which steps on someones toes.

I fail to see why this is a problem.

I'm in the camp that says this class is a good thing, BUT I'd have preferred a solution to the 'multiclassed caster' problem in general to a single PrC which addresses the problem for a limited number of multiclass combinations.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 3, 2003)

FireLance said:
			
		

> *My problem with the Mystic Theurge is the sheer number of buffs + healing that it is capable of producing.  Especially the long-duration 1 hour/level buffs that effectively last the whole day anyway.  Think of it this way: a Wiz3/Clr3/MT10 is basically a 16th-level character that casts offensively as a Wiz13 and buffs like a Clr13.  Sound scary? *




Quite frankly, no.

A cleric is scary with his buffs because:
* He has a decent BAB
* He has decent Hit Points
* He can wear armour.

the MT has none of those things.

Cheers!


----------



## Hygric (Apr 3, 2003)

I actually like the look of this class.  Is it balanced?  I don't know yet, but my instinct is telling me that it would be ok balance wise.

With the 3.5 haste not allowing two spells per round, this class will miss the big hitting spells for instant devistation.  What it will have is endurance, and lots of it!  A perfect prestige class for smaller parties, or parties where no-one wants to play a cleric.


----------



## Kesh (Apr 3, 2003)

Personally, I'd just play a straight Cleric, or some other Prc. You trade off too many special abilities (I'd never give up my Turn Undead!  ).

For a Wizard, it's not so bad. You give up familiar bonuses and item-creation feats. Whee. Being dropped back 3 levels for spellcasting does hurt though.

As mentioned, a Druid would find this PrC useless. A Sorcerer isn't a bad solution, using arcane offensive magic and divine defensive/buff spells.

A Ranger who picks up a few levels of Sorcerer is probably the best combo for this. He'll have decent HPs and Saves by the time he qualifies for this class, some nice abilities when in light or no armor, progression as a Sorcerer for attack spells and his Ranger divine spells. The low HP progression certainly does hurt though.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 3, 2003)

I am absolutely neutral on this class. I like the idea, but am not sure if I like the excecution. The one thing I do like is seeing so much controversy over one class, that may yet be edited, from a book that hasn't even been released yet.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Ratama (Apr 3, 2003)

The MT gives up a little bit of power for a lot of versatility; imho, that's how it should be.

If your idea of D&D is the 'Iconic' co-dependant foursome skipping down the yellow-brick road, then you probably don't like the Mystic Theurge, or any other generalist class that doesn't gimp the character that takes it.

If you look at a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 10 and compare it to a 16th level Wizard or Cleric...  sure, it looks overpowered.

2x13th level casting and 7th level spells in two classes vs 16th level casting and 8th spells; looks overpowered, and it is...  for only that level, though.

If you compare a 7th level Bard to other 7th level SC characters, the SC Bard actually looks balanced.  But anyone who's ever played or Gm'd for one could tell you that 1 level over or under that, though, and the SC Bard goes back to its normal level of comparative combat crappiness.

Excluding the possibilities of levels in 3.0 PrC's (remember, this is a 3.5 PrC that can't be blamed for how it might stack with  non-core PrC's like the Geomancer), the Mystic Theurge don't look so rosy compared to it's SC caster counterparts at any CL but 16.

 I challenge anyone who disagrees to actually build a couple 16th level casters and then compare them (I'm not saying this like I'm calling someone out in the schoolyard or anything like that; I'm just saying that if you really *look* at the actual character you can build with this PrC, you'll see that the Mystic Theurge is, at least with only other Core classes in the mix, balanced).

Although, I'd be interested in doing a character comparison featuring a 16th Level Cleric, 16th level Wizard, and 16th level W3/C3/MT10 as a joint effort with someone else for posting here, if anyone else is interested in trying to show just how 'broken' the Mystic Theurgist actually is.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 3, 2003)

I was thinking...

Pre-Requisities
Skills: Know: Arcana 8 ranks, Know: Religion 8 Ranks, Spellcraft 10 Ranks
Feats: Skill Focus: Spellcraft
Special: Must be able to cast 3rd level arcane and 3rd level divine spells. 

Now, is it as bad?


----------



## Cedric (Apr 3, 2003)

I have to say that this prestige class would go a LONG ways towards satisfying one of my biggest complaints with 3rd edition. 

I like playing multi-class casters. I like playing Cleric/Magic-Users, but why should I?

In first edition, a cleric/magic-user was a force to be reckoned with and a lot of fun to play. 

In 3rd edition a 10/10 cleric/magic-user...just plain sucks. A 20th level character, that can't cast heal and JUST maxed out his magic missile spell. 

I for one am glad to see an option that makes dual classing as a Cleric/Magic-User of Boccob a viable option.

Cedric


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 3, 2003)

Kesh - halfcasters would be terrible to take under this class.

I think perhaps some people are looking at this class and thinking to themselves
"Why would I not take a level in this, rather than a level in wizard".

The answer is "because I also have to give up three MORE levels of wizard".

Most people are unwilling to give up even a single wizard level from a wizard. Now you're doing a 4 for 1 deal. At higher levels of theurge, it rises to as high as 13 for 10.

Sure, a cleric3/wiz3/theurge10 seems quite powerful. That's because it's the absolute best that the PrC ever gets.

What does a cleric3/wiz3 look like? Compared with a wiz6 or cleric6?

A cleric3/wiz3/theurge1?
theurge 2?

etc?

Simply put - at it's best, the PrC is causing arguements as to whether it's overpowered or not.

That typically means that it's around about balanced, perhaps on the high side, but sufficiently different for people to argue about it. Remember the monk?

And that's as good as the PrC ever gets. To the high side of balanced.


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 3, 2003)

This is ridiculous.  It's a crappy class for someone that wants to play anything resembling a militant cleric, but for someone playing a wizard, it's a freakin' godsend. 

A 16th level character with only 13 levels of wizard because he took 3 levels of fighter or rogue (or anything else, really) is seriously handicapped. A 16th level character that is a 13th level wizard and, instead of those crappy 3 levels of fighter or rogue, gets access to spells like Spell Resistance, Heal, Raise Dead, Resurrection... that's a slightly different matter. Even more so if you pick good domains.


----------



## Quip (Apr 3, 2003)

I'd like it if the class scaled better at higher levels, and was resonable to take for epic as well. 

I came up with an alternate progression, its just a little weaker overall and doesn't get much stronger in epic levels:

1	Both		
2	Divine		
3	Both		
4	Arcane		
5	Both		
6	Both		
7	Divine		
8	Both		
9	Arcane		
10	Both	

With this progression you get +7 levels to both. Does it seem better balanced this way? At 20th level the best you could have Wiz 17/Clr 10. Even if you took "early epic" levels of MT all the way to 14th it would only be 16 in each, 9th level spells just aren't going to happen.

As for epic levels, a Wiz 5/Clr 5/MT 40 would be a 50th level character that casts as a Wiz 33/Clr 33. Not exactly game breaking.

I have to say though, power issues aside that it seems like a pretty boring class. It would have been nice to have a couple small extra features. I'll probably post an alt version in house rules sometime.


----------



## Ratama (Apr 3, 2003)

Remember, this is a 3.5 class; maybe we should wait and see that the 3.5 Epic changes will be before we start rewriting what is otherwise a well-balanced class.

Epic is broken, anyway; just sitting back and enjoying the munchy goodness would be my vote, rather than spending time trying to mend a hull breach with chewing gum.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 3, 2003)

Anyone else notice that this new class doesn't have Scry on it's class skill list?  This mean that scry won't be a skill in 3.5?  The class would definatly have it if it were still a skill, all 5 possible parent classes have it.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 3, 2003)

Btw, I had be tossing around an idea before seeing this class, and since it is the first class i've seen that adds more than 1 spell casting level each level, I've decided to write up the one I had be thinking up.  I think it's much less powerful than this class, and makes more sense to me.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46542

He combines sorcerer and wizard, but not with full progression in both.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 3, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *This is ridiculous.  It's a crappy class for someone that wants to play anything resembling a militant cleric, but for someone playing a wizard, it's a freakin' godsend.
> 
> A 16th level character with only 13 levels of wizard because he took 3 levels of fighter or rogue (or anything else, really) is seriously handicapped. A 16th level character that is a 13th level wizard and, instead of those crappy 3 levels of fighter or rogue, gets access to spells like Spell Resistance, Heal, Raise Dead, Resurrection... that's a slightly different matter. Even more so if you pick good domains. *




At least two of those spells require him to sacrifice some of himself for someone else, and don't therefore really factor into a balance argument - if anything they're a step backwards. Heal, while quite beneficial, is a spell which is only really worth using during combat, which means that he has to make a decision between that and something else. It's a good ability to have, but not earth shattering. The primary resource in a fight tends to be time, not spell slots.  Spell resistance is a slightly different matter, although it's a spell which wizards should really have had access to in the first place.

Apart from having lots of spell slots, and therefore a lot of endurance (something which more-or-less balances out with not having spells at as high a level - demonstrated somewhat by the sorceror class) can anyone give me some seriously game-breaking application of this class?


----------



## FireLance (Apr 3, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Quite frankly, no.
> 
> ...




I agree that one on one, a MT lacks the short-term punch of a straight spellcaster.  However, it beats any other spellcaster hands down when it comes to sheer spell output.  A cleric buffing himself is dangerous, but he can only spare so many buffs per day.  A MT of equivalent level would have about double the number of spells, and could buff the entire party, while remaining only 1-2 spell levels behind the straight spellcaster.

Admittedly, there will be times when that higher level spell becomes important.  However, on the average, I believe that a MT would be more useful to the party than any straight spellcaster.  That is why I think the MT is "too good".


----------



## Gez (Apr 3, 2003)

Dark Eternal said:
			
		

> *Which leads to the biggest problem, IME - blurred and overstepped 'roles' in a party.
> 
> Consider if you have a party with the classic "1 rogue, 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 mage" in your group.  Now consider what happens once the mage, at 4th level, multiclasses to cleric.  Then at 7th level, takes Mystic Theurge.
> 
> From 4th level on, the guy playing the cleric only has a few spells that the other character doesn't.  And for the rest of the campaign, he'll only ever be able to do a very, very few things that the mage/theurge can't.  That's assuming for whatever reason that the cleric player doesn't decide to do the exact same thing - and I don't have to enumerate the problems if he does.*




If you think blurring the roles between wizards (supposedly, artillery) and clerics (supposedly, support) is really bad, what do you think of the new _haste_, which has been modified from a "turn myself into a more destructive spell artillery" spell into a "support the party" spell ?

Anyway, it's a serious trend I've seen here -- turning wizards into a support role, and removing all spotlight from them. All the whinings on _haste_ were about that. Recently, I've seen people saying they house-ruled _shield_ out -- the rational being it allowed wizards to survive melee. And then, there's all the complaining about _magic missile_, which, gash, horror, always hits and has no saving throws. Lots of people wants wizards to just be support guys. Like clerics without armor, hit points, BAB, and turning capacity. Like a NPC class, in fact.


See also this thread.


----------



## Gez (Apr 3, 2003)

Kesh said:
			
		

> *A Ranger who picks up a few levels of Sorcerer is probably the best combo for this. He'll have decent HPs and Saves by the time he qualifies for this class, some nice abilities when in light or no armor, progression as a Sorcerer for attack spells and his Ranger divine spells. The low HP progression certainly does hurt though. *




Nah, the best is probably a cleric/bard. The reason ? In 3.5, bards won't suffer from arcane spell failure*, so the mystic theurge will be able to wear armor and cast all his spells.

(* Maybe because they'll all get automatic still spell, this seems the most rational way to do it.)


----------



## RolandOfGilead (Apr 3, 2003)

*Dont know if anyone's mentioned..*

From my standpoint, one of the greatest powers of the cleric
is spontanteous cure spells.. which this class will not be able to use for spells higher than level 2 divine... also, the character will have to prepare for HOURS every day.. the character can still only cast 1 spell a round, despite the fact that he has many, many spells.. but catch him by surprise, and ask yourself, would you rather be playing a MT with 60 hp's AC 20 and +5 fort save or a cleric with 100 hp's ac 28 fort save +10?


----------



## bret (Apr 3, 2003)

I have to look at it a bit more, but it looks a bit overpowered to me as well.

It would depend a *lot* on the domains chosen. Other rules changes in 3.5 could also substantially change the balance.

At 16th level, the saves compared to a Wizard would be better in Fort, same in Reflex, and much better in Will. Provided you didn't split the rest of the levels evenly, this would continue.

I would be looking at things like getting Persistent spell and Spell Penetration for feats.

Being able to do things like Blade Barrier followed by Bigby's Forceful Hand could make things really interesting for the opponents.

In order to survive, I would want to take the Cleric levels first. 

Domains I would be looking for are things like Chaos/Evil/Good/Law (bonus to caster level), Luck (reroll on critical SR or save), and maybe Travel Domain for the ability to cast Remove Paralysis or Freedom of Movement when I need to.

As I said, I would have to think about this a bit. My initial inclination is that it is a bit too powerful.


----------



## LazarusLong42 (Apr 3, 2003)

There's another subtle knife in the side of this class that only one person pointed out:  ability scores.  Let's assume a 28-point buy, a pretty standard number:

Pure Wiz:  Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 12, Cha 8. By the time he can cast 9th-level spells, his ability bonuses have brought his Int up to 20.  And he could have bought an 18 in Int by dropping to Dex 12, Con 12, Wis 10 (or Str 8).

You can build a pure cleric much the same way.  Now, what about a character heading for Mystic Theurge?  Well, it's almost pointless to have less than a 16 in either Int or Wis, so:

Str 8, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 16, Cha 8.

The MT can't carry as much, has a lower Dex bonus to AC, lower Ref and Fort saves, lower HP, and a pretty crappy Turn to start with.  And he has to divide his ability bonuses between Int and Wis.

You *could* buy an 18 in one or the other (not both), at the expense of just about every other ability score.  You could keep a 10 in, say, Dex.  And at level 20, you'd have maybe 50 HP.

Playing toward this class would mean giving up a *lot*, and not just in the base numbers.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Apr 3, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *<a href="http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=000452">This thread</a> on the wizards board has Mark A Jindra (WotC Web Developer) saying that it is not an april fools joke...
> 
> *




*shrug*

Well, I'm definitely not impressed by the level of discussion going on in that thread (which makes it no different from any of the Revision Spotlight discussion threads on the Wizard's board).

Page after page of hysterical clucking over the "broken munchiness" of a class which nobody's actually seen in it's proper context - context meaning, in this case, _as a part of the whole product known as D&D 3.5_ 

People offering their dashed off "fixes" to the class

People dashing off mindless number crunching exercises of 800 improbable combinations of items designed to give the caster Int and Wis scores of 50 - as though the ability to, say, give a Barbarian a Str score of 84 proves in any way that the class is broken. 

People screaming out "DID THEY EVEN PLAYTEST THIS>? THOS GIYS ARE LOOSERS! AR THEY STOPOD?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yuck.

I don't envy the revision team their jobs (though, as a freelancer, I envy their steady paychecks, stock options and health insurance). It can't be easy being *constantly* second guessed by howling packs of anonymous gamers, half of whom have had their own "perfect fixes" for D&D in their heads since the week after 3E was announced.

Patrick Y. 


PS: As to the subject of the thread itself - I reserve final judgement until I see the class in action with the rest of the revised rules. At 1st glance, powerful, but not "broken" by any means. Also: finally, multiclass primary casters won't have to spend all day sucking lame juice through a crooked straw...


----------



## FireLance (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Dont know if anyone's mentioned..*



			
				RolandOfGilead said:
			
		

> *From my standpoint, one of the greatest powers of the cleric
> is spontanteous cure spells.. which this class will not be able to use for spells higher than level 2 divine... also, the character will have to prepare for HOURS every day.. the character can still only cast 1 spell a round, despite the fact that he has many, many spells.. but catch him by surprise, and ask yourself, would you rather be playing a MT with 60 hp's AC 20 and +5 fort save or a cleric with 100 hp's ac 28 fort save +10? *




By your argument, a cleric that multiclasses into any PrC with a +1 level spellcasting advancement can only spontaneously convert spells that he can cast using his "pure" cleric level.  While I don't think the rules explicitly state it one way or the other, I doubt that many people play it that way.

By the rules, a cleric needs only one hour to prepare all his spells.  Similarly, a wizard needs one hour to prepare all his spells.  You could argue that a TM would need one hour to prepare all his wizard spells and another to prepare all his cleric spells, but that means he spends two hours maximum.

Comparing a TM with a cleric doesn't really bring out the problem. Compare him to a wizard instead.  A TM would have the same AC and a better hp and Fort save from his 3 (minimum) cleric levels.  Which would you rather be playing then?


----------



## Derren (Apr 3, 2003)

My first reaction was" Holy S*****. They´ve gone crazy!" and I still think this way.

But we all have to remember that we don´t know how the wizards and clerics will look in 3.5. At least the cleric will have some changes.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 3, 2003)

Derren said:
			
		

> *My first reaction was" Holy S*****. They´ve gone crazy!" and I still think this way.
> 
> But we all have to remember that we don´t know how the wizards and clerics will look in 3.5. At least the cleric will have some changes. *




Yeah, maybe clerics will get domain spell slots as they go up in level instead (1st level slot at Clr1, 2nd level slot at Clr3, 3rd level slot at Clr5, and so on).  This way, +1 spellcasting level only gives the base spells without the domain slot, and only a Clr17 would get all the domain slots up to 9th level.

I always thought that would be a good way to balance +1 spellcasting level for clerics.


----------



## Destil (Apr 3, 2003)

This is a fair class if you have an even slpit, from the looks of things, the issue would be when you only take 3 levels of one class and focus on the other...

Should most likely require the ability to cast 3rd level arcane and divine spells. Then you'de be forced into a 50/50 split and it would be far harder to abuse, IMHO.


----------



## Bloodroot (Apr 3, 2003)

*But it's like an existing class...*

The class makes an appearance in Ultimate Prestige Classes.  There it has ALL bad saves.

I'm surprised, usually Wizards seems to avoid even looking like they're pickiing up someone else's material.

It isn't necessarily a bad class idea.  I'd have to see how it works in the context of 3.5 to really judge.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2003)

Personally, I think that if the concept of "mastering all types of magic" is so important to you, then you should just get rid of arcane and divine magic as separate types in the first place. Presumably there's a distinction between them in your game world for a reason. Having a PrC that can use both types, without a very good reason for doing so (no, I don't think "masters all magic" is a good reason), blurs that distinction to the point of making it useless.


----------



## Corinth (Apr 3, 2003)

This is a PrC that's ready-made for devotees of Mystra, Azuth, Shar, Boccob, Wee Jas, Thoth and other gods of magic/lore.  I'm still liking it.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 3, 2003)

My opinion has already been mentioned. I would have preferred rules for multiclassing of any spellcasters instead of a puny prestige class.

The "brokeness" of the class depends a lot on the campaign, as stated by the advantages and disadvantages. If you tend to fight few powerful monsters with SR, the class sucks, if you tend to fight many low level monsters with not much time to rest and lotsa chases, the class rocks.

I don't really see a problem with the class as written, except for some single mentioned problems (Divine Power). But it's no real fix for the real "problem".


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 3, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *This is a PrC that's ready-made for devotees of Mystra, Azuth, Shar, Boccob, Wee Jas, Thoth and other gods of magic/lore.  I'm still liking it. *



I agree it is a great class for some one who wants to be a cleric of the god of magic as now you can be a cleric and an arcane spell caster.
Ken


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2003)

Joseph Elric Smith said:
			
		

> *
> I agree it is a great class for some one who wants to be a cleric of the god of magic as now you can be a cleric and an arcane spell caster.
> *




Gah. If you want a "god of magic", without any qualifications on the _type_ of magic in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world. That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between arcane and divine in the first place.

And there's nothing that says the functionaries of a particular religion have to be of the cleric class anyway. It's really more of a party healer/religious crusader type than anything else.


----------



## Gez (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dont know if anyone's mentioned..*



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> *Comparing a TM with a cleric doesn't really bring out the problem. Compare him to a wizard instead.  A TM would have the same AC and a better hp and Fort save from his 3 (minimum) cleric levels.  Which would you rather be playing then? *




OK. Once again, the argument: "yes, compared to a raw cleric, it's weak, but compared to a raw wizard, it's strong".

Too me, this only means one thing: If you're going to disallow a class that is weaker than a cleric because it's too powerful, then, the cleric, who is more powerful, is even more "too powerful", and thus needs to be forbidden also.


----------



## Aloïsius (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Dont know if anyone's mentioned..*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK. Once again, the argument: "yes, compared to a raw cleric, it's weak, but compared to a raw wizard, it's strong".
> 
> Too me, this only means one thing: If you're going to disallow a class that is weaker than a cleric because it's too powerful, then, the cleric, who is more powerful, is even more "too powerful", and thus needs to be forbidden also. *




Cleric is broken ! Wizards got the shaft ! 

I can't wait for july, I think we will have a lot of fun.


----------



## seasong (Apr 3, 2003)

_EDIT: Yeah, I'm an idiot _

At 20th level: Clr 3/Wiz 7/MTh 10

Spell levels = Clr 13 (7th level spells), Wiz 17 (9th level spells)
Since all other stats mirror Wiz, I will compare the class to a pure wizard and see what he loses/gains:

*Same*
- BAB (+10/+5 either way)
- Ref save (+6 either way)
- Toad familiar (who cares if he can talk, again?)

*Loss*
- increased familiar abilities (hp still go up by character level)
- 3 bonus metamagic feats

*Gain*
- Fort save (+8 base instead of +6)
- Will save (+15 base instead of +12)
- Hit Points (avg 60 instead of 50)
- Skill Points (slightly more gained from cleric levels)
- the ability to turn undead (though not strong)
- the ability to use decent weapons
- the ability to wear armor when it's really needed
- half of your spells don't suffer spell failure
- domain abilities (which typically do not scale with level)
- 1st through 7th level cleric spells, at a cleric's number/day

If the metamagic feats are important to you (and they should be), you will have 7 general feats with which to pick up the important ones.


----------



## Aloïsius (Apr 3, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *EDIT: Yeah, I'm an idiot
> 
> At 20th level: Clr 3/Wiz 7/MTh 10
> 
> ...



*

you forget 3 wizard levels, which means :
*6 free known 9th level spell in your spellbook
*3 9th level wizard spell cast per day
*2 8th level wizard spell cast per day
*1 7th level wizard spell cast per day
*-3 to all check to overcome spell resistance
* 3 level less powerfull wizard spells (17d6 does not equal 20 d6)
*-3 effective caster level against dispel magic




Gain
- Fort save (+8 base instead of +6)
- Will save (+15 base instead of +12)
- Hit Points (avg 60 instead of 50)
- Skill Points (slightly more gained from cleric levels)
- the ability to turn undead (though not strong)
- the ability to use decent weapons
- the ability to wear armor when it's really needed
- half of your spells don't suffer spell failure
- domain abilities (which typically do not scale with level)
- 1st through 7th level cleric spells, at a cleric's number/day

If the metamagic feats are important to you (and they should be), you will have 7 general feats with which to pick up the important ones.
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 3, 2003)

My biggest complaint is that I read the darn thing.  I have an almost identical mechanic for a Legendary Class I'm designing for d20 Magazine Rack's contest.  ::grumble, grumble:: stuip curiousity ::grumble, grumble::


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 3, 2003)

WattsHumphrey said:
			
		

> *AC: Wowza.  As far as AC goes, this guy has all the benefits of both types of magic to keep him from being hit.  Between Magic Vestment, Shield, Mage Armor, Haste, and everything else, his AC should skyrocket.  Though this doesn't totally fix the problem of low hps (i.e. power words... suprise rounds... crits... etc), it generally can keep you far away from being hit.*



_Haste_: +4 haste bonus to AC.  This is under the current ruleset.  I understand that its been revised in 3.5
_Mage armor_: +4 armor bonus to AC, which means its not stackable with any armor already worn, including bracers of armor, which also grant an armor bonus.  You take the best
_Magic vestment_: grants enhancement bonus to armor worn.  This means that the arcane caster side is probably going to have to deal with spell failure
_Shield_: 3/4 cover

Yeah, I can see where AC would get buffed a bit.


----------



## seasong (Apr 3, 2003)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> you forget 3 wizard levels, which means :
> *6 free known 9th level spell in your spellbook
> *3 9th level wizard spell cast per day
> *2 8th level wizard spell cast per day
> *1 7th level wizard spell cast per day



True enough. Although really, the number of spells per day at that level rarely matters as much as the type and power of the spells - that's partly why this class is balanced at the lower levels, because you trade power of spells for type of spells, and the number of doesn't matter as much.







> *-3 to all check to overcome spell resistance
> * 3 level less powerfull wizard spells (17d6 does not equal 20 d6)
> *-3 effective caster level against dispel magic



Spell resistance: This is true. You will have an easy time with SR 22 instead of SR 25. The dice of damage, particularly with area effect spells, rarely seems to matter much at higher levels as much as the save or die spells, which are not significantly impacted.

Dispel magic is an excellent point - the Mystic Theurge is slightly behind the pure Wizard, and light years ahead of the multiclass Wizard.


----------



## Henry (Apr 3, 2003)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *you forget 3 wizard levels, which means :
> *6 free known 9th level spell in your spellbook
> *3 9th level wizard spell cast per day
> *2 8th level wizard spell cast per day
> ...




Is this verified? I seem to recall that someone who gains +1 effective level still gains the 2 free spells.

In any event, this creates a spell user _par excellance._ Imagine a Clr 3 / Sor 7 / The 10 - you have created a mobile artillery platform that can heal. As a spell user, it is the AD&D cleric/wizard all over again. 

Still, because the ONLY thing gained is the spell capacity, it's not quite as bad, especially since hit points are woefully weak (thank god they didn't give him d6.)

I don't worry about the 17d6 problem, because of maximized spell and empower spell.

If they REALLY wanted a divine/arcane caster mix, they could have made a prestige class that allows Arcane casters to pick up a certain number of divine spells per level to add to their repertoires.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is this verified? I seem to recall that someone who gains +1 effective level still gains the 2 free spells.
> *




You are correct.  But they still lose 6 spells because they are 17th spell caster level rather than 20th.

The more I read and the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that requiring only 2nd level spells as prereqs is to low, but that the screams of "wildly broken" are over reactions.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 3, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is this verified? I seem to recall that someone who gains +1 effective level still gains the 2 free spells.*




I believe he was referring to the difference between an effective 17th level wizard (Clr3/Wiz7/MTh10) and a 20th level pure wizard.  That difference would be 3 levels (the ones used for cleric).


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Gah. If you want a "god of magic", without any qualifications on the _type_ of magic in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world. That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between arcane and divine in the first place.*




Why couldn't there be a god of arcane magic who granted his priests divine spells?

Hey, he's a _god_.  Are _you_ going to tell him 'no, your followers aren't allowed to heal people'?

J


----------



## Zappo (Apr 3, 2003)

My first reaction to this class was like "what the..."

Then I read this thread, I thought better about it, and I figured that:


The MT really sucks at low levels. At 6th, he casts 2nd level spells top, and with a very low caster level that makes them much worse than the same spells cast by a pure caster. The extra versatility doesn't really help, it just means that he has a lot of different ways to suck, be it by casting buffs that expire in three hours, or by throwing 2d4+2 magic missiles (while the mage sneers and throws a fireball, which he's been throwing for the past level too), or by getting himself killed in melee.
Even at 11th, he is casting 4th level spells while a pure caster is casting 6th level!
The MT, because of his lack of fighting skills, can't make the same good use of buffs as a cleric. Yeah, he could use the arcane buffs to get about on par, but then only for a short time and only if he has, what, a half-dozen rounds to prepare? Without Haste, buffing becomes harder.
The MT needs two high stats. Even assuming that he does the reasonable thing and focuses on one of his spellcasting aspects, he's still going to have to pull out a good score in, say, Wisdom, where a pure wizard can be just as happy with a 10. Oh, there are ways to get the stats you need, but they all imply tradeoffs. And while he can probably get a 24 or something in one of the two stats, he can't easily do it for both. So *at least* one of his two spellcasting aspects will have to deal with substantially less spell slots than a pure caster of the same level, and (more importantly), much lower spell DCs.
Minor problems. He's got to prepare for two hours each morning, for example. I'm sure there are some more, but they aren't that important.

So, am I sure that this class is balanced? Nah... at high and epic levels when he has reduced the devastating impact of those lost 3 levels, it looks very dangerous, but I think there are more than enough elements to put away the torches and pitchforks until someone has actually played one through 10 levels, and until 3.5e is out and we can see how it integrates into the system.


----------



## herald (Apr 3, 2003)

I'm still loving what I see about the class. I've used a NPC in my game called a "Paragon of Boccob", which is extremly close to what I read here.

The only thing that I would add is a "Code of Conduct" that had to be followed to ensure that the Spellcaster followed his diety very closely.

That makes my "Paragon of Boccob" a very interesting character.

(True Neutrality, defend magic at all cost, ect.)

Could you imagine one of these as a "Paragon of Vecna"?

This mixed with BOVD, Muhahahahahaha!


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> Why couldn't there be a god of arcane magic who granted his priests divine spells?*




Because it's dumb. Because there's no "god of arcane magic" in most worlds I know of; it's usually "god of magic" (no arcane or divine qualifier). Because if it's a god of magic, then they should grant _magic_ abilities to their functionaries. You want to heal? Go right ahead. You want to zap people with lightning bolts? Ditto. Or maybe not, to both questions. The point is that, if magic is magic, then spells are spells.



> *Hey, he's a god.  Are you going to tell him 'no, your followers aren't allowed to heal people'?
> *




You appear confused. What does healing people have to do with anything?


----------



## Psion (Apr 3, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Is this verified? I seem to recall that someone who gains +1 effective level still gains the 2 free spells.*




Unless they changed it in 3.5 (I have no idea why they would), then they do.

As the problem with this class revolve around high levels, I'm thinking the best way to deal with this class would be to make it a 5-level class.

Better yet, the class as it is is just BORING, and the problem seems to all hinge around high levels, I'd pull a few of the casting advancements out and replace them with some more flavorful class abilities.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> Better yet, the class as it is is just BORING, *




VERY true


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 3, 2003)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *[*]The MT, because of his lack of fighting skills, can't make the same good use of buffs as a cleric. Yeah, he could use the arcane buffs to get about on par, but then only for a short time and only if he has, what, a half-dozen rounds to prepare? Without Haste, buffing becomes harder.
> *




What about an MT with Divine Power, Righteous Might, Stoneskin, Shield, and Tenser's Transformation? Maybe with Fly and Improved Invisibility thrown in for good measure... At high levels, many spells with a 10 minute/level duration last for hours. 

I'd call that "on par"... Yeah, it'd take him time to buff up, and he can suffer greatly if Dispelled, but a cleric using anything more advanced than Bull's Strength / Endurance to buff himself in combat has the same problems. (well, fine, slightly less of a problem because his spells are harder to Dispel)

Thank god they're changing Haste in 3.5, with the 3.0 version of it, this guy would be completely absurd... All the advantages of being hasted, none of the problems - the "well, yeah, but with Haste you just blow through your spells twice as fast, and what are you left with" argument would no longer apply...


----------



## herald (Apr 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because it's dumb. Because there's no "god of arcane magic" in most worlds I know of; it's usually "god of magic" (no arcane or divine qualifier). Because if it's a god of magic, then they should grant _magic_ abilities to their functionaries. You want to heal? Go right ahead. You want to zap people with lightning bolts? Ditto. Or maybe not, to both questions. The point is that, if magic is magic, then spells are spells.*




Hmmm, Let me check, Greyhawk has more than one god of magic, Forgotten Realms has more than 3, Dragonlance has 3 Gods of Magic. I'd be willing to guess that many worlds have gods of magic.

After all, thats why the whole domain "Magic" exists. 

I disagree with you Hong on this one.


----------



## bret (Apr 3, 2003)

OK, having thought about it overnight, I would playtest with two different characters.

FRCS:
Gnome Illusionist/Cleric with Gnome and Illusion domains.
Gets +2 caster level to illusions from the domains, which puts them at only a single level penalty for dispelling and SR.

PHB:
Human Wizard/Cleric with Luck and Travel domains.


I would go for at least a 15 in each of Wisdom and Int. Dump stat is Charisma since the character will not be able to turn undead anyways. I would figure it so that I could be assured of having a 19 Int by 20th level (when I could finally cast 9th level spells). In a low point buy game, this class is much less approachable. At about 30-32 points, you can do a respectable job.

It is difficult to say just how this PrC would stack up, need to experiment with a few different strategies to determine what really works best. I know that Spell Penetration, Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, and Silent Spell would be high on my list of feats. As the Gnome, I would definately take Spell Focus: Illusion since that is my main offense.

I think the hardest levels to get through would be 5-7. After that, I think the PrC would start really kicking in.

Until we see all of the revised edition rules, there really is no way to know if it is balanced.

One disadvantage that people haven't really gone into is the skill list. It is worse than either of the two base classes.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2003)

herald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hmmm, Let me check, Greyhawk has more than one god of magic, Forgotten Realms has more than 3, Dragonlance has 3 Gods of Magic. I'd be willing to guess that many worlds have gods of magic.*




Point me to where I said there are no gods of magic.



> *After all, thats why the whole domain "Magic" exists.
> *




Which is stupid, and an attempt to shoehorn a concept into a ruleset that doesn't support it well.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because it's dumb.*




I am truly staggered by your amazing powers of rhetoric.

Let's go back to your original contention, though, and see how well it works when applied to other domains:



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *If you want a "god of magic", without any qualifications on the _type_ of magic in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world. That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between arcane and divine in the first place.*




Let's assume you're right, and that, if there is a god of magic, there should only be one type of magic.  From there let us generalize to other gods:

If you want a "god of craftsmen", without any qualifications on the _type_ of crafting in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world.  That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between blacksmithing and masonry in the first place.

Hmmm.

If you want a "goddess of love", without any qualifications on the _type_ of love in question, then that should be reflected in how love works in the game world.  That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between romantic love and brotherly love in the first place.

Err...

If you want a "god of weather", without any qualifications on the _type_ of weather in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world.  That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between sunny days and blizzards in the first place.

Maybe not.

So why should a god of "magic" be different from a god of craftsmen, of love, or of weather?  Why couldn't a god of magic encompass arcane magic _and_ divine magic?

J


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am truly staggered by your amazing powers of rhetoric.*




Thank you. I'll be here all week.



