My thoughts about this class are simple.
1.) “Can you acquire the same benefits from just using the base classes?”
2.) “Can the abilities granted from this class be mimicked by feats?”
3.) “Would you allow a base class based around the abilities granted?”
For Mystic Theurge the answers to those questions are.
1.) NO!
2.) NO!
3.) For love of sanity! NO! NO!! NO!!!
So there really isn’t anything wrong with prestige-class from what I can see.
For instance:
1.) Can you play a spellcaster with a 15th caster level in both an arcane and a divine class? No, you cannot, that would put you as a level 30 character (and if your game doesn’t go into the Epic levels that makes the point more sharp, as it would be impossible).
2.) Are there any feats that let you advance two different spellcasting classes without have to take one/either? No there are not, such a feat would be obviously broken (in terms of Overpowered, not Underpowered). Don’t think there’s much reason to say why since it’s fairly obvious.
3.) Would you really allow a base-class that would let you play two different spell casting classes with Full spellcasting progression? If you would you are an undeniable Powergamer, one needs look no farther than that. I mean why play a wizard, cleric, sorcerer, or bard if you could play a single class that allowed you to play both with no penalties, not much really.
So since the class allows you to do something you can’t do with the base classes, or with feats, and you'd have to be Mad to allow it as a base class...it is a leginamit prestige class and is fine as was/is.
From what I can tell the proper question to all this is “How do you not make the class Overpowered?”
While this is crude, if a player says: “I want to play a spellcaster.”
The first words from a Powergammer should NOT be:
“Play a Mystic Theurge.”
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.
See, from my experience, as a DM with a mystic theurge player, that the difficulty of the low levels is very difficult and vexing. It's a major hump to get over and I'd like to see that ironed out without giving them an improvement that overbalances things later on.
I can really see the benefit of having the PC able to cast 2 or 3rd level spells in one class and just have a single level in the other. Imbalance between the classes can be ironed out eventually, particularly once the prestige class is completed if so desired. But it keeps the theurge near their power level for their higher/primary class and less of a hindrance.
You guys really need to quit whining. To begin with, you must multiclass to take MT. That already puts you behind in maximum spell level.
You get a PrC that allows both spellcasting classes to advance simultaneously. It's far, far better than plain multiclassing. If you don't like the hit in max spell level, don't multiclass and don't take MT.
|
You guys really need to quit whining.
I fear that people may not be paying so much attention after being called whiners, whether or not it's a justified attack. None of which, of course, lessens the pleasure of launching the attack, but it may rather reduce the strength of the other arguments, in which regard I would point out that the aim of the Mystic Theurge is to reproduce pre-3.x multiclassing (or even dual-classing) which is no longer achievable in 3.x with the new xp cross-class progression without a Prestige Class geared toward it. So there's not a great deal of point in saying "well, it's better than multiclassing wizard and cleric in 3.x rules" when the whole reason for the PrC is basically because those rules, in general and as far as I can see, utterly, utterly blow for developing a spellcaster with more than one base class. Pointing out that Mystic Theurge is better than playing said lame core/core multiclass seems to me to be like being the prettiest corpse; of strictly limited actual value. The question of merit must surely be whether the Mystic Theurge is of comparable worth to straight single-classing (not better, ideally, but merely comparable). That won't solve the 'meleers suck at high levels' problem, but I can't see any design value* to creating a PrC that no one will take unless they're keen to take a hefty power hit.
*This isn't to say that players might not take it, and for good reasons. I'm talking about design virtue.
|
I for one feel that the lack of class abilities is what makes the MT week, not the higher level spells. I'd settle for something that would allow you to advance your old class abilities by one level every two levels through class abilities or feats, just to get some more into the class. Right now it seems like a one trick pony.
I for one feel that the lack of class abilities is what makes the MT week, not the higher level spells. I'd settle for something that would allow you to advance your old class abilities by one level every two levels through class abilities or feats, just to get some more into the class. Right now it seems like a one trick pony.
The point of mystic theurge is oodles of spells, the point of having cool class abilities is to stay single class.
