Mystic Theurge

[Pax]

since I've only played at lower levels, I don't really understand the discussion between Marshall and Pax

Sorry. The Mystic Theurge, takeninto Epic levels, has a sad tendency to produce debates like that.

what is the problem with having class levels lower than your character level? isn't that true for all multi-class characters?

Picture a Fighter(5)/Wizard(5). He's part of a 10th level aprty that contains one character of each class, in addition to himself.

He can't fight as well as the fighter can, of course, because he's got spells. But his Wizard class did contribute a (vey) little to his Base Attack bonus - +2, to be precise. So, he has a BAB of +7, and is only "three levels behind" for fighting.

But, as a Wizard ... he's only JUST gotten third-level spells, and has (assuming a specialist and/or a high intelligence) maybe 2 or 3 of them per day. The single-classed Wizard(10), however, has 3 or more fifth level spells per day, and is close to getting sixth level spells.

When casting Dispel Magic, our multiclass Ftr/Wiz rolls 1d20+5 ... the single-class Wizard rolls 1d20+10. Assuming that the enemy spellcaster is roughly the same level for the "significant" battles, that means a dispel check has a DC of 21. The multiclass wizard must roll a 16 or higher, for a 25% chance to succeed; the single-classed wizard has to roll an 11 or higher, for a 50% chance of success.

Against Spell Resistance, the situation is much the same as with Dispel Magic.

And ... the straight class wizard's spells last about twice as long, too.

Of course, the multiclass wizard can wield any martial weapon, may be specialised, and has significantly better hitpoints. Still, he's traded some HP and a few points of BAB, solely in order to gain a little bit of second-string (at best) spellcasting.

So, WOTC came up with classes like the Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight, and so on. Our Fighter(5)/Wizard(5) would probably have done FAR better to go Fighter(1)/Wizard(3)/Eldritch Knight(6). Same 10thlevel character, but now he casts spells as an 8th level Wizard, and fights as an 8th level fighter, though he can't specialise. He's not the best in any field of magic, but he's darned good all-round.

what advantage (other than familiar, 2 feats, a few more spells) does a Wiz16have over a Wiz3/Cl3/MT[10]?
also, is Spell Resistance related to class levels rather than caster level?

SR is penetrated solely on the basis of Caster level.

The straight Wiz16 gets slightly longer durations, has +3 better chance to dispel enemy magic, to have his own spells NOT dispelled BY the enemy, and to penetrate SR.

And, perhaps the biggest of all, the straight wizard has 8th level spells.

 

[Pax]

I'm currently playin' an female elf cleric3 who will take the next 3 levels as wizard and then MT, that's pretty sure. And I will think things over and over, what I'll do at level 17 when MT has ended, I'm quite unsure, but there is still plenty of time.
I'll see soon enough.

If you want to focus, then, onoen sort of spellcasting over the other - pick up either Archmage or Heirophant levels, and get Spellpower as often as you have levels on the other spellcasting type. i.e., if you want to focus on being a Cleric again, pick up three levels of Heirophant, and take divine spellpower at each level.

Your caster level (though not spells per day) will be as if you had never diverged from Cleric. It'll cost you a handful of 5th level spells-per-day, but IMO, it's probably quite worth it at that level.

 

[Marshall]

Is combat really the only thing you do at Epic levels?

No, but its the about the only place to get a read on where balance is...

 

[drnuncheon]

Your caster level (though not spells per day) will be as if you had never diverged from Cleric. It'll cost you a handful of 5th level spells-per-day, but IMO, it's probably quite worth it at that level.

Heirophant doesn't increase your caster level at all, so spell power is utterly pointless for them - you might as well take straight cleric levels and get both the +1 caster level and the boost in spells per day.

J

 

[Pax]

Heirophant doesn't increase your caster level at all, so spell power is utterly pointless for them - you might as well take straight cleric levels and get both the +1 caster level and the boost in spells per day.

J

Um, yes they do. It's not listed on the table, but:

Spells and Caster Level: Leels in the Heirophant prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progession in the character's base class, still stack with the character's base spellcasting levels to determine caster level

So while spells-per-day don't go up, your caster level does. If you take 3 levels of Heirophant, and pick Spell Power at each of those levels, your Caster Level increases by +6 total, but you gain no new spells per day.

 

[Marshall]

Translation: apparently Marhsal does, indeed, believe that "supporting your allies" is only suited for sidekicks; "real" adventurers slay the BBEG without any help.

Feh.

No. But when your ONLY option is "supporting you allies" then you are a cohort.

Oh, really? Let's see, the straight cleric won't have as many hitpoints as the Theurge - better basic HD or not, the Tenser's Transformation spell will be giving him +20d6 temporary hitpoints - and with a Rod of Maximisation (neither lesser nor greater), that's a flat +120hp bonus.

At the cost of all your spellcasting(including healing yourself) for 1 rnd/lvl not dispellable(by you), you arent wearing armor(might hurt) and after you get all your buffs up. The CLR hits you with a GDM and you have to start over while he pounds on you.

