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="Samhaine" data-source="post: 2692533" data-attributes="member: 4873">See belowI'd figured that the most effective spend would be a 3/7/10, honestly, with the 7 being in whatever class he wanted 9th level spells in.  But being able to cast 8th level divine and arcane spells is nothing to sneeze at either.I'm not worried about this IMC.I'm suspicious that a difference of three makes that much difference on the roll of the d20; especially since the character has the Luck domain for the occasions where that 15% causes a failure.When a class is taken for its game mechanic advantages, I expect it to provide some of the flavor for me, YMMV.  This is not a situation of "I have this neat idea for an order of wizard priests and would like to take a prestige class of dubious benefit in order to roleplay becoming a member," but a case of "I would like to take this prestige class that provides game advantages but no story."  I could do the work to make it into an interesting class, but I think it would only be attractive because of its game benefits and the flavor I added would be lost.  Again, YMMV. Indeed.  If I had envisioned a campaign where most combat encouters involved mooks that traveled in 20 foot diameter packs, I would have noted that I was adjusting the core rules to remove fireball before anyone committed to playing a wizard.  Since I'm running a campaign where a cheap column of buffs and utility spells that don't detract much from the ability to contribute in a primary role, I'm noting that I think the Mystic Theurge is too powerful before allowing anyone to commit to playing one (by multiclassing into Wizard).I don't think I've ever opined otherwise.  IMC, I forsee the class causing problems, and I don't think it's cool enough to be worth overcoming them.I believe otherwise.  I see the potential for a wizard's worth of spell slots that can be used entirely for buffs and utility, while a normal wizard would balance buffs and utility spells with options to contribute directly to combat.  IMC, I believe enough this would cause a problem that I don't want to playtest it for another year and then force the player to respend his character if I determine that, indeed, I was right.So far?  Standing in the back, dropping AoE divine debuffs, healing the party, sometimes getting a hit off, and wearing too much armor to be the prime target of the NPCs that are actually trying to even the odds.  Nothing that has happened so far would lead me to believe that being somewhat closer to a Wizard would hinder his normal method of operation.  And I forsee being able to round himself out with an array of buffs to be likely to mitigate a lot of the difference between wizard and cleric.No, that's just the only complaint that you seem to think is real   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> .  I have several complaints, none of which add up to a damnation of the class but which make me unhappy enough with the idea of allowing an optional class that I don't intend to do so.  The bard has fewer available buffs and utility spells than a Cleric/Wizard, and can only know a limited number of them.  A properly prepared MT could conceivably cast any spell in the game with only a day's warning.</blockquote>

Verification