Cleric / 1 Wizard / 2 Mystic Theurge / 1 ... REALLY? PFS Legal?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

OK, I haven't been able to track down all the FAQs and forum postings and so forth that allow one to construct an argument that this is legal, but before I tell a player it's not, I'm hoping somebody can show me where to find it.

The character is a Peri-Blooded Aasimar, which has Pyrotechnics as a SLA, thereby satisfying the 2nd level arcane spell requirement under the currently ill-conceived FAQ ruling from the design team.

With Wizard/2 and Cleric/1, it's possible to have the 3 ranks needed in the two knowledge skills.

Finally: Trickery domain. "Copycat", a weaker version of "Mirror Image", is said to be 2nd level because Mirror Image is, and it's divine because it's from a Cleric domain.

At which point I'm saying, waiddaminnit, you're drawing a tortured connection between RAW and FAQAW to stomp absolutely all over the I in RAI.

Starting with RAI: Mystic Theurge is arguably a very powerful prestige class, since you get two caster levels per level. As such, it should require some effort to qualify for. By default, that means 3rd level wizard and 3rd level cleric, so you can't start it until 7th level.

I usually disagree with the argument that SLAs should qualify you for prestige classes, and would not allow it in a home game, although in some cases I can see it. Again, in terms of Mystic Theurge, where the class represents serious study in both divine and arcane lore, I don't think that stuff you were born with that you can't improve through experience should qualify. But, whatever. Let's leave that one aside, and say that the arcane prerequisite is satisifed.

But Coypcat as a 2nd level divine spell? Really? It's a weaker version of Mirror Image, but because it "cites" Mirror Image it gets to count as 2nd level. It's only an arcane spell in the book, but because it's a Cleric ability, it gets to count as divine. This, by the strict reading of the rules, may well be legal, but DAMN it's cheesy, and to my mind a reason all by itself to throw out SLAs, especially SLAs as granted by class features (with a few exceptions-- Summoners, for instance, should be able to count as being able to cast "summon monster" spells), as satisfying prerequistes for prestige classes.

Whether or not it's broken, it's just cheesy. It's ugly. It's a perversion of what Mystic Theurge is supposed to be. It's a clear case of rules interaction that show the rules are not interacting as intended, and need to be re-evaluated.

So: because (clearly) this form of early entry Mystic Theurge seems so wrong to me, I really want to make sure that the PFS rules indicate this is a legal character before I allow it. Is it really true, clearly supported by an unambiguous (i.e. not "here's how I want to interpret it") chain of FAQ and campaign leadership rulings that the Trickery Domain Copycat ability counts as being able to cast a second-level divine spell?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is legal.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

...I was sort of hoping for a pointer to where the chain of reasoning has been laid out rather than an assertion from a PFS player....

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is indeed a legal character, following this faq and this faq.

In fact, it's quite a lovely build, and within the rules as intended. When these FAQs were released, the developers made it quite clear that this would allow certain races and classes to access some prestige classes early. They also made it clear that they were okay with that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mystic Theurge is not arguably a very powerful prestige class. Mystic Theurge is a terrible prestige class without early access, and only an OK prestige class even with early access. It only becomes absolutely balls fantastic with guild membership, which is not legal in PFS.

Once you realise this, the rest of your argument kinda just falls apart.

As for trickery: it has been accepted, for the most part, as a legal way to enter MT early - although AFAIK the ruling isn't 100% clear so you could disallow it if you wanted to. However, your player can always just go fate inquisition if he must, so getting ansy about trickery doesn't really accomplish anything except make you look like a ****.

The FAQ was a deliberate, intended attempt to make prestige classes useful again by allowing early access. Without it they are mostly worthless, and even with it they only become competitive with other builds, not better.

*edit*

I should add, sometimes in PFS we have to accept rulings we don't personally like in order to facilitate a consistent, fair and friendlier playing environment. This is one of those times.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, OK, I agree that those two FAQs make it legal.

I still don't agree that it's within the rules as intended. I see the 7/13 edit that some races get early entry, and that the design team is OK with that because prestige classes are usually sub-optimal. But, Mystic Theurge really isn't sub-optimal at all, so I still think that this particular example is a case of the RAI being violated.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Well, OK, almost.

I'm still not convinced that Copycat really should count as 2nd level, given that it's a weaker verson of Mirror Image. Is there an FAQ that makes it clear that Copy cat should count as a 2nd level SLA?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

Well, OK, almost.

