-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Developer's Roundtable: Mystic Theurge
- Thread starter Technik4
- Start date
LuYangShih
First Post
Quinn said:
Yeah. Divine and Arcane magic are still seperate forms of magic in 3.5E.
Cloudgatherer
First Post
Re: Re: Makes a weak option viable
Echo above. There needs to be a standard system for multiclass spellcasters. I've seen houserules for stacking caster levels, which has it's own pros/cons, but some kind of system is needed.
Not advocating or criticizing stacking caster levels, just pointing out that it has appeared as a house rule to help alleviate the problem of playing a WizX/ClrX.
Later.
Oni said:
Echo above. There needs to be a standard system for multiclass spellcasters. I've seen houserules for stacking caster levels, which has it's own pros/cons, but some kind of system is needed.
Not advocating or criticizing stacking caster levels, just pointing out that it has appeared as a house rule to help alleviate the problem of playing a WizX/ClrX.
Later.
LuYangShih said:
True, but what would it take to make the system work with 3.5 as a house rule? You could say that all magic comes from one source, and it's a constraint of the classes (cleric vs. wizard) that really divides the spell lists. Assuming the above, if you have levels in both classes, you could conceivably stack the levels.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
FWIW, I have spent the weekend mulling over the class, including trying combos out the wazoo... and found it overpowered. Not game-breakingly so, but noticeably so.
IMO, any of the following 3 "tweaks" fixes it.
1.) Make it a 5-level PrC. (The "Eric Noah" Rule)
2.) Change the spellcasting progression to 3/4 (i.e., no progression at levels 1, 5, and 9) - similar to BAB.
3.) Require the character to select a "focus" - divine or arcane magic. If the Theurge selects "divine" magic, he gets the full allotment of clerical spells per a cleric of his Clr+MTh level. He gets the full allotment of wizard spells per a wizard of his Wiz level. He also gets HALF the allotment of spells beyond those granted by his pure Wiz level that a wizard of level Wiz+MTh would get. Selecting "arcane" as his focus, naturally, switches "Wiz" and "Clr" above. He gets no domain spells except those granted by his levels in Clr (not Clr+MTh).
End result...
A Clr3/Wiz3/MTh10 with a "divine" focus gets:
Clr spells as a Clr13
6/5+1/5+1/4+1/4+1/3+1/2+1/1+1
Total Wiz spells of
4/3/2/2/2/1/1
derived from: Wiz spells as a Wiz3
4/2/1
plus half the "extra" spells from Wiz3 to Wiz13 or IOW half of
0/2/3/4/4/3/2/1
or in other words
0/1/1/2/2/1/1/0 (round down)
Similarly, a Clr3/Wiz3/MTh10 with an arcane focus gets:
Wiz spells:
4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1
Clr spells:
5/3+1/3+1/2/2/1/1/1
Which is Clr3
4/2+1/1+1
plus half of "Extra" Clr spells from 3 to 13:
2/3/4/4/4/3/3/2
half of which is:
1/1/2/2/2/1/1/1
Hope that made sense.
BTW, was I the only one greatly disturbed by a "Magic" reference in terms of "here's why D&D is balanced?" (Don't get me wrong, I think Magic is a nice card game, but I'm not sure we want to try to impose "Magic" on D&D or vice versa).
--The Sigil
IMO, any of the following 3 "tweaks" fixes it.
1.) Make it a 5-level PrC. (The "Eric Noah" Rule)
2.) Change the spellcasting progression to 3/4 (i.e., no progression at levels 1, 5, and 9) - similar to BAB.
3.) Require the character to select a "focus" - divine or arcane magic. If the Theurge selects "divine" magic, he gets the full allotment of clerical spells per a cleric of his Clr+MTh level. He gets the full allotment of wizard spells per a wizard of his Wiz level. He also gets HALF the allotment of spells beyond those granted by his pure Wiz level that a wizard of level Wiz+MTh would get. Selecting "arcane" as his focus, naturally, switches "Wiz" and "Clr" above. He gets no domain spells except those granted by his levels in Clr (not Clr+MTh).
End result...
A Clr3/Wiz3/MTh10 with a "divine" focus gets:
Clr spells as a Clr13
6/5+1/5+1/4+1/4+1/3+1/2+1/1+1
Total Wiz spells of
4/3/2/2/2/1/1
derived from: Wiz spells as a Wiz3
4/2/1
plus half the "extra" spells from Wiz3 to Wiz13 or IOW half of
0/2/3/4/4/3/2/1
or in other words
0/1/1/2/2/1/1/0 (round down)
Similarly, a Clr3/Wiz3/MTh10 with an arcane focus gets:
Wiz spells:
4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1
Clr spells:
5/3+1/3+1/2/2/1/1/1
Which is Clr3
4/2+1/1+1
plus half of "Extra" Clr spells from 3 to 13:
2/3/4/4/4/3/3/2
half of which is:
1/1/2/2/2/1/1/1
Hope that made sense.
