Compiled from:
Monte's Board
Andy Collins' Board
SKR's Board
Enworld Board
Its 2v2, Any Collins and Jonathon Tweet vs SKR and Monte Cook! Andy and Jonathon seem in full support, Monte is on the boards, and SKR is against. Discuss some more!
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.
Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.
To qualify, the character must be Clr3/Wiz3 or thereabouts. This character is dramatically weaker than either a Clr6 or a Wiz6. He doesn't have access to 3rd-level spells (unlike the 6th-level caster). 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.
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.
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.
Oh, and he also gives up the special abilities of the class. No more turning or bonus feats, thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Andy Collins
RPG Designer/Developer
Wizards of the Coast R&D
Hello, was directed here from Andy's reply on my boards.
{Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).}
Because they needed it. Those types of characters gained so much from multiclassing it was ridiculous.
{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.]
D&D rewards specialization. It's supposed to be that way. Or can we expect a class that lets a fighter advance both his melee and ranged feat progression at the same rate?
{Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.}
An incredible amount of versatility.
Check out this spreadsheet I made:
www.seankreynolds.com/mt/
If you get into the class ASAP, by the time you end the class you have more than a third more spells per day than the equivalent Clr of your character level (136%), and almost twice as many spells per day as the equivalent wizard (189%).
{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.}
Except that he makes up for it in the dozens of extra spells per day he can cast to either buff up his friends before/during a fight or heal them afterwards.
{Another hidden problem is that the character has one extra mental ability score to max out.}
Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells. This is an excellent class for the Int 18/Wis 12 Wiz/Clr who wants to be able to heal his buddies a ton. Plus, stat-boosting items are still going to be commonly avaliable, and most mystic theurges ought to be able to get away with only a +2 or at most a +4 item in their secondary spellcasting stat at the highest levels.
(For example, a Clr5/Wiz5/MT10 would have access to 8th-level spells in both Clr and Wiz. Using the standard array you could put a 15 in Wis, ability increases at 4/8/12 to bring that to 18. Put a 12 in Int, use ability increases at 16/20 to bring that to 14, and buy a headband of intellect +4 for 16,000 gp ... trivial compared to her 760,000 gp worth of gear for being 20th level. Throw in another 16,000 gp for a periapt of wisdom +4 and she's at Wis 22, very close to our Clr20, yet our multiclassed character has access to 8th-level spells in two classes and has 1/3 more spells per day than Clr20.)
{Oh, and he also gives up the special abilities of the class. No more turning or bonus feats, thanks!}
True. But not critical losses. After all, the stance is that it's nice to have a cleric handy for an undead encounter, but the CR assumes you don't, yes? And turning at higher levels becomes pointless anyway because of the higher HD relative to CR and the preponderance of turn resistance.
And, as "mmu1" said on the ENworld boards, "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."
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).}
Sean: Because they needed it. Those types of characters gained so much from multiclassing it was ridiculous.
Andy: The *results* allowed by the rules for such characters were ridiculous (because the multiclass rules in previous editions of AD&D were bogus), but the archetypes aren't.
{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.]
Sean: D&D rewards specialization. It's supposed to be that way. Or can we expect a class that lets a fighter advance both his melee and ranged feat progression at the same rate?
Andy: That's usually true, but not always. There are a number of classes that present general approaches (including bard and ranger). This is another of those.
And what you've just described? It's the fighter class.
{Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.}
Sean: An incredible amount of versatility.
If you get into the class ASAP, by the time you end the class you have more than a third more spells per day than the equivalent Clr of your character level (136%), and almost twice as many spells per day as the equivalent wizard (189%).
Andy: Not to be flip, but that's the point. The character gives away his most powerful spells in order to get a bunch of weaker ones.
{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.}
Sean: Except that he makes up for it in the dozens of extra spells per day he can cast to either buff up his friends before/during a fight or heal them afterwards.
Andy: Again, that's the point--you make up for the power you give up by gaining extra versatility. In a given fight, you're less powerful. Over the long haul, you're more versatile.
Here's a funny little irony I've noticed: A chief concern I've encountered with spell point systems is that they let characters "trade away" their low-level spells to get extra high-level spells, which is "too good." This class does *the opposite* (trade away high-level spells to get extra low-level spells) and yet it's also "too good." Huh?
{Another hidden problem is that the character has one extra mental ability score to max out.}
Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells.
Andy: Which makes him even weaker.
Most single-classed spellcasters I see aim to have a high enough ability score in his spellcasting stat to get at least one bonus spell of every spell level. That's a minimum 14 at 3rd level, 16 at 5th level, 18 at 7th, 20 at 9th, 22 at 11th, 24 at 13th, 26 at 15th, and 28 at 17th and higher. Assuming a 15 at 1st level and 5 stat increases, this character requires a +6 booster and a +2 book (total cost 91K gp).
To pull off a that trick with two stats is much harder. Assume you start with 15, 14--that means you need a total of 27 additional points. OK, the first 5 are free (regular stat increases). 12 from two +6 stat boosters is 72K. The next 10 likely have to come from wishes (urk!) or the stat-boosting books (two +5 books cost a total of 275K gp). That's nearly 350,000 gp, or almost half of what a typical 20th-level character has.
