|
Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?
Because they are effectively not equal to their level.
An EK is at least two caster levels behind a pure caster, the BAB of a 3/4s class or less, and no in-class way to increase accuracy other than spells, which are worst than a pure caster.
A Trickster is three caster levels behind a pure caster (two with a rogue/brawler), and is less effective with touch sneak attacks than a single class rogue with major magic and the elf FCB.
A MT is a minimum of three caster levels behind a pure wizard or cleric and doesn't have the melee ability of the cleric to fall back on. A Witch, Shaman, Druid, or Theologian cleric can fill the niche of the MT without sacrificing any caster level and adding additional class abilities.
The real issue is that Prestige Classes are invalidated again.Since the game is about having fun, the classes could only be invalid if you could not have fun. I would say that being a sidekick or obviously very inferior to the other PCs, would qualify as "not fun", but honestly the current versions of the PrCs are not even close to sidekick status. They might not be AS good as straight classes (its no secret they were never intended to be AS good) but they are seem capable of participating in CR appropriate challenges.
Perhaps you could explain why you can't have fun playing an EK, Trickster, or MT? Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?
Part of the idea process behind Prestige Classes is that you pay for your time early in for a payout later in the process.
Multiclassing early is generally less effective and when the end result is still behind the base line, it shouldn't come off as a surprise people find playing Prestige classes to still be a bit of a chore.
It's the little things adding up. Being more stat-dependent(aka MAD), having a lower caster level, and finding yourself just short of accomplishing many different tasks is what generates this inadequacy or feeling thereof.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, do you think posts like yours help the designers make a better game and encourage them to interact with the community, or do you think they have the opposite effect?
Edit: /EndRant
Let us have a thought experiment:
(1) you make something people like, it has bunches of moving parts, and you sell lots of other little bits that hook on and also have moving parts.
(2) people like your stuff so much they form communities and you also foster a community building effort on the website for your stuff.
(3) you offer ideas for people to do stuff more effectively. Most people just figure it out for themselves but you also have a marketing wing that does "Your Stuff" TM, officially and they must take your suggestions on how to do your stuff.
(4) you begin to get request after request about your ideas on how to do stuff more effectively, eventually your stuff collection gets so large that there is no longer a default expectation that any one thing will work with any other one thing.
(5) you offer an idea that lets some stuff work together that didn't used to. Some people think it looks ugly, even though it works now and before it didn't.
(6) you release a major stuff package and most people find that this stuff isn't up to snuff. You get A BUNCH of requests for ideas on how to make it work AT ALL, let alone ideas on how to make it work efficiently.
(7) you are overwhelmed by requests. You cannot possibly answer all of them.
(8) you retract your idea from #5 and now stuff that used to work doesn't work again.
Now, let us imagine that you are your own customer. You have a couple hundred bucks tied up in your stuff and you get frustrated about being seemingly ingored by yourself.
You complain to yourself and you let the frustration that is tied up (1) being passionate about something you like, (2) being invested both with time and money, (3) feeling ignored, and (4) feeling like your trust in stuff's quality has been misplaced, (5) people telling you that they are glad your stuff doesn't work because it was ugly, (7) being called names by people in the community because of how you like to use stuff; gets the better of you.
You make a snippy post about how it makes you feel. Your post points blame at the the maker of stuff. You feel justified.
The maker of stuff (still you) reads that post and decides to not engage with the community because some of them are "being mean."
Maybe that seems reasonable to you. If so, kudos. To me it is a cop-out and dodging a responsibility to community that you yourself have fostered and encouraged. Sometimes being an adult means you must look squarely in the eye something you don't want to see and react in a calm manner and fulfill your responsibility. I find the idea that, "but people are mean to me," to be an excuse for an adult to shirk their responcibility.
YMMV.
THERE'S NO SLEEP IN THE BOX!What ever helps you sleep at nightI'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me.Quit bugging her about how the forumites are mean to you! Shame on you!
:)
Just burn the box?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?Because they are effectively not equal to their level.
