[Mystic Theurge] - How can we fix it?

[Daron Farina]

I enjoyed seeing Jess' write up. I would seriously consider house-ruling it into my games if there were no changes made to MT on release.

An endeavor to make this class more bearable before and the few levels after entry without effecting the end result is exactly what this class needs.

So... I don't have anything particularly useful to contribute at the moment, but I encourage all of you contributing to continue doing so! Good work everyone. =D

[see]

Adding a 14th-level wizard to a 20th-level party costs a normal cleric only a feat. Why should adding a 13th-level wizard cost him three levels of spellcasting, thirteen levels of poor BAB/Fort/HP progression, thirteen levels of no progression in turn undead, and his action in any round the wizard acts?

Either the Leadership feat is ludicrously overpowered, or the Mystic Theurge is ludicrously overpriced for its benefit.

[Jess Door]

Daron Farina wrote:

I enjoyed seeing Jess' write up. I would seriously consider house-ruling it into my games if there were no changes made to MT on release.

An endeavor to make this class more bearable before and the few levels after entry without effecting the end result is exactly what this class needs.

So... I don't have anything particularly useful to contribute at the moment, but I encourage all of you contributing to continue doing so! Good work everyone. =D

I had a player considering Mystic Theurge for his conjuror. We have a paladin, a druid, a rogue/wizard going for arcane trickster, and the conjuror. He was going to try mystic theurge for crafting a wide variety of items, more healing for the party, and crazy amounts of spells. I was worried about the ability of the party in the future to meet the challenges in Rise of the Runelords (they're fourth level now, wrapping up Thistletop). The player has some past play experience and as we were leveling him up into his first level of Cleric, his fourth level overall, he decided it would hurt his ability to play his character effectively.

Some of this is due to the desirability of class abilities in the base classes. But some of this is due to the severe sacrifices required to take mystic theurge, with a severe dropoff in level appropriate abilities. I find Mystic Theurge to be a "trap" class that doesn't introduce much of what it promises and requires a huge sacrifice nonetheless. Arcane trickster suffers many of the same issues, but at least the class abilities synergize in a way to introduce new and interesting abilities as you realize you've sacrificed some of the abilities of your base classes.

[WWWW]

see wrote:

Adding a 14th-level wizard to a 20th-level party costs a normal cleric only a feat. Why should adding a 13th-level wizard cost him three levels of spellcasting, thirteen levels of poor BAB/Fort/HP progression, thirteen levels of no progression in turn undead, and his action in any round the wizard acts?

Either the Leadership feat is ludicrously overpowered, or the Mystic Theurge is ludicrously overpriced for its benefit.

I would have to say that it is both. Leadership is one of the most powerful feats and is probably a top contender for the most powerful feat. On the other hand while there are some builds that can use the Mystic Theurge class very well it is probably somewhat overpriced for most builds compared to a straight caster.

[LazarX]

see wrote:

Adding a 14th-level wizard to a 20th-level party costs a normal cleric only a feat. Why should adding a 13th-level wizard cost him three levels of spellcasting, thirteen levels of poor BAB/Fort/HP progression, thirteen levels of no progression in turn undead, and his action in any round the wizard acts?

Either the Leadership feat is ludicrously overpowered, or the Mystic Theurge is ludicrously overpriced for its benefit.

Adding that 14th level wizard to that party also ups the average party level when it comes to assigning challenges.

[Kaisoku]

Doesn't he also take a share of the loot (depending on your group I guess), and more importantly, a share of the XP?

So not only is your group considered "stronger", gaining less experience from the same challenges, but also you have to give a half share of xp to that extra character.

A Mystic Theurge is instead getting the spellcasting, without messing with the xp or loot.

There's more factors involved with adding another character than just the spells per day.

[WWWW]

Kaisoku wrote:

Doesn't he also take a share of the loot (depending on your group I guess), and more importantly, a share of the XP?

So not only is your group considered "stronger", gaining less experience from the same challenges, but also you have to give a half share of xp to that extra character.

A Mystic Theurge is instead getting the spellcasting, without messing with the xp or loot.

There's more factors involved with adding another character than just the spells per day.

From the beta

"Cohorts earn XP as follows:
The cohort does not count as a party member when determining
the party’s XP.
Divide the cohort’s level by your level.
Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you
and add that number of experience points to the cohort’s
total."

So it appears that since a cohort is not counted as a party member a cohort takes no XP from the party and the group is not considered stronger and thus gains the same XP.

A cohort might take some treasure but that depends on the group and well a level 20 party might outfit a level 14 wizard cohort with a few spells and perhaps a stat booster and leave it at that.

[Abraham spalding]

Kind of makes sense considering that an enemies feats, skills, treasure, et al doesn't change their challenge rating.

[Dragonchess Player]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

a sorcerer 3/cleric 2 is in no way anywhere near as useful as any other 5th level character you'd care to name, unless it's 5 levels in an NPC class. Not sure how to fix that, though -- but unless it is amended, no sane person will EVER want to play in a group that includes an aspiring MT, unless the DM is very understanding and intentionally scales back the challenges quite a bit.

Start with 2-3 levels of cleric before taking any sorcerer or wizard levels and you'll probably be happier. Because of the way BAB, hit points, and spell levels are gained, a cleric 3/sorcerer (or wizard) 2 is a more formidable character than a sorcerer (or wizard) 3/cleric 2. If using bard as the arcane class (qualifies at bard 4), then start with bard for the extra weapons and skills.

