Complete Warrior to have new base classes

[slaughterkin]

The point isn't really what a (for example) Fighter 10/Wizard 10 loses compared to a Wizard 20, it's what he gains and loses compared to a Fighter 20.



that would make sense IF we were discussing a fighter/wizard combination. We arent. We are discussing a cleric /wizard combination. So to use your own argument, yes compared to a 20th level wizard OR a 20th level Cleric, a 10/10 level cleric is a victim.
He would hardly be noticed alongside the other chararacters in terms of contribution since the only things he can do are what was needed 10 levels ago, and most of his spells would fail due to encounter level 20 SR which would reasonably be in the mid to low 30s

Whether the fix is elegant or not, mystic Theurge is not broken, it simply tries to patch the obvious flaw in multiclassing between two spellcasting levels that dont stack.

 

[Emiricol]

I'm guessing you've never played a spellcaster in 3E up to 20th level, then. The loss of a few spell levels is a HUGE disadvantage. Low DCs, lesser power, and a host of other reasons why a Wiz10/CLR10 is much less effective. You should lose some power, certainly, but here, you lose far too much, IMHO.

And as for the mystic theurge...he hardly is the uber monster that he was originally expected to be, after the details of the various changes to buff spells and different feats became known. Strong, perhaps, but he's not going to outperform a Wiz20 or CLR20 at equivelant levels. He'll always be behind the curve..but more versatile than either one. He sacrifices power for flexibility. As it should be.

Is the MT a patch over a hole in the multi-classing rules? Yes, he is. But I have yet to hear of a better solution, so there we are.

In your example you use the idea of a PC that has evenly split its effot between two casting classes, and complain that it is not equal to a pure Wiz20 or Clr20 in those spell types? Yes, yes that is so. And it should be so. A wiz10 spell should not be equal to a wiz20 spell.

I guess I'm confused as to why this is a problem. The system isn't broken. It is just that casters who want to reach the pinnacles of power for their level have to focus on doing that one thing and doing it well. Which IMHO fits the class concept very nicely.

 

[drnuncheon]

Two words: Mystic Theurge.

Andy Colins even admits to "pushing the envelope" with it. The problem is, you shouldn't be pusing the envelope in the core rules. You should be setting the base line.

Context, please? IIRC - and it's been a while since I read the post in question - Andy was saying he was "pushing the envelope" on what he thought people would accept, not necessarily on what the actual power level of the class was.

The two are very different things.

J

 

[Jeph]

The iconic fighter has three levels of rogue.

 

[mmu1]

that would make sense IF we were discussing a fighter/wizard combination. We arent. We are discussing a cleric /wizard combination. So to use your own argument, yes compared to a 20th level wizard OR a 20th level Cleric, a 10/10 level cleric is a victim.
He would hardly be noticed alongside the other chararacters in terms of contribution since the only things he can do are what was needed 10 levels ago, and most of his spells would fail due to encounter level 20 SR which would reasonably be in the mid to low 30s

My point is that, compared to a 20th level Wizard or Cleric, anything is a victim, so complaining about a sub-standard multi-class combination like a Wizard/Cleric being weak compared to them doesn't make any sense.

Just because it was a very effective combo in the previous edition, doesn't mean that this has to be the case now. Not all mulit-classes were created equal...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basically, the MT is around to address the problem that spellcasting doesn't advance unless you take levels in the class...

That'd be like getting no BAB for non-'fighter' classes...or no saves whatsoever in things you aren't good at (like...only Ref save bonuses for Rogs and Bards...no one else gets anything!).

Since a Frt/Rog can still up his BAB (just not as quickly as a straight fighter), a Cleric/Wizard should still be able to up his spellcasting ability (just not as quickly as a straight Wizard).

This problem is solved with a PrC that pretty much forces anyone who wants a multiclass Clr/Wiz to take it...and that, IMHO, is the problem. IT's a patch solution for a deeper problem and it means that this PrC is better than any other options out there.

The PrC isn't overpowered, though. The rules kinda assume that a party of 15th level has access to the maximum Wiz and Cleric spells anyway, so it's not going to make encounters any easier...