All of the same statements could be made about any multi-class character who has some martial and some magic, but they are all over the place and seem to work fine in the game. Why are PrCs sooooo much worse that people are saying that they are "garbage" and such?
Are people really unable to handle level appropriate encounters with PrC characters? Does having to do a couple levels of some casting class instead of picking a drow or whatever really ruin your ability to participate at an adequate level in the game?
EDIT:
(5) you offer an idea that lets some stuff work together that didn't used to.
more...
You complain to yourself and you let the frustration that is tied up... more...
PrCs work just fine, they are just not that among the "more powerful" options, but if that is REALLY important to you, just play a full caster. There are many to choose from. Your complaints seem to be about not being able to access what is openly known to be a lesser option (PrCs), based on the reversal of a temporary FAQ (SLAs), and the requirement to take a few levels of what are generally considered the most powerful classes in the game, instead of selecting specific races.
It does if your GM makes challenging, appropriate encounters and runs them intelligently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?Because they are effectively not equal to their level.All of the same statements could be made about any multi-class character who has some martial and some magic, but they are all over the place and seem to work fine in the game. Why are PrCs sooooo much worse that people are saying that they are "garbage" and such.
Are people really unable to handle level appropriate encounters with PrC characters? Does having to do a couple levels of some casting class really ruin your ability to participate at an adequate level in the game?
As a simple mental exercise.
Some multiclasses have more synergy than others. A Barbarian who takes a level of Alchemist gets access to Mutagen that lets him kill stuff harder as his main role as well as Standard Action Enlarge Person extracts.
A Fighter and Wizard multiclass isn't a entirely synergistic multiclass. If you are casting a spell that doesn't utilize your BAB, you have essentially wasted the martial aspect of your multiclass. Likewise, swinging your blade around without a buff spell in place and/or get dispelled, your magic aspect has similarly been mitigated.
Some Multiclasses are done specifically because they synergize well by blending your action economy Paladin and Oracle is a top dog due to the popular Oradin build with it's swift and free action healing.
And believe it or not, those lowered levels from multiclasses does indeed effect your ability to participate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a couple of random thoughts, not hugely related to most of the discussions that have been going on here.
MT/AT PrC's should get viable Base Classes to replace them (sort of like how the Magus kicks the EK to the kerb in almost every respect as a fighter/wizard hybrid). I'm sure people would moan about something (like, say, how the hypothetical Mystic Theurge Base Class is a spontaneous caster and they really, really, really wanted it to be prepared), but after the ACG showed (in many ways) how it's possible to write a full hybrid class, the hybrid PrCs are looking a bit long in the tooth, design-wise.
PrCs need a look over. Sean K Reynolds explains in one of his youtube videos why Paizo aimed up on Archetypes in favour of PrCs (I happen to understand and accept his reasoning), and I am personally of the solid opinion that a PrC should represent the specific focus of a character. I also subscribe to the idea that most Prestige Classes should be world- or culture-specific. But also that the abilities gained by a Prestige Class should match the abilities of Core/Base classes over the PrC's lowest-entry level range (in other words, the 1st level abilities of a PrC that you can get into at 6th level should be as good as: 3rd level spells, Manyshot) and up to the maximum lowest-entry level range (you're going to hit 10th level in the PrC at level 15, which is 8th level spells, and some moderately boring stuff from other classes).
Armchair (or at least 5-point-base comfy office-chair) design theory aside, I agree with this FAQ in general (since I always thought "huh, so, if you want to get into this PrC, you either slog through the traditional way or... take this feat/race/class-feature that lets you sneak in early! Yeah, I don't like that"). I think it let certain options access PrCs a) earlier than the game actually intends, and b) shouldn't have been restricted to only those options - either open up early entry to everyone, somehow, or don't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define ability to participate at an adequate level in the game. Yes you have TONS of spells as a MT. Do they have saves or allow SR? If so you might as well not learn them because they will not land. Your lowered progression and MAD stats mean that you are much less likely to have a DC or CL check that matters. So you hunt for spells that are either buffs or don't rely on spell level to be effective. So you end up being less versatile in spell selection than a single class caster because more than half of your spell choices are neutered by your low CL, spell progression, and ability scores.
