Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[evileeyore]

I play one. Take it from they are so not overpowering.

I play a strange one though so it could just be me. The character concept is a noble from a Sorcerous family where as the last born was sent to the priesthood.

He is (at current) Courtier 2, Sorceror 4, Cleric 3, Mystic Theurge 4, Contemplative 1... Yeah I know across the board, but you should see my Diplomacy Skill!!! (Not that we really ever get to talk to people much....) Or my saves (very Paladin like from the Mysticism Domain) of Fort 15, Ref 13, Will 30... (I save a lot, and now die much less...)

Anyway my point is even if I had gone Wiz 3, Cleric 3, Mystic 8 (for 14 levels), I'd still only be casting 6th level spells.

The Cleric of our party (Cleric 6, Contemplative 9 I think) lays down a whole lot more 'smack, with 8th level spells.

Anyway,

TTFN

EvilE

 

[Vaxalon]

The "Flavor" of a character is provided by the person behind it. The choices of class, prestige class, feat, skill, etc. is simply the means of making that idea work in the game.

 

[Darklone]

Clr3/Spellsinger3/MTX. Nice archer build in full platemail.

 

[Psion]

I am using alternate MT's in my game that add a little more oomph at lower levels, a little less at upper levels, and a lot more flavor/reason to exist.

 

[hong]

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.

No, no, no. The quote goes "not that there's anything wrong with that".

It works, even if it fails to live up to some arbitrary notion of mechanical 'principle'.

What "mechanical principle" is involved in saying that "the mystic theurge is boring and uninspired"?

As to boring and uninspired.... I must be in that minority who don't get off at seeing a class progression table.

Please to stop stealing my schtick. ThaADVANCEnks!

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.

You wouldn't be one of those people who puts tomato sauce on everything, would you? Because, you know, everything tastes better with tomato sauce.

Actually, that's a remarkably apt comparison now that I think of it. Yes, I think from now on, I will refer to the "solution" put forward by the eldritch knight and mystic theurge as the tomato sauce of D&D. No matter what it is, you can always make it taste better with tomato sauce.

Sometimes, I surprise even myself.


Hong "surprising myself RIGHT NOW etcetera" Ooi

 

[ruleslawyer]

Eeh.

IMHO, the MT serves a quite important set of archetypes:

1) The cleric of a god(dess) of magic
2) The unconventional caster who has learned to step beyond the bounds of such petty definitions as "arcane" and "divine" magic (especially effective when combined with the Southern Magician feat)
3) The hallowed mage

It's a generic and flavorless PrC, sure. I like it that way. I tend to think very strongly that core PrCs should be reasonably flavorless and thus allow for DMs to add flavor. If I want PrCs with lots of flavor, I'll buy a campaign-oriented sourcebook or splatbook, thank you. The nice thing about the MT's "generic-ness" is its flexibility. For example, I like Monte's Hallowed Mage better for archetype #3, above, but it doesn't work so well in modeling ##1 and 2.

As for the MT's power level: IMX, weak at low levels, barely balanced around Clr3/Wiz3/MT 10. The problem is that in order to make up the serious power dump you take to get into this class, you basically have to take all 10 levels. This means that you lose out, from an opportunity cost perspective, on all the cool stuff that your single-classed counterparts can take by picking up other PrCs.

Wiz10/Lor5/Acm1 vs. Clr3/Wiz3/MT10:

1) Assuming average SR = CR+10, has a 55% chance of beating SR, as opposed to 40% for the MT
2) +3 caster levels for level-based spell effects (range, duration, damage)
3) Access to 8th-level and more 7th-level spells.
4) Two bonus feats
5) 1 archmage high arcana
6) 3 loremaster secrets
7) Lore ability

MT vs. loremaster:

1) Two domain powers
2) Spells as Clr13
3) Access to divine feats

So, what the MT has here is lots of versatility. That can be a really, really good thing, or you can go with Grog's statement that "versatility just means more ways to suck". Ultimately, An MT is likely to be more useful as a cohort or support character than as the party's main spellslinger.

 

[Chacal]

"Clerics get more spells. Paladins get more alignment infractions, and a horse."

it's a mechanical fudge masquerading as a class.

Thus only solving the "problem" if you take it, and not with all others combinations affected by the "problem".

