Mystic Theurge too good or not?

[Pax]

See.. this is what I simply don't understand.

WHY should it be viable?
Fighting is fighting - BAB is BAB - a fighter does the same thing as a Barbarian... why shouldn't they mesh well?

Spellcasting is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Completely different - no crossover between the two.

But the two should be comparable in utility and power overall -- which is not true with spellcasting classes.

The parallel would be, if BAB didn't stack. At all. Then your Fighter(4)/Barbarian(11)/Rogue(5) woudl only have a +11 BAB ... and would feel roughly the same sting from multiclassing as spellcasters do: their primary role in a party would be SIGNIFICANTLY HURT by the act of multiclassing, or havign a high-ECL/HD base race, and so on.

[sarcastic comparison] Just because I'm a lawyer (I'm not), does that mean I know how to operate on people, like a doctor?
Why not? They both make a lot of money (traditionally) and are professionals - shouldn't a lawyer with 2 years of experience be able to take medical school for 4 years, and be able to practice law as good as a 6-year lawyer? [/comparison]

You're grossly misstating affairs. When you complete all 6 years of medical school (etc), you are a first-level Doctor. And actually, "doctor" would be a Prestige Class most easily qualified for by people with the "Med-Tech" base class, who qualify by taking the Medical Traning, University Degree, and Advanced Medical Training feats, along with some 10-15 ranks in Heal, and varying numbersof ranks in Knowledge(Anatomy), Knowledge(Biochemistry), and so on. Lawyer, OTOH, would be a base class IMO (you don't have to graduate law school to be a lawyer, at least not in the US ... you just have to pass the qualifying exams).

So, and I mean no offense by this, but ... I'll just have to disregard your sarcastic "comparison" as a case of apples-and-oranges.

What justification is there... other than 1E stupid-multiclassing rules... to allow cleric/mage concept to work?
Similarly, why should mage/fighter work, other than 'because I used to be able to do it so brokenly in 1E'.

What justification is there not to allow spellcasters to also follow the "anything goes, X level is X powerful no matter what classes you pick up on the way there" fundamental principle behind all of Third Edition ... ?

 

[James McMurray]

Luckily for us, Wizardry and Priesthood are not Law and Medicine. In fact, a cleric's powers come solely from his faith, and I bet you could find several people who are scientist's and also practicing religionists (preachers, reverends, etc.).

 

[BenBrown]

Luckily for us, Wizardry and Priesthood are not Law and Medicine. In fact, a cleric's powers come solely from his faith, and I bet you could find several people who are scientist's and also practicing religionists (preachers, reverends, etc.).

You'd also find a lot of people who say that's not possible.

 

[James McMurray]

Yeah, but just because a lot of people say it doesn't mean its true.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yeah, but just because a lot of people say it doesn't mean its true.

That could be the start of either a religious or political discussion...

... we must be cautious.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Nah, I was thinking it could be even better: a religio-political dscussion. Maybe with a smidgeon of socio- thrown in just for kicks.

 

[Spatula]

Luckily for us, Wizardry and Priesthood are not Law and Medicine. In fact, a cleric's powers come solely from his faith, and I bet you could find several people who are scientist's and also practicing religionists (preachers, reverends, etc.).

Okay, but are they able to call down fire from the heavens? Or have to worry about breaching the spell resistance of demons? Or think about what they can contribute to a party of four adventurers...

The whole modern-day thing is a bad analogy that has only been made worse, but consider that a scientist's degree isn't going to chop off much if any time that he needs to spend in seminary in order to become a properly ordained minister. A 30 year old (just as an example) 'single-classed' scientist or minister is going to have a lot more experience on-the-job than the guy who does both, since the 'multi-class' scientist/minister spent a bunch more years in school than the other two. Which isn't to say that you can't do both, but if you do you're sacrificing years of your life that could have been spent getting better at one of chosen paths.

Of course, in the real world, people don't need to worry about being able to overcome encounters appropriate for their character level...

 

[reapersaurus]

What are you guys talking about, "all the classes are balanced in 3E?"

I know for a fact that many people haven't bought that bill of goods...
There are so many public examples of classes and class levels NOT being equal, that it's really quite quaint to hear multiple people bringing it up as the only justification for the Mystic Cheese (oh, other than 'why shouldn't it work that way' ).

drn said :

3e was built on the principle that any two characters will be roughly equal, no matter what class(es) they choose to put their levels into. A 20th level fighter ought to be roughly equal to a 20th level wizard,

That's truly laughable, you realize, don't you?