BTW, was I the only one greatly disturbed by a "Magic" reference in terms of "here's why D&D is balanced?" (Don't get me wrong, I think Magic is a nice card game, but I'm not sure we want to try to impose "Magic" on D&D or vice versa).
--The Sigil
Graf
Explorer
Psion said:
I think I said that a while ago.
This is the complaint I don't get. What's weird is that some of the smartest folks are bringing it up.
Of course the parts that didn't work well for most people (DR, multi-classing C/W, bards, rangers, skill bonus magic items) aren't going to be the same. They'be be different (hopefully better) and nessessarily not compaitible.
totally baffling.
Greybar
No Trouble at All
If the idea is that the Theurge is a generalist, perhaps one (minor) aspect would be to require that they not be a specialist wizard.
Similiarly perhaps the cleric-side could be required to "surrender" a domain or somesuch.
I'll echo earlier (other thread) comments that part of the problem is that the cleric is so strong, any PrC that a cleric may take makes it even wonkier if you consider the clerics potential full-strength. If we're assuming the cleric loses a number of spells (perhaps equal to their character level) is support of other party members, perhaps that reduces the number-crunching apparent power of the Theurge.
Or maybe I just need more sleep after this whole "spring forward" thing. (non-US people, if that doesn't make sense don't worry)
John
Similiarly perhaps the cleric-side could be required to "surrender" a domain or somesuch.
I'll echo earlier (other thread) comments that part of the problem is that the cleric is so strong, any PrC that a cleric may take makes it even wonkier if you consider the clerics potential full-strength. If we're assuming the cleric loses a number of spells (perhaps equal to their character level) is support of other party members, perhaps that reduces the number-crunching apparent power of the Theurge.
Or maybe I just need more sleep after this whole "spring forward" thing. (non-US people, if that doesn't make sense don't worry)
John
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
First up: Flavour
Personally, I couldn't care less whether a purely mechanical class such as this has flavour or not. I'm one of those people that thinks that any part of any publication which says "here's how your character acts" is a waste of space. PrC's don't need to be linked to flavour. Flavour should stand independant, with references FROM the flavour TO the mechanics, not vice versa. Most red wizards are group-oriented, power-focussed specialists. Most group-oriented, power-focussed specialists are NOT red wizards. Flavour text for the Red Wizard PrC is wasted on anyone not gaming in the realms, or using a similar organisation in their own campaign, one which could be run just as well without the PrC.
That's part of 'options, not restrictions'.
Next: Balance
People seem to be saying "one mystic theurge is better than a wizard, because of all the things he does for the group".
That's not the right comparison. The comparison when you're getting into team-mechanics isn't between the power balance of each individual making up the group. It should be between groups. This brings the effects of buffs and extra healing into some real perspective - sure the character can do it, and depending on the person playing it, he may enjoy doing it, but does it actually make the party much stronger? Does it throw the CR system out?
Which would you rather be in? The standard fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric group, or a fighter, rogue, theurge, theurge group?
Personally - I couldn't make a decision. In one group, I'm going to get high power buffs, and have enemy monsters crippled by high-level magics, but the group will have to stop and recoup often. In the other group, I'm never going to be left wanting for hitpoints or low-level buffs, and the group will be able to continue and endure for a long time. The two groups would be different, but I don't think you can honestly say that either would be inferior to any significant degree.
Another one I'm seeing here is that you have to compare levels in theurge to levels in something other than theurge, and that you cannot take into account the 'cost' to enter the class.
That's just plain wrong. You cannot compare just a single part of a character to a single part of another character. You'd end up with arguments like "the sorceror is overpowered because at 4th level, he can cast more spell levels per day than a wizard and he gives up nothing". You have to compare the entire character.
I believe that introducing a prestige class to overcome a flaw in the rules is an acceptable solution to the problem in a product which is not intended to be a completely new version of the game. An entirely new magic system would certainly NOT be compatible with the existing system, nor would it be easy to convert to. Introducing prestige classes is a solution which both works, and is backwards compatible with very little effort, impacting only upon those characters which chose to multiclass cleric/wizard.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether a purely mechanical class such as this has flavour or not. I'm one of those people that thinks that any part of any publication which says "here's how your character acts" is a waste of space. PrC's don't need to be linked to flavour. Flavour should stand independant, with references FROM the flavour TO the mechanics, not vice versa. Most red wizards are group-oriented, power-focussed specialists. Most group-oriented, power-focussed specialists are NOT red wizards. Flavour text for the Red Wizard PrC is wasted on anyone not gaming in the realms, or using a similar organisation in their own campaign, one which could be run just as well without the PrC.
That's part of 'options, not restrictions'.