Note that mystic theurge is a choice that puts a premium on good resource management: the mystic theurge (or aspirant) should be casting spells before, during, and after almost every combat as a matter of course, even with other spellcasters in the party (who probably can't afford to do the same or do so to the same extent).

[Dragonchess Player]

Jess Door wrote:

I had a player considering Mystic Theurge for his conjuror. We have a paladin, a druid, a rogue/wizard going for arcane trickster, and the conjuror.

For 3.5 core, cleric 3/conjurer 3/mystic theurge 4/thaumaturgist 2 can be a pretty strong battlefield controller, as well as working as a buffer/healer.

Jess Door wrote:

I find Mystic Theurge to be a "trap" class that doesn't introduce much of what it promises and requires a huge sacrifice nonetheless.

IMO, it's only a "trap" if you expect more out of it than it really offers or plan your advancement to qualify in a way that hurts you more than necessary. Yes, you will be one or two spell levels behind a cleric, druid, or wizard of equal character level (depending on the level breakdown), but you are the same one or two spell levels behind in a second class at the same time. A cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 2 (CL cleric 5, wizard 5) can cast 3rd level cleric AND sorcerer/wizard spells, as opposed to a cleric 8, sorcerer 8, or wizard 8 who can cast 4th level cleric OR sorcerer/wizard spells. At high levels, instead of settling for cleric 5/wizard 5/mystic theurge 10 (CL cleric 15, wizard 15), instead choose to emphasize arcane or divine spells and go with cleric 3/wizard 7/mystic theurge 10 (CL cleric 13, wizard 17) or cleric 7/wizard 3/mystic theurge 10 (CL cleric 17, wizard 13). Per my general rule of thumb with primary casting classes, sacrificing more than 1-3 levels of spellcasting (or 9th level spells) over 20 levels is usually too much. So, when planning for a mystic theurge, are you a cleric/druid with some ability to cast arcane spells or a wizard with some ability to cast divine spells?

The other big advantage of a mystic theurge is the ability to use almost all spell completion and spell trigger items without needing to put a large number of skill ranks in Use Magic Device.

[see]

Kaisoku wrote:

Doesn't he also take a share of the loot (depending on your group I guess), and more importantly, a share of the XP?

Under both the 3.5 and Pathfinder rules, the cohort doesn't take away any XP.

Under the 3.5 treasure division, the cohort is entitled to a half-share of treasure. From the perspective of the player who controls both PC and cohort, that means the cohort increases his share of the treasure.

4-player party with four PCs: Treasure is divided into four equal shares of 25% each. Each player gets 25% of treasure.

4-player party with four PCs and one cohort, cohort getting a true half-share: Treasure is divided into nine parts, two to each PC and one to the cohort. Each PC gets a share of treasure; cohort gets 11.11%. Three players get 22.22% of the treasure each, cohort's player gets 33.33% the treasure.

4-player party with four PCs and one cohort, cohort getting a 3.5 DMG-calculated half share: Treasure is divided into five parts; the fifth part is halved, half going to the cohort and the other half split evenly among the four PCs. Each PC gets a 22.5% share of treasure; the cohort gets a 10% share. Three players get 22.5% of the treasure each, the cohort's player gets 32.5% of the treasure.

So, a very small sacrifice of treasure by the PC, but the player comes out ahead. Not a big disencentive.

----

So. If we use the Leadership feat as our guideline, the correct price for adding the spellcasting power of a 14th-level caster to a 20th-level character is a single feat.

How about the CR system? It says that two 18th-level characters are equivalent to one 20th-level caster. A 17th-level caster and a 13th level caster clearly would be nowhere near 20th level in effectiveness.

Granted, combining power in a single 20th-level character is more survivable than two 18th-level characters, or the 14th-level cohort of the 20th-level caster. But it also means losing an action a round, which is pretty significant, too.

So, that's two separate D20 systems that are saying that the Mystic Theurge is grossly underpowered compared to straight casters. And they are; it's just that full casters are so powerful that the MT still is competitive with non-casters in effectiveness.

[Jess Door]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Jess Door wrote:

I find Mystic Theurge to be a "trap" class that doesn't introduce much of what it promises and requires a huge sacrifice nonetheless.

IMO, it's only a "trap" if you expect more out of it than it really offers or plan your advancement to qualify in a way that hurts you more than necessary...

Quickest entry into mystic Theurge: cleric 3 (or druid 3) / wizard 3 / mystic theurge 1.

Compare to wizard 7, cleric 7:

A 7th level wizard has access to: Bestow Curse, Black Tentacles, Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Dimensional Anchor, Dispel Magic, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Remove Curse, Scrying, Wall of Ice. He has 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd and 1 4th level spell without considering his bonus spells.

A 7th level cleric has access to iconic spells such as : Death Ward, Dimensional Anchor, Dismissal, Dispel Magic, Freedom of Movement, Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Restoration, Sending and Spell Immunity. He has 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd and 1 4th level spell without considering his bonus spells.

