Is Mystic Theurge a balanced P. class?

[interwyrm]

I don't see how even with haste the mt is broken. If using the broken haste as a straight wizard... you can cast two of your highest level spell, and 1 quickened of 4 levels lower.
Compared to the wizard, the mt is casting two spells of a lower level than the wizard, and a quickened spell of lower level than the wizard's... and to do this effectively has to take practiced spellcaster, and gets no bonus feats....

The MT -
Pros: Extra spell access, More low level spells
Cons: Less feats, Lower spell levels, lower caster level, terrible time in the low to mid levels of the game.

To be honest, it's probably more effective to be an arcane caster and take the um... arcane disciple feat that gives you some domain spells on your spell list.

 

[beepeearr]

Personally, I don't like the mystic theurge as presented in the DMG. As a DM I've found it to be quite powerful, even when created with a suboptimal build (ala a Bard/Cleric), and that most players like it because they feel the Multi-class spellcasters are not powerful enough. I've never liked the argument that multiclassed spellcasters are not as powerful as other single classed spellcasters, therefore they need their own prestige class. A Multiclassed spellcaster, just like all multiclass characters, give up power for flexibility. Prestige classes like the Mystic theurge give the character both with very little sacrifice.

Look at the difference in the number of spells per day for a Wizard/Cleric and a Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge. The difference is huge, much higher than then the difference between a Wizard or Cleric and a Wizard/Cleric/Mystic theurge. All that being said though, I do allow a Modified Mystic Theurge prestige class in my campaigns, instead of getting 10 levels of spellcasting for two existing spell casting classes (for a total of Twenty), it instead gets 7 or 8 levels of spellcasting for two existing spell casting classes (depending on the particular Mystic Theurge like prestige class). It still offers the player more power than a Typical multi-classed spell caster, but much less than a single classed character, and typically falls somewhere between the two.

However, I also do caster level by magic type, instead of by class type, meaning that a Druid/Cleric would add his spellcaster levels for both cleric and druid to determine his overall divine caster level, the practiced spell-caster feat also works differently, It now allows the Spell caster to choose two different magic types and add his actual spellcaster levels in those two magic types to determine a new spell caster level for spells of both magic types. By doing the above I fix one of the bigger problems of multiclassed spellcasters, which is a decreased spellcaster level, and at the same time I decrease the need for prestige classes like the Mystic Theurge.

Just My opinion, I've never used a Mystic Theurge either as a PC or as an NPC, but I've had quite a few players play one or a similiar prestige class, both my version and the version in the DMG (which is why I have my version in the first place). They quickly go from being a utility type of character (when they are multiclassing to get the prestige class) to being easily the most powerful character in the group (even when built with a bard) after only a few levels of Mystic Theurge. Think of it as allowing one player in your group to take 10 levels of a Gestalt character, because that almost exactly what it does.

 

[Particle_Man]

Just My opinion, I've never used a Mystic Theurge either as a PC or as an NPC, but I've had quite a few players play one or a similiar prestige class, both my version and the version in the DMG (which is why I have my version in the first place). They quickly go from being a utility type of character (when they are multiclassing to get the prestige class) to being easily the most powerful character in the group (even when built with a bard) after only a few levels of Mystic Theurge. Think of it as allowing one player in your group to take 10 levels of a Gestalt character, because that almost exactly what it does.

I call your bluff. Set an MT character at any character level from 7 to 20 and build it (feats, magic items and all). I will build a straight class character of the same character level that will blow yours out of the water. I will restrict my character class to one of your two "builder classes".

 

[IcyCool]

I call your bluff. Set an MT character at any character level from 7 to 20 and build it (feats, magic items and all). I will build a straight class character of the same character level that will blow yours out of the water. I will restrict my character class to one of your two "builder classes".

Indeed. I have yet to see a "powerful" MT build (that doesn't include a combination with another prestige class, like Ur-Priest). Heck, could you post one of your players "powerful" MTs before you made your house-ruled version (why would anyone ever take that? You must not use Spell Resistance in your games)?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I personally want to the see the bard-MT build that is "easily the most powerful character in the group." The others must all be kobold warriors.