I'm getting flashbacks to several years ago, when WOTC ruled that Combat Damage would no-longer use The Stack in MTG, and people were FUUUUUUUUUURIOUUUUUUUUS.
Admittedly, it really only affected, like, a handful of cards, only 2-3 of which were regularly played in Legacy (the format where it mattered the most, and they weren't extreme staples, either).
Obviously, people didn't leave MTG in mobs
People won't leave Pathfinder in mobs.
In fact, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Pathfinder players weren't even aware of the original FAQ in the first place, and would probably wonder what the rabble is about this reversal.
Okay, I understand people are upset that they can't play EKs, ATs, or MTs at very early levels.
I kinda also question why they didn't just play one of the several Magus archetypes that have been available since before this ruling that do the job of an EK better than an EK.
Arcane Trickster does seem like a shame to lose out on, but the earliest you could get into that was 5th level, anyway.
Maybe they'll print a Bard archetype that either allows easy access into the class, or the Rogue will have a new Rogue Trick in Pathfinder Unchained that gives it ACTUAL spellcasting, albeit minimally.
Or we'll get a Rogue-Bard Hybrid class, and the Trickster will either have a single early-access class, or will just outright replace it.
The Mystic Theurge seems a little screwed over, but the entire intent was for players to have to mix and match divine and arcane classes, after all.
I kinda also question why they didn't just play one of the several Magus archetypes that have been available since before this ruling that do the job of an EK better than an EK.
Well a Magus has a much more limited spell list and is less useful in general towards Utility since it's spell list is highly geared towards combat. And the Wizard Spell list gets updated far more frequently than the Magus list.
Well a Magus has a much more limited spell list and is less useful in general towards Utility since it's spell list is highly geared towards combat. And the Wizard Spell list gets updated far more frequently than the Magus list.
I kinda also question why they didn't just play one of the several Magus archetypes that have been available since before this ruling that do the job of an EK better than an EK.
But, then, why not just play a Wizard with a level-dip into Fighter or something, since you're sacrificing several levels of spell progression anyway?
Or play a Blade Adept Arcanist, since you kinda can have your cake and eat it, too?
I get that people like to play classes that aren't ridiculously optimal (I still like my rogue), but there's sub-optimal, and then there's "?porque?"
Define ability to participate at an adequate level in the game.
Contribute approx 25% of required effort to defeat an APL-1, APL 0, APL+1, and APL+2 encounters (or some other variation) before resting.
I believe MOST people who post frequently on these message boards could build a Fighter/Wizard, or Cleric/Wizard, or whatever who could fulfill that requirement. I think the few who could not could easily do it with access to the PRCs. It would be a little harder with the Rogue/Wizard, or Arcane Trickster, but not much.EDIT:
Yes you have TONS of spells as a MT. Do they have saves or allow SR? If so you might as well not learn them because they will not land. Your lowered progression and MAD stats mean that you are much less likely to have a DC or CL check that matters.
If it were true that you NEEDED a high DC or that beating SR was a huge struggle, you would have a good point. But the math of the game just does not back up your statements. Beating monsters weak saves is EASY even for lower level spells and beating (or avoiding) SR is also just not that hard. Really, things are not as difficult as you make them out to be.
as a side note, the ACG was the perfect place to to do an arcane/divine hybrid class instead of another warrior-priest.
I mean, they kinda did. That's what the Shaman is (Witch/Oracle).
And people seem to really like the Shaman.
No, it doesn't cast both Arcane AND Divine spells, but it's got a lot of Arcane spells refitted to be Divine spells, so there's that.
What it DID need, perhaps way more than a Bard-barian (sorry, Skald) was a Bard-Rogue hybrid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?Because they are effectively not equal to their level.All of the same statements could be made about any multi-class character who has some martial and some magic, but they are all over the place and seem to work fine in the game. Why are PrCs sooooo much worse that people are saying that they are "garbage" and such?