A 7th level wizard 3 cleric 3 mt 1 does what he can to match the capabilities of these casters. His best analogs for the above spells:

• Doom (Bestow Curse)
  
• Web (Black Tentacles
  
• Wall of Ice)
  
• Daze Monster (Charm Monster)
  
• Ray of Enfeeblement (Enervation)
  
• Invisibility (Greater Invisibility)
  
• Sanctuary, Resistance (Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Immunity)
  
• Remove Fear (Remove Curse)
  
• Protection from Evil (Remove Curse, Death Ward)
  
• Augury (Scrying),
  
• Minor Image, Obscuring Mist (Wall of Ice)
  
• Delay Poison (Neutralize Poison)
  
• Bear's Endurances (Remove Disease)
  
• Lesser Restoration (Restoration)
  
• Whispering Wind (Sending)
  

I see no close analog for:

• Dimension Door
  
• Dimensional Anchor
  
• Dispel Magic
  
• Freedom of Movement

He has 3 1st and 2 2nd level spells in cleric casting and 31st and 2 2nd level spells in wizard casting. He also loses out on channel energy (2d6 instead of 4d6, low power vs. undead), animal companion and wild shape advancement, or school power advancement and bonus feats, or bloodline powers. ("Or" because a full caster would only have one of those, of course.) He also has lower DCs because he has two casting stats, rendering his attack much weaker. His lower caster level makes his attack less effective and his buffs have a shorter duration and possibly less effect.

Let's look a little later in their career, level 15:

A 15th level wizard has access to: Finger of Death, Greater Teleport, Mind Blank, Plane Shift, Polymorph Any Object, Power Word Death, Protection from Spells, Spell Turning, Limited Wish

A 15th level cleric has access to: Antimagic Field, Mass Cure Critical Wounds, Dimensional Lock, Greater Planar Ally, Greater Spell Immunity, Ressurection, Symbol of Death

A cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 9 does all he can to match the capabilities of these casters. He can cast only 6th level spells. Obvious comparisons exist:

• Teleport (Greater Teleport)
  
• Polymorph (Polymorph Any Object)
  
• Planar Binding (Greater Planar Ally)
  
• Spell Immunity (Greater Spell Immunity)
  
• Globe of Invulnerability (Protection from Spells)
  
• Raise Dead (Ressurection)

But many are difficult if not impossible for the Mystic Theurge to duplicate. The Mystic Theurge has more spells available to him, but he has the same number of actions as a straight caster, and each action will be significantly less powerful than an action of a straight caster. When you consider the capabilities of level appropriate challenges, the Mystic Theurge doesn't match up at all. This requires the party and DM to reorganize the entire campaign around a player taking a core prestige class that can't carry it's own weight.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

...The other big advantage of a mystic theurge is the ability to use almost all spell completion and spell trigger items without needing to put a large number of skill ranks in Use Magic Device.

...so losing out on all class abilities and your most powerful prospective powers for the gain of lots of low level spell slots and no need to take ranks in Use Magic Device is good prestige class design?

If the mystic theurge were meant to be a spellslinging version of a non-spellslinger, he'd probably be able to hold up his end of the deal in party cooperation. As the mystic theurge is meant to be nothing but a spell slinger...because that's all his class abilities allow him to do...and the nature of the class and its prerequisites necessarily makes him worse at this than a straight class caster, the mystic theurge class in its current incarnation is at the very least an inconvenience to a player, his party members, and the DM trying to give them level appropriate encounters.

At worst (and common because most experienced players know to avoid Mystic Theurge except in very speicific situations) the mystic theurge is a party killer, surprising DMs with how weak their party is against appropriate CR encounters, forcing the rest of the party to try to make up the Mystic Theurge's weaknesses, and surprising the player with how little extra low level slots make up for the lack of high level power.

[kyrt-ryder]

I just had a thought, about what might help bring things into line.

The feat Versatile Spellcasting allows sorcerer's to combine two spells of lower level in order to cast a spell of one level higher that they know. What if we could borrow the basic concept of the feat, and tweak it into allowing the Mystic Theurge to cast spells of one level higher than they are capable of?

Its just a rough idea now, but the thought of having the versatility of options between using double the slots of lower level spells, or having access to roughly equivalent spell level but with access to both sides? MT remains balanced because it loses out on all the cool class features that sorcerers, wizards, and clerics get, but it becomes the guy to turn to when you need spells.

For wizards it wouldn't be a huge problem, just research or purchase scrolls of higher levels. For sorcerer's I'm not sure how you would handle it. Perhaps allowing them to spontaneously burn two slots/prepared cleric spells for any cleric spell of a higher level in the case where they don't have known spells of that level yet (for example, a Cleric 3, Sorc 4, MT 2 could spontaneously burn two prepared 3rd level Cleric spells, two 3rd level sorcerer slots, or one of each in order to cast a 4th level Cleric spell that is allowed, allignment restrictions and all that still applying of course.)

Does that difference, the option to spontaneously apply any availiable cleric spell make up for the sorcerer's lack of being able to know the higher levels? (and actually makes the Sorcerer MT somewhat interesting despite the ANNOYING fact that sorcerer MT's cannot achieve 9th level spells in either class.)

[Daron Farina]

Jess Door wrote:

Compare to wizard 7, cleric 7: ...

This is really a great analysis. Something interesting about it is using this same method will show us how MT will become extremely powerful in epic play (consider the example, except with Wizard 5/Cleric 5/MT 15 vs. a 25th level pure caster). However, the concerns here for 1-20 are completely valid, and couldn't have voiced my concerns better than Jess already has.

I don't know if we're technically allowed to discuss it at length, but there were some great ideas from Ultimate Magus in Complete Mage. Using an ability similar to Augmented Metamagics with Quicken Spell would allow them to burn more spells in a shorter amount of time. Also, since the requirements are more lax than MT, it makes entry more bearable.

