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

[WattsHumphrey]

I'm kinda split. Half arcane/half divine casters are really really bad in 3rd ed, IMO, and this at least tries to fix it.

All I can see as a boon is the low hp and saves, which isn't something a wizard would normally worry about, but is something a cleric/druid/bard/etc would worry about.

I think I'd allow this class if it had a low will save as well. Hopefully that would make the character really weak defensively with the boon of being horribly versitile.

Well, I'd allow it that way until it proved to be too good. Then I'd ban it like almost everyone else here.

 

[Vocenoctum]

When I saw it, I thought "Wizards has to be on crack if they think I'll allow that."

Don't look at it as a cleric-wizard, think of it as a wizard.

You keep the same progression in most ways, but lose a pair of bonus feats. You give up three levels of arcane casting in order to gain 13 levels of cleric casting.

For a cleric, you're losing stuff, for a mage, your familiar isn't advancing... woo hoo...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well, at first glance, it certainly seems excessive... however (bear with me for a second)...

What do you really gain?

You get a much expanded spell list, and roughly double the number of spells per day, at the cost of (at a minimum) one level of spell power.

What does the expanded spell list and double spells give you?

It gives you flexibility, and the ability to keep casting after other casters are out of spells. But how valuable is that? Certainly, I've played spell casters who ran out of good spells, but most often, the group retreats at that point, and the Mystic Theurge would likely have to as well.

And never understimate the value of that extra level of spell. As a spellcaster, you hate to be throwing 5th level spells when you're buddy the regular mage is tossing 6th level stuff around.

I'm not sure it isn't outrageous, but I'm not sure it is, either.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I actually might even go for something like at first, you get an arcane level, at second a divine, at third, both. Etc..

 

[jasamcarl]

Your reactions are all a bit premature. As other more thoughtful posters have mentioned, you loose out on 3 levels of advancement, which entails a smaller chance of bypassing SR, lower duration and damage die on many spells, and, here is the clincher, a SIGNIFICANT DROP IN HIGH LEVEL SPELLS. Ask yourselves how often you use lower than max spells at any given point in the game other than to buff or even magic missle? Now note that spell reistance still applies to armor, so to use arcane spellcasting while fullfilling the same role as a cleric (frontline, armored, etc) would be somewhat inefficient. Now note the d4 hit die; you have hp as low as 13th level cleric as well, let alone one of an appropriate level.

A character who goes all the way with this will have a lot of lower-level spells and could make a half-way decent buffer, but its actual in game round by round or even day by day output is hardly extrordinary.

 

[jasamcarl]

Basically, at any given point of a game, the last benefits gained from the last three levels will outweigh the prior three levels. So saying "Well, I gain 13 levels for 3. Case closed." Is kind of simpleminded and doesn't really follow the balance logic of the game.

 

[Malin Genie]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sad that they tried to 'fix' multiclass spellcasters by means of a (n inflexible) Prestige Class rather than providing rules that would generally make the combination more viable (there have been several good threads on the topic in House Rules.)

While this class might work for a Wizard/Cleric thematically (not sure about the power balance issue, bt giving it the BOTD for the moment) it completely fails to work for Druid multiclasses (even leaving aside the loss of Druid special abilities, it doesn't give any of the druid's wilderness/animal skills) and a Druid/Sorceror (supposedly more common than Druid/Wizard) can't even qualify till 9th level as Knowledge(Religion) is cross-class for both of them!

 

[BryonD]

Well, at first glance, it certainly seems excessive... however (bear with me for a second)...

What do you really gain?

<snip>

I'm not sure it isn't outrageous, but I'm not sure it is, either.

I agree with you.

It looks a bit powerful to me, but not overwhelmingly so.

There is really no way to equate even a high number of low level spells with 8th and 9th level spells.

Bump it up to requiring 3rd level spells in each type and the set back would be more notable. That would also push access to the class back to 10th level, further limiting abuse.

 

[Eridanis]

Huh. I had made up this exact same PrC when working up the stats of some old NPCs, basically as a placeholder until I came across a PrC that would more closely follow the NPC's concept without being munchkiney. Now, I guess I don't need to switch.

It's not overpowered (under 3.5), nor is it underpowered, IMO. You trade sheer power for flexibility, and in quite a few D&D games I've read about on the internet, power is preferred to flexibility. Time will tell, though, after it shows up in the new DMG.

Edit: Also note that Scry is not a class skill. Diviners need not apply.

 

[RigaMortus]

I'm not so convinced that this isn't an April Fools joke. Ok, so it's a day late. Well, that is only because we'd EXPECT this to be a "joke" on April 1st.

If it really isn't a joke, then... egads!