Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[ScyldSceafing]

Hey folks,

I'm running a D&D campaign (begun by a post on the Gamers Seeking Gamers forum, actually); it's set in a middle-magic version of Greyhawk that I modify at a whim. Basically, we use the map.

Anyway. I've got a PC who is starting to angle towards the Mystic Theurge PrC - and what I remember of the discussion of it in the run-up to 3.5 were two schools of thought: "Holy crap! This could be too much." and "How cool! This integrates well with the general power-up."

Now that some of you have presumably played with it, how's it working? Is it fun? Is it difficult to plan for? Does it steal fun from other players?

I'm probably going to allow it regardless, as this campaign is already a breakneck out-of-control power binge - but heck, the storyline's big, so it's all fun.

Thanks in advance for all your insights ... I'm slipping back into the shadows now ... </delurk>

 

[Qvintus]

I seen it played twice once by a char form lvl 7 to 9 where it was a bit weak.
And once in a one shot at lvl 15 where it seemed fairly balanced

 

[the Jester]

I haven't yet seen one in play, but I do recall that most of the broken mt builds relied on the idea of the theurge as buffer; nowadays those spells are mostly 1 min/level.

 

[Derulbaskul]

A player in one of the groups I DM has been playing one since 1st level and now he's 13th level. It is definitely not an unbalanced class, IMO, because the lack of higher level spells is a huge disadvantage, particularly at those points up to during the first siz character levels (Wiz3/Clr3) where you expect that the party will have access to dispel magic, fireball ball (or lightning bolt) and fly.

 

[Vocenoctum]

For my game, I'll just make it a 5 level class. Doesn't matter a whole lot since I doubt we'll get too high level anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seems okay...if they are overpowered, they're not to the game-breaking level. Their worst offense is that they're boring, uninspired, and a fix for a problem that is much more endemic to the system...

 

[jasamcarl]

Seems okay...if they are overpowered, they're not to the game-breaking level. Their worst offense is that they're boring, uninspired, and a fix for a problem that is much more endemic to the system...

Which of course is one of the stated reasons for the existence of the Prc. Name a system with the number of options of DnD where every possible avenue for character building is viable. Prcs are a convenient way of making a rules-consistent option a viable option. Nothing wrong with that. It works, even if it fails to live up to some arbitrary notion of mechanical 'principle'.

As to boring and uninspired.... I must be in that minority who don't get off at seeing a class progression table. The flavor that the MT allows comes from the insane amount a choice one gets in terms of spell lists and seeing that play out ingame.

 

[rounser]

Prcs are a convenient way of making a rules-consistent option a viable option. Nothing wrong with that. It works, even if it fails to live up to some arbitrary notion of mechanical 'principle'.

Classes, at least in my notion of D&D, are supposed to represent an archetype. Perhaps the most annoying example of a class design sacrificing archetype for game design convenience is the cleric, which is one of the game's sorest points to this day.

"So they're priests then?"
"Yeah, but they wear armour and fight well too, kind of like crusaders."
"I thought paladins wouild be more of a knight, crusader type."
"Well, they are...sorta like knights, but not. Holy warriors."
"So how are they different from clerics?"
"Clerics get more spells. Paladins get more alignment infractions, and a horse."
"Ah."

The game would be better with classes "Knight" and "Priest", IMO - at least they have solid basis in mythology rather than some wishy washy ideas from Three Hearts and Three Lions and some singular fictional priest who once wielded blunt weapons. Mystic Theurge doesn't even pretend it has an archetype apart from the name, because it's not a class - it's a mechanical fudge masquerading as a class.

 

[Malk]

Classes, at least in my idea of D&D are meant to allow you to make any sort of charectar you wish, so that you my explore and play the game any number of infinite ways. If i thought i were confined to playing archtypes the fun would drain right out of it. You want to play a knight, fighter works better than anything else, with enough feats to customize in the way that you want, or hehe build a Prc. As for the mt I agree with Jasamcarl in that how boring or not boring a class is, is very dependant on the person who plays it, and to a lesser degree that persons group and dm.

 

[jasamcarl]

Classes, at least in my notion of D&D, are supposed to represent an archetype. Perhaps the most annoying example of a class design sacrificing archetype for game design convenience is the cleric, which is one of the game's sorest points to this day.

"So they're priests then?"
"Yeah, but they wear armour and fight well too, kind of like crusaders."
"I thought paladins wouild be more of a knight, crusader type."
"Well, they are...sorta like knights, but not. Holy warriors."
"So how are they different from clerics?"
"Clerics get more spells. Paladins get more alignment infractions, and a horse."
"Ah."

The game would be better with classes "Knight" and "Priest", IMO - at least they have solid basis in mythology rather than some wishy washy ideas from Three Hearts and Three Lions and some singular fictional priest who once wielded blunt weapons. Mystic Theurge doesn't even pretend it has an archetype apart from the name, because it's not a class - it's a mechanical fudge masquerading as a class.

Yeah, you're 'notion' would be one of those arbitrary design prinicples i was alluding to earlier. The MT has save and ability progressions which are forwarded by the accumulation of xp; they meet the mechanical definition of a class. Adding some other prerequisites are dumb, especially for Prcs which come in at a higher level when most players already have a very particular idea of what their character is and isn't, and which might not adhere to whatever fluff surrounds a Prc. The paragraphs of fluff text that precede the class mechanics are really only there for beginners who need that type of stylistic introduction.

Anywho, I prefer mechanics which service the game as oppossed to telling me how to play it.