Forked Thread: Core Prestige Classes

[Jack Simth]

Forked from: Core Prestige Classes

Not at all, if you look at it from the divine power's point of view...as well as that of his flock.

A VoP is supposed to be a sacrifice by the PC to show his devotion to a divine ideal. In exchange, the divine power lifts him up as an exemplar of what living the life of the ascetic can mean.

I looked up every single spell & relevant class ability in the PHB to see what was lost if the DF was eliminated via the VoP.

What was left was a PC who didn't resemble a clergyman in any meaningful sense. In the case of the Cleric, he can't Turn Undead- how does that serve as a beacon to the faithful when Fr. Fred takes a vow and then can't fend off the predations of the zombies from the nearby battlefield like he did in all his previous years of service? Instead of being uplifted by the divine, it looks as if he has been punished, and the village imperiled because of it.

He can no longer Bless the faithful, nor can he cast Attonement, and so many other spells that are less about combat and more about maintaining and preserving the health of his flock.

Running VoP RAW, in other words, is contra the logic of vow and reward

I was SO not referring to the Divine Focus aspect. That, I don't really care about for purposes of this discussion. You picked up on three words, and cut the rest. Seriously - did you even read the post you replied to?

I was referring to the other aspects of the vow of poverty. The Exalted AC bonus, the natural armor bonus, the deflection bonus, the enhancement bonuses to stats, the resistance bonus to saves, and so on - the things you'd be getting from equipment under normal circumstances. These are all things that are thrown in to make a character concept (the ascetic) mechanically viable in D&D (and it still doesn't actually work for non-casters, but that's neither here nor there). The Theurge classes serve exactly the same purpose - they makes the Wizard-Priest, Fighter-Mage, Wizard-rogue, and so on, viable characters, *exactly* like the Vow of Poverty makes Ascetic characters viable. If your only choice in a 16th level campaign for a wizard-priest is a Wizard-8/Cleric-8, then your character is not viable - you're limited to 4th level spells when any other full caster is throwing around 8th level spells. You're pretty much stuck as a baggage handler (or as baggage). The Wizard-3/Cleric-3/Mystic Theurge-10, while behind on casting compared to the Wizard-16 or the Cleric-16, is a viable character, trading raw power for endurance and flexibility (1.5 spell levels behind, but much wider spell access and more spell slots overall).

 

[blargney the second]

Hey Dannyalcatraz, what is it that you don't like about Mystic Theurge and its ilk?
-blarg

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

what is it that you don't like about Mystic Theurge and its ilk?

I think that by advancing the mystic powers of 2 classes, they give the PC too much.

Sure, there is a little bit of a penalty imposed by the double class prerequisites, but once you get past that hurdle, you're getting nearly everything 2 classes have to offer...at least, the meat of them.

So I prefer spellcasting hybrids like the Geomancer, in which you must choose which spellcasting class gets advanced, or those in which the PrCl has its own unique spell list.

They're rare, I know, and they got rarer with each expansion. Most of the spellcasting PrCls with dual class prereqs follow the theurge model.

By that, I know I'm the minority opinion on this.

But just to clear things up, know that I don't BAN those PrCls, or penalize people for choosing them. My dislike remains, but that is one area in which I don't impose my opinion on my campaign design.

Heck, I even have one (and only one) PC who uses the Mystic Theurge class- a Drow Rgr/MU/Druid converted from 1Ed to 3Ed as a Druid/SpecWiz Transmuter/MT. (It was the only way to carryover the spellcasting potential of the original into the updated 20 year old campaign.)

I was referring to the other aspects of the vow of poverty.

Again, I see VoP as one (badly worded) way of playing an ascetic, but its not the only way.

I have personally played an ascetic Paladin who did just fine. VoP was not specifically disallowed, but BoED was not on the allowed sources list- it was just Core + Completes (no Psionics).

Without all the VoP bonuses, she eschewed all armor except some leather armor, used IUC, a quarterstaff and sling as her weapons (eventually, both armor and staff became enchanted). In fact, by her culture, she was forbidden from using better equipment because she was from the Laborer's Caste. Wearing better armor or carrying a "real" weapon would have been grounds for execution.

Still, she contributed to the advancement of party goals just fine.

Could she be played like a normal Pally? Of course not- she was not a front-line fighter. But she was fun and interesting to play...and definitely viable without VoP.

As for VoP itself, I don't see it as a "hybrid" of anything. Its an attempt to model in a single feat the status of someone as a "saint." (Yes, I know there is a Saint PrCl, but as a warrior-esque class it's rather atypical of the people who actually get awarded that status IRL- few of them are actually warriors.)

