What is the feat...

[Kae'Yoss]

I say you can't, and my explanation is "It is not right". That always trumps all the splitting of hairs of munchkins and rules lawyers everywhere

 

[Scion]

I say you can't, and my explanation is "It is not right". That always trumps all the splitting of hairs of munchkins and rules lawyers everywhere

not a very good reason for the 'rules forum' however generally good enough for a campaign if you are the dm though.

Definately an interesting feat, need one for divine spells too! lol

 

[ARandomGod]

Precocious Adept clearly does not let you qualify for Mystic Theurge by a reading of the rules.

Precocious Adept lets you cast one single (nominated) second level spell.
To qualify for Mystic Theurge you need the ability to cast second level spells.

Spells is the plural of Spell. The ability to cast a single spell is a subset of the ability to cast multiple spells.

Oh yea, there's another "arguement". I forgot about it, mostly because it was pretty much nonsense. I mean, it lets you take the PrC if your GM wants it to, and it doesn't if your GM don't.

Delericho's point is fun.

And Kae'Yoss' point is the only "no" that I find an acceptable arguement.

ANYhow. One good point/issue/question is: The MT is traditionally considered underpowered by the majority. Would allowing this feature/exploit make it into a feasible class? Would it make it into an overpowered class?

Note: Only those who think that the MT is underpowered in the first place are really qualified to answer the above. Anyone who thinks it's already balanced fine, or who thinks it's already overpowered (There are some!) can't really honestly comment on a question that's based on the given that it's underpowered in the first place.

Well, ususally they can't. I imagine some could ignore their own bias if they were capable of actually seeing where people who think it's underpowered are coming from.