Developer's Roundtable: Mystic Theurge

[Gez]

Monte complains that the PrC has no more flavor than a multiclass, but I think it's logical, and even wanted -- the PrC is there to be taken by any and all multiclassed arcane/divine (unless they are more interested by the special abilities, like bardic music, undead turning, or wildshape). Giving it a flavor would have been restricting the class unecessarily; it don't need more flavor than a straight class.

Flavor has to be seeked in True Necromancer (useless if you're a druid/diviner multiclass), Geomancer, and Hallowed Mage. These three are classes with flavor, but these flavor leave so much arcane/divine multiclass combos out it's painful.

About prereqs: I would not heighten them (to the contrary, I would replace them by arcane and divine spellcaster level 3, like some item creation feat, rather than by spell level castable -- this would make the PrC easier to qualify for by sorcerers, bards, paladins and rangers). I agree making a class suck for the first levels is not a good idea -- especially given that many characters are started directly at high level.

It's better to remove their twin "+1 level" at level 4 and 8.

 

[Deadguy]

I think I have broadly to agree with RangerWickett. There's a fundamental flaw in the mechanics of multi-classing spellcasters compared with physical combatants. Creating a Prestige Class as a workaround is not a very smart idea. I think they needed to be more courageous and bite the bullet, even for this 3.5 version, and look again at the mechanics of multi-class casting.

Ryan presents one option, which may be regarded as the ultimate solution. It's probably a little too drastic for D&D, though personally I would support it (or perhaps a version that had 'pure' and 'semi' spellcaster progressions).

I really do sympathise with the designers - it isn't easy coming up with a solution that isn't either weak or a munchkin's wet dream. But to use (misuse?) one set of game systems (the prestige Class mechanic) to fix another (the spellcaster muliti-class mechanic) doesn't seem wise. It has the feel of a classic engineering kludge - it'll work for now but lead to more problems than it fixes down the line.

 

[Psion]

SKR wrote:
Which says to me that 3.0 and 3.5 aren't as compatible as they're saying they are.

I think I said that a while ago.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I really wish they would have built the Dweomerkeeper from Faiths and Pantheons around the concept of a cleric/mage. This class would have fit perfectly the flavor of a specialty priest of Mystra.

 

[Technik4]

Possible Fix

I have been mulling over the problem of mixed spellcasters since this mystic theurge business began, and I have presented a "fix" of my own in the house rules forum. Basically it takes what one level of mystic theurge does, but it is a feat instead of a prc. It is also more general, so it allows for sor/wiz or drd/clr which the mystic theurge does not.

Go take a look:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46958

As far as the prc as presented? Personally Im somewhere inbetween "just right" and "slightly too powerful". I think it addresses and patches the problem, but would lead to too many "spin-off" prcs: Arcane Theurgist, Divine Theurgist, etc. I also agree it lacks flavor, but it is almost begging for flavor to be added to it (which as others have said, is somewhat visible in all the DMG prcs).

Technik

 

[Celtavian]

Re

They could have even halved one type of spell advancement and still had a very attractive class. Gain +1 arcane caster level every level and +1 divine caster level every two levels. I would still take the class with this kind of advancement. If the MyT proves too powerful, that is probably the house rule I will use to balance it out.

 

[Ratama]

If Monte really said this, he needs [edit]a hug[/edit].

This...

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.

...directly contradicts his *following paragraph*...

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.

...not to mention the fact that a Wiz7/Clr3/MT10 would get 7th level clerical spells (I'm sure he meant 8th).

Anyway, one paragraph he thinks requiring 3rd level arcane and divine spells is peachy, the next he's saying that characters that start artificially sucky (hello, Wiz5/Clr5!) just to get a payoff later should be avoided.

Monte; thanks to a MC system that you are at least partly responsible for, playing a Wiz3/Clr is enough of a kick in the pants already; stop kicking, please.

 

[Technik4]

Note:

Almost all of those posts were taken out of context (some between SKR and Andy Collins were pretty much in reply to each other) so if they seem contradictory its probably because they are referring to a different aspect of a discussion about this class.

I dont think anyone intentionally made multiclassed spellcasters bad, thats just the result of a new edition, so please dont mock/sully/insult any of these designers. If it werent for them you might not be posting to this board.

Furthermore, they are not hiding behind internet personas, I dont think you would talk to them like that if you met them in person, so show the same respect on the boards.

Technik

 

[heirodule]

Monte Cook
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.

1. so It doesn't break the class

2. Actually this gives it alot of cool flavor. The one class that can make the maximal use of metamagic feats!

So you end up taking it not for the abilities "listed on the page", but for the ones that are there by implication. A "cool combo" which makes the whole better than the sum of the parts.

Ok, so they're designing D&D loke they design magic cards, but that isn't necessarily bad.

 

[Grazzt]

After following the above debates on ENWorld (in the Mystic Theurge thread), on SKR's boards, Monte's boards, and Andy Collin's boards, I guess I am in the camp of those that think it is too powerful as written (SKR's camp I guess ).

Sure losing access to certain things sucks, but c'mon, ya still get to advance two spellcasting classes each time you gain a level of Mystic Theurge. And the entry costs are not that big a deal. I completely agree with Monte on the point that the requirements should be stiffer (like Wiz3/Clr3 or whatever).

Ah well, just my opinion, I guess.