Mystic Thurge - Is it broken?

[Methos]

Or take Eldritch Knight instead of the 2nd level fighter.

Darklone, a couple of points about the above 2 posts that you have made.

1. Main reason for me taking the 2nd level fighter is to avoid exp. point penalties. 3rd level cleric, 1st level fighter, 5th level and above wizard=exp. point penalties.

2. I would consider the Eldritch Knight, but again, I'm not sure that the DM will allow that class. We haven't yet decided on that, but I still wouldn't avoid the experience point penalty.

Cheers

 

[Methos]

I'm not particularly phased by his presence, as the party Cleric. He can't fight in melee, can't cast Heal, can't cast Heroes' Feast, can't cast Greater Scrying, etc, etc. He can't turn undead to save himself, either, but I'm a bit PrCed away from that, too

To be fair to our Mystic Theurge, he's played in a more tactically-minded fashion than the party wizard, who, for all his incredible cosmic power, fails to get out of harm's way and chews up a lot of my hp, via the wonders of Shield Other. (Which shall henceforth be cast by our party tank - thankyou Imbue with Spell Ability!) The workmanlike attitude may have something to do with my lack of hostility, though in all honesty, it doesn't take away from my perception of my character's party role to have someone else capable of shedding low-level spells to patch people up. It's actually quite liberating to not have to do all the healing - and there's usually a lot to do in one go, as our DM tends to aggregate the combat into less frequent, more demanding fights.

Well, I'm not surprised by your post. A few humble perceptions:

1. As I've indicated, the main reason for playing the Theurge has less to do with pure power, and more to do with the campaign flavor and role-playing. While we do have a fair amount of combat encounters in our campaign (and they can be longggg fights and brutal), we also have a fair amount of campaign dev, and role-playing, which the DM rewards typically with bonus exp. So, for the min/maxers out there, I certainly appreciate the view that my character will be "weak", however, there are other reasons for playing this character.

2. True, my character won't be able to cast cleric spells past 4th level, limiting his clerical usefulness if you will, but we have no cleric in the party!! So, any bit of additional cleric power (healing and protection) would be welcome. In fact, in this campaign which is less magic oriented than many campaigns, survivability has been a problem to a degree without a pure cleric. We have no ready access to potion shops and the like. So, it is surprising that we have gotten this far without a cleric greater than 1st level (party level is 5-7)

3. Which brings me to my next point. Survivability. The extra hit dice from cleric levels and the prospective 2 fighter levels does help my character's survivability in this campaign. I believe the 5th level wizard we have (pure wizard) has something like 19 hps. It is surprising that he is still alive in this campaign sometimes given our very poor healing capabilities.

4. Not being able to fight in melee. Well, my character has a base STR of 14, and based on my projections, he will be Cleric/Fighter/Wizard 3/2/5 at 10th level, which gives him 2 attacks at that level, only 1 level behind Rogues and Clerics, which isn't bad. With buffing spells like Bull's Strength, he is a fairly effective melee combatant at lower levels, particularly since with a weapon like Spiked Chain, he gets reach and with Imp. Disarm, he is relatively effective in combat. (e.g. smart combat). He isn't a bull like the party tank, but since our Ranger is an archery specialist, at this point we need to have someone else who can partly mix it up a bit besides that party tank (Fighter/Barb). Granted, as levels get higher, his combat usefulness will decrease but hopefully, the increased power of the party wizard will increase to offset some of this. In addition, there are a couple of other spells at higher levels (I think it's "Divine Power"???) which add to combat usefulness if necessary. I'm thinking of the 4th level cleric spell that increases your base attack bonus to your character (at work, no books).

5. Lastly, I read through most of the wizard/sorc. spells in the PH last night. Many of them require touch attacks or ranged touch and have either no save or partial. In addition, most evocation spells have relex saves for 1/2. So, even though my "wizard" efficacy will be less than a pure wizard, there are still ways to affect high level baddies in a "support" role. Again, smart spell selection. Can I stop a high level monster with "Domination" or "Hold Monster" with my less than ideal spell DC's? No. But, then again, the idea of even a 20th level wizard dominating a Pit Fiend is dubious I think with many monsters having increased save DC's. My assumption is that I will be taking SP, and GSP in order to beat SR a fair bit of the time. If I get past the SR, at least I will be able to affect a great many creatures even if they are making saves. I do plan on empowerering many of the evocation damage spells to get the damage cap. up for example.

So, in conclusion, I assume my character is a support or "secondary" character in a great many ways, and I'm all right being a bit of a filler. Sure, it would be nice to be a min/maxer, and have a cleric/fighter/wizard of 1/1/18 at 20th level, but I do have other reasons for wanting to play the MT, and based on most of the responses on this thread, the MT isn't broken. If anything, in many ways, the MT is weaker than maxed out core classes.

Cheers

 

[ashockney]

Agreed, from a min/max perspective, it is surprisingly weaker. No less effective, however, just less "powerful".