Straight cleric, let's be generous and assume a nice big +8 constitution bonus by various means; average hitpoints per level after 1st comes to 12.5; so, [15 + (29 x 12.5 ) =] 377.5 hitpoints. Call it 378.

Cle(5)/Wiz(5)/EpicMT(20), that's 5d8+25d4, figure the same constitution bonus by similar means; an average of 328.5hp; call it 329. Then add 120 from the Tenser's Transformation ... 448hp. Looks like our "wimpy Theurge" has a seventy-hitpoint lead on the cleric, to ME.

You cant assume that they have the same starting CON, the MT had to concentrate on INT and WIS, and the Temp HP from Tensers doesnt satck wih the temp HP from DP so thats another 20 off, your leads down to 30. Take in that the CLR is likely going to have a higher STR score and the damage per attack difference makes up the rest. And I havent even gotten to the CLR Healing himself

Thunderlance, or GMW?

Thunderlance, 20' natural reach? heh. Or 40+ if you go Huge.

So? You've held up Epic Spell Penetration as a means of coming close to even, and that takes three feats (one of them Epic).

Thats the point, you've spent other precious resources to Just get even

The spellcraft bonus would apply to Epic spells, too. And it's usefulness depends on what you're looking for. Some of us like to ROLE play, instead of just ROLL play - and the sher style (coupled with some minor mechanical benefits), makes Spell Thematics a perfectly good feat choice.

You dont need the feat to get the sheer style and the mechanics part is horribly weak. Tho better than the first version that did nothing. When you're debating mechanics, debate mechanics.

I'm the primary GM. I have seen, and can review, EVERY character there. And I assure you, there are PLENTY of spellcasters there, who are PLENTY powerful. One of our top-ranked characters is Darien Shieldheart, run by James McMurray - a Wizard/Incantatrix build, and very nearly undefeated. Another powerful build is the cleric-based Syrem.

The 25th level arena in your sig? You arent high enough to show where your MT breaks. And at best your talking about Characters with 3 Epic feats(4 if FTR)

You should try actually looking at something before trying to pass judgement on it.

If your still stuck at 25th level, you havent gotten to the point where EPIC really comes into effect.

Funny. I've found Ignore Material Components tobe highly useful; and Improved Combat Casting means I don't have to keep my Concentration skill at the max.

IMC is nice. And something that you would want to have EBF feats to allow you get it.
ICC is broken, not powerful broken, but broken in that there is the Spellcasting Harrier feat and no indication of what the two do to each other.

But even then ... not all epic-level spellcasters have a need for Improved Spell Capacity. It's nice, but hardly required.

Eventually, it is. I guess you could rely totally on Epic Spellcasting, but then you get one spell per level of XP you spend. So while the FTR is 40th level, you are 25 with 15 epic spells. Not a good idea.

ROFLMAO.

You'e obiously never played an actual epic character, have you?

Laugh all you want, but the more levels you fall behind, the faster the accelerating save bonuses make your spells useless. And the 32d6 from Meteor Swarm gets to be less and less valuable when you cant hit Epic Touch AC's, get thru epic Rings of Elemental Immunity, and ridiculously high reflex saves.

Nope. They are no more required for a spellcaster, than for a nonspellcaster.

So you havent noticed that spells/day stops at level 20? And the only way to expand that is by taking ISC?

Oh, I see, so giving up SOME base attack bonus (which can be replaced, and then some, by either a cleric spell or a wizard spell, anyway), and a few hitpoints, is worth being able to cast ALL levels of Wizard spells, nearly as good as a straight wizard can?

Bah.

You've allready got all the WIZ spells, what else are you gaining? The answer is NOTHING. +1 CL per level doesnt accomplish anything other than admitting that you have gained a level.

No. Wiz(5)/Cle(5)/EpicMT(20), where the EpicMT stays at 2:1 throughout, would be the same as Wiz(25)/Cle(25) for spellcasting. My progression, which you've also dismissed as "not good enough", would give a 30th level character caster levels of 22 and 23.

And NO-ONE has proposed that! Please go back and read! Wait, I'll just quote it for you:

IMO, Just forget about EpicMT progression and make a new PrC that requires you to cast 9th level spells from ARC and DIV lists and K(Arc) and K(Rel) at 25 ranks. Its gives +1 ARC and DIV per level and 1/3 or 1/4 Epic feats.

I screwed up, those should be ranks 27, but the 9/9 spellcasting requirement forces a minimum of 24th level anyway.

So, turn this around -- if you were playing a character who was a Wizard or Cleric, maybe with a prestige class or two, who managed to get 1:1 casting all the way to 30th level ... would you like the idea of the Mystic Theurge beign almost exactly as good at casting spells as you are ... ?

Because he wouldn't be "almost exactly as good" as I am, without a massive investment of other resources, AND I WOULD HAVE OTHER ABILITIES HE DOESNT, to the minimum of a familiar that casts spells.

And I don't give a flying **** what your iconit theurge might be. To compare the theurge to alternate versions of itself, you compare characters with only levels of theurge, and the base classes required to achieve it.

Note the example below is WIZ7/CLR7/MT16. The Loremaster just, heaven forbid, ADDS FLAVOR to an otherwise flavorless class.

