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

[Strutinan]

"Playtesting" is a critical appraisal of a rules set, or addendum to the existing rules, gianed through use of the item in question.

Having somebody "playtest" the item who is NOT judgemental of it leads to exactly...squat. Any flaws that come up will be ignored, simply due to human nature. You NEED somebody who doesn't like the item in order to recieve a CRITICAL assessment of it!

The biggest problem with the MT is that it is hard to NOT overpower the putz. In the playtests I was in after it came out, we acid-bathed the damn thing. Two DMS, four players, each DM was "player 5" in the other DM's adventures, and ran an MT. Three adventures per preset level, all made efore the MT was released (so there could be no accusations of anti/pro-MT elements). Adventures where diablo-box-style, at preset levels of 6, 8, and 15 (each progressively higher level character built off the weaker ones). One DM liked the MT and thought it was balanced, one thought it was broken (gee...guess which one I was, lol!).

Even playing conservatively, and trying to "tone down" the character, the pro-MT DM acknowledged that the PrC as-is is hopelessly overpowered.

What I keep seeing is that when people acid-test the MT, they admit that it is broken. Soemtimes they post their findings on here and at the WOtC boards. Then they are flamed by people who claim their tests where "unfair" and "biased", as if the accusers are innocent of either unfairness or bias!

You like the MT? You think it's balanced? Try this on for size: take an old pre-MT adventure and run it. In the party, have one "MT is broken" player play an MT. Use only core rules (no spalt-books or outside material unless it is for the campaign), and no house rules. If you find yourself altering the adventure, or fudging things, to provide a challenge for the MT then admit to yourself it is broken.

[edited for vehemence]

 

[Michael Tree]

One trip to the Min/Max Board will show characters getting modifiers that make the +3 difference a completely irrelevant factor into the upper levels.

If you look closer at the Min/Max board, you'll notice that most of those characters such bonuses through taking levels in multiple prestige classes. A Mystic Theurge can't do so, as to get the most benefit, he'd be best off to take 10 levels of MT. By 20th level, he has a maximum of 4 free character levels to use for PrCs.

 

[Michael Tree]

Having somebody "playtest" the item who is NOT judgemental of it leads to exactly...squat. Any flaws that come up will be ignored, simply due to human nature. You NEED somebody who doesn't like the item in order to recieve a CRITICAL assessment of it!

While I appreciate your concern for bias, doing the above will result in no less bias - the bias will just be in the opposite direction. In a court case, the prosecution attorney is just as biased as the defense attorney.

Even playing conservatively, and trying to "tone down" the character, the pro-MT DM acknowledged that the PrC as-is is hopelessly overpowered.

Could you be more specific? What about it was overpowered? Saying "it was overpowered" isn't very informative. What specific things happened in play that led you to believe it was overpowered? (I'm not defending the MT here - I'm honestly curious, since I havn't seen it in play yet.)

Could the fact that everyone's attention was focussed on it make the players and GM feel that it dominated the game?

I should note that if you only used the core rules, you created an artifical situation that stacked the scales against the MT. How many groups only use the core rules in their games? Not many. Doing so skews the scales because part of the balance of the MT is the opportunity costs of not being able to take other prestige classes and not having bonus feats to use.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If you look closer at the Min/Max board, you'll notice that most of those characters such bonuses through taking levels in multiple prestige classes.

Keep in mind that we constantly hear, again and again, that updates and revisions (and editions) are aimed at reducing the abusability of the system. In this instance, what you would like done and what someone else can do are entirely different things. For instance, I had few problems with 2E, mostly because my friends and I understood the spirit of the designer's intentions and stuck true to it. However, that doesn't mean 2E didn't have problems just because most of the abuses were based on mechanical min/max methods used by people that didn't give spit about the spirit of the rules.

If 3E is to hold to its purpose as an edition (lack of abusability), than what can be done must have priority in determining the balance of anything, regardless of what those who appreciate such spirit would want.

Trust me, I wish it was the other way, but we live in a world of lawyers and people who try to get away with everything they think they can, and the word of the laws (or rules) hold the higher place over the intention regardless of how noble those intentions are or were. After all, isn't the PC obtainment of Prestige Classes as a general right rather than a campaign-defining event contrary to the spirit of Prestige Classes to begin with? Yet there are plenty of players that would refuse to play in a game unless they were free to obtain what-ever Prestige Class (or magic item, or spell, or anything else) they want (and often unfairly ripping on those who would say otherwise).

And remember that Prestige Classes are supposedly being "redefined" in 3.5; Sometimes that makes me shudder.

 

[rounser]

And remember that Prestige Classes are supposedly being "redefined" in 3.5; Sometimes that makes me shudder.

Given that the original definition of what a prestige class was meant to be for didn't really encompass all of the things that they ended up being used for, I'm not sure why you're so concerned. Their purpose is being redefined to match the way people are actually using them, perhaps?

 

[Strutinan]

Michael Tree: I played the "Mr. Buff-tastic" MT, the other guy played "Finger-O-Doom". You can read all about them in my topic on the WotC We Features board.

Here are some highlights.