The point of pathfinder game designers is you cant have both,Point taken, yet?
|
|
I for one feel that the lack of class abilities is what makes the MT week, not the higher level spells. I'd settle for something that would allow you to advance your old class abilities by one level every two levels through class abilities or feats, just to get some more into the class. Right now it seems like a one trick pony.The point of mystic theurge is oodles of spells, the point of having cool class abilities is to stay single class.
The point of pathfinder game designers is you cant have both,
Point taken, yet?
No the point is not taken. What you are saying is that the class is about all crunch and not about a balance between two life classes.
The point of being a Mystic Theurge should be about a middle ground between the two former classes. I can understand limiting or slowing down the class level abilities, but not stripping them all away. It's not like you loose the abilities that you have from before a character became the MT Class.
As far as oodles of abilities, take a look at the Arcane Archer. All I want are some, not all of the abilities that the characters used to have.
Look at it from this standpoint. It's not like the character has forsaken everything her learned or his devotion from his earlier classes. I can understand why his abilities don't come as quick to him as his class before, but I don't understand why his familiar would be stunted at the point he became a MT.
It would look like the MT should actually be called the "Obsessed Spellcaster" because it makes the class a sort of specialized generalist.
Granted I'm making an assumption about a that there is more to magic than just spellcasting. I'm sure the MT has to learn how to balance faith against arcane pursuit, the choice of having (and taking care of a familiar) or a bonded item. How do bloodlines and faith effect the the MT lifestyle.
The way its written right now, I'm not seeing the mystic in the mystic theurge. All I see is a walking staff that gets to recharge it's spell once per day.
I for one feel that the lack of class abilities is what makes the MT week, not the higher level spells. I'd settle for something that would allow you to advance your old class abilities by one level every two levels through class abilities or feats, just to get some more into the class. Right now it seems like a one trick pony.The point of mystic theurge is oodles of spells, the point of having cool class abilities is to stay single class.
The point of pathfinder game designers is you cant have both,
Point taken, yet?No the point is not taken. What you are saying is that the class is about all crunch and not about a balance between two life classes.
The point of being a Mystic Theurge should be about a middle ground between the two former classes. I can understand limiting or slowing down the class level abilities, but not stripping them all away. It's not like you loose the abilities that you have from before a character became the MT Class.
As far as oodles of abilities, take a look at the Arcane Archer. All I want are some, not all of the abilities that the characters used to have.
Look at it from this standpoint. It's not like the character has forsaken everything her learned or his devotion from his earlier classes. I can understand why his abilities don't come as quick to him as his class before, but I don't understand why his familiar would be stunted at the point he became a MT.
It would look like the MT should actually be called the "Obsessed Spellcaster" because it makes the class a sort of specialized generalist.
Granted I'm making an assumption about a that there is more to magic than just spellcasting. I'm sure the MT has to learn how to balance faith against arcane pursuit, the choice of having (and taking care of a familiar) or a bonded item. How do bloodlines and faith effect the the MT lifestyle.
The way its written right now, I'm not seeing the mystic in the mystic theurge. All I see is a walking staff that...
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time. Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.
IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.|
|
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time.
This is the crux of the matter. Many people believe that the balance is on the wrong side (also, you don't sacrifice just class features, of course, you also sacrifice spell levels; the point he's making is that he thinks that keeping some class features would, in fact, make the balance balanced).
Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.
IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.
That's effectively just a statement of the current situation, though. As the other people are talking about the situation they'd prefer over the current one -- because they believe that the current one is such that none of their players will take it and they don't see the point in classes no one takes, for example, or that if they do take it they are at a disadvantage* -- what's basically a restatement of the current situation isn't going to be very persuasive.
*Although they're still better than melee classes at high level, I guess, so the problem is more in the middle levels when they're learning 2nd level spells as everyone else to 6th level.
|
|
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time. Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.
IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.
Your missing the my point. I don't want to add that much power to the class, what I want to do is offer the class a way of doing something other than just casting a spell.
There should be a way to have class features and play a MT. It's been said many times before and it will be said again.
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time. Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.
IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.Your missing the my point. I don't want to add that much power to the class, what I want to do is offer the class a way of doing something other than just casting a spell.
There should be a way to have class features and play a MT. It's been said many times before and it will be said again.
well good luck on that,you're not going to get it.