Are people really unable to handle level appropriate encounters with PrC characters? Does having to do a couple levels of some casting class instead of picking a drow or whatever really ruin your ability to participate at an adequate level in the game?
Multi-class characters can indeed be weaker than single class characters. Prestige classes are also weaker than base classes.
So a Prestige Class more often than not requires multiclassing to enter.
So now you have multiclass (weaker option) with Prestige classes (weaker option) meaning it's a double weakness.
Oh, but wait! There's more! Fairly often the multiclass and prestige class require spread out stat requirements without compensating for it. So you end up with lower stats all around, and this means that if one of your classes is a caster, you have lower DCs on your spells and lower spells available.
So weaker stats, weaker multiclass, weaker prestige class. Very often this tends to mean that your character will feel overshadowed and/or inconsequential in encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as a side note, the ACG was the perfect place to to do an arcane/divine hybrid class instead of another warrior-priest.I mean, they kinda did. That's what the Shaman is (Witch/Oracle).
And people seem to really like the Shaman.
No, it doesn't cast both Arcane AND Divine spells, but it's got a lot of Arcane spells refitted to be Divine spells, so there's that.
What it DID need, perhaps way more than a Bard-barian (sorry, Skald) was a Bard-Rogue hybrid.
So if I want to make a character whose magical ability consists of utility and buffs, while he contributes to combat through physical combat? Can I do that with the Magus? I haven't seen an archetype of Magus that lets me cast exclusively from the wizards large list of utility and buff spells. Where is that printed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now you have multiclass (weaker option) with Prestige classes (weaker option) meaning it's a double weakness.
You miss that EKs and MTs are significantly BETTER then if you had kept going with the multi-classes that allowed you to fulfill the entry requirements.
Yes, you are LESS powerful then a single class SAD full caster. Just like EVERY OTHER CLASS in the game. However less powerful does not equal "garbage" or unplayable.
|
Reading the whole thread, I kinda get the feeling that some think early entry is the only way to make PrC's viable in the PF version of this 3.5 game.
I believe that there are other things that can contribute to going to a PrC, such as my Ifrit Sorcerer that got GM cred for three scenarios and had to take a level of Caviler to get an Axe Beak. I went into Eldritch Knight when I was able.
The whole problem isn't PF or Paizo, but that the PrC concept was flawed from the very beginning. That they were not beefed up like the regular classes were didn't help.
Again, I believe the requirements for the PrC's are to high and seem out of place in PF, but the early entry in this way didn't do anything for the PrC itself. structurely, from top to bottom, they need redone to match the new standard in PF that left 3.5 behind.
Yes, I agree with one poster. Most likely will happen in Pathfinder Ver 2.
|
|
Arcane Trickster does seem like a shame to lose out on, but the earliest you could get into that was 5th level, anyway.Maybe they'll print a Bard archetype that either allows easy access into the class, or the Rogue will have a new Rogue Trick in Pathfinder Unchained that gives it ACTUAL spellcasting, albeit minimally.
Or we'll get a Rogue-Bard Hybrid class, and the Trickster will either have a single early-access class, or will just outright replace it.
I like nature fang druid for the arcane trickster replacement. You get a little bit of sneak attack, trap finding, and your choice of more SA with crocodile domain or ranged ledgerdermain with the monkey domain.
You CAN grab wizard spells with arcanas if you wish. It's by no means impossible to build (in fact, I'm pretty sure monstrous physique self-buff magus is a pretty strong build).So if I want to make a character whose magical ability consists of utility and buffs, while he contributes to combat through physical combat? Can I do that with the Magus? I haven't seen an archetype of Magus that lets me cast exclusively from the wizards large list of utility and buff spells. Where is that printed?as a side note, the ACG was the perfect place to to do an arcane/divine hybrid class instead of another warrior-priest.I mean, they kinda did. That's what the Shaman is (Witch/Oracle).
And people seem to really like the Shaman.