I'm still not convinced that Copycat really should count as 2nd level, given that it's a weaker verson of Mirror Image. Is there an FAQ that makes it clear that Copy cat should count as a 2nd level SLA?

What are you seeking to gain by denying him access via copycat on a technicality? Your player will just go fate inquisition or, even worse, you may be overruled by your VL/VC and just look like a meanie.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Blakmane wrote:

Mystic Theurge is not arguably a very powerful prestige class. Mystic Theurge is a terrible prestige class without early access, and only an OK prestige class even with early access. It only becomes absolutely balls fantastic with guild membership, which is not legal in PFS.

Once you realise this, the rest of your argument kinda just falls apart.

As for trickery: it has been accepted, for the most part, as a legal way to enter MT early - although AFAIK the ruling isn't 100% clear so you could disallow it if you wanted to. However, your player can always just go fate inquisition if he must, so getting ansy about trickery doesn't really accomplish anything except make you look like a ****.

It's too bad you can't disagree with me without having to call me starred-out names. Do you think everybody who disagrees with you is a ****?

WHY is Mystic Theurge not arguably a very powerful prestige class? You assert that. I'm willing to hear why. But why? I don't believe your assertion.

Here's my argument for why it is a very powerful prestige class. For many spell-casting classes, including Cleric and Wizard, their spell caster level and spells per day are the single most powerful thing about the class. Mystic Theurge gives you two caster levels per character level. This, to my mind, is what makes it a very powerful prestige class. Given just that, I have a hard time seeing how it could be considered a terrible prestige class, unless you're using it on top of classes like Ranger where spellcasting is very much a secondary part of what you do, and not worth sacrificing the rest of your class features for.

So, what is the reason why Mystic Theurge is not a powerful prestige class, or even as terrible prestige class?

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Blakmane wrote:
rknop wrote:

Well, OK, almost.

I'm still not convinced that Copycat really should count as 2nd level, given that it's a weaker verson of Mirror Image. Is there an FAQ that makes it clear that Copy cat should count as a 2nd level SLA?

What are you seeking to gain by denying him access via copycat on a technicality? Your player will just go fate inquisition or, even worse, you may be overruled by your VL/VC and just look like a meanie.

I am seeking to understand the rules. Just looking at the character tripped my sense of "this can't be right", and I'm trying to figure out why it really is right in the face of my sense otherwise.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Devs made it legal--that means it is RAW and RAI.

Dark Archive

I've made the Tiefling version of one of these myself (named Brie to enhance the cheese factor), and in play it is not as strong as a Wizard of the same level would be. Sure it's cheesy, so are bunches of other builds that are also PFS legal.

Does it get to the point of what a MT is supposed to be RP-wise? Maybe, if it's built-in by the player (mine is a Conjurer that was enslaved and given power by Asmodeus to restore proper order). Do Zen Archers or anything besides Paladins? Not very many that I've seen that just slaughter everything without caring what it is.

PFS is the place to try ridiculous things for some people for the fun of it. Do they always make sense? No, not really. Are they fun? Often, yes (see the 1 level of 12 classes idea I have).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

rknop wrote:
I still don't agree that it's within the rules as intended.

You're wrong here too.

Intent can change.

The intent of whoever it was at WotC who wrote the very first versions of Prestige Classes ever? That intent may well have been contrary to the case at hand.

But the intent of the Pathfinder design team right now? That's a different story. And since they're the same people who made the ruling to legalize all this, and after the initial "they must not have thought of the repercussions!" outcry they even explicitly affirmed it, then the only rational assessment of the situation is that yes, this IS the (current) intent.

That which may not have been in mind at authorship is not necessarily against intent, especially when you're looking decades back at a different set of people.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Whatever, under a strict definition of "what the design team wants", this kind of early-entry Mytic Theurge may be under RAI. In my opinion, it's an example of something that the rules interaction allow that does not match with what the design team has used as their justification for allowing it -- i.e., some races get in early, prestige classes are usually less optimum. But that's not really all that important. I see your semantics, and don't disagree with them, even though I do think this is an example of the rules not working the way, in my opinion, they're supposed to.

What's more important is the residual question I have about legality: is it really clear that a weaker version of a level n spell counts as a level n spell for prerequisites? (Specifically, Copycat as Mirror Image.)

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not PFS specific. Moved to the correct forum.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
DrParty06 wrote:
PFS is the place to try ridiculous things for some people for the fun of it. Do they always make sense? No, not really. Are they fun? Often, yes (see the 1 level of 12 classes idea I have).

