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

[Ashrem Bayle]

I'd just like to say this:

This weekend, my player and I did a great bit of playtesting. This is the same player that went crazy over the Mystic Theurge when it was first released. He knew for certain tha this was the PRC for him.

After several hours of playtesting....

He is building a single classed Wizard. Why? It is all about the spell levels. A 3/3/1 Cleric/Wizard/MT is only casting 2nd level spells at 7th level, while the single classes Wizard 7 is slinging 4th level spells.

Trust me folks, those 2 spell levels are a huge difference.

There area few good reasons for this:

1. You can only cast 1 spell per round under 3.5 rules.
2. Monster's effectivness does not decrease with damage sustained. A Chimera with 1 hp fights as well as one with 40.
3. Mosts fights are over in a minute or two of in game time at the most.
4. Higher levels spells are more potant, hence, you need fewer of them.

When the party is being charged by a hord of bugbears, being able to cast a 7d6 dmg fireball, is A LOT better than being able to cast any two 2nd level spells over 2 rounds.

While the MT is casting acid arrow or whatever on his next round, the single classed character is casting another fireball or lightning bolt.

The Mt ends up with a lot of wasted potential simply because he can't cast spells fast enough to keep up with the huge hits the "pure" class is making each round.

Trust me, when the party fighter is down to 10hp and is fighting a Frost Giant toe-to-toe, you need to be able to hit it hard and hit it now. You just don't have time to chip away at it with lower level spells.

I'm not saying the class is too weak or anything, but I certainly don't think it is too powerful. I had that same "knee-jerk" reaction when I first saw it, but after playing around a bit, I have definatly changed my mind.

EDIT -> While not related to the subject at hand, I'd also like to say that the CR for the Rakshasta is way off. DR20/+1, Immune to spells <8th level, and the spells of a 7th level sorcorer is not a CD9 creature. Especially when one of it's spells is Fly.

 

[Angcuru]

I see this a quite a boon, actually. In the FR campaign I'm currently working on, I have to convert a 2nd edition muti-class cleric/wizard to 3rd edition...and this seems to be quite the useful tool! Definite revisions, though.

My idea is like one that was posted earlier, but as a core class instead of a PrC. You would only gain the dual level in arcane&divine casting every 5 or so levels, but you would still gain clerical abilities, and metamagic feats to a lesser extent. Sort of a toned down Mystic Theurge, but having the abilites of a mage and a cleric, alternating the learning each section when desired. Once I finish writing it up, perhaps I'll post it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My view:

1) The class isn't unblanaced. It does basically what the Sorcerer does -- more spells per day and a decrease in the level of spells you can cast -- and decreases the level by more to compensate for the extended spell selection. To say that it's unbalanced because it provides more spells/day is like saying that the Sorc or Bard are unbalanced because they provide more spells/day.

2) Despite the class's balance, I would have infinately preferred that they 'fix' the multiclassing problem without resorting to a PrC. Then, you could re-create any 2e character, and also have the option of giving them a flavor PrC that works with their concept, instead of one they basically need to be effective at all.

3) Designing a PrC so as to be 'essential' is a bad thing, IMHO. This PrC is essential -- any Wiz/Clr *has* to take this, or is going to be Captain Wus of the Ponce Patrol. This means that you can't take a Wiz/Clr in many other directions without being a completely gutted character...it's MyTh, or BUST!

 

[Technik4]

Marshall:

Lol. Sorry dude, but spells can't replicate fighters. Did his MT have:

Feats of a 15th level fighter?

Skills of a 15th level fighter? (don't laugh, I bet a real fighter could out ride that wizard any day of the week).

The ability to suddenly not have +15 BAB and 15d10 hp if he should say, run into an anti-magic field? Or if *gasp* an enemy cast dispel magic (I have a sneaking suspicion this ability will find its way into most higher level intelligent monster's abilities).

And as most people tend to forget, casting Tenser's Transformation can be about as good as shooting yourself in the foot sometimes, as even 15th level fighters get killed sometimes, and if youre the party healer/ressurecter/etc then its going to be a pain to get you back for your foolhardiness.

