Is Mystic Theurge a balanced P. class?

[styker]

It was in your initial post, but you made the correction to it later. And if I recall the problem with that build wasn't mystic theurge, but the Shapechange spell...

Not exatly because the shappechange spell in a wizard isn´t too a overpower think, and cleric can´t get the shappenchange spell (except with the animal domian) so with the "under" MT you can get the strong shappechange and time stop of the wizard and combine with the buff spells of our great cleric than you have a creature that can stop the time and buff itself (including shappechange)... all of this because the MT... oh yes, you can cast disjuction too...

 

[The Souljourner]

straight cleric

6 0-level spells
5 1st level spells
5 2nd level spells
4 3rd level spells
4 4th level spells
3 5th level spells

And yes I understand alot of people think multi-classed spell casters are underpowered, I'm just not one of them, I see the decision to multi-class as giving up power for versatility.

[cleric/wizard]
9 0-level spells
7 1st level spells
5 2nd level spells
3 3rd level spells

How can you not call the cleric/wizard multiclass horribly underpowered? Compared to a straight cleric you get +2 1st level spells, -1 3rd, -4 4th and -3 5th. That's insane. How is that more versatility? Sure, you're choosing from 2 spell lists, but you're missing 2 whole spell levels and 6 spells per day and 3 caster levels (unless you take feats that further limit your versatility).

That's not a playable class. I'm not talking like "bards are underpowered" unplayable. I mean like "you might as well not even come to the game because you're going to feel utterly useless as soon as we roll initiative" unplayable.

-The Souljourner

 

[KarinsDad]

At 16th level a Mystic Theurge can cast the same amount of 7th level spells, and only misses out on 2 8th level spells (which are powerful, I agree) and is only 3 caster levels lower than a 16 level Wizard, but gains access to spells from both the cleric and Wizard spell lists, something a 16th level Wizard cannot normally claim, and that's not flexible.

I'm not saying the Mystic theurge is without merit, I'm just saying at +1/+1 cast as previous spellcasting class per level it is too powerful, and that I would prefer a cast as previous spellcasting class progression that only granted a total of +8/+8 over ten levels instead of +10/+10, so that it falls in between the abilities of a single classed wizard or cleric and the Multiclass wizard/cleric, instead of just behind the single classed wizard and so far ahead of the multi-classed wizard/cleric that not taking it makes absolutely no sense, which is where it is now. I even allow all Mystic theurge levels to count towards the spellcaster level of both classes, just not the spells per day.

You forgot to mention that she is a 16th level Wizard with 3 fewer feats, 6 fewer spells to choose from, and probably cannot have a familiar.


It's pretty obvious that you have never played a MT since you are only looking at a high level version and only comparing it to a Wizard.

I have played one starting at level four (as DM as a supplemental NPC to a PC party who had only one PC capable of healing and few arcane spells).

The character was fun to play, but never once took the limelight away from the other PCs. She was just too wimpy.

Especially at levels 5 through 10 or so. Once she got to level 11 and could cast Mass Darkvision and could Empower her Scorching Rays as a Sorcerer, then she started to become helpful. Before that, she was practically a henchmen. It wasn't so bad at level 4, but as she progressed, the other PCs progressed more.


You are correct. At higher level, she is probably as powerful as the straight Wizard giving up only a few highest level spells and a few feats and gaining a lot of Clerical goodness. Course, many Wizards tend to take a different PrC which make them more powerful than a straight Wizard by then as well.

But, playing an MT who had to climb up a lot of levels where she was in many ways, wimpier than the Cleric and less versatile and powerful than the Wizard is different than looking at the high level version. That's why they call it balance. Pros and Cons when you actually play the character up the levels.

 

[Samhaine]

Oh.. wow.. this thread is still going.

After reading through the thread, my belief that the class is overpowered has dwindled significantly. Conversely, my belief that it is mediocre in theme and without flavor has grown greatly. The entire class leaves me with a blah feeling deep, deep within my soul. And, yes, I know I can add flavor of my own to the class. As I've said, in this particular campaign, due to the personalities, themes, and settings involved, I don't think that doing so would have the desired effect or be worthwhile.

Fortunately, Darth Kilmor was only passingly interested in the idea, it seems, and we're discussing other options that we'd both find more interesting.

I did want to comment on the Leadership issue, though. Indeed, I don't really like Leadership. I've found it hard to run support NPCs successfully in any incarnation of D&D precisely because they tend to either become personality-less patches for the party's limits or they take up a lot of DM time to maintain. Fortunately the discussion on that score is still probably a few months off at the group's current exp pace.

However, the situation of a cleric taking a wizard cohort doesn't align itself exactly with the Mystic Theurge situation. True, the cohort doesn't detract at all from the cleric's progression (save for buying Leadership), and has an "extra" action to cast spells. On the other hand, the wizard might have some form of personality that balks at the idea of blowing every single spell slot to buff the party and prepare utility spells and then hide at the fringe of combat hoping no monster picks on the lower-HD, lower-HP, unbuffed spellcaster. For the Mystic Theurge, one of the spell columns can easily be devoted to the spells that a single-classed caster would rarely load up on, since the other column can be used to maintain the character's primary role. That a cohort might behave that way, again, becomes a serious flavor issue that makes me question allowing Leadership as well.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Conversely, my belief that it is mediocre in theme and without flavor has grown greatly. The entire class leaves me with a blah feeling deep, deep within my soul.

