Mystic Theurge too good or not?

[Fenes 2]

A Theurge will be powerful in a game with few magic items.

But in a game with relatively little combat, he's more at a disadvantage. His advantage over a straight Wizard is more spells. If the Wizard never runs out, though, those extra spells are no real advantage.

No. He has much more slots, and access to all cleric spells, so the odds that he has the right utility spell accessible or prepared, are better than for a straight wizard. I made the experience back in 2E that even in a game with few combats casters tended to prepare a standard array of spells just in case that they happened upon a combat, and the MT has many more slots "free" for utility and buff spells.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

This is not a good test of how balanced a character class is. There are tons of factors involved here, including some that are extremely difficult to quantify (like what kind of tactics were used, how experienced are the players on both sides with high-level characters and tactics, what limits are used, what magic items are involved). Even though this is one character against a party, it's an arena-style situation.

But single fight situations strongly favor any spellcasting type class. You can dump everything you've got, and don't need to worry about later on. You guys used 3.0 Haste, which gives the Theurge a HUGE advantage that it WON'T have in 3.5 (when Haste is changed).

I agree that you've offered _some_ evidence that the Theurge may be overpowered. This in no way really takes the place of actually playing the class in an actual campaign, though.

I sincerely disagree. A good test of a class is to see how powerful you can make it. Sooner or later in campaigns, a player will try to make a character as powerful as possible. The fact that a class would just about always be taken <i>is</i> proof that a class is overpowered. Just because you <i>can</i> weaken the class through tactics and situations, doesn't mean that they dictate the entire power level.

We did use 3.0 Haste, which I admit would normally give him the advantage, but the party he was fighting was also using 3.0 haste, and after the spellcasting ended, the MT melee fighting was more efficient. And sadly, the fighting would be just as efficient with the 3.5 haste.

Feel free to use him in one of your own campaigns to test for yourself. I'm sure if you have good enough players, the power of the class won't outweigh the rest of the group. I'm sure if you have min/maxing players, the MT will eventually beat the others into submission.

 

[Chun-tzu]

I sincerely disagree. A good test of a class is to see how powerful you can make it. Sooner or later in campaigns, a player will try to make a character as powerful as possible. The fact that a class would just about always be taken <i>is</i> proof that a class is overpowered. Just because you <i>can</i> weaken the class through tactics and situations, doesn't mean that they dictate the entire power level.

Feel free to use him in one of your own campaigns to test for yourself. I'm sure if you have good enough players, the power of the class won't outweigh the rest of the group. I'm sure if you have min/maxing players, the MT will eventually beat the others into submission.

I'm still not entirely clear on what your example was supposed to prove. A level 18 Mystic Theurge (with levels in True Necromancer, thus possibly twinked out) beat a party of 16th level characters. So, what if a regular 18th level Wizard kicked their butts? What would that prove?

In a straight-up spell battle, a Mystic Theurge is going to lose against a straight arcane caster of the same level more often than win.

The arena situation also gives non-combat skills and abilities a value of zero. One of the Rogue's greatest strengths is his skill selection, most of which has little to no value in combat. Those non-combat abilites make up a large part of the Rogue's playability.

Maybe your players would all rather play a MT than some other caster. It seems to me there are many posters who wouldn't hesitate to play some other spellcasting PrC.

 

[Gargoyle]

I think the prestige class may be too good when you do your comparisons using the 3.0 spells.

I think it will look more balanced if you consider it using the 3.5 versions of the spells...

I agree.

 

[Gargoyle]

My 2 cents:

IMO, the biggest balance problem with the MT is that it is too weak at lower levels. Play a clr1 or wiz1 and work up to a wiz3/clr3 in a regular campaign. Go ahead, I dare you.

If your party is large, and your focus is not on combat, you'll do ok, but mostly you'll weaken the party until you gain at least a couple of MT levels and start casting 3rd level spells. And even then, not being able to penetrate spell resistance and not having decent spell save DCs is going to hurt. And you won't be casting spells of a level comparable to any single-classed casters.

But hey, bards aren't combat machines, and they have a place in the game, so being weak at lower levels as a clr/wiz doesn't invalidate the character concept, if you're really interested in playing a devout wizard. Giving up power to gain flexibility is one of those choices many players make because it is fun for them. And another publisher pointed out to me that it might be a good option for players who didn't really want to play a cleric but was doing so to cover the healing.

As far as the prestige class having no flavor...devout wizards have flavor already. However, I agree that the class description could have more to it. If it were a campaign specific class with more background material, it would be more interesting. And that's what they should have done..make it an FR class with more background, and still put it in the DMG, like the Red Wizard.

It does irritate me that they can get 9th level spells by taking more levels of one spellcasting class than the other. I think that opens up too many doors to abuse, and it doesn't jive with what little flavor they have. In my opinion, they should take equal levels of both classes, so I've added the following to their requirements for my campaign:

"Your arcane and divine spellcasting classes must be within one level of each other. Gaining two levels more than the other causes a mystic theurge to lose all benefits of the class until this mystical balance is regained."