No, it doesn't cast both Arcane AND Divine spells, but it's got a lot of Arcane spells refitted to be Divine spells, so there's that.
What it DID need, perhaps way more than a Bard-barian (sorry, Skald) was a Bard-Rogue hybrid.
Sure, but then I have to fight my class to acquire access to the things I actually want. This is ultimately a problem with spell lists being so specific. I don't think there is a reasonable justification for this outside of doubling down on the classes specific background. I feel like most hybrid casters would be much better served by casting from one school one level lower than would normally be allowed. An example might be a Magus casting evocation spells one level lower than normal(minimum first) and having access to wizard spells up to six.
Then I would have no issue with using the Magus to emulate the Eldritch Knight.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you are LESS powerful then a single class SAD full caster. Just like EVERY OTHER CLASS in the game. However less powerful does not equal "garbage" or unplayable.
You are correct in your assertion that "less powerful than full caster" is not necessarily unplayable garbage.
You are incorrect in your apparent belief that that's as far down as these PrCs go.To use my EK example again: you're allegedly someone who can both fight and cast; neither as well as a specialist, but (theoretically) decently enough.
So compare it to other classes that can both fight and cast: bards, inquisitors, magi, clerics, etc.
1) All of those classes have 3/4 BAB. For multiple levels, the EK has less than 3/4 BAB.
2) Every 3/4 BAB class (except the rogue) has a built-in way to boost attack rolls (Inspire Courage, Arcane Pool, Judgment/Bane, FlurryBAB, etc). The EK has no such boost.
The issue is not "this is weaker than a full-caster". The issue is "this is weaker than other options meant to fill similar roles". The eldritch knight is the weakest way to play a magical swordsman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans being the best race for every calss is basically false.
Thats a whole 'nother nasty problem. And clearly goblins are the best race.
Humans being the best race for every calss is basically false.
Humans may not be the best, but they aren't far down the list for any class. That extra feat makes a lot of concepts come together earlier than otherwise possible. 1/2 orc is a strong contender for most classes too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) All of those classes have 3/4 BAB. For multiple levels, the EK has less than 3/4 BAB.
Alright lets do this.
lvl EK vs 3/4 EDIT: Going to add spell level comparison EK vs Magus
1. F1 1 0 ahead 0 1
2. W1 1 1 equal 1 1
3. W2 2 2 equal 1 1
4. W3 2 3 behind 2 2
5. W4 3 3 equal 2 2
6. W5 3 4 behind 3 2
7. E1 4 5 behind 3 3
8. E2 5 6 behind 3 3
9. E3 6 6 equal 4 3
10 E4 7 7 equal 4 4
11 E5 8 8 equal 5 4
12 E6 9 9 equal 5 4
13 E7 10 9 ahead 6 5
14 E8 11 10 ahead 6 5
15 E9 12 11 ahead 7 5
16 E10 13 12 ahead 7 6
17 W6 14 12 ahead 8 6
18 W7 14 13 ahead 8 6
19 W8 15 14 ahead 9 6
20 F2 16 15 ahead 9 6
You are ahead of 3/4 BAB 9 levels
You are behind for 4 levels
You are equal for 7 levels
You probably won't be using power attack without a lot of pre buffing. BUT you will have enough BAB to make a lot of use out of polymorph spells like Dragon form.
Yeah you are 1-2 spell levels behind, but casting is still casting and fairly useful.
Is it the most optimal? No.
Can it play fine next to martials, partial casters, and unoptimised full casters? Yeah it can.
I'm more curious about MT. I could sort of see it working in low-op groups where there is ONE fullcaster (the MT). Magical Knack helps out a lot. It will really come down to whether or not there are decent low level spell combos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
+16 gives you a 4th attack.
EDIT: Also bravery OP
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
Well, that one BAB unlocks a 4th iterative. It's still a terrible option and won't hit with that extra attack at -15, but it's there.
Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
+16 gives you a 4th attack.
EDIT: Also bravery OP
4th attack at -15 or extra 9th level spells? Yeah. I'm not seeing it.