OK, this is a different topic, but I have to say, I think this is a terrible idea.

Yes, I know some people do this. I think PFS, however, is the wrong place to do it. You want to try something ridiculous that's going to make other people annoyed? Do it in a home game where you know the people you're going to be playing with and where everybody can understand what's going on. When you're going to go play with other players you haven't met before, you should try to play something that's going to work well with others. I'm not saying don't optimize at all, but if you know something is going to appear cheesy to a reasonable number of people, then it's not terribly polite to do it in PFS. Yes, I know some people do this, take PFS "less seriously", but I don't think that's a great attitude, and is not very nice to the other players who will be stuck at a table with them.

(Of course, anything will appear cheesy to some people. Don't worry about that. If it's something a lot of people will be rolling their eyes at, think twice about doing it even if it's rules legal. This Mystic Theurge example may not be a good example of that, because I may be one of the "some" people who reacts negatively to it, and it may be that most people have no problem. But if it's something that is ridiculous, and you know it, then that's what I'm talking about. Save that for a home game with friends, don't inflict it on random people looking for a good game.)

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
This is not PFS specific. Moved to the correct forum.

GAH.

How are we supposed to get rulings about what's legal in PFS when questions about what's legal in PFS get relegated to the rules forum that many people avoid like the Worldwound?

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

rknop wrote:
What's more important is the residual question I have about legality: is it really clear that a weaker version of a level n spell counts as a level n spell for prerequisites? (Specifically, Copycat as Mirror Image.)

See this post from SKR on the subject.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

rknop wrote:

Yeah, OK, I agree that those two FAQs make it legal.

I still don't agree that it's within the rules as intended. I see the 7/13 edit that some races get early entry, and that the design team is OK with that because prestige classes are usually sub-optimal. But, Mystic Theurge really isn't sub-optimal at all, so I still think that this particular example is a case of the RAI being violated.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, I suppose. Intention is hard to withdraw at the best of times, particularly from text years after the fact. I do however, agree that mystic theurge is not at all sub-optimal, but I'm prone to quite a bit of bias in favor of theurges.

Here is a ruling per one of the older developers regarding copycat

*edit* Ninja'd by the ninja. It would figure.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

rknop wrote:
I do think this is an example of the rules not working the way, in my opinion, they're supposed to.

Actually, this whole thing came about because the design team was looking to bring SLAs' functionality more in line with actual spells without having to rewrite a bunch of rules. Then they caught a line in the existing rules that allows SLAs to qualify for crafting prereqs, then saw that nothing currently contradicts the idea of them counting as spells for other purposes, so they called it precedent and made their FAQ.

In a sense, "how the rules are supposed to work" is the only thing that got changed, rather than the rules themselves. Intent and such got pulled out from under you and in a way "made you wrong" about how things are supposed to work.

Which is, of course, understandably disorienting.

Quote:
What's more important is the residual question I have about legality: is it really clear that a weaker version of a level n spell counts as a level n spell for prerequisites? (Specifically, Copycat as Mirror Image.)

Yes, it is. I can dig up a link to designer commentary later when I have more time if you like, but yes: SLAs are considered the same spell level as the spell they emulate; the only time it's any different is if it doesn't reference a spell AT ALL (as with a bunch of bloodline/domain powers that I bet a lot of people didn't even notice were spell-like).

EDIT: Ninja'd on the link.


Hey now, pretty sure I said you'd *look* like a **** if you shot your player down because you didn't like his class. I'm making no assertions on your lovely temperament more generally - don't make me think I should!

In order to understand why MT is bad, you need to understand that the single most important thing for a caster is their spell caster level. Improved caster levels gives spellcasters higher DCs, more versatility, more damage (if that is their thing), access to stronger buffs etc etc.

More importantly, extra spells/day do not actually improve the ability of said caster on a round-per-round basis in combat: each round, said caster can only cast a single spell. Because combats tend to last a short period, it is vital that the few spells cast are as powerful as possible. This is normally referred to as 'action economy'. Without any other class features available to them, an 8th level character with only 5 caster levels (and no other useful abilities) is equivalent to a 5th level character - they can only accomplish as much as a 5th level character on a round by round basis, for the most part.

Having more spells definitely is nice, but it is not a good tradeoff for lost caster levels. This should become obvious if you think of a build like Wiz 1/Sorc 1/Cleric 1/Oracle 1 etc etc. This is a bit of a strawman but hopefully you can see such a build would have a lot of spells for its level but be practically useless otherwise.