> *Let's assume you're right, and that, if there is a god of magic, there should only be one type of magic.  From there let us generalize to other gods:
> 
> If you want a "god of craftsmen", without any qualifications on the _type_ of crafting in question, then that should be reflected in how magic works in the game world.  That is, there shouldn't be any distinction between blacksmithing and masonry in the first place.
> 
> (etc)*




Huh? A god of craftsmen (or love, or weather, or whatnot) does not imply lack of distinction between crafts, just as a god of magic does not imply lack of distinction between spells. There are no "arcane" or "divine" craftsmen, last I checked.



> *So why should a god of "magic" be different from a god of craftsmen, of love, or of weather?  Why couldn't a god of magic encompass arcane magic and divine magic?
> *




Exactly. If said god encompasses both forms of magic, then why bother with having two distinct forms in the first place?


----------



## Goobermunch (Apr 3, 2003)

Please excuse my rambliness.  I've got a headcold from hell and NyQuil is my lord and savior.

That said, I've been reading a lot of complaining about the Mystic Theurge.  I've also seen a number of analyses comparing the MT to a high level caster.

I'm going to suggest a different analysis.  I think the MT is under powered.  I say this, because I can get all of the benefits (and more) with a single feat.  That feat of course, is leadership.

Let's start with the big downside of your MT: you combine the spellcasting power of two classes with one set of hitpoints and one physical location.  Anything that takes you out deprives your party of all of your goodness.

At 7th level, when you can first take this class, you've got all the juice of a 4th level wizard and a 4th level cleric.

At 7th level, I've had leadership for a level and can have a cohort of up to 6th level.  This means that my 7th level sorceror can bring his friendly 6th level cleric along with him. 

Advantage: Leadership.

At 12th level, you're casting as a 9th level cleric and a 9th level wizard.

I'm casting as a 12th level sorceror and my cleric pal is still cruising along one level behind me . . . with all his unadulterated cleric hitpoints and BAB intact.

At 16th level, you're casting as 13th level cleric and a 13th level wizard.  At best, you're getting two spells off each round.

At 16th level, I'm a brutishly powerful 16th level sorceror.  My cleric friend is respectably 15th level.  We're casting between 2-4 spells each round.  That is, of course, assuming my cleric friend isn't an elven archer to boot.

Now, hey, wait a minute . . . you're saying.  My MT can take leadership too.  At 16th level, I can bring a 15th level caster along with me.

To which your party should respond . . . sure, but then, why are we dragging you along . . . we'll just hire the 15th level caster and convince him to take a cohort!  And even then, your party is ahead of the game.

Viewed in this light, I really don't think the MT is all that great!

--G


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 3, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Better yet, the class as it is is just BORING, and the problem seems to all hinge around high levels, I'd pull a few of the casting advancements out and replace them with some more flavorful class abilities. *




Think you have some good points Psion. For me I'm just going to raise the requirements to make it a little less accessable. Maybe more like 9 or 10th level.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> Huh? A god of craftsmen (or love, or weather, or whatnot) does not imply lack of distinction between crafts, just as a god of magic does not imply lack of distinction between spells. There are no "arcane" or "divine" craftsmen, last I checked.
> 
> If said god encompasses both forms of magic, then why bother with having two distinct forms in the first place? *




If said god encompasses all forms of crafts, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?

If said god encompasses all forms of weather, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?

I don't think this is a difficult concept.  If one god can be the patron of both blacksmiths and masons, then why cannot another god be the patron of both arcane casters and divine casters?  Both are using different forms of magic, buch as a blacksmith and a mason use different types of craftsmanship.  The magic is used in different ways, much as ironwork and worked stone are used for different things.  They require different sets of skills (although there is some overlap), just like blacksmithing and masonry.

So, why should 'magic' get all of its possibilities smashed together into one thing, when nothing else does?

J


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 3, 2003)

Quip said:
			
		

> *I'd like it if the class scaled better at higher levels, and was resonable to take for epic as well.
> 
> I came up with an alternate progression, its just a little weaker overall and doesn't get much stronger in epic levels:
> 
> ...




I believe that should be Wiz14/Clr10. A Wiz7/Clr3/MT10 (using your progression) gets +7 caster level for both classes; 7+7=14.

Wiz14/Clr10 at 20th level is fairly weak, IMO. Don't expect to penetrate much spell reisistance.

And that's towards the min/max end of the scale; the Clr5/Wiz5/MT10 will be casting as a Wiz12/Clr12; no 7th level spells, horrible spell penetration, no special abilities, etc.

IMO, the class itself is okay; it's what you can do out of the class that might cause problems -- mainly, taking nothing but wizard or cleric levels after you're done with MT. I don't think a character with an even split between Wizard & Cleric levels will be too powerful.

You could up the requirements to require the ability to cast 3rd level arcane & divine spells -- but I think that might make the character aiming for this class untenably weak at lower levels. Before you take the class, you'd be 10th level character who's most powerful spell would be a bare minimum 3rd level spell. 5d6 fireball, vs. typical CR 10 threats? Not a good way to live. 

That requirement would also mostly exclude sorcerers from this class entirely, since they'd have to be Sor6/Clr5 to meet the requirement. They would then be incapable of taking 10 levels of the class without going epic; worse, they'd never even get 8th level spells. That'd be a shame, because it sounds like a fun character concept (person born with innate magical ability who chooses religious service). 

<shrug> I'll still wait and see.


----------



## herald (Apr 3, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *Huh? A god of craftsmen (or love, or weather, or whatnot) does not imply lack of distinction between crafts, just as a god of magic does not imply lack of distinction between spells. There are no "arcane" or "divine" craftsmen, last I checked.*




No, but there are Arcane and Divine spell casters, and that's all there needs to be to support the point.

There has always been a distiction between Divine Magic  and Arcane Magic in D&D. That's why the Prc is made the way it is. I think I can say with all certainty that the 3.5 rules will not differ so much from the 3.0 rules and have a totally intergrated spell list of Divine and Arcane spells.

If you want an anology of Gods of Craftsmen and the like simply doesn't hold up. In D&D gods grant divine spells. Even when the spell duplicates in the Arcane Spell list, it is Divine. That's the way the system is made. You could Rule zero what you want with the spell tables, but don't expect Wizards to start making Prcs with those kind of exceptions.


----------



## mearls (Apr 3, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> Unless they changed it in 3.5 (I have no idea why they would), then they do.
> *




This is incorrect. The standard, boilerplate text for gaining additional caster levels via a prc is very particular about how a character only gains more spell slots and an increased caster level. The wizard's free spells per level is a major advantage compared to prestige classes and one of that class's core abilities. Those 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells are not cheap to scribe into your book.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *Exactly, this is pretty much just like the 1e/2e cleric/wizard multiclass. Was that class horribly overpowered and game breaking? *




As was true for most multiclass or dual class combinations in 1e/2e, the answer to your questions is "Yes".


----------



## Psion (Apr 3, 2003)

Sorry, Mike, you are incorrect. Per Skip.

Edit: From the T&B FAQ. Emphasis mine:



> If I take spellsword as a prestige class and choose
> wizard as the previous spellcaster class, what happens if I
> advance several levels as a spellsword (gaining several +1
> bonuses to the previous spellcaster class) then take
> ...


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *Sorry, Mike, you are incorrect. Per Skip. *



Okay I'll bite which one is Mike and what is he wrong about .?
ken


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *Sorry, Mike, you are incorrect. Per Skip. *




Psion is correct.

Gaining the two spells is considered part of gaining the wizard spellcaster level.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 3, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *What about an MT with Divine Power, Righteous Might, Stoneskin, Shield, and Tenser's Transformation? Maybe with Fly and Improved Invisibility thrown in for good measure... At high levels, many spells with a 10 minute/level duration last for hours.
> 
> I'd call that "on par"... Yeah, it'd take him time to buff up, and he can suffer greatly if Dispelled, but a cleric using anything more advanced than Bull's Strength / Endurance to buff himself in combat has the same problems. (well, fine, slightly less of a problem because his spells are harder to Dispel)*



For starters, he's 3 levels behind so those 10 minutes/level all last a bit less. Btw, some of those spells last much less than that - definitely not enough to have them always up. Tenser's is 6th level and he isn't even getting it until 14th.

If he gets a Dispel he's screwed twice as much as another character, because of the high number of spells he keeps up and lower caster level.

Anyway, as I said I think the class is powerful at high levels, but is weak at low-to-medium levels. Even then, I can't say "how much" powerful or weak without playing it thoroughly but I strongly suspect that it won't be powerful enough to be "broken" or weak enough to be useless.







> *Thank god they're changing Haste in 3.5, with the 3.0 version of it, this guy would be completely absurd... All the advantages of being hasted, none of the problems - the "well, yeah, but with Haste you just blow through your spells twice as fast, and what are you left with" argument would no longer apply... *



I agree. I never even quite believed the "you blow through your spells twice as fast" argument with regards to Haste for that matter...


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2003)

mearls said:
			
		

> *This is incorrect. The standard, boilerplate text for gaining additional caster levels via a prc is very particular about how a character only gains more spell slots and an increased caster level. The wizard's free spells per level is a major advantage compared to prestige classes and one of that class's core abilities. Those 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells are not cheap to scribe into your book. *




Wrong. For example, look at the text from the Loremaster class (from the SRD):



> _This essentially means that she adds the level of loremaster to the level of some other spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, *spells known*, and caster level accordingly._




[Emphasis added]

This is specifically addressed in the Main D&D FAQ, on page 12, right at the beginning of the "Prestige Classes" section, in the following question and response:



> _Question: I can't find any information about how many spells prestige class spellcasters know. I am going on the presumption that those that gain bonus spells per day of their existing class (such as loremaster and spellsword) do not automatically add additional spells to their spellbooks as they gain levels.
> 
> Answer: They do add spells to their lists. For example, a wizard/loremaster gains 2 spells for her spellbook when using a loremaster level to increase spellcasting. A sorcerer/loremaster would learn more spells as well. Adding spells to your spellbook or presonal repertoire is part of spellcasting._





Not only has this question been answered, but it has been answered with a response directly opposite your conclusion.


----------



## Psion (Apr 3, 2003)

> *Okay I'll bite which one is Mike and what is he wrong about .?*




Mike _Mearls_ is wrong in his assertion that wizards don't gain new spells in their spellbook when they get levels in a class with continued spellcasting advancement.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 3, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Mike Mearls is wrong in his assertion that wizards don't gain new spells in their spellbook when they get levels in a class with continued spellcasting advancement. *



I saw the clarification, and thanks between my computer and my brain I often get confused on message boards 
ken


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 3, 2003)

Just to throw one more little twist into the discussion...

Would there be as much uproar if this were a 5-level PrC instead of a 10-level one?

--The Sigil


----------



## Marshall (Apr 3, 2003)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> *Well, at first glance, it certainly seems excessive...  however (bear with me for a second)...
> 
> What do you really gain?
> 
> ...




Ditto everything Kid said.

All the class does is make the WIZ/CLR multiclass as viable as the RNG/BRB or FTR/BRB or FTR/RNG yadayada.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 3, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Just to throw one more little twist into the discussion...
> 
> Would there be as much uproar if this were a 5-level PrC instead of a 10-level one?*




Probably not.  You'd either wind up with the casting ability of a Wiz18/Clr7, or (if you wanted to go close to even) a Wiz13/Clr12.  You'd also eliminate the possibility of taking it into epic levels - although Andy Collins seemed to suggest on his message board that the epic progression for the Mystic Theurge might not be what we think.

J


----------



## Psion (Apr 3, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Just to throw one more little twist into the discussion...
> 
> Would there be as much uproar if this were a 5-level PrC instead of a 10-level one?*




Hmmm...



> _I wrote:_
> * As the problem with this class revolve around high levels, I'm thinking the best way to deal with this class would be to make it a 5-level class.*


----------



## Psion (Apr 3, 2003)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *All the class does is make the WIZ/CLR multiclass as viable as the RNG/BRB or FTR/BRB or FTR/RNG yadayada. *




See this post in the poll thread for why I do not think the situations are equivalent.


----------



## Gaius (Apr 3, 2003)

I cannot believe all the stir this prestige class has caused.  Ever since the release of 3rd edition, one of the principle complaints, among others, was that multiclassed spellcasters sucked.  A level 20 character who split his advancement equally between cleric and wizard levels is at a severe handicap when compared to other 20th level spellcasters who maintained a single class.  No question about it.

So the Mystic Theurge seems to be the solution.  Given that this is a revision of 3rd edition and not a brand new 4th edition, it is reasonable to expect that multiclassing rules are going to remain intact as is.  So the best way to fix the problem of multiclassing spellcasters, without a total revamp to the existing system, is to make a prestige class "patch."  Like the Mystic Theurge.

I am firmly in the camp that believes that this class is not overpowered.  Three lost levels of spell advancement is not a small thing.  A topped out Mystic Theurge, let's say Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10, has 1 base slot for 9th level spells.  The straight Wizard 20 or Wizard 10/Incantrix 10, or whatever "pure" arcane caster you want, has a base of 4 slots for 9th level spells.  Same is true of previous levels.  The Mystic Theurge will have versatility at the expense of sheer power.

This prestige class has been debuted for all of a day now and already the armchair game designers are implementing their fixes.  Talk about some hypocricy there.  I mean, you've got people complaining, "Did they even playtest this thing!?" who then turn around and say, "This is what needs to be fixed!"  All in the span of one day.  I mean, did they even playtest this thing!?  

One of the most prominent changes seems to be making the prerequisites more stringent.  Such as requiring the ability to cast 3rd level arcane and divine spells.  I'm sorry, but are you crazy?  A 10th level character, 5 levels each in Wizard and Cleric, is casting third level spells while his peers are whipping out the 5th level guns.  At 11th level, with your one level of Mystic Theurge, you're still pumping out third level spells while your 11th level Wizard pal is stepping up to sixth level spells.  Who would want to sacrifice firepower like that just to have access to both arcane and divine spells?  As it is, I think that requiring second level spells is the right prerequisite.

Basically, what you have here is a rather vanilla prestige class that allows Wizards to cast divine spells with only a slight dropoff in their arcane abilities.  A balanced dropoff.  This seems to me to be what people have wanted all along, but now that it's here, people can't seem to stop complaining.

Of course, this is to say nothing of actually making a character rather than a stat-block.  Once you start considering something more than min-maxing, the prestige class becomes even more balanced.  I mean, not many people are going to be able to justify their character being a dual-spellcaster like this.  Best I can see would be those who follow gods of magic.  Or, if you're set in the Scarred Lands, maybe a Druid/Sorceror.  But even then, the Mystic Theurge sucks for Druids.  So there goes that.

All in all, I like the Mystic Theurge and find it to be pretty balanced, at least on the surface.  Of course, I, like everyone else, haven't had a chance to playtest it nor am I privy to the full 3.5E context in which this character has been crafted.  So reserve judgement until you've got all the "facts" of the matter.

Gaius


----------



## heirodule (Apr 3, 2003)

*Andy collins defends it in this thread*

on his boards:

http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessage?topicID=126.topic 



> One of the problems identified in 3rd Edition is the inequality of multiclassing options. While combos of melee-type classes are pretty attractive (since BAB, the fighter's holy grail, continues to increase regardless of the class taken), any spellcaster wishing to multiclass takes a dramatic hit on his spellcasting power. Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).
> 
> The mystic theurge is part of a dedicated approach in 3.5 to address that problem. In this case, the prestige class presents a viable road for the character who wants to pursue two different magical paths, without having to forgo any hope of keeping up with his friends.
> 
> ...


----------



## haiiro (Apr 3, 2003)

At first glance, I also thought this PrC looked overpowered. After reading through this thread and thinking about the issues at hand, I'm not so sure. I lean towards the MT being no more overpowered than the arcane trickster or incantatrix -- i.e., too much for some campaigns, just fine for others.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in all of the comparisons brought up so far is the difference between a pure sorcerer and a sorcerer/cleric/MT -- as opposed to the difference between a pure wizard and a wizard/cleric/MT, which has been covered pretty well.

The PHB sorcerer gets the worst BAB, HD, # of skill points and saves (one good one), along with a fairly poor skill list (too few CHA skills) -- just like the wizard and MT, in other words. Unlike the wizard, however, he gets only one special ability: his familiar. It seems like the sorcerer has a lot more to gain from taking MT levels than the wizard does, as he doesn't miss out on any bonus feats.

In any case, the MT class makes the idea of playing a multiclassed arcane/divine caster _without_ this PrC fairly pointless -- or at least moreso than it already is, given how much both classes lose in that equation.

As far as Psion's (fairly accurate) comment that the PrC is boring, I'd say it's no more boring than the sorcerer -- and, like the sorcerer, I think the concept is quite neat.

IMO, the "wait and see" attitude makes the most sense -- trying to balance a 3.5e PrC against 3.0e classes is interesting, but potentially not all that accurate.


----------



## mearls (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *Sorry, Mike, you are incorrect. Per Skip.
> *




Ah, I figured that's where that came from. Needless to say, I don't agree with that ruling. The wizard's bonus spells are one of the few ways you can differentiate the core wizard from PrCs in terms of resources and power. As anyone who has played a wizard can tell you, scribing scrolls sucks down gp pretty quickly.

From a design standpoint, spellcaster PrCs are completely wonky. If you hose the spellcaster's ability progression, you essentially create a character that is designed to be worse at its core competency. For instance, you don't find many fighter or rogue prestige classes that make those classes worse in combat or at stealth. OTOH, if you keep the progression in place you're stuck with a character that is simply better than a core class. This ties back into the SR system and the reliance on binary save situations (ie, save or die) at high levels, neither of which I like all that much.

(I really, really don't like SR. It's too binary. I've toyed with a system similar to DR but haven't had the free time to really tinker with it.)

I've thought about building a system of limited spell advancement, but even those don't work well. They fall into the classic "I'm good at what I do, bad at what I don't" trap.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 3, 2003)

Haiiro wrote 







> In any case, the MT class makes the idea of playing a multiclassed arcane/divine caster without this PrC fairly pointless -- or at least moreso than it already is, given how much both classes lose in that equation.




Is this any more different than a fighter/wizard without spellsword or a wizard/rogue without arcane trickster? Compare:

fighter 2/wizard 3/Spellsword 10 vs. fighter 7/wizard 8
rogue 4/wizard 5/arcane trickster 10 vs. rogue 9/wiz 10
wizard 3/cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10 vs wizard 8/cleric 8

My problem is that it doesn't seem balance well vs. True Necromancer or Geomancer (the previous caster/caster classes) but then again, they get some amazing abilities to compensate for 5th level magic, while MT is pure casting at the cost of all other things.

I'll wait til the 3.5 books are in my hot little hands before finalizing judgement.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 3, 2003)

When I first read the class, I thought it was too much, but after reading through the examples of this character at various character levels, it doesn't seem that bad.  If it's epic progression doesn't add 2 caster levels per level, then the class might be pretty balanced even into high levels.  It's sort of making me rethink my prestige class http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46542

perhaps full progression is in order?

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> *
> From a design standpoint, spellcaster PrCs are completely wonky. If you hose the spellcaster's ability progression, you essentially create a character that is designed to be worse at its core competency. For instance, you don't find many fighter or rogue prestige classes that make those classes worse in combat or at stealth. OTOH, if you keep the progression in place you're stuck with a character that is simply better than a core class. This ties back into the SR system and the reliance on binary save situations (ie, save or die) at high levels, neither of which I like all that much.*




Alot of rogue PrC's only give 6 skill points, such as Thief-Acrobat, Outlaw of the Crimson Road, or Shadowdancer. This, for a class that's meat-and-potatoes is skill points, usually means you loose some of your skill versatility. 

However, I cocur on fighter PrCs, most in SnF give full BAB, so fighters loose nothing (save bonus feats) to PrC.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 3, 2003)

It seems to me that a spellcaster with access to, say, 1st through 5th level spells is going to be fairly balanced with a caster with oodles of 1st through 3rd level spells.  

The latter will have better selection, true.  But I don't see having an extra Invisibility Purge & Haste handy to be such a great trade for a Raise Dead or Wall of Force.

I look for spells that allow qualitatively new tactics and strategies.  Lots of spell levels is not a substitute from that POV.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 4, 2003)

Having read this thread, I think this PrC sounds OK. That trade off is much more of a disadvantage than it seems initially.

Funnily enough, I think this *isn't* a munchkin's dream, it's actually more suited to someone who knows how to get the most out of limited power. Want to blast stuff? Don't take this class. Want to mix and match the utility spells? Go right ahead.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 4, 2003)

Just so you know:

If you take this as a sorceror/cleric, you will NEVER get 9th level spells. Sorcerors are significantly WORSE to multiclass into this than wizards - the benefit of casting lots of spells per day is lost, and the idea of versatility is relatively incompatible with a sorceror.


----------



## Pax (Apr 4, 2003)

aurin777 said:
			
		

> *My jaw is still sitting in my lap, to tell you the truth. I always thought multiclassed spellcasters were under powered, but this is rediculous the way they delt with that. Who needs a wizard or a cleric? I can do both *




But you wil do neither, as well as the pure Wizard and pure Cleric can manage.  Look at what an offensive spellcaster needs -- high DCs.

Where do high DC's come from?  High attributes, for starters.  However, a Mystic Theurge is going to be having to divide their level-up attribute increases between TWO spellcasting stats.

Further, at 20'th level (Cleric(5) / Wizard(5) / Theurgist (10), you'll only be a 15th level caster in each "sort" of magic; that's 8th level spells.

To cast that level of spell, you need to have started with a 15 and 16 in your two spellcasting attributes.  IOW, either you got a *nice* set of attributes, or, you have poor scores elsewhere.

Lastly, consider: it's a *Prestige* class ... all it gets, *all* it gets, is dual spellcasting progression.  Compare to the Archmage (FRCS), the Loremaster (DMG), the Elemental Savant (T&B), the Contemplative (DotF).  They all get spellcasting progression *and* something else.




> *I thought the true necromancer dealt with this the right way. They were able to add their levels together to get spells, rather than all of both.
> ~~Brandon *




Actually, you're wrong.

True NEcromancer gets +1 spellcasting level per True Necromancer level, granted.  But you have to choose which (cleric or wizard) gets the bonus spellcasting level.

For Necromancy school spells and Death domain spells, *only*, the True NEcromancer's *caster level* (not spells per day, not what level of spellc an be cast, just caster level), is the sum of all their levels.

The example T&B gives is a Cleric(5)/Wizard(5)/True Necromancer(2) -- who chose to boost their Wizard spellcsting with both True NEcromancer levels.

In that example, they specify that cleric spells are cast as a 5th level cleric, wizard spells as a 7th level wizard, but necromancy-school or death-domain spells are cast with a caster level of 12.

Cast, not prepared.  It'll help you with SR checks, and against dispel checks, and for determining damage dice or duration.

Further, the True Necromancer *still gets other powers*.  Zone of Desecration and Major Desecration as supernatural abilities; Create Undead, Create Greater Undead, and Energy Drain as spell-like powers; the ability to rebuke undead (which stacks with their cleric levels, of course).

Consider, OTOH, a Cleric(5)/Wizard(5)/Theurgist(2).  They cast and prepare Cleric spells at 7th level, Wizard spells at 7th level, and all non-spellcastign abilities of both classes are based on 5th-level members of said classes.

And that's it.

I don't see True NEcromancer comparing unfavorably to the Mystic Theurgist; if you want to be a Cleric/Wizard who is good at necromancy, you play a True Necromancer.

If you want to be a Cleric/Wizard who is a good magical *generalist*, however, you play a Mystic Theurgist.

...

On the topic of Epci progression -- I woudl sy, the Theurgist gets a bonus feat only every ... say, 8th or 10th epic level, but, still benefits from full dual progression.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Dont know if anyone's mentioned..*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK. Once again, the argument: "yes, compared to a raw cleric, it's weak, but compared to a raw wizard, it's strong".
> 
> Too me, this only means one thing: If you're going to disallow a class that is weaker than a cleric because it's too powerful, then, the cleric, who is more powerful, is even more "too powerful", and thus needs to be forbidden also. *




Actually, my argument was that it is more difficult to compare with a cleric, not that it is weaker compared to a cleric.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 4, 2003)

Just on the lack of "flavour" of this prestige class:

That's fine, in my opinion. This prestige class is to fill a mechanical hole in the 3E rules - that multi-class non-spellcasters are great, but multi-class spellcasters are really, really bad.

As such, it has as much flavour as a Wizard or a Cleric has - you create your own, rather than have it imposed on you.

Whether or not it is balanced - well, I think it's not good up until level 10 (so a Wiz3/Clr3/Theurgist4), but after that it starts getting playable. It's highlight is at level 16, and after that things start going downhill.

Cheers!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 4, 2003)

OK, I looked it up.
I gave my in-house test dumm--errr playtester, 30 levels to build the Ultimate, 120 point buy, UBER-MT!!!

Then, in playtest, the lich shot him with an AK-47.
He died.

Well, apparently not too overpowered.

The UBER-MT VS 500 Kobolds armed with M-16A1's and AT-4's!
Once again, the UBER-MT(TM) was wiped out.

So, we dropped our UBER-MT out of a plane at 35,000 feet.
He forgot his chute.
Hmmm, he didn't have fly or feather-fall.
SPLAT!
Oops.

So, we scraped him up with a spatula, and put him through the UBER-PC REGEN-o-MATIC(Patent Pending) and put him against his newest opponent.
24 10th level Barbarian/10th level Brutal Killers, wirebound, and armed with Etherium +12 Axes!!!
Hmmm, he didn't do too good against them either.

So, would it fit in my campaign?
Uhhh, no.
Would it fit in other peoples?
Probably. Someones. More power to them.
WHY SHOULD WIZARDS PUT OUT ONLY INFO TO FIT A SMALL CRITERIA!
Don't the munchkins and powergamers deserve material? Don't powergamers buy books too?
Geez, it's a Prestige Class, not the replacement for all spellcasters.
Take a deep breath, and just remember, it's a G-A-M-E.


----------



## Michael Morris (Apr 4, 2003)

I'm iffy on this class not because of power (power wise I think it will be ok), but because of it's interaction with the magi of my setting.  I don't know though - I'm going to be revising the magi anyway...


----------



## kkoie (Apr 4, 2003)

I just wanted to chip in and say I like the class. I don't see any problem with it.  From how it is set up, I think its pretty fair and balanced.  Although I'd prefer a straight wizard or stright cleric over this guy anytime, simply because I think they'd be more powerful.  This class is weaker, but is definately more diverse.


----------



## Dark Eternal (Apr 4, 2003)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> *OK, I looked it up.
> I gave my in-house test dumm--errr playtester, 30 levels to build the Ultimate, 120 point buy, UBER-MT!!!
> 
> Then, in playtest, the lich shot him with an AK-47.
> ...




[tongue-in-cheek]

You should have let me play him.  He would have been a much happier character.  Those pathetic liches and kobolds and barbarian BK's and planets wouldn't have lasted five rounds... 

[/tongue-in-cheek]

On to more serious notes - 

I'm only here to recant my previous statements.  After a long and humbling conversation with my senior Dungeon Master, it turns out that I was wrong.  The class _is_ playable, fairly balanced, and will be allowed in my games.  I stand corrected.

Thank you for playing.


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> If said god encompasses all forms of crafts, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?
> 
> If said god encompasses all forms of weather, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?*




There are distinct forms of weather. There are also distinct forms of magic. They are called "spells". There is, further, no real-life analogue to "divine" or "arcane" magic, as there is for weather, last I checked, so such analogies are just a distraction.

You know, I might have mentioned this before, or perhaps that was just the product of a deranged imagination.



> *I don't think this is a difficult concept.  If one god can be the patron of both blacksmiths and masons, then why cannot another god be the patron of both arcane casters and divine casters?  *




The patron of divine casters is whoever grants their spells, whether that's Heironeous, Lathander, Billy the deity of trolls, etc. The concept of a "god of magic" is antithetical to the whole point of having divine spells in the first place.



> *Both are using different forms of magic, buch as a blacksmith and a mason use different types of craftsmanship.  The magic is used in different ways, much as ironwork and worked stone are used for different things.  They require different sets of skills (although there is some overlap), just like blacksmithing and masonry.
> 
> So, why should 'magic' get all of its possibilities smashed together into one thing, when nothing else does?
> *




It would appear that your Lego head is doing strange things to you, because you're not making sense. Nobody has suggested "smashing all its possibilities into one thing", whatever that means.

THe point is: why bother with this artificial divide, if all you're going to do is ignore it? Arcane and divine magic exist to further specific roles or archetypes within the game. If what you want is to munge these archetypes together, then why have arcane and divine magic in the first place? Just call it "magic", which solves a whole bunch of problems, and makes life easier all round. As well as getting rid of the need for a boring PrC like this "mystic theurgoober" or whatever it's called.


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2003)

herald said:
			
		

> *
> No, but there are Arcane and Divine spell casters, and that's all there needs to be to support the point.*




So what if there are arcane and divine spellcasters? I'm saying there's no NEED for arcane and divine spellcasters, if you're just going to munge them together. Keep this point in mind.



> *There has always been a distiction between Divine Magic  and Arcane Magic in D&D. *




Tell me again why I should give a damn about what there has "always been".



> *That's why the Prc is made the way it is. I think I can say with all certainty that the 3.5 rules will not differ so much from the 3.0 rules and have a totally intergrated spell list of Divine and Arcane spells.*




Tell me again why I should give a damn about what 3.5E says.



> *If you want an anology of Gods of Craftsmen and the like simply doesn't hold up. In D&D gods grant divine spells. *




Exactly. And if you want that, then a concept of a god of arcane magic granting spells results in a contradiction and a confusion of niches, especially when you have arcane spellcasters using the exact same spells without any need for a deity. You can either do something to remove this confusion from your game, or spread more confusion on UNseboards. Because the MORE CONFUSION, THE BETTER, as I always say.



> *Even when the spell duplicates in the Arcane Spell list, it is Divine. That's the way the system is made. *




So?



> *You could Rule zero what you want with the spell tables, but don't expect Wizards to start making Prcs with those kind of exceptions. *




Tell me again why I should give a damn about what ZANY, WACKY PrC Wizards decides to pull out of its ass this week.


Hong "more ZANY and WACKY than any damnfool PrC" Ooi


----------



## Mike Sullivan (Apr 4, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Just on the lack of "flavour" of this prestige class:
> 
> That's fine, in my opinion. This prestige class is to fill a mechanical hole in the 3E rules - that multi-class non-spellcasters are great, but multi-class spellcasters are really, really bad.*




Yeah, agreed.  But it's a clumsy fix.  Okay, great, so now we can usefully multiclass Wizards or Sorcerers and Clerics (in a single, rather direct way -- if you try to get an assymetric Wizard/Cleric blend, like you could, with, say, a Fighter 7/Thief 3, you're right back to your starting point).  Now, how about Wizard/Druids?  Or, for that matter, Sorcerer/Barbarians or Wizard/Rogues?  Assuming, for the moment, that we find those to be acceptable concepts (and I find them more compelling than Wizard/Clerics, really), do we now have to create a PrC for each one?

Whee!  We can have a half-assed solution to the problem of multiclassed spellcasters for the mere price of adding about 5 PrC's to the game (Arcane/Fighter-type, Arcane/Rogue-type, Arcane/Divine, Divine/Fighter-type, Divine/Rogue-type).

The solution to the problem (which WotC seems to be implicitely admitting exists) is to find a way to have spellcaster abilities usefully-but-not-overpoweringly stack when you're adding levels of a non-spellcasting class.  The MT isn't flavourful enough to be a real PrC, and a PrC isn't a good mechanic to add because two classes ought to (in some campaigns) usefully multiclass, but don't by the rules.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Apr 4, 2003)

*Not so bad to me...*

Looking over the class, and this thread, it doesn't look so bad...

While others have been comparing this to a straight Wiz or Sor or Cleric, how about a comparison with the Wiz/Cleric (or Sor/Cleric)?  To me, multiclassing is all about versatility, but the WizX/ClrX doesn't lend itself to versatility very well in mid to high levels.  

The Wiz10/Clr10 doesn't stand a good chance against that CR 20 (typically, SR 31) creature.  However, the Clr3/Wiz7/MT10 has a better shot at it, and even then it would seem like a coin toss (which is what it should be, right?).


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 4, 2003)

*Re*

Hmmm...this class is strong, maybe too strong. I just tried to map out a character. The loss of feats is pretty dramatic for a wizard, but the cleric doesn't lose all that much because WotC hasn't done much with turning. Hard to enter any other PrC's as well.

I know I will be playing this class with at least one of my characters that was previously a cleric/wizard/ftr in 2nd edition. I am glad they brought back a class that feels like the old multi-class characters.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 4, 2003)

Does Discover magazine still toss in the annual fake article as an "April Fool's" joke? I remember they did one about burning water (as in the old joke about the cook so bad they could burn water), and another about the hot-headed rodents that lived in the snow. 

That's what this class strikes me as - a more sly, tongue-in-cheek April Fool's joke, posted a day late and with the other, more obvious April Fool's articles running interference.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 4, 2003)

Personally, I think the class is overpowered.  If I was playing a Wizard, I would gladly trade three levels of my progression to gain Cleric spellcasting up to seventh level.  Losing a few ninth level spell slots and three feats (which isn't as bad as it seems, since you can often gain feats through certain domains), is nothing compared to the gains you make.  I would never allow this PrC in my game, and furthermore, the more details I see for 3.5E, the more I dislike it.

I was really interested about 3.5E when it was first announced, but the "revisions" being made seem to be clarifying a few rules, and adding a few half-assed PrCs.  I was thinking of pre-ordering 3.5E, now I'm going to wait for at least a month before I consider picking it up.  I hope WoTC can pull this off, but it doesn't seem like they will right now.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 4, 2003)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Does Discover magazine still toss in the annual fake article as an "April Fool's" joke? I remember they did one about burning water (as in the old joke about the cook so bad they could burn water), and another about the hot-headed rodents that lived in the snow.
> 
> That's what this class strikes me as - a more sly, tongue-in-cheek April Fool's joke, posted a day late and with the other, more obvious April Fool's articles running interference. *




The Wizards developers have stated this is not an April Fools joke, as you would already know if you had read the rest of the thread.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 4, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The Wizards developers have stated this is not an April Fools joke, as you would already know if you had read the rest of the thread. *




Yes, I did read the thread. Monte and SKR are no longer with WotC (Monte left WotC around 3 years ago, IIRC, and SKR left several months ago, and didn't receive proper credit for his work in Savage Species, indicating he may not be as aware of things at WotC as he should be (not a knock on him; WotC is at fault in this regard), and haven't been for a while. With no disrespect to them, I won't take it as gospel until it's actually in the DMG.

So there.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 4, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *<a href="http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=000452">This thread</a> on the wizards board has Mark A Jindra (WotC Web Developer) saying that it is not an april fools joke...
> 
> *




Andy Collins also defended the class on the Wizards boards.  Like I said, read the thread.  But then again, even with all the WoTC developers saying it is, you won't believe until it's in the 3.5E DMG.  I guess you better just bow out of all 3.5E related discussion until then.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 4, 2003)

As Mike Sullivan states, the Mystic Theurge is an attempt to make spell-casting multiclassing as useful and tempting as a level of rogue or fighter.

