Mystic Theurge and Pathfinder Unchained?

[metid]

Hey all, I'm interested in making a Mystic Theurge, but since the errata that "a spell-like ability is not a qualifier" for prestige classes anymore, I feel like I'm kinda out of luck. I read in some statement or something that people who were disappointed by this change would be happier once Pathfinder unchained was released - I expected it to be variant multiclassing giving spell levels, but no luck - I read through them and it looks like the most anyone every gets is cantrips.

Is there something I missed or is the best way to go into it now back to "Take 3 levels in cleric and 3 in wizard"?

Thanks for the help.

(E: I realized that this might be better for rules questions, but I am just too used to posting in advice, and I'm not sure which one to stick with, sorry >_>)

[Secret Wizard]

You aren't missing anything. The only interesting thing unchained added are VMCs to have some better scaling features for one of the classes.

[Dasrak]

Nope, basically nothing in there that will let you do anything like what Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, or Arcane Trickster are supposed to be. Would have been nice if these prestige classes got an unchained rendition, but they didn't.

As it stands currently, the only option to get those classes rolling decently is with homebrew.

[AndIMustMask]

if your GM allows esoteric training you could get in with a cleric 3/wizard 2 (+1 wiz via esoteric) and then into MT, but it's still all sorts of painful.

[strayshift]

The answer depends how you see your MT functioning, the level you will be playing at/to and the number of other casters in the party.

If you want to fill some of the 'traditional' caster roles then you suffer from poorer higher spell access and lower save DC's (two casting stats and split caster development) - the exceptions being necromancy and support spells. Other casters will have higher level spells and be more specialised in a particular role in all likelihood.

The advantage is a wider range of lower level spells available, the ability to create more things and the ability to fill a range of roles to some degree. Level-wise 4th-9th hurt. Beyond that you start to have a lot of toys to play with. Don't play a MT if you'll finish below 10th.

Being a support caster or a necromancer is not to all tastes, however if you are prepared for this I've found you still can contribute in a major way to the party's success. Just be prepared to work with your front-liners, be organised, creative and often to take a 'lesser role' in many of the encounters. But you'll always be doing something to contribute.

[Blave]

If it's for a home game, ask your GM if he still allows the SLA-as-requirement thing. I'm currently playing such a MT in a Runelords campaign as she was build at level 5 as a Wiz3/Cle1/MT1 when the FAQ was still in place. She's versatile, sure, but by no means is she more powerful than a pure wizard. She lacks the bonus feat of a 5th level wizard (one feat more or less can be a BIG difference at low levels) and because of her low caster-level, she needs Spell Penetration way earlier than a single class caster. That seriously limits her build potential and she'll never have all the spell foci, spell specialisations and meta magics that make wizards as strong as they are.

Other than that, I agree with strayshift. Playing a cleric3/wizard3 MT from level 1 is painful. Without the SLA-ruling, I'd only consider playing a MT if my party tells me they are willing to carry me for the first 8 levels or if the character comes into play at level 8+.