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

[EricNoah]

It appears to be a back-formation from the word theurgy:

Main Entry: the·ur·gy
Pronunciation: 'thE-(")&r-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theurgia, from Late Greek theourgia, from theourgos miracle worker, from Greek the- + ergon work -- more at WORK
Date: 1569
: the art or technique of compelling or persuading a god or beneficent or supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something
- the·ur·gic /thE-'&r-jik/ or the·ur·gi·cal /-ji-k&l/ adjective

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If someone asserted that, I would criticize them just as harshly.

Fair enough. Glad my 5 year old distracted me; It could have gotten ugly.

It's interesting to have discussions about whether a class is balanced or not, and why. It isn't interesting when one person is so absolutely assured of their own position that they won't even grant the possibility that the opposite side may have some valid points.

Alright, let me clarify why I think it's "obvious". That might make things easier to discuss.

In 2E, there was a problem with multiclassing. Such characters, especially dual-casting types like Cleric/Mage, were practically omni-potent. This was despite the fact that they were generally a level or two behind single classed characters (which would include spellcasters) because they had most (sometimes all) of the abilities of two or three classes of their level.

This class projects the same situation: Dual-casting from two spell lists from a few levels behind the other (single-classed) casters in the same party, without much hindrance and at negligable expense (the Skill Points are natural choices for the Core Classes concerned [one's even a Class Skill for both!], and the mix of two Casting Classes is eventually faded out by the dual-spellcasting level gain).

Thus, I see this class as the return of a problem from 1E/2E, a problem that many (including myself) rejoiced was gone from 3E because of the new multiclassing rules. (Indeed, it was really the only problem I personally had with the old rules-set.)

Am I against this in concept? No. A 10 Level version that doesn't give dual-advancement every level would be fine (I suggest +1 of choice on odds and +1 to both on evens). One as-is but cut at only 5 Levels (perhaps combining Casting Levels to deal with the Spell Resistance issue) would also be fine. I've even posted both of these suggestions earlier (in one of these dang-fangled threads). However, 10 Levels, as-is, is a step backwards, returning something to the game that isn't needed: A dual-caster that is only a short step behind the single-casters.

 

[Numion]

Oh, that's so true. I'm wrong. Everyone that loves this class is right.

Most of the people who counter your arguments don't seem to love this class so much, but rather give it a chance. I'm not saying it's the perfect PrC, or that it's awfully broken. All I'm saying is that first ask questions, then shoot. Let's playtest this class, and then make our judgment. This just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the class.

Gee, it's so clear now.

Whatever.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Most of the people who counter your arguments don't seem to love this class so much, but rather give it a chance. I'm not saying it's the perfect PrC, or that it's awfully broken. All I'm saying is that first ask questions, then shoot. Let's playtest this class, and then make our judgment. This just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the class.

Y'know, when 3E came out, I had issues. I was told it was all just "knee jerk" and "2E-colored Glasses". Then most of my complaints got over-ruled by errata.

I'll take your comments to be of about the same worth.

 

[Numion]

edit: This post probably didn't add anything to the conversation...

 

[green slime]

Bendris, did you happen to see the note posted by EN:

Politely requested by Eric Noah:
The entire premise of this forum is that rational people can disagree. Please, folks, be respectful of each other.

Rolling your eyes and belittling others doesn't strengthen your arguments any at all.

Pity, cause I almost thought there might be a real person lurking behind that previous post, where you explained your stand point.

 

[Michael Tree]

In 2E, there was a problem with multiclassing. Such characters, especially dual-casting types like Cleric/Mage, were practically omni-potent. This was despite the fact that they were generally a level or two behind single classed characters (which would include spellcasters) because they had most (sometimes all) of the abilities of two or three classes of their level.

There is a significant difference between the way spellcasting worked in 2e and the way it works in 3e though, which you seem to be downplaying. Caster level didn't have much of an effect in 2e beyond duration and dice of damage, while in 3e it affects spell penetration, indirectly affects saving throws (since MTs spells are generally lower level), and dispelling is much more common and useful.