Oh, well I guess he didn't. Maybe its because on paper the MT is god of the DMG, but if you actually tried to stat one out (I have, though not completely, I plan on posting when I've finished) youll find that while they have a lot of spells going for them, thats about it.

Technik

 

[drnuncheon]

EDIT -> While not related to the subject at hand, I'd also like to say that the CR for the Rakshasta is way off. DR20/+1, Immune to spells <8th level, and the spells of a 7th level sorcorer is not a CD9 creature. Especially when one of it's spells is Fly.

Rakshasa have the "eggshells with hammers" problem.

Cleric with magic weapon + crossbow bolt + fighter = dead rakshasa.

J

 

[Saeviomagy]

Perhaps a slightly more appropriate phrase would be 'paper tiger'.

And it's a big problem with 3rd ed - there are too many creatures which drop like a rock, but have devestating powers to make up for it.

 

[Strutinan]

Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.

I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest. Let me clarify a few things:

"3.5 Haste"
The playtest occured before we all found out that 3.5 Haste wasn't adding "a move or attack action" like it was originally described as doing. Still no two spells/round, but the extra attack allows for a spell/move/attack. For a buff-style character, that extra attack is the reason to take the spell (or item in this case)!

"Reactive Counterspell"
After playing around with it, I would happilly just remake the character with a Ring of Counterspells. All you have to worry about is Dispel Magic, and this item allows you to spend the two feats it took to get Reactive Counterspell on other things.

"Buffed to Fighter/Tenser's Transformation"
Our playtest did not use TT, as we could not find any hard info on how it was changing. Instead I buffed my Str/Dex/Con/Cha with arcane buffing spells. Most of the remainder of the arcane spells the character had where either no-somatic spells, or Stilled. I also had a wide selection of situation-specific buffing spells for different types of combat (Fly, Shield, Protection from Arrows, Stoneskin, etc.).

"Dispel Magic"
Area effect Dispels get rid of one personal and one item spell per casting, which leaves several more still running (often with emergency back-ups). Targetted Dispels can gt rid of all my buff spells, but only if the Dispel isn't Coutnerspelled Even if I am targetted twice, there remains a chance for each spell to stay in effect. Also, given the RARE situation in which I am successfully Dispelled of all my buffs (which did happen a time or two), a simple Divine Power restores me to about 90% fighting trim until the end of the fight.

"Wands/Scrolls of Dispel Magic"
Oh come ON! Honestly, what character/NPC in his right mind would USE one of these things? The caster level is so gods-awful low that you might as well THROW the thing at the person! Add to this, would YOU as a player prepare a higher-caster level wand/scroll of a spell you will typically cast only on special circumstances? If so, then you might as well make high-CL wands of Tenser's Floating Disk too

"Dimension Door/Blade Barrier"
This was given as an example of wha the Finger-O-Doom character did. Also, it was Improved Invisibility/Door/Barrier+Hold Person, each on subsequent rounds. Lets not forget the old standbys of Improved Invisibility/Flight/Hold Person/Acidic Cloud and Spectral Hand/Bestow Curse or Inflict Wounds either!

"Does he have the feats of a 15th-level fighter?"
Nope, and I don't need them either. I got the Str of a 15th-level fighter (Empowered Empowered Bull's Strength), the BAB of a 15-th level Fighter (Divine Might), the weapon of a 15th-level fighter (GMW on a +1 Flaming Greatsword), the armor of a 15th-level fighter (Magic Vestment on a suit of Mithril Full Plate +1), the HP of a 15th-level fighter (Empowered Empowered Endurance),ect. I also got a few tricks a fighter CAN'T get: True Strike/Power Attack/Divine Might, Blur, Stoneskin, Fly, ect. BTW, who needs Ride when you can FLY!

"Has he ever TRIED to play a 15th-level cleric?"
Yes, and it was pretty sick too. just not as sick as this. Point of fact, we had a 15th-level buff-style cleric in the same group (you should already know this from reading the WotC thread). He could buff up just as much as I could. Unfortunately for him, his spells (and hp) would become mostly depleted after two or three fights. By the same time I was down to only about 30-40% of mine Mainly, it was from being able to mix the effects of high-slot arcane and divine spells.

