Is Mystic Theurge a balanced P. class?

[KarinsDad]

You are wrong, and the root of your mistake lies in the fact that although you got the 2x-1 equation right, you forgot that this makes it not a simple multiplication due to the subtraction. For instance, using the spell point method (the correct method to use if we wanted to convert the two characters to a system where we can add all the spells together), let's say I had a character with 17 1st levels spell slots and a different one with 1 9th level spell slot. They would be equivalent. Under the other method, the guy with 17 1st-level spells would be considered to have nearly twice as many spells (17 vs 9).

Actually, the spell point method is fairly bogus and you are more mistaken than him. So is the magic item creation Spell Level * Caster Level for that matter.

The problem with these methods is that they do not scale properly.

Using them, you are claiming that 2nd level spells are 3 times as potent as 1st level spells and that 9th level spells are 17/15 times as powerful as 8th level spells.

2 to 1 and 9 to 8 are not perfect, but they are better than the spell point system, especially on the lower end.

For example:

15th level Cone of Cold is 1.5 times as potent (more if the opponent has Resistance) than a 15th level Fireball. The straight up 5 to 3 comparison makes it 1.67 times as potent. Your 9 to 5 comparison makes it 1.8 times as potent.

15th level Cone of Cold is the same as a 15th level Empowered Fireball. The straight up 5 to 5 comparison makes it the same. Your 9 to 7 comparison (Empower is +2 points in spell or power point systems) makes it 1.29 times as potent.


Spell points are notoriously inaccurate as a measurement.

If you take the "spell level total" at each level and multiply it by the caster level to get total "spell power" (because higher levelled spell casters spells are generally more powerful) you get the following table

Although an interesting comparison, I am not sure this actually show us anything real. For example, throw a Sorcerer into the mix:

Level	Cleric	Wizard	Mystic Thurge	Sorcerer
1	2	1	1		3
2	6	4	4		8
3	21	12	12		15
4	40	28	14		48
5	80	50	18		70
6	126	90	33		150
7	210	140	68		210
8	296	216	130		360
9	441	306	216		468
10	580	430	350		710
11	814	572	512		880
12	1020	756	747		1236
13	1365	962	1010		1482
14	1652	1218	1386		1974
15	2130	1500	1776		2310
16	2512	1840	2327		2960
17	3145	2210	2583		3400
18	3636	2646	2865		4230
19	4066	3097	3205		4788
20	4460	3600	3575		5400

According to this, the Sorcerer is more powerful than the other 3 classes starting at 6th level to the point that he is a level more powerful than the Wizard starting at 8 level, two levels more powerful than the Wizard at 16th level (even though Wizards get 9th level spells at 17th level and Sorcerers do not, the 17th level Sorcerer is still considered 2 levels more potent), and a level more powerful than a Cleric at level 18.

 

[Rystil Arden]

For example:

15th level Cone of Cold is 1.5 times as potent (more if the opponent has Resistance) than a 15th level Fireball. The straight up 5 to 3 comparison makes it 1.67 times as potent. Your 9 to 5 comparison makes it 1.8 times as potent.

Your first example only shows that the spell point measure is a better measure for the power. Why? Because it does 1.5x the damage in the same number of actions. It would be silly to balance it so that it takes the same number of spell points to cast three fireballs and do 30d6 damage in three actions as it does to cast two cones of cold and do 30d6 damage in two actions (assuming that we are using the spell points solely as a measure and not actually converting to the spell point system, where flexibility becomes an issue). It should clearly cost more to do the same damage in a shorter amount of time. Also note that damaging spells are kind of weird in spell point systems, so using them as an example was not perfect in the first place.

15th level Cone of Cold is the same as a 15th level Empowered Fireball. The straight up 5 to 5 comparison makes it the same. Your 9 to 7 comparison (Empower is +2 points in spell or power point systems) makes it 1.29 times as potent.