Mr. Buff-tastic: I would start every day with multiply-Empowered Bull's Strength and other long-duration buffs, then put on my armor and get ready to wade into battle. Yes a cleric can do this too. What a cleric CANNOT do is still retain most of the casting power of a character a mere 3 levels lower, AFTER buffing himself to hell and back! No, Dispel Magics where no threat at all. We were using the Magic of Faerun book, so I had access to Reactive Counterspell. Although in hind sight this weakened my character, a Ring of Counterspells would have been easier and freed up two feat slots. Plus the sheer malicious fun of using True Strike/Power Attack/Divine Might/Divine Power/Divine Favor/ uber-Bull's Strength (+6 on average, I know it doesn't stack thats not the point) on some VERY unlucky BBEG. After every other spellcaster was too pooped to pop, I often was at full hp and still had around 30-40% of my spells left.

Finger-O-Doom: Spectral Hand and Inflict (whatever) wounds, or Bestow Curse, or Poison, or Chill Touch, or Shocking Grasp, or Vampiric Touch, should I go on? The only thing that makes Spectral Hand balanced is that the caster typically doesn't have more than about 20 or so spells that he can use it with in a day. What happens with a character that can spontaneously cast 20 CLERICAL spells for it, without touching their (almost equal)arcane spells? The uper-level (post 4th) spell slots? Moslty given up to little exras like multi-Empowered Owl's Insight and Fox's Cunning, Dimension Door, Extended Improved Invisibility, Blade Barrier, and sundry other "point and make have a bad hair day" spells. WHile these spells WHEE 3 levels "below the curve" (Ill grant you that), the ability to shove huge amounts out in a day was VERY grotesque. Again, this character often had around 30% of his spells left by the time the other spellcasters had run out of mojo, AND full hp too!

You want to know the most disgusting part? Thru out the whole time, each MT managed to rack up TWICE the body count of any of the other characters!

 

[rounser]

Thru out the whole time, each MT managed to rack up TWICE the body count of any of the other characters!

There goes tha neighborhood!

 

[David Argall]

works both ways

"All of the above can be tweaked by Feat selection and"

Of course, but the pure mage or cleric also gets to tweak, which means the advantage may change in nature, but not necessarily in degree. Indeed, if the tweak feats are actually the weaker feats, the pure class will widen the advantage.
And of course, the pure class does need to tweak for both aspects. Our pure wizard doesn't that cool stud turning feat, and the pure priest does not have to worry abount any feats that might be useful only to mages.

 

[Najo]

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that this prestige is not designed the same way as any previous prestige class as it is solely intended to "fix" the multiclassing rules between multiple spell casters (namely divine and arcane)

It doesn't even fake doing this job very well and does not solve the problem at all. The multiclassing rules need adjustment, not a prestige class that gives you the spells of two entire classes three levels behind the rest of the party.

Heck, managing this classes spells per day wouldn’t even be fun, let alone it filling the roles of two classes in the party.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, what if the other casters in your party mutliclass into non-caster levels, say three times. Is this class still balanced? If I was a level 17 wizard, level 3 fighter or a Level 7 wizard, 3 cleric, 10 MT, which class is balanced? If I am a wizard 10, fighter 10 or I am a paladin or ranger 20 I have the same caster level. So that would mean any combination of wizard to fighter levels are balanced. Substitute wizard with whatever caster you want. The mystic theurge is on its own a broken class without munchkinism.

It has no real "role" or flavor.

It doesn't fix the problem, multi class rules.

It gives to much for what it "gives up"

and it is causing WAY to many fights and arguments. Imagine when this thing hits the table and someone in a group want to play one.

One more thing, the play testing that I have seen described is the same sort of tests game designers use to see if a mechanic runs right. A good game is put through all of the stress tests, these power players are just pushing the boundaries of the rules even though most of us don't play like that. They are important to seeing what the rules can do, as good game rules make a game enjoyable so you can trust the playability and have fun with your friends instead of being caught off guard by something that might cause an argument or lead to the game loosing some of its fun.

That is what is at stake right now. That is what everyone is fighting over.

 

[Purzel]

Spellcaster multiclassing by a PrC the only effective way to do it?

[. . .] The multiclassing rules need adjustment, not a prestige class that gives you the spells of two entire classes three levels behind the rest of the party. [. . .]

Speaking of the new multiclassing rules, that reminds me about a discussion i had with a friend about possible houserules to implement spellcaster multiclassing in the rules and not utilizing a PrC. People often say, that the old multiclass rules need just an adjustment. But i think, you'd rather end up with a complete rewrite.

Soon i started to understand, why the R&D team picked up the idea of managing multiclassing with PrCs:

Trying to make up short and comprehensible general multiclassing rules is f***ing hard. When you make them look about right for Clr/Wiz they start to look underpowered for Sor/Wiz for example. Such a ruling would end up being pretty long and incomprehensible with a lot of exceptions.

And the other problem with a general multiclass ruling, that came up while i brainstormed with my friend was, that such a rule could break up the requirements for MANY existing Prestigeclasses: players could pick a PrC one or two levels earlier in their career.

Another big problem of a general multiclassing rule is, that you'd need A LOT of playtesting to find out, if it always produces balanced characters. Meanwhile making up a PrC for a couple of multiclass combos only is easier to verify.

And when you use a PrC to manage the multiclassing you've another advantage about a more general rule: you have more triggers to balance it out. HD, BAB, Saves, Skillpoints, Classskills, Spellcasting, Bonus Feat and Special Abilities. A lot of things you can easily tweak here.

Maybe doing multiclassing via PrCs isn't the best solution we can get. But making a better rule would need more time and would break up the prestigeclass system. Something that won't happen in D&D 3.5 but maybe in four or five years in D&D 4.0.