I'm more curious about MT. I could sort of see it working in low-op groups where there is ONE fullcaster (the MT). Magical Knack helps out a lot. It will really come down to whether or not there are decent low level spell combos.
Theurge gets really silly the higher you go.
If you're playing to level 15, you gain basically the same spellcasting abilities of a level 18 multiclassed character (lv9 arcane, lv9 divine).
If you're playing to level 20, you gain the same spellcasting abilities of a level 30 multiclassed character (lv15 arcane, level 15 divine).
If you're playing up to Epic, you're a freakin' monstrosity, with 20 levels of spell progression for both Arcane and Divine, meaning you have the spellcasting potential of a lv40 character with only 30 HD.
Theurge struggles at low levels (thus it's weak for PFS), but the higher you get, the more absurdly powerful it becomes.
Mystic Theurge is kinda the Onion Kid of 3.5 and Pathfinder.
4th attack at -15 or extra 9th level spells? Yeah. I'm not seeing it.Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
+16 gives you a 4th attack.
EDIT: Also bravery OP
One extra 9th level slot or the ionic ability to hit 4 times?
If you can't see value in the later, why would you bother with EK at all?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4th attack at -15 or extra 9th level spells? Yeah. I'm not seeing it.Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
+16 gives you a 4th attack.
EDIT: Also bravery OP
One extra 9th level slot or the ionic ability to hit 4 times?
If you can't see value in the later, why would you bother with EK at all?
Considering you're rather starved for To-Hit bonuses, an attack at -15 seems...like a bad idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4th attack at -15 or extra 9th level spells? Yeah. I'm not seeing it.Why in the name of Desna would you take Fighter 2 at 20th level? Because you would trade more 9th level spells for BAB?
I think you are having issues with the difference between "what someone could do," and "what happens 99.99% of actual cases."
+16 gives you a 4th attack.
EDIT: Also bravery OP
One extra 9th level slot or the ionic ability to hit 4 times?
If you can't see value in the later, why would you bother with EK at all?
An 8th level spell, a 9th level spell, and +1 to all 3 saves, vs a 4th attack at -15, a bonus feat, bravery (HA!), and +1 fort save.
I made my choice at "extra 8th level spell."
What use is an extra attack when it only hits 5% of the time?Feat prerequisites.
Sure, for all those games that play into 21st level.
Edit: just out of curiosity, what feat are you thinking of that has a 16 BAB prereq?
Sure, for all those games that play into 21st level.Fighter2 grants a bonus feat.
See my post before the one you quoted.
See my post before the one you quoted.What for?
He asked what feat had a BAB of 16 as a requirement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunning Assault.
Because every 3/4 BaB class with less to hit boosters than others wants to take a -5 to hit to trigger a low Fort save.
I'm more curious about MT. I could sort of see it working in low-op groups where there is ONE fullcaster (the MT). Magical Knack helps out a lot. It will really come down to whether or not there are decent low level spell combos.Theurge gets really silly the higher you go.
If you're playing to level 15, you gain basically the same spellcasting abilities of a level 18 multiclassed character (lv9 arcane, lv9 divine).
If you're playing to level 20, you gain the same spellcasting abilities of a level 30 multiclassed character (lv15 arcane, level 15 divine).
If you're playing up to Epic, you're a freakin' monstrosity, with 20 levels of spell progression for both Arcane and Divine, meaning you have the spellcasting potential of a lv40 character with only 30 HD.
Theurge struggles at low levels (thus it's weak for PFS), but the higher you get, the more absurdly powerful it becomes.
Mystic Theurge is kinda the Onion Kid of 3.5 and Pathfinder.
I think the issue with the Mystic Theurge is that it takes so long to really hit its stride, which is why early entry was a real boon for them. A Wiz 3/Clr 3/MT 1 is not going to perform well compared to just about any other level 7 character. By the time you're at Wiz 3/Clr 3/MT 10 your sheer spell variety might have made up for the lost caster levels, but at level 16 you're in the endgame of most of the Paizo APs.