Mystic Thurge - Is it broken?

[DonAdam]

I have built a few, but never playtested one (and I'm sure as hell not taking that risk with my long-term campaign).

My campaign rarely uses monsters, so SR is not an issue. Planning is prevalent (my party prefers to plan and go against challenges that would wipe them out without careful planning) so the issue of only being able to cast 1 spell/round is also moot.

In a standard, kick down the door game you guys are probably right. If someone tried to kick down the door in my group, the rest of the party would be less than likely to follow him, and would let him perish on his own.

We've got a monk/wizard in the party. Classic case of what most people would call underpowered. Because the party plays carefully, he is very, very effective. In fact, he's often more effective than the single class monks I've seen (unless he's caught with his pants down).

When it comes to planning-heavy parties, versatility matters more than an extra spell level, even with an exponential power curve on spells. The mystic theurge just gives too much of that.

 

[Nail]

....(and I'm sure as hell not taking that risk with my long-term campaign).

Okay then. Not much to say 'bout that.............

 

[Snipehunt]

Well, in campaigns where

-the party can always prepare as much as they want for encounters,
-every single spell gets used each day,
-nothing has SR,
-and other PC's are monk/wizards (!!!), or other underpowered combos,

then, yeah, I bet the MT does look pretty good. But IME, generally the MT is a little behind a wizard in power at high levels, still above the fighter at high levels, and sucktacular at low levels compared to anything.

YMMV.

 

[Methos]

sucktacular
YMMV.

By the way, which is worse or better (depending on your perspective):

Sucktacular or Craptastic?

Sorry, I couldn't resist a little levity on a Friday afternoon.

Here's for the Mystic Thurge, otherwise known in some circles as "Mr. Sucktacular" or "Mr. Craptastic"!

 

[Nail]

Well, in campaigns where

-the party can always prepare as much as they want for encounters,

To be fair: people can play any way they like. (shrug)

But this "always prepared" thing is the key here. You let players do that, and they can easily take encounters +4 or +5 EL.

You know: it might be fun if they had some surprises........How about a MyTh BBEG that's prepared for the PCs.........

What a great way in introduce the PrC!

 

[Methos]

You know: it might be fun if they had some surprises........How about a MyTh BBEG that's prepared for the PCs.........

What a great way in introduce the PrC!

If the BBEG MyTh was prepared for the PC's would he still be "Sucktacular" or "Craptastic"???

In all seriousness, it is my firm belief that a DM doesn't have to even throw the BBEG's at the PC's. Even extremely "low level" and I use that term loosely monsters can create havoc for a "high level" party if the DM uses his imagination.

I remember in 2nd ed, there was a boxed adventure called "Dragon Mountain" that used kobolds against a party of 12-14 level. Using the right mix of traps and tricks, that module was lethal against a poorly played/prepard party.

Perhaps give a MyTh an army of kobolds and see what happens.....ha ha!

Cheers

 

[Nail]

If the BBEG MyTh was prepared for the PC's would he still be "Sucktacular" or "Craptastic"???

hey, that's Mister Craptastic to you, bub.

Re: low level monsters vs high level PCs.
To be brief: This was way easier to do in 2e. 3e kinda put th' kabosh on this sorta thing. I can be done, but it's harder....much harder, given appropriate treasure values, and the like.

 

[reapersaurus]

OK.

Enough back-patting going on in here - let's mix it up.

I am surprised that such a one-sided view is being aped here.

Let me compare a 12th level PC (right around the middle of the PrC chain) to a straight wizard, and let's see what actually is GAINED. Most people I've heard fixate on what the MT GIVES UP.
Wrong approach.

Clr3/Wiz3/MT6 vs Wiz12

• 3d8+9d4 VS 12d4 (avg 39 vs 31, if max first HD and avg after)
• +6/+1 BAB VS +6/+1 BAB
• +6/+4/+11 saves VS +4/+4/+8 saves
• familiar at level 3, no bonus feats VS familiar at 12th, 2 bonus feats
• Casts as a 9th level cleric AND wizard VS 12th level Wiz caster
• cleric spells of 6/4+1/4+1/3+1/2+1/1+1 AND Wiz spells of 4/4/4/3/2/1 VS Wiz spells of 4/4/4/4/3/3/2

