Bendris Noulg
First Post
It was after your edit.rounser said:
Mystic Theurge PrC - They've got to be kidding!
- Thread starter Mark Chance
- Start date
Particle_Man
Explorer
wait and see?
We haven't seen the 3.5 cleric, wizard or sorceror. For all we know, they might get so many new cool class abilities that the MT is underpowered in comparison.
But frankly, I am more interested in the notion that the DMG will have a mechanic in place to create prestige classes. If that is so, maybe we can "reverse engineer" from the MT to figure out how to deal with the multi-class problem with spell-caster/non-spell-caster classes.
1) Take two classes, one spell-caster and one not. Make the prereqs for the new PrC such that one needs to take 3 levels in each of the two classes.
2) For the prestige class, use the worst of the two BAB's, the worst of the 2 saves (for each categories), and the worst of the 2 hd. Use 2 skill points/level, except as indicated below.
3) Now for the hard part -- special abilities. For the spell-caster class, one just adds one spell-casting equivalent per level, it seems. What about the other classes?
Fighter: 1 fighter feat every two levels? (too much? Maybe decrease feats/level or increase prereqs on non-fighter side?
Rogue: 8 skill points/level only OR increase sneak attack damage only (not sure which I favour -- could have different prestige classes for each).
Ranger: (I have no idea until I see the new one)
Monk: Increase unarmed damage only
Barbarian: Increase Rage's only
Bard: Increase bard knowledge only OR increase spell-caster level only.
Paladin: Increase spell-caster level only OR increase Holy Smite only (they are already pretty front-loaded, though)
So how does this look if one mixes and matches? I have not checked whether ANY of the above is balanced -- I am more interested as to whether some of it might provide a clue to solving the multiclass problem.
Of course, then one can raise the same issue with 3 classes, 4 classes, etc. But maybe something similar can be done...
Oh, by the way, if one goes WAAYYYYY! back to the 1st edition Dieties and Demigods, Merlin (of King Arthur Fame) was both a high level Druid and a high level Magic-User, IIRC). So I guess technically, Merlin stands as a possible example of a Mystic Theurge in history. Or at least its Nature loving cousin. (Saying "Merlin was a druid AND a Magic-User" doesn't work here -- Merlin was beyond that, since he predates D&D, and seemed to have abilities attributable to both sides, while being "unified". Maybe MyT was invented with him in mind?
I think the proof will be in the pudding. When 3.5 comes out, if MyT is too powerful, then DMs should ban it. If it is not too powerful, and becomes popular, than various writers (even Monte. Hell, even John Wick!) will write stuff using them and the writers will either create a niche for the archtype (a la Tinker gnomes, Kender, Gully Dwarves, etc.) or will dig in history and myth to find close matches (a la Merlin, above, just off the top of my head).
Anyhow, this doesn't worry me. In fact, some of my friends probably will go for the idea specifically because it challenges standard class divisions.
We haven't seen the 3.5 cleric, wizard or sorceror. For all we know, they might get so many new cool class abilities that the MT is underpowered in comparison.
But frankly, I am more interested in the notion that the DMG will have a mechanic in place to create prestige classes. If that is so, maybe we can "reverse engineer" from the MT to figure out how to deal with the multi-class problem with spell-caster/non-spell-caster classes.
1) Take two classes, one spell-caster and one not. Make the prereqs for the new PrC such that one needs to take 3 levels in each of the two classes.
2) For the prestige class, use the worst of the two BAB's, the worst of the 2 saves (for each categories), and the worst of the 2 hd. Use 2 skill points/level, except as indicated below.
3) Now for the hard part -- special abilities. For the spell-caster class, one just adds one spell-casting equivalent per level, it seems. What about the other classes?
Fighter: 1 fighter feat every two levels? (too much? Maybe decrease feats/level or increase prereqs on non-fighter side?
Rogue: 8 skill points/level only OR increase sneak attack damage only (not sure which I favour -- could have different prestige classes for each).
Ranger: (I have no idea until I see the new one)
Monk: Increase unarmed damage only
Barbarian: Increase Rage's only
Bard: Increase bard knowledge only OR increase spell-caster level only.
Paladin: Increase spell-caster level only OR increase Holy Smite only (they are already pretty front-loaded, though)
So how does this look if one mixes and matches? I have not checked whether ANY of the above is balanced -- I am more interested as to whether some of it might provide a clue to solving the multiclass problem.
Of course, then one can raise the same issue with 3 classes, 4 classes, etc. But maybe something similar can be done...