No. You assume noone will TAKE the epic progression until level 24. I assume no such thing.

NO! nononononononononono!!!, I SET UP THE PREREQS TO NOT ALLOW IT!!!!

... unless you pick up spellpower for both sides, then you're only -2/-2. And that is BEYOND broken.

So whats the difference! You are picking up the classes in the DMG that allow 2:1 for ONE CLASS. Thats assuming that you can take Spell Power more than once, and that Spell Power only applies to one side(You could end up with 3:2) and you have 5 5th level spells to give up, and....

No. Notice how I came up with a progression that is almost as good as 2:1, but not quite. You get 3:4 in each class with my version. That works out to a total of 1.5:1 - while I agree that 2:1 is too much, 1:1 is similarly not enough.

Actually, AFAICT, your method is 2:3. Both, Arc, Div, Both, Arc, Div....

You, on the other hand, are the rolLplaying, power-obsessed, "I must become better than the other players, for that is how you win this game rank lunatic who wants to have EVERYTHING, with no costs, no checks, and no balances.

No, but EVERY PC should be able to do something as well or better than every other PC in the group. Its called his niche, The MT's is "LOTSA spells"

Nope. Most of the feats, beyond ISC, whichwill be taken at Epic levels ... will be as useful for one caster, as for another. You want AS GOOD benefits as either the straight Wizard or Cleric gets, PLUS benefits towards the other spellcasting class.

And the "plus" bit is where balance goes out the window.

That may be true, and why I left the option open to only go 1/4. Tho the 2 big ones (ISC and Great(Stat) are class specific. OTOT without ISC, the Epic MM feats lose a lot of their potential.

The Epic MT should start with either the Epic Wizard or Epic Cleric progression - 1:1 spellcasting, and 1:3 epic feat progression. Now ... you add in 1:1 spellcasting for the other class. And in return, you must take something away. Something of equal value.

That NOT all the Epic WIZ or Epic CLR get. Both classes have class abilities that also advance(and are enhanced by other EpFeats). Admittedly, its not much, WIZ(Familiar)/CLR(Turning, HD, Domain?), but it is something. And that something could be major if its another PrC.

And don't say "the HD get smaller", because compared to the Epic Wizard, they don't.

For the WIZ, the major trade off is the opportunity cost of not taking levels in other Class-A PrC's. ie Archmage, Elemental Savant, MotAO, yadayada.
The question is, "Does expanding your spell list and doubling your spells/day really outweigh the benefits of being a better WIZ?" There IS a set point where this occurs, and from that point on 2:1 is MANDATORY.

That something, would be the epic bonus feats. 1:6 would, at that point, be TOO generous, IMO. 1:8 or 1:10 woud be the best I was willing to risk giving to such a progression.

Not necessarily, there are other things that you have to give up...

The true sign of a good GM, is trying to look FORWARD, see problems before they exist, and remove the problem ahead of time.

Another sign of a good DM, is to NOT see problems where they dont exist...

Fine.


W5/C5/MT10/PaxMT20 = W28/C28(~)

Actually, it comes to exactly Wiz30/Cle30.

That depends if you mean 3/4 or 2/3, you were saying 2/3.

only 10CL behind. And "1.5 EBF per class" ... you don't GET EBF "per class" like that. Period.

Fine but your still at half the number of epic feats as the straight caster with 1.5 times the need.

And/or focus on indirect attacks. Weaken the enemy. Find spells that lower their SR (in fact, the spell Lower Spell Resistance in the draconomicon does exactly this!). Pick up some other classes that offer Spell Power. Buy a slew of Ioun stones.

All of which the straight caster can do, and do better. And if you focus on indirect attacks you are essentially having to give up a whole slew of your spells from your expanded spell list THAT IS YOUR ONLY BENEFIT OF BEING AN MT. If you want to be the parties buffer and healer, play a darn (MiniHB)Healer, thats not what the MT does.

Artificially and dishonestly set up. There's no reasonnot to launch directly into the Epic progression at 21st level. So, this example should be Wiz5/Cle5/MT10/MarshallMT20 ...

The Pre-reqs for MY MT dont let you in before level 24!!!
Please get that straight!

Says you. First off, most offensivemagic is Arcane, so for OFFENSE, it's largely the Wizard spells you'r elooking at. So, fine, divert 5 levels (2 out of wizard and 3 out of EpicMT) and pick up Archmage(5) somewhere along the way ... go for Spellpower with every level of Archmage. Heck, be smarter, and divert twoof thsoe archmage levels from CLERIC, so you only lose one level of EpicMT:

Wiz(3)/Cle(3)/MT(10)/Archmage(5)/EpicMT(29).

That casts as a Wiz(35+5)/Cle(34). IOW, it punches through SR as well as a Wiz40/Cle34. Throw on ESP, Tattoo Focus, and a few ioun stones, and you're matching the party's straight wizard for SR penetration.

Again, its still not clear if Archmage spellpower stacks. It take 5 5th level spells to get it, and wasting 4 feats.
Orange Ioun Stones shouldn't stack, if they do IYC, then thats your problem.
OTOT, if you're gaining Archmage levels your not playing an MT are you?
And the above is still not possible under my MT.....

