Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[hong]

Using classes to help modify characters helps maintains..say it with me...BALANCE!! Something that no point-based system could hope to do.

Yes, dear.

And no, the two solutions you proposed would go no where near allowing the viability that the MT gives multiclass characters. There is no way to disengage caster level or class abilities from class progression without resulting in a pseudo-point buy muddle, which removes the entire BALANCE point above.

Have you ever designed a prestige class?

 

[hong]

But givent hat the classes are defined by it's spell/feat/domain selection, surely that means they have flavour?

I didn't say classes like the wiz and cleric weren't well-defined. If you're going to reduce it to the level of "these classes have class-specific abilities", then yes, that applies to the wiz and cleric, just as much as it does to the fighter, the bard, the <s>ninja</s> ranger, the rogue, etc. EVERY class in D&D has class-specific abilities. That isn't the point.

I said that the wiz and cleric lacked flavour. That means that they're highly flexible, able to be used as the basis for lots of different characters, and don't force the player down specific paths beyond the minimum required of the archetype. Which is great for a base class, but not so great for a prestige class, especially one whose sole purpose is to patch a hole in the rules.

 

[Nightfall]

I guess this is where you and I will disagree somewhat Psion. But otherwise I think you correct in the first part of your statement.

 

[rounser]

Which is fine for a beginner, but has little to know use for someone who has read through the rules, seen a game played, and considered all the possibilites.

I disagree, and still think you're discounting one of the game's hidden strengths...simple example; in 3E town stats, you'll have a list of important people with sometimes little more than a name, a level and a class. Of the three bits, the class is the most informative bit as to what this person is about, and that would no longer be nearly as useful if what you suggest was implemented. If you're feeling unimaginative, lazy, or unprepared, you can always default the NPC to the cliche of a cleric of that power level.
Additionally, beginners are gamers too, and not even all experienced gamers are as sophisticated in their character creation as you imply, especially folks like powergamers, who care a lot less about character concept than how many kills they can rack up, and at least a class gives them the bare minimum of a character handle for other players to hold on to if they don't care about it themselves.

I think where you are getting confused is the notion that a class as such has has any instrinsic ingame reality.

Eh? Sure it does. For instance, I make clerics church leaders most of the time, rather than rogues, who make better beggars. This has as much to do with class image as abilities. In theory, there's nothing to prevent a devout rogue from being church leader, or a luckless cleric from being a beggar. It just doesn't fit as well.

It doesn't; the different abilities the classes bestow do (a fireball is a fireball, someone taking an attack action with a bastard sword is swinging a sword), but the character's level in a class does not have any ingame, narrative significance.

To offer a counterpoint; power level has narrative significance, as implied by OD&D's suggestion of different types of gaming as levels increased (go dungeoneering, then explore the wilderness, then get a small realm, then ascend to godhood etc.), or the differing campaign themes of "Epic" level play to, say, a 1st level party. More changes than just the kobolds getting bigger.

The 'flavor' that DnD provides comes from ingame options which the entire group is privy to, not through class progressions. The narrative development of a pc's skills should reflect the particular campaign history and/or what the player wants out of it.

Which leaves those of us who just want to get their Conan or Merlin clones to 20th level out in the cold a bit. Luckily, D&D caters for just that in it's default state, and if you want more, you can build on that foundation, and make your barbarian completely different to all the other Conan-a-likes, and your wizard far more interesting than just another a pointy hatted Gandalf clone. The foundation can be ignored, but to remove it entirely would be a mistake, because a lot of us like to either default to it or build upon it.

 

[LightPhoenix]

If you combine X wizard levels and Y levels in basically any other base class you end up with a character who's abilities are equal to an Xth level character, plus the abilities of a Yth level character, plus the additional restriction that only one of the two characters may use their abilities in a given round. And for those who don't know - the CR of two characters of level X is X+2, not 2X.

Which is all fine and good, but CR doesn't apply to PCs. CR has the implied definition of applying only to creatures whose lifetime is one combat. The argument is in regards to PCs, because they're the ones who are benefitting from the long-term benefits. An NPC you can just scale as seen fit and be done with.

I think this is where some of the rub is. I'm not advocating "shoehorning" anything in. I'm saying that I expect a fully integrated, workable mechanic for multiclassing spellcasters in 4E.

The MT really doesn't fix anything. It just adds another layer of mechanics into the mix. If every "problem" got solved that way, you'd end up with 1E where some checks required high roles, some low ones and where you did normal melee with a d20, but boxing is handled on a d100, etc. Every situation needs a custom solution.

The system, as a whole, begins to feel like a patchwork quilt. None of the rules are really woven together, they're just stiched.

Exactly my feelings on the MT.

I don't think it's terrible, and I don't think it's unbalanced, especially after reading many threads on the topic. It's simply a patch, a kludge, and as Mercule said, it doesn't really fix anything. The problem is this shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the spellcasting system should have accounted for the extreme ineptitude of multiclassed spellcasters in the first place, and certainly with the transition to 3.5, IMO.

 

[Cedric]

I think the balance of an MT in a group depends on the group. If you have 5 players and 4 of them are optimally designed, effeciently made characters with affectiveness and mechanical ability set as priorities (I'm trying to avoid saying power gamer or munchkin)...then the MT is going to be versatile, but otherwise the other PC's will outshine him.

If you have 5 players whose characters are really designed around roleplaying aspects and little or no thought is given to the mechanics of the characters the MT could be a bit overly powerful.

In the end, the weakest character in the hands of the best player is still most likely going to be the most affective character in the group.