I think this prc accomplishes its goal well, and as far as balanced it comes up fair. First, you have to preclude allowing the character to take a level of True Necromancer (a first level ability which stacks cleric and wizard levels for the casting level of necromancies would be quite broken), and then you have to consider other clr/wiz prcs to see if there is another uber broken quality when in conjunction with the theurge.

If youve determined that that issue is ok, the theurge isnt really overpowered, just different. He has quite a bit of endurance, as in able to cast spells more often than a sorceror, but with considerably less power.

I believe any comparison to Theurge and Cleric comes with cleric on top, as the cleric retains her better BAB, better saves, better HP, turning ability, and the ability to cast divine spells in armor, all of which the theurge loses. The big comparison is with a straight wizard and the theurge.

3/3/1  Theurge vs 7 Wizard
The wizard's spells are so much better the comparison is almost moot. The wizard also has a leg up on familiar advancement, and 1 more feat. The wizard will probably be looking to enter a prc himself soon, but we will assume he stays straight wizard.

Theurge Spells Per Day: Clr 5/4/3. Wiz 4/3/2
Wizard Spells Per Day: 4/4/3/2/1

There are 2 big comparisons, highest spell level and total spells. For the purpose of this argument, 0 level spells are not considered. The Theurge has 12 spells and his highest is level 2. The Wizard has 10 and her highest level is 4. Clearly, this is no contest, the Theurge has only begun to become a viable character concept.

3/3/4 Theurge vs 10 Wizard
The wizard has gained another feat and at this point can communicate with his familiar telepathically. The theurge has achieved a 7th level caster in both arcane and divine magic.

Theurge Spells Per Day: Clr 6/5/4/3/2. Wiz 4/4/3/2/1
Wizard Spells Per Day: 4/4/4/3/3/2

The Theurge has 22 spells and highest level 4. The wizard has 16 spells, highest level 5. The theurge is approaching the power of the wizard, but will never beat it. A theurge can cast a fireball for 7d6 damage, with a spell penetration of +7. The wizard casts a fireball for 10d6 damage, with a spell penetration of +10, or could use a 5th level slot for an empowered fireball.

Its important to point out that as far as buffing fellow party members, the theurge is unparalleled. His ability to summon monsters is also strong, as the odds of running out of spells is smaller.

3/3/7 Theurge vs 13 Wizard
The wizard's familiar has gained spell resistance and the ability to be scried by its master, but the wizard is still only 2 bonus feats up on the theurge.

Theurge Spells Per Day: Clr 6/5/5/4/4/3. Wiz 4/4/4/3/3/2
Wizard Spells Per Day: 4/4/4/4/3/2/1

The theurge is really pulling his own weight, with a whopping 37 spells per day, highest level 5th. However the wizard has advanced far enough to get 7th level spells, and despite his smaller amount of spells per day (a mere 18, less than half of the theurge) they are more potent. Compare the Theurge's Cone of Cold at 10d6 and 50 ft to the Wizard's at 13d6 and 65 ft. Comprable? Yes, but the wizard could cast a still and silent version as a level 7 spell, or a Prismatic Spray. The Wizard also retains a +3 relative to the Theurge on Spell Penetration rolls.

At this point its prudent to consider costs. The theurge will probably be saving on some scribing costs, as overlapping divine and arcane spells dont need to be scribed, but the theurge has 2 important mental statistics. Also, despite his strong role as a buff-stick for the party, his buffs lasts 3 caster levels less than the wizard, and are 3 caster levels easier to dispel.

3/3/10 Theurge vs 16 Wizard
A close showdown, this is the theurge at the height of his power as after this level he will have to take single class levels or another prc.

Theurge Spells Per Day: Clr 6/6/6/5/5/4/3/2. Wiz 4/4/4/4/3/2/1.
Wizard Spells Per Day: 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/3/2

The Theurge is up to 50 spells a day, highest level 7. The Wizard has picked up a third bonus wizard feat and has almost reached 9th level spells. With 28 spells and up to level 8 spells, the Theurge has managed to pull ahead. His spells arent quite as potent, and are still behind the Wizards' in terms of penetration, but if he can live long enough to cast them he has more force.

Its also noteworthy to point out that if a Theurge took Cleric as his starting class, he will have perhaps 10 more hp and by level 16 equal saving throws except Will, which is 3 higher for the Theurge. While he has been able to advance most of his skills as a straight wizard, he has lost Scry as a class skill, a potentially powerful loss for a high level spellcaster. If he chose to have a familiar at all, it is little more than a hindrance, as its death will only harm the character, and it is not nearly as hardy as the Wizard's counterpart.

This discussion did not take bonus spells into account, but the theurge would probably benefit almost twice as much as the Wizard. 3e encounters are difficult to balance at high levels, when a single high level spell the monster doesnt manage to save against spells the end of the encounter. For the Theurge, the odds of a 1-spell answer working are far lower, especially against "boss" encounters (CR 1-3 levels higher than party).

I maintain that this prc is really only powerful if you begin play at higher than 9th level, as up till that point the Theurge (or multiclassed wiz/clr) is significantly less powerful than a single class combination (or a spell-fighter combination). It is not until the highest level of play that a theurge comes into his own, and at that point he has more spells than he can use in a day. It is also in the Theurge's greatest benefit to acquire this class as quickly as possible (right after getting clr3/wiz3), slower acquisition means longer that you are "underpowered".

Technik


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> *Ah, I figured that's where that came from. Needless to say, I don't agree with that ruling.*




Well, you can disagree all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the "standard boilerplate PrC spellcasting text" explicitly contradicts your notion of what is given by the ability.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 4, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *There are distinct forms of weather. There are also distinct forms of magic. They are called "spells". There is, further, no real-life analogue to "divine" or "arcane" magic, as there is for weather, last I checked, so such analogies are just a distraction.*




 Fine, you want an analogy without a real-life analogue?  Corellan Larethian is the god of elves.  If he encompasses all forms of elvenitude, why bother having different forms of elves?

The point - which you are doing such a fine job of missing that I am forced to believe it is deliberate - is that the fact that there are multiple varieties of magic does not preclude the existence of a single god of magic.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *The patron of divine casters is whoever grants their spells, whether that's Heironeous, Lathander, Billy the deity of trolls, etc. The concept of a "god of magic" is antithetical to the whole point of having divine spells in the first place.*




Why?

First of all, the patron of _a_ divine caster is whoever grants their spells in the first place.  There could also be a god who looks over divine casters in general - perhaps he's the one who first figured out how to grant a mortal the power to cast spells.  It all depends on the structure of religion in your campaign.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *It would appear that your Lego head is doing strange things to you, because you're not making sense. Nobody has suggested "smashing all its possibilities into one thing", whatever that means.*




Well, except you, when you bizarrely insist that a god of magic precludes a distinction between divine and arcane spells.  You're really not doing a very good job of expressing your point.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *THe point is: why bother with this artificial divide, if all you're going to do is ignore it?*




In what way are we ignoring it?  Divine casters cast divine magic, arcane casters cast arcane magic.  Some people happen to have the skill and training to do both, just as some people have multiple PhDs.  The presence of that case hardly means we are ignoring the divide in all cases.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *Arcane and divine magic exist to further specific roles or archetypes within the game. If what you want is to munge these archetypes together, then why have arcane and divine magic in the first place?*




Fighters and rogues exist to further specific roles or archetypes within the game.  If what you want to do is to munge these archetypes together, then why have separate classes in the first place?  I guess we should just get rid of multiclassing completely, eh?

Or, replace 'rogues' with 'magic-users'...and then consider your blade-dancer character (or prospective blade-dancer, I can't recall), happily munging the two archetypes together.  But wait - that was a new archetype!  You needed to use elements from both!  So how is that different from the cleric/magicuser, Mystic Theurge, Hallowed Mage, or whatever?

J


----------



## Skaros (Apr 4, 2003)

FireLance said:
			
		

> *My problem with the Mystic Theurge is the sheer number of buffs + healing that it is capable of producing.  Especially the long-duration 1 hour/level buffs that effectively last the whole day anyway. *




Which is another good reason to hold judgement until 3.5 is released.  Will there still be all of those 1 hour/level buffs in 3.5?  We don't know.

-Skaros


----------



## Glutton (Apr 4, 2003)

About the lack of flavor text:

From Theosophy.org:

Theurgic magick on the other hand has seldom a clearly specified goal. Its purpose is purely spiritual, to move the mage, his tradition or the whole world towards Ascension. There is seldom a obvious result. While thaumaturgy creates effects in the lower planes, the goal with theurgic magick is to rise above them. In a way it could be called "religious magick". It differs greatly among the traditions, who all have different views on what Ascension is and what theurgy to perform for its celebration

From worldreference.com:

theurgy ['¥èi¢°ˌɜ¢°dʒ©¥]
noun
(plural: -gies)
1 a the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency in the affairs of man 

THIS is what a theurgist is; a being on the path to "ascension"

Very appropriate for the class.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Apr 4, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Andy Collins also defended the class on the Wizards boards.  Like I said, read the thread.  But then again, even with all the WoTC developers saying it is, you won't believe until it's in the 3.5E DMG.  I guess you better just bow out of all 3.5E related discussion until then.   *




So I missed that reference. I was wrong. Big whoop. Y'know, just because the internet is the home for the rude reply, doesn't mean you have to make one.

EDIT: By the way, I've pretty much stayed out of 3.5 discussions. In the three years I've been a part of this community, I've watched as a tempest in a teapot has been started with the impending release of every single WotC book (and many d20 releases). I've seen (as many of us have seen) various preedictions that this or that book or rule was going to be the ruin of D&D (the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example; it sparked any number of prophetic flame wars before its release). We've seen numerous proclamations about how this or that is unbalanced, or how House Rules would be implemented even before the book is seen. Pretty much all of this has come to nothing, in the end. It's fun to discuss all this, sure, but until I see it in the book, I figure I'll just wait and see. _If_ this class actually shows up in the DMG, I'll simply disallow its use in the games I run. It's as simple as that. If others find it useful, cool for them. It just strikes me as a joke.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 4, 2003)

Overpowered? I don't think so. Assuming you don't go out of your way to look for broken combinations, it seems fine.

In fact, one of my players is building a 7th level character right now. He is having to make the choice between the Mystic Theurge and Monte's Hallowed Mage.

He is having a real tough time....   

I might also note that we are only going to have 3 characters in the party. This character concept is really nice as it rids us of the "we need a cleric" problem.


----------



## Lazybones (Apr 4, 2003)

An interesting discussion; my initial reaction was that the class is grossly overpowered at higher levels, but I'll withhold my final judgment until the game is released.  

In comparing an L16 mage vs. an L10 MT/L3 cleric/L3 mage, what struck me is that the latter gains 105 total spell levels in exchange for giving up 41 (and that's completely exclusive of any wisdom bonuses).  And the losses in terms of prereqs, lost feats, lost class powers, etc. seem minimal in my view, balanced as they are in in the gain of more weapons, slightly better saves, and a pair of domain powers.  This class completely changes the predominant spellcasting PrC patterns one sees in the supplements: either gain a progression on alternate levels, and lots of cool PrC powers (commonly seen in the splatbooks), or gain a progression on every level, and gain a few cool PrC powers at the cost of your base class powers (commonly seen in the FR books).  

I know people will say that higher level magic can't be compared in terms of just calculating total spell levels, that an L8 spell is more than 14% more powerful than an L7 spell (i.e. that spell power progression is geometric, not arithmetic), but it still seems rather unbalanced at first look. 

It'll be interesting to revisit the debate once people are actually playing this PrC.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 4, 2003)

Here is an odd way to look at it.

To better see where the MT fits, maybe we should look at redefining our perspective of the Wizard and Cleric classes. 

In the new core system, we will have this:

Wizard = Arcane Specialist
Cleric = Divine Specialist
Mystic Theurge = Generalist 

Change of perspective:

What if the MT was considered to be the standard way to go, and the Wizard and the Cleric where mearly specializations of either the Arcane or Divine aspect? If the MT was a standard class, how would you react if the Wizard was just introduced as a new class and you where told that there was a way to cast far more higher level spells, at a faster rate of advancement, for the cost of some of your lower level spells that you seem to have so many of?

As I said before, I don't see the MT as overpowered. In my opinion, the difference of a few spell levels is significant.

Four 9th level spells vs 1?

As I said before, my player is considering this class at 7th level. Now if he takes it, he will only be able to cast 2nd level spells where he would normally get 4th level spells. For this reason alone I suspect he will not take it.

He will effectivly be trading his higher, most usefull spells, for a huge number of lower level spells. He can still only cast 1 spell per round. I suspect he will soon realize that he has an overabundance of lower level spells that he simply doesn't need each day.

After all, would you rather cast two flaming spheres and a Cure Mod Wounds in three rounds, or a single Phantasmal Killer, Wall of Fire, or Polymorph in one round? Or maybe even all three in three rounds? Three levels is alot.


The point is, the Wizard has enough spells per day to get by in all but the most prolonged situations. Are the extra spells really worth the potant spells you would be giving up?

I think the MT is balanced.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 4, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *In fact, one of my players is building a 7th level character right now. He is having to make the choice between the Mystic Theurge and Monte's Hallowed Mage. He is having a real tough time.... *



Absolutely. It's not certain that MT is better than HM. The HM gets lots of bennies: combined caster levels, lower (and eventually no) armor arcane failure rate, and NOT HURTING YOUR BUDDIES WITH YOUR AoE SPELLS, among other things.

Of course, your player has to wiat until 11th CL to take a HM level, which sets him back even further in the "power race." All depends on what your campaign is like.

Which is exactly the point, right?

One of my favorite AD&D characters was an elven cleric/magic-user. I'm looking forward to maybe being able to play that type again, using one of these classes.


----------



## Barcode (Apr 4, 2003)

Just read through this thread and the one at WotC (research for the discussion I know I will have at my game this weekend).

Just gotta say:  I love you guys.

Clear, well reasoned, well spelled arguments abound on these boards, and only a couple of people are rude and obnoxious. 

Just the first page of posts on the equivalent thread at WotC makes me wonder: a) why anyone who does not love to rant and be ranted at would hang out there, and b) how the WotC guys deal with having their products, work and worth continually and unintelligibly derided on a site that *they pay for*, without having to go home and beat their dogs every night.

Ah, it's nice to be here.

Back to lurking...

-B-


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 4, 2003)

hehe.. my player just emailed me and asked if he could make his character with the following build plan:

Wizard 5/ cleric 3/ mystic theurge 2/ hallowed mage 10

Bwahahaha!

*slap*

GET THEE BEHIND ME MUNCHKIN!! 


NOTE: Not a good idea to mix the MT with the HM. He would have slipped in two free clerical spellcasting levels. Sneaky bastard.

EDIT - His new plan is Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 10/Archmage 4... hmmm... I think I might allow that.


----------



## Jarval (Apr 4, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *GET THEE BEHIND ME MUNCHKIN!! *




Trust me, the last place you want a munchkin is behind you.  Or in another place they've got you flanked or flat-footed...


----------



## JoeBlank (Apr 4, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *Just read through this thread and the one at WotC (research for the discussion I know I will have at my game this weekend).
> 
> Just gotta say:  I love you guys.
> 
> ...




Well said, Barcode. My sentiments exactly. I venture over to those boards every once in a long while, and I always end up wondering why I did.

As a wise man once said:

Back to lurking...

Joe


----------



## Paragon (Apr 4, 2003)

Here's my take on it.  Look at the end result, a 20th lvl wizard should be as powerful as any other 20th lvl char.  granted there will be specific instances where one class will shine more than others but on average, equal.  now this goes the same for multi class chars.  granted a 5/5/5/5 char will not be nearly as focused as a straight char (no pun intended) but they should be of around equal "power" lvl.  especially since so many things i.e. bab, saves, etc stack.  now one thing that is not right is mulit class spellcasting.  period.  a mage/cleric 10/10 is not even in the same league as either a 20 mage or a 20 cleric.  not even the same ball park.  there needs to be something that evens out the difference between.  i don't think that many of the people that are saying "broken" have played multi class spellcasters, or had much experience with it.  granted i knew going in what it was going to be like but let me tell you for about 9 lvls it really really s*cked.  bad.  there comes a point with multi classing that you aren't as good as either of the classes you have lvls in.  and your entire party will begin to outshine you.  all this does is bridge that gap.  you give up more than you think with it as well.  the feats of wizards are great, turn undead for priests is great especially when you are the ONLY person that has it.  unless you have a paladin or another cleric, you're it.
i would like to see the context of the prc in the light of the 3.5 rules but as it stands i have to agree that it is broken.  it's just doing something we can't do right now. something new, scary scary  

Paragon
{edited for spelling, well some of them anyway}


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 4, 2003)

*In support of "overpowered..."*

Just for fun, I did an empirical comparison of raw spell power based on the best metric I can think of... anticipated damage dice from spells.

IIRC from the DMG and the Conversion Guide, that the following can be used to gauge the maximum damage a spell does:

WIZARD SPELLS
0th-level spell - 1 die of damage to an individual
1st-level spell - 5 dice of damage to a group
2nd-level spell - 10 dice of damage to an individual
3rd-level spell - 10 dice of damage to a group
4th-level spell - 15 dice of damage to an individual
5th-level spell - 15 dice of damage to a group
6th-level spell - 20 dice of damage to an individual
7th-level spell - 20 dice of damage to a group
8th-level spell - 25 dice of damage to an individual
9th-level spell - 25 dice of damage to a group

CLERIC SPELLS:
0th-level spell - no damage
Otherwise treat as Wizard spell one level lower.

That seems to make it pretty easy and straightforward to convert "spell slots" into "expected damage" split into two categories - individuals and groups.

For the moment, let's drop bonus spells due to high stats.

At 16th level, a cleric has a spell slot array that looks like this:
6/6/6/6/5/4/4/3 (lumping domains spells in with regular spells).  We'll ignore the fact that some domain spells are, in essence, wizard spells (and hence have a higher damage cap) for sake of simplicity.

At 16th level, a wizard has the following array: 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/3/2

The Wiz3/Clr3/Mystic Theurgist10 has a clerical array of:
6/6/6/5/5/4/3/2 and a wizard array of 4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1

Now, let's convert this to potential damage dice (and I did cap the straight wizard and clerics' at 16 for levels with a max of 20 or 25 and at 13 for the Theurgist).  Now, we can compare:

*Cleric 16*
Total potential damage dice to individuals: 205 dice
Total potential damage dice to groups: 188 dice

*Wizard 16*
Total potential damage dice to individuals: 184 dice
Total potential damage dice to groups: 168 dice

*Clr 3/Wiz 3/Mystic Theurgist 10*
Total potential damage dice to individuals: 256 dice
Total potential damage dice to groups: 231 dice

What's the first thing we notice?  Well, first off, we notice that the cleric, with his larger number of spells, is a better "blaster" than a wizard (a surprising find to some, perhaps).

We also notice that the Mystic Theurgist has more raw firepower than EITHER the Cleric or the Wizard... yes, it takes him longer to "empty his holster" but he's got significantly more total punch in his holster.

Mystic Theurgist has
125% the blast power of a Cleric vs individuals
140% the blast power of a Wizard vs individuals
123% the blast power of a Cleric vs groups
138% the blast power of a Wizard vs groups

Conclusion:

Because the Mystic Theurgist has 20-40% more "blast power" than a straight Cleric or Wizard of the equivalent level, the Mystic Theurgist is overpowered.

DON'T think of it as, "max spell level is one lower than a straight class" - think of it as raw blast power... I think that's a better measuring stick anyway. YMMV.

What is the cost of this blast power?  In the case of the Wizard, the cost is 3 Bonus Feats.  Think a Wizard would give up his 3 Feats for 40% more spells? I do (that would give the wizard 5 or 6 spell slots per level instead of 4).  Think a Cleric would give up boosting his Turning Ability for more 20% spells? (giving him 7 or 8 spells per level) especially considering that with the HD and Turn Resistance of most CR 16 undead, a Clr 16 has no prayer of affecting them anyway?  Yeah, me too.

I won't call the Mystic Theurgist totally, outrageously broken - but it *IS* overpowered, make no mistake about it... sophistry about "lower highest level spell slot" notwithstanding.

I think I would "tweak" it to have a 3/4 spell progression chart... kind of like BAB.

1st level -> No spell progression
2nd-4th levels -> +1 level in both arcane and divine classes
5th level -> No spell progression
6th-8th levels -> +1 level in both classes
9th level -> No spell progression
10th level -> +1 level in both classes.

This brings the "total blast power" back in line with that of a single-classed character... though it is probably less attractive now since the 14th-level character looks like a 9th/9th caster and thus the disparity in spell slots winds up being two levels (the 9th/9th is only throwing 5th level spells, while the 14th is throwing 7th-level spells).

--The Sigil


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 5, 2003)

But surely all that potential blast power means nothing if you can still only cast 1 spell a round (or two with quicken)...consider it that way. What happens is you come back to the disagreement over whether being able to cast spells for longer balances lack of punch in each spell.

*shrug*

It's very hard to quantify, this class. Although I admire the work that the Sigil did, I don't think it accurately shows up the differences. It's far more intangible than that.

Sigil, you example seems to show that with enough time, and no one attacking him, the MT can do more damage in a day than a straight caster. OK, we knew that.

But in a battle, he'll be subject to dispels, counterspell, spell resistance and so forth, all of which will affect how much damage he can do.

First of all, with his -3 caster levels at 16th (effective), he'll fail his spell penetration 15% more often. Reducing his potential damage by 15% gives us...

217.6 dice vs single targets or
196.35 dice vs multiple targets.

And what about if you add in the change in DC's, thus meaning the MT's foes are more likely to make their saves? All this has to be factored in too...

Not trying to start a fight, trying to continue the discussion. I think this class is balanced, but would be most deadly in the hands of a creative player who was prepared to deal with the consequences of having such a character. The PC's mix of divine and arcane would make him awesomely versatile, but nowhere near as powerful in a straight fight.


----------



## Dispater (Apr 5, 2003)

This seems the kind of class I think would be very interesting to look at, talk about, discuss and analyze but never actually ever allow it IMC...


----------



## Grog (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: In support of "overpowered..."*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *What's the first thing we notice?  Well, first off, we notice that the cleric, with his larger number of spells, is a better "blaster" than a wizard (a surprising find to some, perhaps).*




This right here tells us that this is a bad comparassion. Sure, by the rules, the cleric may be a better "blaster" than a wizard (which tells us, more than anything else, that the rules are seriously screwed up, but that's another topic), but in actual gameplay, does it ever work out that way? Ever?

And anyway, if you're going to do a direct blasting comparassion, you need to take a couple more things into account. First, the MT's DCs will be 1 or 2 points lower than those of the single class casters, because they need to split their points between two spellcasting stats. And second, the MT's caster level is 3 levels lower than the single class casters, which makes it harder to penetrate SR and do damage with those blasting spells.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Apr 5, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *b) how the WotC guys deal with having their products, work and worth continually and unintelligibly derided on a site that they pay for, without having to go home and beat their dogs every night.
> *




They deal with it by: 

a) ignoring most of it.

b) cracking open a beer and putting their feet up.

c) by remembering that the worst offenders on the WotC site (and in gaming in general) are UNBELIEVABLY ENVIOUS of them and would strangle their own mothers for the chance to do what they do -  _but will never get that chance_.

Patrick Y.


----------



## Endur (Apr 5, 2003)

*Broken Beyond Belief*



I'm not suprised.  I expect all of the new 3.5 Prestige classes to be more powerful than any of the 3.0 prestige classes.  Likewise, I expect every base class in 3.5 to be more powerful (or the same as) the base classes in 3.0.  I don't expect any 3.5 base class or PRC to be less powerful.

So, yes, this PRC is broken in comparison to 3.0 classes.  But it might not be broken in comparison to some of the other 3.5 classes.

Personally, I think the "True Necromancer" is a good example of a multi-classed arcane caster/divine caster.  The MT blows the True Necromancer out of the water.

Tom


----------



## Spatula (Apr 5, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *3/3/10 Theurge vs 16 Wizard
> Its also noteworthy to point out that if a Theurge took Cleric as his starting class, he will have perhaps 10 more hp and by level 16 equal saving throws except Will, which is 3 higher for the Theurge.*



The Theurge's Fort save is 2 higher due to the cleric levels.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: In support of "overpowered..."*



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> This right here tells us that this is a bad comparassion. Sure, by the rules, the cleric may be a better "blaster" than a wizard (which tells us, more than anything else, that the rules are seriously screwed up, but that's another topic), but in actual gameplay, does it ever work out that way? Ever?



*grins* No, it doesn't.

Why?

Because the cleric's blast power (roughly 110% of the wizard's) is spread over 150% as many spells.  That means each spell is getting, on average, only about 75% as much power as a wizard spell.  But in terms of raw hitting power, yeah, the cleric is overpowered (a contention that has been made on these boards before, no?).

A mystic theurge's blast power is spread over 167% as many spells as the cleric.  That means, on average, he gets about 75% as much blast power as a cleric out of any given spell - or roughly 55% as much blast power out of any given spell as the wizard does.

Is this balanced?  For the purposes of a single encounter, probably - the Mystic Theurge LACKS pop compared to the other two.

But in a "no rest for the weary" scenario - or a classic dungeoncrawl - or any other scenario that does not assume the PCs get to "re-stock" after every encounter, the "staying power" of the Mystic Theurge wins out.

I guess it's a matter of campaign style - I don't give my players a lot of chances to recover... they usually have to go 4 to 8 encounters (depending on difficulty) before they get a chance to rest... which means, on average (6 encounters at their level), I stretch their abilities (since, in theory, each encounter should sap them of about 20% of their resources and in theory I'm requiring them to pull 120% of their resources out of their backsides over 6 encounters).

This may be the "wrong" perception, but my perception was that a typical D&D game should have roughly 4-5 encounters between rest periods... not 1-2.  This is where the theurge makes a HUGE difference... instead of having to rely on burning hands and magic missiles on encounter 4 or 5 (like the wizard), he's still got a couple of fireballs, a flame strike, and an ice storm tucked away - and that makes a HUGE difference.

"Handwaving" the balance issue by saying, "yes, he'll kick butt over time" is just that... handwaving.  The game was built to drain PCs' resources... and I hope the classes that exist weren't balanced with "one encounter when fully rested" in mind!

Yes, the mystic theurge will be outgunned in his first encounter of the day.  But around the third encounter, he holds his own, and by the time the 5th rolls around, he's worth his weight in gold.



> And anyway, if you're going to do a direct blasting comparassion, you need to take a couple more things into account. First, the MT's DCs will be 1 or 2 points lower than those of the single class casters, because they need to split their points between two spellcasting stats. And second, the MT's caster level is 3 levels lower than the single class casters, which makes it harder to penetrate SR and do damage with those blasting spells.



This is a valid point... but there's no easy way to quantify that, IMO... I then have to do second-order analyses based on spell DC by level, then third-order analyses based on spell DC by prime attribute.  It's not worth the extra bother to me.

Again, my main point of contention is that "yes, he lacks the raw firepower right off the bat" but that a well-balanced D&D game should challenge the PCs' abilities by requiring them to use ~100% of their resources - IOW, it should be about 5 encounters before the reload period - the "he can keep blasting long after everyone else stops" argument IS and SHOULD BE a compelling one.

Run the Clr16, Wiz16, and Theurge through 5 consecutive encounters (as a party of 3; maybe add a 16th-level fighter too) and let me know how it turns out.  Better yet, run them through 10 such encounters non-stop - the Wiz should be "spent" after about 5, the Clr "spent" after about 7, but the Theurge likely will STILL have some wallop for the 10th encounter.  THAT is a huge boost.

--The Sigil


----------



## Ravellion (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: In support of "overpowered..."*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *On the Sigil's Blast power theory*



What? You don't actually believe that this reasoning makes sense right? you are going to pull the other one real soon right? You know how many Blast potential a fighter with flasks of Alchemist fire has at 20th level?

Or, for that matter, an elven fighter with 10 strength and a longsword. 10 rounds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 16 hours a day he can hack/blast away (No save!), let's say he just hitswith one attack a round, he would have 9600 dice!

OMG!

9600 dice a day!

20th level, 10 str Elf fighters with mundane longswords are BA-ROKEN!

I am sorry, but if that is how you determine balance, I never want to see you design any game materials.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 5, 2003)

Mike Sullivan said:
			
		

> *Now, how about Wizard/Druids?*



Geomancer (MOTW)







> *Wizard/Rogues?*



Arcane Trickster (T&B)







> *Arcane/Fighter*



Spellsword (T&B)







> *Divine/Fighter*



Warpriest, among others (DOTF)

There's a lack of cleric/rogue PrCs, although there are some divine-flavored rogue PrCs like the Temple Raider of Olidramma (S&S), or the one in FRCS.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: In support of "overpowered..."*



			
				Ravellion said:
			
		

> 20th level, 10 str Elf fighters with mundane longswords are BA-ROKEN!
> 
> I am sorry, but if that is how you determine balance, I never want to see you design any game materials.



Away put the histrionics and ludicrous examples.   Would you be surprised to know I have two rules-crunchy products out right now that have gotten good reviews?

Note I didn't call it MUNCHKIN.  And I didn't call it BROKEN.  I called it "somewhat overpowered."  There's a difference.  

*Does Miracle Max voice*
Look who knows so much... "Somewhat overpowered" is partly balanced.  With "all overpowered" there's only one thing you can do... go through the book and look for loose change (dropped by the munchkin - or his DM - who was stunned when he read it and dropped what he was holding - the money to buy it)...
*turns off voice*

The difference between the fighter (among other things) and the "blaster" is that the fighter must put himself in the line of fire and soaks up melee damage... the blaster doesn't (or shouldn't).  The other difference is that the fighter has to roll to hit, the "blaster's" damage is semi-automatic (in most cases, save for half, but still, that's autmoatic).

Furthermore, there is another BIG difference - the wizard can whip out his dagger and the cleric can whip out his mace - and do exactly the same 9600 dice.  And since he only has to do this when he runs out of spells (of which the wizard is packing about 40), he adds 9580 to his total dice.  So the wizard is STILL more broken than the fighter, with a total of 9780 dice potential.

Finally, and I don't have the books in front of me, but IIRC, FATIGUE becomes a big limiting factor in the fighter example.  As I don't have my books, I can't recall exaclty how it works, but IIRC, X rounds of combat fatigue a character (X is 10?  Not sure).  X rounds later, the character would be fatigued again - but a character who is fatigued and would become fatigued becomes exhausted (-6 to Str, Dex, half movement).  Suddenly, the fighter becomes much less of a threat... particularly if you keep throwing fresh foes his way.

Heck, done this way, (assuming I remember correctly and X is 10), the fighter is in MORE trouble in a single long encounter than the blaster (who could presumably clear a big enough swath to rest for a round every ten rounds an thus stave off fatigue).

More Monday - have to get home from work - but the histrionics are silly.  I was trying to measure raw spellcasting power, and "total dice of damage you can inflict with your spellcasting power" seems as good a hard metric as any.  I was NOT attempting to compare spellcasting power to melee power... and the discussion never WAS about the relative merits of those, but about the relative merits of different spellcaster spell slot/level combinations.

And this will probably get me gnomed, but I'll follow it up with this...

 "Your avatar is a gnome - therefore what you say doesn't count!" 

--The "I haven't been gnomed yet - but I bet that's about to change..." Sigil


----------



## Ravellion (Apr 5, 2003)

Unfortunately Sigil, "Blast power" isn't "as good a method as any" for determining balance. You have taken something from spell design guidelines (note... guidelines, not rules, many spells actually break these), and apply them to a situation where they don't belong.

Staying power is a slight balancing factor, but it
a) isn't measured to the degree you measure it.
b) it sets a horrible precedent.

According to you, the innate spell power from the FRCS is overpowered, since it let's you *gasp* cast Magic Missile as an innate ability *infinite times*... now that's Blast Power. Phwoar!

I am sorry, but I am not saying the MT isn't slightly powerful (although I am thinking it is actually fine, now I have time to think about it more), but your reasons for it are ludicrous. I always reply with ludicricy when confronted with it. A bad habit perhaps, but I feel silly explaining things seriously to people whose viewpoints I have a hard time to take seriously.

And I don't even allow PHB Gnomes IMC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 5, 2003)

> (By The Sigil)
> Finally, and I don't have the books in front of me, but IIRC, FATIGUE becomes a big limiting factor in the fighter example. As I don't have my books, I can't recall exaclty how it works, but IIRC, X rounds of combat fatigue a character (X is 10? Not sure). X rounds later, the character would be fatigued again - but a character who is fatigued and would become fatigued becomes exhausted (-6 to Str, Dex, half movement). Suddenly, the fighter becomes much less of a threat... particularly if you keep throwing fresh foes his way.




No offense, man, but...those must be house rules. I'm pretty sure the fatigue of long battles doesn't go into any calculation of D&D combat...otherwise, the Wiz and the Ftr should both suffer from the same fatigue...(but perhaps -6 Wis/Int/Cha, half movement, due to mental instead of physical exhaustion).

Also:


> "total dice of damage you can inflict with your spellcasting power" seems as good a hard metric as any.



seems to be a faulty premise. It doesn't take into account the time used to cast those spells, or the variety of spells that can be selected, or (and here's a key for higher levels) Save or Die spells, or spells that are incapacitating without being damaging. It also doesn't take into account scrolls or wands, which fundamentally make up for the 'lasting power' of even the most impovrished mage. They basically can cast Magic Missle, Fireball, etc. all day and not worry about running out of magic.

Also, I think you give undue weight to the earlier combats. Spellcasters will blow their low-level magic on low-level mooks, and they'll run out of spells fairly quickly because it doesn't take a lot to kill them...monsters of a CR are draining, but not damaging. Light off a few Magic Missles, or a Fireball, and you're golden for the combat. A MT can do the same thing against the low-level goons.

Then, you face the big challenge, and the wizard can unleash the big guns (and then back this up with scrolls and wands of the lower-level stuff), while the MT (who can't even use the higher level stuff) is stuck with casting a billion low-level spells. Sure, they can have scrolls and wands, too, but they concentrate on versatility...so they'll spend their money instead making up that -3 levels to dispellign and SR (because the SR is still going up, even if their casting ability isn't). And nothing, NOTHING, can make up for the lack of high-level spells, just like NOTHING can make up for the fact that a Wizard and a Cleric can't cast certain spells of the other classes.

