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

[Michael Tree]

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.

I tend to agree, with one caveat: I like PrCs with lots of flavor, but I prefer the flavor to be in the game mechanics. Sometimes fluff description is interesting, but it's really the flavor that's implicit in the game mechanics that makes a PrC appeal to me. For example, the description of the Incantatrix is very interesting, but the class is just a loose colletion of buffs, making the whole less than appealing. On the other end of the spectrum, the Animal Lord description is little more than a collection of bad stereotypes, but the class abilities are so interesting and flavorful that I instantly fell in love with the class. In the centre, the PrC ideal for me, is the Eldrich Master (from Dragon), whose description and class abilities are both interesting, and compliment each other well.

However, I also like PrCs which are generic, but have interesting or much-needed abilities. For example, I couldn't care less about the descriptions of the Duelist or Arcane Trickster PrCs, but the fact that they make character archetypes that are otherwise far too weak into viable concepts makes them worthwhile. IMO the Mystic Theurge falls into this category. I hope that a similar class for multiclassed spellcasters/psionics is created, though one would be extremely simple to homebrew.

 

[William Ronald]

Oni posted:
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.

I think that altering the mechanic would have likely been seen as a major step towards a new edition. Also, the developers at WotC may still be trying to determine what works well and does not work in the current edition and the revision. There are limits to what can be done without making a 4th Edition rule set. (I suspect that may be a few years away, at least. However, a few people I know think that a 4th Edition rules may follow 3.5 by a few years. They argue that the Players Options rules precedeed 3.0 by a few years.)

So far, it seems opinion is divided on the Mystic Theurge. I do not see it as overpowering because of the loss of several top spell levels. There are also some penalties in the power of spells in a secondary class.

Obviously, it would help to look at everything in the full context of the 3.5 rules. Until we have all the rules in front of us, I think the best any of us can do is engage in speculation with some of the evidence before us.

Perhaps a few people can play test the class in their own games and share their results on the boards. We can at least then judge how well the mystic theurge is balanced to D&D 3.0.

 

[Monte At Home]

I tend to agree, with one caveat: I like PrCs with lots of flavor, but I prefer the flavor to be in the game mechanics.

Agreed. They can also come from the requirements.

However, I also like PrCs which are generic, but have interesting or much-needed abilities. For example, I couldn't care less about the descriptions of the Duelist or Arcane Trickster PrCs, but the fact that they make character archetypes that are otherwise far too weak into viable concepts makes them worthwhile.

The difference is, even a "generic" class like the duelist has a concept: "you're a swashbuckler and you're good at fighting with light weapons in no armor."

It describes what you do and what you don't do, as a duelist, that distinguishes you from otherwise similar characters.

The MT concept is: "you cast lots of spells," or, at best, "you cast lots of spells, both divine and arcane."

I'd argue that that's not a concept that can distinguish it much.

A flavorful requirement, like "you must use your divine focus to cast all your spells with Material or Focus components, even the arcane ones," or a special ability, like once per day per level casting a divine spell as an arcane spell or vice versa, would go a long way toward explaining the game-world rationale for what's going on with this class.

You could even put in an all-flavor requirement or two: "Must receive a special blessing from the high priest of the god of magic," or "must spend one month in solitude, studying magic and praying."

 

[Endur]

True Necromancer

Before 3.5, T&B's True Necromancer was a balanced class.
pre-reqs:
access to third level clerical spells
access to third level wizard spells
Necromancer specialization
Death domain
8 ranks in KR and KA

MT's pre-reqs:
access to 2nd level clerical spells
access to 2nd level wizard spells
6 ranks in KR and KA

MT is much easier to get into. MT also gives two caster levels per level, whereas True Necromancer only gave one caster level per level (plus some special abilities).

Now what happens in 3.5 if you combine MT & True Necromancer
levels 1-3 cleric (death domain + something else)
levels 4-6 wizard (necromancer)
levels 7-8 MT
level 9 True Necromancer (lets say stacks with wiz casting level)
level 10-17 MT
level 18-20 True Necromancer

Let's compare 10th level characters:
The 3e True Necromancer hasn't entered the prestige class yet and only has caster level 5 for cleric and caster lever 5 for wizard.

The 3.5e True Necromancer has caster level 7 as a wizard, caster level 6 as a Cleric, and caster level 13 for necromancy spells.

Let's compare 17th level characters:
The 3e True Necromancer has caster level 12 for wizard, caster level 5 for cleric, and caster level 17 for necromancy spells.

The 3.5e True Necromancer has caster level 14 for wizard, caster level 13 for cleric, and caster level 27 for necromancy spells.

Not only is the True Necromancer PRC much easier to get into with MT, but its dramatically more powerful. "Dispel my Necromancy spells? I don't think so!"