Next: Balance
People seem to be saying "one mystic theurge is better than a wizard, because of all the things he does for the group".
That's not the right comparison. The comparison when you're getting into team-mechanics isn't between the power balance of each individual making up the group. It should be between groups. This brings the effects of buffs and extra healing into some real perspective - sure the character can do it, and depending on the person playing it, he may enjoy doing it, but does it actually make the party much stronger? Does it throw the CR system out?
Which would you rather be in? The standard fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric group, or a fighter, rogue, theurge, theurge group?
Personally - I couldn't make a decision. In one group, I'm going to get high power buffs, and have enemy monsters crippled by high-level magics, but the group will have to stop and recoup often. In the other group, I'm never going to be left wanting for hitpoints or low-level buffs, and the group will be able to continue and endure for a long time. The two groups would be different, but I don't think you can honestly say that either would be inferior to any significant degree.
Another one I'm seeing here is that you have to compare levels in theurge to levels in something other than theurge, and that you cannot take into account the 'cost' to enter the class.
That's just plain wrong. You cannot compare just a single part of a character to a single part of another character. You'd end up with arguments like "the sorceror is overpowered because at 4th level, he can cast more spell levels per day than a wizard and he gives up nothing". You have to compare the entire character.
I believe that introducing a prestige class to overcome a flaw in the rules is an acceptable solution to the problem in a product which is not intended to be a completely new version of the game. An entirely new magic system would certainly NOT be compatible with the existing system, nor would it be easy to convert to. Introducing prestige classes is a solution which both works, and is backwards compatible with very little effort, impacting only upon those characters which chose to multiclass cleric/wizard.
RangerWickett
Legend
To Sean: Fractional Spellcasting as you present it is a stopgap solution at best; it's a nice way to help design prestige classes under the current system, but it doesn't solve the problem of multiclassing.
Of course, I don't see why D&D needs multiple spellcasting classes anyway. I mean, didn't the original D&D just have the . . . what was it, the Mage, the Fighting Man, and the Thief? Having a four-member system is not a requirement of D&D. If we can have a single warrior class (Fighter), we ought to have a single magic class (Mage)?
To Monte: From your design diaries, it looks like you have multiple classes that gain different abilities and have different spells available, so how does it work that their caster levels stack? With a Witch 5/Magister 5, does he each cast spells with a caster level of 10, but with only the spells available each to a 5th level character? Or does he cast spells as a 10th level spellcaster, with just a mix of spells from each class?
Now, of course I brought up this whole 'single spellcasting class' shtick hoping someone would mention Elements of Magic by Natural 20 Press . . . oops, I mean E.N. Publishing. There is just one caster level advancement table, and initially only one 'Mage' class. The subclasses of mage, and possible mage variants, limit your spell choices at any given level, but you're still able to use all the spells from all of your classes.
Now, we went a little beyond just having a single class (we fiddled with the way spells are listed, so each spell has different effects depending on whether you cast it from 0th to 9th level), but I don't see why the same general system couldn't be used in, say, D&D 4.0e.
Of course, I don't see why D&D needs multiple spellcasting classes anyway. I mean, didn't the original D&D just have the . . . what was it, the Mage, the Fighting Man, and the Thief? Having a four-member system is not a requirement of D&D. If we can have a single warrior class (Fighter), we ought to have a single magic class (Mage)?
To Monte: From your design diaries, it looks like you have multiple classes that gain different abilities and have different spells available, so how does it work that their caster levels stack? With a Witch 5/Magister 5, does he each cast spells with a caster level of 10, but with only the spells available each to a 5th level character? Or does he cast spells as a 10th level spellcaster, with just a mix of spells from each class?
Now, of course I brought up this whole 'single spellcasting class' shtick hoping someone would mention Elements of Magic by Natural 20 Press . . . oops, I mean E.N. Publishing. There is just one caster level advancement table, and initially only one 'Mage' class. The subclasses of mage, and possible mage variants, limit your spell choices at any given level, but you're still able to use all the spells from all of your classes.
Now, we went a little beyond just having a single class (we fiddled with the way spells are listed, so each spell has different effects depending on whether you cast it from 0th to 9th level), but I don't see why the same general system couldn't be used in, say, D&D 4.0e.
We don't have a single warrior class. We have the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian as well.
As to why I think that one spellcasting class would be a bad idea, well, D&D classes are about archetypes, not rules conveniences. It's tempting from a design standpoint not to see it that way, but aesthetically pleasing design which compromises "mere details" like class identity will often look good on paper and suck in practice. People like the D&D classes not because of slick rules handling, but because of the strong archetypes which act as a shortcut in character identity and a hatstand to hang character concepts off of.
You can dismiss that with a handwave and say that it doesn't matter because you can specialise this generic spellcaster in a direction you want, but that underestimates the value of being able to say "I'm a 6th level Druid!"
Similar Threads