[kyrt-ryder]

*points to his suggestion* What, no love for the idea of allowing MT's to effectively cast higher levels by using more spell slots? I'm crushed :( lmao. Yeah, the way she put it deffinitely shows you the flaws, and its true in an epic campaign nothing beats an MT that's maxing knowledge arcana and knowledge religion.

But again, epic isn't our problem lol. (Though I do think Pathfinder should eventually produce its own upgrade to the Epic system, much of which is OGL)

[Jess Door]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

*points to his suggestion* What, no love for the idea of allowing MT's to effectively cast higher levels by using more spell slots? I'm crushed :( lmao. Yeah, the way she put it deffinitely shows you the flaws, and its true in an epic campaign nothing beats an MT that's maxing knowledge arcana and knowledge religion.

But again, epic isn't our problem lol. (Though I do think Pathfinder should eventually produce its own upgrade to the Epic system, much of which is OGL)

Check out the second post on the second page of this thread. :) In my opinion it's much better to opt for a simpler solution than mixing and matching spell slots and levels. It's also simpler with regard to what spells you know/don't know/can cast/can't cast.

[kyrt-ryder]

I did read it Jess :) Its a good idea, but I thought we were trying to come up with as many variable options as possible. Mine might be marginally more complicated, but it does have its good points, I think lol. Basically with it it grants the MT the option between casting mega-loads of lowerlevel spells, or consolidating them into higher levels, depending on the situation.

[Edit]: Also, its easier to convert 3.5 MT's the way I described it, just change their abilities and boom, ready for spell conversion, rather than needing to mess with their spellcasting progression etc.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Don't fix anything from the Beta MT. He rocks.

[Daron Farina]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

*points to his suggestion*

Heh. It's what inspired me mention Ultimate Magus. Your suggestion approaches the problem from a different direction, increasing the power of the MT's standard actions, where UM effectively allows more standard actions.

Maybe if we said the MT can sacrifice a number of spells who's summed spell levels equal the desired spell level (kind of like a reverse mnemonic enhancer). Though, you'd have to have some way to reign this ability in. I'd hate to see MT's use this to spontaneously cast spells of levels they already have instead of what it's meant for. From what I can tell though, you can only access cleric spells that are higher level?

[LazarX]

WWWW wrote:

From the beta

So it appears that since a cohort is not counted as a party member a cohort takes no XP from the party and the group is not considered stronger and thus gains the same XP.

A cohort might take some treasure but that depends on the group and well a level 20 party might outfit a level 14 wizard cohort with a few spells and perhaps a stat booster and leave it at that.

Typically rules for network play would also add the provisio that cohorts take up seats in a max 6 person table and factor in fully for the APL, as well as getting full shares of treasure.

[see]

Daron Farina wrote:

This is really a great analysis. Something interesting about it is using this same method will show us how MT will become extremely powerful in epic play (consider the example, except with Wizard 5/Cleric 5/MT 15 vs. a 25th level pure caster).

It would, except, well . . . per the SRD, the Epic MT doesn't advance casting in both classes at once; he alternates getting a bonus to arcane level and getting a bonus to divine level. Plus, he only gets a bonus feat every six epic levels, vs. 3 for an epic wizard or cleric.

So, at 25th level, a Wiz 5/Clr 5/MT 10/EMT 5 casts as an 18th-level wizard and 17th-level cleric, and has one epic bonus feat instead of two.

At 30th level, he's finally made it to 20-and-20 spell progression, which is lots of spells. In exchange, he's down two epic bonus feats, and (with Practiced Spellcaster giving him a +4 to caster level) has a -6 to his caster level compared to the single-classed caster.

[Dragonchess Player]

Jess Door wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Jess Door wrote:

I find Mystic Theurge to be a "trap" class that doesn't introduce much of what it promises and requires a huge sacrifice nonetheless.

IMO, it's only a "trap" if you expect more out of it than it really offers or plan your advancement to qualify in a way that hurts you more than necessary...

Quickest entry into mystic Theurge: cleric 3 (or druid 3) / wizard 3 / mystic theurge 1.

Compare to wizard 7, cleric 7:

The point of the mystic theurge is not to be as powerful in either arcane or divine casting as a single classed caster of equal character level. It is to be able to advance in both arcane and divine casting simultaneously. For this extremely significant capability, a large sacrifice should be required.

Instead of comparing a cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 1 with a cleric 7 or wizard 7, compare it to a rogue 3/wizard 4 (arcane trickster aspirant) or a wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight 1. The mystic theurge has equal arcane casting as the arcane trickster aspirant and is only one CL behind the eldritch knight, plus has the ability to cast spells as a cleric 4.

By your argument, neither arcane trickster nor eldritch knight are worth taking as PrCs, either. I disagree with the design concept that significant rewards can be attained without significant sacrifices. Many of the late 3.5 supplements contained horrible examples of this philosophy (abjurant champion, etc.) and I do not wish PFRPG to travel down the same road.

[kyrt-ryder]

Geeze. Those bolds you threw out for emphasis really make the post feel angry, or frustrated or something. The fact of the matter is, the MT gives up WAY too much. Have you ever tried playing a Mystic Theurge in a party with a full caster? They really don't compare. If a DM is using a published campaign and doesn't tailor it down to accomodate for the MT, then the party is in deep crap, because one of their caster's can't keep up with his duties.

