rounser said:
[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.
Except, of course, that that is not what I'm arguing against. The MyT has a short description. Others' complaints of "lack of a description" must mean either "it is the wrong description" or "it is not enough description".
I'm arguing that any further description (a) would be more than what is needed in what is supposed to be a _rule_ book and not a _role_ book; (b) would be more than what other DMG-prestige classes are currently afforded, when they are apparently acceptable to the anti-MyT brigade; and (c) would unnecessarily tie the class to a particular role, when this is the sort of class, like the Duelist or the Blackguard, that can fill multiple roles.
"Mystic theurges are often obsessed with magical lore, traveling to the ends of the earth to learn some new arcane secret or divine insight. [...] Mystic theurges tend to be fascinated with magic in whatever form it takes. They're always on the hunt for powerful magic items and new arcane spells. Those mystic theurges who worship a deity use the power of their spellcasting to further their deity's agenda."
That seems to be at least as much of "an archetype" as assassin or swashbuckler, even if it isn't rocket science. It's "Indiana Jones, but with magic." It covers the general motivation for the class (lust for magical power), a possible motivation for adventuring (surprisingly enough, lust for magical power), and the possible connection to a church, while still leaving open the possibility of MyT's based on druids or other non-deity-following divine casters. It also implies, by omission, that MyT's aren't expected to be the sort of prestige class that represents a specific organization (such as the "guild" and "cabal" mentioned generically in the description of the assassin and loremaster).
Compare that to what's in the DMG already. Dwarven Defender? "Works for a dwarven authority, tough in defensive battle, is usually a dwarven soldier, might go adventuring for some reason he chooses not to state." OK, a dwarven soldier with no reason to adventure. That's downright helpful. Blackguard? "He's Evil. He does Evil stuff. Might have an evil army, might work for someone else evil, might act as an assassin, might just kick butt for fun." OK, he's evil, and he either works for someone or he doesn't. That's also helpful. Loremaster? "Wants knowledge. Might be part of a secret cabal of people who want knowledge. Might attach themselves to a university or library, where they can get knowledge. Makes money through research. Spends that money on more research." So, they like knowledge, I guess. This actually is helpful, but it doesn't really say anything that isn't implied by the name of the class.
None of these "descriptions" says more than the MyT's description, when you think about it. They're even less useful in role-playing terms (except the Loremaster, who's almost word-for-word equivalent to the MyT, replacing "knowledge" for "magic"). But, apparently, these classes are nicely flavorful, while the MyT is just a power-gamer's toy.
Further, consider the wide-open nature of the MyT class. Yes, the obvious choice is "servant of the god of magic". In that case, requirements of a priest's blessing or a contemplative retreat are warranted, and are the sort of thing that I would add to the class as a DM, if I wanted it in that particular role. But I see this class as more of a "toolkit" than a "specific role". He's the cleric of the dragon god who apprentices to a true dragon to learn of their sorcerous heritage, seeking the root of all magic. He's the evil druid who learns wizardly magic to pervert nature to his will, creating horrid monsters and bringing extraplanar evil to the land, warping it into his own image of what "nature" should be. He's the low-charisma priest who chooses wizardly evocation spells to deal with the undead he cannot affect through his own weak channeling. He's the priest of a Cthuloid entity of secrets and mysteries, blending wizardly enchantment and illusion into his clerical repertoire. The ancient lich learning clerical magic to perfect his mastery over the undead. The bard-priest of the god of joy and song. Et cetera et cetera. With a field as wide open as this, why give anyone the impression that the class is artificially limited by assigning it a specific role in print? I much prefer the blank-slate nature of the class.
A short litany of possible roles like these could help, I guess, but then all classes should get such a list, and arguing against the MyT specifically makes no sense to me. If that is the argument, it is a valid one. De gustibus non disputandum est. But I'd still rather have 10 blank slates than 9 slates with lists of ideas that I would need to flesh out on my own anyway. (At least in a core book; in something like the splatbooks or a setting-specific book, I would present the opposite opinion.)
Admittedly, I do see the argument that "this should have been done by fixing multiclass rules and not by making a PrC band-aid." But, I'm also the practical engineering type who doesn't necessarily want to re-invent the wheel for each corner of the wagon. The PrC rules work (in my opinion, of course) for this case, and they cover a number of archetypes in the process. Where others see a perversion of the PrC concept, I see a neat hack.
I'd rather not see a cumbersome fix to the multiclass rules to patch one bug, or a separate true-necromancer-style PrC for each possible two-caster role.
Hopefully this argument is clearer than my last one, and won't need to be attacked with the dreaded sarcasm tag.