Oh yes it is. And the fact that you don't see it, is a towering monument to your utter lack of -

No. You know what, I'm not going to descend to that level. You just aren't worth it.

IYO.

IMO, 7 levels and 2 EBF back is a HUGE penalty. Theres no reason to make it worse.

 

[rich]

thanks guys for the help!
I guess I like Black Knight Irios said, I'll wait and see how things go
it mostly sounds like a difference in playing philosophy -- I enjoy the flexibility of doing lots of different stuff rather than specializing, but if my character ends up too weak to be effective that might not be much fun either...

I was thinking about going Wiz5, then Cleric5, then MT -- I'd get the bonus feat at 5th, then get decent BAB and HP's as a cleric (plus a little turning abilityand a few more skill points). But then I guess I'd be 5 caster levels behind in both classes -- would this be suicide?

 

[jabberwocky]

I was thinking about going Wiz5, then Cleric5, then MT -- I'd get the bonus feat at 5th, then get decent BAB and HP's as a cleric (plus a little turning abilityand a few more skill points). But then I guess I'd be 5 caster levels behind in both classes -- would this be suicide?

yeah, unfortunately, it probably would be suicide if you want to be at all effective with your spells. If you really want the extra BAB and saves, go to 4/4, but I wouldn't suggest anything more than that. Neither cleric nor wizard give you more skill points than MT, and the bonus feat isn't even worth waiting to 5 wiz.

 

[Pax]

No. But when your ONLY option is "supporting you allies" then you are a cohort.

No. That doesn';t make you a cohort; it makes you a character who's strongest abilities lay in the relam of ... supporting your allies. There's even an entire core class devoted to EXACTLY that - it's called "Bard". You may hve heard of it.

At the cost of all your spellcasting(including healing yourself) for 1 rnd/lvl not dispellable(by you), you arent wearing armor(might hurt) and after you get all your buffs up. The CLR hits you with a GDM and you have to start over while he pounds on you.

Right, he throws a Greader Dispel at you - and your Spell Turning flings it right back into his own teeth. OR the Rod of Absorption you were lready holding sumply sucks it up, while you laugh and proceed to whack him several times. Anyoen who targets a PC-grade character directly with a spell, at epic levels, deserves what they get.

As for armor - that's what Bracers of Armor are for. Or better ... since you're a cleric and ARE proficient with armor, you can wear a Twilight Mithril Shirt +5, which has a zero percent chance of arcane spell failure, and costs all of 37,100gp. "Twilight" is a +1 armor enhancement, in the Book of Exalted Deeds, which lowers spell failure by 10%. And at 30th or 40thlevel, you can readily afford to add Great Reflection to the mix (the price is then 1,441,100gp, since it's Epic). Then, you can reflect GDMs 'til the cows come home.

You cant assume that they have the same starting CON, the MT had to concentrate on INT and WIS,

Sure I can. Since this character isn't casting spells on his enemies, he doesn't need higher thana 19 in one of the two, and the best he can manage in the other. That +8, by the way, was based on a 15 starting score, a +6 enhancement item, and a +5 inherent bonus. No points from level advancement.

and the Temp HP from Tensers doesnt satck wih the temp HP from DP so thats another 20 off, your leads down to 30.

Go back and read ... I never added any HP from Divine Power.

Take in that the CLR is likely going to have a higher STR score and the damage per attack difference makes up the rest. And I havent even gotten to the CLR Healing himself

No, the Cleric isn't likely to have that much better a strength score, really. He's a CLERIC, not a Cleric/Fighter.

And I havent even gotten to the CLR Healing himself

Heal, schmeal. Every round the cleric spends casting Heal, is a round he's not beating on the Theurge. The cleric, unless he successfully runs away for a couple rounds, isn't going to get very far ahead of the game healing himself while the theurge pours melee damage into him.

Thunderlance, 20' natural reach? heh. Or 40+ if you go Huge.

The reach does not increase with the caster's size. It's an absolute setting based on the spell itself.

I find it laughable you complain about the reach provided by a spell-created melee weapon, when you advocate the Theurge becoming THE single, sole, and only thing any sane cleric or wizard shoudl ever contemplate aspiring to.

Thats the point, you've spent other precious resources to Just get even

And again, that is the essence of balance. To keep up with the Joneses in THEIR area of expertise, and also have anotehr area of expertise, something has to be given up.

IMC is nice. And something that you would want to have EBF feats to allow you get it.
ICC is broken, not powerful broken, but broken in that there is the Spellcasting Harrier feat and no indication of what the two do to each other.

Did a wire come loose in what passes for your brain? You get epic feats by dint of character level, too.

As for ICC versus SCH - simple. SCH prevents you from casting defensively. ICC says you don't HAVE to cast defensively, you simply don't provoke an AoO when casting spells. ICC trumps SCH.

Eventually, it is. I guess you could rely totally on Epic Spellcasting, but then you get one spell per level of XP you spend. So while the FTR is 40th level, you are 25 with 15 epic spells. Not a good idea.

ROFLMAO. You are SUCH a rank n00b, nd it is sooo showing.