Conclusions:
The MT has 8 more HP (equivalent to 2 sucky feats of Toughness)
MT has +2 to FORT and +3 to WILL saves (~2 more feats)
MT has TWO domain granted powers, and spell lists (~ 2 feats)
Wiz has a slightly better familiar (familiars get >80% of their effectiveness by level 3, IMO) and 2 metamagic feats.
Wiz has 3 better SR chance - ~15% better chance to penetrate SR (of course, most creatures don't have SR, and there are many ways around it) (~1 more feat)
MT can turn undead as a 3rd level cleric, and qualifies for Divine Feats.
MT gets all armor proficiency and shield proficiency, but I'll ignore that.
This leaves the MT with effectively 3 or 4 more 'feats' (at least) than the Wiz

Spells:
Wiz has 1 more 3rd level spell, 1 more 4th, 2 more 5th, and 2 more 6th.
The MT has 6 more 0th, 5 more 1st, 5 more 2nd, 4 more 3rd, 3 more 4th, and 2 more 5th level cleric spells.
The MT has 18 more spell levels (47 - 29), and he knows (quick calculation) 100 more spells than the Wiz.
This is IMO more versatile, and effective in game.

Really, now - are you guys seriously forwarding the comparison that it is MORE likely that the critical spell in the encounter will be 6th level Wiz spell that the Wiz12 can cast, and NOT one of the multitude of cleric spells that the MT can cast? (Or that the 15% better SR chance will be the critical aspect of the encounter)

If you are, than you are predicating your statement on the inclusion of a very rare case: that a 6th level wizard spell is required to win the encounter. Oh, and that the Wiz 12 prepared the spell that day.

Compare that case with the common case where a 5th level or below cleric spell could be needed. Not to mention the hundreds of HP's a day the MT can heal.

So let's not be too hasty in public-opinioning the MT to being "underpowered".

 

[Technik4]

Tut-tut reapersaurus. Not a valid comparison if you don't add bonus spells. Also, you are comparing a prc combo with a non-prc combo. Check this:

Clr3/Wiz3/MyT6
Stats: Str 13 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 20 Wis 20 Cha 8
[2 bonuses on Wis, 1 on Int, assume +4 items on both Int and Wis]
Feats (5): Scribe Scroll, Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous Item, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Forge Ring
Saves: +6/+5/+16
Domains (2): Knowledge and Trickery (Boccob)
[Most domains are poor choices for the theurge (as per PHB). Alignment domains offer +1 caster level for alignment spells which is weak. Most others are based on cleric level, I chose Knowledge for +1 to divinations (and all knowledge skills are class skills as a cleric) and Trickery even though this character won't benefit much from having sneaky class skills, being able to cast invisibility and the like from the cleric side is nice. Any way you slice it if you choose gods and then domains, you get barely a feat's worth out of 2 domains.]

Cleric Spells: (DCs 15+spell level; SR Checks 13+d20)
0: 6
1: 6+1
2: 5+1
3: 4+1
4: 3+1
5: 2+1

Wizard Spells: (DCs 15+spell level; SR Checks 13+d20)
0: 4
1: 6
2: 5
3: 4
4: 3
5: 2

Total Spells above 0 level (since these are pretty ineffectual): 45
Total Spells above 3rd level (Combat Spells): 12


Wiz12
Stats: Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 24 Wis 13 Cha 8
[3 bonuses on Int, +6 item on Int]
Saves: +5/+6/+11
Feats (7): Scribe Scroll, Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous Item, Empower Spell, Spell Penetration, Iron Will, Quicken Spell, Forge Ring.

Wizard Spells: (DCs 17+spell level, SR Checks 14+d20)
0: 4
1: 6
2: 6
3: 6
4: 4
5: 4
6: 3

Total Spells above 0 level: 29
Total Spells above 3rd level (Combat Spells): 11


You'll notice the wizard hasn't taken Greater Spell Penetration yet, but he still has a 5% better chance to affect creatures with SR (when they do rear their heads). The wizard can also craft as well (or better) than the theurge (with higher level spells).

Technik

 

[reapersaurus]

Tut-tut reapersaurus. Not a valid comparison if you don't add bonus spells. Also, you are comparing a prc combo with a non-prc combo.

well, putting bonus spells into it isn't completely a comparison of class vs class benefits, but it is part of a realized character....
bonus spells favors the MT, of course....

And I'm comparing a PrC vs a non-prc, simply because that's what everyone was claiming was more powerful. I could quote the majority on this thread, but if you read it, you saw the same thing: the MT was being misrepresented as being underpowered, which is really stretching reality too far.

Your excellent character breakdown just shows how strong the MT is: who cares about 5% better SR, etc when ypu've got a whole other primary spellcaster's spells at your disposal?

To really slam the point home, you should populate the spell lists for the 2 characters, and everyone can see how much more versatility the MT has. Throw in scrolls, and it's over-the-top powerful, IMO.