One last recommendation, having also recently playtested a Mystic Theurge at higher levels. Check out ranged weapons as a means of 'mixing it up'. You would get more versatility using Dex than you would using such a great stat on Str. Further, your buff spells will complement the ranged attacks pretty well, if you choose them carefully (ie, Flame Arrow, GMW, etc.). Lastly, and most importantly, this guys' got some great buffs to withstand some damage. Get through them, and he's paper thin. I would recommend staying at least 30 feet from ANY melee unless you can't avoid it. You can still move and heal in a round if it's absolutely required. If you are the only healer, you will probably spend MUCH more time healing than "mixing it up" anyway. Using buffs to help your tanks would probably add far more value to your party than your adding into the combat (ie, Mirror Image/Displacement/Stoneskin on the tanks goes a long way...).

Enjoy your MT. I think it's a great addition to D&D!

 

[ashockney]

double post...sorry!

 

[Methos]

Agreed, from a min/max perspective, it is surprisingly weaker. No less effective, however, just less "powerful".

Check out ranged weapons as a means of 'mixing it up'. You would get more versatility using Dex than you would using such a great stat on Str. Further, your buff spells will complement the ranged attacks pretty well, if you choose them carefully (ie, Flame Arrow, GMW, etc.). Lastly, and most importantly, this guys' got some great buffs to withstand some damage. If you are the only healer, you will probably spend MUCH more time healing than "mixing it up" anyway. Using buffs to help your tanks would probably add far more value to your party than your adding into the combat (ie, Mirror Image/Displacement/Stoneskin on the tanks goes a long way...).

Enjoy your MT. I think it's a great addition to D&D!

Agreed on all points. I do think that the versatility of having a MT is great, even if on pure power, he is a bit weaker than other characters.

 

[DonAdam]

I don't like the MT because it's flavorless.

Balance-wise, most of the time it's not a problem. However, I think people undervalue versatility, so I don't think it's weaker than a single classed character.

With time to prepare, however, the quick builds that I have done look like a nightmare. My party is very much into planning (oftentimes spending more than one session planning for one fight) so if I let that thing in it would require alot of rebalancing of my campaign.

 

[Nail]

....finally got my internet connection back.....

I don't like the MT because it's flavorless.

..... if I let that thing in it would require alot of rebalancing of my campaign.

Wow, really???

Could you explain those a bit?

Flavorless: I think of most of the PrCs in the 3.5e DMG as "PrC templates". That is, you take 'em and add the campaign sp[ecific stuff yourself. I'm glad it's that way, personally.

Rebalancing: Our entire discussion has been about the fact that the MyTh does not, in fact, require major re-thinking on the part of the DM, as it is not a powerful PrC. ...You haven't read any of the thread, have you? A quick "in-and-outer", eh?

 

[Methos]

I don't like the MT because it's flavorless.


With time to prepare, however, the quick builds that I have done look like a nightmare. My party is very much into planning (oftentimes spending more than one session planning for one fight) so if I let that thing in it would require alot of rebalancing of my campaign.

Flavorless? One of the reasons why I want to take it is because I think it can add a lot of flavor to the existing campaign. I think the flavor depends on the campaign itself, and how much a player is into role-playing based on a DM's campaign. For example, in the campaign I'm playing in, the world is a bit less magic heavy than many other worlds that people play in. There are historical reasons for this with magic in the past causing great catastrophes. As a result, one church has "saved" the world in the past from these catastrophes and now not only looks on wizards as heretics to be destroyed, but also looks down on other less prevelant churches with disdain.

Part of my idea is that for those characters who don't believe that magic (particularly wizardly magic) is bad inherently have turned to the MT and the interaction of divine and wizardly magic as a way of understanding the way that magic works in this world. Only churches from the "less dominant" religions even allow MT's. A verrrrrry brief synopsis of my ideas to present to the DM, but one that I could see the 2 of us fleshing out for terrific campaign/role-playing ideas as there are inevitibly conflicts between the "dominant" church and the "heretics" that would dare to think of another path. So, like I said, I think there can be flavor.

A nightmare for who? The players?? Or the DM trying to prepare for a party that contains an MT? As far as I can tell from some other posters, if anything, the MT may be underpowered. I would think the bigger problem might be dealing with a party that has a core high level cleric and a core high level wizard with prime stats maxed out and stat boosting magic items to boot.

Cheers

 

[DonAdam]

I say it's flavorless in that there is nothing to distinguish it from a multiclassed wizard/cleric. Of course any given character can have flavor, but he can have exactly the same flavor without the class. As a matter of personal preference, I will never like an prestige class designed that way.

As far as the rebalancing goes, I just disagree with other people's experiences, and I added the caveat that it is in my campaign. The party spellcasters regularly run out of spells in single fights. The theurge would walk into those fights buffed up and chunking spells or would simply not run out. That would create a huge difference in my campaign.

 

[Nail]

......The theurge would walk into those fights buffed up and chunking spells or would simply not run out.

Uhm.....have you actually seen a MyTh in action? Have you ever tried to build one? Try it....you might change your mind.