 

[glass]

Epic Mystic Theurge doesn't advance both casting classes at every level. They alternate. So your first Epic Mystic Theurge level increases your arcane spells and casting level, the second level increases your divine, the third increases your arcane, etc.

That's debateable.


glass.

 

[ARandomGod]

Is a mystic better that just going straight cleric?

I sense much debate on the topic... (perhaps partially because I see more than one page worth of replies). So I'm going to answer first before reading further.

No. A MT is not a balanced PC. It's pretty universally (IME) considered vastly underpowered. It's flexible, and great in a cohort or follower... but as a main class you'll find yourself massively in support, and in overall power you'll be underpowered. You just won't have access to the higher level spells. And to become even decent you'll have to spend two feats (practised spellcaster twice) to compensate in caster level with the lower level spells you do have access to, and you have to buy up two main stats. A very expensive outlay of resources just to partially make up for the shortcomings of the class.

So if you don't mind being underpowered and want a LOT of versitility... if you really like buffing other people, this is the class for you. Otherwise playtesting has showen that it's pretty weak.

OK, now on to read other people's comments!

The area where they are twinkish is if they are combined with various prestige classes that have funky spell advancements. Like Ur-Priest or something. Straight cleric/wizard is not a problem.

Yup, Ur-priest and other similiar things can make them very twinkish. While I wouldn't allow this combo in games I'm GMing, it doesn't come up as I just also don't allow the Ur-priest! But the point still holds.

The best envrionment for the MT is when you have a large enough party to take the loss in top end power which it seems you do. They can be significant buffers and utility/toll box characters being able to contribute in lots of cases.

Heheh. I really like this comment because it emphasizes my point. MT is an awesome class for a cohort! For a main PC it's ... well ... "sidekick-ish". If you don't mind being regulated to the role of sidekick, ok, you'll be the best darn sidekick out there. But for a main PC? Wouldn't you rather be playing a hero?

Hey everyone, I'm GMing the game in question and I figured I'd go ahead and post the rationale I sent out earlier for being wary of allowing the class.

...

Obviously the consensus here is that the loss of spell levels is more of a downside than I propose. However, the situations that the party has been in throughout the last three levels (and my style of DMing in general) have been ones where utility spells and buffs, I feel, would be at least as useful as a couple more levels of oomph.

"... at least as useful."

Which doesn't at all imply overpowered to me. In fact, it still supports my thought that it's relatively underpowered in generall, and in certain circumstances things might make it playable.

Although the 3.0 versions of some spells will make it lightly better, I still don't think it would increase the MT beyond sidekick.

... Not that any of that would be particularly damning, if the class was more styalistically evocative. It just feels like what it is; a patch on the limitation of trying to multiclass between spellcasting classes. I'd be willing to consider classes with similar abilities if they were just cooler.

At least that's my reasoning.

Here I'll agree completely however. It is just a patch on the multiclassing. It's trying to make a particular concpet viable. I am of the opinion that it doesn't quite make the cut, at least for a PC. But your statement there seems to imply that you don't want multiclassing between spellcasting classes (because the limitations as is are so much that they're not limitations so much as "if you do this you're a moron"). But then you go on to say you don't like the flavor. Well, so be it, of course. But the player in question obviously does (although I'd try to talk him out of playing a class so built as a secondary character). If you want it to be cooler, then make it cooler! I'm sure the player wouldn't mind you buffing the class up! Hey, I personally wouldn't even consider playing the class unless was increased in power. Or if all you want in a buff in flavor, well, you're the GM, spice that class until it burns! But in general I don't think the GM finding it flavorless should be a hinderance to the player wanting to play the class. As long as the player likes the taste, the GM has a lot of other areas to spice up the campaign.

IMC I've provided both a large boost in power and a lot more flavor, by making this PrC an actual PrC... IE I gave it an organization that you have to be invited into, and that you hold obligations towards. Only clerics of certain gods are eligible, of course. Gods of knowledge, magic, mystery, power, etc. Basically one's that would naturally mesh with wizardry. You could add a similiar flavor without adding the power boosting mechanic that I added into my campaign for the PrC (notice I didn't even bother to type that part up, since you already seem to thing the power level is at a minimum powerful "enough").