The Arcane Trickster is a Wizard/Rogue (Honestly I feel it actually suits a sorcerer rogue more, due to certain issues thats far less viable but I won't get into that here), and an Eldritch Knight is an Arcane Caster/Fighter, complete with bonus feats and a spell channelling system. The fact is, even though the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight fall somewhat behind in each purpose (the Trickster moreso than the knight, I've played them, I know) they still do a decent job of shoring up those weaknesses because they aren't made to be full casters.

A mystic theurge IS a full caster. Plain and simple.

Its not a rogue supporting his skullduggery with spellcraft.

Its not a soldier wielding sword and sorcery.

Its purpose is that of a full caster.

If it cannot keep up with a wizard, while functioning as one, or if it cannot keep up with a cleric, while functioning as one, then it is a failure as a prestige class.

Note I didn't say it needs to have equal casting of the same kind, only that it needs to be able to keep up with them. At present it really isn't worth playing a Mystic Theurge on a level playing field at all, the DM has to shift things to make it work, and thats not good, because there are alot of poor/new DM's out there incapable of such a delicate shift.

[Masika]

I think the way to fix it is to only give one caster level increase but the player chooses... so you can a divine level or an arcane level.

Because of the crap BAB and saves if you change this you would have to balance it out by giving a metamagic feat every 5 levels and some divine buff class feats every 4 or so levels.

The great leveller is just to have the one caster level increase per level instead of the current two.

[LazarX]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

A mystic theurge IS a full caster. Plain and simple.

Its not a rogue supporting his skullduggery with spellcraft.

Its not a soldier wielding sword and sorcery.

Its purpose is that of a full caster.

The Mystic Theurge is not a full caster, he's a split caster, playing two roles as opposed to a Loremaster who's an essentially an extension of one. The key to the success of a mystic theurge is synergy between those roles, which admittedly is a harder thing for the MT to accomplish than other split class PrCs such as the Arcane Trickster and the Eldritch Knight. The MT is essentially a "fifth" member type class, who can pinch hit for the dedicated arcanist or divinist if the main person in either group goes down.

Dynamics also change quite a bit depending on what classes are chosen, maybe instead of wizard/cleric, one should think wizard/druid, or favored soul/sorcerer.

To meet your definition of putting the MT on a "level" field would mean an insufficient sacrifice for gaining a wide spectrum of spell ability.

Again, caster level isn't the be all and end all. Maybe the MT's purpose is a general all around buffer and problem solver. A lot of useful spells (such as the buffs, divinations, abjurations etc.) don't feature caster level as a major item of importance. The MT can free up the wizard and the cleric to cast spells of awesome devastation and smiting, in addition to laying a bit of smack on her own.

[hogarth]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The point of the mystic theurge is not to be as powerful in either arcane or divine casting as a single classed caster of equal character level. It is to be able to advance in both arcane and divine casting simultaneously. For this extremely significant capability, a large sacrifice should be required.

I agree...but I think that two lost levels of spellcasting in your best class is a large enough sacrifice. For instance, I think it would be reasonable to allow a cleric 3/wizard 2 to qualify for mystic theurge.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Instead of comparing a cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 1 with a cleric 7 or wizard 7, compare it to a rogue 3/wizard 4 (arcane trickster aspirant) or a wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight 1. The mystic theurge has equal arcane casting as the arcane trickster aspirant and is only one CL behind the eldritch knight, plus has the ability to cast spells as a cleric 4.

By your argument, neither arcane trickster nor eldritch knight are worth taking as PrCs, either.

Frankly, I don't think the arcane trickster is worth taking as a PrC; I think both a rogue with one level of wizard/sorcerer or a wizard with one level of rogue are much better options.

I think the eldritch knight is (somewhat) worth taking as a PrC, but I think that fighter 1/wizard 5 is not a very good way to enter it.

[kyrt-ryder]

LazarX. Do we want classes to be so poor at what they do that they cannot fill a role in a party of four? If the Mystic Theurge is going to be worth the pages it goes on it has to be capable of effectively meeting one of those roles.

Honestly, the way I see it, an MT should be an adequate, although very poor, option to fill both roles, with one of the other roles doubled up on. (Two bruisers, two glass cannons/scouts, you get the idea.) And for the record, the quality of buffs and shieldings are determined by spell level availiable. Whether or not those are dispelled is determined by caster level.

You can say it all you want, but as she reads presently, MT is a failure as a class. There should be no 5th wheel only classes.

[Vendle]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

There should be no 5th wheel only classes.

Not a fan of the bard, I take it?

In my own experience, the MT is a fine choice for some parties, especially if that character is the 5th or 6th member. I don't feel the Pathfinder MT it is too powerful or too weak.

[kyrt-ryder]

Thats correct, I'm not a fan of the bard as it reads in core. With the propper non-core optimization tweaks it can make a fair full caster, or a great skillmonkey/glass cannon. Heck they can even be worked into tolerable tanks with the right tricks (I should know, I've played several bards before, their fun, if you can tweak them well enough.) I am in favor of upgrading the core Bard a little though, because in a core only game, its nearly impossible to squeeze a bard into a 4 man party.

The same cannot be said of the Mystic Theurge, because its capabilities are its caster levels, and its spells to cast. Nothing can really enhance that except changing the class itself. Lagging 2 spell levels behind (Wiz 3, Cleric 3, MT 1 vs 7th level full class) is not sufficient. Neither is a Mystic Theurge needing to split their focus later on.

Thats why I suggested the ability to combine spells of one spell of lower level to cast a higher level spell. By doing that, they keep the versatility of all their massive numbers of spells, but when needed they can cast as if they are only one spell level behind, which makes a huge difference.