It probably would have been better as a PrCl itself, but that's not what they did.

 

[Jack Simth]

I think that by advancing the mystic powers of 2 classes, they give the PC too much.

Sure, there is a little bit of a penalty imposed by the double class prerequisites, but once you get past that hurdle, you're getting nearly everything 2 classes have to offer...at least, the meat of them.

A Pure Cleric could take Leadership and, for the cost of one feat, have his full Cleric spell allotment available, and Wizard spells from a cohort that's only two levels lower. A nonspecialized Wizard-13 can use Limited Wish to duplicate any Cleric spell of 5th level or lower - as well as having 6th and 7th level Wizard spells available otherwise. The Cleric-3/Wizard-3/Mystic Theurge-7 (also a 13th level character) has access 5th level or lower cleric spells, and 5th level or lower Wizard spells, but not the 6th or 7th level spells on either class - well behind both the pure-classed wizard and the Cleric with a Wizard cohort.

PrC balance is generally built on annoying pre-requisites. The pre-requisites for the Mystic Theurge are very annoying, and are sufficient to make it weaker than the pure-classed companions in basically everything except endurance.

So I prefer spellcasting hybrids like the Geomancer, in which you must choose which spellcasting class gets advanced, or those in which the PrCl has its own unique spell list.

They're rare, I know, and they got rarer with each expansion. Most of the spellcasting PrCls with dual class prereqs follow the theurge model.

By that, I know I'm the minority opinion on this.

But just to clear things up, know that I don't BAN those PrCls, or penalize people for choosing them. My dislike remains, but that is one area in which I don't impose my opinion on my campaign design.

Heck, I even have one (and only one) PC who uses the Mystic Theurge class- a Drow Rgr/MU/Druid converted from 1Ed to 3Ed as a Druid/SpecWiz Transmuter/MT. (It was the only way to carryover the spellcasting potential of the original into the updated 20 year old campaign.)

Which is a far cry from the "If your concept is a "Warrior Mage Priest," so be it, but don't complain to me that the PC build is suboptimal because he can't get meaningful access to higher-level spells" and "Thus to me, the "Theurge" classes seem to be a bit of a cheat, for lack of a better word. To this day, I haven't played one." type statements I was responding to in the base thread.

Again, I see VoP as one (badly worded) way of playing an ascetic, but its not the only way.

I have personally played an ascetic Paladin who did just fine. VoP was not specifically disallowed, but BoED was not on the allowed sources list- it was just Core + Completes (no Psionics).

Without all the VoP bonuses, she eschewed all armor except some leather armor, used IUC, a quarterstaff and sling as her weapons (eventually, both armor and staff became enchanted).

That's hardly eschewing material possessions. Whether it was done by DM fiat, planted opportunities, or elsewise, your character ended up walking around in equipment that's valuable enough that, if sold, would feed a village for a year.

Or, in other words, not an ascetic that eschews material possessions. You were getting something approximating the bonuses you were supposed to be getting anyway.

Just like the Vow of Poverty - if you're sacrificing your material wealth, how's it a sacrifice when you're getting most the stuff you'd be using wealth to get anyway? It's a cheat, for lack of a better term.

In fact, by her culture, she was forbidden from using better equipment because she was from the Laborer's Caste. Wearing better armor or carrying a "real" weapon would have been grounds for execution.

Still, she contributed to the advancement of party goals just fine.

Could she be played like a normal Pally? Of course not- she was not a front-line fighter. But she was fun and interesting to play...and definitely viable without VoP.

And either your DM was not playing the monsters to their CR, not throwing you against the "normal" CR spread, was arranging for you to have something that approximates (within a plus or two) the abilities you were "supposed" to be getting from wealth, or some combination thereof.

As for VoP itself, I don't see it as a "hybrid" of anything. Its an attempt to model in a single feat the status of someone as a "saint." (Yes, I know there is a Saint PrCl, but as a warrior-esque class it's rather atypical of the people who actually get awarded that status IRL- few of them are actually warriors.)

It probably would have been better as a PrCl itself, but that's not what they did.

No, the Vow of Poverty is much more of an attempt to make it possible to have a character that gives all his possessions to charity without completely gimping the character for run-of-the-mill D&D adventures. The bonuses granted by the Vow of Poverty aren't focused like an optimizer generally does with wealth, and doesn't cover special circumstances or consumable items, but it does otherwise approximate what a character would be picking up from standard Wealth By Level. It's a hack to make a character concept work without too much work on the player's part. Just like the Mystic Theurge and similar.

