Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!

[Pax]

My jaw is still sitting in my lap, to tell you the truth. I always thought multiclassed spellcasters were under powered, but this is rediculous the way they delt with that. Who needs a wizard or a cleric? I can do both

But you wil do neither, as well as the pure Wizard and pure Cleric can manage. Look at what an offensive spellcaster needs -- high DCs.

Where do high DC's come from? High attributes, for starters. However, a Mystic Theurge is going to be having to divide their level-up attribute increases between TWO spellcasting stats.

Further, at 20'th level (Cleric(5) / Wizard(5) / Theurgist (10), you'll only be a 15th level caster in each "sort" of magic; that's 8th level spells.

To cast that level of spell, you need to have started with a 15 and 16 in your two spellcasting attributes. IOW, either you got a nice set of attributes, or, you have poor scores elsewhere.

Lastly, consider: it's a Prestige class ... all it gets, all it gets, is dual spellcasting progression. Compare to the Archmage (FRCS), the Loremaster (DMG), the Elemental Savant (T&B), the Contemplative (DotF). They all get spellcasting progression and something else.

I thought the true necromancer dealt with this the right way. They were able to add their levels together to get spells, rather than all of both.
~~Brandon

Actually, you're wrong.

True NEcromancer gets +1 spellcasting level per True Necromancer level, granted. But you have to choose which (cleric or wizard) gets the bonus spellcasting level.

For Necromancy school spells and Death domain spells, only, the True NEcromancer's caster level (not spells per day, not what level of spellc an be cast, just caster level), is the sum of all their levels.

The example T&B gives is a Cleric(5)/Wizard(5)/True Necromancer(2) -- who chose to boost their Wizard spellcsting with both True NEcromancer levels.

In that example, they specify that cleric spells are cast as a 5th level cleric, wizard spells as a 7th level wizard, but necromancy-school or death-domain spells are cast with a caster level of 12.

Cast, not prepared. It'll help you with SR checks, and against dispel checks, and for determining damage dice or duration.

Further, the True Necromancer still gets other powers. Zone of Desecration and Major Desecration as supernatural abilities; Create Undead, Create Greater Undead, and Energy Drain as spell-like powers; the ability to rebuke undead (which stacks with their cleric levels, of course).

Consider, OTOH, a Cleric(5)/Wizard(5)/Theurgist(2). They cast and prepare Cleric spells at 7th level, Wizard spells at 7th level, and all non-spellcastign abilities of both classes are based on 5th-level members of said classes.

And that's it.

I don't see True NEcromancer comparing unfavorably to the Mystic Theurgist; if you want to be a Cleric/Wizard who is good at necromancy, you play a True Necromancer.

If you want to be a Cleric/Wizard who is a good magical generalist, however, you play a Mystic Theurgist.

...

On the topic of Epci progression -- I woudl sy, the Theurgist gets a bonus feat only every ... say, 8th or 10th epic level, but, still benefits from full dual progression.

 

[FireLance]

Re: Re: Re: Dont know if anyone's mentioned..

OK. Once again, the argument: "yes, compared to a raw cleric, it's weak, but compared to a raw wizard, it's strong".

Too me, this only means one thing: If you're going to disallow a class that is weaker than a cleric because it's too powerful, then, the cleric, who is more powerful, is even more "too powerful", and thus needs to be forbidden also.

Actually, my argument was that it is more difficult to compare with a cleric, not that it is weaker compared to a cleric.

 

[MerricB]

Just on the lack of "flavour" of this prestige class:

That's fine, in my opinion. This prestige class is to fill a mechanical hole in the 3E rules - that multi-class non-spellcasters are great, but multi-class spellcasters are really, really bad.

As such, it has as much flavour as a Wizard or a Cleric has - you create your own, rather than have it imposed on you.

Whether or not it is balanced - well, I think it's not good up until level 10 (so a Wiz3/Clr3/Theurgist4), but after that it starts getting playable. It's highlight is at level 16, and after that things start going downhill.