The other thing, is that I don't feel an MT's progression should freeze at 10th level, because then this character that's spent the last 16 levels of their career working towards being an emissary of their god who bends the mystical force of arcana towards his will (or some other interesting fluff created for the character) suddenly has to focus one way or the other. Not cool.

In an ideal Pathfinder, the MT would be 1 spell level behind, not two, in one way or another, and would be able to continue its Mystic Theurge progression somehow, in order to eventually be able to end up with Wizard 17, Cleric 17 casting at level 20.

[Vendle]

I would posit that the bard and MT are classes that are not meant to fill a core role; at least that the purpose of their design is outside of a core role and filling one of those four seats is a distant secondary goal. By increasing the MT's caster levels it becomes more viable in the 4-man party, but that also creates a problem.

Spellcasters at higher levels get the most powerful show-stealing abilities, and the MT might get to choose all of them (although at a slightly delayed rate). Increasing his power would probably worsen this issue, making him the one-man party.

Edit: My first post I re-read and realized that it was another "I don't have that problem" response which doesn't contribute much of anything to the discussion.
Also, if the MT were to take a feat or have an ability to cast more higher-level spells by sacrificing lower level slots, how many high-level spells could they potentially cast? Would they have more spells at the same power level as a single-class caster?

[Herald]

Personally I like the spell progression and I like the the powers, but I feel like the class looses out on class abilities. I'd be happy if the class could pick one of the class abilities from it's base classes, and allow the familiar to advance as per Wizard/Sorcerer.

[kyrt-ryder]

You could hardly call him the one man party any more than a wizard. High level casters do get the show stopping abilities as you put it, but there is always a need for the meatshields lol. (and I say that with love, I enjoy playing a tank)

One thing I would deffinitely support for the MT though, is having a d4 hit die. Their nature tends to be even more magically focused than the wizard, striving towards both spectrums. As such I would think that the MT would make a good case to be an exception to some rules (The hit die rule, and some other tweak to make them actually viable)

And I'm sorry, but I still don't believe there should be 5th wheel only characters. Its not good when someone wants to play a character and the DM has to say something along the lines of "Are you sure? I mean, you could play that, but you'll be so much less effective than anyone else. Are you sure you wouldn't rather play something else?" ~Thats an awefully lot of extra work to tone everything down just to accomodate for a waste of space.~ "You can play it if you like, but I'm just saying, you might not enjoy it."

And that's the nice DM's lol. You would also run into DM's who would either A- not cut anybody any slack and the party has to cover your ass the whole time or everybody dies, or B- flat out refuse you and say dual casting doesn't exist in their campaign, you cannot take a class that advances more than one casting class at a time (or some other contrived explanation, possibly including a simple "I don't feel like it" or such)

[Dragonchess Player]

hogarth wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

By your argument, neither arcane trickster nor eldritch knight are worth taking as PrCs, either.

Frankly, I don't think the arcane trickster is worth taking as a PrC; I think both a rogue with one level of wizard/sorcerer or a wizard with one level of rogue are much better options.

I think the eldritch knight is (somewhat) worth taking as a PrC, but I think that fighter 1/wizard 5 is not a very good way to enter it.

The arcane trickster is somewhat on the low end of the PrC scale. However, it's a viable choice for a bard/rogue who wants to emphasize Sneak Attacks over Bardic Music (although you'll have to wait until 10th level instead of 8th to qualify), while still increasing spellcasting and having decent skill points. This is a PrC that probably should have the requirements eased slightly (+1d6 Sneak Attack and Evasion instead of +2d6 Sneak Attack might be a good compromise), but not to the point of being a "5 and 1" (five spellcasting class levels and one other class level) unless there is a corresponding reduction in spellcasting advancement and other benefits. As it stands, an arcane trickster gains Sneak Attack increases every other level and full spellcasting progression; this is better than an eldritch knight's progression, so entry requirements need to be higher.

For the eldritch knight, wizard 5/fighter 1 (or ranger 1 if you want more skills) is the quickest way to qualify and gives up the least number of spellcasting levels. The bonus fighter feat can help the eldritch knight own the ranged touch attack role (or make it easier to meet some other combat role).

A PC that goes for mystic theurge suffers a bit in the 5th-9th level range, draws even in the 10th-13th range, and pulls ahead of the pure spellcasters around 14th+ level; not in pure power per spell, which becomes less important once you pass 12th level or so, but in their ability to affect the adventure in just about every circumstance. With Quicken Spell and smart spell choices, the mystic theurge can outperform many pure casters starting at 12th level.

[Dragonchess Player]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

You could hardly call him the one man party any more than a wizard. High level casters do get the show stopping abilities as you put it, but there is always a need for the meatshields lol. (and I say that with love, I enjoy playing a tank)

At 10th level (cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 4), a mystic theurge can outperform a straight cleric in the tank role. Add shield, true strike, blur, mirror image, blink, displacement, haste, heroism, rage, and stoneskin to the list of available buffs and lay the smack down. The synergy between spectral hand and many of the cleric's touch spells is obvious in combat, also.

[Sharoth]

Damn, but now ***I*** want to play a Mystic Theurge!!!

[LazarX]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

LazarX. Do we want classes to be so poor at what they do that they cannot fill a role in a party of four? If the Mystic Theurge is going to be worth the pages it goes on it has to be capable of effectively meeting one of those roles.

* * *

You can say it all you want, but as she reads presently, MT is a failure as a class. There should be no 5th wheel only classes.