Sean: And, as "mmu1" said on the ENworld boards, "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."
Andy: See, this is why it's a bad idea to release *any* new material out of context, because it assumes that "all else remains equal." For instance, a Wiz13/Rog3 looks like a pretty bad choice when a (balanced) arcane trickster class is available...
Andy Collins
RPG Designer/Developer
Wizards of the Coast R&D
{The *results* allowed by the rules for such characters were ridiculous (because the multiclass rules in previous editions of AD&D were bogus), but the archetypes aren't.}
True. So let's not bring them back in their previous bogus state, shall we?
{Andy: That's usually true, but not always. There are a number of classes that present general approaches (including bard and ranger). This is another of those.}
Those are base classes. We're talking about prestige classes, which are supposed to be less general, more specific (and rewarded for their specificity):
"Prestige classes allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus them in specific, interesting directions. A character with a prestige class is more specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one." - DMG
{And what you've just described? It's the fighter class.}
No, it's not. If a fighter can take 21 fighter feats over the course of his 20 levels, he might spend 10 on melee on 10 on ranged. Or he could spend 20 on melee. The fighter equivalent of the MT is a p-class in which you take 3 levels in something else, then get to have 20 melee feats and 20 ranged feats. Remember, with 10 levels in the MT class you give up 3 levels of spellcasting in your primary spellcasting class, and -- in addition to gaining 10 levels in your primary spellcasting class -- in exchange gain 10 spellcasting levels in your secondary spellcasting class. Balanced????
{Andy: Not to be flip, but that's the point. The character gives away his most powerful spells in order to get a bunch of weaker ones.}
{Andy: Again, that's the point--you make up for the power you give up by gaining extra versatility. In a given fight, you're less powerful. Over the long haul, you're more versatile.}
{Here's a funny little irony I've noticed: A chief concern I've encountered with spell point systems is that they let characters "trade away" their low-level spells to get extra high-level spells, which is "too good." This class does *the opposite* (trade away high-level spells to get extra low-level spells) and yet it's also "too good." Huh?}
Don't sidetrack, dude. If having lots of spells compared to higher level spells is fine, then the wiz10/clr10 is fine as it is and you don't need to make a special prestige class that makes it even better.
{{Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells.}}
{Andy: Which makes him even weaker.}
Only because you guys aren't fixing metamagic.
And with the Silent Spell feat, the MT can use all of his wizards spells in armor. So much for that being a restriction....
{Andy: See, this is why it's a bad idea to release *any* new material out of context, because it assumes that "all else remains equal." For instance, a Wiz13/Rog3 looks like a pretty bad choice when a (balanced) arcane trickster class is available...}
OK, give me page numbers for the 3.5 PH and DMG playtest printouts (which I have, thank you NDA) that would put this material in context and convince me that this class isn't broken.
Because if you guys are honestly telling me that this class isn't broken, then classes like the FRCS Hathran (which also requires two spellcasting classes, has more difficult prereqs, and advances only one of those spellcasting classes ... oh, and which passed by the Rules Council, when you were on it, with flying colors) are abysmally weak.
And therefore 3.5 is not nearly as compatible with 3.0 as Ted Stark is claiming it is.
So ...?
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{True, but the quote from the DMG 3.0 may be changing.}
True. Which means that they're changing the reasons why prestige classes exist in the game.
(Which means they're tweaking what some might consider a core tenet of the game -- specificity is rewarded.)
Which says to me that 3.0 and 3.5 aren't as compatible as they're saying they are.
{At least, I hope it's changing, if new prestige classes designed to make multiclass combinations more powerful exist.}
I'd rather they go with the existing definition than make a new one and invalidate the balance of power from the previous, more-playtested edition. After all, 3.5 is the edition where they decided to not revise metamagic because they didn't have time to playtest it properly, but apparently had time to playtest the results of redefining the skill and feat progressions for all 300 monsters in the Monster Manual _and_ determine new CRs for them as well.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
While I didn't write up the Mystic Theurge, I've been trying to get people to design prestige classes like it for years, and it turned out pretty much as I wanted it to. It's basically like the Arcane Trickster: clearly better than just taking wizard levels, but you have to pay an up-front cost (giving up top-level spells) in order to qualify.
Andy made a bunch of good points on the power balance. He says that standard multiclassing is too punishing for cleric/wizards, while Sean says that 2E multiclassing was too good for cleric/wizards. They're both right, which is why the mystic theurge is 3 levels behind in spellcaster level rather than 1 level behind (like 2E) or a bunchy-bunch of levels behind (like 3E cleric/wizard).
The one thing that I can add to a pretty thorough discussion is the concept of "rate" in spellcasting. (I know that it's already come up, but I have to say something.) The MTh has way more spells (at least at higher levels), but the spells they can cast in a round or a combat are weaker. At the end of a combat, the MTh is likely to have more spells left over (which is good) but they're not going to have been able to cast as powerful spells during the combat (which is bad). Their caster level, spell level, and spell penetration are all going to suffer compared to a single-classed spellcaster.
The MTh is going to have more spells to cast ahead of time and less powerful spells in combat. It's a trade-off.