But not solving a mechanical issue by a change in mechanics is opening the way to many many prestige class and we all know there can't be too many PrC

Backward compatibility is sometimes not worth it IMO.

Chacal

 

[jasamcarl]

Thus only solving the "problem" if you take it, and not with all others combinations affected by the "problem".

But not solving a mechanical issue by a change in mechanics is opening the way to many many prestige class and we all know there can't be too many PrC

Backward compatibility is sometimes not worth it IMO.

Chacal

And as I've pointed out, that is a standard which will never be meet. Multiclassing offers a lot of options and there really is no good way to balance them all. That strategy Wotc took was to take those options which they believed many people would like to try (multiclassed spellscasting, throwing fighters) and designed prcs to make them viable. It's as good a solution as i've seen. Most importantly, it doesn't introduce extreme, general changes which could wreck the positives of the systems as it stands; given limitations on R&D time, PRCs were the best path to follow.

Or would you care to name a system with a similar amount of options where said options are all equally viable? And too many Prcs? Still an irrational sentiment which I have no empathy for.

 

[jasamcarl]

No, no, no. The quote goes "not that there's anything wrong with that".



What "mechanical principle" is involved in saying that "the mystic theurge is boring and uninspired"?



Please to stop stealing my schtick. ThaADVANCEnks!



You wouldn't be one of those people who puts tomato sauce on everything, would you? Because, you know, everything tastes better with tomato sauce.

Actually, that's a remarkably apt comparison now that I think of it. Yes, I think from now on, I will refer to the "solution" put forward by the eldritch knight and mystic theurge as the tomato sauce of D&D. No matter what it is, you can always make it taste better with tomato sauce.

Sometimes, I surprise even myself.


Hong "surprising myself RIGHT NOW etcetera" Ooi

I will respond to the one sensical comment. 'Dumb Design Standard' = 'A class is only a class if it invokes all types of cliched archtypes and worlds of adventure simply through staring at its progression chart!!! God knows I expect to be entertained by save progressions and (Su) listings; what else do I have, my group?'

Oh, and I can see some thinking behind the ketchup comment; not good thinking, but still... If the designers had added all types of 'flavorful' and 'fun' special abilities to the prcs, the classes wouldn't be balanced; you would have to compromise either on the BAB or spellcasting side.. and *SURPRISE* most DND players like to visualize themselves ingame actually swinging a sword or tossing one of the many spells which add more 'flavor' (and mechanical options) to this game than any hackneyed prc (su) ever could. The MT does the spell thing very well and makes a reasonable compromise between power and versatility.

 

[Chacal]

And as I've pointed out, that is a standard which will never be meet. Multiclassing offers a lot of options and there really is no good way to balance them all. That strategy Wotc took was to take those options which they believed many people would like to try (multiclassed spellscasting, throwing fighters) and designed prcs to make them viable. It's as good a solution as i've seen. Most importantly, it doesn't introduce extreme, general changes which could wreck the positives of the systems as it stands; given limitations on R&D time, PRCs were the best path to follow.

If you admit that the number of options will make balance harder to maintain, then I don't understand why changing a mechanic (like say, tying Caster level (not spellcasting level) to character level and not to class Level), instead of adding what some of us think as rigid workarounds, could not be the path to follow.

I'm not sure why you think that changing a mechanism would necessarily be an " extreme change that could wreck the positives of the system" .

I'm not sure the change above (which for sure does change balance) would "wreck the system", and even change it more than the haste, DR, and weapon size changes have done.

Or would you care to name a system with a similar amount of options where said options are all equally viable?

Pushing the argument to the extreme is not really useful. Please avoid this.
Seeking more viability for a group of options (namely multiclassed spellcasting) is not seeking equal viability for every option.

And too many Prcs? Still an irrational sentiment which I have no empathy for.

Where I draw the "too many PrC" line is subjective, but certainly not irrational.

IMO, fixing the spellcasting multiclassing issues with PrC would require making a PrC for every multiclass spellcasters. If you include other spellcasting PrC with separate progression (which you should if you want to be fair) it becomes unmanageable.

Thus, to be viable, a PC should take some levels in a "fix multiclass" PrC instead of progressing in the way its character wanted. I simply object to this.



Chacal