Your second example is incorrect. Why? Because you made the mistake of assuming that Empower costs +2 in a Spell Point system when it costs +4. You probably made this mistake by looking at the Psionics Handbook, where Empower costs +2. The reason for this is that all Psionic Metamagic cost Actual Cost -2 (minimum 2) + the expenditure of Psionic Focus.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Assuming we are not throwing more PrCs into the equation I think these various tallying schemes do support one basic hypothesis that we should all agree on: If the MT is better than a straight class spellcaster it should be obvious at level 16 because that is when the MT peaks in relative power.

Looking at reasonable 16th level builds, including likely bonus spells for stats, I am not seeing any obvious superiority on the part of the MT. The MT certainly does not look the least overpowered when you do the side by side comparison. Even if you think the MT is a good deal, a great deal it is not.

 

[Nyeshet]

Personally I feel that the MT is a bit on the weak side, but I cannot see any way of changing that without making it too strong. Especially as it is generalized enough to use with any combination of divine / arcane classes (bard / druid, for instance, although the loses each would face [music, lore, wildshape, various druid specials, etc] would all but make this particular example untenable).

It is a patch - remarkably well thought out, actually - to the problem of multiclassing pure casters with other classes - in this instance other pure casters. It does not need flavor, as the flavor comes from the mix of the two core classes (cleric and wizard, as the most common example).

On the other hand, I see the epic progression of the MT as a joke. No one can take it until around levels 30 to 50 as they must first raise at least one of their core classes to level 20 - classes which are often no more than 3rd or 5th level at the time. By the time a high enough level is gained to allow entrance into epic MT the purpose for taking the PrC is mostly lost. One casting class has usually so vastly exceeded the other as to redefine the character in its pattern - overshadowing the second caster class completely in the process. One cannot state themselves to be an equal (or even an almost equal) practicioner of both Arcane and Divine when one is a Clr 20 / Wiz 3 / MT 11 (or a Clr 3 / Wiz 20 / MT 11).

Of course, the player may choose to go back upon reaching the non-epic ceiling of the PrC's 10th level. This is a mixed blessing, for the player will most definately fall behind for several levels. However, the player will also be regaining many of the lost abilities from persuing MT - turning and familiar progression, (non-epic) bonus wizard feats, etc. They will eventually reach epic in one or both classes around level 50 - presuming the campaign still continues. At this point, however, they will see that in epic levels it is better to alternate - and gain the continued benefits of turning / bonus feats / etc progression - than to take the MT pattern - which itself is no more than alteration without these benefits.

Hmm, I think, considering the odd way epic rules work (for bab and saves) it would be better upon reaching the non-epic PrC limit to continue entirely in Cleric for four levels then to take a couple levels of wizard, then one of cleric, then a couple more of wizard, and then to start the actual alteration process. It would enhance the Fort save and BAB beyond what typical alteration would achieve. Of course, if one does not expect to be playing that long into the campaign (not many quests I've heard of reach beyond 30th level, and rare are the ones that reach beyond 20th) then perhaps a few levels in another PrC that grants either dual progression or alternating progression with a few specials might work instead of alternating the original divine / arcane classes.

Grr. I still don't like the fact that under epic rules a Ftr 20 / Wiz 20 is not identical to a Wiz 20 / Ftr 20. Of course, they also have a PrC to work around this problem - somewhat. Considering they have official 11+ level PrCs (True Necromancer, the PrC Bard, Paladin, and Ranger, a few others), I've always been of the opinion that the ones created as patches should have allowed for 15 levels - enough to get the combination meant to be patched into epic levels without having to rely on falling back on their former core classes.

Ah well, that's a subject for another thread - which in truth has already been debated numerous times in the past.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your first example only shows that the spell point measure is a better measure for the power. Why? Because it does 1.5x the damage in the same number of actions. It would be silly to balance it so that it takes the same number of spell points to cast three fireballs and do 30d6 damage in three actions as it does to cast two cones of cold and do 30d6 damage in two actions (assuming that we are using the spell points solely as a measure and not actually converting to the spell point system, where flexibility becomes an issue). It should clearly cost more to do the same damage in a shorter amount of time. Also note that damaging spells are kind of weird in spell point systems, so using them as an example was not perfect in the first place.