So, basically, any Wizard worth his salt is far from limited by his spells/day in his actual casting potential. Just like any Sorc worth his salt is far from limited by his spells known list in his actual versatility. Magic items make up for that. What the MT gets is two different types of magic, entwined. They can do things a Wiz or a Cleric can't, at the cost of being able to do both crappier.

Saying the MT is more powerful because it gives you more spells per day is like saying that the Sorc is more powerful than the Wizard because it gives you more spells per day....fundamentally, they are balanced in the same way.


----------



## Kobold Curry Chef (Apr 5, 2003)

The MT will only be a level, sometimes two, behind the single-class caster, though.  It's not like they're casting spells 3 levels lower than their companions.  Early on, it's more of a liability than later--a Clr3/Wiz3/MT1 will be casting 2nd-level spells; a Clr7 will be casting 4th.  Ouch.  One level later, it's 3rd vs. 4th, and then so on up the chain.

After about 10th level overall, there's really not a big gap.  There's not a tremendous difference between a 5th-level and a 6th-level spell, for instance.

Anyway, if the point of the MT is to "fix" the cleric/wizard combo, and one of the other goals of 3.5 is to make characters viable and fun across 20 levels, then the MT fails to do its job, to my thinking.  It would have been better to write a new core class, perhaps.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 5, 2003)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So I missed that reference. I was wrong. Big whoop. Y'know, just because the internet is the home for the rude reply, doesn't mean you have to make one.*




And who said I did?  Why is it unless you completely sugarcoat every response made on an internet board, possibly with several disclaimers, it's construed as rude?  My reply was meant as a lighthearted jab, not as an insult.  Good grief.


----------



## green slime (Apr 5, 2003)

I completely disagree with The Sigil's spellblast theory. Although it was a good point to read as it has now completely convinced me that this PrC is in no way overpowered.

My reasoning is this:
Sure the MT has more spells. That is his advantage. But you deliberately choose to ignore the fact that, his spells will be saved against more often (thus reducing further the damage inflicted), and against SR, will be more likely to be completely inefficient altogether.

So on average, as a damage dealer, the MT will be inflicting far less blast damage. This aspect carries over into other aspects of spellcasting.

When it comes to support spells, his spells will last less time, and be more likely to be dispelled.

Thirdly, while having more spell slots, he has less high level spell slots to metamagic spells efficiently.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 5, 2003)

Kobold Curry Chef said:
			
		

> *The MT will only be a level, sometimes two, behind the single-class caster, though.  It's not like they're casting spells 3 levels lower than their companions.  Early on, it's more of a liability than later--a Clr3/Wiz3/MT1 will be casting 2nd-level spells; a Clr7 will be casting 4th.  Ouch.  One level later, it's 3rd vs. 4th, and then so on up the chain.*




True...but even if they're casting the same spell, the MT is at a disadvantage in a lot of cases.  3 dice less of damage on their fireball, for example, or 3 hours less on their buffs.

J


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Apr 5, 2003)

*How to make it more absurd!*

Well the thing that occurs to me is how to become even more absurd having attained the absurd heights of 10th MT and whatever else (3/3 let's say) cleric/wizard or similar.
The most evil way to be a munchkin (and I know, I did this) is to pick and choose prestige classes which have similar entry requirements, such that you combine the impressive (but gained at low-level) abilities of them all. I cite the Fighter/Rogue/Holy Liberator/Order of the Bow Initiate/Templar *gasps for breath*.
Therefore, take this MT and assuming they won't get round to the 'Complete Divine Type Person' source book in a while, combine with the Geomancer. This class (I forget the requirements right now) is fun, and all in all not *too* bad considering the fact that you end up a bit of a weirdo by the end. I can't quite remember what the limits were on the abilities, but I think you can squeeze the ability to cast arcane (read wizard here) spells in armour without penalty. This with the MT is nasty, as you end up with a heavily armoured wizard who happens to be not a bad cleric on the side (and only needs to use one stat to dictate all bonus spells too!), oh and they might have fur or something weird like that.
Could anyone check the limits on those abilities (should there be any) and then can we rant some more !


----------



## Thakkar Rogsnar (Apr 5, 2003)

*Ohhhh yeaaa!*

How about a few levels in the geomancer PRC?  A now fully armored mage/cleric to boot and tanked out!  Nice!!  Not happening in my game.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: In support of "overpowered..."*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> * What's the first thing we notice?  Well, first off, we notice that the cleric, with his larger number of spells, is a better "blaster" than a wizard (a surprising find to some, perhaps).
> 
> We also notice that the Mystic Theurgist has more raw firepower than EITHER the Cleric or the Wizard... yes, it takes him longer to "empty his holster" but he's got significantly more total punch in his holster.
> 
> ...



Even if we assume that "total blasting power" is a good measure of power, this these comparisons are so oversimplified as to be meaningless.  They don't take into account:

1) Other responsibilities.  Clerics, and probably Mystic Theurges, are assumed to expend a significant number of their spells on healing other party members.

2) Saving throws.  Because a Mystic Theurge has two spellcasting stats, his spells will have consistently lower saving throw DCs than a single classed character.  Even if he maxes out one stat, the half of his spells that don't rely on that stat will be weaker.

3) Spell Resistance.  SR is a harsh reality for high level spellcasters, so a mystic theurge's spells will fizzle 15% more often than either single-classed spellcaster.

4) Average damage per round.  This is lower for clerics, and much lower for mystic theurges, than it is for wizards.

The comparison is also done at 16th level, at the peak of the Mystic Theurge's relative level of power.  A few levels earlier or later, the MT doesn't fare as well.

So Sigil's comparison, while intellectually interesting, is essentially useless for deciding whether the classes are balanced in play.


----------



## Cedric (Apr 5, 2003)

I don't think the Theurge is too powerful. I think the wizard is too weak. 

3rd edition just hamstrung the Wizard. It went from the most powerful single class in D&D (at high levels), to a second rate wannabe. 

The change in the balance of power in 3rd edition is my single biggest complaint about it. 

Cedric


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 5, 2003)

Example Clr3/Wiz3/MT7/Geo7

Requirements: just add 6 ranks of Know: Nature. Its actually scary how close the requirements are, but that is anthor topic.

HD: 10d4+3d8+7d6 (av. 57 + con)

Skills: Know Arcana for all classes, know religion for cleric and MT, Know: Nature for Wiz and Geo, (SP: 2 + 2 + 2 + 4(geo))

Abilities: High Int and Wis. Then Con, finally Dex. Cha is probably going to be dump, since you are a spellcasting freak. 

Progression
1 Cleric
2 Wizard
3 Cleric
4 Wizard
5 Cleric
6 Wizard (you can now qualify for both PrC)
7 MT
8 Geo (+1 Cleric, Mix 0 level spells)
9 MT
10 Geo (+1 Wiz, Mix 1st)
11 MT
12 Geo (+1 Clr, mix 2nd)
13 MT
14 Geo (+1 Wiz, Mix 3rd)
15 MT
16 Geo (+1 Clr, Mix 4th)
17 MT
18 Geo (+1 Wiz, Mix 5th)
19 MT
20 Geo (+1 Clr, Mix 6th)

Total Caster Level
Wiz 13 - 7th level spells
Cler 14 - 7th level spells
Geo-Mix up to 6th level spells
* An alt build could just add one more level of Geo (+1 wiz) for MT, and get W13/Clr13 (mix 7th)

Max Int, have a 17 wis, wear full plate, ignore costly components (on some spells), and did I mention Drifts? (You have 7, max lvl 4 drift) and buy that headband of intelligence, then blast away anyone that looks at you funny. 

Now, I just gotta find a DM that will let this one fly...


----------



## Spatula (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: How to make it more absurd!*



			
				Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> *Could anyone check the limits on those abilities (should there be any) and then can we rant some more ! *



No limits.  Geomancer has similar requirements to the MT (knowledge arcana & nature 6 ranks, cast 2nd level arcane & divine spells), and gains Spell Versatility at 1st level, along with a +1 spellcasting boost.  Spell Versatility allows the geomancer to use one ability score to set DCs (either Int or Wis for a Wiz/Clr), removes arcane spell failure for wearing armor, and allows the spontaneous conversion of arcane spells into cure/inflict spells.

Hmmm...

Wiz 6/Clr 3/GeoM 1/MT 10
Wizard caster level: 17
Cleric caster level: 13
Fort +10, Refl +6, Will +17
Avg HP: 60 (1st level as cleric)
Ability to wear full plate, large shield, with no spell failure.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 5, 2003)

Spatula...

You forgot one key thing on spell vesatility, it's keyed with spell level. Your build Wiz 6/Clr 3/GeoM 1/MT 10 could only use his Int mod and ignore spell failure for ZERO 0 level spells. If you plan on doing alot of Ray of Frost, you're golden, but otherwise, you need more Geomancer levels to make Geomancer worth it. 

My uber build (wiz3/clr3/MT6/Geo7) might have only 7th level spells, but he can use them in full plate and with his Int mod. He'll need a 17 wis to still cast 7th level divine spells (spell versatility doesn't ignore that), but he can spontaneously convert his arcane spells to healing also.


----------



## JayOmega (Apr 5, 2003)

OK, Sigil pointed out that a pure blast-'em Theurge was more powerful  than a wizard or cleric in the same role.  Let's look at this more  deeply.

First, he showed that the theurge has more power (by 2%, but that's  still more) versus individuals than versus groups.

Take fully-loaded blast-'em characters at 20th level.  Default stat  array is 15, 14, ... so give them Int 15 and Wis 14 to start.  Both  put all five +1's for level advancement into Int.  For full blasting  power, both are specialists for the extra wizard spells, and the  Theurge can use all his domain spells for damage, using the  hypothetical "Kaboom" domain.  To take down strong monsters, both  characters have both of the Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feats,  for +4 to DC and +4 to beat SR.  Both use spells resisted by Reflex  saves, and they are the sort of spell that does half damage on a  successful saving throw (i.e. standard blasting spells).

The wizard buys a +6-ability item and a +5-ability book for 173500.  The Theurge, to be balanced, should spend the same, netting two +6 items and a +4 book. So Wizard has Int 31, Theurge has Int 30, Wis 20.  (The Theurge makes out like a fat rat on this, as Int 30 and Int 31 are equivalent stats.)

Spells per day (base + stat + bonuses):

Wiz: 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------
5 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 

his spells have saving throw DC = 24+level, and his versus-SR rolls  are at +24.

Theurge: 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 + 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 0 0
0 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 + 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 - -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
-----------------------------------------
5 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 4 3 + 6 8 7 6 6 5 3 2 0 0 

Save 24+Level, vs SR +21 for Wiz spells, and Save 19+Level, vs SR +17 for Cleric spells.

Or, assume the Theurge can max out his stats, buying two +6 items and  two +5 books.  The extra money he spends versus the wizard could buy  the wizard two Rings of Wizardry, a type II and a type IV.  Theurge  now has Int 31 and Wis 25.

Spells per day:

Wiz as above, plus two rings: 
---------------------
5  8 12 7 11 7 7 6 6 6 

Save 24+L, vs SR +24

Theurge:
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 + 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 0 0
0 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 + 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
-----------------------------------------
5 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 4 3 + 6 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 0 0 

Save 24+L, vs SR +21, Save 21+L, vs SR +17

So, against an infinite line of Orcs (no SR, can't make saves except  on a 20), they have blasting ability of:

Wiz I:
5x1 8x5 8x5 7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 6x20 6x20 6x20 = 795 dice
reduced for saving throws to: 775 dice

Theurge I:
5x1 8x5 8x5 7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 5x17 4x17 3x17 +
6x0 8x1 7x5 6x10 6x10 5x13 3x13 2x13 0x13 0x13 = 932 dice
reduced for saving throws to: 908 dice

Advantage, Theurge by +17%.

Wiz II:
5x1 8x5 12x5 7x10 11x10 7x15 7x15 6x20 6x20 6x20 = 855 dice
reduced for saving throws to: 833 dice

Theurge II:
5x1 8x5 8x5 7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 5x17 4x17 3x17 + 
6x0 8x1 8x5 7x10 6x10 5x13 4x13 3x13 0x13 0x13 = 973 dice
reduced for saving throws to: 948 dice

Advantage, Theurge by +14%.

So, against worthless foes, the Theurge is stronger.

But why are 20th level characters blasting Orcs?  Let's put them up against the only 3.5th monster we've seen, the Revised Pit Fiend.   His reflex saving throw is his worst one, at +19 (and he uses Unholy  Aura in the "0th" round to make it +23) and his SR is 32.  No CR is  given for the RPF, but I assume he's a fair fight for a 20th level  group containing our 20th level Wizard and/or Theurge.

(The following lines are base spells, % that get by SR, % damage  after saving throws, and remaining "effective dice" of damage)

Wiz I:
5x1  8x5  8x5  7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 6x20 6x20 6x20
.650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650 .650
.525 .550 .575 .600 .625 .650 .675 .700 .725 .750
-------------------------------------------------
1.70 14.3 15.0 27.3 28.4 44.4 46.1 54.6 56.6 58.5 = 346.9 dice 

Theurge I: 
5x1  8x5  8x5  7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 5x17 4x17 3x17
.500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500
.525 .550  .575 .600   .625 .650  .675 .700   .725 .750
-------------------------------------------------
1.3  11.0 11.5 21.0 21.9 34.1 35.4 29.8 24.7 19.1

6x0  8x1  7x5  6x10 6x10 5x13 3x13 2x13 0x13 0x13
.300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  --   --
.525 .525 .525 .525 .525 .525 .550  .575
-------------------------------------------------
0.00 1.30 5.50 9.50 9.50 10.2 6.40 4.50           = 256.7 dice 

Advantage, Wizard by +35%.

Wiz II: 
5x1  8x5 12x5 7x10 11x10 7x15 7x15 6x20 6x20 6x20
.650  .650 .650  .650  .650   .650  .650  .650  .650  .650
.525 .550 .575 .600   .625  .650  .675 .700   .725 .750
--------------------------------------------------
1.70  14.3 22.4 27.3 44.7 44.4 46.1 54.6 56.6 58.5 = 370.6 dice 

Theurge II: 
5x1 8x5 8x5 7x10 7x10 7x15 7x15 5x17 4x17 3x17 + 
.500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500  .500
.525 .550  .575 .600   .625 .650  .675 .700   .725 .750
-------------------------------------------------
1.30  11.0 11.5 21.0 21.9 34.1 35.4 29.8 24.7 19.1

6x0  8x1  8x5  7x10 6x10 5x13 4x13 3x13 0x13 0x13
.300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  .300  --   --
.525 .525 .525 .525 .550  .575 .600   .625
-------------------------------------------------
0.00 1.30  6.30 11.0 9.90 11.2 9.40 7.30           = 266.2 dice 

Advantage, Wizard by +39%.

Against "real" foes, the Wizard is substantially stronger.  The  Theurge still has more total spells, but I think this shows that the  Theurge really is trading versatility for power.

Edit: forgot to mention that this was the 7Wiz/3Clr/10MT version of the Theurge.


----------



## zorlag (Apr 5, 2003)

*-*

If you replace extra wizard levels with True Necromancer levels Theurge gets a nice boost... full caster levels on necro spells help destroying enemies and you can also employ nice array of buff spells to boot...

Z.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 5, 2003)

Also, because this is in something of a vacuum, we can't make a whole lot of determination. Perhaps Wizards will have more to give up in 3.5? (I could see them beefing up the skills a bit, and perhaps giving one or two more familiar treats, and the change in some spells will mean that certain example spells may not be the classics anymore)

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Saying that the MT is overpowered because it has more spells/day is like saying that the Sorcerer is overpowered because it has more spells/day.

And as for PrC's being ways to mitigate poor choices -- that's why things like the Lasher exist. However, I *do* have a problem with those types of PrC's...fundamentally, you can't have a whip-warrior without the Lasher. Just like you can't have an effective cleric/wizard without the MT. It means that it's that much more limiting...I'd have preferred it to be goverened by feats/class powers/whatever, and have spiced up the PrC a bit. It's like a void in the campaign that ONLY this PrC can fill...and I do have some problems with a PrC as a 'fix'.

Now, for the flaws I see in it:
* As Psion pointed out, it is a VERY dull class..you could spice it up, but they wouldn't have abilities to reflect the spice.
* This is a 'fix' for a more fundamental problem, so it reeks of 'half-assedness.' A Wiz/Sorc, for instance, is still skrewed. The problem is mitigated somewhat by examples like the FFd20 Magicians, which allow caster levels to stack, but it remains a rather fundamental problem to the system itself -- the divide doesn't cross as easily as the attack bonus divide, because it's not a universal.
* It means that NO Clr/Wiz or Clr/Sorc is as valuable as this PrC. Effectively, it's a PrC that HAS to exist, or power is lost. It's a PrC that FORCES you to use it, or suck. I am disturbed at it...they shouldn't suck without the PrC...


----------



## Oni (Apr 5, 2003)

I think I've figured out part of what's bugging me about the Mystic Theurge.  This PrC is a responce to a general failing of the multiclass system, but part of what irritates me is that it really comes across as a bandaid fix.  If they recognize the problem why are they trying to patch the hole with a PrC rather than actually reworking the multiclassing rules.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 6, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *Spatula...
> 
> You forgot one key thing on spell vesatility, it's keyed with spell level. Your build Wiz 6/Clr 3/GeoM 1/MT 10 could only use his Int mod and ignore spell failure for ZERO 0 level spells. If you plan on doing alot of Ray of Frost, you're golden, but otherwise, you need more Geomancer levels to make Geomancer worth it. *



Ah, you are correct, I missed that part of the spell versatility description.


----------



## bmcdaniel (Apr 6, 2003)

*GP Value of Mystic Theurege*

I whipped up a little excel spreadsheet showing the GP value of the scrolls equal to the spellcasting ability of a Mystic Theurage vs an equivalent level wizard. 

My methodology. I calculated the value of a scroll of the caster's level for each spell of each character. For example, a Wiz9's 3rd level spells are valued at 3 (spell level) * 9 (caster level) * 3 (spells at this level). I didn't include bonus spells for abilities or for wizard specialization.

Here are the results. Commentary follows.

```
[COLOR=white]
Table 1: Total Value at Actual Caster Level
	Level 9	Level 15 Level 19
Wiz	8,100	22,950	31,050
Theur	6,413	23,325	41,925
	79%	102%	135%
```

This is a good metric because scroll value takes into account caster level, which determines both DC and variable effects of the spells. One downside of this metric is that for some spells, this overstates the effect of caster level. For example, moving from caster level 9 to 19 increases the range and is useful for overcoming SR, but doesn't increase the damage of a magic missile.

Following is the same data compiled for scrolls which are written at MINIMUM caster level (which likely understates their value):


```
Table 2: Total Value at Minimum Caster Level
	Level 9	Level 15 Level 19
Wiz	4,400	22,050	34,250
Theur	3,213	26,125	64,525
	73%	118%	188%
```

Interestingly, using minimum caster level shows more benfit for the Theurege, despite the straight wizard having a high overall caster level.

All well and good, but this analysis is essentially static and ignores a very important part of spellcasting, the fact that you can only cast 1 spell per round (subject to haste, quicken, etc). Especially at higher levels, casters rarely run completely out of spells, so it is worthwhile to look at the average value of all spells. 


```
Table 3: Average Value at Actual Caster Level
	Level 9	Level 15 Level 19
Wiz	450	765	817
Theur	229	409	544
	51%	53%	67%

Table 4: Average Value at Minimum Caster Level
	Level 9	Level 15 Level 19
Wiz	244	735	901
Theur	115	458	838
	47%	62%	93%
```
This table likely undervalues the straight wizard because, particularly for round-by-round (ie combat) spells, it is likely that the most powerful spells will be cast first. Even though we know the result will be, lets look at the value of the maximum spell castable.


```
Table 5: Maximum Value at Actual Caster Level
	Level 9	Level 15 Level 19
Wiz	1,125	2625	4,275
Theur	450	1650	2,800
	40%	63%	65%
```

Now, one more caveat before interpretation. Doing the above comparison of a straight wizard vs a straight cleric shows that the wizard is seriously underpowered. The total value of cleric spells for a 9th level cleric is 11700/6800 (actual caster level/minimum caster level) which means that wizards have 69%/64% of the casting capability of wizards. Combine this with the fact that we know that cleric have more non-casting abilities than the wizards (d8 HD, Medium BAB, Wider Armor and Weapon Choice, Turn Undead, Domain Power, Spontaneous Casting; although wizards do get bonus feats) and we can reasonably determine that cleric spells are, on the whole, less effective than wizard spells. All of which indicates that the Theureuge is slightly less powerful compared to a wizard than a straight spell-by-spell comparison would suggest.

Interpretation.

So, which table really reflects the actual power level of the Wizard vs the Theurege? Well that depends almost entirely on your campaign style. If spellcasters in your campaign are likely to use all of their spells before they rest and use them for purposes that are relatively independent of caster level (buffs, utility spells) and in non-combat situations, then Table 2 tells you that the Theurege is likely overpowered compared to an equivalent wizard. Whereas, if nearly all spellcasting happens within round-by-round context, then the Theurege is seriously underpowered compared to a straight wizard. Most campaigns are a mix somewhat inbetween.

To me, what is potentially the most troubling about the class is how its relative power grows over time. By all measures, at level 9 the Theurege is underpowered, sometimes very seriously. By level 19 (depending on campaign style) he may have caught up. Of course, my experience with D&D at the extreme end of the level chart shows that lots of things are broken at that level.

My own judgement is that given the Theurege has all the diasadvantages of a wizard (BAB, HD, saves), no feats, the tendancy for cleric spells to be underpowered and the likely style of the games I play in, the Theurege is probably underpowered at all but the very highest levels, where the game breaks down anyway.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

BMM
[/COLOR]


----------



## hong (Apr 6, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> Fine, you want an analogy without a real-life analogue?  Corellan Larethian is the god of elves.  If he encompasses all forms of elvenitude, why bother having different forms of elves?*




You tell me. I usually _don't_ have different forms of elves in my campaign. However, even if I _did_ have different forms of elves, I _also_ have different types of spells, as I have now mentioned twice. Perhaps the lack of ears on Lego people's heads tends to result in hearing difficulties.



> *The point - which you are doing such a fine job of missing that I am forced to believe it is deliberate - is that the fact that there are multiple varieties of magic does not preclude the existence of a single god of magic.*




Of course one doesn't preclude the other. When dealing with concepts that have no empirical basis in reality, the possibilities are only limited by the imagination. You can find a handwave for anything, even the bucket o' snails. However, some handwaves are better than others.

The point _you_ are missing, oh Lego-headed one, is that if you want a character with the innate ability to excel at all types of magic, then what is the reason for having different types of magic in the first place? Arcane and divine magic exist for a reason. If you want a character to excel in _both_ types of magic, then that undermines the reason for that divide.



> *First of all, the patron of a divine caster is whoever grants their spells in the first place.  There could also be a god who looks over divine casters in general - perhaps he's the one who first figured out how to grant a mortal the power to cast spells.  It all depends on the structure of religion in your campaign.*




If I wanted a theology this complex, I'd be a theologian.



> *In what way are we ignoring it?*




Who's "we", oh Lego-headed one? Because as far as I can tell, none of MY Lego people have any problems with what I'm saying.



> *Divine casters cast divine magic, arcane casters cast arcane magic.  Some people happen to have the skill and training to do both, just as some people have multiple PhDs.  The presence of that case hardly means we are ignoring the divide in all cases.*




And you can do that, by multiclassing cleric and wizard.

Oh dear, such a character is nerfed according to the standard rules. My heart bleeds. If this concept of a multi-skilled caster is so important to you, then either 1) fix the standard rules so that multiclassing doesn't nerf spellcasters; or 2) get rid of the artificial divide between different types of magic. A prestige class whose only function is to serve as a patch is a prestige class without a reason for being.



> *Fighters and rogues exist to further specific roles or archetypes within the game.  If what you want to do is to munge these archetypes together, then why have separate classes in the first place?  I guess we should just get rid of multiclassing completely, eh?*




Tell me where I said anything about multiclassing.



> *Or, replace 'rogues' with 'magic-users'...and then consider your blade-dancer character (or prospective blade-dancer, I can't recall), happily munging the two archetypes together.  But wait - that was a new archetype!  You needed to use elements from both!  So how is that different from the cleric/magicuser, Mystic Theurge, Hallowed Mage, or whatever?
> *




The blade dancer has some issues, in terms of niche preservation and the prevalence of magic. Since high-level 3E tends to resemble a wuxia movie anyway, what with flying, teleporting people all over the place, a class designed to emulate wuxia stunts ends up not having a niche to itself. Similarly, I can't see any niche for a mystic theurgoober except as a contrived patch for a hole in the multiclassing rules.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2003)

Um, what makes this patch 'contrived'? That loaded term would imply that there is a complete disconnect between the Mystic and standard rules. That obviously is not the case, as it uses the PRC format. And anybody who has taken an analysis of this class at all seriously has pretty much come to the conclusion that it is balanced. So it suceeds in its stated goal and uses a format with a lot of precedence. What is 'contrived' about it?


----------



## hong (Apr 6, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Um, what makes this patch 'contrived'? That loaded term would imply that there is a complete disconnect between the Mystic and standard rules. That obviously is not the case, as it uses the PRC format. And anybody who has taken an analysis of this class at all seriously has pretty much come to the conclusion that it is balanced. So it suceeds in its stated goal and uses a format with a lot of precedence. What is 'contrived' about it? *




Repost for the tardy:



> Presumably there's a distinction between them in your game world for a reason. Having a PrC that can use both types, without a very good reason for doing so (no, I don't think "masters all magic" is a good reason), blurs that distinction to the point of making it useless.




I can't think of any in-game niche that this PrC fills. The only reason it even exists, as far as I can tell, is to patch up a hole in the multiclassing rules.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 6, 2003)

I'm I the only one that thinks magical versatility is vastly more important/powerful than raw firepower?

joe b.


----------



## LuYangShih (Apr 6, 2003)

No, of course not.  Half or more of the people I've seen look at this class have indicated they think it is overpowered.  PrCs, though, unless ridiculously overpowered, (and even then) will always have supporters.  When Sword & Fist first came out, many people insisted the Ninja Of The Crescent Moon was perfectly balanced.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re*

I think it is slighly overpowered, just not as much as some think. It isn't going to change the face of the game. *The way SR and caster level checks are set up ruleswise limits the usefulness of any Prc that limits casting level.* Thats just the nature of 3rd edition mechanics.

Also, with the loss of the extra spellcasting action from _Haste_, the extra spellcasting firepower won't be as useful. They will still only be casting 1 spell per round.

*The real advantage I see to the class combination is that they will be able to call upon the most powerful offensive and defensive magic.* That makes it slightly overpowered. The only balancing factor being that it will be easier for a straight class wizard or cleric to dispel or counter the spells of a Mystic Theurge, which slightly offsets the class advantages. 

IMO, some people are a little to trigger happy to call the class either balanced or imbalanced without some time to play the class. Either way, I can't wait to give this class a try and see how well it will do for myself.


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

This is a tricky one, full of pros and cons.

*Con:*  Your spells are going to bounce off of things more, because they're not as tough to resist as a single-classer.
*Pro:* You have more spells to bounce off things.  If you live long enough to do so, that is...

*Con:* You don't get a handful of high level big blaster or big utility spells, so you're not as individually powerful.
*Pro:* You've got a heap of low level spells which can convert directly into buffs and heals and information for your party, so the party becomes more powerful with you in it.

*Con:* You'll probably not get through that many spells in combat at a rate of one per round in a single day before the rest of the party needs to rest.
*Pro:* Your out-of-combat spellcasting is going to be impressive and ongoing.  Again with the buffs, heals and information-gathering.

At first blush, it looks like they could have renamed the Mystic Theurge....(drum roll)...
the Buffmaster.

I mean, spell resistance and saving throws don't matter when you're casting things on allies, and having top dog power level spells doesn't matter with buffs either.

As a support role character, I think it has the potential to have the bard and cleric well and truly beat.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *This is a tricky one, full of pros and cons.
> 
> Con:  Your spells are going to bounce off of things more, because they're not as tough to resist as a single-classer.
> Pro: You have more spells to bounce off things.  If you live long enough to do so, that is...
> ...




Eh I don't think so. One premise which I think needs to be dispelled here is that high-level spellcasters are at all lacking in buffs in the first place. Given the long duration of most low-level buffs, there is a point at which the party is already suitably buffed and the ability to provide more has almost no effect. Relative to damage spells, the marginal utility of buffs decreases at a faster rate. The only thing most high-level casters use low-level slots for is buffs, and from what I have observed, they usually have enough of them. And as you pointed out, these last longer than the Mystic's and are harder to dispell.

As to the cleric and bard (the latter of which is more difficult to critique, given the large number of changes that have come with the revision), they are both superior in-battle buffers than a Mystic is likely to be. The cleric has the hp, bab, and saves to make its role as a 'front-line medic' truley viable, not to mention it has more outright blasting power (again, the three caster levels). The bard's musical abilities have less of an oppurtunity cost than other casters because it can make attacks as well. Plus the better saves makes it durable.

Oh, and before I forget, the hp advantage of the Mystic over the wizard is probably overblown. The ability score issue allows a wizard to trade off Int for Con and still maintain a healthy DC advantage over the Mystic in most of the spells it is likely to cast. The stunted familiar advancement also means a wizard can invest in a toad with less of a likelyhood that it will be knocked off in high-level combat.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Repost for the tardy:
> 
> ...




I think you are working under the faulty premise that a mechanical aspect of the game neccessarily has to be articulated in-game, which is not true. One of the founding tenants of Prcs was that they make concepts that are not viable viable. With 3.5, the developers are being a bit more thorough this time out in that approach, thus the spellsword, the Mystic, etc...


----------



## hong (Apr 6, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you are working under the faulty premise that a mechanical aspect of the game neccessarily has to be articulated in-game, which is not true. *




By that logic, WotC shouldn't even have bothered writing up the piddly little paragraph they did, that sufficed as the introduction to this prestige class. A prestige class without an in-game justification is a prestige class without a reason for being, as far as I'm concerned.



> *One of the founding tenants of Prcs was that they make concepts that are not viable viable. With 3.5, the developers are being a bit more thorough this time out in that approach, thus the spellsword, the Mystic, etc... *




A spell-slinging, sword-wielding battlemage is a concept that's been around long enough to have gained some sort of authenticity. Ditto for a rogue with magical skills. AFAIK, a "mystic theurgamajig" has no such niche to fill.


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite.  The wagon is officially put before the horse.

Inventing an archetype for a crunch purpose is a bit counter to what I understand the class system in D&D traditionally stands for, or once stood for, perhaps.  Not entirely comfy with the idea - the rules are getting too big for their booties.


----------



## Allister (Apr 6, 2003)

*In actuality*

Has anyone actually built a Theugist using a) the standard array of scores AND b) not using either PrC/feats from other sources other than the core 3E books AND c)keeping inline with the standard wealth table.

The reason why I ask is because with so many people throwing out ideas like the Geomancer, Reactive Counterspelling, I think it is hard to keep the PrC in actual practice. 

Ergo, what would the following actually look like?
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 1, 
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 5
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 10

Standard Array,
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Ok, dump stat is going to be CHA (or STR perhaps? Though that can affect your carrying capacity). Everyone seems to agree that INT is the most important stat and WIS follows 2nd. CON becomes 3rd perhaps tied with DEX?

Ok at character level 7, 11 and 16, what would be this character's ability scores. What Feats do you actually take (assume Human), I figure Still spell, Spell Penetration, Extend and Spell focus would be first choices but what else and in what order.

What items can they afford?


----------



## Allister (Apr 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite.  The wagon is officially put before the horse.
> 
> Inventing an archetype for a crunch purpose is a bit counter to what I understand the class system in D&D traditionally stands for, or once stood for, perhaps.  Not entirely comfy with the idea - the rules are getting too big for their booties. *




A) In most fantasy fiction, there isn't a split between divine and arcane, thus the cleric/wizard isn't a standard part of the fantasy milieu. In most fantasy fiction, you don't need the Magical Thegist because either magic is totally divine (no wizards) or arcane can do anything that we currently subscribe to only the cleric.

B) Prior to 3E, the cleric/wizard was arguable one of the most common sub-types in D&D (and yes, this is because of how effective it was). 3E totally nerfed this concept and I honestly don't see how one could fix this (and yes, I've seen various fixes but many times, they aren't elegant a la the current 3E system).


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

Your argument fails in that earlier editions never pretended that cleric/wizard was a single archetype.  It was someone who was a priest AND a mage, not some single archetype with a undefined name like Mystic Theurge.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite.  The wagon is officially put before the horse.*




It's much easier to add flavor to a well-constructed system than it is to impose balance on a flavorful but flawed one.

IMO.


----------



## Oni (Apr 6, 2003)

I still don't see why they wouldn't have been better off to try and fix the underlying problem rather than do a rather poor (IMO) patchjob.  Fixing the flaw in the multiclassing system rather than making this silly PrC would have just as far toward perserving this supposed archtype.


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

> It's much easier to add flavor to a well-constructed system than it is to impose balance on a flavorful but flawed one.



And IMO, much of D&D's success is based around the implied setting which it provides.  In this case, there's a gap in that setting which is unexplained (some rules and a name with no archetype to hang them off), and which is there only because there was a need to patch the rules for cleric/wizards...which are no longer even dual archetype characters, but something called a "Mystic Theurge".  That weakens D&D in a place very near to it's core - the swords and sorcery pulp fantasy archetypal basis of the class system (sorry to be wordy, but people have a tendency to get technical on use of the word "fantasy" if you're not specific).

The other fault in your argument is that just because you think that adding flavor is easier than correcting crunch flaws, it doesn't imply that the alternative to lacking flavour is to have crunch flaws.  That's nonsense.


----------



## Allister (Apr 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> And IMO, much of D&D's success is based around the implied setting which it provides.  In this case, there's a gap in that setting which is unexplained (some rules and a name with no archetype to hang them off), and there only because there was a need to patch the rules.  That weakens D&D, IMO. *




Um, but prior to 3E, cleric/wizards were considered a) not only a viable choice for PCs but also b) viable NPCs as opponents. Sure, there was no name for a cleric/wizard hybrid in prior editions but they were almost as ubiquitous as the wizard/fighter (and in earlier editions, I don't remember them having a "different name"


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

> Um, but prior to 3E, cleric/wizards were considered a) not only a viable choice for PCs but also b) viable NPCs as opponents. Sure, there was no name for a cleric/wizard hybrid in prior editions but they were almost as ubiquitous as the wizard/fighter (and in earlier editions, I don't remember them having a "different name"



You missed my point.  In earlier editions, they were considered a wizard AND a cleric, not a single fabricated archetype with no reason for existence called something like a wizeric or a clizard, which the Mystic Theurge is.  _Two archetypes together_, not one which only exists to kow tow to an existing rules artefact for sake of consistency, which is what we're getting.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 6, 2003)

You got peanut butter in my chocolate.

