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

[green slime]

I'm not convinced that he does beat the Cleric flat out. Even in the buff "kick butt for one combat" game.

A cleric with access to the Magic Domain can cast TT (albiet from a scroll) as well...

 

[Ziggy]

I'm not convinced that he does beat the Cleric flat out. Even in the buff "kick butt for one combat" game.

A cleric with access to the Magic Domain can cast TT (albiet from a scroll) as well...

Cleric with MD aside, the MT has (given similar equipment, including a Neclace of Prayer Beads-karma):

• -1 to hit/-1 to damage with 3 less caster levels using Divine Favor
• 3 rounds shorter duration for some cleric spells (most notably Righteous Might)
• - (13d4) HP
• +4 (?) AC from Shield
• +4 natural armor from Transformation
• +2d4 STR from Transformation (enhancement)
• +2d4 Dex from Transformation (enhancement)
• +13d6 temp HP from Transformation
• +6 BAB from Transformation
• Displacement (50% Miss chance)

Even with stacking problems for extra STR, the conclusion is pretty clear to me, but YMMV.....

.Ziggy

Edit: Updated HP loss

 

[Numion]

Cleric with MD aside, the MT has (given similar equipment, including a Neclace of Prayer Beads-karma):

• -1 to hit/-1 to damage with 3 less claster levels using Divine Favor
• 3 less rounds duration for short duration cleric spells (most notably Righteous Might)
• - (13d2) HP
• +4 (?) AC from Shield
• +4 natural armor from Transformation
• +2d4 STR from Transformation (enhancement)
• +2d4 Dex from Transformation (enhancement)
• +13d6 temp HP from Transformation
• +6 BAB from Transformation
• Displacement (50% Miss chance)

Even with stacking problems for extra STR, the conclusion is pretty clear to me, but YMMV.....

.Ziggy

Well well... let's see..

Most of those are due to the tensers transformation. I wouldn't be too quick to use that spell though - doesn't it stop you from casting spells? I know that a melee / archer cleric shouldn't be casting spells in combat, but it still seems a bit restrictive. Must attack, even unarmed if there isn't other possibilities? I agree that you do have a point, but in general the wizard spells don't just seem useful enough IMHO. Displacement and haste can be had with items surely enough, since clerics don't need much money for other items due to GMW and Magic Vestment.

Also as it seems we're talking about high-level smack here, a straight cleric can launch all wizard spells up to 7th level with a miracle, at no xp cost. Including TT

So I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the straight cleric.

 

[Ziggy]

Well well... let's see..

Most of those are due to the tensers transformation. I wouldn't be too quick to use that spell though - doesn't it stop you from casting spells? I know that a melee / archer cleric shouldn't be casting spells in combat, but it still seems a bit restrictive. Must attack, even unarmed if there isn't other possibilities? I agree that you do have a point, but in general the wizard spells don't just seem useful enough IMHO. Displacement and haste can be had with items surely enough, since clerics don't need much money for other items due to GMW and Magic Vestment.

Also as it seems we're talking about high-level smack here, a straight cleric can launch all wizard spells up to 7th level with a miracle, at no xp cost. Including TT

So I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the straight cleric.

Agree on the Transformation, its a risky spell to use. While both haste (not counted here) and displacement can be gained from items, its pretty expensive (a cloak of displacement is 50K). And then the MT could use that money for other stuff that give more fighting power.

At 16th, you are just below the level of Miracle, and thus I'm in the clear with the Clr3/Wiz3/MT10 But I agree that the power might shift again at 17th, as Miracle is just too strong.

Such is the strength (and weakness) of D&D, it got just too many combinations too explore them all. I guess the conclusion is that both the cleric and the MT are pretty powerful as buff machines in combat, with the "winner" depending on the exact parameters (including level) and setting.

.Ziggy

 

[green slime]

I don't get the -13d2... the MT has d4 compared to the Cleric d8...

 

[Ziggy]

I don't get the -13d2... the MT has d4 compared to the Cleric d8...

My error, I've updated the original post

.Ziggy

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Neither of your two statements preclude the existence of Divine lore. Divine knowledge, as per "Knowledge of the Divine". I agree with your statement that it doesn't exist mechanically, but that does not prevent the inclusion of a flavour: Divine Lore. This it could be claimed is summed up in the skill Knowledge (Religion)

Irrelevant. To claim that this justifies the Class on that merit alone is wishful thinking; It's grasping at straws to justify a combo that you very much want. Otherwise, you wouldn't be argueing so vehemently over whether or not I would include this class in my campaign.

Remember, the 2E Mage/Cleric (and the 1E Magic-User/Cleric) weren't powerful because of their numbers; They were powerful due to sheer fire power. Yeah, a total moron could flub spell selection and become useless, but any Power Gamer (most of whom would argue to the ends of the Earth to have this class) that knows his spells good enough is not going to end up with a sub-optimal character. He's going to end up with a character that dominates the field, just like in earlier editions. That's why this particular combo was nixed to begin with, and why the True Necromancer functions the way it does.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

He's going to end up with a character that dominates the field, just like in earlier editions. That's why this particular combo was nixed to begin with, and why the True Necromancer functions the way it does.

Cleric/mages dominated the game in first and second edition? Wow guess that must be part of my the reason why I don't; understand the problem. in my group no one hardly ever plays a cleric, and cleric/mages certainly never dominated the any of our games.
Ken

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Cleric/mages dominated the game in first and second edition?

Yep, and they did so despite being a level or two behind. The problem was that they had the full spell-capacity of their classes. The problem here is that the MysT gets the full spell capacity of it's classes. Hell, this thing's already becoming a favorite at the Min/Max Boards at Wizards...

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

I've found over the past 2 years that the Min/Max Boards are the best place on the web to find trouble-spots in the rules. And guess what? This class is trouble.

 

[Numion]

Yep, and they did so despite being a level or two behind. The problem was that they had the full spell-capacity of their classes. The problem here is that the MysT gets the full spell capacity of it's classes. Hell, this thing's already becoming a favorite at the Min/Max Boards at Wizards...

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

I've found over the past 2 years that the Min/Max Boards are the best place on the web to find trouble-spots in the rules. And guess what? This class is trouble.

Did you read those threads? They all relied on N other PrC's (balance of which is questionable), or sloppy interpretion of the rules. Like archmage '+1 of existing caster level' was taken to mean +1 theurge level = +1 level to both wizard and cleric casting.

Those exercises in stupidity in wizards' boards are hardly an indication of the classes power level. I'd rather playtest it, and see how it goes. Even a single spell can tip the balance either way - Tensers Transformation or Miracle, for example. Because Miracle grants up to 7th level Wizard spells, those caster levels 17+ are especially important, but seem to be overlooked in all this jibba jabba. I'm not saying it's the only thing overlooked, but just an example.