Without early access MT is terrible because losing even a single caster level is painful for a caster. Losing three caster levels is enough to make a full casting character virtually worthless: from 4th to 6th level they barely progress at all and from then on are essentially a caster three levels behind everyone else, albeit with a bit longer staying power. MT provides no other class features to fall back on that might soften this blow somewhat (Eldritch Knight at least gives full BAB and decent HP). A pure wizard or cleric at the same level would have significantly more powerful spells (and not even that many fewer due to the 3 level gap), higher DCs and caster level, AND class features actually worth something.

If you have early access, MT is OK but still far from amazing. Losing 1 caster level from wizard in return for CL-2 cleric spells is an OK trade, but you also lose all other class features for this swap AND you now have two casting attributes you need to juggle. This limits your combat role mostly to buffer as your DCs are unlikely to be high. MTs make fantastic buffers as they have a lot of spells to keep everyone buffed throughout the dungeon. This is hardly 'broken' play though: the mystic theurge has taken a power hit in order to be a better team player.

Hopefully that helps you understand why the MT is almost always considered a poor choice upfront. With early access they make great team buffers with good staying power, but lose out on better spells, class features and save DCs. None of this is broken or cheesy in any way.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

I have to admit that a passive-agressive snarky rhetorical question is not a great answer.

If I were to play dumb and answer SKR's question as if it weren't a snarky rhetorical question, I would say: "When something cites something else, why should I assume that it's equally as powerful as the other thing it cites?"

Which I think is a valid question, even though SKRs tone indicates disdain for anybody who would think there are any questions left following his pronouncement.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Re: Power of MT — Imagine you're running a 5-9 scenario. Most of the party is 8, so that's the subtier you're running. But then you've got a 5th-level cleric and a 5th-level wizard. But you don't have room for both at the table, so you say "Hey, how about if you guys just both always stand in the same square, and share a pool of actions so only one of you gets to do anything in any given round? That should be the same power level as an 8th-level character, right?"

Eh....

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Jiggy wrote:
Quote:
What's more important is the residual question I have about legality: is it really clear that a weaker version of a level n spell counts as a level n spell for prerequisites? (Specifically, Copycat as Mirror Image.)
Yes, it is. I can dig up a link to designer commentary later when I have more time if you like, but yes: SLAs are considered the same spell level as the spell they emulate; the only time it's any different is if it doesn't reference a spell AT ALL (as with a bunch of bloodline/domain powers that I bet a lot of people didn't even notice were spell-like).

Which are all the same level as the highest level spell that class can cast normally at that level, per this faq, of course. Not that it helps any of us for early entry shenanigans.

Sovereign Court

Yeah it's legal because of their statements about SLA. Now, Mystic theurge suffers the same problem that all dual progression prc have, yay levels of wizard and clerics...you still only have the same number of actions. By the time you are casting 4th level spells, the enemy caster would cast spells like Globe of Invulnerability to not even have to worry about your 4th level and under spells and make you feel useless in an encounter. I have seen it happen and I have done it as a DM too.

Mystic Theurge is fun, cute idea but frankly it is terrible.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Blakmane wrote:

In order to understand why MT is bad, you need to understand that the single most important thing for a caster is their spell caster level. Improved caster levels gives spellcasters higher DCs, more versatility, more damage (if that is their thing), access to stronger buffs etc etc.

More importantly, extra spells/day do not actually improve the ability of said caster on a round-per-round basis in combat:

OK, two things here.

First, doubtless you're aware of the Magical Knack trait, which mitigates the CL cost. If you take that trait for (say) Wizard, and go all 3 Wizard and all 3 Cleric levels before taking Mystic Theurge, you only sacrifice 1 CL for (say) Wizard.

Second, your argument really is if you're primarily combat focused. And, given that Wizard spells are usually the more useful ones in combat, Magical Knack means that the sacrifice really isn't all that big after all.

If there's more to the game than combat-- which is indeed often the case-- the added versatility of having many more overall caster levels combined between Cleric and Wizard could well offset the CL hit you take for combat. It's really going to depend on the game, but there's more to the game than DPR in combat.

Yeah, if it's a gladiatorial arena, then Mystic Theurge isn't optimum, assuming you've got a party with other people to carry some roles.


rknop wrote:

I have to admit that a passive-agressive snarky rhetorical question is not a great answer.

If I were to play dumb and answer SKR's question as if it weren't a snarky rhetorical question, I would say: "When something cites something else, why should I assume that it's equally as powerful as the other thing it cites?"

