Hello, posters, lurkers, and general readership!
Some recent free time, and the potential of joining a game with an experienced GM and novice players (low optimisation curve ho!) lead me to cogitate on that ancient, once heavily played[1], prestige class that is the Mystic Theurge (MT). Attempting to supplement such thoughts as I contemplating bringing one to a relaxed campaign obviously meant visiting the internet. Whereupon I found endless discussions on how bad it is. Never play one type insistence in some cases. To which I disagree after more thought, and some test scenario playing.
I am making all this contention to address my own thoughts, to hopefully reassure other players their concept can work, and to (also hopefully) inspire someone to try it out for a campaign.
Now, whilst it is utterly beyond contending that the MT is weaker than 9th level casters, I found myself wondering what could actually be done playing one. What is it capable of providing to a given party?
Firstly, the rigmarole that sets the ground rules: Presumably we're all aware of the prestige class: 2nd level Arcane and Divine casting to enter, boosts both of these every level, the ability to prepare X side spells by use of higher slots from Y side, and a capstone that lets you break the action economy...once per day. In addition, I am assuming an audience with at least a casual knowledge of both "The Forge of Combat" and the tier system, see a pathfinder analysis here. Agreement philosophically with these is not what I aim to discuss, or particular details. It's just a framework to operate in. Holding ideas on what a competent party might look like, and a stratification of what characters can and can't do, respectively. Further, this conversation will be thoroughly about the game as presented, and as a game. I.e. With some conception of "winning", vague as the concept may be. Winning in roleplaying games is difficult to define. In an attempt, I proffer: Tangibly and regularly contributing to a party's success in completing a campaign by operation within the rule set. It's a weak definition, and I fully accept constructive attacks on it to come. The forge of combat discussion also holds a definition but that one centers on combat encounters.
Secondly, a thought experiment; consider a class exists which offers 2/3 casting from the wizard/sorcerer list and a series of SLAs that mimic the cleric/oracle list at a similar rate of progression (of course, class features a 3/3/10 build would obtain are also mimic'ed). For the purpose of closest approxmiation, we may also insist such a class has 1/2 BAB and d6 HD.
I see the complaint that we're talking of a MAD creature while we're at this. I don't feel this is an enormous problem. The Arcanist, Cleric, Shaman hardly are broken by needing two mental ability scores to fully explore. With respect to the channel from a few levels of cleric (if you go such a route (it is the best divine spell list so plausibly)), I really fail to imagine neglecting charisma will create much pain for you.
I appreciate the above holds some discrepancy in early levels, but it seemed the quickest generalisation for the following point, which is to observe the highest spell accessed at a given level. This is done below under the premise of a player going Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10.
L__P__S__2/3__MT
1__1__1___1___1*
2__1__1___1___1*
3__2__1___1___2^
4__2__2___2___2*
5__3__2___2___2*
6__3__3___2___2*
7__4__3___3___2_N
8__4__4___3___3*
9__5__4___3___3*
10_5__5___4___4*
11_6__5___4___4*
12_6__6___4___5^
13_7__6___5___5*
14_7__7___5___6^
15_8__7___5___6^
16_8__8___6___7^
For clarity's sake: L = Level, P = Prepared (full caster, i.e. Wizard), S = Spontaneous (full caster also, i.e. Oracle), 2/3 = 2/3 casters (i.e. Magus, Inquisitor, Bard), MT = Mystic Theurge build. I have denoted with an asterisk * levels at which our build has the same spell access as a 2/3 caster. Particularly our theoretical 2/3 caster (see above), levels the MT build accesses higher level spells with a caret ^, and levels the MT build falls below with an N. I do not consider above 16th level because I find generally, this is analysis for play seen by a very small percentage of players. 16th neatly covers most adventure paths anyway, useful if we attempt to discuss campaigns - as we can hold a shared context.
Some observations come out of this: 1. That the MT build matches a 2/3 caster for 10/16 levels. If we focused on PFS play: 9/12. 2. It begins to outstrip the 2/3 caster levels 14-16. Arguably 12-16. Though that the build works well at this point is rarely in contention aside complaints that the straight full casters are ahead.
This analysis may be repeated for Prepared/Spontaneous entry, or sponstaneous/spontaneous entry - but it is rapidly apparent above how many levels would earn the marker "N", thus I think we can ignore it as being even more terrible in optimization terms. Less ignorable is going prepared/prepared 1/3/2/10 or similar - which is not inconcievable, and does make the similarity more acute.