Cheers!

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

OK, I looked it up.
I gave my in-house test dumm--errr playtester, 30 levels to build the Ultimate, 120 point buy, UBER-MT!!!

Then, in playtest, the lich shot him with an AK-47.
He died.

Well, apparently not too overpowered.

The UBER-MT VS 500 Kobolds armed with M-16A1's and AT-4's!
Once again, the UBER-MT(TM) was wiped out.

So, we dropped our UBER-MT out of a plane at 35,000 feet.
He forgot his chute.
Hmmm, he didn't have fly or feather-fall.
SPLAT!
Oops.

So, we scraped him up with a spatula, and put him through the UBER-PC REGEN-o-MATIC(Patent Pending) and put him against his newest opponent.
24 10th level Barbarian/10th level Brutal Killers, wirebound, and armed with Etherium +12 Axes!!!
Hmmm, he didn't do too good against them either.

So, would it fit in my campaign?
Uhhh, no.
Would it fit in other peoples?
Probably. Someones. More power to them.
WHY SHOULD WIZARDS PUT OUT ONLY INFO TO FIT A SMALL CRITERIA!
Don't the munchkins and powergamers deserve material? Don't powergamers buy books too?
Geez, it's a Prestige Class, not the replacement for all spellcasters.
Take a deep breath, and just remember, it's a G-A-M-E.

 

[Michael Morris]

I'm iffy on this class not because of power (power wise I think it will be ok), but because of it's interaction with the magi of my setting. I don't know though - I'm going to be revising the magi anyway...

 

[kkoie]

I just wanted to chip in and say I like the class. I don't see any problem with it. From how it is set up, I think its pretty fair and balanced. Although I'd prefer a straight wizard or stright cleric over this guy anytime, simply because I think they'd be more powerful. This class is weaker, but is definately more diverse.

 

[Dark Eternal]

OK, I looked it up.
I gave my in-house test dumm--errr playtester, 30 levels to build the Ultimate, 120 point buy, UBER-MT!!!

Then, in playtest, the lich shot him with an AK-47.
He died.

Well, apparently not too overpowered.

The UBER-MT VS 500 Kobolds armed with M-16A1's and AT-4's!
Once again, the UBER-MT(TM) was wiped out.

So, we dropped our UBER-MT out of a plane at 35,000 feet.
He forgot his chute.
Hmmm, he didn't have fly or feather-fall.
SPLAT!
Oops.

So, we scraped him up with a spatula, and put him through the UBER-PC REGEN-o-MATIC(Patent Pending) and put him against his newest opponent.
24 10th level Barbarian/10th level Brutal Killers, wirebound, and armed with Etherium +12 Axes!!!
Hmmm, he didn't do too good against them either.

[tongue-in-cheek]

You should have let me play him. He would have been a much happier character. Those pathetic liches and kobolds and barbarian BK's and planets wouldn't have lasted five rounds...

[/tongue-in-cheek]

On to more serious notes -

I'm only here to recant my previous statements. After a long and humbling conversation with my senior Dungeon Master, it turns out that I was wrong. The class is playable, fairly balanced, and will be allowed in my games. I stand corrected.

Thank you for playing.

 

[hong]

If said god encompasses all forms of crafts, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?

If said god encompasses all forms of weather, then why bother with having distinct forms in the first place?

There are distinct forms of weather. There are also distinct forms of magic. They are called "spells". There is, further, no real-life analogue to "divine" or "arcane" magic, as there is for weather, last I checked, so such analogies are just a distraction.

You know, I might have mentioned this before, or perhaps that was just the product of a deranged imagination.

I don't think this is a difficult concept. If one god can be the patron of both blacksmiths and masons, then why cannot another god be the patron of both arcane casters and divine casters?