Which I think is a valid question, even though SKRs tone indicates disdain for anybody who would think there are any questions left following his pronouncement.

What, do you mean your reply to me, or SKR's reply in the link? Wait, now I'm being snarky, sorry... ;-).

Anyway, SKR is always snarky. He often answered questions that way, for whatever reason. The answer is pretty clear though, even if you don't agree with his logic/tone. How you decide to run it in a home game it totally your call - but it sets a definite precedent of permission for PFS.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

rknop wrote:
SKRs tone indicates disdain for anybody who would think there are any questions left following his pronouncement.

You honestly see snark there? Snarky as he can sometimes be, in this case I see him trying to demonstrate how to use the information already available to come to the correct conclusion, rather than spoonfeeding the community a single data-point answer. "Give a man a fish" and all that. Answering a question with a question is typically an attempt to teach, not an attempt to disparage.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Blakmane wrote:
What, do you mean your reply to me, or SKR's reply in the link? Wait, now I'm being snarky, sorry... ;-).

I'm talking about SKR here.

And, even though his tone makes it clear he thinks the answer is obvious, I disagree that it does, for the reason I said.

I don't think you're being snarky. I do suspect that you and I have different play styles, but that's OK. (Isn't it?)


rknop wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

In order to understand why MT is bad, you need to understand that the single most important thing for a caster is their spell caster level. Improved caster levels gives spellcasters higher DCs, more versatility, more damage (if that is their thing), access to stronger buffs etc etc.

More importantly, extra spells/day do not actually improve the ability of said caster on a round-per-round basis in combat:

OK, two things here.

First, doubtless you're aware of the Magical Knack trait, which mitigates the CL cost. If you take that trait for (say) Wizard, and go all 3 Wizard and all 3 Cleric levels before taking Mystic Theurge, you only sacrifice 1 CL for (say) Wizard.

Second, your argument really is if you're primarily combat focused. And, given that Wizard spells are usually the more useful ones in combat, Magical Knack means that the sacrifice really isn't all that big after all.

If there's more to the game than combat-- which is indeed often the case-- the added versatility of having many more overall caster levels combined between Cleric and Wizard could well offset the CL hit you take for combat. It's really going to depend on the game, but there's more to the game than DPR in combat.

Yeah, if it's a gladiatorial arena, then Mystic Theurge isn't optimum, assuming you've got a party with other people to carry some roles.

Magical knack offsets caster levels, but not spell levels. You don't gain extra spell slots/day with magical knack. In fact, magical knack barely helps with versatility at all as it only improves duration on non-combatitive spells, for the most part.

Versatility comes from extra spells/day and, most importantly, extra spell levels which open up new lists and combinations. The reason MT isn't great is because, for example, having access to 1st level wiz and 1st level cleric is not the same as having access to 1st level wiz and 2nd level wiz. The latter is better by an order of magnitude.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
rknop wrote:
SKRs tone indicates disdain for anybody who would think there are any questions left following his pronouncement.

You honestly see snark there? Snarky as he can sometimes be, in this case I see him trying to demonstrate how to use the information already available to come to the correct conclusion, rather than spoonfeeding the community a single data-point answer. "Give a man a fish" and all that. Answering a question with a question is typically an attempt to teach, not an attempt to disparage.

Yes, I honestly see snark there.

I fully understand that "answer a question with a question" is a method to teach. That's not the tone of his post, though. The "what do you think" in there is an indication that "you must not have thought before you asked the question, you dummy". It could have been expressed in a way that indicates the general principle without indicating that those who asked the question must have been thoughtless.


rknop wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
What, do you mean your reply to me, or SKR's reply in the link? Wait, now I'm being snarky, sorry... ;-).

I'm talking about SKR here.

And, even though his tone makes it clear he thinks the answer is obvious, I disagree that it does, for the reason I said.

I don't think you're being snarky. I do suspect that you and I have different play styles, but that's OK. (Isn't it?)

Totally OK! If I was in your home game and you made this ruling, I would probably argue with you, but in the end you are free to decide what you want upfront and I would accept that. I might not be so happy if you sprung it on me halfway through a campaign though! And that's kind of the lead in to:

In PFS, it's not OK to let playstyle bleed through into GMing the ruleset. PFS is about being fair and consistent between games and between players, even if that means sacrificing on your playstyle. For example, you should at least attempt to run monster tactics as written, even if that means making decisions you think are a bit nonsensical given the changing situation (this is one that annoys me!). A player is supposed to be able to take his or her character to a new table and have at least roughly the same experience with essentially the same legality and ruleset.