Epic spells don't cost entire levels. And, as the party continues adventuring, once you HAVE given up a few levels, you start getting more XP for the same encounter, compared to your compatriots. Which means, your net level is self-correcting, and you shouldn't tend to fall behind by more than 3-4 levels. Tops.

And then there are spellcasting Epic prestige classes like the Netherese Arcanist (PGFR; eventually epic spells cost 7,000gp per DC, with XP calculated from that reduced sum - also, a -5 DC advantage with one of three sets of epic spell Seeds), or the Elven HighMage (Races of Faerun; it gets several -2 DC abilities; you can stack them all onto a single seed; alongside the Netherese Arcanist's -5 DC ability, you can eventually get -13 to a single seed, if you want).

Trust me, it's entirely possible to get Epic spell DC's down into PERFECTLY-acceptible, low-cost levels. Leadershipa nd Epic Leadership, with lots andlots of Adept-class followers and a spellcasting cohort, is the first way to do so. At 35th level, I was able to get some 250-300 knocked off the DC of a single spell - with a casting time of only 10 minutes.

At that point, you make the effect permanent, and up the casting time to 100 days or so. Should cost you, depending on how outrageous the effects you want might be, under 50K experience.

Experience points you'll earn back in rapid order, with your now-well-enhanced self adventurign alongside companions ~3 levels higher than you are.

Laugh all you want, but the more levels you fall behind, the faster the accelerating save bonuses make your spells useless. And the 32d6 from Meteor Swarm gets to be less and less valuable when you cant hit Epic Touch AC's, get thru epic Rings of Elemental Immunity, and ridiculously high reflex saves.

So you adapt your spell list to account. Go with non-Energy spells - Force Orb, for example. Go with no-save spells.

And increased caster level won't do you DIDDLY against Touch ACs, nor help against higher save bonusses. So those are non-issues here. SR and dispelling are the only things your caster level will directly impact.

So you havent noticed that spells/day stops at level 20? And the only way to expand that is by taking ISC?

Of course I've noticed that. And what you haven't realised, is, increased spells per just day aren't that improtant, when you get to those levels. The reason you haven't realised it is - UNLIKE me - you haven't played at epic levels.

I have. For two years. Only once did I ever come close to running out of spells- and that was a character with Multispell (twice, no less) and lots of quickened spells.

You've allready got all the WIZ spells, what else are you gaining? The answer is NOTHING. +1 CL per level doesnt accomplish anything other than admitting that you have gained a level.

Hardly nothing - because you're ALSO, with your version, gaining +1 caster level for cleric, too.

Being disadvantages in dual caster elvel, for someone whoinsists on being a generalist, IS in fact the (entirely fair and reasonable) cost of BEING a generalist of that caliber!

And NO-ONE has proposed that! Please go back and read! Wait, I'll just quote it for you:

Feh.[/red] It's the same thing, and you bloody well know it. Making an end-run around the rules doesn't excuse you form blatant munchkinism.

Because he wouldn't be "almost exactly as good" as I am, without a massive investment of other resources, AND I WOULD HAVE OTHER ABILITIES HE DOESNT, to the minimum of a familiar that casts spells.

Yes; a mere 5 levels behind, where thsoe 5 levels become an increasingly smaller and smaller fraction of the characters' total level, is "almost exactly as good".

As for a spellcasting familiar: oh, big fat hairy deal. Familiars in epic-level combat = loss of experience for the Wizard when it nigh-inevitably dies.

NO! nononononononononono!!!, I SET UP THE PREREQS TO NOT ALLOW IT!!!!

Translation: "Marshall used the deceitful tactic of misrepresenting the concept as an entirely new class, to try and make an end-run around game balance".

New class, or epic progression, unlimited 2:1 spellcasting progression is BROKEN.

You are picking up the classes in the DMG that allow 2:1 for ONE CLASS. Thats assuming that you can take Spell Power more than once, and that Spell Power only applies to one side(You could end up with 3:2) and you have 5 5th level spells to give up, and....

There is a cost for the spellpower.

Each class specifies that the spellpower it gains applies to only arcane spells (archmage) or divine spells (heirophant).

Actually, AFAICT, your method is 2:3. Both, Arc, Div, Both, Arc, Div....

Now who needs to go back and re-read?

3:2. [Both, Arcane, Both, Divine, etc.] ... or [Both, Divine, Both, Arcane, etc] It comes out to losing one spellcaster level form each side, every fourth level, which is the same as 3:4 per class ...or a net of 1.5 caster levels per class level. More than 1:1, not as much as 2:1.

No, but EVERY PC should be able to do something as well or better than every other PC in the group. Its called his niche, The MT's is "LOTSA spells"

Exactly; the MT's schtick is quantity, not quality. Yet, you're arguing for the MT to have both the increased quantity, and nearly identical quality with both types of spells.

You want it all - you want to be as good with the cleric spells as the straight cleric, AND as good with the wizard spells as the straight Wizard, AND you want as many epic bonus feats as they each get.

Far too many damned ANDs in there.

That may be true, and why I left the option open to only go 1/4. Tho the 2 big ones (ISC and Great(Stat) are class specific. OTOT without ISC, the Epic MM feats lose a lot of their potential.