You might also want to look into banning Pearls of Power in the DMG and the feats in Complete Arcane that provide wizards extra spell slots, as a wizard could simply take those, use them for long term buffs, and still have a full complement of blasty wizard spells.

Good point. IMC we make extensive use of those. Pearls are the Best!

Yeah, and that was my initial response, too. On inspection, it proved not as overpowered as I'd assumed, but still not appropriate for my game. If I had a setting-based rationale for including it, and was running a game where a bunch of utility spells weren't likely to trump raw power, I would seriously consider including it.

A lot of people had that initial impression. Gameplay proved them wrong. I personally think you should allow it on a provisionary basis. I think that it's the GM's responsibility to at least try to make things workable. As for a setting-based rationale, that is obviously something that's entirely up to you to make up. You could attempt to delegate this to the player, of course, but it's a PrC. You have to come up with the organization yourself.

But that's beside the point. You are a little wary that it'll prove overpowered. Just allow it, tell the player that after a certain period of time if you're not convinced the character is NOT overpowered, then the character will either die or be retired and you'll allow the player a new character with no XP penalty (as it's an entirely administrative removal, it shouldn't have the same 'punishment' as a different character death or retirement).

First off Samhaine it is your game and use of any Prestige Class is soley up to the DM - so if you don't want it then it isn't available.

Of course, that's the final say. If you don't like it, then you won't allow it. Period. It's been shown that the majority don't feel that it's overpowered at all. Noone can comment on your game in specific without being ... well .. the GM of your game!

I personally don't even think with your house-rule of allowing in 3.0 spells it's broken. I mean, not any more broken than those spells might be in the first place, and so not any more than any cleric or wizard accessing those spells. Note that you can, if necessary, add on to the house-rule by making it so that MT's can't access the 3.0 version of those spells for some reason. Or perhaps just not some of those spells, on a case by case basis. It's a house-rule already, so no problem with adding on to it.

I assume that if you ban the MT then you will also want to ban the Leadership feat, as a wizard with a cleric cohort, or a cleric with a wizard cohort, can do everything that a MT can do, and has more (total) hp, and the cleric half can wear armor with no ASF chance.

LoL! I've personally assumed that as a given. Many, many things are not overpowered when compared to the Leadership Feat.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was thinking about this last night and the thought occurred to me:

Why would a DM disallow this class?

It did not make any sense to me.

Game Flavor? That seems like an attempt at rationalization of a decision after the fact, not a real reason.

Balance? Well, as has been illustrated, it is pretty easy to see that balance is not an issue.

It's obvious that the DM is not too worried about what the player would consider a fun character to play. The player's desire and idea of fun here does not seem pertinent to the decision.


The only conclusion I could come up with is that the group has a Cleric already and if that Cleric does not maintain his levels in Cleric and switches over to Wizard, that will significantly decrease the amount of relative healing that PC can do. Hence, it will put a damper on what the rest of the group can do if they cannot rely on a full Cleric level of healing at every level.

In other words: That's your job. Don't rock the boat, just do your job.

Or at least, this is a thought that had occurred to me. It could even be subconscious that a DM would not want a Cleric who would multiclass, but it is the only solid reason I can think of outside of "I don't like it" (which does occur, we have dislikes for no real rational reason).

Can anyone else think of any other real substantial reasons for such a decision?

 

[glass]

I assume that if you ban the MT then you will also want to ban the Leadership feat, as a wizard with a cleric cohort, or a cleric with a wizard cohort, can do everything that a MT can do, and has more (total) hp, and the cleric half can wear armor with no ASF chance.

...and has that all important extra action per round to use there extra spells.


glass.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I've never liked the argument that multiclassed spellcasters are not as powerful as other single classed spellcasters, therefore they need their own prestige class. A Multiclassed spellcaster, just like all multiclass characters, give up power for flexibility.

There is simply no comparison between the power loss suffered by, say, a Wiz6/Clr6 and a Ftr6/Rog6. None. Any argument to the contrary is just silly.