Oh, by the way, if one goes WAAYYYYY! back to the 1st edition Dieties and Demigods, Merlin (of King Arthur Fame) was both a high level Druid and a high level Magic-User, IIRC). So I guess technically, Merlin stands as a possible example of a Mystic Theurge in history. Or at least its Nature loving cousin.
(Saying "Merlin was a druid AND a Magic-User" doesn't work here -- Merlin was beyond that, since he predates D&D, and seemed to have abilities attributable to both sides, while being "unified". Maybe MyT was invented with him in mind?I think the proof will be in the pudding. When 3.5 comes out, if MyT is too powerful, then DMs should ban it. If it is not too powerful, and becomes popular, than various writers (even Monte. Hell, even John Wick!) will write stuff using them and the writers will either create a niche for the archtype (a la Tinker gnomes, Kender, Gully Dwarves, etc.) or will dig in history and myth to find close matches (a la Merlin, above, just off the top of my head).
Anyhow, this doesn't worry me. In fact, some of my friends probably will go for the idea specifically because it challenges standard class divisions.
Serious Question
Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?
I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?
Have I been out of the 3E community for that long?
Um, serious question time: Do people think that prestige classes have become non-optional even though they are in the DMG?
I'm serious because I've seen so many discussions on various boards where everyody seems to be combining 2-3 different prestige classes?
Have I been out of the 3E community for that long?
Joseph Elric Smith
First Post
Re: Serious Question
ken
IT all depends upon the game. in my game they are option,heck I have never had any of my players ever want a prestige class,let alone take one, mind you I tend to play low level games with the games retiring when the party gets around 10 to 12 level.Allister said:
ken
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Re: Serious Question
However, I don't think they are required for D&D per se. They are (in 3.0) included as a DM's Option, and should remain so.
Generally, by maintaining some amount of secrecy to them, enforcing their discovery in role-play, requiring some sort of group membership or specialized training, and so forth, they retain the flavor of their original intent.
Well, they aren't optional in my game, but of course, I design them specifically for my game. I've only used one published Prestige Class to date (Practical Ones from Librum Equitus).Allister said:
However, I don't think they are required for D&D per se. They are (in 3.0) included as a DM's Option, and should remain so.
That's simply a group choice; I don't let them be handled that way in my game, though, since it takes the prestigousness out of them and waters down the spirit of the concept. Granted, I've made a few that are designed to purposely stack up (One must become a Madoni Legionaire before becoming a Legion Scout, Legion Sorcerous Commander, Legion Marshal, Legion Standard Bearer or Legion Captain, for instance), but they are also designed to be extensions of each other rather than mix & match min/max fantasies (which is often why you see them that way on "various boards").
Generally, by maintaining some amount of secrecy to them, enforcing their discovery in role-play, requiring some sort of group membership or specialized training, and so forth, they retain the flavor of their original intent.
Oni
First Post
Re: Serious Question
This is what is causing some of my dismay in regards to the MT, PrC's were supposed to be completely optional, yet they have chosen to use a PrC to address a problem inherent to the rules, one that never needed to involve a PrC for those that didn't want to use them.
Allister said:
This is what is causing some of my dismay in regards to the MT, PrC's were supposed to be completely optional, yet they have chosen to use a PrC to address a problem inherent to the rules, one that never needed to involve a PrC for those that didn't want to use them.
Re: Serious Question
When 3E first came out, they might have been optional. But since almost every new supplement/splatbook/campaign setting that comes out has had a bunch of new PrCs, I'd say it's pretty clear that WotC doesn't consider them optional, and never really did.
The problem I have is that there's really nothing "prestigious" about prestige classes, but that's another topic...
Allister said:
When 3E first came out, they might have been optional. But since almost every new supplement/splatbook/campaign setting that comes out has had a bunch of new PrCs, I'd say it's pretty clear that WotC doesn't consider them optional, and never really did.
The problem I have is that there's really nothing "prestigious" about prestige classes, but that's another topic...
Psion
Adventurer
Re: Re: Serious Question
I've never seen a viable multiclass combo for every possible multiclass as being obligatory, so I don't see how this is addressing a problem with the rules. AFAIAC, it's just giving some people (apparently not Hong) something that that want.
That said, I agree it's boring and slightly overpowered at high levels, but I said that several pages ago. I guess that puts me in the Monte camp.
Oni said:
I've never seen a viable multiclass combo for every possible multiclass as being obligatory, so I don't see how this is addressing a problem with the rules. AFAIAC, it's just giving some people (apparently not Hong) something that that want.
That said, I agree it's boring and slightly overpowered at high levels, but I said that several pages ago. I guess that puts me in the Monte camp.
Similar Threads