 

[blargney the second]

But just to clear things up, know that I don't BAN those PrCls, or penalize people for choosing them. My dislike remains, but that is one area in which I don't impose my opinion on my campaign design.

That makes sense - I had you pegged as a reasonable guy. That's why I wanted to find out what you thought about dual-casting PrCs.

I think that by advancing the mystic powers of 2 classes, they give the PC too much.

Sure, there is a little bit of a penalty imposed by the double class prerequisites, but once you get past that hurdle, you're getting nearly everything 2 classes have to offer...at least, the meat of them.

I guess the difference is that I think the penalties to be more than enough to make up for the gains. (Which is sort of the point of PrCs - trade something for focus in something else.)

I think of it from an action standpoint: each round you can do one big thing, so you want it to be as effective as possible. Higher level spells are simply more effective than lower level ones; it's just the nature of the game. Delaying access to better spells flat-out makes your character apply less pressure in a single instant. On top of all that, having higher slots sooner means you can quicken spells sooner, giving you an action advantage.

Relative to a straight wizard, a wiz/cler/MT:
- loses 1.5 spell levels from a geometric progression (big!)
- loses bonus feats
- loses familiar progression
- gains a wider variety of spells, allowing him to participate in more encounters
- gains a few more spells per day, giving some increased endurance

Relative to a straight cleric, a wiz/cler/MT:
- loses 1.5 spell levels
- loses 2 sizes of hit die
- loses good Fort saves
- loses BAB
- loses turning and domain ability progression
- gains same as above

Not to mention that by playing two casting classes you increase your multiple ability dependence, so something else is going to suffer.

It ended up a little long-winded, but that's my reasoning for thinking MT is fine.
-blarg

 

[Jhaelen]

I think of it from an action standpoint: each round you can do one big thing, so you want it to be as effective as possible. Higher level spells are simply more effective than lower level ones; it's just the nature of the game.

That's the key, I think. My group included a Mystic Theurge and it was quite noticeable that he always got important spells too late. I wouldn't say the character was inefficient or weak but there was always a noticeable difference to the single-classed casters. He couldn't deal impressive amounts of damage and had a difficult time keeping the party alive.

What he did have was tons of spells but that hardly ever mattered since party would rest after the single-classed casters were out of spells. Now, if mystic theurges could cast two spells every round, things might be different...

When the Mystic Theurge died, the player played a single-classed cleric (a Radiant Servant of Pelor to boot). The difference was enormous. Encounters that would have been very hard before (almost too) easy. There was lots of cheering and everyone complimented the player on his effectiveness after every session.
In other words it was an improvement for everyone involved: I as the DM did no longer have to worry about tough encounters, the cleric player was happier than ever and the other players felt encouraged to take more risks.

I wouldn't have believed the difference this could make if I didn't have experienced it in play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is a far cry from the "If your concept is a "Warrior Mage Priest," so be it, but don't complain to me that the PC build is suboptimal because he can't get meaningful access to higher-level spells" and "Thus to me, the "Theurge" classes seem to be a bit of a cheat, for lack of a better word. To this day, I haven't played one." type statements I was responding to in the base thread.

Oh, I still stand by those statements as well, but I didn't think they needed repeating. My response to people who complain (to my face) that "Warrior Mage Priests lose out on top level spells, thus the multiclass system is flawed" is "Don't multiclass. Mastery of power of any kind requires sacrifice and single-mindedness. Multiclassing embraces flexibility over focus."

And on that I don't budge. Its realistic and internally consistent. Every class loses out on something when they multiclass.

If spellcasters losing out on high level spells is so terrible, it isn't because the MC system is broken, but rather that the broken part is the magic system that back-end loads the benefits of the spells. Other class benefits have a linear upwards progression. Spells have an increasing slope. And its the spells that define the full spellcasting classes to a great deal.

Sure, they don't get the top level spells. They get some spells later, but they get some sooner, if the spells have differing levels between their divine and arcane classes. They lose out on familiar and other bennies enumerated above.

They gain flexibility and sheer number of spells. A Wiz5/Clc5/MT10 has 73 spells (+stat bonus spells), as opposed to a Wiz20 with 40 (+stat bonus spells) or a Clc20 with 56 (+stat bonus spells). They may be lesser in level for a particular class, but they are broader in scope.

he always got important spells too late.

