Developer's Roundtable: Mystic Theurge

[RangerWickett]

Well, what does it mean when you say, "I'm a 6th level Fighter"? Saying "I'm a 6th level Barbarian" gives people an idea of what your powers are, but the Fighter class is already flexible, so simply saying you're a fighter doesn't clear much up. Why not go all the way for flexibility?

Fighter is the warrior class that can go almost any direction (if they made a feat "Rage," you'd hardly even need the Barbarian anymore). Really, if anything, the fighter oughta be a bit more flexible. Give them a choice of, say, 4 Fighter feats at 1st level and 2 at 2nd level, but don't make armor and shield proficiency automatic, or maybe do what 3.5e is doing and divide Martial Weapon Proficiency into multiple feats.

What we probably could use are 'class archetypes,' kinda like what they've posted in Dragon magazine in the past. So, imagine you start with the core Fighter class, and if you want to play a horse-born knight, you follow the knight archetype and pick Mounted Combat, Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Shield Proficiency at 1st level, then Heavy Armor and Weapon Focus (lance) at 2nd.

If you want an archer, you take Light Armor, Weapon Focus (bow), Point-Blank Shot, and Precise Shot at 1st level. Then take Medium Armor and Rapid Shot at 2nd level.

If you want a kung-fu guy, you take Dodge, Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Weapon Focus (unarmed) at 1st level, and then Weapon Finesse (unarmed) and Lightning Reflexes at 2nd.

If you want a Maori Lion Hunter, you take Light Armor, Weapon Focus (spear), Run, and Track at 1st level, then Power Attack and Point-Blank Shot.

You'd also still have full classes for the more unusual classes, like monks with all their special abilities, but most combat-only characters could be done with the Fighter class.

We could do much the same with spellcasting classes. We keep the class-level aspect for people who want to play a 4th level Fighter (archer) or a 6th level Mage (druid), but the system is flexible enough for people who want to mess with unusual combinations.

Of course, you'd need to make a few basic changes to the classes for this flexibility.

 

[rounser]

Again, I think you underestimate the value of class identity. The approach you're suggesting fails for the same reasons why the playtesters didn't want the Paladin turned into a prestige class - it "didn't feel D&D enough".

A Paladin isn't a fighting style hooked into by taking a few feats and skills, and maybe a prestige class "somewhere down the track"; it's a role at the core of any character who takes it. It doesn't feel the same to have a "virtual Paladin" - this where slick design has to concede some ground to emotional identity and atmosphere. It's cool to play a Paladin as a class and a role rather than just a role, and that's good for the game.

Fighter is the warrior class that can go almost any direction

Why is the Paladin a different class to a Fighter kitted out as an archer? It's an archetype which extends a lot further than fighting style (which is what the Fighter allows you to customise). The Fighter can't simulate a Ranger either, because that class's archetype extends further than smashing in heads too (in fact, neither can the Ranger - the discrepancy between the Ranger class and the Ranger archetype is the main reason for such dissatisfaction with the class, IMO). The Barbarian, arguably the most likely candidate for rolling into the Fighter (take a beserk feat and done), also loses atmosphere and identity by becoming not-a-class.

So yeah, I agree with you that from a design standpoint it makes sense to roll into one, but the game would suffer for it in terms of archetypes, class identity backing up roles, atmosphere and feel to a degree that I feel that it wouldn't be worth it. Therefore, design logic must yield to subtleties that don't look so important on paper, but are definitely important in play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A possible semi-solution I'm considering:

Paying two spells/day of one spell level in one class to be able to cast one spell/day of a spell level one higher in a different class (never being able to exceed the normal maximums of a single-classed character).

This is admittedly a bit sloppy, and requires a bit of math, but is good in principle.

Take the Wiz 2/Clr 2. They've got slots of 4 0-level/2 1st-level[Clr] + 4 0-level/2 1st-level[Wiz]. A level 4 clr has 5/3/2, a level 4 wiz has 4/3/2. Using this rule, a character could achieve up to a maximum of 4/3/1[Clr] + 2/0 [Wiz] OR 4/0[Clr] + 4/2/1[Wiz]. This makes them slightly less powerful than their single-class counterparts in spellcasting, but not cripplingly so. (A difference of -1/0/-1 for the Clr-focused, and 0/-1/-1 for the Wiz-focus). I'd even argue that this 'switching' of spell slots can happen as they prepare their spells for the day (or just before they rest, for Bards/Sorcs), keeping much of their versatility in tact.

Variants would include things like making the payment permanent, reqiring a feat to do it, making the choice as you take the level, etc.

It seems balanced OK at first glance, meaning that the mutliclass can be to whatever extent the caster desires -- to dabble in clerical magic (yay! Cure Minor Wounds! Turn Undead! Domain Spells! All for the cost of a delayed feat and a few spell levels!).

It still means that those who mutliclass into non-spellcasting classes are weakened, but, then, they're not focusing on spellcasting at all...

Just a theory...go ahead and tell me what you think...

 

[Technik4]

Sigil:

The main problem associated with the prc is its too powerful at higher levels. By taking away spellcasting levels at 1,5,9 you are discouraging the combo in general, as you gain little for entering it and it is pretty well accepted that a wiz3/clr3 is a weak path to begin with. You are slowing the rate that this combination catches up to other characters in terms of power. Also, if you take away spellcasting at 9th level you might as well make it an 8th level prc, since noone will both to take a dry 9th level for a regular 10th level.

The best suggestion for removing spellcasting benefits were from Gez (I think) who suggested dropping levesl 4 and 8. It makes it reasonable to dip in for 3 levels or 7 levels, or for the truly dedicated, all 10 levels.