No offense, seriously, but - that quote reveals either a collosal ignorance of what the last 3 years have shown, or else a extravagant handwave at the discussion, bringing in inaccurate ephemeral game theory to 'bolster' an argument.

Everyone on the planet knows a 20th level fighter doesn't come close to a 20th level wizard in power. I'll stop discussing that right there, because if you don't immediately say "yeah, you're right", than there's no point in talking, cause we're on different planets.

So with that settled, it blows away your statement that "3E was intended to have all classes as equal".
Ya, it may have been designed that way, but just like all editions of D&D, it's hopelessly failed to reign in high-level mage dominance.

I've had quite the few discussions about high-level D&D and the over-valuation of spells and magic items, and it is not very discussable: it boils down to
a) either you like high level magic or
b) you don't.
It's really that simple.

Personally, I think it's a huge flaw in the system, that the higher levels (beyond 10th or so) become such a mage duel (cleric and wizard) in essence, that all the other classes are relegated to sidekicks.

I feel that the best way to solve it is to eunuch high level magery, removing spells above 6th, and spreading those spells out much wider.
OR just disallow taking primary spellcasting classes back-to-back, as suggested by an ENWorlder (Mark, was it?), thereby maxing them at 10 spellcasting levels.

And that's just one spellcaster class - you can imagine how bad the MT looks to me, granting high-level spells in 2 spellcasting classes, simply because someone thought it would be 'neat' or 'fun'?

I think it's the worst idea in the long history of Bad Ideas, and I hope I'm there when they realize it.

 

[Pangias]

i totally agree with reapersaurus

Magic system is a huge flaw in D&D. I never saw a noncaster match with a cleric and a Mage beyond 9lvl. The only way to make theim match is bringing conditions where you cancel magic.

Each discussions i saw about this topic comes down to this. If you want to give fun to a highlevel non caster you have to deal with the casters and say, ok today i will set the conditions to give fun to the others players, but don't worry it s just to let them shine.

To do this, you have 2 viable options, cancel magic (Anti magic Zone, Wild Magic,....)or to harrass the party until the Caster have no spells and keeping harrassing theim.(and avoiding the return of the party in a safe point at high level)

And this is were come the trouble, you will have to wait way much more with the MT, because he will have a HUGE spell pool. And he will loose only a bunch of capacity that not match this advantage. (the sentence you don't get any other benefit from the class always made me laugh. I knows no one who would trade a capacity for a casting level bringing you closer from these potent high level spells)

Second trouble from D&D, the combinations of spells bring some unexpected results so often, since the first edition, designers do adjustement to tone down some combination and so on. But it's endless. Now we will have to deal to brand news combination which will bring a lot of smackdown, and a lot of disrupting in balance.

MT is a huge mistake IMO, it brings a viable concept to life, but i trule think this concept will be way TOO good.*

 

[Pax]

Re: i totally agree with reapersaurus

Magic system is a huge flaw in D&D. I never saw a noncaster match with a cleric and a Mage beyond 9lvl. The only way to make theim match is bringing conditions where you cancel magic.

Funny, a grappling non-spellcaster (a monk, AFAIK; might'e had a touch of PsyWar in there) just nailed my winged-half-celestial Sorceror(16)/War Wizardof Cormyr(5) (ECL 25), in an arena.

To do this, you have 2 viable options, cancel magic (Anti magic Zone, Wild Magic,....) or to harrass the party until the Caster have no spells and keeping harrassing theim.(and avoiding the return of the party in a safe point at high level)

I don't think that's neccessarily true. I think it depends on party tactics, enemy spellcasters (in 3.5, it's laughably easy to neuter the school of Necromancy; there's not a LOT that Death Ward (a mere 4th level spell) won't stop cold), and the one thing I see people overlook when saying "X encounter would be a pushover for Y party if they had Z caster just pop out spells A, B, and C" -- TERRAIN. Fireballs don't work so well underwater. If you use the "reflecting lightning bolts" concept, those don't work so well in small spaces. Simple cover-and-concealment -- physical concealment NOT based on light levels, so true seeing is of no especial use -- can nerf spells as well as they nerf ranged attacks, if not better.

Originally posted by reapersaurus
Everyone on the planet knows a 20th level fighter doesn't come close to a 20th level wizard in power. I'll stop discussing that right there, because if you don't immediately say "yeah, you're right", than there's no point in talking, cause we're on different planets.

BEfore I can agree or disagree with you, I have to ask one thing:

Define "power" ...