 

[Hardhead]

Context, please? IIRC - and it's been a while since I read the post in question - Andy was saying he was "pushing the envelope" on what he thought people would accept, not necessarily on what the actual power level of the class was.

Q: Is the pattern shown by the Mystic Theurge that has been described as "2nd Edition multiclassing"--that is, some levels of each class, then both at the same time--going to hold true in other PrCs like the eldritch knight?

A: Now that the designers are more comfortable building prestige classes that push the envelope a bit, I'd imagine you'll see more multiclass-friendly PrCs like the mystic theurge, yes....


WotC itself seems to agree that Mystic Theurge is on the high-end of the PrC power level. Now, I agree that something needed to be done about the spellcasting multiclassing. A Wizard10/Cleric10 *is* very underpowered compared to a Wizard or Cleric 20.

BUT, I think the Mystic Theurge goes too far in the other direction. They are, in terms of spellcasting, only three levels behind both their single-classed counterparts. It's not just a fix, it's pushing the envelope, which is something I don't like seeing in the core books.

 

[slaughterkin]

My point is that, compared to a 20th level Wizard or Cleric, anything is a victim, so complaining about a sub-standard multi-class combination like a Wizard/Cleric being weak compared to them doesn't make any sense.

Well I was using your argument to illustrate that point so you can take that for what its worth.

From listening to your complaint above it sounds like that the problem is that in your opinion the cleric and wizard classes are both overpowered. If that is what you think, we are in agreement on that. That however doesnt mean that the mystic theurge PRC is broken, its mechanic still functions correctly. The problem comes from those two core classes. If you reduce the effectiveness of both the cleric and the wizard classes, the mystic theurge then balances quite nicely with the other classes. And in fact since it seems that that is exactly what 3.5 is attempting to do, I am optimistic that much of the unwarranted and misdirected complaints aobut the mystic theurge will vanish.


As for your comment regarding not all multiclasses being created equal...
no kidding.

However other than the mutually exclusive classes like monk/barbarian or paladin/barbarian which would never occur naturally anyway. mixing multiple casting classes is by far the weakest combinations possible so much so that these characters wont even be able to contribute significantly at equal level tables.
That means some sort of fix was needed. Whether or not an alteration to the rules for stacking spell casting classes would have been preferable over a quick fix of a prestige class is beyond what I wish to discuss, but you can probably guess my opinion.

 

[bret]

Time to look at this from a slightly different perspective.

A Rogue10/Fighter 10 can be an effective character. The BAB, saving throws, feats and skills stack. You are getting them at different rates with the two classes, but the character can still be effective in a 20th level group.

A Bard10/Wizard10 is not competitive. Even though they are both arcane spellcasters, leveling in one doesn't help much with the other. If instead of caster level you used Spellcraft skill, perhaps you would have something. As it is, the spells don't pierce Spell Resistence, don't have the range, don't have the duration, and you are missing all the higher level spells.

Multiclassing spellcasters hurts them more than 'mundane' classes because they get *no* advancement in their main ability (spellcasting) when they go up in a different class.

The 'fix' that 3.5e suggests for this is to make a PrC for every combination of classes. I have to agree that this is not a very satisfying solution.

It isn't just a problem for those who split evenly. Someone who is 2/3 rogue, 1/3 wziard also has this problem. Arcane Trickster does a fair job of handling the person that is more arcane caster than rogue, but there isn't a good PrC for a rogue that dabbles in magic.

I happen to agree that a multitude of PrC is not a good fix for the problem of multi-classed spellcasters.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, I think D&D needs to go the next step and give some alternate abilities [as was done with the Star Wars archetypes]. Otherwise, it's just a half-page chart breaking down the progression of a ranger/barbarian, plus a little flavor text.

But take that same ranger/barbarian and give him something different --- say, instead of getting his barbarian damage reduction, he gets powers related to his totem animal --- and then you have something interesting.

True. But by the look of this thread is going, we're the only few that are talking about it. The others are not seriously considering it.

Again, sad.