I like the mystic theurge because it gives my players an option they wanted that they didn't have. I have a player with a cleric of a god of magic who has been trying to figure out how to take levels of wizard without weakening the party. Now he has a viable option. I would have liked the class more if it didn't encourage taking more wizard levels than cleric levels, and if you didn't have to play a weak character for so long before qualifying for it.

It may not be perfectly balanced, but I think it's in the ballpark. My guess is that it's weak at low level, and somewhat abusable at high levels. Time will tell. But my guess is that after the class is out for a year or so we'll find out that:

- Many people who intended to take the class in a regular campaign never went through with it.
- Many people who test the class in one-shot adventures find it to be broken with their min/maxed characters, especially at higher levels.
- The few people who take the class in a long running campaign will find it to be satisfying at higher levels, but only after suffering for a long time.

 

[Grog]

But after making a high level (18) Theurge, I can definitely say that I will NEVER, EVER allow the class as a PC in one of my campaigns. I wiped the floor with a party of eight adventurers of average level 16ish. He was nearly unequipped at the time.

First, I don't see any way an 18th level Theurge could have beaten eight properly equipped 16th level characters without some seriously bad tactics on their part, some really lucky rolls on his part, or some other advantage (like attacking from prepared ambush or something). And if he did win, an 18th level Wizard probably would have done just as well in the same situation. Quite possibly even better, having 9th level spells and all.

Also, if you used 3.0 Haste, you skewed the test in favor of the Theurge, since having more spells is more of an advantage if you can cast them faster.

 

[Grog]

But my guess is that after the class is out for a year or so we'll find out that:

- Many people who intended to take the class in a regular campaign never went through with it.
- Many people who test the class in one-shot adventures find it to be broken with their min/maxed characters, especially at higher levels.
- The few people who take the class in a long running campaign will find it to be satisfying at higher levels, but only after suffering for a long time.

I think you're right about all of those points. Especially the last one. I know there's no chance I'd ever play a Theurge in a campaign that started out at first level. I'm not about to spend 75% of my adventuring time as a seriously underpowered character just so I can spend 25% as a (potentially) overpowered character. That's just not a trade I'm willing to make.

 

[Cespinar]

Just like to point out you better watch out for your DM's BBEG and their 9thlevel arcane AND divine spells.

Posted by Neonsamurai from wizard's boards:

(human)
1 wiz	cosmopolitan(bluff), iron will
2 wiz	
3 wiz	skillfocus-> knowledge religion
4 wiz	
5 wiz	
6 wiz	malign spell focus
7 pm	
8 ur	
9 ur	spell focus (any)
10 mt	
11 mt	
12 mt	spell focus (any)
13 mt	
14 mt	
15 mt	skill focus (spellcraft)
16 mt	
17 mt	
18 mt	
19 mt	
20 am

That would be Pale master and ur Priest in the middle there.

spell level

wiz(arcane)	18
ur(divine)	12

lvl	arcane	divine	total
0	4	6	10
1	4	5	9	
2	4	5	9
3	4	4	8
4	4	4	8
5	4	4	8	
6	4	4	8
7	3	3	6
8	3	2	5
9	2	1	3
=============================
	36	38	74

cheers

 

[green slime]

Ur Priest / Mystic Theurge

Do you think your DM needs that cheese to eradicate the party?

 

[WattsHumphrey]

I'm still not entirely clear on what your example was supposed to prove. A level 18 Mystic Theurge (with levels in True Necromancer, thus possibly twinked out) beat a party of 16th level characters. So, what if a regular 18th level Wizard kicked their butts? What would that prove?

It's trying to prove that where they've not lost to other casters of comparable level, they have lost to the MT. YMMV.

In a straight-up spell battle, a Mystic Theurge is going to lose against a straight arcane caster of the same level more often than win.

I don't think you'd be convinced even with empirical evidence. I already stated that some parties may get lucky or not, but I've seen this in action. YMMV, again, but I don't think he'd lose as often as win.

The arena situation also gives non-combat skills and abilities a value of zero. One of the Rogue's greatest strengths is his skill selection, most of which has little to no value in combat. Those non-combat abilites make up a large part of the Rogue's playability.

Yes. Non-combat skills and abilities will NEVER make or break a class, IMHO. Most non-combat skills can be rped or trumped by magic, so the only power of a class comes from abilities it is gifted above and beyond the other classes. Though skills help in this way, they are never a substitute for spellcasting (or even beat-down) power.

Maybe your players would all rather play a MT than some other caster. It seems to me there are many posters who wouldn't hesitate to play some other spellcasting PrC.

Perhaps. But I'd hope they are playing for flavor reasons, as I don't think they'd chose another class for many other reasons.