Someone suggested that the MTh, should require 4 levels in arcane and divine spellcasting classes. If the MTh, is too powerful, it's close enough that a tweak like that is all it needs (and even that tweak might be too much).
It may be that years ago we were cool publishing an FR multiclass spellcaster with single-class spell progression. But we know more about how the game balances now than we used to.
-Jonathan Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com
The thing that bugs me the most about it (although I agree the balance is questionable at best) is that it is utterly flavorless and mechanical.
In the fictional reality of the game world, there's nothing about this class that would distinguish it from a multiclass cleric/wizard. (Of course, I'd say the same thing about the Spellsword and a few other classes as well.)
The more I see from WotC, the more I see the disturbing trend of putting mechanics so high over flavor and what I call the "cool factor" that the end result really suffers.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
I'll have to weigh in on the side of the people who think this WotC class is too good.
Here's the class, on the WotC site, apparently going into the new DMG:
www.wizards.com/default.a...rs/archive
Here's a spreadsheet of my analysis of the class:
www.seankreynolds.com/mt/
If you get into the class as early as possible:
1) overall you end up with more spells per day than a single-classed cleric (you start off behind, but that's just because clerics get so many spells per day)
2) you have more spells per day than a single-classed wizard (nearly twice as many when you reach the end of the class)
3) you have more spells per day than a normal multiclassed spellcaster who splits his spellcaster levels evenly
4) you have more total spell levels per day than a single-classed cleric
5) ditto for wizard
6) ditto for even-levels multiclassed spellcaster
(It's slightly less efficient if you don't get into the class right away.)
You get the same skill points as either class (assuming Clr or Wiz) and cleric BAB.
Drawbacks: wizard saves (not as good as cleric), wizard hp (not as good as cleric), you don't get the high-level spells.
But even though you don't get the high-level spells, you get more spells per day _and_ more spell levels than any equivalent caster. It's like getting Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer on every high-level spell slot you aren't getting (i.e., you just get those spell levels for lower level spells). Sure, it hurts to lose Bigby's clenched fist and fire storm, but you make up for it with the extra fireballs and dispel magics you get.
Would this class be reasonable if its premise was "give up your higher level spells in a spellcasting class, get more spells in that class"? Maybe. But certainly not as presented, where you can almost double the number of spells you get. It's a very good option for a cleric and a complete no-brainer for the wizard.
Being able to only cast 1 spell per round may be a limit in higher-level play, but having a ton of extra lower-level slots means you can afford to be generous with booster spells on yourself and allies. And when you can afford to be generous with booster spells, it means you don't need to pay for wands and some booster items, which means you can spend your gear-money on more expensive gear that you can't duplicate with spells.
Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you're a multiclassed div/arc spellcaster, you're going to just fall into the prereqs for this class. The prereqs aren't a price.
Poo.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{The more I see from WotC, the more I see the disturbing trend of putting mechanics so high over flavor and what I call the "cool factor" that the end result really suffers.}
Which, I think, is why WotC is hurt by not actually looting any of its settings for ideas. Settings can inspire a PrC, whereas mechanics may be innovative but not inspiring.
Compare the Guild Wizard of Waterdeep (Magic of Faerun, an FR prestige class) to Tome & Blood's Guild Wizard. One has flavor and is interesting, the other can't have a lot of background material and still be "generic" enough for core D&D. But there isn't that much difference between the classes other than the FR background.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
It's not an April Fool's joke. However, if WotC wants to use that as an excuse to revise the class, I won't blame them. Consider this when thinking about the balance of the class:
When designing a prestige class, sometimes people give a +1 level of spellcasting each level and then also give a little special power each level. Such classes already push the envelope of balance.
In that light, this is a wizard prestige class with a +1 level of spellcasting each level, and the special ability each level is a bunch of extremely flexible clerical type abilities (or druid, or whatever). Sort of a "choose three of the following spelllike abilities you can cast once per day" kind of thing, with the list to choose from basically being an ever increasing list of cleric spells. You'd never design a class that way.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
{First of all, we don't know what changes have been made to the Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Druid classes in 3.5. So to a certain extent the naysayers are comparing apples and oranges. For example, it's possible that they've added bonus feats to the sorcerer progression.}
We've been told the cleric and wizard are essentially unchanged. Those two classes are the ones I've been using in my analysis. Given that my analysis shows that the class is two good with those two classes, my concerns are valid: if clr/wiz/MT is a too-good combo, that's one combo too many that's too good.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Monte-
What a pleasure it is still to be debating D&D rules with you after all these years! I'm glad you're still thickly involved in D&D, helping to make it better and better. While I could find plenty of posts you make that I agree with, how interesting would that be? You and I never saw prestige classes quite the same way, and the mystic theurge is a case in point.
<<When designing a prestige class, sometimes people give a +1 level of spellcasting each level and then also give a little special power each level. Such classes already push the envelope of balance.>>
That's half right. These classes push the envelope if the costs to enter them are low. You could easily imagine a prestige class, however, in which you got uninterrupted spell progression, but it was a weak class, provided the costs to enter were high enough. Imagine the "enraged arcanist" prestige class for half-orc barbarian/wizards. If you had to spend five levels in barbarian to qualify, and you got full wizard spell progression, it would be a weak class, even with some special abilities thrown in. (Probably even with full barbarian class ability progression thrown in.)