This is yet another example of how PRCs are not being playtested. The playtesters and designers seem to focus on comparing the PRC to a core class. They aren't paying attention to how PRCs stack to provide benefits far more powerful than any individual class offers. I regularly see characters with up to half a dozen different PRCs, whose players are cherrypicking the best benefits from each PRC.

Tom

 

[Marshall]

The MT concept is: "you cast lots of spells," or, at best, "you cast lots of spells, both divine and arcane."

I'd argue that that's not a concept that can distinguish it much.

I can think up several archetypes for the MyT(Migh-Ty, I like that) :

High Priest of a God/dess of Magic
Disciple of the Arcane(Tho Arcane Devotee is already taken)
Loremaster of All Magics...

You could even put in an all-flavor requirement or two: "Must receive a special blessing from the high priest of the god of magic," or "must spend one month in solitude, studying magic and praying."

If I have a problem with the class, it is that it has too few prereqs.
Altho I wont go as far as saying that every WIZ/CLR would bother to pick up 6 ranks in both Know skills, a single Skill Focus or several ranks Decipher Script along with Montes "flavor" requirements would assuage my few fears.

 

[Larry Fitz]

My problem with this PrC is all about the subtext.

Why does this PrC exist? Frankly it caters to a particular brand of Munchkinism IMO. Or at the very least caters to wishy-washy players. I have no problem with PC's wanting to play Cleric/Wizards. As long as they are playing Cleric/Wizards. I do have a problem with a PrC that strives to blur the lines between Divine and Arcane casters. Again, I'm not opposed to someone playing a character who is trying to do both, I'm opposed to someone seamlessly blending them as if they were the same thing. I would rather see completely different mechanics for how each uses spells than a PrC that eliminates the differences altogether.

If people want to say that the multiclassing in 3E is too crippling to make an effective Cleric/Wizard, I hear that and am willing to listen to any reasonable attempts to fix the problem of multiclassing. This does not do that. It won't help the Warrior/Bard at all and it doesn't address the Illusionist/Rogue's shortcomings either.

What this does do is the opposite of what a PrC is supposed to do, a PrC is supposed to aid in the immersion of the PC's into a world. It's suposed to enhance, enrich and detail the game world. For me this ridiculous attempt to make every powergaming hybrid possible is a bad idea.

I am particularly touchy about combining religion and magic. They have differnt flavors, let's keep the that way. I don't like "Gods of Magic" either. Divine power is the will of superior beings being channeled through a subservient one because of devotion (no matter how that devotion is inspired). Arcane magic is studying and manipulating reality, bending it to the spellcaster's will by understanding how it works at it's very core. To me a God of Magic is a concept that hasvery little value in a fantasy campaign, it undercuts the beauty and distinction of having the two types of spell casting be different in the first place.

I didn't intend for this to be quite so rantish, so let me sum up....


Nah, I'll give it a pass in my campaign.

By the way, Monte, any thoughts on how to fix multiclassing (assuming you agree it's a problem that is)?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Interesting how the "role" related material in a role-playing game is referred to as a "waste" of paper.

 

[rounser]

Interesting how the "role" related material in a role-playing game is referred to as a "waste" of paper.

[SARCASM]Why give it a name at all? Why not call it Core Prestige Class Number 4? After all, only crunch (TM) matters.[/SARCASM]

His argument is specious anyway - you don't need notes in a core book on how a class or race fits into anywhere but D&D's implied setting. It doesn't have to be rocket science - an archetype as simple as a single word like "assassin" or "swashbuckler" is enough.

Mystic Theurge lacks even that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Hey, if all you want is crunch, more power to you. However, I can't help but believe that this pathetic piece of munchkin crap is the result of just that line of thinking dominating D&D development during the past couple of years. If you like it, enjoy it. I certainly won't be using it, for reasons that have already been made clear by me and many others.

To touch on MC's post, adding "access to Magic Domain" would also do quite a bit combined with his "Divine Focus" suggestions. However, my biggest problem remains that it's a 10-Level Prestige Class (thus projects into Epic by default). Cut it to 5 levels (thus not projecting into Epic), and a lot of the abusive qualities that I am rejecting it for simply go away.

[Edit: Alright, you added to your post... I'm not going to edit mine, though, since the general sentiments remain true. Consequently, since I've rejected it, it's far more of a waste of space to me than 1 paragraph of flavor text would be to somebody else... ]

 

[rounser]

Hey, if all you want is crunch, more power to you.

Re-read my post...I'm not refuting your stance. Supporting it, in fact.

[Edit: Alright, you added to your post... I'm not going to edit mine, though, since the general sentiments remain true. Consequently, since I've rejected it, it's far more of a waste of space to me than 1 paragraph of flavor text would be to somebody else... ]

I was referring to the guy you were responding to, if that wasn't clear.