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

[jasamcarl]

Repost for the tardy:



I can't think of any in-game niche that this PrC fills. The only reason it even exists, as far as I can tell, is to patch up a hole in the multiclassing rules.

I think you are working under the faulty premise that a mechanical aspect of the game neccessarily has to be articulated in-game, which is not true. One of the founding tenants of Prcs was that they make concepts that are not viable viable. With 3.5, the developers are being a bit more thorough this time out in that approach, thus the spellsword, the Mystic, etc...

 

[hong]

I think you are working under the faulty premise that a mechanical aspect of the game neccessarily has to be articulated in-game, which is not true.

By that logic, WotC shouldn't even have bothered writing up the piddly little paragraph they did, that sufficed as the introduction to this prestige class. A prestige class without an in-game justification is a prestige class without a reason for being, as far as I'm concerned.

One of the founding tenants of Prcs was that they make concepts that are not viable viable. With 3.5, the developers are being a bit more thorough this time out in that approach, thus the spellsword, the Mystic, etc...

A spell-slinging, sword-wielding battlemage is a concept that's been around long enough to have gained some sort of authenticity. Ditto for a rogue with magical skills. AFAIK, a "mystic theurgamajig" has no such niche to fill.

 

[rounser]

hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite. The wagon is officially put before the horse.

Inventing an archetype for a crunch purpose is a bit counter to what I understand the class system in D&D traditionally stands for, or once stood for, perhaps. Not entirely comfy with the idea - the rules are getting too big for their booties.

 

[Allister]

In actuality

Has anyone actually built a Theugist using a) the standard array of scores AND b) not using either PrC/feats from other sources other than the core 3E books AND c)keeping inline with the standard wealth table.

The reason why I ask is because with so many people throwing out ideas like the Geomancer, Reactive Counterspelling, I think it is hard to keep the PrC in actual practice.

Ergo, what would the following actually look like?
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 1,
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 5
Wiz 3/ Cle 3/ Theg 10

Standard Array,
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Ok, dump stat is going to be CHA (or STR perhaps? Though that can affect your carrying capacity). Everyone seems to agree that INT is the most important stat and WIS follows 2nd. CON becomes 3rd perhaps tied with DEX?

Ok at character level 7, 11 and 16, what would be this character's ability scores. What Feats do you actually take (assume Human), I figure Still spell, Spell Penetration, Extend and Spell focus would be first choices but what else and in what order.

What items can they afford?

 

[Allister]

hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite. The wagon is officially put before the horse.

Inventing an archetype for a crunch purpose is a bit counter to what I understand the class system in D&D traditionally stands for, or once stood for, perhaps. Not entirely comfy with the idea - the rules are getting too big for their booties.

A) In most fantasy fiction, there isn't a split between divine and arcane, thus the cleric/wizard isn't a standard part of the fantasy milieu. In most fantasy fiction, you don't need the Magical Thegist because either magic is totally divine (no wizards) or arcane can do anything that we currently subscribe to only the cleric.

B) Prior to 3E, the cleric/wizard was arguable one of the most common sub-types in D&D (and yes, this is because of how effective it was). 3E totally nerfed this concept and I honestly don't see how one could fix this (and yes, I've seen various fixes but many times, they aren't elegant a la the current 3E system).

 

[rounser]

Your argument fails in that earlier editions never pretended that cleric/wizard was a single archetype. It was someone who was a priest AND a mage, not some single archetype with a undefined name like Mystic Theurge.

 

[Wormwood]

hong has a point, I think - we've come full circle, the crunch is now the initial impetus for game flavour, as opposed to the opposite. The wagon is officially put before the horse.

It's much easier to add flavor to a well-constructed system than it is to impose balance on a flavorful but flawed one.

IMO.

 

[Oni]

I still don't see why they wouldn't have been better off to try and fix the underlying problem rather than do a rather poor (IMO) patchjob. Fixing the flaw in the multiclassing system rather than making this silly PrC would have just as far toward perserving this supposed archtype.

 

[rounser]

It's much easier to add flavor to a well-constructed system than it is to impose balance on a flavorful but flawed one.

And IMO, much of D&D's success is based around the implied setting which it provides. In this case, there's a gap in that setting which is unexplained (some rules and a name with no archetype to hang them off), and which is there only because there was a need to patch the rules for cleric/wizards...which are no longer even dual archetype characters, but something called a "Mystic Theurge". That weakens D&D in a place very near to it's core - the swords and sorcery pulp fantasy archetypal basis of the class system (sorry to be wordy, but people have a tendency to get technical on use of the word "fantasy" if you're not specific).

The other fault in your argument is that just because you think that adding flavor is easier than correcting crunch flaws, it doesn't imply that the alternative to lacking flavour is to have crunch flaws. That's nonsense.

 

[Allister]

And IMO, much of D&D's success is based around the implied setting which it provides. In this case, there's a gap in that setting which is unexplained (some rules and a name with no archetype to hang them off), and there only because there was a need to patch the rules. That weakens D&D, IMO.

Um, but prior to 3E, cleric/wizards were considered a) not only a viable choice for PCs but also b) viable NPCs as opponents. Sure, there was no name for a cleric/wizard hybrid in prior editions but they were almost as ubiquitous as the wizard/fighter (and in earlier editions, I don't remember them having a "different name"