Consider me the "Salmon of Spellcasting." I almost never use the "power" spells- in 30 years of D&D, I haven't had more than a couple of PCs use Magic Missile or Sleep, for instance, and none with Fireball, Prismatic Sphere, Fly, Teleport and so forth. Everyone else does those spells with their casters- I want my guys and gals to be different.

And that follows through to my DMing. If I make my encounters survivable/beatable only by a particular spell or spell combo, I consider that a failure on my part.

That's hardly eschewing material possessions. Whether it was done by DM fiat, planted opportunities, or elsewise, your character ended up walking around in equipment that's valuable enough that, if sold, would feed a village for a year.

2 magic items on a mid level PC (Lvl10+)- a +1 suit of leather armor and a +3 quarterstaff- is low by the standards of any campaign except one featuring VoP. And considering that the XP for enchanting them came from the PC herself, it fits in perfectly with RW mythological tropes.

As did the method- doing great deeds followed by a ritual that imbued part of the Pally's life force into the staff, one +1 enhancement at a time.

RAW, VoP would require that a PC whose possession acquires magical powers (regardless of origin) give it up. I find that to be overbroad, and make an exception if the item gains its magical power from the actions of the PC himself, like a warrior who bathes his weapon in the blood of a dragon or demon he just killed (thus enchanting it). Similarly, I distinguish between a magic tome a VoP PC finds and the spellbook he himself creates to study his daily spells.

CAN the PC put up for sale a magic item he has made through his actions to feed a village? Sure, but I'm not going to demand he does so.

 

[Jack Simth]

Oh, I still stand by those statements as well, but I didn't think they needed repeating. My response to people who complain (to my face) that "Warrior Mage Priests lose out on top level spells, thus the multiclass system is flawed" is "Don't multiclass. Mastery of power of any kind requires sacrifice and single-mindedness. Multiclassing embraces flexibility over focus."

And on that I don't budge. Its realistic and internally consistent. Every class loses out on something when they multiclass.

If spellcasters losing out on high level spells is so terrible, it isn't because the MC system is broken, but rather that the broken part is the magic system that back-end loads the benefits of the spells. Other class benefits have a linear upwards progression. Spells have an increasing slope. And its the spells that define the full spellcasting classes to a great deal.

Sure, they don't get the top level spells. They get some spells later, but they get some sooner, if the spells have differing levels between their divine and arcane classes. They lose out on familiar and other bennies enumerated above.

They gain flexibility and sheer number of spells. A Wiz5/Clc5/MT10 has 73 spells (+stat bonus spells), as opposed to a Wiz20 with 40 (+stat bonus spells) or a Clc20 with 56 (+stat bonus spells). They may be lesser in level for a particular class, but they are broader in scope.

They lose something, yes - but consider:

When the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin multiclass between each other, they all maintain their biggest schtick - Full BAB, decent Hit Die, good Fort save. All that changes overly much is the secondary stuff - reflex save, bonus feat progression, rage progression, et cetera - stuff that isn't the most mechanically important for a melee class. They maintain their Full Melee status - which, when it comes down to it, is their biggest class feature.

When the Rogue or Bard multiclass between each other, they maintain their skillmonkey status - which, when it comes down to it, is their biggest class feature.

When the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard multiclass between each other, they lose out on the biggest class features of both - spellcasting (and Wildshape, for the Druid)- unlike the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, unlike the Rogue/Bard.

That is, skillmonkey classes multiclassing with other skillmonkey classes don't lose their skillmonkey progression; Melee classes multiclassing with other Melee classes don't lose their melee progression; why is it that you really think primary spellcasters multiclassing with primary spellcasters should lose their primary spellcaster status?

Besides - you've already contradicted yourself. You previously said you've never made a Mystic Theurge in the base thread - and then in this one you said "I even have one (and only one) PC who uses the Mystic Theurge class- a Drow Rgr/MU/Druid converted from 1Ed to 3Ed as a Druid/SpecWiz Transmuter/MT. (It was the only way to carryover the spellcasting potential of the original into the updated 20 year old campaign.)"

Or, to paraphrase, you weren't willing to give up the power when, it the base thread that spawned this one, you called the Mystic Theurge a "cheat", said that you "don't care about mechanical optimization. At all.", and that ""viability" is a non-issue".

Or, in other words, your own statements bely your own statements.

1st and 2nd edition multiclassing between casters ended up with something very much like the current mystic theurge - because they went in paralell, using their own XP charts - the dual-caster ended up just a few levels behind the single-caster in their casting - which is exactly what the current MT and similar classes do.

