Mystic Theurge - how's it playing?

[Believer]

Remember, this is about the Mystic Theurge, not the age old arguements that will NEVER end.

Please continue in your analysis... your giving me reasons to convince my DM to let me play one.

 

[rounser]

Ironic coming from someone who equates DnD players with those of fudge if every ability set possessed by their pc doesn't fit the, yes, rigid archtypes and worthless flavor text that proceed the class mechanics in the phb.

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.

 

[Halivar]

My versatile yet boring MT casts a friendship spell on both of you!

*ducks*

 

[Hypersmurf]

No worries, Hyp. After that last vacuous post...

I'd appreciate it if you'd not go out of your way to demonstrate that "gentlemen" was the wrong phrase for me to apply.

No more sniping, please.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[youspoonybard]

Was I the only one who read this whole thread, thinking that Hyp was going to chime in on how he thought the MT was?

Darn.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Was I the only one who read this whole thread, thinking that Hyp was going to chime in on how he thought the MT was?

Darn.

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

-Hyp.

 

[Cedric]

Even when used in an environment it was never intended to be used in, my Mystic Theurge is not abusive.

We are using D&D 3.0.

I have a 20 int and a 24 wisdom, I am 12th character level (3/3/6).

I have the feats improved initiative, improved counterspell, reactive counterspell, extended spell and persistent spell.

Our characters were originally converted over from 1st edition where my character was a 9/9 cleric/magic-user. Because we were originally 1st edition characters I have CONSIDERABLY more resources than the normal 12th level character would have. At one time, I had as much cash on me as my character was supposed to have total equipment.

With all of this in mind...my character is still not abusive. I am extremely effective as a character, but not unbalancingly so. Were I to have my normal equipment levels and be using 3.5 spells I would be on the low end of the power scale, but still in the acceptable range.

As is, I am effective without being unbalancing. Our 12th level Barbarian/Fighter...or our 12th level Arcane Trickster ... or any of the rest of our party are all effective characters. I do not significantly outshine any of them in terms of mechanical affectiveness (some I don't outshine at all, like the barbarian/fighter).

Now that is purely my opinion...I am sure some people will read this and be completely disgusted by my character. (Of course...I didn't ask you, you know who you are!).

Cedric

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Done it. DM paints the world, players throw together their characters according to his broad image, then pick up the book 'o' mechanics and stick something together using them so they can play the game.

The only flavour I want on MOST PrC's is "here's the sort of thing we were thinking of when we threw these rules together, but you can really do whatever you damn well want with it".

I don't want to see my idea for a cabal-leading ritual wizard be smacked down by the GM because I wanted to use red wizard for the cabal-leader abilities, and he won't let me because we're not playing in the forgotten realms. The red wizard PrC could have been nicely stripped of its flavour aspects and turned into a good generic cabal leader. As it is, it only requires the removal of one or two feats (tattoo magic IIRC) and it's good to go.

D&D is a relatively generic game. Specifics of worlds and characters are left up to the GM and the players.

Less flavour = more useful class for most GM's and players.

 

[Olive]

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

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

 

[Cedric]

you don't believe in balance?

This question wasn't really aimed at me...but I'll offer my 2 cents anyway. I think "balance" is one of the worst things to ever happen to D&D.

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.

Continued efforts to keep balance have created the current D&D environment which feels more like an arms race then anything else. "How can we change the fighter to make him keep up with the wizard at 22nd level?"...stuff like that.

No, I'll pass on balance. 3.0 brought a lot of great things to the game, but this incessant obsession with balance is not one of them...

Cedric