<<In that light, this is a wizard prestige class with a +1 level of spellcasting each level, and the special ability each level is a bunch of extremely flexible clerical type abilities (or druid, or whatever). Sort of a "choose three of the following spelllike abilities you can cast once per day" kind of thing, with the list to choose from basically being an ever increasing list of cleric spells. You'd never design a class that way. >>
This is an excellent way to think about the class and it helps clarify the power issues involved. Imagine you got everything a wizard got plus ever-better special abilities. That would be broken, unless the price you paid to enter the class was substantial, and the price also rose over time (just as the special abilities get better over time). It's no coincidence that this is a fair description of the MTh. The cost of 3 cleric levels (or whatever) is substantial to the wizard. It's a loss of your top 1 or 2 levels of wizard spells. As the character increases in level, this cost gets bigger because it's more and more powerful spells that you're missing out on.
Imagine that that MTh had to cast 4th-level divine and arcane spells. It would be really bad because it would be 3 or 4 spell levels behind single-classed casters of the same character level. Nevertheless, your analysis of the class would be identical. That's because your analysis does not take into account the cost of entering the class.
In the same way, one can't say that a Magic card is too good just because it deals 10 damage to a creature or player. The question is, what's its cost?
It may be that the MTh, is too powerful, but in any case your analysis doesn't demonstrate that it is. To demonstrate that it's too powerful, you have to take the cost into account, not just the benefits. In the case of the MTh, the cost is the best part of your best class feature (a spellcaster's highest level spells).
-Jonathan Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com
Welcome, Jonathan!
First off, since I haven't said it, I think the goal behind the Mystic Theurge is great. Its a role that's much needed. That said...
It's certainly true that my previous post didn't mention the costs, which I agree are not inconsiderable. Before I go any further, let's make sure you're not putting other people's arguments in my mouth. I've never said that the MT was broken. I said the balance was "questionable at best." I still feel that's true--no more, or no less.
I also said was that the class is flavorless (which I think is pretty undeniable) and that there was nothing about it in the fictional reality of the game world that could distinguish a MT from a multiclass character (which I know is undeniable). These are design issues, but not balance issues.
Lastly, I said "You wouldn't design a class that way." What I should have said was "I wouldn't design a class that way."
My issue with the class are the sheer breadth of power it has. I'm well acquainted with the idea of giving up your high level spells for more low level spells. It's the basis for the prestige class I created for Dragon a couple years ago called the Eldritch Master. The MT, however, has far, far more spells that the EM.
Having a huge number of spells throws off the balance of things like metamagic feats, for example, because the real limitation of metamagic feats is how many spells you have. A Wiz3/Clr3/MT6, for example, could easily afford to still all of his wizard spells (he's already behind a bit in level, and his dozens cleric spells more than make up for the loss in power of a few 4th level spells--and he keeps his cleric 4th level spells) and thus wear armor. No single class wizard would do so. Is that enough to break the class? Probably not.
Another example of a mechanic balanced by how many spells you have is the clerical ability to switch out spells for cures. A MT would use this ability far more freely, because he's got all those wizard spells to fall back on. A game breaker? Maybe not.
Ultimately, I think it's right on the line. Is it actually too good? It's so close I'd need to see it in play for a while to tell, to be honest. Is suspect that there are other hidden changes to the subtle balancing of spellcasters that the MT might throw off. But I don't know.
(One point in favor of the balance of the MT is that at really high levels, the caster's going to have, most likely, far more spells than he can even cast in a day. Even if he quickens a fair number of them. That's a "ha ha fooled you" kind of balance though, making the class simply less fun.)
Regarding cost (finally), I do see the price a caster pays (as some other poster noted, it's not nearly as high as one pays with a normal multiclass, thus creating no choice between multiclassing and the MT--that might not be so bad, I suppose, since C/W multiclassing is soooo bad). I wonder, however, if this class doesn't put too much value on your small number of top end spells. Are 5th level spells so amazingly great that it balances having lots of 3rd levels (for that matter, are 6th level spells so great that it balances having lots of 3rds)? I think the answer is: maybe.
Ultimately, when it comes to the cost, I ask myself, would I take this class if the requirements were 3rd level arcane/2nd level divine spells (rather than 2nd/2nd). The answer is: yes, absolutely. Doesn't change a thing. What if the requirements were 3rd/3rd? Hmm. Now I'll never get 9th level spells (but I will get 7th level divine, which I wouldn't as a Wiz7/Clr3/MT10) The answer is: maybe. But I'd have to really be committed to being both a divine and arcane caster to do it--which, it would seem, is really the whole point of the MT.
Lastly, I must point out that the whole thing does remind me of what we once agreed (I think) was bad about the 1E and 2E wizard--that the class' balance was based on the idea that you play a sucky character for a few levels and then--right around 5th level--you suddenly have a really good character. That's still, in my mind, not a fun to play character path.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
Monte's Board
Andy Collins' Board
SKR's Board
Enworld Board
Its 2v2, Any Collins and Jonathon Tweet vs SKR and Monte Cook! Andy and Jonathon seem in full support, Monte is on the boards, and SKR is against. Discuss some more!
