Mystic Theurge and Precocious Apprentice

[Lord Igor]

Hi all,

one of my players had a stroke of brilliance the other day. He found (or so he thinks) a way to get into the Mystic Theurge prestige class a few levels early.

The feat Precocious Apprentice (Complete Arcane, page 183) allows characters to "Choose a 2nd level [arcane] spell from a school of magic to which you have access. You may cast this spell once per day ...". Since the requirements for Mystic Theurge state "ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells", it cuts two whole levels of the entry requirements.

My question to my fellow dm's: is this a valid route to take? And I mean rules-wise, as it is a clear and obvious case of powergaming. I would like to be able to point out to him that the rules say "NO", but I haven't found a suitable excuse yet

 

[griff_goodbeard]

This has been cropping up over at the wizard's board since CA came out. I belive Rich Baker clarified that this doesn't work somewhere (but I'm at work now, and don't have the time to go hunting for a source). But the easy interpertation of why this won't work is below.

Since the requirements for Mystic Theurge state "ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells",

The feat Precocious Apprentice (Complete Arcane, page 183) allows characters to "Choose a 2nd level [arcane] spell from a school of magic to which you have access. You may cast this spell once per day ...".

PA allows you to cast one 2nd level spell once per day. MT requries you to be able to cast 2nd level spells, plural. Hence PA does not allow you to enter MT early.

 

[reveal]

Yes, it would allow him to take the PrC at level 5 instead of level 7. However, he has to have an INT of 15, which would definitely detract from all other abilities.

And, here's the big one, it's an optional feat. It's in a sidebar. It even says "If the DM wants...he or she may make the following feats available in the campaign."

Emphais mine. If you don't want him to have it, just say no.

 

[Cheiromancer]

As griff_goodbeard says, the feat wasn't intended to synergize with Mystic Theurge, but apparently the designers never thought about that until afterwards they. I guess they were unfamiliar with the DMG, or something. Be that as it may, I find the reasons griff_goodbeard cites to be ad hoc and tendentious. They strain the meaning of the words to fit a preconceived agenda.

There are various problems that would arise if you read prerequisites in the way that griff_goodbeard cites. For instance, suppose you are a 3rd level generalist wizard with a 13 intelligence. Can you cast 2nd level spells? Your only get 1/day, after all. Suppose you are a 4th level sorcerer. You only know 1 second level spell, but you can cast it multiple times. Does that count as casting 2nd level spell? I would say "yes" to both.

I also don't buy the idea that Mystic Theurge becomes horribly broken if you can get into it at 5th level instead of at 6th. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Now IIRC it has been ruled that being able to cast specific 2nd level spells does not meet the requirements; if you can cast daylight once per day, that doesn't count. If one further specified that the spellcasting had to be from class levels, not feats or racial abilities, that would close the precocious apprentice loophole.

So. If you allowed it, I don't think it would be a problem. If you think it could be a problem, you could disallow precocious apprentice, which is in an optional part of an optional book and is definitely up to DM's discretion. If you allow it, you could slightly change the prerequisites of mystic theurge and say the spellcasting requirement must be met by regular class levels, not by feats or racial abilities. You could even generalize that to spellcasting requirements for all classes.

But don't use a picayune reading of precocious apprentice to outlaw this exploit.

[edit] I mean *after* 5 levels. So the character's 6th character level would be their first MT level. Without PA they would need 6 levels, so their 7th character level would be their first MT level. [/edit]

 

[Deset Gled]

the feat wasn't intended to synergize with Mystic Theurge, but apparently the designers never thought about that until afterwards they. I guess they were unfamiliar with the DMG, or something. Be that as it may, I find the reasons griff_goodbeard cites to be ad hoc and tendentious. They strain the meaning of the words to fit a preconceived agenda.