In 2e, cleric/wizards also had the better combat abilities of clerics, better hit points than wizards, and the ability to turn undead.

In addition, multiclass spellcasters in 2e were usually only a single level behind their single classed counterparts, while MTs are at least 3 levels behind.

In any given round, a MTs spells do less damage, are easier to save against, are easier to dispel, and have a much greater chance of bouncing off targets who have SR. Sure they can cast for more rounds than a single-classed character, but they're sacrificing hitting power for endurance. Even if they focus on casting buffs, that's balanced by the ease of dispelling their buffs.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Bendris, did you happen to see the note posted by EN:

Yes, I did. Obviously, some one else didn't.

Rolling your eyes and belittling others doesn't strengthen your arguments any at all.

I didn't belittle him. I simply indicated that his "knee jerk" comment carried no weight with me, mostly because I'm tired of hearing someone throw out the "knee jerk" comment whenever something new gets criticized. It's belittling the person making the critique.

That you agree with him and not me has obviously effected your judgement in the matter.

There is a significant difference between the way spellcasting worked in 2e and the way it works in 3e though, which you seem to be downplaying. Caster level didn't have much of an effect in 2e beyond duration and dice of damage, while in 3e it affects spell penetration, indirectly affects saving throws (since MTs spells are generally lower level), and dispelling is much more common and useful.

All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and Magic Items. In addition, this class also gains another boost: Lots of spells to Counterspell with while still having spells to cast directly.

In 2e, cleric/wizards also had the better combat abilities of clerics, better hit points than wizards, and the ability to turn undead.

THAC0, true. Hit points were moderately better (averaged d6). The lower Turning ability can be bypassed via Divine Feats, which add power to the class rather than leaving it stuck with lower Turning capability.

In addition, multiclass spellcasters in 2e were usually only a single level behind their single classed counterparts, while MTs are at least 3 levels behind.

This is simply reflective of a complaint about this class already made: It's underpowered early and overpowered later. The shallow hole becomes a mountain given enough levels. That most games end between 12-15th Level doesn't come into this. A game going beyond this (and mine do) will have issues with this class.

In any given round, a MTs spells do less damage,

True, but tweakable with Feats.

are easier to save against,

Not entirely true. Saves are based on Spell Level, not Caster Level, so what the class has is less spells with Higher saves (behind by only 1 or 2 points). Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, and magic items easily change that.

are easier to dispel,

True, but tweakable.

and have a much greater chance of bouncing off targets who have SR.

True, but again tweakable.

In addition, the above list falls into the issue I've indicated previously about the shallow hole that naturally gets shallower with every level. Eventually, that difference becomes insignificant.

Sure they can cast for more rounds than a single-classed character, but they're sacrificing hitting power for endurance. Even if they focus on casting buffs, that's balanced by the ease of dispelling their buffs.

Which they then turn around and rebuff thanks to their additional spell slots.

 

[Purzel]

. . .

All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and

. . .

The lower Turning ability can be bypassed via Divine Feats, which add power to the class rather than leaving it stuck with lower Turning capability.

. . .

True, but tweakable with Feats.

. . .

Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, and magic items easily change that.

. . .

True, but tweakable.

. . .

True, but again tweakable.

Umm, how many feats do you think does a MT really get? You have an interesting calculation there.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Umm, how many feats do you think does a MT really get? You have an interesting calculation there.

Actually, I don't have any calculations. I'm just pointing out that every appearant weakness in the class has a way around it. If you nick the game at 15th Level or lower, the opportunity to get around them is definately less. However, going forth from there, more and more opportunities present themselves. And that's the problem with this class: Eventually every weakness it has fades into the past.

Add it good spell selection, good spell use in play, the right Feats, and the right boosting Magic Items, and the class has no equal.