Before I continue, I reiterate: That a straight full caster build is almost invariably stronger, and this is not in contention, I write simply to ask what a forward-looking player might expect playing such a build. Obviously, our theoretical single-class theurge doesn't exist in the rules. What do however, are other 2/3 casters. From which I begin to find argument to support the play. For one, the wizard/sorcerer list is better than any of the 2/3 caster classes'. Given tier system treatments generally put these on 3, I find a strong point to refute the overall impression I felt people had, that the mystic theurge is unless. I do not feel this is true.
Now, our thought experiment monstrosity is hardly comparable to an inqisitor, magus, warpriest (and similar) due to the fact these classes are set up to be quasi-martial characters. The summoner doesn't really compare due to being better than full casters at full casters' best trick (the dick). With regards to the warpriest, it is simple to make a very direct comparison: Would we consider a warpriest archetype that traded out all features to toss out wizard spells, with accompanying extra spell slots good? I'd posit so.
Anyway, the best approximation I can see is perhaps a casting focused Bard. It is this I would like to consider the role of an MT fitting. Sure, you lack all those skill monkeying boosts of the Bard. But last I checked, a great issue in the system was low-level spells replace skills. Stealth? Vanish, invisibility, so on. Bluff? Glibness. Climb? Spider climb. I may go on, but I am already being somewhat facile here. "But performance!" you may cry. I have you covered: You have more buffing spells. Bless for one. This is not to say the bard is not effective at these things, merely to draw a comparison which mainly ends to note a casting focused bard contributes mostly in the roles of "arm" or maybe "anvil". Both of which the MT can fulfil.
In terms of being an anvil, I'm lead to deal with saves. A straight full caster has better saves but the best battlefield control spells do not rely on saves for efficacy. Web creates difficult terrain regardless of save. Obscuring mist blocks vision, no save. A straight full caster may have better tricks, but it's hardly like you have none. As to blasting - yeah, that isn't in the ballpark here. You're facing 5-10% less efficacy in this department, on rough analysis.
On the anvil competence, and as a damage source however, I turn to one thing the MT excels at: Necromancy. Assuming the traight Magical Knack is in play on one side, you match and then outstrip the Juju mystery oracle at level 8 for sheer Undead HD you can control. You've dedicated all your time to magic, why should you do any actual lifting?
Annoyingly, this is just after the most glaringly annoying spot in the whole build: 7. All I can genuinely offer a player considering playing an MT at this point is to pay and wait your way through. Scrolls, wands, etc. Look, you're just awful. At amusingly, the point you actually begin the very thing you're trying to do. Not that Eldritch Knight makes me see a pattern of this across prestige classes but... Still, the contention it's a bad build is most acute here because you are bad at your role here. However, things get better, and are ameliorated by prep.
Admittedly, a point stands to which I lack a response on discussing the classic cleric/wizard build which is "what does X side bring the other glaringly lacks?"
This ramble so far is all I have time for but I will hopefully get back to this. Obviously, feel free to reply to what's here so far. If I'm talking crap, call me out on it. :)
[1]This reminds me: I do not care to discuss a particular FAQ as its present status is one of houserules. It is not within the baseline expectation of experience.
So it's similar to a 2/3 caster with an amazing spell list but no other class features to speak of, including ~poor BAB and minimal armor? (these last are not normal for PF 2/3 casters.) Mass necromancy being a specialty is going to be difficult in many games due to alignment or just game table management.
There are ways to expand a caster's spell list in PF, if primarily for full casters, and I'd consider these before a MT in almost every case.
Bear in mind that 2/3 casters have their own unique spell list. This has significant impact given that they get many unique spells at a lower spell level than full casters (resulting in approximately the same character level for your access threshold).
MT does not get access to those condensed spell lists. You may have access to the same spell levels as a 2/3 caster, but you do not have access to the same spells.
So it's similar to a 2/3 caster with an amazing spell list but no other class features to speak of, including ~poor BAB and minimal armor? (these last are not normal for PF 2/3 casters.)
That is the claim I made (arguably way too much) effort to put forward.
I regret failing to look at AC, but I don't consider this much of an issue beyond the very low levels. As to BAB, this is something you're probably not going to utilise anyway here.Mass necromancy being a specialty is going to be difficult in many games due to alignment or just game table management.
Will concede. YMMV.
There are ways to expand a caster's spell list in PF, if primarily for full casters, and I'd consider these before a MT in almost every case.
Problem is most of these are rather limited with their own entry costs. I concede here I'm discussing the largest access cost, but I'd be surprised at any option with as wide access.
Bear in mind that 2/3 casters have their own unique spell list. This has significant impact given that they get many unique spells at a lower spell level than full casters (resulting in approximately the same character level for your access threshold).
