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

[rounser]

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"

You missed my point. In earlier editions, they were considered a wizard AND a cleric, not a single fabricated archetype with no reason for existence called something like a wizeric or a clizard, which the Mystic Theurge is. Two archetypes together, not one which only exists to kow tow to an existing rules artefact for sake of consistency, which is what we're getting.

 

[Wormwood]

You got peanut butter in my chocolate.

You got chocolate in my peanut butter.

 

[rounser]

You got peanut butter in my chocolate.

You got chocolate in my peanut butter.

Yeah, it's all the same if you don't bother to think too hard about roles, isn't it? I mean, the stats are teh same, so who cares? Roleplaying game indeed...

 

[jasamcarl]

Again rounser, you are assuming the Mystic has any type of ingame reality. You can still call him a mage/druid or whatever. The mechanics would back you up on this. Specific flavor text for such a broad range of concepts as this class provides would be a waste of space. Mechanically this resembles the options allowed prior editions quite nicely. It must just be you who has the irrational need to add an organization or formal discipline of Mystics in your game....

 

[rounser]

Again rounser, you are assuming the Mystic has any type of ingame reality. You can still call him a mage/druid or whatever. The mechanics would back you up on this.

I can rename the cleric a priest, too. That doesn't make the decision to use the Mystic Theurge name wise.

Specific flavor text for such a broad range of concepts as this class provides would be a waste of space.

If you gave it a real archetype which people know, such as Witch, there would be no need for such a waste of space, because people know what a witch archetype is. (I'm not implying that witch would fit, mind you.)

Mechanically this resembles the options allowed prior editions quite nicely. It must just be you who has the irrational need to add an organization or formal discipline of Mystics in your game....

Sorry, but this is bollocks. Every D&D class has at least a small archetypal basis, from the strong (wizard, thief, barbarian, paladin) to somewhat weaker (cleric, thief-acrobat, but even they drew upon strong archetypes such as the priest and cat burglar, if not perfectly mirror them).

The Mystic Theurge doesn't even suggest such an archetype with it's name. It's a backless maiden, a foil for a design artefact, with no purpose for existence other than what it's stats offer. The only class I can think of that comes close is the cleric, who was made good in combat (unlike how many folks view priests, and overlapping with the paladin in the holy warrior role, creating a D&Dism) so that the player would have something to do apart from heal. The less "clerics" in the game, the better.

 

[Allister]

You missed my point. In earlier editions, they were considered a wizard AND a cleric, not a single fabricated archetype with no reason for existence called something like a wizeric or a clizard, which the Mystic Theurge is. Two archetypes together, not one which only exists to kow tow to an existing rules artefact for sake of consistency, which is what we're getting.

I think this is where we disagree. In pre-3E, the cleric/wizard IS an archtype. Just as much as the fighting wizard or the roguish fighter.

While they were a wizard/cleric, in practice they didn't act like a cleric and a wizard but as a wizard who knew clerical spells. See the writeup in many FR products.

Note: I honestly am still undecided about the "brokeness" of the Magical Thegist but I am distressed that even though it is a PrC, everyone seems to assume that they will be available in all campaigns. Am I the only DM that doesn't allow for all the PrC in the current DMG? Are my players the only ones that won't pout if I tell them no, better yet, they don't expect all PrC to be allowed?

 

[Michael Tree]

Half or more of the people I've seen look at this class have indicated they think it is overpowered.

True, but that really doesn't mean much. If they still think it's overpowered after playing with one in game for a substantial period of time, that might mean something.

Remember that when 3e first came out, there was a huge outcry at how "obviously overpowered" the monk was. Months later, after many people played monks, no one complained that they were overpowered, and many complained that they were underpowered.

My instincts and reasoning lead me to believe that the MT is possibly a bit overpowered, but not the ridiculous overpowering that many people assert.

 

[Oni]

Note: I honestly am still undecided about the "brokeness" of the Magical Thegist but I am distressed that even though it is a PrC, everyone seems to assume that they will be available in all campaigns. Am I the only DM that doesn't allow for all the PrC in the current DMG? Are my players the only ones that won't pout if I tell them no, better yet, they don't expect all PrC to be allowed?

Ah there lies another issue. Since this is a rules patch why use use a mechanic in the game that so highly optional and less a part of the core rules set than the standard multiclassing rules. If they wanted to fix this, why use a PrC when PrC's vary so much from campaign to campaign.

 

[JayOmega]

Actually, I'm happier with Prestige Classes that are rules-heavy and fluff-light. If WotC did add a fluff description to this class, I assume it would be Greyhawk-based, or possibly Realms-based. I don't run my game in Greyhawk, so I'd have to throw out the description and make something that fits my world, anyway. For instance, my Shadowdancers are a group of anti-Assassins from the Kyn Empire; basically a Ninja clan comissioned and supported by the Empire to oppose another evil clan, who are based on the Ghost-Face Killer PrC's from Dragon Magazine (also modified to be a nearly-destroyed Ninja clan who made a deal with demons to gain their magical powers and save their clan.) Any chance the DMG would include that for me?

For that matter, look at the two current paragraphs of "fluff text" for the Shadowdancer (the first and third paragraphs of the class). Read it, and replace "Shadowdancer" with "Bard". Still fits pretty well, yes? Or, consider the Loremaster. A PrC that gains power because she studies a lot. Amazing. And what do all the other wizards do in their spare time? Assassin. Tries to kill people fast. Describes most characters I've known. I think the precendent for low-flavor classes has been set already.

And what's wrong with leaving a relatively flavorless class in the DMG, anyway? I can put it in my world where it belongs, rather than having players assume "the DMG says these Mystic Theurges are Mystra's/Boccob's followers, so I assume they all follow The Sisters in your world, right?" I'd rather have it this way, than have them waste valuable core-book paper on "this is how this class is presented and used in Greyhawk. And this is how it's presented and used in the Forgotten Realms. And this is how you change it for Druids instead of clerics. And this is how you change it for dragon-blooded sorcerors instead of wizards..." Let them save space for more useful stuff, and put the fluff in a place besides the 3 core books.

 

[drnuncheon]

Perhaps the lack of ears on Lego people's heads tends to result in hearing difficulties.

The point _you_ are missing, oh Lego-headed one

Who's "we", oh Lego-headed one? Because as far as I can tell, none of MY Lego people have any problems with what I'm saying.

Come back when you have an argument, and not pointless comments on an avatar.

J