You got chocolate in my peanut butter.


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

> You got peanut butter in my chocolate.
> 
> You got chocolate in my peanut butter.



Yeah, it's all the same if you don't bother to think too hard about roles, isn't it?  I mean, the stats are teh same, so who cares?  Roleplaying game indeed...


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2003)

Again rounser, you are assuming the Mystic has any type of ingame reality. You can still call him a mage/druid or whatever. The mechanics would back you up on this. Specific flavor text for such a broad range of concepts as this class provides would be a waste of space. Mechanically this resembles the options allowed prior editions quite nicely. It must just be you who has the irrational need to add an organization or formal discipline of Mystics in your game....


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2003)

> Again rounser, you are assuming the Mystic has any type of ingame reality. You can still call him a mage/druid or whatever. The mechanics would back you up on this.



I can rename the cleric a priest, too.  That doesn't make the decision to use the Mystic Theurge name wise.


> Specific flavor text for such a broad range of concepts as this class provides would be a waste of space.



If you gave it a real archetype which people know, such as Witch, there would be no need for such a waste of space, because people know what a witch archetype is.  (I'm not implying that witch would fit, mind you.)


> Mechanically this resembles the options allowed prior editions quite nicely. It must just be you who has the irrational need to add an organization or formal discipline of Mystics in your game....



Sorry, but this is bollocks.  Every D&D class has at least a small archetypal basis, from the strong (wizard, thief, barbarian, paladin) to somewhat weaker (cleric, thief-acrobat, but even they drew upon strong archetypes such as the priest and cat burglar, if not perfectly mirror them).

The Mystic Theurge doesn't even suggest such an archetype with it's name.  It's a backless maiden, a foil for a design artefact, with no purpose for existence other than what it's stats offer.  The only class I can think of that comes close is the cleric, who was made good in combat (unlike how many folks view priests, and overlapping with the paladin in the holy warrior role, creating a D&Dism) so that the player would have something to do apart from heal.  The less "clerics" in the game, the better.


----------



## Allister (Apr 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> You missed my point.  In earlier editions, they were considered a wizard AND a cleric, not a single fabricated archetype with no reason for existence called something like a wizeric or a clizard, which the Mystic Theurge is.  Two archetypes together, not one which only exists to kow tow to an existing rules artefact for sake of consistency, which is what we're getting. *




I think this is where we disagree. In pre-3E, the cleric/wizard IS an archtype. Just as much as the fighting wizard or the roguish fighter. 

While they were a wizard/cleric, in practice they didn't act like a cleric and a wizard but as a wizard who knew clerical spells. See the writeup in many FR products. 

Note: I honestly am still undecided about the "brokeness" of the Magical Thegist but I am distressed that even though it is a PrC, everyone seems to assume that they will be available in all campaigns. Am I the only DM that doesn't allow for all the PrC in the current DMG? Are my players the only ones that won't pout if I tell them no, better yet, they don't expect all PrC to be allowed?


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 6, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *Half or more of the people I've seen look at this class have indicated they think it is overpowered.*



True, but that really doesn't mean much.  If they still think it's overpowered after playing with one in game for a substantial period of time, that might mean something.

Remember that when 3e first came out, there was a huge outcry at how "obviously overpowered" the monk was.  Months later, after many people played monks, no one complained that they were overpowered, and many complained that they were underpowered.

My instincts and reasoning lead me to believe that the MT is possibly a bit overpowered, but not the ridiculous overpowering that many people assert.


----------



## Oni (Apr 6, 2003)

Allister said:
			
		

> *Note: I honestly am still undecided about the "brokeness" of the Magical Thegist but I am distressed that even though it is a PrC, everyone seems to assume that they will be available in all campaigns. Am I the only DM that doesn't allow for all the PrC in the current DMG? Are my players the only ones that won't pout if I tell them no, better yet, they don't expect all PrC to be allowed? *





Ah there lies another issue.  Since this is a rules patch why use use a mechanic in the game that so highly optional and less a part of the core rules set than the standard multiclassing rules.  If they wanted to fix this, why use a PrC when PrC's vary so much from campaign to campaign.


----------



## JayOmega (Apr 6, 2003)

Actually, I'm happier with Prestige Classes that are rules-heavy and fluff-light.  If WotC did add a fluff description to this class, I assume it would be Greyhawk-based, or possibly Realms-based.  I don't run my game in Greyhawk, so I'd have to throw out the description and make something that fits my world, anyway.  For instance, my Shadowdancers are a group of anti-Assassins from the Kyn Empire; basically a Ninja clan comissioned and supported by the Empire to oppose another evil clan, who are based on the Ghost-Face Killer PrC's from Dragon Magazine (also modified to be a nearly-destroyed Ninja clan who made a deal with demons to gain their magical powers and save their clan.)  Any chance the DMG would include that for me? 

For that matter, look at the two current paragraphs of "fluff text" for the Shadowdancer (the first and third paragraphs of the class).  Read it, and replace "Shadowdancer" with "Bard".  Still fits pretty well, yes?  Or, consider the Loremaster.  A PrC that gains power because she studies a lot.  Amazing.  And what do all the other wizards do in their spare time?  Assassin.  Tries to kill people fast.  Describes most characters I've known.    I think the precendent for low-flavor classes has been set already.

And what's wrong with leaving a relatively flavorless class in the DMG, anyway?  I can put it in my world where it belongs, rather than having players assume "the DMG says these Mystic Theurges are Mystra's/Boccob's followers, so I assume they all follow The Sisters in your world, right?"  I'd rather have it this way, than have them waste valuable core-book paper on "this is how this class is presented and used in Greyhawk.  And this is how it's presented and used in the Forgotten Realms.  And this is how you change it for Druids instead of clerics.  And this is how you change it for dragon-blooded sorcerors instead of wizards..."  Let them save space for more useful stuff, and put the fluff in a place besides the 3 core books.


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 6, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *Perhaps the lack of ears on Lego people's heads tends to result in hearing difficulties.
> 
> The point _you_ are missing, oh Lego-headed one
> 
> Who's "we", oh Lego-headed one? Because as far as I can tell, none of MY Lego people have any problems with what I'm saying.*




Come back when you have an argument, and not pointless comments on an avatar.

J


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 6, 2003)

JayOmega said:
			
		

> *Actually, I'm happier with Prestige Classes that are rules-heavy and fluff-light.  If WotC did add a fluff description to this class, I assume it would be Greyhawk-based, or possibly Realms-based.  I don't run my game in Greyhawk, so I'd have to throw out the description and make something that fits my world, anyway. *



I tend to agree, with one caveat:  I like PrCs with lots of flavor, but I prefer the flavor to be in the game mechanics.  Sometimes fluff description is interesting, but it's really the flavor that's implicit in the game mechanics that makes a PrC appeal to me.  For example, the description of the Incantatrix is very interesting, but the class is just a loose colletion of buffs, making the whole less than appealing.  On the other end of the spectrum, the Animal Lord description is little more than a collection of bad stereotypes, but the class abilities are so interesting and flavorful that I instantly fell in love with the class.  In the centre, the PrC ideal for me, is the Eldrich Master (from Dragon), whose description and class abilities are both interesting, and compliment each other well.

However, I also like PrCs which are generic, but have interesting or much-needed abilities.  For example, I couldn't care less about the descriptions of the Duelist or Arcane Trickster PrCs, but the fact that they make character archetypes that are otherwise far too weak into viable concepts makes them worthwhile.  IMO the Mystic Theurge falls into this category.  I hope that a similar class for multiclassed spellcasters/psionics is created, though one would be extremely simple to homebrew.


----------



## William Ronald (Apr 6, 2003)

> _Oni posted:_
> I still don't see why they wouldn't have been better off to try and fix the underlying problem rather than do a rather poor (IMO) patchjob. Fixing the flaw in the multiclassing system rather than making this silly PrC would have just as far toward perserving this supposed archtype.




I think that altering the mechanic would have likely been seen as a major step towards a new edition.  Also, the developers at WotC may still be trying to determine what works well and does not work in the current edition and the revision.  There are limits to what can be done without making a 4th Edition rule set.  (I suspect that may be a few years away, at least.  However, a few people I know think that a 4th Edition rules may follow 3.5 by a few years.  They argue that the Players Options rules precedeed 3.0 by a few years.)

So far, it seems opinion is divided on the Mystic Theurge.  I do not see it as overpowering because of the loss of several top spell levels.  There are also some penalties in the power of spells in a secondary class.

Obviously, it would help to look at everything in the full context of the 3.5 rules.  Until we have all the rules in front of us, I think the best any of us can do is engage in speculation with some of the evidence before us.

Perhaps a few people can play test the class in their own games and share their results on the boards.  We can at least then judge how well the mystic theurge is balanced to D&D 3.0.


----------



## Monte At Home (Apr 7, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> I tend to agree, with one caveat:  I like PrCs with lots of flavor, but I prefer the flavor to be in the game mechanics.  *




Agreed. They can also come from the requirements.



> *However, I also like PrCs which are generic, but have interesting or much-needed abilities.  For example, I couldn't care less about the descriptions of the Duelist or Arcane Trickster PrCs, but the fact that they make character archetypes that are otherwise far too weak into viable concepts makes them worthwhile.  *




The difference is, even a "generic" class like the duelist has a concept: "you're a swashbuckler and you're good at fighting with light weapons in no armor."

It describes what you do and what you don't do, as a duelist, that distinguishes you from otherwise similar characters.

The MT concept is: "you cast lots of spells," or, at best, "you cast lots of spells, both divine and arcane."

I'd argue that that's not a concept that can distinguish it much. 

A flavorful requirement, like "you must use your divine focus to cast all your spells with Material or Focus components, even the arcane ones," or a special ability, like once per day per level casting a divine spell as an arcane spell or vice versa, would go a long way toward explaining the game-world rationale for what's going on with this class.

You could even put in an all-flavor requirement or two: "Must receive a special blessing from the high priest of the god of magic," or "must spend one month in solitude, studying magic and praying."


----------



## Endur (Apr 7, 2003)

*True Necromancer*

Before 3.5, T&B's True Necromancer was a balanced class.
pre-reqs:
access to third level clerical spells
access to third level wizard spells
Necromancer specialization
Death domain
8 ranks in KR and KA

MT's pre-reqs:
access to 2nd level clerical spells
access to 2nd level wizard spells
6 ranks in KR and KA

MT is much easier to get into.  MT also gives two caster levels per level, whereas True Necromancer only gave one caster level per level (plus some special abilities).

Now what happens in 3.5 if you combine MT & True Necromancer
levels 1-3 cleric (death domain + something else)
levels 4-6 wizard (necromancer)
levels 7-8 MT
level 9 True Necromancer (lets say stacks with wiz casting level)
level 10-17 MT
level 18-20 True Necromancer

Let's compare 10th level characters: 
The 3e True Necromancer hasn't entered the prestige class yet and only has caster level 5 for cleric and caster lever 5 for wizard.

The 3.5e True Necromancer has caster level 7 as a wizard, caster level 6 as a Cleric, and caster level 13 for necromancy spells.

Let's compare 17th level characters:
The 3e True Necromancer has caster level 12 for wizard, caster level 5 for cleric, and caster level 17 for necromancy spells.

The 3.5e True Necromancer has caster level 14 for wizard, caster level 13 for cleric, and caster level 27 for necromancy spells.

Not only is the True Necromancer PRC much easier to get into with MT, but its dramatically more powerful.  "Dispel my Necromancy spells? I don't think so!"

This is yet another example of how PRCs are not being playtested.  The playtesters and designers seem to focus on comparing the PRC to a core class.  They aren't paying attention to how PRCs stack to provide benefits far more powerful than any individual class offers.  I regularly see characters with up to half a dozen different PRCs, whose players are cherrypicking the best benefits from each PRC.

Tom


----------



## Marshall (Apr 7, 2003)

> The MT concept is: "you cast lots of spells," or, at best, "you cast lots of spells, both divine and arcane."
> 
> I'd argue that that's not a concept that can distinguish it much.




I can think up several archetypes for the MyT(Migh-Ty, I like that) :

High Priest of a God/dess of Magic
Disciple of the Arcane(Tho Arcane Devotee is already taken)
Loremaster of All Magics...



> You could even put in an all-flavor requirement or two: "Must receive a special blessing from the high priest of the god of magic," or "must spend one month in solitude, studying magic and praying."




If I have a problem with the class, it is that it has too few prereqs. 
Altho I wont go as far as saying that every WIZ/CLR would bother to pick up 6 ranks in both Know skills, a single Skill Focus or several ranks Decipher Script along with Montes "flavor" requirements would assuage my few fears.


----------



## Larry Fitz (Apr 7, 2003)

My problem with this PrC is all about the subtext. 

Why does this PrC exist? Frankly it caters to a particular brand of Munchkinism IMO. Or at the very least caters to wishy-washy players. I have no problem with PC's wanting to play Cleric/Wizards. As long as they are playing Cleric/Wizards. I do have a problem with a PrC that strives to blur the lines between Divine and Arcane casters. Again, I'm not opposed to someone playing a character who is trying to do both, I'm opposed to someone seamlessly blending them as if they were the same thing.  I would rather see completely different mechanics for how each uses spells than a PrC that eliminates the differences altogether.

If people want to say that the multiclassing in 3E is too crippling to make an effective Cleric/Wizard, I hear that and am willing to listen to any reasonable attempts to fix the problem of multiclassing. This does not do that. It won't help the Warrior/Bard at all and it doesn't address the Illusionist/Rogue's shortcomings either.

What this does do is the opposite of what a PrC is supposed to do, a PrC is supposed to aid in the immersion of the PC's into a world. It's suposed to enhance, enrich and detail the game world. For me this ridiculous attempt to make every powergaming hybrid possible is a bad idea. 

I am particularly touchy about combining religion and magic. They have differnt flavors, let's keep the that way. I don't like "Gods of Magic" either. Divine power is the will of superior beings being channeled through a subservient one because of devotion (no matter how that devotion is inspired). Arcane magic is studying and manipulating reality, bending it to the spellcaster's will by understanding how it works at it's very core. To me a God of Magic is a concept that hasvery little value in a fantasy campaign, it undercuts the beauty and distinction of having the two types of spell casting be different in the first place.

I didn't intend for this to be quite so rantish, so let me sum up....


Nah, I'll give it a pass in my campaign.

By the way, Monte, any thoughts on how to fix multiclassing (assuming you agree it's a problem that is)?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

JayOmega said:
			
		

> I'd rather have it this way, than have them waste valuable core-book paper on "this is how this class is presented and used in Greyhawk.  And this is how it's presented and used in the Forgotten Realms.  And this is how you change it for Druids instead of clerics.  And this is how you change it for dragon-blooded sorcerors instead of wizards..."  Let them save space for more useful stuff, and put the fluff in a place besides the 3 core books.



Interesting how the "role" related material in a role-playing game is referred to as a "waste" of paper.


----------



## rounser (Apr 7, 2003)

> Interesting how the "role" related material in a role-playing game is referred to as a "waste" of paper.



[SARCASM]Why give it a name at all?  Why not call it Core Prestige Class Number 4?  After all, only crunch (TM) matters.[/SARCASM]

His argument is specious anyway - you don't need notes in a core book on how a class or race fits into anywhere but D&D's implied setting.  It doesn't have to be rocket science - an archetype as simple as a single word like "assassin" or "swashbuckler" is enough.

Mystic Theurge lacks even that.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey, if all you want is crunch, more power to you.  However, I can't help but believe that this pathetic piece of munchkin crap is the result of just that line of thinking dominating D&D development during the past couple of years.  If you like it, enjoy it.  I certainly won't be using it, for reasons that have already been made clear by me and many others.

To touch on MC's post, adding "access to Magic Domain" would also do quite a bit combined with his "Divine Focus" suggestions.  However, my biggest problem remains that it's a 10-Level Prestige Class (thus projects into Epic by default).  Cut it to 5 levels (thus not projecting into Epic), and a lot of the abusive qualities that I am rejecting it for simply go away.

[Edit: Alright, you added to your post...  I'm not going to edit mine, though, since the general sentiments remain true.  Consequently, since I've rejected it, it's far more of a waste of space to me than 1 paragraph of flavor text would be to somebody else... ]


----------



## rounser (Apr 7, 2003)

> Hey, if all you want is crunch, more power to you.



Re-read my post...I'm not refuting your stance.  Supporting it, in fact.


> [Edit: Alright, you added to your post... I'm not going to edit mine, though, since the general sentiments remain true. Consequently, since I've rejected it, it's far more of a waste of space to me than 1 paragraph of flavor text would be to somebody else... ]



I was referring to the guy you were responding to, if that wasn't clear.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> I was referring to the guy you were responding to, if that wasn't clear.



It was after your edit.


----------



## Particle_Man (Apr 7, 2003)

*wait and see?*

We haven't seen the 3.5 cleric, wizard or sorceror.  For all we know, they might get so many new cool class abilities that the MT is underpowered in comparison.

But frankly, I am more interested in the notion that the DMG will have a mechanic in place to create prestige classes.  If that is so, maybe we can "reverse engineer" from the MT to figure out how to deal with the multi-class problem with spell-caster/non-spell-caster classes.

1) Take two classes, one spell-caster and one not.  Make the prereqs for the new PrC such that one needs to take 3 levels in each of the two classes.

2) For the prestige class, use the worst of the two BAB's, the worst of the 2 saves (for each categories), and the worst of the 2 hd.  Use 2 skill points/level, except as indicated below.

3) Now for the hard part -- special abilities.  For the spell-caster class, one just adds one spell-casting equivalent per level, it seems.  What about the other classes?

Fighter: 1 fighter feat every two levels? (too much?  Maybe decrease feats/level or increase prereqs on non-fighter side?

Rogue: 8 skill points/level only OR increase sneak attack damage only  (not sure which I favour -- could have different prestige classes for each).

Ranger: (I have no idea until I see the new one)

Monk: Increase unarmed damage only

Barbarian: Increase Rage's only

Bard: Increase bard knowledge only OR increase spell-caster level only.

Paladin: Increase spell-caster level only OR increase Holy Smite only (they are already pretty front-loaded, though)

So how does this look if one mixes and matches?  I have not checked whether ANY of the above is balanced -- I am more interested as to whether some of it might provide a clue to solving the multiclass problem.

Of course, then one can raise the same issue with 3 classes, 4 classes, etc.  But maybe something similar can be done...

Oh, by the way, if one goes WAAYYYYY! back to the 1st edition Dieties and Demigods, Merlin (of King Arthur Fame) was both a high level Druid and a high level Magic-User, IIRC).  So I guess technically, Merlin stands as a possible example of a Mystic Theurge in history.  Or at least its Nature loving cousin.    (Saying "Merlin was a druid AND a Magic-User" doesn't work here -- Merlin was beyond that, since he predates D&D, and seemed to have abilities attributable to both sides, while being "unified".  Maybe MyT was invented with him in mind?

I think the proof will be in the pudding.  When 3.5 comes out, if MyT is too powerful, then DMs should ban it.  If it is not too powerful, and becomes popular, than various writers (even Monte.  Hell, even John Wick!) will write stuff using them and the writers will either create a niche for the archtype (a la Tinker gnomes, Kender, Gully Dwarves, etc.) or will dig in history and myth to find close matches (a la Merlin, above, just off the top of my head).

Anyhow, this doesn't worry me.  In fact, some of my friends probably will go for the idea specifically because it challenges standard class divisions.


----------



## Oni (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: wait and see?*



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> *We haven't seen the 3.5 cleric, wizard or sorceror.  For all we know, they might get so many new cool class abilities that the MT is underpowered in comparison.*





These classes aren't going to be seeing any real changes, except perhaps for some monkeying around with their spell list.  And that won't make must of a difference in regards to the MT since it gets such great spell progression anyway.


----------



## hong (Apr 7, 2003)

Allister said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A) In most fantasy fiction, there isn't a split between divine and arcane, thus the cleric/wizard isn't a standard part of the fantasy milieu. In most fantasy fiction, you don't need the Magical Thegist because either magic is totally divine (no wizards) or arcane can do anything that we currently subscribe to only the cleric.*




Hence my comment/suggestion/preference to scrap the arcane/divine thing.



> *B) Prior to 3E, the cleric/wizard was arguable one of the most common sub-types in D&D (and yes, this is because of how effective it was). 3E totally nerfed this concept and I honestly don't see how one could fix this (and yes, I've seen various fixes but many times, they aren't elegant a la the current 3E system). *




Creating a brand-new prestige class just to fill a hole counts as "elegant"?


----------



## Allister (Apr 7, 2003)

*Serious Question*

Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?

I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?

Have I been out of the 3E community for that long?


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Serious Question*



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> *Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?
> 
> I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?
> 
> Have I been out of the 3E community for that long? *



IT all depends upon the game. in my game they are option,heck I have never had any of my players ever want a prestige class,let alone take one, mind you I tend to play low level games with the games retiring when the party gets around 10 to 12 level.
ken


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Serious Question*



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?



Well, they aren't optional in my game, but of course, I design them specifically for my game.  I've only used one published Prestige Class to date (Practical Ones from Librum Equitus).

However, I don't think they are required for D&D per se.  They are (in 3.0) included as a DM's Option, and should remain so.



> I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?



That's simply a group choice; I don't let them be handled that way in my game, though, since it takes the prestigousness out of them and waters down the spirit of the concept.  Granted, I've made a few that are designed to purposely stack up (One must become a Madoni Legionaire _before_ becoming a Legion Scout, Legion Sorcerous Commander, Legion Marshal, Legion Standard Bearer or Legion Captain, for instance), but they are also designed to be extensions of each other rather than mix & match min/max fantasies (which is often why you see them that way on "various boards").

Generally, by maintaining some amount of secrecy to them, enforcing their discovery in role-play, requiring some sort of group membership or specialized training, and so forth, they retain the flavor of their original intent.


----------



## Oni (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Serious Question*



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> *Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?
> 
> I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?
> 
> Have I been out of the 3E community for that long? *





This is what is causing some of my dismay in regards to the MT, PrC's were supposed to be completely optional, yet they have chosen to use a PrC to address a problem inherent to the rules, one that never needed to involve a PrC for those that didn't want to use them.


----------



## Grog (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Serious Question*



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> *Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?*




When 3E first came out, they might have been optional. But since almost every new supplement/splatbook/campaign setting that comes out has had a bunch of new PrCs, I'd say it's pretty clear that WotC doesn't consider them optional, and never really did.

The problem I have is that there's really nothing "prestigious" about prestige classes, but that's another topic...


----------



## Psion (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Serious Question*



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> *This is what is causing some of my dismay in regards to the MT, PrC's were supposed to be completely optional, yet they have chosen to use a PrC to address a problem inherent to the rules, one that never needed to involve a PrC for those that didn't want to use them. *




I've never seen a viable multiclass combo for every possible multiclass as being obligatory, so I don't see how this is addressing a problem with the rules. AFAIAC, it's just giving some people (apparently not Hong) something that that want.

That said, I agree it's boring and slightly overpowered at high levels, but I said that several pages ago. I guess that puts me in the Monte camp.


----------



## Oni (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Serious Question*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've never seen a viable multiclass combo for every possible multiclass as being obligatory, so I don't see how this is addressing a problem with the rules. AFAIAC, it's just giving some people (apparently not Hong) something that that want. *





The fact is that it is addressing a problem in the rules whether one sees it that way or not, because we've been told this flat out that it is.  See Andy Collins' statements in regards to this.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question*



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> See Andy Collins' statements in regards to this.



Sure...



> _Originally posted by Realms Protector at GamingReport.com:_
> *Andy Collins on the Mystic Theurge Prestige Class:*
> "One of the problems identified in 3rd Edition is the inequality of multiclassing options. While combos of melee-type classes are pretty attractive (since BAB, the fighter's holy grail, continues to increase regardless of the class taken), any spellcaster wishing to multiclass takes a dramatic hit on his spellcasting power. Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).
> 
> The mystic theurge is part of a dedicated approach in 3.5 to address that problem. In this case, the prestige class presents a viable road for the character who wants to pursue two different magical paths, without having to forgo any hope of keeping up with his friends.



Sorry, but this translates as "we are working on circumventing the cost associated to your choices."  That doesn't strike me as wise game design so much as it screams "The Year of the Power Gamer has arrived".



> At any given character level below 20th, the theurge will either be one or two spell levels behind the single-classed character. That's a *huge* disadvantage.



No, it isn't, considering that the character has doubled his spell-casting potential for 1st through 6th Level Spells.



> Don't overlook the other big disadvantage: His caster level is 3 below the single-classed character, which means it's tougher to bypass spell resistance, his spells are easier to dispel, and his spells simply have less effect overall. He'll *never* dig out of this hole.



Doesn't need to.  As you advance in levels, the hole gets naturally shallower.  By 25th Level, it's non-existant.



> Another hidden problem is that the character has one extra mental ability score to max out. Most spellcasters can get away with putting their 2nd-best ability into Dex or Con, but not this guy. To take full advantage of his spellcasting power, he'll need to keep two mental stats as high as possible. Not many wizards like "wasting" a high stat in Wisdom, and ditto for clerics and Intelligence.



Of course, with all the buff-spells available to him, this is again something that becomes less signifigant as you go.



> Oh, and he also gives up the special abilities of the class. No more turning or bonus feats, thanks!



Big woop.  As has been pointed out, he can still gain Epic Spellcasting at 21st Level.



> One level later, the character has the spellcasting power of a Clr4/Wiz4. (Remember, though, he's still only a 7th-level character, with a 7th-level character's hp, bab, saves, and so forth). He's still only casting 2nd-level spells, while the single-classed character is chucking around 4th-level spells.
> 
> Check in again at character level 10. The Clr3/Wiz3/Theurge4 now has 4th-level spells in two classes, compared to the Clr10 or Wiz10 who's throwing flame strikes or walls of force.



Naming the spells is a cop-out.  Let's say what it is: 4th Level Spells for 2 Classes vs 5th Level Spells for 1 Class.  That hole's getting shallow already.



> At level 16, the Clr3/Wiz3/Theurge10 has one or two 7th-level spells in two classes, but the single-classed character has three or maybe even four 8th-level spells.



True, but again, the C/W/MT is whipping out twice as many of those spells.  Assuming the Player is even half-smart with what he uses and when he uses it, the C/W/MT is already far more powerful.



> At level 20, the theurge might have continued to split his caster levels (becoming a Clr5/Wiz5/Theurge10). This gives him 8th-level spells in two classes.



Which is still twice as many spells.



> Alternatively, he might have advanced only one class (becoming a Clr7/Wiz3/Theurge10 or Clr3/Wiz7/Theurge10). That gives him a couple of 9th-level spells (compared to the five or more of a 20th-level single-classed caster).



It also preps the character for Epic, at which point the difference becomes insignificant.



> As far as epic levels go, let's not count those particular chickens before seeing what the character's epic-level progression looks like, eh?"



Might as well, otherwise AC would have to admit that the class is broken.


----------



## Henry (Apr 7, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> You missed my point.  In earlier editions, they were considered a wizard AND a cleric, not a single fabricated archetype with no reason for existence called something like a wizeric or a clizard, which the Mystic Theurge is.  Two archetypes together, not one which only exists to kow tow to an existing rules artefact for sake of consistency, which is what we're getting. *




Y'know, when I first saw the Mystic Theurge, my first thought was, "THEY'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!"

After I thought about it and read this thread, my second thought was, "Aldric Greymoon can live again."

In a long-ago 2nd edition AD&D campaign, a friend of mine played a grey elf cleric/mage named Aldric Greymoon. Aldric was low on hit points, terrible at combat and armor, but MY GOD, he could cast spells! Using the old 1st edition rules on Spell prep times, it took him a complete DAY to retrieve all his spells. (something like 22 hours at 6th level.) 

With 3E, Aldric's character would be reduced to a pale shadow, having to split caster levels, and would not be a workable concept unless the levels were heavily skewed one way or another, and then the concept was adversely affected.

With the mystic theurge, the concept of the 2nd edition multi-spellcaster has been recreated.

Yes, crunch has begotten flavor. But this is nothing new. Many people see "crunch" and "flavor" as mutually exclusive, but the fact is that these two types of play have been feeding off of one another since the beginning, people have jsut been emphasizing one way versus another. I have had grappling rules become the basis for inspired drama, I've had random magic item rolls become the basis for an epic campaign, I've had a single magic items become the inspiration for a small nation of good humanoids, whose start was a helm of opposite alignment. Whereas a character concept was stifled during the rules change of 2nd to 3rd edition, it is reborn in 3E revised.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Apr 7, 2003)

Part of my objection to the class is that I don't see this "problem" that some are alleging exists. I read Andy Collins' statements on this and personally I think his argument is poor. If multiclassing causes a character to get "kicked in the groin" then don't do it. I fail to see why multiclassers should have their cake and eat it too, and I say this as someone who multiclasses frequently. 

Multiclassing generates jack-of-all-trades characters but as compensation for this versatility you loose the benefits of concentration. The mystic theurge class allows you to be a jack-of-all-trades AND master of all of them. How is that fair to the person who shows dedication with a single-class character that the multiclassed character gets ALL of his abilities AND an additional set as well at nearly full capability. 

I disagree that loss of ability to Turn Undead and loss of familiar progression and bonus metamagic feats are worth consideration. Both are ancillary abilities to their respective classes. The primary ability is spellcasting and spellcasting is a very powerful ability, especially now that you effectively get it TWICE.

I also disagree that 3 levels less of spellcasting is suitable balance. A three-level difference is TRIVIAL at higher levels and the mystic theurge can still get 9th level spells in BOTH classes before hitting epic spells. I might have less dislike for this class if only it weren't so easy to get in and so much better than almost all other continuing spellcasting classes. 

Once I allowed a psion/wizard and psion/cleric  prestige class for my Dark Sun campaign that would advance both classes. The prerequisites came out to 3rd lvl arcane/divine spells and 3rd lvl psionic powers (meaning that the earliest you could enter the class was 11th lvl). That class had the wizard BAB table and NO good saves nor did it advance anything else but spellcasting.

What next,  someone complains how his monk5/wizard5 is shafted by multiclassing so WoTC releases a class that lets you advance ALL of the monk abilities except monk bonuses to AC and ALL wizard abilities except for familiar advancement and bonus feats?

Personally, as far as my campaign goes I will treat the Mystic Theurge as a belated April Fools joke. As far as I am concerned, if anyone wants to be an arcane caster with divine spells, take enough levels in the Eldrich Master prestige class from Dragon Magazine (don't know the issue # off hand) that you can cast divine spells with your arcane spell slots. You absolutely will not get 2x the spell slots AND be able to cast them at nearly full level simply by taking one prestige class.

Tzarevitch


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question*



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but this translates as "we are working on circumventing the cost associated to your choices."*




Equally, it could translate as "we realized that the cost of your choice was far greater than the benefits, and we're working to correct that" - which _is_ good game design.

I sincerely doubt that the staff at WOTC is sitting in their cubes saying "Hur hur, lets make uber kewl PrC better than everything else and ruin everyone's game".  After all, what would be the point?

J


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 7, 2003)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *Part of my objection to the class is that I don't see this "problem" that some are alleging exists. I read Andy Collins' statements on this and personally I think his argument is poor. If multiclassing causes a character to get "kicked in the groin" then don't do it. I fail to see why multiclassers should have their cake and eat it too, and I say this as someone who multiclasses frequently.
> *




Agreed... I'd like to hear a definition of what the people who think the MT is just dandy consider to be a "viable" multi-class caster, because it seems like we have a lot of people here who think that anything short of having the almost-complete abilities of two different classes for the price of one makes for unplayable multi-class spellcasters.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Equally, it could translate as "we realized that the cost of your choice was far greater than the benefits, and we're working to correct that" - which _is_ good game design.
> 
> I sincerely doubt that the staff at WOTC is sitting in their cubes saying "Hur hur, lets make uber kewl PrC better than everything else and ruin everyone's game".  After all, what would be the point?



Thing is, while they may be _trying_ to do the first, the result here is closer to the later.  If this proved balanced in Playtesting, it's likely because they gave it to someone that did a crap job of spell selection.  A 16th Level Character with the spells of a 13 Wizard _and_ a 13 Cleric is an absolute power house.  Sure, _some_ of his side-benefits are reduced, _but_ the spell output is devestating in the hands of someone that can use his spells wisely (Hell, as a DM I wouldn't give this to an NPC because I _know_ that any villain I create with this class is going to mop the floor with the party I put him against).  The choice in multiclassing is selecting one class or the other.  This class offers the _best_ of _both_.  That's a problem.

That the character _can_ have Epic Spellcasting at 21st Level also means that the cost of multiclassing is actually reduced to _near nothing_.  And that cost only gets smaller with each level gained.  Considering that the _only_ thing this Class offers is +1 Caster Level for two Classes per Level, I'd say that projecting it into Epic is excessively easy, hense my earlier statement that it should be cut to 5 Levels.  Heck, even then it's still quite potent, per the earlier post detailing the True Necromancer combo.


----------



## Numion (Apr 7, 2003)

IME the most powerful type of cleric is the one that buffs himself with all the protective and offensive spells and then wades into melee, or shoots with his bow. That kind of cleric excels even fighters in melee, and they're incredibly hard to kill. I know this from DMing two campaigns in 3e, one to 16th level and one to 24th. 

Now this new prestige class won't work with that cleric build, because it loses caster levels (at least three, and most of the clerics buffing spells depend on levels) and the use of armor. 

And from this insight follows that it's not as broken as the pure numerical speculation people have given here might indicate. Compared to a straight cleric the theurge just won't be much better. It might or might not be a _bit_ better, but only playtesting will reveal that. 

Consider also that most of the spellcasting PrC's are crippled by lame spell progression. I'm not saying that this is the cure, but it at least makes multiclass caster an option.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 7, 2003)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *A flavorful requirement, like "you must use your divine focus to cast all your spells with Material or Focus components, even the arcane ones," or a special ability, like once per day per level casting a divine spell as an arcane spell or vice versa, would go a long way toward explaining the game-world rationale for what's going on with this class.
> 
> You could even put in an all-flavor requirement or two: "Must receive a special blessing from the high priest of the god of magic," or "must spend one month in solitude, studying magic and praying." *



I completely agree.  The problem as I see it is that the class was created to serve as an example of how to create multiclass spellcasters work in a PrC, yet the designers left it generic enough to be used for a wide variety of characters.   If it were more specific or flavorful, it would be just as good an example, but would be more interesting in its own right.  This is particularly irksome because the 3.5 designers left in rules that have no purpose but flavor in the core classes (ie. the Paladin/Monk multiclassing restriction) but left flavor rules out of this PrC.