Mostly I'm debating here because you said you wanted to understand WHY this was legal, if it was legal. Hopefully even if you don't accept all of my premises, you can certainly take from our discussion that the class isn't universally considered as 'broken' or 'cheesy' and it is likely your player just wants to make an interesting combo rather than powergame per se.

*edit*

Or maybe he does want to powergame! In that case, direct him here where I can tell him he'll be bored as buffbot MT and can have more cheesy fun going straight wizard, if that really is what he wants.

caveat: I love support casters and do not condone cheesy builds - but I don't think we should judge your player too harshly either way. Different playstyles, right?

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

I do understand now why it's not universally considered broken. Thank you, by the way, because it was illuminating.

Re: PFS and playstyle and so forth, yeah, you can't let your playstyle change the ruleset. It can't help but change how the games run a bit, of course, but the ruleset needs to be the ruleset. (E.g., tactics as written, yes, one must do that, but players are creative and frequently come up with things that leave GMs needing to make judgement calls, as the tactics simply don't address them.) Given how intricate Pathfinder has become, and how various rules interactions can give rise to certain things that are surprising, it's getting harder and harder to keep track of....

Grand Lodge

I played a Mystic Theurge in 3.5. It was a questionably powerful PrC even then.

What you got in 3.5:
1) Much broader spell selection
2) More spells per day you could cast (but not near as many more as you think for just going straight classed)
3) Ability to cast 2 spells at once when you hit 10th (16th level character minimum)

What you lost in 3.5:
1) 3 Caster levels (though in 3.5 you could take the Practiced Spell Caster feat twice to get rid of this for both classes)
2) Ability to progress in a small number of class features such as Turn Undead and bonus Wizard Feats (and to a lesser degree, your familiar)
3) 2 Spells levels (This is really the killer as far as power goes. While everyone else is casting 5th levels spells, your still casting 3rds)

What you get in PFS without early entry:
1) Much broader spell selection
2) Mores spells per day you can cast (but I seldom see casters in PFS run out of spells by the time they hit 4th or 5th then this is of minimal benefit)
3) Ability to cast 2 spells at once when you hit 10th (16th level character minimum)

What you lose in PFS without early entry:
1) 3 Caster levels (of which you can gain back 2 for a single class with the use of a trait)
2) Ability to progress in a large number class features
3) 2 Spell levels (Again, this one is the real killer)

I have also played with Mystic Theurges several times in PFS. I am sure they are fun to play support characters, but they are always way behind the power curve. In one case, a Mystic Theurge's lack of higher level spells and class abilities contributed directly to a TPK.

As a result, I do not consider a Mystic Theurge viable in PFS unless it goes early entry. You just lose too much. You would have a tough time convincing me that early entry into Mystic Theurge is over-powered.


rknop wrote:

I do understand now why it's not universally considered broken. Thank you, by the way, because it was illuminating.

Re: PFS and playstyle and so forth, yeah, you can't let your playstyle change the ruleset. It can't help but change how the games run a bit, of course, but the ruleset needs to be the ruleset. (E.g., tactics as written, yes, one must do that, but players are creative and frequently come up with things that leave GMs needing to make judgement calls, as the tactics simply don't address them.) Given how intricate Pathfinder has become, and how various rules interactions can give rise to certain things that are surprising, it's getting harder and harder to keep track of....

Thanks for the discussion too. I agree with all your points there. PFS really is a tricky nut sometimes! Thanks also for not escalating our combatitive first round of posts - I was certainly being cheeky and you didn't rise to the bait, which is good of you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

rknop wrote:
The "what do you think" in there is an indication that "you must not have thought before you asked the question, you dummy".

With respect, I think you're reading into his post if you're translating "what do you think" as "you must not have tried to think yet". You keep referencing his tone, but how do you know what his tone was, since it's text? I think you're (unintentionally) inserting said tone yourself.


Jiggy wrote:
rknop wrote:
The "what do you think" in there is an indication that "you must not have thought before you asked the question, you dummy".

With respect, I think you're reading into his post if you're translating "what do you think" as "you must not have tried to think yet". You keep referencing his tone, but how do you know what his tone was, since it's text? I think you're (unintentionally) inserting said tone yourself.

To be fair, SKR is the king of snark so it's probably an accurate read. It's not really relevant to the logic at hand here though, so we should probably just leave it alone.


Also, it should be noted that Cleric and Wizards aren't the only spellcasters in the world. Must be great for the Cleric/Wizard to get in at level 7 when the Sorc/Cleric has to wait until level 8 or the (heavens forbid) Sorcerer/Oracle has to wait until 9th level.

