Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[Hypersmurf]

Now you mention it, I don't think I have. So, what's the deal? you don't believe in balance?

More that... talking about whether something is balanced doesn't really interest me

I enjoy looking at what the rules say. That rarely has anything much to do with whether they're balanced.

There are other people much better at weighing implications and impact on gameplay than me. I'm happy to analyse "Is this legal?" But I'd rather have someone else figure out "Is this fair?"

-Hyp.

 

[Pants]

When I think of fantasy roleplaying I want it to conjure images of the Lord of the Rings and things like that. Where in that party was there balance? It is entirely possible for everyone in the group to have a great time without the need for balance.

Well, when you have a character that has a +24 to Gardening a +22 to Pruning, and the following Feats 'Quicken Garden', 'Maximize Pruning', 'Cook Taters for Frodo' you know something is wrong. No one will ever be able to outgarden such a character! Just think of what the other characters were thinking:

'Damn that Sam and is uber-gardening skills! He just beat Sauron in a Gardening competition and bought us more time to get rid of the Ring! Arrrggh! Stupid overpowered, twinky Gardener PrC.'

 

[Nightfall]

Unfortunately if you're merely trying to do something mechanical (ie - produce a viable cleric/wizard multiclass), flavour is a bad thing, just like it is in a lot of the class descriptions. I make the flavour for my character, then pick the mechanics to fit, not the other way around.

Maybe so. But I don't necessarily see how having something like Hallowed Mage, which is a very decent goodly aligned merged spellcaster is worse than MT. And besides not everything HAS to be generic. I mean does everyone want their ice cream to taste like vallinia? Or what about when they want a hot dog, shouldn't it be within people's right to have a FLAVOR to something about merged spellcasting other than this little dullard? Especially considering that Hallowed Mage is probably a much better forebearer to some of the "generic" stuff in BoED. (Excluding the ones dedicated to the Celestials I mean.)

 

[youspoonybard]

When was the last time you saw me take part in a discussion on whether or not something is balanced?

-Hyp.

Actually, I was expecting some long, drawn-out debate about some tangent on the rules, which is more interesting, IMO.

 

[MerricB]

I suggest you go try playing a flavourless system like FUDGE instead, and find out just how much of the flavour-related heavy lifting D&D does for you, and which you appear to have completely taken for granted with that comment.

With regard to the flavour of the Mystic Theurge:

Does the Wizard have flavour in D&D? Yes.
Does the Cleric have flavour in D&D? Yes.
Did the Cleric/Wizard multi-class have flavour in D&D? Yes.

Why does the Mystic Theurge suddenly leech all that flavour away? There are warrior prestige classes out there that grant no ability to use weapons or armour... because those abilities are inherited from the base classes.

The same applies here. Saying "I play a Mystic Theurge" is equivalent to saying "I play a multi-class Cleric/Wizard".

Other prestige classes divert you from the normal path of the class or multi-class combination you have chosen. A Cavalier is quite a different thing to a Fighter or Paladin. The Mystic Theurge keeps you on the multi-class Cleric/Wizard path quite firmly.

Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I was expecting some long, drawn-out debate about some tangent on the rules, which is more interesting, IMO.

Heh. Actually, that does remind me of a concern I have with the MT, and it's even a balance one.

I think the MT by itself is probably fine, since it's a 10-level class. What I'm worried about is that now Wizards have basically said "2-for-1 Spellcasting levels are a viable PrC concept", and so eventually, there will be a second class that comes out that allows the same.

And then you have a 20th level Clr/Wiz/MT/XX, that has access to 9th level spells in both classes.

... which strikes me as wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

Heh. Actually, that does remind me of a concern I have with the MT, and it's even a balance one.

I think the MT by itself is probably fine, since it's a 10-level class. What I'm worried about is that now Wizards have basically said "2-for-1 Spellcasting levels are a viable PrC concept", and so eventually, there will be a second class that comes out that allows the same.

And then you have a 20th level Clr/Wiz/MT/XX, that has access to 9th level spells in both classes.

... which strikes me as wrong.

-Hyp.

It does. Of course, it's worth considering what the MT gets as special abilities: Nothing.

BAB - lowest (Wizard)
Saves - lowest (only Will is good)
Hit Dice - lowest (d4)
Skills - low (2 skill points/level, small skill list)

The only thing the MT has going for it is the spell progression.

I feel that because Wizards made the MT so bad in all other areas, it will really show up as overpowered any other PrC that tries the 2 for 1 progression.

To a certain extent, the MT is like the comprehensive range of +2/+2 skill feats that Wizards introduced in 3.5E: It stops their proliferation elsewhere.

A 2 for 1 spellcasting class might be possible if the progression skips various levels... but the MT does give design constraints on such.

Cheers!

 

[jasamcarl]

The concept of a "Wizard" is a foundation, a point of departure for creating your own twist on a spellcaster, and the flavour text serves the purpose of getting that foundation across...perhaps more important with classes whose name meaning isn't readily apparent (e.g. Paladin equating to a Lancelot type). It also allows those who are lazy to just default to a Gandalf/Merlin/Belgarath/Pug cliche and play the game. These are features, not bugs.

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

Now while its true that taking a class from levels 1-20 will produce a convenient and consistent character archtype, there is no reason why other mechanics shouldn't be introduced to allow those who want to build on the fantastic theme of the game (or who simply want different gameplay options) to make a unique character. As long as it is reasonably balanced, all's good.

 

[Nightfall]

Merric,

I think the difference is MT is just saying "Hey look! I took this class to cast spells better than a cleric/wizard hybrid!" Where as a Hallowed Mage is saying "I serve magic for the greater good of all." Or even a cleric/wizard, because it shows a level of willingness to sacrifice spellcasting power to showcase character.

 

[The Hanged Man]

Back to the OT - I've used a couple as BBEG's or BBEG flunkies, and they're about average. Until 10th level, when they get 5th level spells, they're really, really weak. At 16th level (highest I've played), it's not bad, if you stick to a buff and annoy strategy, but they're just not as fun (i.e., flashy, dangerous, exciting) as a straight wizard or cleric.