Oh, I still stand by those statements as well, but I didn't think they needed repeating. My response to people who complain (to my face) that "Warrior Mage Priests lose out on top level spells, thus the multiclass system is flawed" is "Don't multiclass. Mastery of power of any kind requires sacrifice and single-mindedness. Multiclassing embraces flexibility over focus."
And on that I don't budge. Its realistic and internally consistent. Every class loses out on something when they multiclass.
If spellcasters losing out on high level spells is so terrible, it isn't because the MC system is broken, but rather that the broken part is the magic system that back-end loads the benefits of the spells. Other class benefits have a linear upwards progression. Spells have an increasing slope. And its the spells that define the full spellcasting classes to a great deal.
Sure, they don't get the top level spells. They get some spells later, but they get some sooner, if the spells have differing levels between their divine and arcane classes. They lose out on familiar and other bennies enumerated above.
They gain flexibility and sheer number of spells. A Wiz5/Clc5/MT10 has 73 spells (+stat bonus spells), as opposed to a Wiz20 with 40 (+stat bonus spells) or a Clc20 with 56 (+stat bonus spells). They may be lesser in level for a particular class, but they are broader in scope.
They lose something, yes - but consider:
When the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin multiclass between each other, they all maintain their biggest schtick - Full BAB, decent Hit Die, good Fort save. All that changes overly much is the secondary stuff - reflex save, bonus feat progression, rage progression, et cetera - stuff that isn't the most mechanically important for a melee class. They maintain their Full Melee status - which, when it comes down to it, is their biggest class feature.
When the Rogue or Bard multiclass between each other, they maintain their skillmonkey status - which, when it comes down to it, is their biggest class feature.
When the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard multiclass between each other, they lose out on the biggest class features of both - spellcasting (and Wildshape, for the Druid)- unlike the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, unlike the Rogue/Bard.
That is, skillmonkey classes multiclassing with other skillmonkey classes don't lose their skillmonkey progression; Melee classes multiclassing with other Melee classes don't lose their melee progression; why is it that you really think primary spellcasters multiclassing with primary spellcasters should lose their primary spellcaster status?
Besides - you've already contradicted yourself. You previously said you've never made a Mystic Theurge in the base thread - and then in this one you said "I even have one (and only one) PC who uses the Mystic Theurge class- a Drow Rgr/MU/Druid converted from 1Ed to 3Ed as a Druid/SpecWiz Transmuter/MT. (It was the only way to carryover the spellcasting potential of the original into the updated 20 year old campaign.)"
Or, to paraphrase, you weren't willing to give up the power when, it the base thread that spawned this one, you called the Mystic Theurge a "cheat", said that you "don't care about mechanical optimization. At all.", and that ""viability" is a non-issue".
Or, in other words, your own statements bely your own statements.
1st and 2nd edition multiclassing between casters ended up with something very much like the current mystic theurge - because they went in paralell, using their own XP charts - the dual-caster ended up just a few levels behind the single-caster in their casting - which is exactly what the current MT and similar classes do.
Consider me the "Salmon of Spellcasting." I almost never use the "power" spells- in 30 years of D&D, I haven't had more than a couple of PCs use Magic Missile or Sleep, for instance, and none with Fireball, Prismatic Sphere, Fly, Teleport and so forth. Everyone else does those spells with their casters- I want my guys and gals to be different.
And that follows through to my DMing. If I make my encounters survivable/beatable only by a particular spell or spell combo, I consider that a failure on my part.
2 magic items on a mid level PC (Lvl10+)- a +1 suit of leather armor and a +3 quarterstaff- is low by the standards of any campaign except one featuring VoP. And considering that the XP for enchanting them came from the PC herself, it fits in perfectly with RW mythological tropes.
As did the method- doing great deeds followed by a ritual that imbued part of the Pally's life force into the staff, one +1 enhancement at a time.
RAW, VoP would require that a PC whose possession acquires magical powers (regardless of origin) give it up. I find that to be overbroad, and make an exception if the item gains its magical power from the actions of the PC himself, like a warrior who bathes his weapon in the blood of a dragon or demon he just killed (thus enchanting it). Similarly, I distinguish between a magic tome a VoP PC finds and the spellbook he himself creates to study his daily spells.
CAN the PC put up for sale a magic item he has made through his actions to feed a village? Sure, but I'm not going to demand he does so.
As I said, though - whether it was through DM fiat, planted opportunities, or otherwise, you were ending up with something akin to the bonuses you were supposed to be getting through wealth. (A +3/mundane quarterstaff is 18,300 gp; a +3/+3 quarterstaff is 36,600 gp, market, the +1 Leathers are 1,160 gp; Wealth by Level for a 10th level character is 49,000 gp - assuming your +3 on your quarterstaff applied to both ends, you were running at about 70-80% of your expected wealth by level). That's hardly eschewing material possessions - your DM was throwing you a bone to make your character work when it really wouldn't, otherwise.
The Vow of Poverty, like the Theurge classes, is about making a character concept mechanically viable - nothing more. Sure, the Mystic Theurge is a bit short on flavorful abilities - but flavor doesn't come from abilities anyway, it comes from playstyle.
That's why I wanted to find out what you thought about dual-casting PrCs.
