Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[Psion]

it's a mechanical fudge masquerading as a class.

I prefer my tired archetypes to masquerade as classes.

(Or, rather, if it is going to masquerade as a class, the least it could do is try to emulate a tired archetype so it can fit in with the rest of the classes. Nobody likes a loner. )

 

[jaults]

Please to stop stealing my schtick. ThaADVANCEnks!

Sorry I don't have anything to add to this thread, but I did think this was funny. Shouldn't it be "advaTHANKSnce?" Thanks in advance, not Advance in thanks...

Jason

 

[Psion]

Sorry I don't have anything to add to this thread, but I did think this was funny. Shouldn't it be "advaTHANKSnce?" Thanks in advance, not Advance in thanks...

Knowing hong, it was probably deliberate.

 

[jasamcarl]

Edit: double.

 

[jasamcarl]

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.



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.




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

Try again. Tying caster level to character level would do very little to balance out a Wiz10/Cleric10. The MT goes much farther in making that type of multi-class viable.

And how is the addition of 20 or so prestige classes unmanagble? You still seem to be assuming something which i'm not.

Unfortunatly, allowing a character to advance the 'way they want' without tying them into a class is a formula for all the unbalancing crap that goes on in most point-based systems. 'Hey, I want to fight and cast from two spell lists!! It's what i want! But the MT doesn't give me good BAB or bonus fighter feats! How restrictive!' The entire point of the class mechanic is to give different packages of abilities that are balanced. Does using a given class preclude one from taking features from another class? Yes, but you can't get something for nothing. Classes do the balancing work for you in this way. PRCs thus avoid the imbalances of a more open multiclass system. T

hat being said, how much do you actually loose in character flexibility by taking levels in the MT? It gives the bulk of features of any spellcaster; spell choices.

 

[Psion]

Tying caster level to character level would do very little to balance out a Wiz10/Cleric10. The MT goes much farther in making that type of multi-class viable.

This, I would agree with on a mechanical level.

That said, this highlights one reason why I prefer the MT to an invasive rules alteration. I am not sold on the notion that all spellcasting is synergistic (and more generally, that all classes should mix well.)

A mechanism like the MT I can gladly dispense with (or in my case, alter to the point I think it's sensible) and not use if I don't happen to agree with it. Prestige classes are optional. Core rules are a bit harder to reconcile if I don't agree with the underlying design principle.

 

[Chacal]

Nothing to see here ....


Chacal

 

[Chacal]

Try again. Tying caster level to character level would do very little to balance out a Wiz10/Cleric10.
The MT goes much farther in making that type of multi-class viable.

I wouldn't say it's only a "very little" change in balance, but I agree that a MT makes a Wiz10/Clr10 more viable than just this change.

Still, It wasn't earth shattering and had some effect. I believe that on this basis, some mechanism could be found.

The problem I have with MT is that it's a specific fix, and it would require many PrC. But I'll adress why it''s not a good thing below.

And how is the addition of 20 or so prestige classes unmanagble? You still seem to be assuming something which i'm not.

With all the existing spellcasting PrC I would have figured it was more than 20. Kinda Like #SpellcatingClass * #SpellCastingClass, even if you don't have to make them all . Well they could be automatically generated by some prog, and it's probably why it's not a good thing flavorfully IMO

When confronted with a multiclass combo that involve an existing PrC but is weakened by the current mechanism, I see the following choices

1- Bear with it. You want this flavor, but it only come with poor efficiency. Some DM and PCs can deal with very important differences in power between PCs. Some can't or don't want to. I'm in the latter category.

2- You have to take levels in this BaseSpellCastingClass1/ baseSpellcastingClass2 combo WotC made for you
and you might have more power, but you'll have less levels to spend in the class you wanted to raise.

3- Ok, I'm a good DM I'll alter the PrC you want by adding some "MT-like" changes, but It will take some time as I must do a mechanical fix with class abilities while keeping flavor and a bit of balance.

I'd prefer a choice instantly applicable that keep flavor and respect the player's choices.

Unfortunatly, allowing a character to advance the 'way they want' without tying them into a class is a formula for all the unbalancing crap that goes on in most point-based systems.

Are feats tied to a class ? No, but their number is controlled by level. I'm not advocating a classless, levelless system here.

By "the way they want", I just mean something like : I want to be a cleric of "whatever" that is also a bard and will be some kind of spy for his church.

And I don't want to answer him/her with " well you can but you have to take MT levels or you will never be able to pass opponents SR"

how much do you actually loose in character flexibility by taking levels in the MT? It gives the bulk of features of any spellcaster; spell choices.

By looking at Spellcasting PrCs that my players want, I think it's their flavorful powers and not the spell choices that make them interesting, whether they have full spellcasting progression or not.

MT-like classes don't solve their problems.
A mechanic might.


Chacal

 

[Numion]

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.

Replace that last part to "play convenience", and I'm a bit closer to agreeing. But I'm not sure that classes should all relate to a archetype. All archetypes relating to the genre (to be played) should be just creatable with multiclassing and PrCs - if you can do that, you're set to go. That's my requirement.

"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."

Did this conversation actually ever happen? IME newbies haven't had any problems understanding a new archetype. And for more experienced players cleric is an archetype already. A D&D one, sure, but IMO D&D shouldn't try to be anything else than D&D.

Anyways, your example goes more against pally than cleric, really.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of the PC's in a game I play in has aspirations to being a necromancer (she's already a necromancer specialist) and realised recently that the mystic theurge is the ideal route for her to follow; Necromancer is a class concept that has been poorly served by prestige classes to date IMO, and the Mystic Theurge seems like the best way forward in this case. It remains to be seen what happens with the PC when she eventually gets to take the class!

Cheers