I will quote you directly:

"You are wrong, and the root of your mistake lies in the fact that ..."


1) A 3rd level spell is often nearly the equal of a 5th level spell and sometimes even better.

For example: 10D6 Fireball versus 10D6 Cone of Cold at 10th level.

Cone of Cold advantages:

a) slightly larger area
b) save DC is 2 higher
c) increases in damage as you go up levels (but, this is not an advantage at 10th level)

Fireball advantages:

a) longer range casting
b) casting past your allies
c) uses up a lower level slot
d) is the metamagic choice: i.e. can be metamagicked earlier, can have more metamagic added, can have more powerful metamagic added

Effectively, at 10th level, Fireball is most often the choice of spell. The spell level system states that Fireball is worth 3 and Cone of Cold is worth 5 or Cone of Cold is 1.67 times as powerful. The spell point system states 5 versus 9 or 1.8 times as powerful.

The spell point system is more inaccurate at this level (and at level 11, 12, etc.).

In fact, you have yet to illustrate that a 1.8 ratio is better here than a 1.67 one. You haven't yet documented anything that shows that.


2) A comparison of the multi-round worths:

Two round total spell level versus spell point:

Cone of Cold 5 vs. 9
Cone of Cold 10 vs. 18

Three round total spell level versus spell point:

Fireball 3 vs. 5
Fireball 6 vs. 10
Fireball 9 vs. 15

In both systems, it costs more for the two round Cone of Cold than the three round Fireball. Hence, your "argument" that "it should clearly cost more to do the same damage in a shorter amount of time" applies to BOTH systems. You cannot argue that this works for spell point, hence, spell point is better if this also works for the spell level system.


3) A poor assumption here is that 105 points of damage in 2 rounds is always worth more than 70 points of damage in 2 rounds. This is often the case. However, there is often the concept of "blow through" in the game. If your opponent has 60 hit points remaining, 70 points of damage in 2 rounds will kill him just as readily as 105 points of damage in 2 rounds.

Sure, 105 will often be worth more, but not always. Sometimes, a 3rd level spell can do the job of a 5th level spell. Or put another way, lower level spells often have the same value (or higher value) as higher level spells depending on situation. The spell point system states that the 9 point Cold of Cone is worth 3 times as much as the 3 point Scorching Ray.

But, this is not always true.

Your second example is incorrect. Why? Because you made the mistake of assuming that Empower costs +2 in a Spell Point system when it costs +4. You probably made this mistake by looking at the Psionics Handbook, where Empower costs +2. The reason for this is that all Psionic Metamagic cost Actual Cost -2 (minimum 2) + the expenditure of Psionic Focus.

Yes, my second example is incorrect. I realized it immediately after I posted it, but I had to go at that time and just got back.

So yes, with Empower Fireball versus Cone of Cold, both systems are effectively equivalent except for DC at level 15.

 

[Rystil Arden]

For example: 10D6 Fireball versus 10D6 Cone of Cold at 10th level.

I'm afraid this is where we have to stop using damaging spells as the benchmark--I would like to commend you for taking your first two examples from a case where we were able to skate around this better in our discussion, but here, you have to remember that the increasing d6 is a weirdness in the point-based system (and one that is modified there).

What it would be more interesting to look at, for instance, is whether 2.25 or 2.48 Polymorphs is more comparable to a Shapechange. I would say 2.48, personally.

 

[Particle_Man]

I've always been of the opinion that the ones created as patches should have allowed for 15 levels - enough to get the combination meant to be patched into epic levels without having to rely on falling back on their former core classes.

I think I agree. There is a certain "what the heck do I do NOW?" feeling when you get your last pre-epic assassin level on your rogue 5/assassin 10 and have 5 levels to fill before you can start increasing your death attack DC again.

 

[KarinsDad]

What it would be more interesting to look at, for instance, is whether 2.25 or 2.48 Polymorphs is more comparable to a Shapechange. I would say 2.48, personally.