 

[Will]

I think there are two basic problems that play havoc with easy fixes. The first is that power is not linear, the second is that the usefulness of many/broad spell list is hard to pin down.

The three biggest issues with spellcasters is number of spells, power of spells (caster level), and spell level.

Unlike BAB, nonspellcasters don't add anything. You can fix caster level, to a degree, with something like 'Casting as a wizard, add other primary casters to your caster level, 3/4 of ranger or paladin, 1/2 of anything else.'

This fixes the strength of magic, to a degree. A Wiz5/Clr5 who can cast divine or arcane spells with a caster level of 10 is nice. Of course, you've traded away higher level spells for having a broader and more numerous list. Is it a fair trade? I dunno.

Maybe, instead, the caster should get whichever 'spells per day' is higher, and the multiclassing simply affects the spell list. So a Wiz8/Clr2 gains a few low level clerical spell options, but sacrifices 5th level spells.

It's tricky. I'm not surprised WotC hasn't found an easy fix.

 

[Pelenor]

Okay, First of all Meeplo thanks for clearing that up. This leads me down ye olde merry train of thought road.

I'm going to continue to use the example Meeplo gave me to illistrate the point. a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 while being 20th level as a character has a caster level of only 10 as a Wizard or a Cleric. Now this problem is mitigated somewhat by the versatility this combination gives, especially when you consider that some abilities from one class could in theory be used to augment the abilities of the other class. But, the real question, is that versatility and mutual augmentation (to the extent that it may or may not exist YMMV) enough to offset the fact that this is a 20th level character with a character level of 10 in two classes (and thus smacking right against the SR problem amongst other possible problems)?

One solution has already been proposed that I know of (not having seen Hong's solution I can't comment on it). Makeing the caster level equal to character level (I can't remember who suggested it sorry). I can already see some things about that solution that make me more than a little leary of suggesting that we use it. Let me illistrate what I'm going to try and say by example. Lets say we have Character A who is a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 and Character B who is a Wizard 15/Cleric 5. Now both of these are 20th level casters if we use the above suggested rule. One is obviously better at being a wizard than the other but they both have the same ability to penetrate SR with arcane spells (all else being equal of course). Now even though one can cast higher level wizards spells than the other the one with a lower wizard level can still penetrate SR with Arcane spells just as good as the other. That's the problem I have with this solution. I doubtless could manufacture other examples to prove the point but I think that is sufficient for the moment.

 

[FireLance]

One solution has already been proposed that I know of (not having seen Hong's solution I can't comment on it). Makeing the caster level equal to character level (I can't remember who suggested it sorry). I can already see some things about that solution that make me more than a little leary of suggesting that we use it. Let me illistrate what I'm going to try and say by example. Lets say we have Character A who is a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 and Character B who is a Wizard 15/Cleric 5. Now both of these are 20th level casters if we use the above suggested rule. One is obviously better at being a wizard than the other but they both have the same ability to penetrate SR with arcane spells (all else being equal of course). Now even though one can cast higher level wizards spells than the other the one with a lower wizard level can still penetrate SR with Arcane spells just as good as the other. That's the problem I have with this solution. I doubtless could manufacture other examples to prove the point but I think that is sufficient for the moment.

On the other hand, practically everything else - BAB and skills, in particular, stack.

A Rgr15/Ftr5 has more ranger levels than a Rgr10/Ftr10, but he still has the same chance to hit his favored enemies in combat. The difference is that he has more favored enemies and will possibly do more damage against them due to his higher ranger level.

A Rog15/Brd5 has more rogue levels than a Rog10/Brd10, but he could have the same chance to pick a lock. He does get more skill points from his higher rogue level.

If you consider the ability to get through SR to be something as basic to all spellcasting classes as the ability to hit an enemy is for all fighting classes, this is no longer a problem.

 

[Pelenor]

On the other hand, practically everything else - BAB and skills, in particular, stack.

A Rgr15/Ftr5 has more ranger levels than a Rgr10/Ftr10, but he still has the same chance to hit his favored enemies in combat. The difference is that he has more favored enemies and will possibly do more damage against them due to his higher ranger level.

A Rog15/Brd5 has more rogue levels than a Rog10/Brd10, but he could have the same chance to pick a lock. He does get more skill points from his higher rogue level.

If you consider the ability to get through SR to be something as basic to all spellcasting classes as the ability to hit an enemy is for all fighting classes, this is no longer a problem.

The SR was just an example made up by me off the top of my head while at work. There are other examples to be had that relate to caster level. The point I was trying to make is multiclassing can lead to a weaker character in some cases particularly in the case were all the classes involved are "pure" casters such as cleric/mage. I have some issues with the solution of setting caster level equal to character level. As it seems unfair to some characters for instance. If we use character level as caster level. a cleric 10/ wizard 10 will do just as much damage with spells that use caster level as a basis for damage as say a wizard 20 and more damage than say a wizard 15. Inspite of the fact the latter two have invested far more time as arcane casters. Now granted I am using a sort of generic damage dealing spell as an example but I'm not combing though every spell in the book to prove my point. At any rate this is just another example. I agree that the multiclassing rules lead to problems for particularly for multiclassed characters who have a casting class in the mix, but any solutions need to be fair to those characters that are single classed as well. As for my personal opinion it used to not bother me as much because I though that was the price you pay for versatility. That was until I ran a game this weekend where the point was proven for me. I have a player who has a bard 5/ sorcerer 4 and she wasn't very effective at all compared to the other characters of the same level. Now granted a lot of this was due to the circumstances and it hasn't convinced me of the need for a drastic rule change YET! But, you can bet I will keep my eye on it as the game progresses.