The patron of divine casters is whoever grants their spells, whether that's Heironeous, Lathander, Billy the deity of trolls, etc. The concept of a "god of magic" is antithetical to the whole point of having divine spells in the first place.

Both are using different forms of magic, buch as a blacksmith and a mason use different types of craftsmanship. The magic is used in different ways, much as ironwork and worked stone are used for different things. They require different sets of skills (although there is some overlap), just like blacksmithing and masonry.

So, why should 'magic' get all of its possibilities smashed together into one thing, when nothing else does?

It would appear that your Lego head is doing strange things to you, because you're not making sense. Nobody has suggested "smashing all its possibilities into one thing", whatever that means.

THe point is: why bother with this artificial divide, if all you're going to do is ignore it? Arcane and divine magic exist to further specific roles or archetypes within the game. If what you want is to munge these archetypes together, then why have arcane and divine magic in the first place? Just call it "magic", which solves a whole bunch of problems, and makes life easier all round. As well as getting rid of the need for a boring PrC like this "mystic theurgoober" or whatever it's called.

 

[hong]

No, but there are Arcane and Divine spell casters, and that's all there needs to be to support the point.

So what if there are arcane and divine spellcasters? I'm saying there's no NEED for arcane and divine spellcasters, if you're just going to munge them together. Keep this point in mind.

There has always been a distiction between Divine Magic and Arcane Magic in D&D.

Tell me again why I should give a damn about what there has "always been".

That's why the Prc is made the way it is. I think I can say with all certainty that the 3.5 rules will not differ so much from the 3.0 rules and have a totally intergrated spell list of Divine and Arcane spells.

Tell me again why I should give a damn about what 3.5E says.

If you want an anology of Gods of Craftsmen and the like simply doesn't hold up. In D&D gods grant divine spells.

Exactly. And if you want that, then a concept of a god of arcane magic granting spells results in a contradiction and a confusion of niches, especially when you have arcane spellcasters using the exact same spells without any need for a deity. You can either do something to remove this confusion from your game, or spread more confusion on UNseboards. Because the MORE CONFUSION, THE BETTER, as I always say.

Even when the spell duplicates in the Arcane Spell list, it is Divine. That's the way the system is made.

So?

You could Rule zero what you want with the spell tables, but don't expect Wizards to start making Prcs with those kind of exceptions.

Tell me again why I should give a damn about what ZANY, WACKY PrC Wizards decides to pull out of its ass this week.


Hong "more ZANY and WACKY than any damnfool PrC" Ooi

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Just on the lack of "flavour" of this prestige class:

That's fine, in my opinion. This prestige class is to fill a mechanical hole in the 3E rules - that multi-class non-spellcasters are great, but multi-class spellcasters are really, really bad.

Yeah, agreed. But it's a clumsy fix. Okay, great, so now we can usefully multiclass Wizards or Sorcerers and Clerics (in a single, rather direct way -- if you try to get an assymetric Wizard/Cleric blend, like you could, with, say, a Fighter 7/Thief 3, you're right back to your starting point). Now, how about Wizard/Druids? Or, for that matter, Sorcerer/Barbarians or Wizard/Rogues? Assuming, for the moment, that we find those to be acceptable concepts (and I find them more compelling than Wizard/Clerics, really), do we now have to create a PrC for each one?

Whee! We can have a half-assed solution to the problem of multiclassed spellcasters for the mere price of adding about 5 PrC's to the game (Arcane/Fighter-type, Arcane/Rogue-type, Arcane/Divine, Divine/Fighter-type, Divine/Rogue-type).

The solution to the problem (which WotC seems to be implicitely admitting exists) is to find a way to have spellcaster abilities usefully-but-not-overpoweringly stack when you're adding levels of a non-spellcasting class. The MT isn't flavourful enough to be a real PrC, and a PrC isn't a good mechanic to add because two classes ought to (in some campaigns) usefully multiclass, but don't by the rules.