Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!
- Thread starter Mark Chance
- Start date
About the lack of flavor text:
From Theosophy.org:
Theurgic magick on the other hand has seldom a clearly specified goal. Its purpose is purely spiritual, to move the mage, his tradition or the whole world towards Ascension. There is seldom a obvious result. While thaumaturgy creates effects in the lower planes, the goal with theurgic magick is to rise above them. In a way it could be called "religious magick". It differs greatly among the traditions, who all have different views on what Ascension is and what theurgy to perform for its celebration
From worldreference.com:
theurgy ['¥èi¢°ˌɜ¢°dʒ©¥]
noun
(plural: -gies)
1 a the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency in the affairs of man
THIS is what a theurgist is; a being on the path to "ascension"
Very appropriate for the class.
From Theosophy.org:
Theurgic magick on the other hand has seldom a clearly specified goal. Its purpose is purely spiritual, to move the mage, his tradition or the whole world towards Ascension. There is seldom a obvious result. While thaumaturgy creates effects in the lower planes, the goal with theurgic magick is to rise above them. In a way it could be called "religious magick". It differs greatly among the traditions, who all have different views on what Ascension is and what theurgy to perform for its celebration
From worldreference.com:
theurgy ['¥èi¢°ˌɜ¢°dʒ©¥]
noun
(plural: -gies)
1 a the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency in the affairs of man
THIS is what a theurgist is; a being on the path to "ascension"
Very appropriate for the class.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
LuYangShih said:
Andy Collins also defended the class on the Wizards boards. Like I said, read the thread. But then again, even with all the WoTC developers saying it is, you won't believe until it's in the 3.5E DMG. I guess you better just bow out of all 3.5E related discussion until then.
So I missed that reference. I was wrong. Big whoop. Y'know, just because the internet is the home for the rude reply, doesn't mean you have to make one.
EDIT: By the way, I've pretty much stayed out of 3.5 discussions. In the three years I've been a part of this community, I've watched as a tempest in a teapot has been started with the impending release of every single WotC book (and many d20 releases). I've seen (as many of us have seen) various preedictions that this or that book or rule was going to be the ruin of D&D (the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example; it sparked any number of prophetic flame wars before its release). We've seen numerous proclamations about how this or that is unbalanced, or how House Rules would be implemented even before the book is seen. Pretty much all of this has come to nothing, in the end. It's fun to discuss all this, sure, but until I see it in the book, I figure I'll just wait and see. If this class actually shows up in the DMG, I'll simply disallow its use in the games I run. It's as simple as that. If others find it useful, cool for them. It just strikes me as a joke.
Last edited:
Ashrem Bayle
Explorer
Overpowered? I don't think so. Assuming you don't go out of your way to look for broken combinations, it seems fine.
In fact, one of my players is building a 7th level character right now. He is having to make the choice between the Mystic Theurge and Monte's Hallowed Mage.
He is having a real tough time....
I might also note that we are only going to have 3 characters in the party. This character concept is really nice as it rids us of the "we need a cleric" problem.
In fact, one of my players is building a 7th level character right now. He is having to make the choice between the Mystic Theurge and Monte's Hallowed Mage.
He is having a real tough time....
I might also note that we are only going to have 3 characters in the party. This character concept is really nice as it rids us of the "we need a cleric" problem.
Lazybones
Adventurer
An interesting discussion; my initial reaction was that the class is grossly overpowered at higher levels, but I'll withhold my final judgment until the game is released.
In comparing an L16 mage vs. an L10 MT/L3 cleric/L3 mage, what struck me is that the latter gains 105 total spell levels in exchange for giving up 41 (and that's completely exclusive of any wisdom bonuses). And the losses in terms of prereqs, lost feats, lost class powers, etc. seem minimal in my view, balanced as they are in in the gain of more weapons, slightly better saves, and a pair of domain powers. This class completely changes the predominant spellcasting PrC patterns one sees in the supplements: either gain a progression on alternate levels, and lots of cool PrC powers (commonly seen in the splatbooks), or gain a progression on every level, and gain a few cool PrC powers at the cost of your base class powers (commonly seen in the FR books).
I know people will say that higher level magic can't be compared in terms of just calculating total spell levels, that an L8 spell is more than 14% more powerful than an L7 spell (i.e. that spell power progression is geometric, not arithmetic), but it still seems rather unbalanced at first look.
It'll be interesting to revisit the debate once people are actually playing this PrC.
In comparing an L16 mage vs. an L10 MT/L3 cleric/L3 mage, what struck me is that the latter gains 105 total spell levels in exchange for giving up 41 (and that's completely exclusive of any wisdom bonuses). And the losses in terms of prereqs, lost feats, lost class powers, etc. seem minimal in my view, balanced as they are in in the gain of more weapons, slightly better saves, and a pair of domain powers. This class completely changes the predominant spellcasting PrC patterns one sees in the supplements: either gain a progression on alternate levels, and lots of cool PrC powers (commonly seen in the splatbooks), or gain a progression on every level, and gain a few cool PrC powers at the cost of your base class powers (commonly seen in the FR books).
I know people will say that higher level magic can't be compared in terms of just calculating total spell levels, that an L8 spell is more than 14% more powerful than an L7 spell (i.e. that spell power progression is geometric, not arithmetic), but it still seems rather unbalanced at first look.
It'll be interesting to revisit the debate once people are actually playing this PrC.
Last edited:
Ashrem Bayle
Explorer
Here is an odd way to look at it.
To better see where the MT fits, maybe we should look at redefining our perspective of the Wizard and Cleric classes.