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.
Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.
To qualify, the character must be Clr3/Wiz3 or thereabouts. This character is dramatically weaker than either a Clr6 or a Wiz6. He doesn't have access to 3rd-level spells (unlike the 6th-level caster). 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.
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.
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.
Oh, and he also gives up the special abilities of the class. No more turning or bonus feats, thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Andy Collins
RPG Designer/Developer
Wizards of the Coast R&D
Hello, was directed here from Andy's reply on my boards.
{Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).}
Because they needed it. Those types of characters gained so much from multiclassing it was ridiculous.
{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.]
D&D rewards specialization. It's supposed to be that way. Or can we expect a class that lets a fighter advance both his melee and ranged feat progression at the same rate?
{Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.}
An incredible amount of versatility.
Check out this spreadsheet I made:
www.seankreynolds.com/mt/
If you get into the class ASAP, by the time you end the class you have more than a third more spells per day than the equivalent Clr of your character level (136%), and almost twice as many spells per day as the equivalent wizard (189%).
{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.}
Except that he makes up for it in the dozens of extra spells per day he can cast to either buff up his friends before/during a fight or heal them afterwards.
{Another hidden problem is that the character has one extra mental ability score to max out.}
Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells. This is an excellent class for the Int 18/Wis 12 Wiz/Clr who wants to be able to heal his buddies a ton. Plus, stat-boosting items are still going to be commonly avaliable, and most mystic theurges ought to be able to get away with only a +2 or at most a +4 item in their secondary spellcasting stat at the highest levels.
(For example, a Clr5/Wiz5/MT10 would have access to 8th-level spells in both Clr and Wiz. Using the standard array you could put a 15 in Wis, ability increases at 4/8/12 to bring that to 18. Put a 12 in Int, use ability increases at 16/20 to bring that to 14, and buy a headband of intellect +4 for 16,000 gp ... trivial compared to her 760,000 gp worth of gear for being 20th level. Throw in another 16,000 gp for a periapt of wisdom +4 and she's at Wis 22, very close to our Clr20, yet our multiclassed character has access to 8th-level spells in two classes and has 1/3 more spells per day than Clr20.)
{Oh, and he also gives up the special abilities of the class. No more turning or bonus feats, thanks!}
True. But not critical losses. After all, the stance is that it's nice to have a cleric handy for an undead encounter, but the CR assumes you don't, yes? And turning at higher levels becomes pointless anyway because of the higher HD relative to CR and the preponderance of turn resistance.
And, as "mmu1" said on the ENworld boards, "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."
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{Cool archetypes from past versions of the games--fighter/wizards, cleric/wizards, and the like--were kicked in the groin (repeatedly).}
Sean: Because they needed it. Those types of characters gained so much from multiclassing it was ridiculous.
Andy: The *results* allowed by the rules for such characters were ridiculous (because the multiclass rules in previous editions of AD&D were bogus), but the archetypes aren't.
{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.]
Sean: D&D rewards specialization. It's supposed to be that way. Or can we expect a class that lets a fighter advance both his melee and ranged feat progression at the same rate?
Andy: That's usually true, but not always. There are a number of classes that present general approaches (including bard and ranger). This is another of those.
And what you've just described? It's the fighter class.
{Compare the spellcasting power of a mystic theurge to a single-classed character at various levels, and you'll see that the theurge character merely trades power for versatility.}
Sean: An incredible amount of versatility.
If you get into the class ASAP, by the time you end the class you have more than a third more spells per day than the equivalent Clr of your character level (136%), and almost twice as many spells per day as the equivalent wizard (189%).
Andy: Not to be flip, but that's the point. The character gives away his most powerful spells in order to get a bunch of weaker ones.
{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.}
Sean: Except that he makes up for it in the dozens of extra spells per day he can cast to either buff up his friends before/during a fight or heal them afterwards.
Andy: Again, that's the point--you make up for the power you give up by gaining extra versatility. In a given fight, you're less powerful. Over the long haul, you're more versatile.
Here's a funny little irony I've noticed: A chief concern I've encountered with spell point systems is that they let characters "trade away" their low-level spells to get extra high-level spells, which is "too good." This class does *the opposite* (trade away high-level spells to get extra low-level spells) and yet it's also "too good." Huh?
{Another hidden problem is that the character has one extra mental ability score to max out.}
Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells.
Andy: Which makes him even weaker.
Most single-classed spellcasters I see aim to have a high enough ability score in his spellcasting stat to get at least one bonus spell of every spell level. That's a minimum 14 at 3rd level, 16 at 5th level, 18 at 7th, 20 at 9th, 22 at 11th, 24 at 13th, 26 at 15th, and 28 at 17th and higher. Assuming a 15 at 1st level and 5 stat increases, this character requires a +6 booster and a +2 book (total cost 91K gp).
To pull off a that trick with two stats is much harder. Assume you start with 15, 14--that means you need a total of 27 additional points. OK, the first 5 are free (regular stat increases). 12 from two +6 stat boosters is 72K. The next 10 likely have to come from wishes (urk!) or the stat-boosting books (two +5 books cost a total of 275K gp). That's nearly 350,000 gp, or almost half of what a typical 20th-level character has.