The MT doesn't need to be fixed just because people want to cast higher level spells, or have more powers. Changes like that would make everyone play the MT.
|
|
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time. Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.
IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.Your missing the my point. I don't want to add that much power to the class, what I want to do is offer the class a way of doing something other than just casting a spell.
There should be a way to have class features and play a MT. It's been said many times before and it will be said again.
well good luck on that,you're not going to get it.
The MT doesn't need to be fixed just because people want to cast higher level spells, or have more powers. Changes like that would make everyone play the MT.
I hadn't realized you had been hired Pend. Now that you've that you have to get some work done, perhaps you can let the rest of us go on about our discussion on what we can do to fix the MT.
|
|
It would be interesting to see what additions could be made before "everyone wanted to be a Mystic Theurge". I mean, would "retain familiar progression" be enough? I doubt it. Presumably there's something between no class features retained and all class features retained that serves as some sort of balancing point. Of course and however, given the various ways of getting into the class, whether there's any way of making sense of it all in the class, I doubt; feats is probably a better way of doing it, because then there doesn't have to be a large table of possibilities in the MT class description (and clearly it couldn't really easily be "pick a class feature and keep it going" because some class features are better than others) and although it might be manageable otherwise for the core classes, with the splats there will be many ways to get into the class.
This is the crux of the matter. Many people believe that the balance is on the wrong side (also, you don't sacrifice just class features, of course, you also sacrifice spell levels; the point he's making is that he thinks that keeping some class features would, in fact, make the balance balanced).
You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the crux of the matter is that all of your sacrifices are extremely front-loaded. I think that the Ultimate Magus prestige class (from Complete Mage) is much better designed in how you enter it.
So you can start the class as a Wizard 4/Sorcerer 1 (i.e. one level behind on your best spellcasting class). But by the time you're a Wizard 4/Sorcerer 1/Ultimate Magus 10, you have the spellcasting abilities of an 11th level wizard and an 11th level sorcerer, just like a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 9 can cast as a 12th level wizard and a 12th level cleric. It's even more punishing, in a sense, but it's less painful because the punishment is spread out over the lifetime of the character.
YMMV, of course.
Me: "You guys really need to quit whining."
I fear that people may not be paying so much attention after being called whiners, whether or not it's a justified attack. None of which, of course, lessens the pleasure of launching the attack, but it may rather reduce the strength of the other arguments, in which regard I would point out that the aim of the Mystic Theurge is to reproduce pre-3.x multiclassing (or even dual-classing) which is no longer achievable in 3.x with the new xp cross-class progression without a Prestige Class geared toward it.Pre-3.x multiclassing had:
- racial level limits lower than 20 levels combined (except gnome cleric/illusionist, perhaps)
- divided hit dice
- divided xp = slowed progression with occasional jumps leveling more than one class close together.
- progression in first class barred after taking second class
- no hit dice/points from second class until exceed level of the first class
- no xp awarded if abilities of first class were used while level of second class is less than level of first class.
The question of merit must surely be whether the Mystic Theurge is of comparable worth to straight single-classing (not better, ideally, but merely comparable).
But what these people want is something better than a single-class pure caster. "MT is weaker at the highest level spells, and doesn't get the highest level spells in one class." If that bothers you* (in the generic use), don't claim MT needs to be fixed, just say it isn't what you* want. If you* want to be 20th/20th Mage/Cleric in some epic campaign more power to you*, I just hope the GM makes you* earn every bit of it.
Me: "You guys really need to quit whining."
I fear that people may not be paying so much attention after being called whiners, whether or not it's a justified attack. None of which, of course, lessens the pleasure of launching the attack, but it may rather reduce the strength of the other arguments, in which regard I would point out that the aim of the Mystic Theurge is to reproduce pre-3.x multiclassing (or even dual-classing) which is no longer achievable in 3.x with the new xp cross-class progression without a Prestige Class geared toward it.Pre-3.x multiclassing had:Pre-3.x dual-classing had:
- racial level limits lower than 20 levels combined (except gnome cleric/illusionist, perhaps)
- divided hit dice
- divided xp = slowed progression with occasional jumps leveling more than one class close together.
