Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack Simth" data-source="post: 4438514" data-attributes="member: 29252">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification