Negative Energy Adept

[Bront]

That's why most ECL races sucks for spellcasting. A single level is lost is ok but an hinderance. 2 level is very bad, 3 is horrible and I wouldn't even think about an ECL+4... And most ECL are race that have advanatge for non caster type of character anyway (like more Str on Con, greater size, ect...)

Even then, it takes a good 5-10 levels to make up for even an ECL +1 or +2 for a non-caster.

Anyway, on the feat, I like it. My only worry is that it is better than Improved Turning. Perhaps you should require Improved Turning first as well?

 

[Velmont]

Anyway, on the feat, I like it. My only worry is that it is better than Improved Turning. Perhaps you should require Improved Turning first as well?

That's true, but the requirement are a bit more restricted. Would it stack with it?

 

[Someone]

Until this proposal, I never considered all the implications of the Mystic Theurge. You give up 3 caster levels and a few feats for 10 free levels worth of spellcasting in another class.

Wow. I really can't believe that works. Anyone played one at those levels?

I´ve played a Mystic Theurge from level 6 to 12th. Starting is hard, at low levels you´re way behind other characters, and only start becoming powerful at 12th-14th level or so (and partly thanks to Prcticed Caster). He was very versatile and fun to play, though in combat the melee cleric and elf wizard were much more powerful; maybe because I didn´t powergamed him towards combat, and built a sage-diviner type character, with a lot of support spells. In that role the MT excels.

 

[El Jefe]

I'm really surprised you've been playing 3.X this long without realising how much it sucks to play a multiclassed caster.

Bear in mind that I have never played a character above 4th level, and that's going all the way back to 1.0. It's that lack of a persistant world thing, combined with high PC mortality in previous editions of the game.

 

[Knight Otu]

Having seen the original proposal, I'll just say that I prefer the feat much more. Adding Improved Turning to the prerequisites makes some sense. It is a similar scenario as with Toughness (flat bonus) and Improved Toughness (level-based), in that the first feat always has an effect (how minor it may be), while the other starts weaker at first level (NEA provides no bonus until the character becomes a mystic theurge), but somewhat quickly overshadows that feat.
The point where Improved Toughness is on equal footing with Toughness is 3rd level. The point where NEA and Improved Turning are equal is 7th level. I'm not convinced that requiring Improved Turning is necessary.

 

[Bront]

Having seen the original proposal, I'll just say that I prefer the feat much more. Adding Improved Turning to the prerequisites makes some sense. It is a similar scenario as with Toughness (flat bonus) and Improved Toughness (level-based), in that the first feat always has an effect (how minor it may be), while the other starts weaker at first level (NEA provides no bonus until the character becomes a mystic theurge), but somewhat quickly overshadows that feat.
The point where Improved Toughness is on equal footing with Toughness is 3rd level. The point where NEA and Improved Turning are equal is 7th level. I'm not convinced that requiring Improved Turning is necessary.

Looking at it from that aspect, I'd agree. It already requires a feat.

And yes, Improved Turning would stack with this. I don't see why it wouldn't.

 

[Knight Otu]

And yes, Improved Turning would stack with this. I don't see why it wouldn't.

I agree.

 

[Knight Otu]

I vote yes for this feat.

 

[orsal]

I vote Yes.

 

[Patlin]

I vote no. Improving your turning is one of the few reasons not to prestige class a Cleric.