I fully support this opinion. Some might not agree with it, but I think everyone will have to support you on your decision based on this opinion.

I did want to comment on the Leadership issue, though. Indeed, I don't really like Leadership.

I'm with you on this, too. I don't allow Leadership as it's explicitly listed as optional in the DMG.

 

[KarinsDad]

Conversely, my belief that it is mediocre in theme and without flavor has grown greatly. The entire class leaves me with a blah feeling deep, deep within my soul.

I think that you are totally entitled to this opinion.

Where we might diverge is that I think that regardless of whether I as a DM feel blah about a PrC, if one of my players is excited to play that PrC and I see no reason to think that the PrC is imbalanced or broken in any way or totally divergent from the campaign (e.g. wanting to play an arcane caster in a campaign that is specifically set up to have no arcane casters), I will totally support my player in his decision to play that PrC.

DMs who attempt to dictate what players can and cannot play when there is no solid campaign reason for it (in this case, the class is blah to you), leave me with a blah feeling deep, deep within my soul. DMs who do this are proclaiming that their fun is more important than the fun of the player. IMO.

To me, the game is meant to be fun for everyone involved and if it is fun for a given player to play a given class / PrC, I let them do it (again, shy of it being broken).

Almost every campaign we have ever played, I have had a player play a character that I find uninteresting (or off the wall) and I would never play such a character myself. But, it is fun for that player, so I go with it and as DM, try to be enthusiastic and fair about that character.

 

[Arc]

Oh one more thing... "buff time".. well he would just cast his spells so they last for the day etc. = 0 buff time.. other than the 10 min it takes to cast in the morning while the rest of the party is getting up and eating breakfast...

Problem: The MT can't pull off Persistent spells. At least not well, that is. He lacks the all important spells/day and spell levels for those higher level slots, and at a +6 spell level modifier... that lets him stick on a few 2nd level buffs, in return for his days use of 8th level spells. Hardly a fair trade.

Of course, this breaks down when you add in something like Ur-Priest, or Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks. Calling MT overpowered because it can be broken by these combos is like saying a cracker tastes slightly cheesy when you pile the annual dairy production of Wisconsin on top of it.

 

[Particle_Man]

1) Arcane Heirophant in Races of the Wild is an example of a "flavored" version of mystic theurge. Personally, I like "vanilla" versions that I can then tailor for my campaign, but ymmv.

2) As for Leadership...your cohort does whatever you tell him to, except for risking his life or giving up his share of the treasure. That's the point of the Leadership. Otherwise, you would just be hiring some guy. Thus your argument vs. the Wizard with Cleric cohort (or vice versa) does not apply.

(has memories of a Monk who was going to get a druid cohort just to buff him up (alas, he died before this became possible)).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

2) As for Leadership...your cohort does whatever you tell him to, except for risking his life or giving up his share of the treasure. That's the point of the Leadership. Otherwise, you would just be hiring some guy. Thus your argument vs. the Wizard with Cleric cohort (or vice versa) does not apply.

(has memories of a Monk who was going to get a druid cohort just to buff him up (alas, he died before this became possible)).

I think the common conception of the cohort as a handy autonomaton is one of the "flavor" issues he was refering to.

I agree that MT lacks something... interesting. I'm not talking about game world flavor, I'm talking even flavorful mechanics. Wasn't there a masters of the wild prc that had the blending of arcane & divine casting? Thats what MT needs. Drop a little spellcasting advancement (say 2/3 divine advancement and 2/3 arcane or 3/4 each even) and instead introduce new mechanics that actually combine the two kinds of power. Spend turn attempts to spontaneously metamagic divine or arcane spells. Advance the familiar along the lines of a celestial template. Allow progressivly higher levels of arcane spells to be cast without spell failure chance. And give it some real prereqs that indicate a interest in the overlap between divine & arcane magic.

but thats a topic for house rules.... hmm, if I had anything good to give away, I could do a contest - build a better mystic theurge.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Where we might diverge is that I think that regardless of whether I as a DM feel blah about a PrC, if one of my players is excited to play that PrC and I see no reason to think that the PrC is imbalanced or broken in any way or totally divergent from the campaign (e.g. wanting to play an arcane caster in a campaign that is specifically set up to have no arcane casters), I will totally support my player in his decision to play that PrC.

DMs who attempt to dictate what players can and cannot play when there is no solid campaign reason for it (in this case, the class is blah to you), leave me with a blah feeling deep, deep within my soul. DMs who do this are proclaiming that their fun is more important than the fun of the player. IMO.

Then do not play in my game. If I feel that a character class does not fit the campaign then it is not allowed. I will not allow an Ooze Master in an Iron Kingdoms game for example (the player also wanted to play a samurai in the same setting, with the same answer). The flavor of a campaign is dependant upon many things, which prestige classes are allowed is one of them.

And I have allowed MT (as an example) in some campaign settings but not in others, even though I find it, well, rather dull without adding a lot more background.

The Auld Grump