"Anti-magic Field screws him up"
Any character is screwed over by an anti-magic field, if he CAN'T JUST WALK OUT! A fighter trapped in one with a troll = dead (but tasty) fighter. Any spellcaster = smelly guy just waiting to be gakced. But don't forget, the AMF only SUPRESSES the buff spells/magic items. Once I WALK 10 FEET AWAY they all turn back on without even any loss in duration.

I think that about covers everything, but honestly I'm just tired of typing. Lol

 

[MerricB]

Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.

I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest. Let me clarify a few things:

"3.5 Haste"
The playtest occured before we all found out that 3.5 Haste wasn't adding "a move or attack action" like it was originally described as doing. Still no two spells/round, but the extra attack allows for a spell/move/attack. For a buff-style character, that extra attack is the reason to take the spell (or item in this case)!

Still wrong. It gives you an extra attack if, and only if, you take the Full Attack action.

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Now that I've gotten one deadline out of the way, I have a bit more time to hang out on this board.

I noticed alot of people making some "knee jerk" reactions to my playtest. Let me clarify a few things:

No. People didn't really make knee jerk reactions. They discussed it.

And they found it severely lacking.

Put up a real writeup of the playtest, or stop posting about how you did it and the MT was broken.

A real writeup requires a rundown of all the characters involved, the situations encountered, the general style of play (number of encounters per day etc) and specific examples of where the MT shined, as well as places where they couldn't compete. Until you give that, I'll continue to doubt not only the results of the playtest, but the fact that it ever occurred as well.

 

[Oni]

I'd just like to say this:

This weekend, my player and I did a great bit of playtesting. This is the same player that went crazy over the Mystic Theurge when it was first released. He knew for certain tha this was the PRC for him.

After several hours of playtesting....

He is building a single classed Wizard. Why? It is all about the spell levels. A 3/3/1 Cleric/Wizard/MT is only casting 2nd level spells at 7th level, while the single classes Wizard 7 is slinging 4th level spells.

Trust me folks, those 2 spell levels are a huge difference.

There area few good reasons for this:

1. You can only cast 1 spell per round under 3.5 rules.
2. Monster's effectivness does not decrease with damage sustained. A Chimera with 1 hp fights as well as one with 40.
3. Mosts fights are over in a minute or two of in game time at the most.
4. Higher levels spells are more potant, hence, you need fewer of them.

When the party is being charged by a hord of bugbears, being able to cast a 7d6 dmg fireball, is A LOT better than being able to cast any two 2nd level spells over 2 rounds.

While the MT is casting acid arrow or whatever on his next round, the single classed character is casting another fireball or lightning bolt.

The Mt ends up with a lot of wasted potential simply because he can't cast spells fast enough to keep up with the huge hits the "pure" class is making each round.

Trust me, when the party fighter is down to 10hp and is fighting a Frost Giant toe-to-toe, you need to be able to hit it hard and hit it now. You just don't have time to chip away at it with lower level spells.

I'm not saying the class is too weak or anything, but I certainly don't think it is too powerful. I had that same "knee-jerk" reaction when I first saw it, but after playing around a bit, I have definatly changed my mind.

EDIT -> While not related to the subject at hand, I'd also like to say that the CR for the Rakshasta is way off. DR20/+1, Immune to spells <8th level, and the spells of a 7th level sorcorer is not a CD9 creature. Especially when one of it's spells is Fly.

Please do not take offense at this, but I'm not sure that your playtest was a very good indicator of the strengths of the MT. Your example includes a character that has only one level in the MT PrC and so does not really go a long way in highlighting the strengths of the class. The weakness of the character lies in the still flawed multiclassing system for spellcasters, and that was primarily the deciding factor in the effectiveness of the character rather than the MT PrC itself. MT suffers from a faulty and outdated balancing method in my opinion, weaker to start, stronger later. The more levels of the MT, the more the relative powerlevel between it and a straight class caster shrinks. That is in your example the straight class caster had access to twice the spell levels and caster levels, but as you move up the chart this ratio shrinks, and at the highest levels it amost disappears. In a nutshell I'd say your playtesting reveals more the faults in the current multiclassing system than the strengths and weaknesses of the MT PrC.