The MT is a failure for those who insist on comparing them to straight cleric or wizard types. Not every class is going to be equally good in filling a four member slot. Like it's been pointed out, the MT can serve in a group of four, but it's going to depend a lot on the dynamics of that four. If you're in an 17 APL module that absolutely demands the use of ninth level spells, then yes you're going to have problems. And if you need to use feats such as Practised caster to meet your caster level requirements, that is a proper price if you absolutely insist on thinking on one filling in as two.

There are going to be fifth wheel classes by thier nature, or by the nature of particular adventuring parties thenselves. Bard and Sorcerer come to mind, especiallly given that the latter is going to be extremely limited in how versatle they can be, but can be very good in specific focused roles. Likewise the MT is not for those who strive to be the pinnacles of the arcane/divine pyramid but for those who seek to make a synergy from both. An MT can be a viable member of a 4 person group, but that's going to depend on several factors as any group combo would be, the composition of the rest of the party, and the nature of the adventure itself. Fitting the MT into a 4 squad is one of the challenging routes to building a 4 man but far from the hopeless task you make it out to be. But outside of mandating that players play fighter, rougue, cleric, wizard and assigning those roles directly, there are no guaranteed perfect recipies for 4-groups. Each has to find their own synergy.

[LazarX]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

And I'm sorry, but I still don't believe there should be 5th wheel only characters. Its not good when someone wants to play a character and the DM has to say something along the lines of "Are you sure? I mean, you could play that, but you'll be so much less effective than anyone else. Are you sure you wouldn't rather play something else?" ~Thats an awefully lot of extra work to tone everything down just to accomodate for a waste of space.~ "You can play it if you like, but I'm just saying, you might not enjoy it."

Any character can wind up being a fifth wheel no matter what his class, depending on the existing party composition. A sorcerer is definitely a fifth wheel when the party already has a bard and a wizard, Druids used to be fifth wheels when the adventuring was mostly dungeoneering and undead. A store bought module can be a challenge, but some of that responsibility devolves on the DM in a home campaign. Like it was said in Amber, if your players all want to play warrior types, don't build a campaign based on spellcasting.

[Bagpuss]

Late to this. I like Jess Door's suggestions, particularly the idea that, for example, a Mystic Theurge could maintain Channelling progression (this would make, as pointed out, a Cleric/Sorceror build pretty attractive).

[The Shadow]

I think the MT is a fine concept for those whose deity has the Magic domain, but it works well for all kinds of class combos.

[Pendagast]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Threeshades is very much right on that point. Its not right for the Mystic Theurge to not be able to be progressed by other classes that can progress either Arcane or Divine casting (AKA classes that advance "spellcasting level" without specification)

We just need to be certain that the abilities in the class are good enough that most people won't prestige out of it until 10th class level, so those who choose to do so earlier make sacrifices and it ends up an even choice. (For the record, I think the only core option is Loremaster anyway, not exactly a superb choice, but something to finish out a 20 level campaign at least.)

ok so why not be a 5th level mage and a 5th level cleric, instead of going into the PrC as soon as possible, then when you are done with MT, you are 20th level.

[kyrt-ryder]

The reason not to go 5/5 first, is that, A- your worthless to the party during that leveling period, functioning as 2 casters of 1/2 your level for two levels longer, which is even worse than the problem experienced by the majority of Mystic Theurges who start at 3/3. In addition, you fail as a caster, never even getting 8th level spells at all.

[Pendagast]

in the orginial rules (and intention of the game) only the most powerful mages, with the highest int even had the access to 8th and 9th level spells.

that means most mages will never cast those spells.

Back when multicalssing meant fighter/m-u; those characters were lucky to get 7th level spells, didnt make you a failure as a caster.

The intent of MT/EK/AT class types is notto make the most powerful spellcaster, but to recreate, in this rule set, those types of early multiclass characters.

As you said a level 10/10 cleric/wizard would be much weaker that either a cleric or a wizard of 20th lvl.

But the MT is a blend making up for that, for players that want to run both kinds of casters.

It is definately not intended for people that want to cast the 9th level spells. That distinction is saved for the elite few of single class mages with the best int (or CH) stats out there.

There for is you want to rip out the high level spells, dont play an MT, and the class doesnt need to be "fixed" at all

[Bagpuss]

Multiclassing was completely different with the old xp progressions, though. A 7/7 character would be about the same xp as a level 9 character, say (too lazy to go upstairs and check, but it feels rightish). Now, a 7/7 is the same xp as a level 14 character and is nowhere near as powerful. So if you want to have multiclassing in 3.x, at least of spellcasters, you need to do it through PrCs, pretty much, and they need to be rather better than they appear at first glance to be.

[kyrt-ryder]

On looking back at my prior post, I see I was mistaken, a cleric 5 / wiz 5 MT 10 would get 8th level spells, though the poor sorcerer MT is s@+% out of luck.

And for what you said about the ability scores? I have no problem with it. If the guy doesn't have at least a constant (tweaking on the current rules where ability bonuses count, I say natural and inherant only should apply) score of 19 in each relevant stat, they can't cast 9th level spells. Simple as that. That doesn't mean that the character/player should be punished. Aren't losing out on multiple 9th and a few 8th level spells per day a big enough counterbalance?

Not to mention missing out on TONS of very appealing class features.

[Pendagast]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

On looking back at my prior post, I see I was mistaken, a cleric 5 / wiz 5 MT 10 would get 8th level spells, though the poor sorcerer MT is s*~~ out of luck.