Sean: And, as "mmu1" said on the ENworld boards, "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."
Andy: See, this is why it's a bad idea to release *any* new material out of context, because it assumes that "all else remains equal." For instance, a Wiz13/Rog3 looks like a pretty bad choice when a (balanced) arcane trickster class is available...
Andy Collins
RPG Designer/Developer
Wizards of the Coast R&D
{The *results* allowed by the rules for such characters were ridiculous (because the multiclass rules in previous editions of AD&D were bogus), but the archetypes aren't.}
True. So let's not bring them back in their previous bogus state, shall we?
{Andy: That's usually true, but not always. There are a number of classes that present general approaches (including bard and ranger). This is another of those.}
Those are base classes. We're talking about prestige classes, which are supposed to be less general, more specific (and rewarded for their specificity):
"Prestige classes allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus them in specific, interesting directions. A character with a prestige class is more specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one." - DMG
{And what you've just described? It's the fighter class.}
No, it's not. If a fighter can take 21 fighter feats over the course of his 20 levels, he might spend 10 on melee on 10 on ranged. Or he could spend 20 on melee. The fighter equivalent of the MT is a p-class in which you take 3 levels in something else, then get to have 20 melee feats and 20 ranged feats. Remember, with 10 levels in the MT class you give up 3 levels of spellcasting in your primary spellcasting class, and -- in addition to gaining 10 levels in your primary spellcasting class -- in exchange gain 10 spellcasting levels in your secondary spellcasting class. Balanced????
{Andy: Not to be flip, but that's the point. The character gives away his most powerful spells in order to get a bunch of weaker ones.}
{Andy: Again, that's the point--you make up for the power you give up by gaining extra versatility. In a given fight, you're less powerful. Over the long haul, you're more versatile.}
{Here's a funny little irony I've noticed: A chief concern I've encountered with spell point systems is that they let characters "trade away" their low-level spells to get extra high-level spells, which is "too good." This class does *the opposite* (trade away high-level spells to get extra low-level spells) and yet it's also "too good." Huh?}
Don't sidetrack, dude. If having lots of spells compared to higher level spells is fine, then the wiz10/clr10 is fine as it is and you don't need to make a special prestige class that makes it even better.
{{Not really. He can always opt to use those slots for lower-level spells, or even metamagicked spells.}}
{Andy: Which makes him even weaker.}
Only because you guys aren't fixing metamagic.
And with the Silent Spell feat, the MT can use all of his wizards spells in armor. So much for that being a restriction....
{Andy: See, this is why it's a bad idea to release *any* new material out of context, because it assumes that "all else remains equal." For instance, a Wiz13/Rog3 looks like a pretty bad choice when a (balanced) arcane trickster class is available...}
OK, give me page numbers for the 3.5 PH and DMG playtest printouts (which I have, thank you NDA) that would put this material in context and convince me that this class isn't broken.
Because if you guys are honestly telling me that this class isn't broken, then classes like the FRCS Hathran (which also requires two spellcasting classes, has more difficult prereqs, and advances only one of those spellcasting classes ... oh, and which passed by the Rules Council, when you were on it, with flying colors) are abysmally weak.
And therefore 3.5 is not nearly as compatible with 3.0 as Ted Stark is claiming it is.
So ...?
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{True, but the quote from the DMG 3.0 may be changing.}
True. Which means that they're changing the reasons why prestige classes exist in the game.
(Which means they're tweaking what some might consider a core tenet of the game -- specificity is rewarded.)
Which says to me that 3.0 and 3.5 aren't as compatible as they're saying they are.
{At least, I hope it's changing, if new prestige classes designed to make multiclass combinations more powerful exist.}
I'd rather they go with the existing definition than make a new one and invalidate the balance of power from the previous, more-playtested edition. After all, 3.5 is the edition where they decided to not revise metamagic because they didn't have time to playtest it properly, but apparently had time to playtest the results of redefining the skill and feat progressions for all 300 monsters in the Monster Manual _and_ determine new CRs for them as well.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
While I didn't write up the Mystic Theurge, I've been trying to get people to design prestige classes like it for years, and it turned out pretty much as I wanted it to. It's basically like the Arcane Trickster: clearly better than just taking wizard levels, but you have to pay an up-front cost (giving up top-level spells) in order to qualify.
Andy made a bunch of good points on the power balance. He says that standard multiclassing is too punishing for cleric/wizards, while Sean says that 2E multiclassing was too good for cleric/wizards. They're both right, which is why the mystic theurge is 3 levels behind in spellcaster level rather than 1 level behind (like 2E) or a bunchy-bunch of levels behind (like 3E cleric/wizard).
The one thing that I can add to a pretty thorough discussion is the concept of "rate" in spellcasting. (I know that it's already come up, but I have to say something.) The MTh has way more spells (at least at higher levels), but the spells they can cast in a round or a combat are weaker. At the end of a combat, the MTh is likely to have more spells left over (which is good) but they're not going to have been able to cast as powerful spells during the combat (which is bad). Their caster level, spell level, and spell penetration are all going to suffer compared to a single-classed spellcaster.