You wanna go back to that? Go ahead, I'll take MT any day. Getting ten levels of both divine and arcane spellcasting progression is HUGE already. Lamenting limitations that can scarcely outweigh that benefit really is whining.
- progression in first class barred after taking second class
- no hit dice/points from second class until exceed level of the first class
- no xp awarded if abilities of first class were used while level of second class is less than level of first class.
The question of merit must surely be whether the Mystic Theurge is of comparable worth to straight single-classing (not better, ideally, but merely comparable).But what these people want is something better than a single-class pure caster. "MT is weaker at the highest level spells, and doesn't get the highest level spells in one class." If that bothers you* (in the generic use), don't claim MT needs to be fixed, just say it isn't what you* want. If you* want to be 20th/20th Mage/Cleric in some epic campaign more power to you*, I just hope the GM makes you* earn every bit of it.
oh but see the 20th cleric/ 20th mage would NOT be good enough because at 20th level of wizzardry, they would fall too far behind a 40th level wizard (because, of course they are 40th level soy the would be fighting 40 Cr monsters), and that means multi classing is broke too and needs to be fixed!
|
|
Pre-3.x multiclassing had:
- racial level limits lower than 20 levels combined (except gnome cleric/illusionist, perhaps)
- divided hit dice
- divided xp = slowed progression with occasional jumps leveling more than one class close together.
The huge issue, though, was that the multiclass progression combined better with the old class xp progressions. A 6/6 magic-user/cleric didn't take as many xp as a 12th-level magic user, unlike the current situation. That was a pretty big deal and, so far as I am aware, is a big motivation behind the combo classes like Mystic Theurge.
I don't know why anyone's getting excited about this, though. It's only a disagreement on whether a class is good enough.
Pre-3.x dual-classing had:You wanna go back to that? Go ahead, I'll take MT any day. Getting ten levels of both divine and arcane spellcasting progression is HUGE already.
- progression in first class barred after taking second class
- no hit dice/points from second class until exceed level of the first class
- no xp awarded if abilities of first class were used while level of second class is less than level of first class.
Again, the issue of the two different xp progressions is there rather than cumulative as in 3.x, and it's still a big issue. The old dual-classing system was sort of sucky, I thought, but I still think it's better than straight multiclassing in 3.5 where both classes are spellcasters.
Lamenting limitations that can scarcely outweigh that benefit really is whining.
Why would anyone 'whine' about it? They just disagree with you and it's not real, it's an argument about the desirability of a D&D class.
I'm starting a group using the beta fairly soon, and we're creating characters at eighth level.
It has occurred to me watching character creation process, however, that wizards and clerics multiclassing into prestige classes that continue their spell progressions get a bit of a hose-down in Pathfinder.
In 3.5, cleric domain spells and specialist wizard bonus spells are part of their respective classes' spell progressions; thus they continue to accrue after the wizard or cleric multiclasses into a spellcasting prestige class. Now they are a separate subsystem tied into wizard and cleric class levels. While I may be wrong, it appears to me that under the beta rules wizards and clerics no longer get these spells after multiclassing into a prestige class--even a class that builds on their previous class's spellcasting abilities.
Am I wrong in this assertion? If so, please let me know.
If I'm correct, this amounts to a 20-25% reduction in total number of spells gained over 10 levels of prestige class progression . . . which frankly seems a little harsh -- especially for the Mystic Theurge, who in 3.5 doubled her spellcasting repotiore at the cost of her other class abilities and upper-level spells, and in Pathfinder gets only 1.5-1.6x the number of spells she would have if she'd stayed a straight caster at the MUCH steeper cost of cool domain and specialist abilities.
Furthermore if specialists stop getting their bonus spells under prestige classes, yet continue to face the cost of having restricted schools at higher levels, this makes the generalist look like the clear winner: he doesn't get bonus spells at prestige levels, but neither does he suffer restricted schools for his entire career in exchange for this non-benefit.
AHA! SEE now THERE is a legitimate playtest argument for something that needs to be fixed.
Hmm yes the MT's purpose is to maximize the number of spells castable, I never did really notice where they moved the bonus spells like that, curious, maybe it could be written into MT class description ans a clarification or exception to the rule so you don't loose those spells. But then that wpuld apply to any class that adds to spell caster levels like eldrtich knight, arcane trickster and so on.