One bonus epic feat per four levels is still WAY too much. As I've said already. Multiple times.

That NOT all the Epic WIZ or Epic CLR get. Both classes have class abilities that also advance(and are enhanced by other EpFeats). Admittedly, its not much, WIZ(Familiar)/CLR(Turning, HD, Domain?), but it is something. And that something could be major if its another PrC.

And even all of that piled together, is not enough. As I've ALSO already said, more than once.

For the WIZ, the major trade off is the opportunity cost of not taking levels in other Class-A PrC's. ie Archmage, Elemental Savant, MotAO, yadayada.

Irrelevant. Taking leels in ANY "Class-A" prestige class bers the SAME "opportunity cost". As does taking levels in straight wizard.

The question is, "Does expanding your spell list and doubling your spells/day really outweigh the benefits of being a better WIZ?" There IS a set point where this occurs, and from that point on 2:1 is MANDATORY.

It doesn't matter.

Look, lets take even your end-run nonsense. 25th level as "Epic Theurge" or whatever. What's to stop someone from playing Wiz(7)/Cle(7)/Mytic Theurge(10)/Epic Theurge(lots) ... ?

At the point when you first take a level of "Epic Theurge", you're only barely casting 9th level spells - as a Wiz(17)/Cle(17). The first three levels of Epic Theurge DO in fact give you spells-per day, NOT just CL.

Not necessarily, there are other things that you have to give up...

Name them.

Another sign of a good DM, is to NOT see problems where they dont exist...

... and to recognise powergamign munchkins like you. And trust me, the "problem detector" is pingin' off you in a big way.

No way in the nine hells should a (say) Wiz(5)/Cle(5)/Mystic Theurge(90) be casting spells as a Wiz(95)/Cle(95). No way at all.

All of which the straight caster can do, and do better.

The straight caster should be better at it - it's all he does!

And if you focus on indirect attacks you are essentially having to give up a whole slew of your spells from your expanded spell list THAT IS YOUR ONLY BENEFIT OF BEING AN MT. If you want to be the parties buffer and healer, play a darn (MiniHB)Healer, thats not what the MT does.

The MT does both cleric spells and wizard spells. If spell resistance is THAT much of a problem to you that you can't get to a fair chance of penetrating it when faced with appropriate challenges (fair meaning "about 50/50"), then your GM is screwing you. Plain and simple.

Again, its still not clear if Archmage spellpower stacks.

Read the FAQ; I believe it is in there that WOTC said, in as many words, that spellpower from all sources DOES stack.

if you're gaining Archmage levels your not playing an MT are you?

Sure I am. Nothing limits you to only ONE prestige class.

IMO, 7 levels and 2 EBF back is a HUGE penalty. Theres no reason to make it worse.

... except this little thing called "Game Balance".

 

[Marshall]

No. That doesn';t make you a cohort; it makes you a character who's strongest abilities lay in the relam of ... supporting your allies. There's even an entire core class devoted to EXACTLY that - it's called "Bard". You may hve heard of it.

Thats not what a Bard is...but if you want to play that way then play the dang Bard allready. Dont try to force the MT into the mold.

Right, he throws a Greater Dispel at you - and your Spell Turning flings it right back into his own teeth. OR the Rod of Absorption you were lready holding sumply sucks it up, while you laugh and proceed to whack him several times. Anyoen who targets a PC-grade character directly with a spell, at epic levels, deserves what they get.

Or the Clerics Epic Dispel blows off the Spell Turning and ignores the Rod of Absorbtion and mucks over the MT's day or...or...or...the point is that the CLR is allready ahead of you to start with And gets just as many good buffs. He has a bunch of Miracles too, if he really needs them.

Sure I can. Since this character isn't casting spells on his enemies, he doesn't need higher thana 19 in one of the two, and the best he can manage in the other. That +8, by the way, was based on a 15 starting score, a +6 enhancement item, and a +5 inherent bonus. No points from level advancement.

Possible, just not likely. And the CLR is going to have more resources to devote to doing that then the MT because he's not trying to improve two spellcasting classes at once(And trying to be a FTR, too)

Go back and read ... I never added any HP from Divine Power.

Your MT doesnt, but the CLR does and that adds 20HP to his total. Narrowing the difference.

No, the Cleric isn't likely to have that much better a strength score, really. He's a CLERIC, not a Cleric/Fighter.

Actually, yes he is. The CLR is still more likely to actually spend resources to boost an everpresent combat ability than a class that can only enter combat under the best of circumstances. Tho Thunderlance kinda makes the point moot if you allow it. +15 to hit/damage at CL20, that IS broken.

Heal, schmeal. Every round the cleric spends casting Heal, is a round he's not beating on the Theurge. The cleric, unless he successfully runs away for a couple rounds, isn't going to get very far ahead of the game healing himself while the theurge pours melee damage into him.

Why run away? Give up one round of potential damage to effectively double my HP? Seems like a no-brainer advantage for the straight CLR to me.

The reach does not increase with the caster's size. It's an absolute setting based on the spell itself.