Can you even imagine how bad your character would be if you played 8-10 levels (most of a PFS career) and could only cast 1st and 2nd level spells?

[Cleric/Wizard MT (without early entry) only gets third level spells at 8th level, while Sorc/Oracle MTs only get third level spells at 10th level]

---

Also, to answer your question. Yes, that is perfectly legal and is one of several combinations.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@rknop: it sounds a bit like you want the developers to not intend it this way; but they're made it clear that they saw it and were okay with it.

As I read it they didn't so much decide that they wanted to make prestige classes more accessible. They were fixing some other issue, and as a side effect of that fix, prestige classes would become more accessible. So they took a look at that to see if it was a problem, and decided it wasn't.

Is it cheesy? Well, a little bit, true. It would be neater if the entry requirements were simply formally changed to something more doable.

Is it overpowered? Nope. Is it causing some weird problem? Nope.

So there's no need to forbid it; Paizo doesn't as a rule forbid things just because they're not aesthetically pleasing. They try to only forbid things that are actually problematic.

Sczarni

rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
This is not PFS specific. Moved to the correct forum.
How are we supposed to get rulings about what's legal in PFS?

By asking in the Rules Questions Forum.

PFS operates using the Pathfinder RPG ruleset.

For some reason, many people forget that, and go to the PFS Forums asking rules questions.

The only time that practice is accepted, is when you're asking a PFS-specific campaign question.

Like something regarding Factions, Chronicle Sheets, Fame, etc.

Not a general rules question (or a general rules gripe).


Mystic theurge is a weak prestige class because you sacrifice spell progression for the sake of gaining extra spell slots, which in many cases is redundant due the spell overlap in pathfinder. Something somewhat analogous would be a fighter with feats with bows and swords; sure he'd be more versatile, but there's a reason why most people don't invest feats into both melee and ranged feat trees, because it's spreading your resources to gain versatility, but makes you lose potency. There's a big power difference between a character that can cast 9th level spells and a character that can cast 7th lvl spells from the arcane and divine spell lists.


If you run it by standard you are behind with 1.5 spell levels and what is the golden rule of spellcasters? "If you are sacking spell levels you had better have an extremely good reason why." (at least from a power play point of view).

The only situation where I could potentially see a mystic theurge without early entry as slightly viable would be in a small group or in a group with no spellcasters and even then I'd say it is iffy.
Remember that while you have access to a lot of spells you actually don't have that many more spells per day (at least not if you weigh them with higher levels spells being worth more).
Remember that while you have access to a lot of spells you are still only one caster and you don't get to break action economy (before lvl 10 of mystic theurge and by then only a few times).
I allowed a player of mine to get early entry by two levels once and he was a very good powergamer and he was still not ridiculously overpowered in any way. I will say though that early entry from lvl 4 is probably quite cool and might be slightly too powerful but it is clearly RAW and the devs have said that they are aware and see no problems so we have to assume that they are ok with it being RAI.


I feel like MT is only weak in PFS. In a home campaign the magnitude of spells available would make up for the drop in power on a long adventuring day. In a PFS game you pretty much never run out of spells, which is what the MT is so good at avoiding.


Melkiador wrote:
I feel like MT is only weak in PFS. In a home campaign the magnitude of spells available would make up for the drop in power on a long adventuring day. In a PFS game you pretty much never run out of spells, which is what the MT is so good at avoiding.

It's better, but by no means OP, in a home game.

In essence, a lot of the encounter-breaking that a high level full caster can manage is due to spells that they have access to that enemies can't yet counter. As time goes on, enemies can counter more of those one-off tricks, forcing you to more conventional methods of dealing with problems. A Mystic Theurge doesn't have the top level spells, they just have two spell lists that progress at the same rate, but slightly behind - depending on when they were entered.

They do, however, get more neat combinations than your typical caster. Which is fun.


Nefreet wrote:
rknop wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
This is not PFS specific. Moved to the correct forum.
How are we supposed to get rulings about what's legal in PFS?

By asking in the Rules Questions Forum.

PFS operates using the Pathfinder RPG ruleset.

For some reason, many people forget that, and go to the PFS Forums asking rules questions.

The only time that practice is accepted, is when you're asking a PFS-specific campaign question.

Like something regarding Factions, Chronicle Sheets, Fame, etc.

Not a general rules question (or a general rules gripe).