I was always under the assumption that the bonus spells beyond what was accrued at base levels were lost. This is one of the reasons that the players in my games have avoided it. I really think that there could be some review performed on this that could have some value.
Check out the example at the bottom of the WotC page dragonborn3 just linked to. You'll see that Deggum the Theurge has both a third-level domain spell, and a third-level specialist spell. That's the way I've always seen it ruled.
I'm really unclear as to whether or not pathfinder prestige classes (and Theurges in particular) get bonus specialist bonus spells, but losing one spell per level (two for the Theurge) in the transition from 3.5 constitutes a hefty (if not very obvious) nerf.
Pre-3.x multiclassing had:
- racial level limits lower than 20 levels combined (except gnome cleric/illusionist, perhaps)
- divided hit dice
- divided xp = slowed progression with occasional jumps leveling more than one class close together.
The huge issue, though, was that the multiclass progression combined better with the old class xp progressions. A 6/6 magic-user/cleric didn't take as many xp as a 12th-level magic user, unlike the current situation. That was a pretty big deal and, so far as I am aware, is a big motivation behind the combo classes like Mystic Theurge.
If 3.x/PF allowed 1e/2e style multi, the wiz/6-cleric/6 would require about as much xp as a 10th level character. 10th character level for MT would be a wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/4, effective CL wiz/7-cleric/7, which is better.
I don't know why anyone's getting excited about this, though. It's only a disagreement on whether a class is good enough.
They are complaining about problems inherent to multiclassing that MT almost completely negates, wanting them to be completely eliminated.
Well, at least now somebody has brought up domain/specialty spells/powers being class abilities in PF instead of spells granted, something of substance to discuss.
Perhaps MT could allow the character choice of one class ability from the corresponding (base+MT) level.
|
|
The level limits in 1e were mostly irrelevant given how damn long it took to hit them for moderately optimal multiclass choices. I used to look at them somewhat warily during character design, but never reached them so it wasn't a big deal for me and, so far as I am aware, nor was it for most players.
With regards to the issue of complaints/whining, I again say that I don't know why anyone would get excited, given that it's a disagreement on game mechanics and it's clearly down to taste and opinion.
|
|
If 3.x/PF allowed 1e/2e style multi, the wiz/6-cleric/6 would require about as much xp as a 10th level character. 10th character level for MT would be a wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/4, effective CL wiz/7-cleric/7, which is better.
In 1e, a 6/6 multiclassed Cleric/Magic-user required 80 000 xp and you were in fact a 6/5 Cleric/Magic-User at 55 000xp. Compare with the xp required to make level 7 and 8 in Cleric -- 55 000xp and 110 000xp -- and making 7th and 8th in Magic-User -- 60 000xp and 90 000xp.
So, basically, 1e multiclassing has at this stage cost you a single spellcasting level, ie, your full-class party Cleric or Magic-User is at this stage one level ahead of you. So that's a pretty big difference and it arises from the old xp progression; no one's calling for the same style multiclassing in 3.5 with the existing 3.5 progression (so I am not entirely sure why you raise it, although when you do you haven't considered the value, or otherwise, of keeping class features), even if it were adapted as you say. They are calling for the PrCs that effect multiclassing a la 1/2e to be closer to the power levels of multiclassing in 1/2e, at least for the Magic-User(Wizard)/Cleric combo. Whether that's the right ambition or not is, of course, a matter of opinion.
I was always under the assumption that the bonus spells beyond what was accrued at base levels were lost. This is one of the reasons that the players in my games have avoided it. I really think that there could be some review performed on this that could have some value.
I have always read it and understood that you still got the bonus spells as your "caster level" increases but your level in the previous classes did not.
Sot here for familiars, undead tunring, domain powers, etc stopped leveling, but everything to do with spells per level and spells per day, continued to climb and scale etc.
I will assume the bonus spells are part of the common spell progression for the respective classes, it makes sense to me, it seems more to be an unintended side-effect of rearranging the class features.
I think the powerlevel of the class is well enough as is, and people in my gaming group do like it as is, I have at least one player playing one now.