If your size gives you reach then any weapon that gives you reach doubles it. Stupid way for the rule to work, but effectively, if RM makes you huge than the TL has a reach of 40'. And I dont believe Maximize would do anything for the spell.

I find it laughable you complain about the reach provided by a spell-created melee weapon, when you advocate the Theurge becoming THE single, sole, and only thing any sane cleric or wizard shoudl ever contemplate aspiring to.

There are plenty of better options for a Straight WIZ or CLR to aspire to than the MT.

[/quote]
And again, that is the essence of balance. To keep up with the Joneses in THEIR area of expertise, and also have anotehr area of expertise, something has to be given up.

Being the weak sister to the Joneses and the Smiths into perpetuity isnt going to screw with anybodies sense of balance.

Did a wire come loose in what passes for your brain? You get epic feats by dint of character level, too.

Sure you do. And there is a whole list of feats in the ELH, especially the ones listed under Epic Wizard that are going to prove necessary to advancing your character. Some of those are even designed to be taken multiple times.

As for ICC versus SCH - simple. SCH prevents you from casting defensively. ICC says you don't HAVE to cast defensively, you simply don't provoke an AoO when casting spells. ICC trumps SCH.

Whereas the entire design of the SCH feat is there to trump ICC. ie. Broken. Not a bad feat, not even all that useful. But its still needlessly complicated to have a weak feat introduced alongside another feat that neuters it.

ROFLMAO. You are SUCH a rank n00b, nd it is sooo showing.

Or just someone who recognizes the whole Epic Spellcasting section as the joke it is. Its great how spells are designed. Guess, Guess, Guess, Modify, Multiply, Ad-hoc Modify, Guess. In the end, you have spells that either are so powerful that "munchkin" is an understatement or spells that you can dupicate with <9 lvl magic.

Epic spells don't cost entire levels.

.....

Should cost you, depending on how outrageous the effects you want might be, under 50K experience.

Uh huh. Now take into account that you have to save all that XP to be spent in one shot. And while your adventuring party has gone from 25 to 26 to 27 level, you are still researching your spell and spending about 75% of your character wealth.

Then you too can throw 40d6 Fireballs!!!!

Experience points you'll earn back in rapid order, with your now-well-enhanced self adventurign alongside companions ~3 levels higher than you are.

Fine, you have 1 epic spell now. Make it a good one because its going to take at least 5 more levels before you have the Gp to start another one and 3 more levels after that before you have the xp to finish it.

The Epic Spellcasting system should be torn from the book and burned. At the very least, the gp cost, xp cost and base seed DC's need to be THOUGHT OUT and then re-written. Then the mitigating factors have to be rehashed and REAL limits set in the system, so that you cant have a spell that grants you the Paragon Template instantaneously with a Spellcasting DC of 5 because you need a 1000 casters donating a 1st level spell and 1000xp and taking 3 months to cast it.

So you adapt your spell list to account. Go with non-Energy spells - Force Orb, for example. Go with no-save spells.

And yank away more and more of what got you into this class to start with...an expanded spell list.

And increased caster level won't do you DIDDLY against Touch ACs, nor help against higher save bonusses. So those are non-issues here. SR and dispelling are the only things your caster level will directly impact.

and overall effectiveness of your spells, damage/range/duration/aoe....

Of course I've noticed that. And what you haven't realised, is, increased spells per day just aren't that improtant, when you get to those levels. The reason you haven't realised it is - UNLIKE me - you haven't played at epic levels.

So one of the MAJOR benefits of playing the MT, extra spells per day, isnt "that improtant"? While thats true, How does that support YOUR contention that the MT is overpowered?

I have. For two years. Only once did I ever come close to running out of spells- and that was a character with Multispell (twice, no less) and lots of quickened spells.

Happens quick with Auto-Quicken and Multispell, don't it?
And this just further butresses why the MT isnt really all that and a bag of chips.

Hardly nothing - because you're ALSO, with your version, gaining +1 caster level for cleric, too.

Being disadvantaged in dual caster level, for someone who insists on being a generalist, IS in fact the (entirely fair and reasonable) cost of BEING a generalist of that caliber!

Being disadvantaged IS the price you pay to get in. Having that disadvantage continue to GROW is too much of a penalty. The same argument comes in with the Epic Elemental Savant, the -1 caster level at level 10 is a nice penalty to cover the advantage of gaining the elemental type. Being forced to eat that penalty again at level 20, then at 30, then 40, 50, 60.... very soon outweighs what has become a minor advantage. The same thing is true of the MT, -5 at 20 is OK, -10 at 30 is too much, -15 at 40 is bad, and -20 at 50 is unplayable. Your MT puts it off for a little while longer, but it still comes around. The same thing is true of the EBF, no matter what you believe, Feats are the REAL advancement in Epic levels. 1/3 is average, the MT gets a good bit of dual use outta some of his options so 1/4(Thats 33% worse) might be warranted.

Feh. It's the same thing, and you bloody well know it. Making an end-run around the rules doesn't excuse you form blatant munchkinism.

What?!? End run around the rules?!? Where?!?