There are plenty of times to ask rules questions in the PFS forum. Any rule that specifically requires GM discretion, either by explicit text or implicitly due to the vaguely-worded text that encourages table variance.

This isn't one of those times, though. In this case, RAW and RAI are crystal-clear.


Bronnwynn wrote:
It's better, but by no means OP, in a home game.

Oh yeah. I was just saying that PFS doesn't give the MT a chance to be good at what it's good at. Even when it's being good at what it's good at, I wouldn't call it overpowered.

Grand Lodge

As mentioned, Mystic Theurge, with normal entry, is fairly weak. You are giving up, other than the minor benefit of a trait for one class, 3 caster levels in each class, and at least one spell level in each class.

Just as a quick glance, using your player's early entry, and Magical Knack for the Cleric class, at 12th level, as a Seeker, he would be:
Wizard 2/Cleric 1/Mystic Theurge 9
Wizard 2/acting as Wizard 11, CL11, so just gained 6th level spells.
Cleric 1/acting as Cleric 10, CL 12, so still casting no higher than 5th level spells.
Mystic Theurge 9, so unable to cast two spells in a round without using Quicken, so, probably, only able to Quicken cantrips/orisons and 1st or 2nd level (Wizard-only) spells, and that would burn one of his few higher level slots.
Cleric 10: 4/4+1/4+1/3+1/3+1/2+1
Channel Energy: 1d6
Wizard 11: 4/4/4/4/3/2/1
Fort +5 (+2+0+3)/Ref +3 (+0+0+3)/Will +10 (+2+3+5)

Single class:

Cleric 12: 4/4+1/4+1/4+1/3+1/3+1/2+1
Channel Energy: 6d6
Fort+8/Ref+4/Will+8

Wizard 12: 4/4/4/4/3/3/2
8th level school ability
Fort+4/Ref+4/Will+8

So, wider selection of spells, slightly lower caster level, so less duration/range, missing or significantly weaker in higher level spells, both in number and highest level available. And that is with the early entry. Without, both sides go down in duration, range and spell level cap.

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 6 gives casting level and spell access as 9th level casters, with one of them able to cast as 11th level, one below actual character level. 9th level would have just gotten 5th level spells, where the single class caster would have their second level's access to 6th level spells, so 1x2 5th level spells versus 2 6th level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@rknop:

I actually believe you are right in the idea that this was not the intent of the original design of the Mystic Theurge.

When the mystic theurge was designed the designers knew there would have to be some kind of cost for a class that advances in two spellcasting classes simultaneously.

The reality is that later on, the devs realised that the price they set was too high. So the revision was intended to address that. So you are right in that it's not the original intent; it is basically a retcon. But it is one that most people feel was necessary to get people to use the mystic theurge class in the first place.


let me point out something i think was not brought up.
the cheesy ways to get early start on this prc is mostly by using strong races.

- i would actuly not allow the copycat ability. it is not a really a spell like ability, spell like ability are actuly spells that are cest difrently, which is why you need concentration to use them. and normaly take a standard action. the copycat is using a move action to have an effect that resembel a sepll effect for a shorter duration. it might be a 2nd level effect for say, dispelling. but it is not even a spell like ability. which for me above all else mean it is coping a spell being cast. only using abilities other then normal spellcasting.
it is also flagged as supernatural ability and not spell like ability, so the ruling that spell like abilities can come instead of spell casting ability doesn't realy work here.
look here

but as an assimer he could have also goten in early by gainig the feat that give him searing light at 5th level.(so he get it next level on 6th .still earlier)

yes it is leagal to use them SLA as being able to cast the spells. but it is still up to the gm to allow the use of strong races. aasimar is 15 race points race. tifling is 12. ether of them is way higgher on the race points ladder then an elf or human.
so if you allow the player the higher starting point of a stronger race. you also allow him to start stronger - he can use that to get stuff done earlier.

please notice. i did not agree or diagree with this. some gm like the party to start strong. and don't mind if the players get a better strating toon. if so. let him also start his prc earlier. if you want a more limited options for your game. tell him core races only.(or up to 10 race build points if you like a littile difrent).

Grand Lodge

zza ni wrote:


it is also flagged as supernatural ability and not spell like ability, so the ruling tha tspell like abilities can come instead of spell casting ability doesn't realy work here.
look here

Your link contradicts your claim. You see that (Sp)? That means it's a spell-like ability. Supernatural abilities are denoted (Su).

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Cleric / 1 Wizard / 2 Mystic Theurge / 1 ... REALLY? PFS Legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.