MT does not get access to those condensed spell lists. You may have access to the same spell levels as a 2/3 caster, but you do not have access to the same spells.
Examples of this are very few and far between though. Indeed, I've just sat here running through a database and cannot find a single extant example of early access for a 2/3 caster - totally unique options sure.
Further, I can't think of many (outside the paladin list) that I could see myself saddened to lack.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could totally see Samsaran MT's nicking spells from bards or Summoners.
MT is best when not using level dependent spells, which generally means buffing. Heighten spell and magical knack are must haves.
MT takes a while to get online, but I'd say around 15th level they actually start to become pretty good. The issue is, very few campaigns start off there, which makes the first 14 or so quite painful.
As far as the breadth of the spell list goes, even a UMD skill specialist would find it hard to match a wizard/cleric/MT. That advantage they do have. But it'd be hard to fully use that breadth in game; either because many of their tricks will be underlevelled or otherwise less powerful than a specialised caster, or because there's only so many tricks one character can usefully use. To compare, one of the weakest options for a normal wizard is the universalist arcane school.
Re Sangerine's point: Just off the top of my head bards get confusion & dominate person a spell level early. The original summoner is notorious for getting spells early enough to almost be a stealth full caster.
Fools' Gold.
Distracting Cacophony.
The ever popular Heroism.
Hold-Person (sort of, the spell levels there don't have the same pattern).
Ignoble Form.
Locate Object (another odd pattern one).
Matchmaker.
Perfect Placement.
Pugwampi's Grace (a personal favorite).
Reckless Infatuation.
I'm certain there's more, but I'm lazy. Those are all just from the Bard list, since it was the class you seemed to hold most similar to the MT in the OP.
I could totally see Samsaran MT's nicking spells from bards or Summoners.
MT is best when not using level dependent spells, which generally means buffing. Heighten spell and magical knack are must haves.
Totally agree. Less explicitly put at one point up in OP.
MT takes a while to get online, but I'd say around 15th level they actually start to become pretty good. The issue is, very few campaigns start off there, which makes the first 14 or so quite painful.
I'd say a bit earlier. But this might come down to what we call "online". Some would say all your tricks are available, some would call it at functioning, some would call it at absolute peak performance.
As far as the breadth of the spell list goes, even a UMD skill specialist would find it hard to match a wizard/cleric/MT. That advantage they do have. But it'd be hard to fully use that breadth in game; either because many of their tricks will be underlevelled or otherwise less powerful than a specialised caster, or because there's only so many tricks one character can usefully use. To compare, one of the weakest options for a normal wizard is the universalist arcane school.
That's weak primarily due to a specialist wizard getting extra spells in my experience. These tricks are undoubtably underleveled. As I put above, this is not in contention. The contention is whether the MT is useful. My response in this vein is somewhat along the lines that not every party's martial characters are all highly-optimized barbarians.
Re Sangerine's point: Just off the top of my head bards get confusion & dominate person a spell level early. The original summoner is notorious for getting spells early enough to almost be a stealth full caster.
Unless I had Sangerine's point wrong, the thing is a Bard doesn't get these earlier than a wizard - though I am surprised to realise they do at the same time.
Sangerine - that list...is actually pretty spectacular. I shall have to re-think.
I think the witch does a better job. It can heal people, do some blasting, debuff, and has some utility, and it won't suffer from lost caster levels.
Just reflavor the class.
With that aside the class is too bad for too long, which Mage Hunter mentioned. Even saying it gets good at level 13, which I don't agree with means you have 12 level of struggling, and most GM's according to several topics on these forums prefer to not run past level 15. Some make it to 17, but even then you only have 4 level of what might be called enjoyable playing.
I guess, you could technically take only one level of T and advance MT-Spellcasting via Arcane Trickster. This would give you some more useful class features on top. But you need to qualify somehow...
If you don't want to compare the MT to a full caster then the relevant levels are where the MT gets the spell compared to other tier 3 characters. A bard gets confusion at character level 7 at the earliest, a MT at character level 9+. If you're insisting on comparing bards to wizards then MT - Bard - Wizard gets the comparison between MTs and wizards back in the picture.
It's not just underlevelled BTW, some 6-level casters get tricks to boost the effectiveness of some of their spellls. Mesmerists get hypnotic stare, occultists get their implements, maguses can attack and cast spells, bards and skalds can get spells which interact with their performance and/or feats which combine the two in some ways, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that hunters have some spells even earlier than druids courtesy of raiding the ranger's compressed list.