The MTh is going to have more spells to cast ahead of time and less powerful spells in combat. It's a trade-off.
Someone suggested that the MTh, should require 4 levels in arcane and divine spellcasting classes. If the MTh, is too powerful, it's close enough that a tweak like that is all it needs (and even that tweak might be too much).
It may be that years ago we were cool publishing an FR multiclass spellcaster with single-class spell progression. But we know more about how the game balances now than we used to.
-Jonathan Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com
The thing that bugs me the most about it (although I agree the balance is questionable at best) is that it is utterly flavorless and mechanical.
In the fictional reality of the game world, there's nothing about this class that would distinguish it from a multiclass cleric/wizard. (Of course, I'd say the same thing about the Spellsword and a few other classes as well.)
The more I see from WotC, the more I see the disturbing trend of putting mechanics so high over flavor and what I call the "cool factor" that the end result really suffers.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
I'll have to weigh in on the side of the people who think this WotC class is too good.
Here's the class, on the WotC site, apparently going into the new DMG:
www.wizards.com/default.a...rs/archive
Here's a spreadsheet of my analysis of the class:
www.seankreynolds.com/mt/
If you get into the class as early as possible:
1) overall you end up with more spells per day than a single-classed cleric (you start off behind, but that's just because clerics get so many spells per day)
2) you have more spells per day than a single-classed wizard (nearly twice as many when you reach the end of the class)
3) you have more spells per day than a normal multiclassed spellcaster who splits his spellcaster levels evenly
4) you have more total spell levels per day than a single-classed cleric
5) ditto for wizard
6) ditto for even-levels multiclassed spellcaster
(It's slightly less efficient if you don't get into the class right away.)
You get the same skill points as either class (assuming Clr or Wiz) and cleric BAB.
Drawbacks: wizard saves (not as good as cleric), wizard hp (not as good as cleric), you don't get the high-level spells.
But even though you don't get the high-level spells, you get more spells per day _and_ more spell levels than any equivalent caster. It's like getting Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer on every high-level spell slot you aren't getting (i.e., you just get those spell levels for lower level spells). Sure, it hurts to lose Bigby's clenched fist and fire storm, but you make up for it with the extra fireballs and dispel magics you get.
Would this class be reasonable if its premise was "give up your higher level spells in a spellcasting class, get more spells in that class"? Maybe. But certainly not as presented, where you can almost double the number of spells you get. It's a very good option for a cleric and a complete no-brainer for the wizard.
Being able to only cast 1 spell per round may be a limit in higher-level play, but having a ton of extra lower-level slots means you can afford to be generous with booster spells on yourself and allies. And when you can afford to be generous with booster spells, it means you don't need to pay for wands and some booster items, which means you can spend your gear-money on more expensive gear that you can't duplicate with spells.
Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you're a multiclassed div/arc spellcaster, you're going to just fall into the prereqs for this class. The prereqs aren't a price.
Poo.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
{The more I see from WotC, the more I see the disturbing trend of putting mechanics so high over flavor and what I call the "cool factor" that the end result really suffers.}
Which, I think, is why WotC is hurt by not actually looting any of its settings for ideas. Settings can inspire a PrC, whereas mechanics may be innovative but not inspiring.
Compare the Guild Wizard of Waterdeep (Magic of Faerun, an FR prestige class) to Tome & Blood's Guild Wizard. One has flavor and is interesting, the other can't have a lot of background material and still be "generic" enough for core D&D. But there isn't that much difference between the classes other than the FR background.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
It's not an April Fool's joke. However, if WotC wants to use that as an excuse to revise the class, I won't blame them. Consider this when thinking about the balance of the class:
When designing a prestige class, sometimes people give a +1 level of spellcasting each level and then also give a little special power each level. Such classes already push the envelope of balance.
In that light, this is a wizard prestige class with a +1 level of spellcasting each level, and the special ability each level is a bunch of extremely flexible clerical type abilities (or druid, or whatever). Sort of a "choose three of the following spelllike abilities you can cast once per day" kind of thing, with the list to choose from basically being an ever increasing list of cleric spells. You'd never design a class that way.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
{First of all, we don't know what changes have been made to the Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Druid classes in 3.5. So to a certain extent the naysayers are comparing apples and oranges. For example, it's possible that they've added bonus feats to the sorcerer progression.}
We've been told the cleric and wizard are essentially unchanged. Those two classes are the ones I've been using in my analysis. Given that my analysis shows that the class is two good with those two classes, my concerns are valid: if clr/wiz/MT is a too-good combo, that's one combo too many that's too good.
--
Sean K Reynolds
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Monte-
What a pleasure it is still to be debating D&D rules with you after all these years! I'm glad you're still thickly involved in D&D, helping to make it better and better. While I could find plenty of posts you make that I agree with, how interesting would that be? You and I never saw prestige classes quite the same way, and the mystic theurge is a case in point.
