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

[Kesh]

Personally, I'd just play a straight Cleric, or some other Prc. You trade off too many special abilities (I'd never give up my Turn Undead! ).

For a Wizard, it's not so bad. You give up familiar bonuses and item-creation feats. Whee. Being dropped back 3 levels for spellcasting does hurt though.

As mentioned, a Druid would find this PrC useless. A Sorcerer isn't a bad solution, using arcane offensive magic and divine defensive/buff spells.

A Ranger who picks up a few levels of Sorcerer is probably the best combo for this. He'll have decent HPs and Saves by the time he qualifies for this class, some nice abilities when in light or no armor, progression as a Sorcerer for attack spells and his Ranger divine spells. The low HP progression certainly does hurt though.

 

[demiurge1138]

I am absolutely neutral on this class. I like the idea, but am not sure if I like the excecution. The one thing I do like is seeing so much controversy over one class, that may yet be edited, from a book that hasn't even been released yet.

Demiurge out.

 

[Ratama]

The MT gives up a little bit of power for a lot of versatility; imho, that's how it should be.

If your idea of D&D is the 'Iconic' co-dependant foursome skipping down the yellow-brick road, then you probably don't like the Mystic Theurge, or any other generalist class that doesn't gimp the character that takes it.

If you look at a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 10 and compare it to a 16th level Wizard or Cleric... sure, it looks overpowered.

2x13th level casting and 7th level spells in two classes vs 16th level casting and 8th spells; looks overpowered, and it is... for only that level, though.

If you compare a 7th level Bard to other 7th level SC characters, the SC Bard actually looks balanced. But anyone who's ever played or Gm'd for one could tell you that 1 level over or under that, though, and the SC Bard goes back to its normal level of comparative combat crappiness.

Excluding the possibilities of levels in 3.0 PrC's (remember, this is a 3.5 PrC that can't be blamed for how it might stack with non-core PrC's like the Geomancer), the Mystic Theurge don't look so rosy compared to it's SC caster counterparts at any CL but 16.

I challenge anyone who disagrees to actually build a couple 16th level casters and then compare them (I'm not saying this like I'm calling someone out in the schoolyard or anything like that; I'm just saying that if you really *look* at the actual character you can build with this PrC, you'll see that the Mystic Theurge is, at least with only other Core classes in the mix, balanced).

Although, I'd be interested in doing a character comparison featuring a 16th Level Cleric, 16th level Wizard, and 16th level W3/C3/MT10 as a joint effort with someone else for posting here, if anyone else is interested in trying to show just how 'broken' the Mystic Theurgist actually is.

 

[Remathilis]

I was thinking...

Pre-Requisities
Skills: Know: Arcana 8 ranks, Know: Religion 8 Ranks, Spellcraft 10 Ranks
Feats: Skill Focus: Spellcraft
Special: Must be able to cast 3rd level arcane and 3rd level divine spells.

Now, is it as bad?

 

[Cedric]

I have to say that this prestige class would go a LONG ways towards satisfying one of my biggest complaints with 3rd edition.

I like playing multi-class casters. I like playing Cleric/Magic-Users, but why should I?

In first edition, a cleric/magic-user was a force to be reckoned with and a lot of fun to play.

In 3rd edition a 10/10 cleric/magic-user...just plain sucks. A 20th level character, that can't cast heal and JUST maxed out his magic missile spell.

I for one am glad to see an option that makes dual classing as a Cleric/Magic-User of Boccob a viable option.

Cedric

 

[Saeviomagy]

Kesh - halfcasters would be terrible to take under this class.

I think perhaps some people are looking at this class and thinking to themselves
"Why would I not take a level in this, rather than a level in wizard".

The answer is "because I also have to give up three MORE levels of wizard".

Most people are unwilling to give up even a single wizard level from a wizard. Now you're doing a 4 for 1 deal. At higher levels of theurge, it rises to as high as 13 for 10.

Sure, a cleric3/wiz3/theurge10 seems quite powerful. That's because it's the absolute best that the PrC ever gets.

What does a cleric3/wiz3 look like? Compared with a wiz6 or cleric6?

A cleric3/wiz3/theurge1?
theurge 2?

etc?

Simply put - at it's best, the PrC is causing arguements as to whether it's overpowered or not.

That typically means that it's around about balanced, perhaps on the high side, but sufficiently different for people to argue about it. Remember the monk?

And that's as good as the PrC ever gets. To the high side of balanced.

 

[mmu1]

This is ridiculous. It's a crappy class for someone that wants to play anything resembling a militant cleric, but for someone playing a wizard, it's a freakin' godsend.

A 16th level character with only 13 levels of wizard because he took 3 levels of fighter or rogue (or anything else, really) is seriously handicapped. A 16th level character that is a 13th level wizard and, instead of those crappy 3 levels of fighter or rogue, gets access to spells like Spell Resistance, Heal, Raise Dead, Resurrection... that's a slightly different matter. Even more so if you pick good domains.

 

[Quip]

I'd like it if the class scaled better at higher levels, and was resonable to take for epic as well.

I came up with an alternate progression, its just a little weaker overall and doesn't get much stronger in epic levels:

1 Both
2 Divine
3 Both
4 Arcane
5 Both
6 Both
7 Divine
8 Both
9 Arcane
10 Both

With this progression you get +7 levels to both. Does it seem better balanced this way? At 20th level the best you could have Wiz 17/Clr 10. Even if you took "early epic" levels of MT all the way to 14th it would only be 16 in each, 9th level spells just aren't going to happen.

As for epic levels, a Wiz 5/Clr 5/MT 40 would be a 50th level character that casts as a Wiz 33/Clr 33. Not exactly game breaking.

I have to say though, power issues aside that it seems like a pretty boring class. It would have been nice to have a couple small extra features. I'll probably post an alt version in house rules sometime.

 

[Ratama]

Remember, this is a 3.5 class; maybe we should wait and see that the 3.5 Epic changes will be before we start rewriting what is otherwise a well-balanced class.

Epic is broken, anyway; just sitting back and enjoying the munchy goodness would be my vote, rather than spending time trying to mend a hull breach with chewing gum.

 

[Eldorian]

Anyone else notice that this new class doesn't have Scry on it's class skill list? This mean that scry won't be a skill in 3.5? The class would definatly have it if it were still a skill, all 5 possible parent classes have it.

Eldorian Antar