Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[MerricB]

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.

How is this different than the sorcerer's "I want to blow things up better than a wizard!"?

There are many, many classes and prestige classes out there that I don't agree with the flavour and/or abilities of and so don't allow them in my campaigns.

"Or even a cleric/wizard, because it shows a level of willingness to sacrifice spellcasting power to showcase character."

I think it demonstrates absolute stupidity in a combat-based game - to play a character that is so far beneath the par for that level that it disadvantages the other players and the DM as merely being a tag-along.

Look, in a game set up about role-playing, the abilities of the characters don't matter. In that sort of game, a Wiz7/Clr7 can happily walk around with Wiz14s and Clr14s and Ftr14s and hold their own.

However, that's not the sort of campaign I play, and I doubt it's the style in which most people play. Combat weighs rather heavily into the affair.

Cheers!

 

[Nightfall]

Merric,

Obviously combat does play into it, but regarding the sorcerer, some might try to not blast as control, dominate, summon, or even just shapechange better than a wizard.

 

[hong]

With regard to the flavour of the Mystic Theurge:

Does the Wizard have flavour in D&D? Yes.

Not really, no. The wizard is exceedingly generic, and any flavour is handled by spell selection and feat selection.

Does the Cleric have flavour in D&D? Yes.

Not really, no. See wizard above, and add domains and alignment/turning/rebuking undead into the mix.

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

Not really, no.

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".

If so, the solution to the useless multiclassed character is to fix the multiclassing rules. This is _not hard_, people. I proposed something along these lines more than a year ago, to make caster level == character level, for the purpose of figuring spell effects. Or you can make up feats to give bonuses to caster level, or something else. There are tons of ways to handle it -- Monte's method, of starting the PrC spellcasting progression at a higher level, is a particularly innovative one.

Using prestige classes to fix the problem is a kludgy, cumbersome, awkward hand-hack by comparison. Are you really going to have one prestige class for every combination of spellcaster around? I suppose the next tomato sauce PrC is going to be the divine theurge or something, giving +1 divine caster level/+1 divine caster level, for the cleric/druid characters. Or maybe the arcane theurge, giving +1 arcane caster level/+1 arcane caster level, for the wizard/sorcs or bard/sorcs.

Fixing the multiclassing rules also means you're free to use PrCs to represent something that actually does exist in the game world, instead of being some weird system hack. Instead of having to use a mystic theurge to represent a true necromancer or hallowed mage (both examples of multiclassed caster concepts), you can actually make up new PrCs tailored to each schtick. That would make a lot more sense, and be a lot more interesting.

 

[hong]

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.

Unless and until D&D goes completely classless (not entirely impossible, given the progress of its creeping HEROization), you are playing the wrong game.

 

[jasamcarl]

Unless and until D&D goes completely classless (not entirely impossible, given the progress of its creeping HEROization), you are playing the wrong game.

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

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. By putting in the MT with its obvious intent, the designers have done the balancing point for us. It is much simpler that some extreme, convoluted system hack. Not to mention it allow one to maximize caster level by sacraficing those aspects unique to the class, namely saves, bonus feats, hit die and everything else. A feat based system wouldn't allow for near as much maxing.

[Edited out personal attacks. -Hyp.]

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's three, jasamcarl.

If you can't post to this thread while retaining civility, please don't post at all.

If you can refrain from making it personal, by all means go ahead.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Mercule]

It is much simpler that some extreme, convoluted system hack.

I couldn't agree more with this statement, jasamcarl. I just don't think you're holding the right end of that stick.

My problem with the MT has nothing to do with either balance or flavor. It's just that using a PrC to fix a bad mechanic is bad game design, plain and simple.

The multiclassing rules don't work as well as most people would like them to. So, what do they do? Instead of fixing the mechanic, they throw in the Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight as lazy and cumbersome hacks.

Don't get me wrong. Those classes bring the power level back into whack. It's just that they don't actually address the underlying cause -- flawed multiclassing rules (or the perception of such -- I'm still not entirely convinced there's a real problem, but the discussion of whether the MT is the right solution presupposes one exists). The above PrCs are nothing more than a bandage. Period.

That said, though, I don't think the classes are out of place in 3.5. 3.5 is, after all, a revision. To completely revamp the caster level or multiclassing mechanics would have put things into the camp of a full-blown new edition. When 4E does show up, however, I think that the Mystic Theurge and its ilk will be gone or it will qualify as a rather large screw-up by the design team.

Put another way, 3.0 got a flat tire when the multiclassing rules were pushed too far. The Mystic Theurge is a donut that was put on until the car can get to the garage to get things taken care of properly. Trying to sell it as anything else should get the same reaction as someone telling you that a donut is better than a full-sized tire.

 

[Psion]

My problem with the MT has nothing to do with either balance or flavor. It's just that using a PrC to fix a bad mechanic is bad game design, plain and simple.

This is gonna sound like a repeat of what I was saying earlier, but: nope, I disagree. I don't agree the mechanic is "bad" in the first place. It just doesn't do what some people think it should do. Others don't share this opinion.

Using a prestige class to do this is a great solution. Shoehorning in a mechanic that combines caster levels promises to be awkward and/or incomplete. MT addresses the situation almost as well as it can (I say almost because I think at high levels it provides a bit too much flexibility) in a very non intrusive fashion that can be ommitted by those who don't share the requirement that the classes have a sparkling synergy, and avoids mangling a currently rather straightforward core mechanic to meet that rather personal requirement.

 

[Mercule]

Using a prestige class to do this is a great solution. Shoehorning in a mechanic that combines caster levels promises to be awkward and/or incomplete.

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.

 

[Olive]

Not really, no. The wizard is exceedingly generic, and any flavour is handled by spell selection and feat selection.
Not really, no. See wizard above, and add domains and alignment/turning/rebuking undead into the mix.

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