Consider me the "Salmon of Spellcasting." I almost never use the "power" spells- in 30 years of D&D, I haven't had more than a couple of PCs use Magic Missile or Sleep, for instance, and none with Fireball, Prismatic Sphere, Fly, Teleport and so forth. Everyone else does those spells with their casters- I want my guys and gals to be different.

And that follows through to my DMing. If I make my encounters survivable/beatable only by a particular spell or spell combo, I consider that a failure on my part.


2 magic items on a mid level PC (Lvl10+)- a +1 suit of leather armor and a +3 quarterstaff- is low by the standards of any campaign except one featuring VoP. And considering that the XP for enchanting them came from the PC herself, it fits in perfectly with RW mythological tropes.

As did the method- doing great deeds followed by a ritual that imbued part of the Pally's life force into the staff, one +1 enhancement at a time.

RAW, VoP would require that a PC whose possession acquires magical powers (regardless of origin) give it up. I find that to be overbroad, and make an exception if the item gains its magical power from the actions of the PC himself, like a warrior who bathes his weapon in the blood of a dragon or demon he just killed (thus enchanting it). Similarly, I distinguish between a magic tome a VoP PC finds and the spellbook he himself creates to study his daily spells.

CAN the PC put up for sale a magic item he has made through his actions to feed a village? Sure, but I'm not going to demand he does so.

As I said, though - whether it was through DM fiat, planted opportunities, or otherwise, you were ending up with something akin to the bonuses you were supposed to be getting through wealth. (A +3/mundane quarterstaff is 18,300 gp; a +3/+3 quarterstaff is 36,600 gp, market, the +1 Leathers are 1,160 gp; Wealth by Level for a 10th level character is 49,000 gp - assuming your +3 on your quarterstaff applied to both ends, you were running at about 70-80% of your expected wealth by level). That's hardly eschewing material possessions - your DM was throwing you a bone to make your character work when it really wouldn't, otherwise.

The Vow of Poverty, like the Theurge classes, is about making a character concept mechanically viable - nothing more. Sure, the Mystic Theurge is a bit short on flavorful abilities - but flavor doesn't come from abilities anyway, it comes from playstyle.

 

[Jhaelen]

And on that I don't budge. Its realistic and internally consistent. Every class loses out on something when they multiclass.

Emphasis mine. I guess, that's what I didn't understand about your position. Realism is something I stopped caring about long ago (at least when playing D&D). What I'm interested in these days is playability. What's the purpose of providing options that result in characters that are virtually unplayable? I'd rather just ban the option and save the players (and myself) the inevitable pain.

And that follows through to my DMing. If I make my encounters survivable/beatable only by a particular spell or spell combo, I consider that a failure on my part.

And I consider it a failure of system if I can create standard encounters that aren't survivable/beatable without a certain spell or spell combo.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard multiclass between each other, they lose out on the biggest class features of both - spellcasting (and Wildshape, for the Druid)- unlike the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, unlike the Rogue/Bard.

Yes, but to me, that is a failure not of multiclassing but class and spell structure.

Besides - you've already contradicted yourself.

No, I don't think so. I just reviewed that thread and couldn't find any instance of me saying "I never built a MT PC" in any form.

The closest I came was:

To this day, I haven't played one.

Which is absolutely true. I've updated the PC for 3.5Ed, but have not as yet been able to play him- that campaign has been on hiatus for a few years, and even if it hadn't, I run multiple PCs within it, so he doesn't get used with every story arc.

Or, to paraphrase, you weren't willing to give up the power when, it the base thread that spawned this one, you called the Mystic Theurge a "cheat", said that you "don't care about mechanical optimization. At all.", and that ""viability" is a non-issue".

Again, incorrect.

I chose to make the PC a MT because to do otherwise would have required a massive rewrite of campaign history- the conversion from 1Ed/2Ed wasn't seamless, and difficult decisions had to be made.

The PC in question had 45 class levels distributed between his various classes. To convert the PC 100% would have involved using the Epic Rules which 1) suck and 2) weren't printed yet. So to avoid that kind of mess, we placed a campaign level cap of 20 levels (since reworked a bit higher for 3.5).

Instead of giving up his ability to cast the spells that saved the party's bacon more than once, I sacrificed 15 levels of Ranger. He had always been one of the party's top 3 casters, but he was seldom a major force on the front line.

So the PC lost a lot in translation- durability, combat prowess, skills, spells, feats & followers to name a bit of it- but the party maintained most of its historical continuity.

And of all the multiclassed spellcasters I have converted, that is the ONLY one who is a MT.