Yes; a mere 5 levels behind, where thsoe 5 levels become an increasingly smaller and smaller fraction of the characters' total level, is "almost exactly as good".

That would be true, if the rules cared about fractions. But since SR is usually CR +10, casting at CR -7 is a HUGE penalty.

As for a spellcasting familiar: oh, big fat hairy deal. Familiars in epic-level combat = loss of experience for the Wizard when it nigh-inevitably dies.

That would be why I said it was the minimum that those other abilities could be. If you start talking about other EPIC LEVEL PrC's, getting to cast from another spell list starts to look, well, lame.

Translation: "Marshall used the deceitful tactic of misrepresenting the concept as an entirely new class, to try and make an end-run around game balance".

Nothing deceitful about it. Thats the solution to the problem. Once you seperate out the MT's CL far enough from the straight caster the 2:1 becomes a VERY minor benefit.

New class, or epic progression, unlimited 2:1 spellcasting progression is BROKEN.

You keep cahnting the mantra, but have yet to point out why you think its trure.

There is a cost for the spellpower.

From the Archmage? Yes.
From the Heirophant? Not even the least little bit, if you take the levels after CL20.

Each class specifies that the spellpower it gains applies to only arcane spells (archmage) or divine spells (heirophant).

No, actually, they dont. It says "this ability increases the Archmages effective caster level by +1". Heirophant uses the exact same wording, but adds in the "you can take this ability more than once" line. It doesnt specify what happens if you have more than one spellcasting class.

Now who needs to go back and re-read?

3:2. [Both, Arcane, Both, Divine, etc.] ... or [Both, Divine, Both, Arcane, etc] It comes out to losing one spellcaster level form each side, every fourth level, which is the same as 3:4 per class ...or a net of 1.5 caster levels per class level. More than 1:1, not as much as 2:1.

OK, thats the way you want it to work.

Exactly; the MT's schtick is quantity, not quality. Yet, you're arguing for the MT to have both the increased quantity, and nearly identical quality with both types of spells.

And shooting off an M-16 at an M-1 Abrahms still wont get you as far as 1 120mm SABOT round. OTOH, that RPG launcher at least has a chance of doing some damage.

You want it all - you want to be as good with the cleric spells as the straight cleric, AND as good with the wizard spells as the straight Wizard, AND you want as many epic bonus feats as they each get.

No, I want the OPTION to be close to as good as the straight CLR OR straight WIZ OR the OPTION to be somewhat competent at BOTH.

Far too many damned ANDs in there.

Then quit putting words in my mouth and notice that aren't any in there.

One bonus epic feat per four levels is still WAY too much. As I've said already. Multiple times.

You keep saying it, but you aren't even trying to back it up.

And even all of that piled together, is not enough. As I've ALSO already said, more than once.

Maybe, maybe not. PROVE it.

Irrelevant. Taking leels in ANY "Class-A" prestige class bers the SAME "opportunity cost". As does taking levels in straight wizard.

Not so. The other PrC's provide other benefits that its FAR more likely that a straight WIZ would want.

It doesn't matter.

Look, lets take even your end-run nonsense. 25th level as "Epic Theurge" or whatever. What's to stop someone from playing Wiz(7)/Cle(7)/Mytic Theurge(10)/Epic Theurge(lots) ... ?

Nothing. And thats the point. MY epic MT stays a viable character into perpetuity.

At the point when you first take a level of "Epic Theurge", you're only barely casting 9th level spells - as a Wiz(17)/Cle(17). The first three levels of Epic Theurge DO in fact give you spells-per day, NOT just CL.

Yes, I know that. Its the same as a ROG or RNG or PAL or MNK finishing his 1st 20 levels after epic. If you dont like it, up the Know requirements to push the entry point back a level or two. Just know that you are widening the gap between the MT and the WIZ or CLR.

Name them.

See above.

... and to recognise powergaming munchkins like you. And trust me, the "problem detector" is pingin' off you in a big way.

You might want to get it fixed then, its interferring with your reception

No way in the nine hells should a (say) Wiz(5)/Cle(5)/Mystic Theurge(90) be casting spells as a Wiz(95)/Cle(95). No way at all.

Well, he wouldnt. Itd be 93/93. And the straight WIZ would be at 100 with 13 more ISC and +13 more to his INT, while the MT is +6 ISC to each class and +6 to WIS and INT.

The straight caster should be better at it - it's all he does!

And he'll be better at it without even trying, the he CAN try and make the MT look like the second rank whipping boy he is.

The MT does both cleric spells and wizard spells. If spell resistance is THAT much of a problem to you that you can't get to a fair chance of penetrating it when faced with appropriate challenges (fair meaning "about 50/50"), then your GM is screwing you. Plain and simple.

SR is CR +10
Being CR -7 at spellcasting is BAADDD.

Read the FAQ; I believe it is in there that WOTC said, in as many words, that spellpower from all sources DOES stack.

But spellpower from the same source, doesnt. ie. multiple Ioun Stones. And the Archmages spellpower, unlike the Heirophants does not say you can take it multiple times.

Sure I am. Nothing limits you to only ONE prestige class.

And while you are taking those other PrC's you arent advancing your MT and falling behind farther in one or the other.