<<When designing a prestige class, sometimes people give a +1 level of spellcasting each level and then also give a little special power each level. Such classes already push the envelope of balance.>>
That's half right. These classes push the envelope if the costs to enter them are low. You could easily imagine a prestige class, however, in which you got uninterrupted spell progression, but it was a weak class, provided the costs to enter were high enough. Imagine the "enraged arcanist" prestige class for half-orc barbarian/wizards. If you had to spend five levels in barbarian to qualify, and you got full wizard spell progression, it would be a weak class, even with some special abilities thrown in. (Probably even with full barbarian class ability progression thrown in.)
<<In that light, this is a wizard prestige class with a +1 level of spellcasting each level, and the special ability each level is a bunch of extremely flexible clerical type abilities (or druid, or whatever). Sort of a "choose three of the following spelllike abilities you can cast once per day" kind of thing, with the list to choose from basically being an ever increasing list of cleric spells. You'd never design a class that way. >>
This is an excellent way to think about the class and it helps clarify the power issues involved. Imagine you got everything a wizard got plus ever-better special abilities. That would be broken, unless the price you paid to enter the class was substantial, and the price also rose over time (just as the special abilities get better over time). It's no coincidence that this is a fair description of the MTh. The cost of 3 cleric levels (or whatever) is substantial to the wizard. It's a loss of your top 1 or 2 levels of wizard spells. As the character increases in level, this cost gets bigger because it's more and more powerful spells that you're missing out on.
Imagine that that MTh had to cast 4th-level divine and arcane spells. It would be really bad because it would be 3 or 4 spell levels behind single-classed casters of the same character level. Nevertheless, your analysis of the class would be identical. That's because your analysis does not take into account the cost of entering the class.
In the same way, one can't say that a Magic card is too good just because it deals 10 damage to a creature or player. The question is, what's its cost?
It may be that the MTh, is too powerful, but in any case your analysis doesn't demonstrate that it is. To demonstrate that it's too powerful, you have to take the cost into account, not just the benefits. In the case of the MTh, the cost is the best part of your best class feature (a spellcaster's highest level spells).
-Jonathan Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com
Welcome, Jonathan!
First off, since I haven't said it, I think the goal behind the Mystic Theurge is great. Its a role that's much needed. That said...
It's certainly true that my previous post didn't mention the costs, which I agree are not inconsiderable. Before I go any further, let's make sure you're not putting other people's arguments in my mouth. I've never said that the MT was broken. I said the balance was "questionable at best." I still feel that's true--no more, or no less.
I also said was that the class is flavorless (which I think is pretty undeniable) and that there was nothing about it in the fictional reality of the game world that could distinguish a MT from a multiclass character (which I know is undeniable). These are design issues, but not balance issues.
Lastly, I said "You wouldn't design a class that way." What I should have said was "I wouldn't design a class that way."
My issue with the class are the sheer breadth of power it has. I'm well acquainted with the idea of giving up your high level spells for more low level spells. It's the basis for the prestige class I created for Dragon a couple years ago called the Eldritch Master. The MT, however, has far, far more spells that the EM.
Having a huge number of spells throws off the balance of things like metamagic feats, for example, because the real limitation of metamagic feats is how many spells you have. A Wiz3/Clr3/MT6, for example, could easily afford to still all of his wizard spells (he's already behind a bit in level, and his dozens cleric spells more than make up for the loss in power of a few 4th level spells--and he keeps his cleric 4th level spells) and thus wear armor. No single class wizard would do so. Is that enough to break the class? Probably not.
Another example of a mechanic balanced by how many spells you have is the clerical ability to switch out spells for cures. A MT would use this ability far more freely, because he's got all those wizard spells to fall back on. A game breaker? Maybe not.
Ultimately, I think it's right on the line. Is it actually too good? It's so close I'd need to see it in play for a while to tell, to be honest. Is suspect that there are other hidden changes to the subtle balancing of spellcasters that the MT might throw off. But I don't know.
(One point in favor of the balance of the MT is that at really high levels, the caster's going to have, most likely, far more spells than he can even cast in a day. Even if he quickens a fair number of them. That's a "ha ha fooled you" kind of balance though, making the class simply less fun.)
Regarding cost (finally), I do see the price a caster pays (as some other poster noted, it's not nearly as high as one pays with a normal multiclass, thus creating no choice between multiclassing and the MT--that might not be so bad, I suppose, since C/W multiclassing is soooo bad). I wonder, however, if this class doesn't put too much value on your small number of top end spells. Are 5th level spells so amazingly great that it balances having lots of 3rd levels (for that matter, are 6th level spells so great that it balances having lots of 3rds)? I think the answer is: maybe.
Ultimately, when it comes to the cost, I ask myself, would I take this class if the requirements were 3rd level arcane/2nd level divine spells (rather than 2nd/2nd). The answer is: yes, absolutely. Doesn't change a thing. What if the requirements were 3rd/3rd? Hmm. Now I'll never get 9th level spells (but I will get 7th level divine, which I wouldn't as a Wiz7/Clr3/MT10) The answer is: maybe. But I'd have to really be committed to being both a divine and arcane caster to do it--which, it would seem, is really the whole point of the MT.
Lastly, I must point out that the whole thing does remind me of what we once agreed (I think) was bad about the 1E and 2E wizard--that the class' balance was based on the idea that you play a sucky character for a few levels and then--right around 5th level--you suddenly have a really good character. That's still, in my mind, not a fun to play character path.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com