First, I have to say that neither system is good in my opinion. There are just too many variables involved.

I personally like Spell Level + Caster Level - 1 introduced in the Artificer's Handbook by Mystic Eye Games for magic item creation. This gets a slightly different ratio higher than the other two systems which I find very nice for magic item creation costs (especially since it takes into account caster level). But, it is still not that great for power levels of individual spells.

Lvl SL SP SLCL-1
 1  1   1   1
 2  2   3   4
 3  3   5   7
 4  4   7   10
 5  5   9   13
 6  6   11  16
 7  7   13  19
 8  8   15  22
 9  9   17  25

Getting back to Polymorph versus Shapechange, I would say more like 5 to 1 or even greater. 2.25? 2.48? 2.5? None of these really matter. None of them come close to how much more powerful Shapechange is to Polymorph across the board.


But, Veril put in Spell Level * Caster Level which I think is somewhat interesting except for one thing. At high level, you never cast all of your spells in a given day. You often cast most of your high level spells in a given day. So, I think his ratios are off. I suspect that many 18th level casters are very close in power level to many 17th level casters and many 19th level casters. Not 15% to 20% better from one level to the next. You just don't have any additional rounds to cast in (shy of Time Stop or Quicken). Kind of like the old saying, even the King puts his pants on one leg at a time.


So for power levels, I like a simple Spell Level + Caster Level for the top 10 highest level spells. That to me is sufficient to dictate who is really the most powerful and by what ratio. The lower level spells although nice, are mostly white noise.

Part of the reason this works ok is that hit points are still linear, regardless of how powerful of spells you get. A dozen 5th level casters casting Magic Missile can still take out a 20th level Wizard in round one if many of them win initiative and he has no protection up against it before combat. Veril's chart indicates that the 20th level Wizard is worth 72 such 5th level casters. Well, maybe he sometimes is. And, maybe not.

I think Veril's ratio is too high. I don't think that the Sorcerer more than triples in power from level 3 to level 4 and doubles in power from level 5 to level 6. These ratios seem extreme. I do not think a caster ever doubles in power from one level to the next, even first level to second level.

Spell level of the 10 highest level spells (making 0th level spells worth 0.5) + caster level yields (ignoring bonus spells which yields very little difference except at low level):

Level	Cleric	Wizard	Mystic Thurge	Sorcerer
1	4.5	3.5	4.5		6.5
2	7	6	7		9
3	12	9	12		10.5
4	15.5	12	13.5		16.5
5	21.5	17	15		19
6	26	22	17.5		27
7	33	27	22		31
8	36	33	29		39
9	44	39	34		43
10	50	45	41		51
11	57	51	46		55
12	60	57	53		63
13	68	63	58		67
14	74	69	65		75
15	81	75	70		79
16	84	81	76		87
17	92	87	81		91
18	98	93	86		99
19	101	98	90		103
20	105	102	97		106

Granted, this could be off as well.

But, what I find interesting is that the Cleric and Sorcerer appear balanced with this. I suspect that the Specialized Wizard would appear balanced with those two as well, although slightly more powerful at higher level.

The Wizard who is behind the Cleric and Sorcerer starts catching up at higher levels.

But, the MT doesn't catch up. Note: I started the MT off as a Cleric and ended him as a Cleric.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Getting back to Polymorph versus Shapechange, I would say more like 5 to 1 or even greater. 2.25? 2.48? 2.5? None of these really matter. None of them come close to how much more powerful Shapechange is to Polymorph across the board.

Admittedly so. And I really do like the new measure that you propose later in that post too, for the job that you set for it. I just purport that the spell point method is significantly better to use to determine total spell slot value by summing than just summing spell levels, nothing more than that.

 

[Sledge]

I keep seeing one side of this, or the other. The single class will have a much higher casting score, which directly increases saving throws. A mystic theurge has lower level spells and lower caster stats. That is easier saves twice over. No matter how much that MT is buffed up I won't have to fear it's spells.