Though it is a prestige class, nothing prohibits anyone from making your own using those guidelines, if you dont feel it is underpowered but lacks some flavour try exchanging some features, work with your DM (or player).
I remember a feat allowing any arcane class to take a familiar, using all his arcane caster levels stacked together for the purpose of determining the powers the familiar gets.
There are some necromantic variants out there but those all trade casting ability for other granted abilities.
(player's guide to faerun and libris mortis I think)
I remember a feat allowing any arcane class to take a familiar, using all his arcane caster levels stacked together for the purpose of determining the powers the familiar gets.
Obtain Familiar perhaps?
If 3.x/PF allowed 1e/2e style multi, the wiz/6-cleric/6 would require about as much xp as a 10th level character. 10th character level for MT would be a wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/4, effective CL wiz/7-cleric/7, which is better.
In 1e, a 6/6 multiclassed Cleric/Magic-user required 80 000 xp and you were in fact a 6/5 Cleric/Magic-User at 55 000xp.
Well, then, in 3.x/PF, if you could divide 80k into two classes at 40k they would be 9th/9th. Using Character Level 80k is 13th, wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/7, 1 casting level higher.
They are calling for the PrCs that effect multiclassing a la 1/2e to be closer to the power levels of multiclassing in 1/2e, at least for the Magic-User(Wizard)/Cleric combo. Whether that's the right ambition or not is, of course, a matter of opinion.
So let me get this: 1e/2e multiclassing is nearly twice as good as single classing (12/7ths in the one example). d20 devised multiclassing that isn't overpowered, so that one has to give up something to take the option. MT allows a far greater measure of spellcasting, comparable to or even better than 1e/2e style multiclassing if it were allowed, at the expense of other class features. And people complain that isn't good enough.
(!) I know, let's just make a PrC for each pair of core classes, and give it all the powers of both classes! There, problem solved.
In 1e, a 6/6 multiclassed Cleric/Magic-user required 80 000 xp and you were in fact a 6/5 Cleric/Magic-User at 55 000xp.Well, then, in 3.x/PF, if you could divide 80k into two classes at 40k they would be 9th/9th. Using Character Level 80k is 13th, wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/7, 1 casting level higher.
Pathfinder has a different experience table (three, in fact). Under the "Fast" experience table, 80K experience would be level 10 and 40K experience would be level 8.
|
|
So let me get this: 1e/2e multiclassing is nearly twice as good as single classing (12/7ths in the one example). d20 devised multiclassing that isn't overpowered, so that one has to give up something to take the option. MT allows a far greater measure of spellcasting, comparable to or even better than 1e/2e style multiclassing if it were allowed, at the expense of other class features. And people complain that isn't good enough.
(!) I know, let's just make a PrC for each pair of core classes, and give it all the powers of both classes! There, problem solved.
You're quoting me, but I am not sure why. You appear to be addressing someone else.
Ouch, the PF xp scale makes 3.x/PF multiclassing a ridiculously huge waste after level 6 or so.
Ouch, the PF xp scale makes 3.x/PF multiclassing a ridiculously huge waste after level 6 or so.
Not really; the amount of xp you get for each encounter increases appropriately as well. The advancement rate is roughly the same as it is in 3.5.
The point is that the AD&D, 3.5 and Pathfinder experience tables are completely different, so there's not much point in comparing what "80,000" and "40,000" mean in each system.
I was not comparing xp levels across systems, only within the same system (please re-read).
I was comparing what it took to get to 6/6 in 3.x base xp scale, if 1e/2e style multiclassing were permitted, and what you get from 3.x base xp scale with MT. You get a higher casting level, just not all the other class features.
Those who complain that it isn't good enough apparently want a PrC that just gives them all the powers of both classes at once, which I equated to "whining."
I was not comparing xp levels across systems, only within the same system (please re-read).
You were dividing an amount of experience in two. That will have drastically different effects on level depending on what kind of scale you're using (exponential, logarithmic, linear, etc.).
So let me get this: 1e/2e multiclassing is nearly twice as good as single classing (12/7ths in the one example). d20 devised multiclassing that isn't overpowered, so that one has to give up something to take the option. MT allows a far greater measure of spellcasting, comparable to or even better than 1e/2e style multiclassing if it were allowed, at the expense of other class features. And people complain that isn't good enough.