And for what you said about the ability scores? I have no problem with it. If the guy doesn't have at least a constant (tweaking on the current rules where ability bonuses count, I say natural and inherant only should apply) score of 19 in each relevant stat, they can't cast 9th level spells. Simple as that. That doesn't mean that the character/player should be punished. Aren't losing out on multiple 9th and a few 8th level spells per day a big enough counterbalance?

Not to mention missing out on TONS of very appealing class features.

Well the only reason why the MT is possible as a class is because he doesnt get access to those class features AND he has gimped spell progression in both classes in exchange for even spell progression in both classes simultaneously.

Given the new rules (and all the cool blood line and school powers) I dont think I would ever choose to play an MT, makes an ok NPC class.

[Vak]

My two cents:

Mystic theurge was and still is one of the most broken prestige classes out there.

The PF revision has made it even more powerful, especially with the spell synthesis class feature.

Yes, it loses some spellcasting levels to one of the two classes, yes, it ends at 10 levels of the progress leaving you as an 'incomplete' dual class person but, you have to stop for a second and wonder, who else has the array of spells a mystic theurge has?

The minmax way of playing a theurge is to select one of your caster classes as your main and keep the other one as the support/buff caster cass. I've seen a sorc/cleric mystic theurges annihilate parties on his own, but that one went a bit overboard with a spell called 'ruin delver's fortune' and the persitent spell feat.

other than that, you can't really call a mystic theurge an underpowered class. Overpowered is what it is, if anything, and the requirements are just fine. Personally, I am thinking of dissalowing this prc entirely since it ends up being real eye candy for any priest or wizard.

These guys seriously never run out of spells.

[kyrt-ryder]

Vak, have you even read the discussion going on in this thread? The MT is a wash. A mystic theurge cannot contribute to the party on the same level as a full caster could. They simply do not keep up in the way they need to.

I agree, with the propper optimization tricks anything can be made far more powerful than it first appears, and with its plethora of spells availiable, the MT certainly has some tricks at it's disposal for tweaking.

However, we aren't building a game for containing over-optimizers, thats the GM's job. What we're attempting to do, is build a base where everything is on a roughly level plane, where no option is more or less appealing than another. The idea, is to make the MT not such a drag at early levels where the party is dying because of them, while not overpowering them at higher levels (A delicate balance, but one NOT caused by allowing the MT to eventually reach 17 arcane, 17 divine spell access.)

As I've said before several times. In ALL the games I've played, we've allowed classes with a neutral spell casting progression (one that specifies neither Arcane nor Divine, such as the Loremaster, for example) and it has done absolutely nothing to imbalance the party. The fact is, the MT still fell behind, but not as badly because of additional class features. It was actually playable, albeit less than ideal.

[Pendagast]

I was just fuddling around building a 20th level MT to see what I could get.

7 level wizard(necromancy school)/3rd level cleric (neg energy) 10th level Mystic theurge.

Any idea of the massive army of undead this guy can control?

It's not just about what spells you have access to but how many of them and how they can accent eacother.

Ill say this one more time, if a party needs the spells of one caster to get through the encounter, the party is in over his head.

This was something that happened frequently in 1e with a fighter/mu of 3/3 and a regular Magic-user could have been 5th. Sure he had access to higher level spells, but it certainly wasnt an encounter breaker.

Trying to get to MT means you are the worst off at 5-6th level when you are 3/2 and 3/3.

Well a sixth level caster only has access to 3rd level spells and not that many anyway. The aspiring M/T has access to 2nd and its not that many spells off at such a low level (missing like 4 spells all together from one class) the number of spells are made up by the addition of the second class so we are only talking about the most powerful spells accessible, and at this low level of the game, thats not earthshaking.

MT is not a borken class. sorry you want it to be better, but its not and it shouldn't be. Pick a character class and stick with it, or tell the DM to scale the adventures better.

[Vak]

kyrt-ryder, its not that I haven't been reading the discussion, its that I do not agree, from personal experiences, that the MT needs any sort of buff.

Its perfectly balanced, in that a character who multiclasses between two caster classes should not be as good in wizardry as a wizard his level, nor should he be as good a cleric as a cleric of his level.
He is however, both. Once the difficulty of the low levels passes, the mystic theurge has the amazing ability to use both clerical and wizardly powers.
To see how powerful the MT really is, I suggest rolling one in a party that's anywhere between lv 10 and 20, and seeing what the MT does with a party. Just remember, use one casting class as a buffing one and the other for offensive purposes. If you try to optimize both classes for offense, you will not go very far.

If that doesn't convince you, think about this. With spell synthesis, an MT has the ability to cast miracle/wish.
As a DM, I grin to my ears if a player cast that. The results it can bear through rp alone are just way out there :D

I agree with Pendagast. The MT is just fine.

[Dragonborn3]

Well isn't Vak just one great Dm!

Spoiler:

"I wish for a Staff of the Magi!"
"Okay you are transported into the lair of Lord Agrippa who controls ninja zombies."
"I'm dead aren't I?"
"Yes, yes you are."

I agree with Vak diagreeing. As with the necromancer/cleric combo mentioned above, all kinds of class combos can be powerful.
You want a bout-load of spells go favored soul/sorcerer.
If you don't want to worry about who you hit with a fireball go evoker/cleric.

Point being, if the MT your playing is weak, it's because you can't play it well.

Spoiler:

If I have offended anyone with that last statement I apologize