There are various problems that would arise if you read prerequisites in the way that griff_goodbeard cites. For instance, suppose you are a 3rd level generalist wizard with a 13 intelligence. Can you cast 2nd level spells? Your only get 1/day, after all. Suppose you are a 4th level sorcerer. You only know 1 second level spell, but you can cast it multiple times. Does that count as casting 2nd level spell? I would say "yes" to both.

...

So. If you allowed it, I don't think it would be a problem. If you think it could be a problem, you could disallow precocious apprentice, which is in an optional part of an optional book and is definitely up to DM's discretion. If you allow it, you could slightly change the prerequisites of mystic theurge and say the spellcasting requirement must be met by regular class levels, not by feats or racial abilities. You could even generalize that to spellcasting requirements for all classes.

But don't use a picayune reading of precocious apprentice to outlaw this exploit.

I see no problems with that reading of the feat. In the case with the wizard you mentioned, the wizard has the option of preparing any 2nd level wizard spell. Thus, she can cast "spells". As you stated, the sorcerer gets more than one 2nd level spell, and can thus cast "spells". Both of these characters would be able to meet the MT prerequisite. But the person using using Precocious Apprentice can only cast one spell, once per day. That is a spell, singular. That character does not meet the prerequisite. There is no rules contradiction in griff's interpretation.

Your reasoning, however, requires the DM to change the wording of the rules to fit her purpose. While this is always an option, it is also placing the onus on the DM. If a DM resorts to changing the rules every time a player thinks of something the DM hasn't, I don't think it will bode well with the group. While this may be okay as an exception, it makes for a rather nasty rule. More importantly, why should a DM have to rewrite the rules if there's already a valid interpretation in her favor?

I think you are making the dangerous assumption that just because something may seem minor, it is also trivial. I maintain that the two concepts are very different.

And besides, this is the rules forum. Arguing over picayune readings is what we do best.

 

[moritheil]

One question - what on earth does this person hope to accomplish by taking MT without being able to actually cast the 2nd level arcane spells due to having levels in sorc/wis? In your campaign, do you not cap the PrC progression at 10 levels, and instead extend it indefinitely?

 

[moritheil]

Be that as it may, I find the reasons griff_goodbeard cites to be ad hoc and tendentious. They strain the meaning of the words to fit a preconceived agenda.

I find that they might be a bit of a strain, but the player himself is straining to fit into the PrC by devious means, so turnabout is fair play. If you want to provide griff's reason to a player, you can try pointing that out in case they get offended.

 

[Thanee]

The important thing is, that the feat is clearly not meant to work that way.
Besides, the feat is highly optional.

But yeah, the explanation why it doesn't work is a cheap cop-out... they should just have admitted that it is badly written (well, they did do that, actually, IIRC) and then changed the text of the feat to accomodate.

About the question, whether it makes the MT too powerful... at lower levels definitely not, they need all the help they can get there. But at higher levels (we currently have a newly created MT at 14th level in our party, so I can now also see in practice how the theory works out ), they probably are quite decent already, and then it would be too much to add the two extra levels of spellcasting ability.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the person using using Precocious Apprentice can only cast one spell, once per day. That is a spell, singular.

The person using Precocious Apprentice can cast one spell, seven times per week.

How is that not 'spells', while a Sor-4's one spell, 21 times per week, is?

-Hyp.

 

[griff_goodbeard]

I find that they might be a bit of a strain, but the player himself is straining to fit into the PrC by devious means, so turnabout is fair play. If you want to provide griff's reason to a player, you can try pointing that out in case they get offended.

This in fact is the reason for my intepertation of the feat wording. It's is sweet to try and turn the tables on the rules lawyers for a change. I agree with Thanee, the feat was not meant to be used this way and even without the wording I wouldn't allow this loophole.

The person using Precocious Apprentice can cast one spell, seven times per week.

How is that not 'spells', while a Sor-4's one spell, 21 times per week, is?

touché I fine bit of rules lawyering there. lol I still wouldn't allow it in my game though.