As far as comparing d&d to magic, I dont think its too inconceivable, as the basic tenets of magic are those of a game, and d&d is a game. Terms like "cost", "balance", and "power" can come up in nearly any game, whether youre talking about Starcraft, Magic, D&D, or Axis and Allies.

Technik

 

[Najo]

More thoughts on Mystic Theurge

When Ryan Dancy wrote his article about WotC saving D&D, he stated in it that TSR's primary mistake was failing to listen to the fans. He then stated that WotC would not make that same mistake.

I have been reading all of the posts I can find regarding this class and people from both sides are making very valid points both for against the class.

More than anything though, it seems players wish for a correction to the multi class rules over a "band-aid" for the problem.

What concerns me the most is so far the official WotC representatives here have failed to address a number of the concerns of this class. Namely, the ramifications of combining the Mystic Theurge with other Prestige Classes, it using metamagic creation feats, magic items and the standard that this class sets regarding future prestige classes game balance.

Although I prefer some interesting depth and flavor (not necessarily setting specific) to my prestige classes, I do agree with Johnathan Tweet that prestige classes are a dynamic way of affecting game mechanics and I am fully supportive of their use in that way. However, I am not supportive of band-aids to game systems as they destroy them and I am not supportive of what is obviously a poorly designed prestige class that a) forces players into it if they wish to mutliclass divine/ arcane spellcasters and b)ruins the previous work of the official and third party material which is now overshadowed by this class.

Finally, this class does not fix the whole mutli classing problem because of the druid and sorcerer. Sorcerers as they are lose nothing (maybe skill points in the new edition), and druids lose almost all of what makes them a druid (i.e. wild shape etc).

Even worse, this class does not allow for Bards, Rangers or Paladins to fairly multiclass with a pure spell caster.

A true fix would allow you to put any spell casting class together with any other, not lose either class’s abilities but still be able to contend fairly at each level without superseding a single caster class's capability.

If you fail to listen to the fans now, you will severely harm Dungeons and Dragons. The players of these games although at times can be eccentric, are intelligent, thoughtful people with much to offer and essentially you need to listen to the majority of them here.

Once again, thank you

Nate

 

[Technik4]

From Mr Tweet on Montes Boards

Monte-

(It's just like old times!)

I'm glad that we agree that the MTh plays a valuable role in the game and that it's on the line when it comes to power level. If I'm reading you right, your two concerns are that the class is flavorless and that the MTh is weak at low levels (making its power level uneven).

It's true that the MTh doesn't have any more flavor than a cleric/wizard, sorcerer/druid, or whatever multiclass combo it's placed on top of. The game calls for prestige classes that are cool and flavorful, and it calls for some that are frankly utilitarian. Not all prestige classes should be mechanical, but some should be mechanical if that helps them do what they're designed to do. The prestige class concept is a versatile idea, and it can be used to achieve a number of different goals.

The MTh is built to allow the arcane/divine spellcaster multiclass to work. Any flavor that might be added to give the MTh a strong identity would weaken its ability to fulfill this role. Currently, it's an attractive class for anyone playing a multiclass divine/arcane spellcaster. If the class had a distinctive "personality," it would only be attractive to folks playing multiclass divine/arcane spellcasters and whose character matched up with the class's personality. Maybe the flavor wouldn't fit druids or bards any more, effectively cutting them out of qualifying. Maybe it wouldn't fit characters that are self-taught loners. Whatever the flavor would be, there would be arcane/divine characters that the class would no longer suit.

The MTh relies on base classes for its identity. A cleric/wizard has enough flavor, and a cleric/wizard/MTh has just as much.

As to the character's fluctuating power level, it's a problem but not a big one. For the character's first 3 levels, you can be straight wizard, and you're fine. At 4th, you can add a level of cleric, and you're weak but still in the ballpark. At 5th, 6th, and 7th, you're losing out on 3rd level spells, but you do have the versatility that is the class's hallmark. And that's where you stay, one or two spell levels behind where you would be if you were single-classed. You stay at that spot for all 10 levels of the MTh.

Theoretically, you could smooth the progression out by requiring only 1st-level arcane and divine spells, and then having some MTh levels provide +1 class level only in arcane or only in divine spellcasting. You could work it so that you ended up in the same place (if you had 14 levels in the PrC), and the whole price wouldn't be paid up front. Still, while the current MTh could have a smoother power curve, it doesn’t shoot up like the old-school wizard did.

-Jonathan Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com

 

[kenjib]

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

I don't think that's too big of a deal, but you've heard about the D&D brand miniatures line that comes in randomized packs with rarity ala Mage Knight, right?

 

[Monte At Home]

Monte, Is there any reason this system wouldn't work with 3.5?

Well, in D&D, there's no straightforward way to determine what you get if you stack a 3rd level cleric's spells with a 3rd level wizard's spells. (I'm certain you could jury-rig a way to make it work.)

The AU system is built around the slightly different magic system and the (essentially) single spell list.


Edit: Added quote so you could tell what the heck I was talking about.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I don't think that's too big of a deal, but you've heard about the D&D brand miniatures line that comes in randomized packs with rarity ala Mage Knight, right?

Ehr...

I would certainly hope that "rarity" only refers to the packs... If we're at the mercy of whatever fell into the box in the packing plant, than planning adventures around what miniatures you have is left to chance.

Don't like that... No no no...

 

[kenjib]

Ehr...

I would certainly hope that "rarity" only refers to the packs... If we're at the mercy of whatever fell into the box in the packing plant, than planning adventures around what miniatures you have is left to chance.

Don't like that... No no no...

Each individual figure will have rarity, just like a pack of Heroclix or a booster pack of....TADA! mtg cards. Welcome to the future of D&D. Check your wallet at the door.