Perhaps I don't find the MT dull because I'm unconsciously interjecting all sorts of cool information on real world theurgy and religious-based occult magic.  The MT is perfect for occult Kabbalists, who combine divine magic with all sorts of eclectic pagan and secular sources.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 7, 2003)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *If multiclassing causes a character to get "kicked in the groin" then don't do it. I fail to see why multiclassers should have their cake and eat it too, and I say this as someone who multiclasses frequently.  *



The problem isn't that when multiclassing you sacrifice focused power for versatility.  The problem is that a multiclass spellcaster sacrifices far more power than he makes up for in versatility.  A Cleric 10 / Wizard 10, in a word, sucks.  It has less spells per day than a single classed wizard 20 or Cleric 20, and because it gives up several spell levels, it don't have the versatility that the single classed character has either.




> *How is that fair to the person who shows dedication with a single-class character that the multiclassed character gets ALL of his abilities AND an additional set as well at nearly full capability. *



That wouldn't be fair, you're right.  However, a MT doesn't get even close to all of the abilities of a single classed spellcaster.  His spell penetration, offensive power/round, saving throw DCs, and most powerful spells are all much weaker than the single classed character, as well as the lost non-spellcasting class abilities.  

In a campaign where prestige classes are used, the MT also has the opportunity cost of not being able to take other prestige classes.  Is a Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10 really that much better than a Wizard 5/Incatatrix 10/Archmage 5?



> *What next,  someone complains how his monk5/wizard5 is shafted by multiclassing so WoTC releases a class that lets you advance ALL of the monk abilities except monk bonuses to AC and ALL wizard abilities except for familiar advancement and bonus feats?*



Actually, such a class would probably be balanced, if the BAB, HD, and skill points are the same as the Wizard's.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 7, 2003)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *I also disagree that 3 levels less of spellcasting is suitable balance. A three-level difference is TRIVIAL at higher levels and the mystic theurge can still get 9th level spells in BOTH classes before hitting epic spells. *




No it can't, unless your DM is dumb enough to allow a +1 spellcasting progression PrC to increase "mystic theurge" (i.e. wizard AND cleric) levels.

Once you hit Wiz3/Clr3/MT 10, you can choose _either_ to increase wizard levels _or_ cleric levels, not both. So the best you do is Wiz5/Clr5/MT 10, for 8th-level wizard spells and 8th-level cleric spells, or Wiz7/Clr3/MT 10, for 9th-level wizard spells and 8th-level wizard spells.

That said, I think this class might be too good because buffing and utility spells rock in 3e. If many or all of these spells have been toned down in 3.5, the MT may be only as bad as the 2e multiclassed cleric/wizard; i.e. somewhere between balanced and slightly overpowered.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 7, 2003)

It's an interesting approach- there's a wizard/sorcerer in my campaign who could benefit from something along these lines, that's for sure.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 7, 2003)

*Mystic Theurgist [Feat]*

If anyone is interested, I tried breaking the prc into a feat under the assumption that characters receive less feats than levels, and in some ways they are more precious.

Check it out:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46958

Technik


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 7, 2003)

Uh, noone has addressed my point on the limitations of buffs. Given that mulitple uses of the same buffs rarely stack and that other party members are likely only to make use of certain buffs (bull's strength for fighters, cat's grace for rogues for instance) and limitations on time, how would this great quantity of bluff's have any real effect within a duration of time that includes 4 fights of equal ecl, as is standard? How are single class characters currently lacking in bluffs? Alot of very little adds up to a small advantage at best. The utility of buff spells is simply very small....

Sorry, but a Wizard's utility at higher levels is loaded towards the higher level spells....


----------



## mearls (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!*



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, you can disagree all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the "standard boilerplate PrC spellcasting text" explicitly contradicts your notion of what is given by the ability. *




Not when I write it.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 8, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Uh, noone has addressed my point on the limitations of buffs. Given that mulitple uses of the same buffs rarely stack and that other party members are likely only to make use of certain buffs (bull's strength for fighters, cat's grace for rogues for instance) and limitations on time, how would this great quantity of bluff's have any real effect within a duration of time that includes 4 fights of equal ecl, as is standard? How are single class characters currently lacking in bluffs? Alot of very little adds up to a small advantage at best. The utility of buff spells is simply very small....
> 
> Sorry, but a Wizard's utility at higher levels is loaded towards the higher level spells.... *




Just as a small sidetrack, if all your fighter is getting from the spellcasters in the party is a single _bulls strength_, he needs to join the fighters union and get them to give him some more buffs! Endurance, for a start.

Back to the Theurge - I'm wondering if my DM would allow it now, since he's just houseruled the most common buffs (BS, CG, Endurance, MVestement, GMW) to 10mins/level instead of 1/hour level. That would further weaken this class.

Personally, i wouldn't want to play it, since I like BOOM! spellcasters, but in the hands of a very intelligent player who can really combine the less used spells this class would seriously prod buttock.


----------



## JayOmega (Apr 8, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> [SARCASM]Why give it a name at all?  Why not call it Core Prestige Class Number 4?  After all, only crunch (TM) matters.[/SARCASM]
> 
> His argument is specious anyway - you don't need notes in a core book on how a class or race fits into anywhere but D&D's implied setting.  It doesn't have to be rocket science - an archetype as simple as a single word like "assassin" or "swashbuckler" is enough.
> ...




Except, of course, that that is not what I'm arguing against.  The MyT has a short description.  Others' complaints of "lack of a description" must mean either "it is the wrong description" or "it is not enough description".

I'm arguing that any further description (a) would be more than what is needed in what is supposed to be a _rule_ book and not a _role_ book; (b) would be more than what other DMG-prestige classes are currently afforded, when they are apparently acceptable to the anti-MyT brigade; and (c) would unnecessarily tie the class to a particular role, when this is the sort of class, like the Duelist or the Blackguard, that can fill multiple roles.

"Mystic theurges are often obsessed with magical lore, traveling to the ends of the earth to learn some new arcane secret or divine insight. [...]  Mystic theurges tend to be fascinated with magic in whatever form it takes. They're always on the hunt for powerful magic items and new arcane spells. Those mystic theurges who worship a deity use the power of their spellcasting to further their deity's agenda."

That seems to be at least as much of "an archetype" as  assassin or swashbuckler, even if it isn't rocket science.  It's "Indiana Jones, but with magic."  It covers the general motivation for the class (lust for magical power), a possible motivation for adventuring (surprisingly enough, lust for magical power), and the possible connection to a church, while still leaving open the possibility of MyT's based on druids or other non-deity-following divine casters.  It also implies, by omission, that MyT's aren't expected to be the sort of prestige class that represents a specific organization (such as the "guild" and "cabal" mentioned generically in the description of the assassin and loremaster).

Compare that to what's in the DMG already.  Dwarven Defender?  "Works for a dwarven authority, tough in defensive battle, is usually a dwarven soldier, might go adventuring for some reason he chooses not to state."  OK, a dwarven soldier with no reason to adventure.  That's downright helpful.  Blackguard?  "He's Evil.  He does Evil stuff.  Might have an evil army, might work for someone else evil, might act as an assassin, might just kick butt for fun."  OK, he's evil, and he either works for someone or he doesn't.  That's also helpful.  Loremaster?  "Wants knowledge.  Might be part of a secret cabal of people who want knowledge.  Might attach themselves to a university or library, where they can get knowledge.  Makes money through research.  Spends that money on more research."  So, they like knowledge, I guess.  This actually is helpful, but it doesn't really say anything that isn't implied by the name of the class.

None of these "descriptions" says more than the MyT's description, when you think about it.  They're even less useful in role-playing terms (except the Loremaster, who's almost word-for-word equivalent to the MyT, replacing "knowledge" for "magic").  But, apparently, these classes are nicely flavorful, while the MyT is just a power-gamer's toy.

Further, consider the wide-open nature of the MyT class.  Yes, the obvious choice is "servant of the god of magic".  In that case, requirements of a priest's blessing or a contemplative retreat are warranted, and are the sort of thing that I would add to the class as a DM, if I wanted it in that particular role.  But I see this class as more of a "toolkit" than a "specific role".  He's the cleric of the dragon god who apprentices to a true dragon to learn of their sorcerous heritage, seeking the root of all magic.  He's the evil druid who learns wizardly magic to pervert nature to his will, creating horrid monsters and bringing extraplanar evil to the land, warping it into his own image of what "nature" should be.  He's the low-charisma priest who chooses wizardly evocation spells to deal with the undead he cannot affect through his own weak channeling.  He's the priest of a Cthuloid entity of secrets and mysteries, blending wizardly enchantment and illusion into his clerical repertoire.  The ancient lich learning clerical magic to perfect his mastery over the undead.  The bard-priest of the god of joy and song.  Et cetera et cetera.  With a field as wide open as this, why give anyone the impression that the class is artificially limited by assigning it a specific role in print?  I much prefer the blank-slate nature of the class.

A short litany of possible roles like these could help, I guess, but then all classes should get such a list, and arguing against the MyT specifically makes no sense to me.  If that is the argument, it is a valid one.  De gustibus non disputandum est.  But I'd still rather have 10 blank slates than 9 slates with lists of ideas that I would need to flesh out on my own anyway.  (At least in a core book; in something like the splatbooks or a setting-specific book, I would present the opposite opinion.)

Admittedly, I do see the argument that "this should have been done by fixing multiclass rules and not by making a PrC band-aid."  But, I'm also the practical engineering type who doesn't necessarily want to re-invent the wheel for each corner of the wagon.  The PrC rules work (in my opinion, of course) for this case, and they cover a number of archetypes in the process.  Where others see a perversion of the PrC concept, I see a neat hack.   I'd rather not see a cumbersome fix to the multiclass rules to patch one bug, or a separate true-necromancer-style PrC for each possible two-caster role.

Hopefully this argument is clearer than my last one, and won't need to be attacked with the dreaded sarcasm tag.


----------



## rounser (Apr 8, 2003)

> "Mystic theurges are often obsessed with magical lore, traveling to the ends of the earth to learn some new arcane secret or divine insight. [...] Mystic theurges tend to be fascinated with magic in whatever form it takes. They're always on the hunt for powerful magic items and new arcane spells. Those mystic theurges who worship a deity use the power of their spellcasting to further their deity's agenda."



Okay, I revise my critique of the Mystic Theurge's "archetype"; it's pissweak.  Nothing distinguishes it - it's utterly forgettable, unimaginative and arbitrary, and therefore most importantly not really an archetype at all.  Archetypes are strong, or they're nothing.

To borrow from a real archetype, most any wizard worth his or her salt is obsessed with magical lore.  As for your other examples, at least Dwarven Defender builds naturally on what we already know of dwarves, and the Loremaster draws on the archetype of a magical professor or librarian.  They're strong archetypes, with basis in pulp fantasy ideas.

The Mystic Theurge's "archetype" is about as much an "archetype" as inventing a fighter who is obsessed with weapons...and the "mystic theurges who worship a deity use the power of their spellcasting to further the deity's agenda" is pathetic.  Any divine caster does that.

Classes like this water down D&D's implied setting into flavorless goop, and it's a part of the game that too many people will fail to understand the importance of until it's gone.


----------



## JayOmega (Apr 8, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> To borrow from a real archetype, most any wizard worth his or her salt is obsessed with magical lore.
> *




But plain wizards only like arcane lore.  This one likes both arcane and divine lore.  



> *
> As for your other examples, at least Dwarven Defender builds naturally on what we already know of dwarves, and the Loremaster draws on the archetype of a magical professor or librarian.  They're strong archetypes, with basis in pulp fantasy ideas.
> *




It does not "build naturally" on what we know about dwarves, it re-states what we know about dwarves.  They have soldiers, their defensive soldiers are good defensively, and they are gruff and taciturn.  If the MyT has no flavor because it merely restates the flavor of the wizard, then the DD has no flavor because it merely restates the flavor of the dwarven race.  Nor do any other PrC's in the DMG grant any new flavor, save the Shadowdancer, who is actually something new.



> *
> The Mystic Theurge's "archetype" is about as much an "archetype" as inventing a fighter who is obsessed with weapons...and the "mystic theurges who worship a deity use the power of their spellcasting to further the deity's agenda" is pathetic.  Any divine caster does that.
> *




So the MyT is everything an arcane caster is, plus everything a divine caster is.  OK.  Except that he is only obsessed with spells, and doesn't cultivate the other powers of the base archetypes (familiars, energy channeling.)

What is a swashbuckler?  A fighter who's obsessed with a certain set of particular weapons and one particular fighting style, and doesn't cultivate the other powers of the base fighter archetype (the use of armor, heavy weapons, shields, and archery).

What is an Assassin?  A rogue who's obsessed with stealth and murder, and not the other powers of the base archetype.  (skills out the wazoo to keep a balanced view of sneaking, thievery, spying, and brash confidence games.)



> *
> Classes like this water down D&D's implied setting into flavorless goop, and it's a part of the game that too many people will fail to understand the importance of until it's gone. *




Again, I fail to see why this argument is leveled against the MyT specifically, when it strikes true against so many prestige classes.  Why is the MyT "flavorless goop" when the swashbuckler and assassin and loremaster are mighty paragons of flavor?  Does playing an archetype to the point of playing a stereotype truly grant flavor to the game?  I state that for every tightly-defined and stereotyped class like the Monk or Paladin, there should be wide-open and diverse classes like the Theurge.  Both have their place in the game.

I guess, where you see "flavorless goop", I see "modelling clay".  I can form this "flavorless goop" into all sorts of interesting and, dare I say, flavorful, archetypes. 

If this means we just agree to disagree, that's fine too.  D&D can't be everything to everybody.


----------



## rounser (Apr 8, 2003)

> I guess, where you see "flavorless goop", I see "modelling clay". I can form this "flavorless goop" into all sorts of interesting and, dare I say, flavorful, archetypes.



All I'll say is that with these words you trivialise all the spackfiller which D&D provides to fill the gaps in your world that you can't be bothered to create yourself, from demi-humans to magic to monsters to dungeons to classes...the implied setting which I think is one of the primary keys to the game's success.  

The idea of a "wizard" is shorthand which you take for granted - it's part of what makes D&D so runnable, so much is captured in that class archetype that doesn't have to be explained.  Mystic Theurge fails this test, and is an extension of the 3E design principle of "meet design need first, attempt to tack on cool concept afterwards" that we also saw in the Monster Manual, leading to a bunch of poor quality concepts like the yrthak.

This style of design (see design need, busk the flavour) just dilutes the presence of real archetypes and cool monsters in the game, and D&D as a whole suffers for having such gamist glut introduced into the implied setting.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

JayOmega said:
			
		

> But plain wizards only like arcane lore.  This one likes both arcane and divine lore.



Except, per the mechanics, "divine lore" doesn't exist.  Divine spells/powers come from a deity, cause or source of divine power (PHB, Page 30).



> What is a swashbuckler?  A fighter who's obsessed with a certain set of particular weapons and one particular fighting style, and doesn't cultivate the other powers of the base fighter archetype (the use of armor, heavy weapons, shields, and archery).
> 
> What is an Assassin?  A rogue who's obsessed with stealth and murder, and not the other powers of the base archetype.  (skills out the wazoo to keep a balanced view of sneaking, thievery, spying, and brash confidence games.)



Both of these examples are archtypes that exist "within" the context of a generality.  The Mystic Theurge is two different generalities pulled together.  Far from the same thing.  Hell, even the Trickster put forth a pretense of purpose; This thing doesn't even do that.



> Again, I fail to see why this argument is leveled against the MyT specifically, when it strikes true against so many prestige classes.  Why is the MyT "flavorless goop" when the swashbuckler and assassin and loremaster are mighty paragons of flavor?  Does playing an archetype to the point of playing a stereotype truly grant flavor to the game?  I state that for every tightly-defined and stereotyped class like the Monk or Paladin, there should be wide-open and diverse classes like the Theurge.  Both have their place in the game.



There are many Prestige Classes that don't fit an archtype; Rather, they create their own, all-new and never-before-seen archtype.  In comparison, this is all about spellcasting power.



> I guess, where you see "flavorless goop", I see "modelling clay".  I can form this "flavorless goop" into all sorts of interesting and, dare I say, flavorful, archetypes.



So do I, hence why I'd make the changes I've posted earlier _if_ I decide to use it.  However, it's kind of like being in art class with a student that's had private lessons and a teacher that grades on a curve.



> If this means we just agree to disagree, that's fine too.  D&D can't be everything to everybody.



True, but D&D also has presented a standard of self-defined balance.  And while I don't always agree with the tenants of "Core Balance", I'm having a hard time viewing this as being remotely close to 3E's already over-inflated standards.


----------



## JayOmega (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Except, per the mechanics, "divine lore" doesn't exist.  Divine spells/powers come from a deity, cause or source of divine power (PHB, Page 30).
> *




That "divine lore" comment was meant to be a bit flip, but it does still exist.  Clerics can learn new (or forgotten) spells, and they can create magical items (or find lost ones.)  One can learn "how to use divine power" regardless of the ultimate source of the power.



> *
> True, but D&D also has presented a standard of self-defined balance.  And while I don't always agree with the tenants of "Core Balance", I'm having a hard time viewing this as being remotely close to 3E's already over-inflated standards. *




...my whole post was to address flavor; balance is another argument entirely.  Except to counter other's arguments, I'm not putting forth a strong opinion on this until I see all of 3.5E.  My inkling is that it will be balanced, delta combinations with other "powerful" PrC's like the Geomancer, and delta epic levels if it progresses as written.  I expect it won't (or it will get a very limited epic bonus feat advancement).  Having not played at epic levels myself, I can't say what's balanced up there.  (cue peanut gallery: "nothing's balanced at Epic level!")


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

Someone needs to check a dictionary on the meaning of "lore".

I'm with JayOmega on this issue.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> Someone needs to check a dictionary on the meaning of "lore".



Some folks need to check the rules to find where having access to "lore" grants more spell access.  It's _needed_ for the Wizard, it's irrelevant to the Cleric, as they are fueled by faith alone.


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

lore as in...knowledge!?!!?!!

I didn't know that Divine spell casting and knowledge were actually mutually exclusive things!

Strange I can't seem to find the game definition of "Lore" in the PHB Glossary of terms... nor in the index...

It couldn't possibly be that it was *gasp* flavour text? No.... It can't be!


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 8, 2003)

*re*



> Y'know, when I first saw the Mystic Theurge, my first thought was, "THEY'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!"
> 
> After I thought about it and read this thread, my second thought was, "Aldric Greymoon can live again."
> 
> ...





This is my view as well. One of my all-time favorite characters was a fighter/cleric/mage half-elf. I loved playing this character. I was seriously disappointed that I couldn't play this character in 3rd edition because of the new multi-classing rules. 

Now that the Mystic Theurge is an option, I can remake the character. His fighting abilities were never supposed to be that great, so now I can stack him as a caster while giving him a little extra fighting ability. That will capture the essence of the character perfectly.

Even though the Mystic Theurge may not be entirely balanced compared to other options, I am still very happy they created a prestige class for those who had cleric/mage characters they loved to play.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> It couldn't possibly be that it was *gasp* flavour text? No.... It can't be!



The flavor text you refer to (PHB, Page 156) is for spells not on the standard Cleric list.  Other than that, it states that Divine spells _can_ be written down.  IOW, the primary source of the Cleric's power is from his faith in his religious scriptures, not "lore" directly relating to the magical process.



> _Player's Handbook, Page 31:_
> *Spells:* (2nd Paragraph) Clerics do not acquire their spells from books or scrolls, nor prepare them through study.  Instead, they meditate or pray for their spells, receiving them through their own strength of faith or divine inspiration...



If you've changed the flavor regarding this in your game, fine for you.  I change quite a bit myself (for instance, I don't even _have_ Clerics in my game).  However, if you're going to act like an expert, please try to get it right.  Otherwise you just waste my time while making a fool of yourself.


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *The flavor text you refer to (PHB, Page 156) is for spells not on the standard Cleric list.  Other than that, it states that Divine spells can be written down.  IOW, the primary source of the Cleric's power is from his faith in his religious scriptures, not "lore" directly relating to the magical process.
> 
> If you've changed the flavor regarding this in your game, fine for you.  I change quite a bit myself (for instance, I don't even have Clerics in my game).  However, if you're going to act like an expert, please try to get it right.  Otherwise you just waste my time while making a fool of yourself. *




Neither of your two statements preclude the existence of Divine lore. Divine knowledge, as per "Knowledge of the Divine". I agree with your statement that it doesn't exist mechanically, but that does not prevent the inclusion of a flavour: Divine Lore. This it could be claimed is summed up in the skill Knowledge (Religion)

It has nothing to do with where the spells come from, just that there can exist, in game, something which is best described as Divine Lore. "Lore" is not something that is exclusive to the Wizard class. There is even a "Bardic Lore" in game.

I'm not talking about "my game" in this lore context.  You on the other hand are trying to insist that "lore" is something exclusive to wizards. You could try to stop wasting your time, OR discuss without trying to insult me. 

"LORE" is NOT a definition in the game. Look in the PHB glossary. I never refered to anything other than the PHB Glossary or the index. Thus "lore" is flavour text, given to explain the game mechanic of wizard spell aquisition.


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> *IME the most powerful type of cleric is the one that buffs himself with all the protective and offensive spells and then wades into melee, or shoots with his bow. That kind of cleric excels even fighters in melee, and they're incredibly hard to kill. I know this from DMing two campaigns in 3e, one to 16th level and one to 24th.
> 
> Now this new prestige class won't work with that cleric build, because it loses caster levels (at least three, and most of the clerics buffing spells depend on levels) and the use of armor.
> 
> *




Sorry, wrong conclusion. While some of the Cleric Buff spells depend on level (Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Divine Favor, Shield og Faith), you lose at most one "+". The power of mage only buff spells more than compensate for that loss (the shield alone will more than equals all loss in AC), and they can be cast as stilled spells in armor. 

Just imagine a Clr3/Wiz/MT10 with these spells after buffing:

Empowered Endurance
Empowered Strength
Divine Favor
Shield of Faith
Divine Power
Magic Vestment
Greater Magic Weapon
Prayer
Righteous Might
Stilled Shield
Stilled Displacement
Stilled Mirror Image
Stilled Haste
Stilled (Tensers) Transformation

The haste makes the casting of lots of short tems buff spells possible, while the (personal only) mage spells Shield, Displacement and Transformation make him a combat machine. And he's got a Dimention Door if he's in big trouble (but only after the Transformation runs out). He's vulnerable to Dispel Magic, but apart from that he'll slaughter a Fighter of the same level (even with far less feats).

.Ziggy


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 8, 2003)

Welcome to 3.5e.

Haste does not allow an extra spell per round. You start quickening buffs and even a magic battery like the Mystic Theurge starts running low on juice fast.

Also consider, one targetted dispel makes it all go away, quick. The single-class opponent you are fighting has a 15% better chance of dispelling your spells because of your low caster level.

4th
4th
1st
2nd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
5th
2nd
4th
3rd

0/1/2/4/4/1

Also, despite the strength buffing and Con bonus, you wont have nearly the hp of a cleric with similar divine buffs, and your dispel attempts against him will have a smaller chance of working.

Technik


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

And apart from the _Dispel Magic_ problem, _Haste_ and _Shield_ have both been declared to be adjusted in the new 3,5E.

Not only that, but how often can the MT do this feat? Are you really going to be seeing this in your game alot? The character can no longer cast any spells for the duration of the TT. Which is a major drawback for the Clerical aspect...

Any Cleric can do a similar feat. And retain spellcasting ability.


----------



## Purzel (Apr 8, 2003)

Is it just me, or do all players of clerics only buff themself?

I always perceived it would be much better to buff the groups' fighters, because they have fighter feats. I've learned: to make a specialist more effective, buff him, not yourself. The fighters are able to use combat maneuvers that a cleric will never learn. Fighting tactical (not just having a good buffed Strength and high Hitpoints) and being able to make moves on the battle map, that the enemies couldn't do, always helped my groups to get their asses out of problems (can you say Whirlwind Attack or Greater Cleave?).

So, is a MT buffing himself all the time really the best way to play him? I think no. And it's no fun either, it has the taste of munchkinism.

I've seen a couple of people giving examples of how much the MT can buff up himself. Now, maybe it's the most effective way to make the MT look extremely good (and extremely overpowered). But i think using the spells like this doesn't help the TEAM much. And usually the best team wins the hardest fights.

I think we all should think twice about those examples and playtests people present us in messageboards. I think the MT is balanced and a worthwhile addition to a group low of either arcane or divine magic, when he is played in the BEST way, which means helping the team.


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Welcome to 3.5e.
> 
> Haste does not allow an extra spell per round. You start quickening buffs and even a magic battery like the Mystic Theurge starts running low on juice fast.
> 
> ...




You are right about the Haste (forgot about 3.5  ). The rumored fix for Shield is +4 AC, still enough to compensate for the AC loss from the loss of 3 Cleric levels when buffing. 

The transformation more than compensates for less HP (1d6 temp HP per level), and your BAB and STR is better than a cleric of similar level (also from Transformation). An alternative to Transformation is Polymoph Self, but I don't allow that IMC so I don't know the smacks here. Finally, the Displacement gives your opponent a 50% miss chance. 

But (as I also noted), targeted dispel is your worst enemy. That is always the achilles heel of buffing, regardless of level (but I agree that the MT is even more vulnerable in this configuration). 

And I also agree that buffing the fighter is better than buffing yourself (I play a 3.0 cleric that use all his 3th and 4th level spells buffing the fighters and rogue in his group). But many of the mage spells are personal, and if you want to build the ultimate buffed fighting machine (until the Dispel hit you...), you have to do it yourself. 

.Ziggy


----------



## S'mon (Apr 8, 2003)

On reflection I don't think a Clr5/Wiz5/MysTh10 is too overpowered, having 3/4 the spellcasting levels of either core class.  So I think raising the requirement to 3rd level arcane & divine spells would be the obvious way to balance this PrC.

edit: I'd probably only allow it for nonhumans, with traditional cleric-wizard multiclassing ability though, primarily elves & drow.


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *On reflection I don't think a Clr5/Wiz5/MysTh10 is too overpowered, having 3/4 the spellcasting levels of either core class.  So I think raising the requirement to 3rd level arcane & divine spells would be the obvious way to balance this PrC. *




Agree. If I allow it IMC, it will probably be with these requirements. 

.Ziggy


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 8, 2003)

Just to reiterate a common sentiment S'mon:

The MyT is underpowered at low levels, overpowered at high levels. If you raise the requirements, you make him more underpowered at low levels, and even at high levels. Raising the requirements to 3rd arcane and 3rd divine means clr5/wiz5, which is a fairly weak character from about 6th level to 12th, the heyday of most campaigns.

Technik


----------



## Numion (Apr 8, 2003)

Ziggy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry, wrong conclusion. While some of the Cleric Buff spells depend on level (Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Divine Favor, Shield og Faith), you lose at most one "+". The power of mage only buff spells more than compensate for that loss (the shield alone will more than equals all loss in AC), and they can be cast as stilled spells in armor.
> *




3 lost caster levels equal +3 to hit / + 3 to damage for an archer cleric. Even more if you take into account divine power. And remember that there isn't time to activate all short-term buffs, because you have to cause the damage somehow. That means you'll have to rely on longer term buffs; no displacement or shields, that run out too quickly to be activated all the time. So the greater selection in buffs doesn't enter the equation since there isn't that much time to use them in combats..

And stilled spells? Then this combo just ends up shooting itself in the leg even more, by loosing a lot of spells in essence to generate a bonus to ac. (Lost because of the metamagic cost, and the AC bonus being the one gained from the armor.)  Don't sound too useful..


----------



## S'mon (Apr 8, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Just to reiterate a common sentiment S'mon:
> 
> The MyT is underpowered at low levels, overpowered at high levels. If you raise the requirements, you make him more underpowered at low levels, and even at high levels. Raising the requirements to 3rd arcane and 3rd divine means clr5/wiz5, which is a fairly weak character from about 6th level to 12th, the heyday of most campaigns.
> 
> Technik *




Well, yes, sort of - for my campaign, I'd say weak but versatile at 6-12, medium at 12-15 (Cl5/Wiz5/Mth 5), getting rather powerful from 16th (when he gets 6th level Cleric & Wizard spells) onwards.   Almost all good Prestige classes make you sacrifice something now for something more later.  My revision would let me model my world Ea's traditional elf & drow wizard-priest NPCs IMC - they're not supposed to be as powerful as a single class Wiz 20, but they need to be better than a Clr 10/Wiz 10.

My campaign is currently around 11th level and likely to go to 20+ so that's the levels I'm concerned about!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 8, 2003)

To reiterate, I don't _want_ a PrC that at 20th level looks a more powerful spellcaster than a single-classed Wizard, the 'gold standard' IMC.  If he gives up a significant amount of power in exchange for greatly increased versatility, ok.  Note that 5/5/10 can still cast 8th level spells, both divine & arcane.


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 3 lost caster levels equal +3 to hit / + 3 to damage for an archer cleric. Even more if you take into account divine power. And remember that there isn't time to activate all short-term buffs, because you have to cause the damage somehow. That means you'll have to rely on longer term buffs; no displacement or shields, that run out too quickly to be activated all the time. So the greater selection in buffs doesn't enter the equation since there isn't that much time to use them in combats..
> *




Where do you get the +3 to hit / + 3 to damage from ? You'll get +1/+1 from Greater Magic Weapon (until you hit the level 15 barrier, something many clerics encounter at 11th level using the far-too-good Necklace of prayer beads (karma)) and +1/+1 from Divine Favor. Divine Power is based on _character level_, and therefore not dependent on caster level. 

Edit: I just noticed the archer bit, which takes it to +3/+3. Still the Necklace of prayer beads (karma) takes it back to +1/+1.  

I do agree that this concept requires an inordinate number of buffs, but that was sort of the point. If you want maximum smack you could go the persistant route for the short duration ones, but that is probably too much 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> *
> And stilled spells? Then this combo just ends up shooting itself in the leg even more, by loosing a lot of spells in essence to generate a bonus to ac. (Lost because of the metamagic cost, and the AC bonus being the one gained from the armor.)  Don't sound too useful.. *




Here you lost me completely. Yes, you loose a number of spells (because of the metamagic), but with the sheer amount of spells he's got the MT can afford it. 

I've just shown you that given time to buff properly, the MT overpowers the pure cleric in combat. Yes, it takes a fair amount of time. Yes, it requires some of his mage spells (but he still have more that a few left, while the pure cleric has none). And yes, it can only be done a couple of times per day. But within these parameters, he is the ultimate buffing machine. 

In a different setting (lots of combat, anti magic, whatever), other tactics should be used. I'm not saying the MT is the end of all combat, just that within the parameters you desribed, he beats the cleric flat out. 

.Ziggy


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

I'm not convinced that he does beat the Cleric flat out. Even in the buff "kick butt for one combat" game.

A cleric with access to the Magic Domain can cast TT (albiet from a scroll) as well...


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *I'm not convinced that he does beat the Cleric flat out. Even in the buff "kick butt for one combat" game.
> 
> A cleric with access to the Magic Domain can cast TT (albiet from a scroll) as well... *




Cleric with MD aside, the MT has (given similar equipment, including a Neclace of Prayer Beads-karma):


-1 to hit/-1 to damage with 3 less caster levels using Divine Favor
3 rounds shorter duration for some cleric spells (most notably Righteous Might)
- (13d4) HP 
+4 (?) AC from Shield
+4 natural armor from Transformation
+2d4 STR from Transformation (enhancement)
+2d4 Dex from Transformation (enhancement)
+13d6 temp HP from Transformation
+6 BAB from Transformation
Displacement (50% Miss chance)

Even with stacking problems for extra STR, the conclusion is pretty clear to me, but YMMV.....

.Ziggy

Edit: Updated HP loss


----------



## Numion (Apr 8, 2003)

Ziggy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Cleric with MD aside, the MT has (given similar equipment, including a Neclace of Prayer Beads-karma):
> 
> ...




Well well... let's see.. 

Most of those are due to the tensers transformation. I wouldn't be too quick to use that spell though - doesn't it stop you from casting spells? I know that a melee / archer cleric shouldn't be casting spells in combat, but it still seems a bit restrictive. Must attack, even unarmed if there isn't other possibilities? I agree that you do have a point, but in general the wizard spells don't just seem useful enough IMHO. Displacement and haste can be had with items surely enough, since clerics don't need much money for other items due to GMW and Magic Vestment. 

Also as it seems we're talking about high-level smack here, a straight cleric can launch all wizard spells up to 7th level with a miracle, at no xp cost. Including TT 

So I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the straight cleric.


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well well... let's see..
> 
> ...




Agree on the Transformation, its a risky spell to use. While both haste (not counted here) and displacement can be gained from items, its pretty expensive (a cloak of displacement is 50K). And then the MT could use that money for other stuff that give more fighting power. 

At 16th, you are just below the level of Miracle, and thus I'm in the clear with the Clr3/Wiz3/MT10  But I agree that the power might shift again at 17th, as Miracle is just too strong. 

Such is the strength (and weakness) of D&D, it got just too many combinations too explore them all. I guess the conclusion is that both the cleric and the MT are pretty powerful as buff machines in combat, with the "winner" depending on the exact parameters (including level) and setting. 

.Ziggy


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

I don't get the -13d2... the MT has d4 compared to the Cleric d8...


----------



## Ziggy (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *I don't get the -13d2... the MT has d4 compared to the Cleric d8... *




My error, I've updated the original post

.Ziggy


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> Neither of your two statements preclude the existence of Divine lore. Divine knowledge, as per "Knowledge of the Divine". I agree with your statement that it doesn't exist mechanically, but that does not prevent the inclusion of a flavour: Divine Lore. This it could be claimed is summed up in the skill Knowledge (Religion)



Irrelevant.  To claim that this justifies the Class on that merit alone is wishful thinking; It's grasping at straws to justify a combo that you very much want.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be argueing so vehemently over whether or not I would include this class in my campaign. 

Remember, the 2E Mage/Cleric (and the 1E Magic-User/Cleric) weren't powerful because of their numbers; They were powerful due to sheer fire power.  Yeah, a total moron could flub spell selection and become useless, but any Power Gamer (most of whom would argue to the ends of the Earth to have this class) that knows his spells good enough _is not_ going to end up with a sub-optimal character.  He's going to end up with a character that dominates the field, just like in earlier editions.  That's why this particular combo was nixed to begin with, and why the True Necromancer functions the way it does.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> * He's going to end up with a character that dominates the field, just like in earlier editions.  That's why this particular combo was nixed to begin with, and why the True Necromancer functions the way it does. *



Cleric/mages dominated the game in first and second edition? Wow  guess that must be part of my the reason why I don't; understand the problem. in my group no one hardly ever plays a cleric, and cleric/mages certainly never dominated the any of our games.
Ken


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

Joseph Elric Smith said:
			
		

> Cleric/mages dominated the game in first and second edition?



