Mystic Theurge too good or not?

[Number47]

The "test" proves diddley squat.

...Number47 would have a bard whip their rear ends in short order...

Preach on, brother!

 

[Madfox]

The funny thing is that you are all comparing the class combo with a full wizard or cleric based on 3.0 edition rules. Ignoring the fact that multiclassing a pure spellcaster with another pure spellcaster is a bad idea in D&D. Perhaps the designers made the prestige class to make a bad multi-class combo more viable? Compare it to multi-classing within the fighte-type classes (for example a fighter/barbarian/ranger)? Their hitpoints, BAB (the primary ability of a fighter-type) and saves do not suffer, they all need the same stats high and after about 8 feats you will not miss the feats much. A cleric/wizard will lose spell levels, but a cleric is a good secundary (if not primary) fighter, the mythic theurge is not. A pure wizard speciality lies mainly in disabling the opponents, the mystic theurge is not. Now whether the mythic theurge is a really good way to deal with an apparent weakness I am not sure on.

Fact is that I would never take it in a campaign that start at lower levels for the stated reasons. Especially not when the 1 hr/lvl buff spells got reduced to 10 m/lvl as the rumour goes. Because at lower levels this character is only good at buffing party members.

O well, I will take a wait and see approach to this class or 3.5 edition in general.

 

[Li Shenron]

The funny thing is that you are all comparing the class combo with a full wizard or cleric based on 3.0 edition rules. Ignoring the fact that multiclassing a pure spellcaster with another pure spellcaster is a bad idea in D&D. Perhaps the designers made the prestige class to make a bad multi-class combo more viable?

Yes I really think it is the reason: and once you can be Mystic Theurge, who else is going to be just a Wizard/Cleric? Not that probably many PCs have been already...

I think the old idea of multiclassing is still to be more versatile at the expense of straightforward specialization: but just as in real life, an experienced physician or experienced engineer is more appreciated than someone who is "quite good" at both professions.

Multiclassing between fighting classes is not IMHO the same. Since everything stacks, the reason why 99% of the players multiclass is to get the most juicy combo of the special abilities. Let's face it, how many players play Fighter/Barbarian, Fighter/Ranger, or Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger for the concept? They might find a concept behind, but that comes AFTER, to justify their choice, not as a motive.

Multiclassing between a fighting class and a spellcaster is IMHO a wonderful source of ideas from the RP point of view, but unfortunately it will usually make you weaker, and multiclassing between spellcasters is even worse.

Could it be because Saving Throws are level-dependent & spellcasting doesn't stack, while AC is not level-dependent & BAB stacks? Perhaps. Think of what it would be if AC increased with level just as ST, and BAB from other classes granted extra attacks/round but each with its own class BAB...

 

[Fenes 2]

I don't want the wizard/cleric multiclass from 2E to be a valid option in 3E or 3.5E. Together with 2E psionics and the complete books of elves it represents about the worst of AD&D I can remember.

 

[LokiDR]

I don't want the wizard/cleric multiclass from 2E to be a valid option in 3E or 3.5E. Together with 2E psionics and the complete books of elves it represents about the worst of AD&D I can remember.

I remember specialty priests, and how broken they were. That just got moved to every cleric

 

[Hypersmurf]

I remember specialty priests, and how broken they were. That just got moved to every cleric

Hey, how would you like it if we went around calling you 'broken'?

We prefer 'balance-impaired'.

Hmmph. No Cure for you!

-Father Hyp.

 

[Andion Isurand]

Before even testing the MT...

I would start by removing all its BAB advancement and reducing the class skills to Concentration, Knowledge (arcana & religion) and Spellcraft.

Between studying a spellbook/inheritance and worshiping a deity/nature.... I don't see there being much time for extra skills or learning to hit things.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Actually, TN says it adds the arcane and divine levels, not casting ability. Because of this, I did not double count the Thurge levels. I have a fealing the sage will rule in a similar way, though only time will tell.

Thank goodness for that. Since I don't actually own the book that TN is in, I couldn't validate information given to me by others.

I have to say though, that I find the idea of a party of levels 10+ who have no way to deal with flight and invisibility ridiculous. It's been such a pain to my own group in lower levels that just about everyone is (at the very least) working on a solution. Flight items, see invis items, invisibility purge, glitterdust, faerie fire, you name it.

As for dispel/greater dispel, I've yet to see a caster who doesn't choose it as one of his first spells of the level, for the simple fact that it's almost guaranteed to be useful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2Saeviomagy:
According to what I read about the fight the characters had means against invisibilty and flying, but they were not sufficient.

I agree that Dispel Magic and Greater Dispelling is a must have for caster, but sometimes you don`t have it memorized, because you already used it.
Not always do you know what kind of enemy you are facing, and so sometimes Dispel Magic is not the first spell that comes to your mind.
In the campaigns I was so far, most casters uses either Mass Haste/Haste as one of the first spells in combat, or a direct damage dealing one (or Save or Die Spell). An enemy without hitpoints is better than an enemy without active spells.

Anyway, I would really like to run a test game, even if only for the childish reason to prove I am right and know it better than everybody who does not think the MT is overpowered
Unfortunately, I don`t have the time to do so.
The test game would have to compare with a "regular" group without a MT, and the encounters should be more in line with a regular adventure than a typical smackdown situation.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[scholz]

I actually play a MT in a mid level game (just turned 7th) game, so I've never actually played as an MT yet. As I am the only real spell-caster (we have a couple people with the odd level here and there) I can't really compare myself to the other players in terms of power. Here is my impression of getting to be an MT. It is pretty agonizing. I've never played in an 20th level game, so I can't comment on that. But in the low level ranges that I typically play in, it is very annoying to have spells that last only 2 or three rounds, or 2, or 20 minutes. Spells with level based damage or duration seem hardly worth it. So I focus on other spells. I get a lot of them. But because the durations are so short, I rarely get to have many up at a time. If I cast five buff spells on myself and others before an encounter, I rarely expect them to last through the encounter. Now when I get to 20th level that might change. But for now, I can attest to not feeling very powerful. The one saving grace is that I can use pretty much any wand. That is what I rely on for most of my actions. So the vast spell list often gets used for the more esoteric spells.
I think it might be really different if our party had either a straight wizard or cleric. I am not sure if that would be liberating or humbling.
So, in conclusion. I do not think it is broken at low levels.