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

[green slime]

Exactly the problem. All those asking for a fix to the multiclassing rules are clearly asking for too much in a rules revision that is supposed to retain a glimmer of backwards compatability.

That isn't to say that such a fix or revision of the multiclassing rules wouldn't be welcome.

 

[Chacal]

Exactly the problem. All those asking for a fix to the multiclassing rules are clearly asking for too much in a rules revision that is supposed to retain a glimmer of backwards compatability.

That isn't to say that such a fix or revision of the multiclassing rules wouldn't be welcome.

The backward compatibility is a problem for WotC, and for people who play in different/changing groups.
For the groups I'm used to play with, it wouldn't be a big problem because the DM cannot be told "accept this PrC". We DM always try to make the PrC fit the campaign and the player's choice. Adjusting the prereq a little bit because of some house rule is quite simple.

I guess the ones bothered about multiclassed spellcasters weaknesses will have to house rule till a new edition.

Chacal

 

[WizarDru]

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.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.

Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics? It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available? What were the other players using? It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters? And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long?

 

[Marshall]

The fact that you don't have any calculations suggests to me that your analysis is somewhat suspect. A great many people claimed that the ELH's Enhance Spell was never worthwhile and would always be beaten by multiple Empowers + Improved Metamagic, but they were wrong. (Many of them refused to believe it even when they were shown the real numbers, but that's beside the point.)

Actually, we're not.

Its not until you change the meta-magic rules, allowing them to stack, that ENHANCE becomes worthwhile

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, we're not.

Its not until you change the meta-magic rules, allowing them to stack, that ENHANCE becomes worthwhile

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

a) there's a lot of debate about whether that's actually a change.

b) even if it is...Enhance is better if you can't stack Empower - that is, it becomes useful at a much lower level - because you can stack Enhance no matter how you interpret the rules, and it boosts Empower, Maximize and Intensify as well.

J

 

[Spatula]

Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics? It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available? What were the other players using? It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters? And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long?

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=140;t=000461

 

[Saeviomagy]

Do you have a link to this thread where you give more specifics? It sounds like you weren't even affected by factors such as arcane spell failure...was this due to the large number of spells available? What were the other players using? It sounds like you were using a party of at least three casters? And I'm assuming that you did this test in the last week or so, since the MT has only been on WotC's site for about that long?

I wouldn't bother reading most of the thread. Srutinan seems to have taken great pains to leave most of the actual information out of the thread, instead filling it with his own opinions.

A slightly more informative place to go is (believe it or not) the min-max board.

An entire board devoted to breaking classses. The only builds which involve the MT are:

a) Ones which break the rules

b) Ones which claim that you can use another classes "+1 spellcaster level" to advance both the divine AND arcane spellcasting of the MT.

c) Ones which use the ur priest. Ur priest builds rely on the fact that an ur priest gets 9th level spells in 10 levels of a PrC.

d) Ones which use the True Necromancer. True Necromancer builds rely on the fact that TN lets cleric and wizard spellcaster level stack for certain spells, and thus end up with a spellcaster level of 30 or so for a 20th level character, but only for necromantic spells.

I don't think that any of these builds are actually a real problem with the MT class. A isn't worth discussing. For B, I don't think that "+1 spellcasting level" applies to another classes "+1 spellcasting level" - ie it can only be applied to fully specified spellcasting progressions, with spells per day and spells known. C I think is more a problem with the UR priest (you can already get 9th level spells at level 15 with it) than the MT. D is a genuine problem, but I think it arises from the fact that the TN itself was already an attempt to make a multiclass caster viable. I don't think that the abilities it grants will survive transition to 3.5 unchanged.

Given some of the travesties that appear on the minmax boards, I really don't think we have anything to worry about from the MT itself. Just problems with the way it combines with certain existing PrC's.

 

[Wormwood]

Given some of the travesties that appear on the minmax boards, I really don't think we have anything to worry about from the MT itself. Just problems with the way it combines with certain existing PrC's.

In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs.

Noticed that myself.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs.

Noticed that myself.

Not just that, but there appear to be only 2 PrC's that you can do this with. Given some previous releases, that's pretty good.

 

[Oni]

In other words, people are 'breaking' this 3.5 PrC by combining it with 3.0 PrCs.

Noticed that myself.

Well this either is or isn't a new edition. Wotc tells us it isn't, so to me that says everything ought to be more or less compatible.