Yep, and they did so despite being a level or two behind.  The problem was that they had the full spell-capacity of their classes.  The problem here is that the MysT gets the full spell capacity of it's classes.  Hell, this thing's already becoming a favorite at the Min/Max Boards at Wizards...

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

I've found over the past 2 years that the Min/Max Boards are the _best_ place on the web to find trouble-spots in the rules.  And guess what?  This class is trouble.


----------



## Numion (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Yep, and they did so despite being a level or two behind.  The problem was that they had the full spell-capacity of their classes.  The problem here is that the MysT gets the full spell capacity of it's classes.  Hell, this thing's already becoming a favorite at the Min/Max Boards at Wizards...
> 
> Thread 1
> 
> ...




Did you read those threads? They all relied on N other PrC's (balance of which is questionable), or sloppy interpretion of the rules. Like archmage '+1 of existing caster level' was taken to mean +1 theurge level = +1 level to both wizard and cleric casting. 

Those exercises in stupidity in wizards' boards are hardly an indication of the classes power level. I'd rather playtest it, and see how it goes. Even a single spell can tip the balance either way - Tensers Transformation or Miracle, for example. Because Miracle grants up to 7th level Wizard spells, those caster levels 17+ are especially important, but seem to be overlooked in all this jibba jabba. I'm not saying it's the only thing overlooked, but just an example.


----------



## green slime (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Irrelevant.  To claim that this justifies the Class on that merit alone is wishful thinking; It's grasping at straws to justify a combo that you very much want.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be argueing so vehemently over whether or not I would include this class in my campaign. *




LOL!! You seem to have quite an inflated idea of your importance to me! But I do find your suppositions amusing, to say the least. Do what you will in your game. Have pink sky and faeries all over. You now have my official sanction to do just that.

This isn't a combo I desperately want for myself, I am the DM in all the games I run so I could give a rodents rear end about what you do in your games. For me, this PrC fills a need for certain PrC to be able to be adept at both Arcane and Divine spell casting, something which I have been looking for, without outshining the single classed characters. I feel this PrC does the job admirably. I will be adding certain flavour tweeks before adding to my campaign, but such tweeks happen to all classes before being allowed in.

Secondly, I was in NO WAY justifying the class on that "merit" alone! I was arguing against your supposition that something called Divine Lore could not exist in the game, after it was clearly pointed out it was meant as "flavour", but you got all tangled up in it being "Lore". And then you tried to point out that is was a game mechanic for wizards only, when infact "Arcane Lore" is just flavour!! LOL!


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 8, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> LOL!! You seem to have quite an inflated idea of your importance to me! But I do find your suppositions amusing, to say the least. Do what you will in your game. Have pink sky and faeries all over. You now have my official sanction to do just that.



Well, thanks.  I guess I'll sleep better at night. 



> This isn't a combo I desperately want for myself, I am the DM in all the games I run so I could give a rodents rear end about what you do in your games.



Then why try to disprove a stance that is so obviously correct?



> For me, this PrC fills a need for certain PrC to be able to be adept at both Arcane and Divine spell casting, something which I have been looking for, without outshining the single classed characters.



Two things:

1. Don't confuse your "want" for a "need" of the game.

2. It does outshine single classed characters, for reasons already given.



> I feel this PrC does the job admirably.



If you like over-powered Spellcasters, sure.



> I will be adding certain flavour tweeks before adding to my campaign, but such tweeks happen to all classes before being allowed in.



Well goody.  At least we agree on _something_.



> Secondly, I was in NO WAY justifying the class on that "merit" alone! I was arguing against your supposition that something called Divine Lore could not exist in the game, after it was clearly pointed out it was meant as "flavour", but you got all tangled up in it being "Lore".



I didn't say it didn't exist.  I'm saying that there's no pre-existing reason within the rules for such to produce such an over-powered class.



> And then you tried to point out that is was a game mechanic for wizards only, when infact "Arcane Lore" is just flavour!! LOL!



Actually, Wizards have a _need_ for Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcane) that far exceeds any other class (Spontaneous Casters and faith-powered priestly types) in such a dependancy (learning and researching).  Therefore, "Arcane Lore", while a flavorful name, is actually a mechanic within the game.  What been done is change the name ("Divine Lore" instead of "Arcane Lore") and use that name change (with no related mechanic) to justify a crappily designed class.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 8, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *2. It does outshine single classed characters, for reasons already given.
> *



that for you it seems over powerful, or broken is fine. Don't; use it in your game. Different games have different styles, and not every one tries to min max their characters. In My last 3rd edition DD&D game I modified both Sorcerers and Wizards,and several people told me the sorcerer was too powerful and every one would play them and they would rule the game. Well in my game only one player picked a sorcerer and 90% of his spell selection was either support or utility, as that was how he envisioned his character.
That is the reason why prestige classes are option, because they might not fit every ones style.
Ken


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 8, 2003)

You know, I've watched this whole arguement. Playtested it 9 ways to Sunday, and come to this conclusion...

Why should Wizards stick only to the minimalist, low magic crowd? Why can't they put a couple of powerful PrC's in the DMG. Powergamers and Munchkins buy books too.

Personally, all this arguing on whether or not it is balanced is all relative.

I could fit it. I mean, seriously, I killed it 9 times out of 10 when I was trying to.
It wouldn't fit in the Ravenloft campaign, because it would be the party catch-all. I mean, give it Open Locks & Disable Device,a nd it takes the place of 3 PC's.

So what if it is overpowered for your tastes. You aren't the only one buying books. Others like it, and who are we to throw stones because WotC felt like adding a powerful PrC to thier books.

Seriously, guys, this is starting to look silly...

"My dad can beat up your dad!"
"Can not!"
"Can too!"
"Can not!"
"Can too!"
etc etc bleh....

So some of you don't like it, some do.
You can't make everyone happy all the time, and only a weak-willed, no spined fool tries to....


----------



## green slime (Apr 9, 2003)

> Posted by
> *Two things:
> 
> 1. Don't confuse your "want" for a "need" of the game.
> ...




1. Sorry, I thought it was implicit in that sentence, given the context: A need IN MY GAME. Not really, really need like water/shelter survival stuff, but it fits in a certain place, which had been providing me with a certain conundrum as to how to solve. And this suited my "needs". Simple enough?

2. Not everyone agrees with you, even after your points have been put forth more eloquently by others. It outshines them in one area, but is left wanting in another. Like many other PrC. How you value those areas is entirely subjective.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Then why try to disprove a stance that is so obviously correct?
> *



It's obviosuly correct?  Sheesh, why didn't someone say so!  It would have saved so much time! 

Sorry Johnathan Tweet, Sorry Andy Collins, you should know that you're obviously wrong!  

Bendris, if it were so obvious, there wouldn't be dozens of pages of people debating back and forth.  There wouldn't be game designers on both sides of the fence giving their reasoned analyses and decisions.  Please spare us the "I'm the only rational one here, everyone who disagrees with me is either a munchkin or an idiot" arrogance.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> Please spare us the "I'm the only rational one here, everyone who disagrees with me is either a munchkin or an idiot" arrogance.



Oh, that's so true.  I'm wrong.  Everyone that loves this class is right.

Gee, it's so clear now.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 9, 2003)

The entire premise of this forum is that rational people can disagree.  Please, folks, be respectful of each other.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Oh, that's so true.  I'm wrong.  Everyone that loves this class is right.
> 
> Gee, it's so clear now. *



If someone asserted that, I would criticize them just as harshly.    I do apologize for the line that you quoted though.  I meant it to be ironic, but it came across as hostile.

I don't neccessarily even think you're wrong about the MT.  I personally think that it might be overpowered, but would like to playtest it before making a decision.  However, it's hardly obvious whether it is.  There are many good arguments on both sides.

It's interesting to have discussions about whether a class is balanced or not, and why.  It isn't interesting when one person is so absolutely assured of their own position that they won't even grant the possibility that the opposite side may have some valid points.


----------



## Azlan (Apr 9, 2003)

Whence from the term "theurge", anyway? Is that related to the term, "thaumaturge"?

I'm reminded of a Wormy cartoon I saw in a Dragon magazine, many years ago. The scene is a wintry, snow-covered landscape. A winged, Lammasu-like, comely female creature asks the imp character, "Are you a thaumaturge?" And he replies, "Sure! You thaw mine, and I'll thaw yours."

Whatever _that_ meant...


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 9, 2003)

It appears to be a back-formation from the word theurgy:



> Main Entry: the·ur·gy
> Pronunciation: 'thE-(")&r-jE
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Late Latin theurgia, from Late Greek theourgia, from theourgos miracle worker, from Greek the- + ergon work -- more at WORK
> ...


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> If someone asserted that, I would criticize them just as harshly.



Fair enough.  Glad my 5 year old distracted me; It could have gotten ugly. 



> It's interesting to have discussions about whether a class is balanced or not, and why.  It isn't interesting when one person is so absolutely assured of their own position that they won't even grant the possibility that the opposite side may have some valid points.



Alright, let me clarify why I think it's "obvious".  That might make things easier to discuss.

In 2E, there was a problem with multiclassing.  Such characters, especially dual-casting types like Cleric/Mage, were practically omni-potent.  This was _despite_ the fact that they were generally a level or two behind single classed characters (which would _include_ spellcasters) because they had most (sometimes all) of the abilities of two or three classes of their level.

This class projects the _same_ situation: Dual-casting from two spell lists from a few levels behind the other (single-classed) casters in the same party, without much hindrance and at negligable expense (the Skill Points are natural choices for the Core Classes concerned [one's even a Class Skill for both!], and the mix of two Casting Classes is eventually faded out by the dual-spellcasting level gain).

Thus, I see this class as the return of a problem from 1E/2E, a problem that many (including myself) rejoiced was gone from 3E because of the new multiclassing rules.  (Indeed, it was really the _only_ problem I personally had with the old rules-set.)

Am I against this in _concept_?  No.  A 10 Level version that _doesn't_ give dual-advancement every level would be fine (I suggest +1 of choice on odds and +1 to both on evens).  One as-is but cut at only 5 Levels (perhaps combining Casting Levels to deal with the Spell Resistance issue) would also be fine.  I've even posted both of these suggestions earlier (in one of these dang-fangled threads).  However, 10 Levels, as-is, is a step backwards, returning something to the game that isn't needed: A dual-caster that is only a _short_ step behind the single-casters.


----------



## Numion (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Oh, that's so true.  I'm wrong.  Everyone that loves this class is right.
> *




Most of the people who counter your arguments don't seem to love this class so much, but rather give it a chance. I'm not saying it's the perfect PrC, or that it's awfully broken. All I'm saying is that first ask questions, then shoot. Let's playtest this class, and _then_ make our judgment. This just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the class. 

*



			Gee, it's so clear now.

Click to expand...


*
Whatever.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> Most of the people who counter your arguments don't seem to love this class so much, but rather give it a chance. I'm not saying it's the perfect PrC, or that it's awfully broken. All I'm saying is that first ask questions, then shoot. Let's playtest this class, and _then_ make our judgment. This just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the class.



Y'know, when 3E came out, I had issues.  I was told it was all just "knee jerk" and "2E-colored Glasses".  Then most of my complaints got over-ruled by errata.

I'll take your comments to be of about the same worth.


----------



## Numion (Apr 9, 2003)

edit: This post probably didn't add anything to the conversation...


----------



## green slime (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris, did you happen to see the note posted by EN:


> Politely requested by Eric Noah:*
> The entire premise of this forum is that rational people can disagree. Please, folks, be respectful of each other.*




Rolling your eyes and belittling others doesn't strengthen your arguments any at all. 

Pity, cause I almost thought there might be a real person lurking behind that previous post, where you explained your stand point.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *In 2E, there was a problem with multiclassing.  Such characters, especially dual-casting types like Cleric/Mage, were practically omni-potent.  This was despite the fact that they were generally a level or two behind single classed characters (which would include spellcasters) because they had most (sometimes all) of the abilities of two or three classes of their level.*



There is a significant difference between the way spellcasting worked in 2e and the way it works in 3e though, which you seem to be downplaying.  Caster level didn't have much of an effect in 2e beyond duration and dice of damage, while in 3e it affects spell penetration, indirectly affects saving throws (since MTs spells are generally lower level), and dispelling is much more common and useful.

In 2e, cleric/wizards also had the better combat abilities of clerics, better hit points than wizards, and the ability to turn undead.

In addition, multiclass spellcasters in 2e were usually only a single level behind their single classed counterparts, while MTs are at least 3 levels behind.  

In any given round, a MTs spells do less damage, are easier to save against, are easier to dispel, and have a much greater chance of bouncing off targets who have SR.  Sure they can cast for more rounds than a single-classed character, but they're sacrificing hitting power for endurance.  Even if they focus on casting buffs, that's balanced by the ease of dispelling their buffs.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> Bendris, did you happen to see the note posted by EN:



Yes, I did.  Obviously, some one else didn't.



> Rolling your eyes and belittling others doesn't strengthen your arguments any at all.



I didn't belittle him.  I simply indicated that his "knee jerk" comment carried no weight with me, mostly because I'm tired of hearing someone throw out the "knee jerk" comment whenever something new gets criticized.  It's belittling the person making the critique.

That you agree with him and not me has obviously effected _your_ judgement in the matter.



			
				Michael Tree said:
			
		

> There is a significant difference between the way spellcasting worked in 2e and the way it works in 3e though, which you seem to be downplaying.  Caster level didn't have much of an effect in 2e beyond duration and dice of damage, while in 3e it affects spell penetration, indirectly affects saving throws (since MTs spells are generally lower level), and dispelling is much more common and useful.



All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and Magic Items.  In addition, this class also gains another boost: Lots of spells to Counterspell with while still having spells to cast directly.



> In 2e, cleric/wizards also had the better combat abilities of clerics, better hit points than wizards, and the ability to turn undead.



THAC0, true.  Hit points were moderately better (averaged d6).  The lower Turning ability can be bypassed via Divine Feats, which add power to the class rather than leaving it stuck with lower Turning capability.



> In addition, multiclass spellcasters in 2e were usually only a single level behind their single classed counterparts, while MTs are at least 3 levels behind.



This is simply reflective of a complaint about this class already made: It's underpowered early and overpowered later.  The shallow hole becomes a mountain given enough levels.  That _most_ games end between 12-15th Level doesn't come into this.  A game going beyond this (and mine do) will have issues with this class.



> In any given round, a MTs spells do less damage,



True, but tweakable with Feats.



> are easier to save against,



Not entirely true.  Saves are based on Spell Level, not Caster Level, so what the class has is less spells with Higher saves (behind by _only_ 1 or 2 points).  Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, and magic items easily change that.



> are easier to dispel,



True, but tweakable.



> and have a much greater chance of bouncing off targets who have SR.



True, but again tweakable.

In addition, the above list falls into the issue I've indicated previously about the shallow hole that _naturally_ gets shallower with every level.  Eventually, that difference becomes insignificant.



> Sure they can cast for more rounds than a single-classed character, but they're sacrificing hitting power for endurance.  Even if they focus on casting buffs, that's balanced by the ease of dispelling their buffs.



Which they then turn around and rebuff thanks to their additional spell slots.


----------



## Purzel (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *
> . . .
> 
> All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and
> ...




Umm, how many feats do you think does a MT really get? You have an interesting calculation there.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

Purzel said:
			
		

> Umm, how many feats do you think does a MT really get? You have an interesting calculation there.



Actually, I don't have any calculations.  I'm just pointing out that every appearant weakness in the class has a way around it.  If you nick the game at 15th Level or lower, the opportunity to get around them is definately less.  However, going forth from there, more and more opportunities present themselves.  And that's the problem with this class: Eventually _every_ weakness it has fades into the past.

Add it good spell selection, good spell use in play, the right Feats, and the right boosting Magic Items, and the class has no equal.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> * the right Feats, and the right boosting Magic Items, and the class has no equal. *



that can be said of most any class
ken


----------



## green slime (Apr 9, 2003)

> Bendris has posted:
> *
> "That you agree with him and not me has obviously effected your judgement in the matter."
> 
> ...




No. To me, you have had a few points which I can respect. However I do disagree with your conclusion. By your reckoning, that makes me a munchkin idiot. I'm wasting your time and making a fool of myself. To me, you have come across as having very superior airs. Probably due to overuse of the "rolleyes" (  ), and the problems of interfacing through this media. Or maybe I am a munchkin idiot and deserve a fate worse than that imaginable by man.  YMMV. What ever.

Enjoy your game.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> No. To me, you have had a few points which I can respect.



See, you're learning already.



> However I do disagree with your conclusion.



Lead a horse to water... 



> By your reckoning, that makes me a munchkin idiot.



No one's a munchkin until they actually join your game and ruin it.  As for the idiot part, that's something people prove themselves without any one else pointing it out.



> I'm wasting your time and making a fool of myself.



When you make things up on the fly (Divine Lore) to justify this class (comparing it to Arcane Lore, which _does_ have a mechanical purpose), and expect me to bow down to it, yes, have are and have.



> To me, you have come across as having very superior airs.



Any superiority I may express is likely the result of an inferiority complex.



> Probably due to overuse of the "rolleyes" (  ),



I give what I get.



> and the problems of interfacing through this media.



I have no problem interfacing through this media.  I do have a problem being told that I must accept someone else's standards and wants, especially when those standards are self-imposed and those wants are expressed as "needs" within the game system.



> Or maybe I am a munchkin idiot and deserve a fate worse than that imaginable by man.



See earlier munchkin comment.



> Enjoy your game.



But of course!


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Actually, I don't have any calculations.  I'm just pointing out that every appearant weakness in the class has a way around it.  If you nick the game at 15th Level or lower, the opportunity to get around them is definately less.  However, going forth from there, more and more opportunities present themselves.  And that's the problem with this class: Eventually every weakness it has fades into the past.*




...meanwhile, while the MT is spending every feat it gets in a desperate attempt to shore up its weaknesses, the wizard is spending the same number of feats - plus some extra feats - i9n increasing its strengths.

The fact that you don't have any calculations suggests to me that your analysis is somewhat suspect.  A great many people claimed that the ELH's Enhance Spell was never worthwhile and would always be beaten by multiple Empowers + Improved Metamagic, but they were wrong.  (Many of them refused to believe it even when they were shown the real numbers, but that's beside the point.)

Build the character, trying to shore up its weaknesses with the feats you described.  Then realize that your single-class casters could take those exact same feats (more in the case of the wizard), thus maintaining the level of difference - so the MT hasn't even caught up to them.  Alternately, they could take other feats, broadening their capabilities beyond what is possible for the MT.

J


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 9, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> A great many people claimed that the ELH's Enhance Spell was never worthwhile and would always be beaten by multiple Empowers + Improved Metamagic, but they were wrong.



Actually, I didn't think that, and (then as now) I didn't need calculations to see it.



> Build the character, trying to shore up its weaknesses with the feats you described.  Then realize that your single-class casters could take those exact same feats (more in the case of the wizard), thus maintaining the level of difference - so the MT hasn't even caught up to them.  Alternately, they could take other feats, broadening their capabilities beyond what is possible for the MT.



Except I don't see these as actual weaknesses.  After all, what are we talking about here?  A +3?  One trip to the Min/Max Board will show characters getting modifiers that make the +3 difference a completely irrelevant factor into the upper levels.  And while I don't permit such things in my game, the fact that such is a truth within the system is why I view this class the way I do, and will continue to do so.


----------



## Hecabus (Apr 9, 2003)

*Mystic Theurge vs. Eldritch Master*

I don't mind the MT, in fact I will probably play one when I get the chance (possibly specializing in creating magic items).  The loss of turning, feats and familiar advancement is pretty bad.

Most people seem concerned about the Epic MT, but you should take a look at the Eldritch Master.  1-20, EM is not very dangerous as it gives up spell levels by getting only 3 better spell levels known (and only one spell for each).  At epic level EM is probably the most dangerous Sorceror PC available.  

Over 10 levels you gain the following:
+10 caster levels
Detect Magic at will
10 1st Level Spells known
8 2nd level Spells known
3 Epic Metamagic Feats
3 Increased Spell Capacity
3 Free Spells known of any level
3 Spell Diettantes - Choose one other spell list to pick spells from

Powerful Presence - +2 Diplomacy & Intimadate, 1xday force all living beings in 30' to make a Will Save(DC 10+EM level+Cha) or be -2 on attacks, saves and skill for 1 round/EM level.

Knowing Stare -1 x day, the EM can invoke a 30-foot gaze attack that holds all living creature.  Those affected must make a Will Save (DC 10+EM level+Cha) or be held for 1 round/EM level.

Mastered Name - The EM can sense when another being speaks his name.  The EM knows the exact location and name of the speak, the awareness is sufficient to allow the EM to scry as if she had just met the individual (DC 10).  It does not convey enough info to allow the EM to teleport to the speaker’s location.

My EM has chosen Psionic spells, Divine Spells and I am still undecided on the third.  My Sorceror and his familiar (remember familiars can share spells) walk around with Persisted Divine Power, Shield, Shield of Faith, and some 15 other spells up.....He also has Ablating (+6 vs. Dispel attempts), SR that is out of this world, can Dimension Strike, has Fate of One and saves that are just scary.  People fear my dire ferret familiar (I took Improved Familiar feat because it felt wrong having a regular ferret do THAT much damage!)

Also, I have taken Multispell and Automatic Quicken Spell x3 for tons of spells a turn.  No one ever expects to die at the paws of a familiar....


----------



## green slime (Apr 9, 2003)

> posted by Bendris:
> *When you make things up on the fly (Divine Lore) to justify this class (comparing it to Arcane Lore, which does have a mechanical purpose), and expect me to bow down to it, yes, have are and have.*




Except I didn't make things up on the "fly". It was meant as flavour text by another poster, and came across as (flippant) flavour text (therefore the wink after the comment), but YOU instantly got on your high horse and said it had no place in the game.

Knowledge (religion) which could be ascribed as "Divine Lore" has a place in the Epic rules; it affects the number of Epic Spells an Epic Divine Spellcaster can cast. Flavourwise it is still divinely inspired spellcasting. 

I never expected you to bow to anything, just to let JayOmega have his flippant comment, rather whipping out the PHB and whipping his rear end with the book. Instead you accuse me of "wasting your time" and "making a fool of myself". IMO, you started wasting your own time by answering to JayOmega's  remark.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2003)

To hopefully negate this end of the argument:



> *LORE*
> (lôr, lr)
> n.
> 1. Accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject. See Synonyms at knowledge.
> ...




The difference is that wizards certainly *need* a kind of lore to learn new spells...and clerics can generally live their entire lives without bothering a musty tome. A mutliclass cleric/wizard only needs wizard lore, so to speak...facts, traditions, beliefs, and knowledge on the arcane and occult. This increases their wizard abilities. But their cleric abilities don't need to have lore -- they could get them just by rubbing a polished holy symbol at night...

Now, the flavor for Mystic Theurges would tend to indicate that they are interested in the priestly version of Lore, even if they don't have to be. They want to acquire facts, traditions, and beliefs about divine magic and mysticism. They want to acquire knowledge thruogh education and experience (on divine and philosophical matters).

THERE. The MT has flavor. It's a priest interested in divine lore. And since lore is the bread and butter of a wizard, that also helps the wizard side. It sees even arcane magic as an instrument of the divine.

Now, how good that flavor is, is largely a matter of (I guess) whether you like the PrC or not.... 

Okay. Now we have definitions of Theurgy and Lore. We've shown that the MT has some flavor (at least as much as the Fighter class does...). Everything after this point is largely personal opinion and cannot be proven, so I think the conversation will go a lot smoother if we don't try. 

(Apu)Thankyoucomeagain!(/Apu)


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 9, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Actually, I didn't think that, and (then as now) I didn't need calculations to see it.*




I never said you did. I was merely making the point that sometimes looking without fact-checking can lead you to the wrong conclusions.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Except I don't see these as actual weaknesses.  After all, what are we talking about here?  A +3?  One trip to the Min/Max Board will show characters getting modifiers that make the +3 difference a completely irrelevant factor into the upper levels.
> *




..of course, if your players are the kind that make super-min-maxed characters, then you as a DM need to use more powerful opponents, with better saves and greater SR...

...and so all of the single-classed people minmax themselves, and because they have a head start they wind up better...

...all of which means that nothing has really changed except the numbers are higher.

If the player of the MT minmaxes and nobody else does, it could be a problem - but I put it to you that the same problem would exist no matter what the minmaxer was playing.

J


----------



## Purzel (Apr 10, 2003)

So, allover it seems, the problems with MT seem to be, what powergamers and munchkins are able to do with the MT. Normal players wont annoy their fellow players and their DMs by min/maxing and powergaming.

Dunno what experience you all have, but a munchkin can corrupt EVERY class and PrC class. Normal roleplaying groups just have fun, even when a character is under- or overpowered.

I think the MT is balanced. The examples being constructed by objectors of that PrC don't have much meaning to me, because:

a) they were done by people with the prejudice, that the MT is broken. Thus such people can't make any proper valid playtests.

b) that the method people used to proof that the MT is overpowered can be basically applied to every existing class

Soo, finally: if people are so afraid of munchkins abusing a class, why the hell don't they just kick those players out of their groups or have a very serious talking about the powergamer's gaming style?

I am very confused, that some people don't use their common sense to solve a little problem (like the MT).


----------



## Strutinan (Apr 11, 2003)

"Playtesting" is a critical appraisal of a rules set, or addendum to the existing rules, gianed through use of the item in question.

Having somebody "playtest" the item who is NOT judgemental of it leads to exactly...squat.  Any flaws that come up will be ignored, simply due to human nature.  You NEED somebody who doesn't like the item in order to recieve a CRITICAL assessment of it!

The biggest problem with the MT is that it is hard to NOT overpower the putz.  In the playtests I was in after it came out, we acid-bathed the damn thing.  Two DMS, four players, each DM was "player 5" in the other DM's adventures, and ran an MT.  Three adventures per preset level, all made efore the MT was released (so there could be no accusations of anti/pro-MT elements).  Adventures where diablo-box-style, at preset levels of 6, 8, and 15 (each progressively higher level character built off the weaker ones).  One DM liked the MT and thought it was balanced, one thought it was broken (gee...guess which one I was, lol!).

Even playing conservatively, and trying to "tone down" the character, the pro-MT DM acknowledged that the PrC as-is is hopelessly overpowered.

What I keep seeing is that when people acid-test the MT, they admit that it is broken.  Soemtimes they post their findings on here and at the WOtC boards.  Then they are flamed by people who claim their tests where "unfair" and "biased", as if the accusers are innocent of either unfairness or bias!

You like the MT?  You think it's balanced?  Try this on for size: take an old pre-MT adventure and run it.  In the party, have one "MT is broken" player play an MT.  Use only core rules (no spalt-books or outside material unless it is for the campaign), and no house rules.  If you find yourself altering the adventure, or fudging things, to provide a challenge for the MT then admit to yourself it is broken.

[edited for vehemence]


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 11, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *One trip to the Min/Max Board will show characters getting modifiers that make the +3 difference a completely irrelevant factor into the upper levels.*



If you look closer at the Min/Max board, you'll notice that most of those characters such bonuses through taking levels in multiple prestige classes.  A Mystic Theurge can't do so, as to get the most benefit, he'd be best off to take 10 levels of MT.  By 20th level, he has a maximum of 4 free character levels to use for PrCs.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 11, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> *Having somebody "playtest" the item who is NOT judgemental of it leads to exactly...squat.  Any flaws that come up will be ignored, simply due to human nature.  You NEED somebody who doesn't like the item in order to recieve a CRITICAL assessment of it! *



While I appreciate your concern for bias, doing the above will result in no less bias - the bias will just be in the opposite direction.  In a court case, the prosecution attorney is just as biased as the defense attorney.



> *Even playing conservatively, and trying to "tone down" the character, the pro-MT DM acknowledged that the PrC as-is is hopelessly overpowered. *



Could you be more specific?  What about it was overpowered?  Saying "it was overpowered" isn't very informative.  What specific things happened in play that led you to believe it was overpowered?  (I'm not defending the MT here - I'm honestly curious, since I havn't seen it in play yet.)

Could the fact that everyone's attention was focussed on it make the players and GM feel that it dominated the game?

I should note that if you only used the core rules, you created an artifical situation that stacked the scales against the MT.  How many groups only use the core rules in their games?  Not many.  Doing so skews the scales because part of the balance of the MT is the opportunity costs of not being able to take other prestige classes and not having bonus feats to use.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 11, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> If you look closer at the Min/Max board, you'll notice that most of those characters such bonuses through taking levels in multiple prestige classes.



Keep in mind that we constantly hear, again and again, that updates and revisions (and editions) are aimed at reducing the abusability of the system.  In this instance, what you would _like_ done and what someone else _can_ do are entirely different things.  For instance, I had few problems with 2E, mostly because my friends and I understood the spirit of the designer's intentions and stuck true to it.  However, that doesn't mean 2E didn't have problems just because most of the abuses were based on mechanical min/max methods used by people that didn't give spit about the spirit of the rules.

If 3E is to hold to its purpose as an edition (lack of abusability), than what _can_ be done must have priority in determining the balance of anything, regardless of what those who appreciate such spirit would want.

Trust me, I _wish_ it was the other way, but we live in a world of lawyers and people who try to get away with everything they think they can, and the word of the laws (or rules) hold the higher place over the intention regardless of how noble those intentions are or were.  After all, isn't the PC obtainment of Prestige Classes as a _general right_ rather than a campaign-defining event contrary to the spirit of Prestige Classes to begin with?  Yet there are plenty of players that would refuse to play in a game unless they were free to obtain what-ever Prestige Class (or magic item, or spell, or anything else) they want (and often unfairly ripping on those who would say otherwise).

And remember that Prestige Classes are supposedly being "redefined" in 3.5; Sometimes that makes me shudder.


----------



## rounser (Apr 11, 2003)

> And remember that Prestige Classes are supposedly being "redefined" in 3.5; Sometimes that makes me shudder.



Given that the original definition of what a prestige class was meant to be for didn't really encompass all of the things that they ended up being used for, I'm not sure why you're so concerned.  Their purpose is being redefined to match the way people are actually using them, perhaps?


----------



## Strutinan (Apr 11, 2003)

*Michael Tree:* I played the "Mr. Buff-tastic" MT, the other guy played "Finger-O-Doom".  You can read all about them in my topic on the WotC We Features board.

Here are some highlights.

Mr. Buff-tastic: I would start every day with multiply-Empowered Bull's Strength and other long-duration buffs, then put on my armor and get ready to wade into battle.  Yes a cleric can do this too.  What a cleric CANNOT do is still retain most of the casting power of a character a mere 3 levels lower, AFTER buffing himself to hell and back!  No, Dispel Magics where no threat at all.  We were using the Magic of Faerun book, so I had access to Reactive Counterspell.  Although in hind sight this weakened my character, a Ring of Counterspells would have been easier and freed up two feat slots.  Plus the sheer malicious fun of using True Strike/Power Attack/Divine Might/Divine Power/Divine Favor/ uber-Bull's Strength (+6 on average, I know it doesn't stack thats not the point) on some VERY unlucky BBEG.  After every other spellcaster was too pooped to pop, I often was at full hp and still had around 30-40% of my spells left.

Finger-O-Doom: Spectral Hand and Inflict (whatever) wounds, or Bestow Curse, or Poison, or Chill Touch, or Shocking Grasp, or Vampiric Touch, should I go on?  The only thing that makes Spectral Hand balanced is that the caster typically doesn't have more than about 20 or so spells that he can use it with in a day.  What happens with a character that can spontaneously cast 20 CLERICAL spells for it, without touching their (almost equal)arcane spells?  The uper-level (post 4th) spell slots?  Moslty given up to little exras like multi-Empowered Owl's Insight and Fox's Cunning, Dimension Door, Extended Improved Invisibility, Blade Barrier, and sundry other "point and make have a bad hair day" spells.  WHile these spells WHEE 3 levels "below the curve" (Ill grant you that), the ability to shove huge amounts out in a day was VERY grotesque.  Again, this character often had around 30% of his spells left by the time the other spellcasters had run out of mojo, AND full hp too!

You want to know the most disgusting part?  Thru out the whole time, each MT managed to rack up TWICE the body count of any of the other characters!


----------



## rounser (Apr 11, 2003)

> Thru out the whole time, each MT managed to rack up TWICE the *body count* of any of the other characters!



There goes tha neighborhood!


----------



## David Argall (Apr 11, 2003)

*works both ways*

"All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and"

    Of course, but the pure mage or cleric also gets to tweak, which means the advantage may change in nature, but not necessarily in degree.  Indeed, if the tweak feats are actually the weaker feats, the pure class will widen the advantage.
    And of course, the pure class does need to tweak for both aspects.  Our pure wizard doesn't that cool stud turning feat, and the pure priest does not have to worry abount any feats that might be useful only to mages.


----------



## Najo (Apr 11, 2003)

*Bottom Line*

The bottom line is that this prestige is not designed the same way as any previous prestige class as it is solely intended to "fix" the multiclassing rules between multiple spell casters (namely divine and arcane)

It doesn't even fake doing this job very well and does not solve the problem at all. The multiclassing rules need adjustment, not a prestige class that gives you the spells of two entire classes three levels behind the rest of the party.

Heck, managing this classes spells per day wouldn’t even be fun, let alone it filling the roles of two classes in the party. 

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, what if the other casters in your party mutliclass into non-caster levels, say three times. Is this class still balanced? If I was a level 17 wizard, level 3 fighter or a Level 7 wizard, 3 cleric, 10 MT, which class is balanced? If I am a wizard 10, fighter 10 or I am a paladin or ranger 20 I have the same caster level. So that would mean any combination of wizard to fighter levels are balanced. Substitute wizard with whatever caster you want. The mystic theurge is on its own a broken class without munchkinism.

It has no real "role" or flavor.

It doesn't fix the problem, multi class rules.

It gives to much for what it "gives up"

and it is causing WAY to many fights and arguments. Imagine when this thing hits the table and someone in a group want to play one.

One more thing, the play testing that I have seen described is the same sort of tests game designers use to see if a mechanic runs right. A good game is put through all of the stress tests, these power players are just pushing the boundaries of the rules even though most of us don't play like that. They are important to seeing what the rules can do, as good game rules make a game enjoyable so you can trust the playability and have fun with your friends instead of being caught off guard by something that might cause an argument or lead to the game loosing some of its fun. 

That is what is at stake right now. That is what everyone is fighting over.