I completely agree with your point here Straybow, however I just wanted to point out that while 1e/2e multiclassing was quite good, a 6/6 character was no where *near* 12/7 times as strong as a 7th level character.
This is because (most) class features overlapped and didn't stack - hit points were averaged not added, attack bonus and saves were the better progression of each (not cumulative like in 3rd), among other things. Spell casting did of course "stack" in that you got a lot more spells.
Gestalt class combos (from Unearthed Arcana - description available in at d20srd.org) which do combine two classes and take the best of each are actually quite a bit *stronger* than 1e/2e multiclassing.
My fix would be to give them a +1 Caster level at 4th and 8th.
This would just be to caster level and would not grant addition spells. Having them end up only -1 caster level from a full caster (wizard or cleric). Sure they would not have access to as high of spell levels as full casters but they would be far more versitile.
<snip>
Other than that I think the versatility gained by a MT makes up for the loss in power and delayed access to higher level spells. The whole point of the Mystic Theurge is trading power for versatility.
While I very much like the fix here (if indeed "fix" is the appropriate term), I would houserule it that the Mystic Theurge would gain +1 to each caster level at, say, level 5, and that would be it.
Eliminate a small portion of the drag on the caster level while still keeping some of the sacrifice necessary to gain versatility.
|
|
I was not comparing xp levels across systems, only within the same system (please re-read).
I was comparing what it took to get to 6/6 in 3.x base xp scale, if 1e/2e style multiclassing were permitted, and what you get from 3.x base xp scale with MT. You get a higher casting level, just not all the other class features.
Those who complain that it isn't good enough apparently want a PrC that just gives them all the powers of both classes at once, which I equated to "whining."
I don't think that giving that any one is asking for all of the class abilities, just some of them at a reducesd rate or a methiod of spending feats to partially advance some of thier former abilities.
|
|
Yeah, in essence, the argument is divided first into "Mystic Theurge isn't good enough" vs "Oh yes it is", and then (with much less heat) the former group are debating how they might make it better. Pretty much everyone know what the reasoning behind the PrC is and what the design balance is supposed to be -- no need to point out that you make sacrifice X for gain Y, when the debate is not about whether that happens but more about whether Y is worth X or not -- in any case, I think.
Yeah, in essence, the argument is divided first into "Mystic Theurge isn't good enough" vs "Oh yes it is", and then (with much less heat) the former group are debating how they might make it better.
Specifically, the argument is divided into "Mystic Theurge is painful to qualify for" vs "Mystic Theurge is a powerful class".
Note that those two positions are not mutually exclusive!
Specifically, the argument is divided into "Mystic Theurge is painful to qualify for" vs "Mystic Theurge is a powerful class".
Note that those two positions are not mutually exclusive!
This is quite true on both aspects. Without stacking caster levels (which I personally allow (via Magic Rating)) the 5th and 6th levels are a bit rough - 7th coasts back up, by 8th you're pretty much fine - but that's a lot of gaming.
I think it's "worth it", and also that the only way to really fix without granting too much is overly complicated (i.e. allow access at 2nd level spells and 1st level spells (arcane or divine, either way), then not boost the high caster at two levels.)
Most people complain about not getting high level spells.
I dont understand, why is it not possible to choose a primary spell casting class like wizard, and be a 7th level wizard/ 3rd level cleric /10th level mystic theurge there by having an arcane caster level of 17th and getting access to 9th level wizard spells. while having the casting ability of a 13th level cleric to boot! Thereby being able to cast 7th level spells from the cleric list?
It seems to me too many seem to be blind sided by the idea, that the arcane and divine levels need to be equal (5th/5th/10th) which totally gimps the class.
Personally, although I have never played one. I think a 7th level druid/ 3rd level sorceror/10th level mystic theurge would woop a lot of tookus!
Personally, although I have never played one. I think a 7th level druid/ 3rd level sorceror/10th level mystic theurge would woop a lot of tookus!