In the new core system, we will have this:
Wizard = Arcane Specialist
Cleric = Divine Specialist
Mystic Theurge = Generalist
Change of perspective:
What if the MT was considered to be the standard way to go, and the Wizard and the Cleric where mearly specializations of either the Arcane or Divine aspect? If the MT was a standard class, how would you react if the Wizard was just introduced as a new class and you where told that there was a way to cast far more higher level spells, at a faster rate of advancement, for the cost of some of your lower level spells that you seem to have so many of?
As I said before, I don't see the MT as overpowered. In my opinion, the difference of a few spell levels is significant.
Four 9th level spells vs 1?
As I said before, my player is considering this class at 7th level. Now if he takes it, he will only be able to cast 2nd level spells where he would normally get 4th level spells. For this reason alone I suspect he will not take it.
He will effectivly be trading his higher, most usefull spells, for a huge number of lower level spells. He can still only cast 1 spell per round. I suspect he will soon realize that he has an overabundance of lower level spells that he simply doesn't need each day.
After all, would you rather cast two flaming spheres and a Cure Mod Wounds in three rounds, or a single Phantasmal Killer, Wall of Fire, or Polymorph in one round? Or maybe even all three in three rounds? Three levels is alot.
The point is, the Wizard has enough spells per day to get by in all but the most prolonged situations. Are the extra spells really worth the potant spells you would be giving up?
I think the MT is balanced.
To better see where the MT fits, maybe we should look at redefining our perspective of the Wizard and Cleric classes.
In the new core system, we will have this:
Wizard = Arcane Specialist
Cleric = Divine Specialist
Mystic Theurge = Generalist
Change of perspective:
What if the MT was considered to be the standard way to go, and the Wizard and the Cleric where mearly specializations of either the Arcane or Divine aspect? If the MT was a standard class, how would you react if the Wizard was just introduced as a new class and you where told that there was a way to cast far more higher level spells, at a faster rate of advancement, for the cost of some of your lower level spells that you seem to have so many of?
As I said before, I don't see the MT as overpowered. In my opinion, the difference of a few spell levels is significant.
Four 9th level spells vs 1?
As I said before, my player is considering this class at 7th level. Now if he takes it, he will only be able to cast 2nd level spells where he would normally get 4th level spells. For this reason alone I suspect he will not take it.
He will effectivly be trading his higher, most usefull spells, for a huge number of lower level spells. He can still only cast 1 spell per round. I suspect he will soon realize that he has an overabundance of lower level spells that he simply doesn't need each day.
After all, would you rather cast two flaming spheres and a Cure Mod Wounds in three rounds, or a single Phantasmal Killer, Wall of Fire, or Polymorph in one round? Or maybe even all three in three rounds? Three levels is alot.
The point is, the Wizard has enough spells per day to get by in all but the most prolonged situations. Are the extra spells really worth the potant spells you would be giving up?
I think the MT is balanced.
Last edited:
Eridanis
Bard 7/Mod (ret) 10/Mgr 3
Absolutely. It's not certain that MT is better than HM. The HM gets lots of bennies: combined caster levels, lower (and eventually no) armor arcane failure rate, and NOT HURTING YOUR BUDDIES WITH YOUR AoE SPELLS, among other things.Ashrem Bayle said:
Of course, your player has to wiat until 11th CL to take a HM level, which sets him back even further in the "power race." All depends on what your campaign is like.
Which is exactly the point, right?
One of my favorite AD&D characters was an elven cleric/magic-user. I'm looking forward to maybe being able to play that type again, using one of these classes.
Just read through this thread and the one at WotC (research for the discussion I know I will have at my game this weekend).
Just gotta say: I love you guys.
Clear, well reasoned, well spelled arguments abound on these boards, and only a couple of people are rude and obnoxious.
Just the first page of posts on the equivalent thread at WotC makes me wonder: a) why anyone who does not love to rant and be ranted at would hang out there, and b) how the WotC guys deal with having their products, work and worth continually and unintelligibly derided on a site that they pay for, without having to go home and beat their dogs every night.
Ah, it's nice to be here.
Back to lurking...
-B-
Just gotta say: I love you guys.
Clear, well reasoned, well spelled arguments abound on these boards, and only a couple of people are rude and obnoxious.
Just the first page of posts on the equivalent thread at WotC makes me wonder: a) why anyone who does not love to rant and be ranted at would hang out there, and b) how the WotC guys deal with having their products, work and worth continually and unintelligibly derided on a site that they pay for, without having to go home and beat their dogs every night.
Ah, it's nice to be here.
Back to lurking...
-B-
Ashrem Bayle
Explorer
hehe.. my player just emailed me and asked if he could make his character with the following build plan:
Wizard 5/ cleric 3/ mystic theurge 2/ hallowed mage 10
Bwahahaha!
*slap*
GET THEE BEHIND ME MUNCHKIN!!
NOTE: Not a good idea to mix the MT with the HM. He would have slipped in two free clerical spellcasting levels. Sneaky bastard.
EDIT - His new plan is Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 10/Archmage 4... hmmm... I think I might allow that.
Wizard 5/ cleric 3/ mystic theurge 2/ hallowed mage 10
Bwahahaha!
*slap*
GET THEE BEHIND ME MUNCHKIN!!
NOTE: Not a good idea to mix the MT with the HM. He would have slipped in two free clerical spellcasting levels. Sneaky bastard.
EDIT - His new plan is Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 10/Archmage 4... hmmm... I think I might allow that.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