----------



## Purzel (Apr 11, 2003)

*Spellcaster multiclassing by a PrC the only effective way to do it?*



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> * [. . .] The multiclassing rules need adjustment, not a prestige class that gives you the spells of two entire classes three levels behind the rest of the party. [. . .]
> *




Speaking of the new multiclassing rules, that reminds me about a discussion i had with a friend about possible houserules to implement spellcaster multiclassing in the rules and not utilizing a PrC. People often say, that the old multiclass rules need just an _adjustment_. But i think, you'd rather end up with a complete rewrite.

Soon i started to understand, why the R&D team picked up the idea of managing multiclassing with PrCs:

Trying to make up *short and comprehensible* general multiclassing rules is f***ing hard. When you make them look about right for Clr/Wiz they start to look underpowered for Sor/Wiz for example. Such a ruling would end up being pretty long and incomprehensible with a lot of exceptions.

And the other problem with a general multiclass ruling, that came up while i brainstormed with my friend was, that such a rule could break up the requirements for MANY existing Prestigeclasses: players could pick a PrC one or two levels earlier in their career.

Another big problem of a general multiclassing rule is, that you'd need A LOT of playtesting to find out, if it always produces balanced characters. Meanwhile making up a PrC for a couple of multiclass combos only is easier to verify.

And when you use a PrC to manage the multiclassing you've another advantage about a more general rule: you have more triggers to balance it out. HD, BAB, Saves, Skillpoints, Classskills, Spellcasting, Bonus Feat and Special Abilities. A lot of things you can easily tweak here.

Maybe doing multiclassing via PrCs isn't the best solution we can get. But making a better rule would need more time and would break up the prestigeclass system. Something that won't happen in D&D 3.5 but maybe in four or five years in D&D 4.0.


----------



## green slime (Apr 11, 2003)

Exactly the problem. All those asking for a fix to the multiclassing rules are clearly asking for too much in a rules revision that is supposed to retain a glimmer of backwards compatability.

That isn't to say that such a fix or revision of the multiclassing rules wouldn't be welcome.


----------



## Chacal (Apr 11, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *Exactly the problem. All those asking for a fix to the multiclassing rules are clearly asking for too much in a rules revision that is supposed to retain a glimmer of backwards compatability.
> 
> That isn't to say that such a fix or revision of the multiclassing rules wouldn't be welcome. *




The backward compatibility is a problem for WotC, and for people who play in different/changing groups.
For the groups I'm used to play with, it wouldn't be a big problem because the DM cannot be told "accept this PrC". We DM always try to make the PrC fit the campaign and the player's choice. Adjusting the prereq a little bit because of some house rule is quite simple.

I guess the ones bothered about multiclassed spellcasters weaknesses will have to house rule till a new edition. 

Chacal


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 11, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> *Michael Tree: I played the "Mr. Buff-tastic" MT, the other guy played "Finger-O-Doom".  You can read all about them in my topic on the WotC We Features board.Mr. Buff-tastic: I would start every day with multiply-Empowered Bull's Strength and other long-duration buffs, then put on my armor and get ready to wade into battle.  Yes a cleric can do this too.  What a cleric CANNOT do is still retain most of the casting power of a character a mere 3 levels lower, AFTER buffing himself to hell and back!  No, Dispel Magics where no threat at all.  We were using the Magic of Faerun book, so I had access to Reactive Counterspell.  *




Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics?  It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available?  What were the other players using?  It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters?  And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long?


----------



## Marshall (Apr 13, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *The fact that you don't have any calculations suggests to me that your analysis is somewhat suspect.  A great many people claimed that the ELH's Enhance Spell was never worthwhile and would always be beaten by multiple Empowers + Improved Metamagic, but they were wrong.  (Many of them refused to believe it even when they were shown the real numbers, but that's beside the point.)
> *




Actually, we're not. 

Its not until you change the meta-magic rules, allowing them to stack, that ENHANCE becomes worthwhile 

_We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming..._


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 13, 2003)

Marshall said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, we're not.
> 
> ...




a) there's a lot of debate about whether that's actually a change.

b) even if it is...Enhance is _better_ if you can't stack Empower - that is, it becomes useful at a much lower level - because you _can_ stack Enhance no matter how you interpret the rules, and it boosts Empower, Maximize and Intensify as well.

J


----------



## Spatula (Apr 13, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics?  It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available?  What were the other players using?  It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters?  And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long? *



http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=000461


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 14, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics?  It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available?  What were the other players using?  It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters?  And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long? *




I wouldn't bother reading most of the thread. Srutinan seems to have taken great pains to leave most of the actual information out of the thread, instead filling it with his own opinions.

A slightly more informative place to go is (believe it or not) the min-max board.

An entire board devoted to breaking classses. The only builds which involve the MT are:

a) Ones which break the rules

b) Ones which claim that you can use another classes "+1 spellcaster level" to advance both the divine AND arcane spellcasting of the MT.

c) Ones which use the ur priest. Ur priest builds rely on the fact that an ur priest gets 9th level spells in 10 levels of a PrC.

d) Ones which use the True Necromancer. True Necromancer builds rely on the fact that TN lets cleric and wizard spellcaster level stack for certain spells, and thus end up with a spellcaster level of 30 or so for a 20th level character, but only for necromantic spells.

I don't think that any of these builds are actually a real problem with the MT class. A isn't worth discussing. For B, I don't think that "+1 spellcasting level" applies to another classes "+1 spellcasting level" - ie it can only be applied to fully specified spellcasting progressions, with spells per day and spells known. C I think is more a problem with the UR priest (you can already get 9th level spells at level 15 with it) than the MT. D is a genuine problem, but I think it arises from the fact that the TN itself was already an attempt to make a multiclass caster viable. I don't think that the abilities it grants will survive transition to 3.5 unchanged.

Given some of the travesties that appear on the minmax boards, I really don't think we have anything to worry about from the MT itself. Just problems with the way it combines with certain existing PrC's.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 14, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *Given some of the travesties that appear on the minmax boards, I really don't think we have anything to worry about from the MT itself. Just problems with the way it combines with certain existing PrC's. *



In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs. 

Noticed that myself.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 14, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *
> In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs.
> 
> Noticed that myself. *




Not just that, but there appear to be only 2 PrC's that you can do this with. Given some previous releases, that's pretty good.


----------



## Oni (Apr 14, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *
> In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs.
> 
> Noticed that myself. *




Well this either is or isn't a new edition.  Wotc tells us it isn't, so to me that says everything ought to be more or less compatible.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 14, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> *Well this either is or isn't a new edition.  Wotc tells us it isn't, so to me that says everything ought to be more or less compatible. *



I agree, but just may be on the 'less compatible' side of things.


----------



## Marshall (Apr 14, 2003)

*While were off topic...*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> a) there's a lot of debate about whether that's actually a change.
> 
> *





True. I come down firmly on the fence(ouch!) about that. It seems to me that a couple of Sage Advice/FAQ items cause a great deal of confusion about how MM feats interact.



> *
> b) even if it is...Enhance is better if you can't stack Empower - that is, it becomes useful at a much lower level - because you can stack Enhance no matter how you interpret the rules, and it boosts Empower, Maximize and Intensify as well.
> 
> J *




Oh yeah! My first response when I saw the feat was that they finally gave up on the idiotic feat self-stacking. 

Then Andy came along and said feats still self-stack, then It became worthless, then he came back and said ENHANCE affects other MM feats, then......


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 14, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *I wouldn't bother reading most of the thread. Srutinan seems to have taken great pains to leave most of the actual information out of the thread, instead filling it with his own opinions.*




Yeah, I noted that.  Absolutely no discussion of what they faced, and it was clear that the test was pretty flawed from the start.  Especially when I read about one of the characters casting Dimension Door, _and then casting Blade Barrier right after_.  Or, to quote the SRD:

*



			After using this spell, the character can’t take any other actions until the character's next turn.
		
Click to expand...


*
Seeing someone brag about that kind of gaffe, I'm not going to give too much mindshare to the rest of the 'test'.  What I am curious about (since IDHMBIFOM), is what Reactive Counterspell does, and why it's so powerful (since I don't use any of the FR material).  Does it let you cast counterspells as a free action?


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 14, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *What I am curious about (since IDHMBIFOM), is what Reactive Counterspell does, and why it's so powerful (since I don't use any of the FR material).  Does it let you cast counterspells as a free action? *




No (you can only do a free action on your turn, anyway) - it lets you give up your next action to cast a counterspell now (without a readied action).

J
whose Champions-trained mind keeps thinking 'abort to Counterspell'


----------



## green slime (Apr 14, 2003)

Doesn't seem very powerful to me...

I guess the guy had never been targetted by two _Dispel Magics_ in one round...

Or that he didn't mind just sitting around impressing the guards with his ability to fend off targetted dispels, and simultaneously suffer from area dispels, _Antimagic Shield_ or any other standard counter-buff...


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 14, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *Doesn't seem very powerful to me...
> 
> I guess the guy had never been targetted by two Dispel Magics in one round...*




They mention in the thread that no one bothered using Dispel Magics, as they weren't very useful.

[cough]


*Yeah.*


Except for them, apparently.  They also discuss that the BBEG's being equipped to deal with enemy spellcasters with Dispel wands or the like was tantamount to DM cheating.

Oh, and in regards to Reactive Counterspell.  Yee-ikes.  Of course, that invalidates their strategy even more, since the 3.5 version of haste no longer grants an additional action, making this RC much more costly.

My main question had been concerned with if they had had access to a 3.5 playtest, and it's now obvious they didn't.  And since they aren't quite that clear on 3.0's rules, and weren't working with many of 3.5s new rules, it's pretty obvious the 'test' was anything but.


----------



## green slime (Apr 14, 2003)

Well, the boots of haste were still granting an extra action... something he admits, because he says that is why he had 3 (three!) pairs.

Reactive counterspell, move, and attack.
or
_True strike_, move, attack

To me, it remains to be seen whether those boots are still that good. I doubt it somehow.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 14, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *Well, the boots of haste were still granting an extra action... something he admits, because he says that is why he had 3 (three!) pairs.
> 
> Reactive counterspell, move, and attack.
> or
> ...




Right, but see here's the thing: he's using mostly 3.0 equipment, classes and spells to judge a 3.5 PrC out of context, and proclaiming it broken.  We have no idea what the change to haste will do to those boots, but I'm guessing it'll do something similar to what the 3.5 haste does, or they'll become much more expensive.  Since I didn't get that far in the thread, I assume you meant he was wearing one pair and had two in reserve, right?  Because if you actually mean he was wearing three pairs at once....


----------



## green slime (Apr 14, 2003)

He admits to changing pairs...

But it seems like an obvious way to get around what was one of the major issues with 3e... Makes you sure wonder about the capacilities of the DM(s)... That and the admited stacking gaffs. SO with that sorted out, I can't say I'm impressed. I haven't seen him do anything a SC Wizard or Cleric couldn't.

You wonder if the guy has ever even *tried* to play a 15th level cleric...


----------



## Marshall (Apr 14, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *He admits to changing pairs...
> 
> But it seems like an obvious way to get around what was one of the major issues with 3e... Makes you sure wonder about the capacilities of the DM(s)... That and the admited stacking gaffs. SO with that sorted out, I can't say I'm impressed. I haven't seen him do anything a SC Wizard or Cleric couldn't.
> 
> You wonder if the guy has ever even tried to play a 15th level cleric... *




If you pick around enough you find the Stats and spell-list for Mr Bufftastic. When you put them together you find out he can USE ALL HIS SPELLS to turn into a FTR without the feats. If I want a 15th level FTR, I wont take MT.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 14, 2003)

I'd just like to say this:

This weekend, my player and I did a great bit of playtesting. This is the same player that went crazy over the Mystic Theurge when it was first released. He knew for certain tha this was the PRC for him.

After several hours of playtesting....

He is building a single classed Wizard. Why? It is all about the spell levels. A 3/3/1 Cleric/Wizard/MT is only casting 2nd level spells at 7th level, while the single classes Wizard 7 is slinging 4th level spells.

Trust me folks, those 2 spell levels are a huge difference. 

There area few good reasons for this:

1. You can only cast 1 spell per round under 3.5 rules.
2. Monster's effectivness does not decrease with damage sustained. A Chimera with 1 hp fights as well as one with 40.
3. Mosts fights are over in a minute or two of in game time at the most.
4. Higher levels spells are more potant, hence, you need fewer of them.

When the party is being charged by a hord of bugbears, being able to cast a 7d6 dmg fireball, is A LOT better than being able to cast any two 2nd level spells over 2 rounds.

While the MT is casting acid arrow or whatever on his next round, the single classed character is casting another fireball or lightning bolt.

The Mt ends up with a lot of wasted potential simply because he can't cast spells fast enough to keep up with the huge hits the "pure" class is making each round.

Trust me, when the party fighter is down to 10hp and is fighting a Frost Giant toe-to-toe, you need to be able to hit it hard and hit it now. You just don't have time to chip away at it with lower level spells.

I'm not saying the class is too weak or anything, but I certainly don't think it is too powerful. I had that same "knee-jerk" reaction when I first saw it, but after playing around a bit, I have definatly changed my mind.

EDIT -> While not related to the subject at hand, I'd also like to say that the CR for the Rakshasta is way off. DR20/+1, Immune to spells <8th level, and the spells of a 7th level sorcorer is not a CD9 creature. Especially when one of it's spells is Fly.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 14, 2003)

I see this a quite a boon, actually.  In the FR campaign I'm currently working on, I have to convert a 2nd edition muti-class cleric/wizard to 3rd edition...and this seems to be quite the useful tool!  Definite revisions, though.

My idea is like one that was posted earlier, but as a core class instead of a PrC.  You would only gain the dual level in arcane&divine casting every 5 or so levels, but you would still gain clerical abilities, and metamagic feats to a lesser extent.  Sort of a toned down Mystic Theurge, but  having the abilites of a mage and a cleric, alternating the learning each section when desired.  Once I finish writing it up, perhaps I'll post it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 14, 2003)

My view:

1) The class isn't unblanaced. It does basically what the Sorcerer does -- more spells per day and a decrease in the level of spells you can cast -- and decreases the level by more to compensate for the extended spell selection. To say that it's unbalanced because it provides more spells/day is like saying that the Sorc or Bard are unbalanced because they provide more spells/day.

2) Despite the class's balance, I would have infinately preferred that they 'fix' the multiclassing problem without resorting to a PrC. Then, you could re-create any 2e character, and also have the option of giving them a flavor PrC that works with their concept, instead of one they basically need to be effective at all.

3) Designing a PrC so as to be 'essential' is a bad thing, IMHO. This PrC is essential -- any Wiz/Clr *has* to take this, or is going to be Captain Wus of the Ponce Patrol. This means that  you can't take a Wiz/Clr in many other directions without being a completely gutted character...it's MyTh, or BUST!


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 14, 2003)

Marshall:

Lol. Sorry dude, but spells can't replicate fighters. Did his MT have:

Feats of a 15th level fighter?

Skills of a 15th level fighter? (don't laugh, I bet a real fighter could out ride that wizard any day of the week).

The ability to suddenly not have +15 BAB and 15d10 hp if he should say, run into an anti-magic field? Or if *gasp* an enemy cast dispel magic (I have a sneaking suspicion this ability will find its way into most higher level intelligent monster's abilities).

And as most people tend to forget, casting Tenser's Transformation can be about as good as shooting yourself in the foot sometimes, as even 15th level fighters get killed sometimes, and if youre the party healer/ressurecter/etc then its going to be a pain to get you back for your foolhardiness.

Oh, well I guess he didn't. Maybe its because on paper the MT is god of the DMG, but if you actually tried to stat one out (I have, though not completely, I plan on posting when I've finished) youll find that while they have a lot of spells going for them, thats about it.

Technik


----------



## drnuncheon (Apr 14, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *EDIT -> While not related to the subject at hand, I'd also like to say that the CR for the Rakshasta is way off. DR20/+1, Immune to spells <8th level, and the spells of a 7th level sorcorer is not a CD9 creature. Especially when one of it's spells is Fly.  *




Rakshasa have the "eggshells with hammers" problem.

Cleric with _magic weapon_ + crossbow bolt + fighter = dead rakshasa.

J


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 15, 2003)

Perhaps a slightly more appropriate phrase would be 'paper tiger'.

And it's a big problem with 3rd ed - there are too many creatures which drop like a rock, but have devestating powers to make up for it.


----------



## Strutinan (Apr 15, 2003)

Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.

I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest.  Let me clarify a few things:

"3.5 Haste"
The playtest occured before we all found out that 3.5 Haste wasn't adding "a move or attack action" like it was originally described as doing.  Still no two spells/round, but the extra attack allows for a spell/move/attack.  For a buff-style character, that extra attack is the reason to take the spell (or item in this case)!

"Reactive Counterspell"
After playing around with it, I would happilly just remake the character with a Ring of Counterspells.  All you have to worry about is Dispel Magic, and this item allows you to spend the two feats it took to get Reactive Counterspell on other things.

"Buffed to Fighter/Tenser's Transformation"
Our playtest did not use TT, as we could not find any hard info on how it was changing.  Instead I buffed my Str/Dex/Con/Cha with arcane buffing spells.  Most of the remainder of the arcane spells the character had where either no-somatic spells, or Stilled.  I also had a wide selection of situation-specific buffing spells for different types of combat (Fly, Shield, Protection from Arrows, Stoneskin, etc.).

"Dispel Magic"
Area effect Dispels get rid of one personal and one item spell per casting, which leaves several more still running (often with emergency back-ups).  Targetted Dispels can gt rid of all my buff spells, but only if the Dispel isn't Coutnerspelled   Even if I am targetted twice, there remains a chance for each spell to stay in effect.  Also, given the RARE situation in which I am successfully Dispelled of all my buffs (which did happen a time or two), a simple Divine Power restores me to about 90% fighting trim until the end of the fight.

"Wands/Scrolls of Dispel Magic"
Oh come ON!  Honestly, what character/NPC in his right mind would USE one of these things?  The caster level is so gods-awful low that you might as well THROW the thing at the person!  Add to this, would YOU as a player prepare a higher-caster level wand/scroll of a spell you will typically cast only on special circumstances?  If so, then you might as well make high-CL wands of Tenser's Floating Disk too  

"Dimension Door/Blade Barrier"
This was given as an example of wha the Finger-O-Doom character did.  Also, it was Improved Invisibility/Door/Barrier+Hold Person, each on subsequent rounds.  Lets not forget the old standbys of Improved Invisibility/Flight/Hold Person/Acidic Cloud and Spectral Hand/Bestow Curse or Inflict Wounds either!

"Does he have the feats of a 15th-level fighter?"
Nope, and I don't need them either.  I got the Str of a 15th-level fighter (Empowered Empowered Bull's Strength), the BAB of a 15-th level Fighter (Divine Might), the weapon of a 15th-level fighter (GMW on a +1 Flaming Greatsword), the armor of a 15th-level fighter (Magic Vestment on a suit of Mithril Full Plate +1), the HP of a 15th-level fighter (Empowered Empowered Endurance),ect.  I also got a few tricks a fighter CAN'T get: True Strike/Power Attack/Divine Might, Blur, Stoneskin, Fly, ect.  BTW, who needs Ride when you can FLY!

"Has he ever TRIED to play a 15th-level cleric?"
Yes, and it was pretty sick too.  just not as sick as this.  Point of fact, we had a 15th-level buff-style cleric in the same group (you should already know this from reading the WotC thread).  He could buff up just as much as I could.  Unfortunately for him, his spells (and hp) would become mostly depleted after two or three fights.  By the same time I was down to only about 30-40% of mine   Mainly, it was from being able to mix the effects of high-slot arcane and divine spells.

"Anti-magic Field screws him up"
Any character is screwed over by an anti-magic field, if he CAN'T JUST WALK OUT!  A fighter trapped in one with a troll = dead (but tasty) fighter.  Any spellcaster = smelly guy just waiting to be gakced.  But don't forget, the AMF only SUPRESSES the buff spells/magic items.  Once I WALK 10 FEET AWAY they all turn back on without even any loss in duration.

I think that about covers everything, but honestly I'm just tired of typing.  Lol


----------



## MerricB (Apr 15, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> *Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.
> 
> I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest.  Let me clarify a few things:
> 
> ...




Still wrong. It gives you an extra attack if, and only if, you take the Full Attack action.

Cheers!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 15, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> *Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.
> 
> I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest.  Let me clarify a few things:
> *




No. People didn't really make knee jerk reactions. They discussed it.

And they found it severely lacking.

Put up a real writeup of the playtest, or stop posting about how you did it and the MT was broken.

A real writeup requires a rundown of all the characters involved, the situations encountered, the general style of play (number of encounters per day etc) and specific examples of where the MT shined, as well as places where they couldn't compete. Until you give that, I'll continue to doubt not only the results of the playtest, but the fact that it ever occurred as well.


----------



## Oni (Apr 15, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *I'd just like to say this:
> 
> This weekend, my player and I did a great bit of playtesting. This is the same player that went crazy over the Mystic Theurge when it was first released. He knew for certain tha this was the PRC for him.
> 
> ...





Please do not take offense at this, but I'm not sure that your playtest was a very good indicator of the strengths of the MT.  Your example includes a character that has only one level in the MT PrC and so does not really go a long way in highlighting the strengths of the class.  The weakness of the character lies in the still flawed multiclassing system for spellcasters, and that was primarily the deciding factor in the effectiveness of the character rather than the MT PrC itself.  MT suffers from a faulty and outdated balancing method in my opinion, weaker to start, stronger later.  The more levels of the MT, the more the relative powerlevel between it and a straight class caster shrinks.  That is in your example the straight class caster had access to twice the spell levels and caster levels, but as you move up the chart this ratio shrinks, and at the highest levels it amost disappears.  In a nutshell I'd say your playtesting reveals more the faults in the current multiclassing system than the strengths and weaknesses of the MT PrC.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 15, 2003)

Ok, first of all I don't go for area dispels too often, only If I'm fighting say 6+ guys. Since if I'm the monsters (because Im DMing) and I'm fighting the PCs, and theres only 4 PCs, Im always going to cast a targetted dispel.

Obviously there was some wonky stuff going on with reactive counterspell and haste. You make a case for ring of counterspells. You were 15th level yes? Ok, Greater Dispel is what should have been used against you. And I believe it wouldn't really be a "chance" of greater dispel not getting rid of almost all of your buffs. 

While Divine Power on your next round is a good option, it doesn't nearly make up for what you just lost in terms of double empowered 2nd level spells. And I'm guessing with all of those slots (6th level slots, your highest) spent on double empowered buffs you went way down in any fighter's estimation, especially since he could probably just disarm or sunder your now crappy +1 weapon.

As others have said, until you post some real data this is just theory-d&d. Your 3 sets of boots of haste was extremely suspect by many (I understand you didn't wear all 3 at the same time, but swapped them out. However, if you look closely boots of speed is based off of haste, haste will no longer allow extra actions, neither will the boots).

As someone pointed out, you can't Dimension Door then cast a spell, as it says in the spell.

True Strike requires a round to cast, then a round to strike. Intelligent enemies (ones who realize what spell you just cast, a spellcraft DC of what, 11?) will get far enough away from you to prohibit being attacked, or ready an action to attack if you attack them and try to disarm you. Wasted True Strike.

Even with 10 dispel magics memorized, you were abusing Reactive counterspell or you werent attacking as much as you lead us to believe. Also, if I cast Greater Dispel and you cast Dispel Magic to stop me, well good luck. You get a d20+10 to beat a 26 (11 + spellcaster level, lets assume it was an average encounter, level 15 spellcasting opponent). So on a 16 or better, you counterspell, on a 15 or worse, you are debuffed for the rest of the day. If this happens in the first encounter for the day, you are pretty screwed.

You are abusing buff spells, not the mystic theurge. Your friend's Finger-o-Doom doesnt seem nearly as powerful. Spectral Hand + Death Knell? Allow me to point out that Death Knell is an evil spell. So I hope he wasnt the one planning on curing everyone after a fight, since by casting evil spells that proves he is evil, and therefore a negative energy user. If he was neutral, by casting death knell every fight for many adventures, lets say the DM should have wrote him a little note. And death knell doesnt stack with death knell, and it means you have to leave a "living" creature with hit points lower than 0. So -1 to -10, most monsters get obliterated, destroyed, or hacked to death, so it seems pretty convenient to cast this spell every fight on the monster that just happens to be alive by that much.

So, I think you abused the hell out of boots of speed and to a lesser extent buff spells. Not the theurge.

Technik


----------



## green slime (Apr 15, 2003)

Hear hear,  Saeviomagy.

From what I've read, the playtest wasn't.

Strutinan, you have been repeatedly asked to give a full accounting of your character, from stats to spells and equipment, and details of the encounters, as well as your "powergaming" buddies' characters.

I doubt your powergaming buddies used any of the power builds such as the shieldbashing paladin, or the Archmage/Red Wizard/Specialist for compared to those builds the MT is just a bad smell in the wind... .

Secondly, I have nowhere read anything that suggests that your character achieved anything that couldn't have been handled by a singleclassed Cleric or Wizard. Or a well equipped fighter with friends. A better blow by blow account, rather than glossing over the details then saying "Woohoo! That was overpowered through the roof."

Thirdly, the number of stilled buffs you can afford to lose while facing for instance, a hovel of evil Clerics, is minimal. That is the advantage of the singleclassed character, they aren't reliant on their buffs, neither are the fighters. For the MT, they are his life support system. Without them, he is daisy fertilizer. And against standard anti-buff tactics he is hopeless.

What is he going to do about _antimagic field_?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 15, 2003)

Kamikaze Midget: 
You mention the comparision to the Sorcerer. Let`s just compare a 16th level Sorcerer with a wizard3/cleric3/mystic theurge 10.

The sorcerer can cast:
6 spells (+bonus spells due to charisma) of 0-6th level, 5+bonus of 7th level and 3+bonus of 8th level. 
He has only a limited selection, but he can cast it spontanously. 

The Mystic Theurge can cast:

Spells like a 13th level cleric, meaning: 
6 0-level spells, 5+Domain+bonus spells from wisdom of 1st or second level. 4+Domain+bonus spells from wisdom of 3rd and 4th level. 3+Domain+bonus spells from wisdom of 5th level, 2+Domain+bonus spells from wisdom of 6th level, 1+Domain+Bonus Spells from Wisdom of 7th level. 

Spells like a 13th level wizard, meaning: 
6 0-level spells, 5+school+bonus spells from intelligence of 1st or second level. 4+school+bonus spells from intelligence of 3rd and 4th level. 3+Domain+bonus spells from intelligence of 5th level, 2+Domain+bonus spells from intelligence of 6th level, 1+Domain+Bonus Spells from intelligence of 7th level. 

So, the MT is behind 1 spell level compared to the sorcerer. But he as a near unlimited spell list (at least on the "cleric side").
But he can cast severely more spells per day: 
6 level 0 spells (compared to 6)
10+2+bonus 1st and 2nd level (compared to 6+bonus)
8+2+bonus of 3rd and 4th level. (compared to 6+bonus)
6+2+bonus of 5th level (compared to 6+bonus)
4+2+bonus of 6th level (compared to 6+bonus)
2+2+bonus of 7th level (compared to 5+bonus)
0 spells of 8th level (compared to 3+bonus)

Other numbers (I hope I remember everything correctly):
BAB Mystic Theurge: +8/+3
BAB Sorcerer: +8/+3
HP MT: 3d8+13d4+ 16 x Con
HP Sorcerer: 16d4+16 x Con
Base Saves MT: Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +13
Base Saves Sorcerer: Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +10
Specialities MT: Scribe Scroll, 2 Domain Abilities, weak Familiar
Specialities Sorcerer: "strong" Familiar
Magical Items MT: Can use any Cleric or Wizard/Sorcerer Scroll / Wand / Staff (provided he has sufficient caster level / Ability score)
Can use special Cleric only/Wizard only items (Ring of Wizardry, Prayer Beeds and so on)

Magical Items Sorcerer: Can use any Wizard/Sorcerer Scroll / Wand / Staff (provided he has sufficiend caster level / Ability score). Can use special Sorcerer only items (like Ring of Wizardry - greater benefits than MT in this case))

Someone else may try to prove that losing a spell level for severely more spells/day makes the class balanced/shafted/broken (whatever he prefers)

I think it makes the class broken. 

"Buffing": Most characters are dependent on some of these "buffs". A Mystic Theurge does not have to buff only himself (which is only interesting in smackdowns, not in a real adventure), he can buff the whole group. (10 level 2 spells allows 2 stat enhancers for everyone - without relying on other spellcasters! This frees also some item slots - why waste money on Gauntlets of Ogre Power? Or imagine the whole party wandering invisible through the dungeon, only attacking if absoluteley neccessary. Easy - but boring - game). 

A Single Dispel Magic / Greater Dispelling doesn`t do much in this matter, because an area effected will only "kill" one of the spells, or weaken a single character.

Dispelling in combat is sometimes a good idea (especially if it is obvious that a single character has many spells cast on him), but not every enemy can "see" this automatically, and sometimes he might still prefer casting a real devastating spell at his enemies (like Cone of Cold, Disintegreate, Flamestrike, Fireball), because it`s not enough to cripple a single enemy, it is better to kill all of them...

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## green slime (Apr 15, 2003)

Good comparisson to the sorcerer, Mistrum_Ridcully. Never really looked at the effect on them, as noone ever seems to want to play a sorcerer IMC... Which is in part due to percieved lack of versatility. Something the MT would not seem to be wanting...

BTW, No party is going to wander through the dungeon in complete _invisibility_... The DC to know someone is around is only 20... And then you have the noise made by the tanks.

On occasion it happens. It still wouldn't be happening all the time. Not in my games at least.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 15, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> *I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest.  Let me clarify a few things:
> 
> "3.5 Haste"
> The playtest occured before we all found out that 3.5 Haste wasn't adding "a move or attack action" like it was originally described as doing.  Still no two spells/round, but the extra attack allows for a spell/move/attack.  For a buff-style character, that extra attack is the reason to take the spell (or item in this case)!*




Someone has already pointed out that the new haste only grants an additional attack on a full-attack action.  I don't think the reaction is 'knee-jerk', as you describe it.  Your testing methodology was flawed, and we're pointing it out.  I realize you may have put some large amount of time into the effort, but you admit yourself that you didn't have 3.5's Haste, let alone the dozens of other changes from 3.5 _none of us_ have seen (well, except NDA-following folks like Piratecat ).  At this point, you need to admit, "Hey, turns out our data was all wrong.  We think the MT is broken, but our numbers aren't really valid anymore."  



> *"Wands/Scrolls of Dispel Magic"
> Oh come ON!  Honestly, what character/NPC in his right mind would USE one of these things?  The caster level is so gods-awful low that you might as well THROW the thing at the person!  Add to this, would YOU as a player prepare a higher-caster level wand/scroll of a spell you will typically cast only on special circumstances?  If so, then you might as well make high-CL wands of Tenser's Floating Disk too  *





We have a saying in my game: "Don't roll a 1.".  BBEG's often can employ lots of little guys who tend to be rogues or low-level casters.  The caster level IS awful....but the cost is virtually non-existant at the level being discussed.  If I could hire ten Rog 2s to back me up with low-level scroll and wand-usage, how is that any more ridiculous than owning three pairs of Boots of Haste?

And for the record, YES, some players do exactly that.  The wizard and cleric in my group sometimes prep a Ring of Spell Storing, scrolls and other minor items for the party rogue to use.  The rogue acts as the 'monkey wrench' in the BBEG's plans.  She has lots of tricks up her sleeve, and a high UMD lets her pull them off.  Given the typical chance of a spell-caster to run up against other spell-casters (both for NPCs and PCs), I would hardly call DM/GD as a spell only cast on 'special circumstances'.  Maybe in your game, the PCs don't encounter many enemies with magic or who can use spell-like abilities...but I would put forth that such a case is extremely rare.

The best argument I've heard against the MT is one that you missed or ignore, because your test appeared to be about doing the most damage.  Namely, that Mr. Bufftastic can grant tons of buffs to the whole party...but by that point, your character was only buffing himself, so you either didn't observe that, or weren't interested in observing it.



> *"Dimension Door/Blade Barrier"
> This was given as an example of wha the Finger-O-Doom character did.  Also, it was Improved Invisibility/Door/Barrier+Hold Person, each on subsequent rounds.  Lets not forget the old standbys of Improved Invisibility/Flight/Hold Person/Acidic Cloud and Spectral Hand/Bestow Curse or Inflict Wounds either!*




Right, got that.  Didn't catch where you pointed out why that wasn't wrong, as I pointed out earlier.  Dimension Door *ENDS YOUR TURN*.  Being hasted doesn't change that.  The spell was written to prevent exactly what you're using it for.  This is one of the indicators to some that you might not even have been following the rules properly, making your analysis of the MT even more suspect.  Were any house rules in effect?  What kind of point-buy or roll method was used?  I can guarantee you that a MT wouldn't be terribly thrilling under 28-point buy, and maybe not that great under 32 point-buy, but I could be wrong.

Another thing to consider.  Sooner or later, everyone rolls a 1.  Hello, Bodak, goodbye Life.  When the MT dies, he looses more than a normal character, too.  And losing two spell-casting levels at higher levels would be more traumatic, I think.  Lowered DCs are another problem.  My direct experience of taking a party from 1st to 20th level, over the course of almost three years, shows me that what I thought was incredibly broken at 5th level was actually not nearly as powerful when you reached 15th level.  IMHO, your test shows me more that we have you enjoy a much higher-powered game than some, and was more of a test of the MT in *your game* rather than in D&D, itself.


----------



## green slime (Apr 15, 2003)

_Spectral Hand_ is a weak spell at that level anyway, as any opponent that attacks the hand will destroy it, causing the caster to lose the hps on a more permanent basis.

_Dimension Dooring_ in would be your surprise round, IMC.  Better hope you roll a higher Initiative, or you won't be getting many spells off in the next round...


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 15, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *Spectral Hand is a weak spell at that level anyway, as any opponent that attacks the hand will destroy it, causing the caster to lose the hps on a more permanent basis.
> 
> Dimension Dooring in would be your surprise round, IMC.  Better hope you roll a higher Initiative, or you won't be getting many spells off in the next round... *




I usually see Dimension Door used in combat in one of two ways:  the most popular is the "RUN! NOW! GO!" method, in which the wizard, usually grabbing the rogue and cleric, gets out of the line of melee fire, but fast.  It's a way to escape injuries taken or imagined in the near future.

The second method is the "Hah!  Lookit those suckers down there dance....Did you hear something?" method, in which the wizard, usually grabbing the rogue, moves under cover of stealth to suprise some distant or hard to reach enemies and teach them why it's a bad idea to not watch your back and to equate distance with safety.


----------