Unfortunately, the requirement of 2nd level spells from both arcane and divine casting means that a sorcerer/mystic theurge cannot gain 9th level spells when they hit 20th level (going by the RAW). The best you can get is cleric (or druid) 6/sorcerer 4/mystic theurge 10, which gives CL 16 divine (8th level spells) and 14 arcane (7th level spells), or cleric (or druid) 3/sorcerer 7/mystic theurge 10, which gives CL 13 divine (7th level spells) and 17th arcane (8th level spells for the sorcerer).
However, the druid 6/sorcerer 4/mystic theurge 10 gains a few synergies in PFRPG (like free Eschew Materials as a sorcerer and extraordinary and supernatural abilities that can be used in wild shape) that may be worth the slight hit to spell progression compared to the "normal" cleric/wizard version.
Have to admit I'm no fan of how PrCs have digressed,
from original intent and design as elite forms of core classes.
It's been torn off in different directions by sporadic inspiration, not implying that's a bad thing.
There seems a need to sift, to reclassify many as Variant Classes instead and others as Multiclass Variants.
Only then can proper analysis or comparison be done for appropriate features.
There is a need for Pathfinder to have Prestige and Variant guidelines, defining parameters and restrictions.
We are missing the tools needed to resolve issues like MT in mutual agreeance as a result.
At the moment, debates appear based on "gut-feel" vindicated with selective logic. I repeat "appear".
Not saying that's wrong, nor that anyone is, it just comes across as having less substance, so less productive.
|
|
Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge are both multiclass variants and are both in the core rules...
It seems to me that the primary role PrCs fill is allowing for something similar(ish) to old-style multiclassing. The 'elite' role is OK but for it to be elite and yet still not outpower the core classes from which it draws its members can be a fine needle to thread.
My dear fellas,
don't hesitate...Mystic Theurge is fine with small exceptions, even Ultimate Magus is good if his progression is leveling both caster classes at the same level, but if you want to play some sort of this Prestige Classes I would go for True Necromancer.
It is very similar to the Mystic Theurge Scheme and gets alot of extra stuff which is very important especially for a necromancer specialist/cleric. And you maybe loose 3 Casterlevel of arcane and divine as well some schools of magic. But with the progression 3wiz/3clr/14true.necro you get at last your bonus to caster levels for casting from the necromancy school which should be the mainframe of this class. If your DM has not to much restrictions I would go also for the race Illumian.
Mystic Theurge 10 level
(lower casterlevel for versatility)
True Necromancer 14 level
(lower casterlevel for versatility and get more casterlevels for the necromancy school of either divine and arcane)
HOW CAN WE FIX IT?
... well if the Mystic Theurge is not at least getting some nice features ...
It's an easy choice...go for True Necromancer :) !!!
Personally, although I have never played one. I think a 7th level druid/ 3rd level sorceror/10th level mystic theurge would woop a lot of tookus!Unfortunately, the requirement of 2nd level spells from both arcane and divine casting means that a sorcerer/mystic theurge cannot gain 9th level spells when they hit 20th level (going by the RAW). The best you can get is cleric (or druid) 6/sorcerer 4/mystic theurge 10, which gives CL 16 divine (8th level spells) and 14 arcane (7th level spells), or cleric (or druid) 3/sorcerer 7/mystic theurge 10, which gives CL 13 divine (7th level spells) and 17th arcane (8th level spells for the sorcerer).
However, the druid 6/sorcerer 4/mystic theurge 10 gains a few synergies in PFRPG (like free Eschew Materials as a sorcerer and extraordinary and supernatural abilities that can be used in wild shape) that may be worth the slight hit to spell progression compared to the "normal" cleric/wizard version.
a 17th level wizard would get one 9th level spell, clerics and druids of 17th level also get one 9th level spell. Sorcerors need to be 18th, so they are bummin.
So my above examples of 7th druid/3rd sorc/10th MT or 7th wiz/3rd cleric/10 MT.IF sorc is your main class you are stuck with 8th level spells.
a 20th level character would need a 28 INT or WIS (respectively) to get a second 9th level spell.
seeing as any 20th level straight caster would onlyever get 4-5 9th level spells per day, getting 2 doesnt seem that bad.
But according to pathfinder rules it is possible to get 9thlevel spell access with all but the sorceror base class.