PDA

View Full Version : Aotrs Generic Multiclass PrC Building Project [Phase 1]



Aotrs Commander
2010-05-10, 12:49 PM
Clerics are pretty ubiquitous in a D&D game. While, granted, you can get around without them (using UMD and scrolls), the fact they have all the useful healing spells plus Raise/Res and Restoration makes them quite common. This is doubly so as NPCs, especially if (like me) you use a lot of AD&D modules converted to 3.5.

I have been starting to find it harder and harder to work up the enthusiasm for sorting out clerics (as both player and DM), because their primary thrust of effective operation boils down to mostly the same subset of spells.

I have, however, found myself atimes dealing with more Cleric/Rogues than I can shake a stick at (thank you AD&D Kuo-Toa whips...), which, as it happens, is basically unsupported by a sensible no-frills multiclass PrC, or even the basic multiclassing feats in some of the later Completes. As far as I can find, the best is Rich's own Divine Trickster; the Shadowbane Stalker and Black Flame Zealot are both over-flavoured and little, if any, better than straight up Cleric/Rogue.

All of which I might just have passed by, but for other factors starting to creep in, things like one party of ours who has a Cleric/Druid. A potent, but hardly game-shattering combination, but again, one sorely lacking in basic multi-classing progression.

And what about a warlock/psion... the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that 3.5 currently lacks quite a few options in terms of multiclassing PrCs; and some would say that those that exist are fairly poor1.

So, what I'm aiming to do is try and find or simply create a new set of multiclassing PrCs to fill the multiclassing PrC gaps 3.5 currently has. And perhaps boost the power of current versions (e.g Mystic Thurge et al) to a level considered reasonably optimisable. The classes should be essentially fluff/background-light and be more about combining or at least advancing the two class paradigms to a reasonable power level, rather than a more focused PrC's new tricks.

These options might not be as flat-out powerful as the base (caster) classes (nor should they be), but the point here is a slightly more effective "fun" build for the sake of variety.

Rather than try and do this for every class combination, I want to do something open and flexible, so that all character classes in the broad paradigm (i.e. that share the same power source or if non-caster, a similar set of abilities) would be able to qualify. I.e. (say) a divine.psion class that allows any divine class and any psionic class (rather than making it specific, to say cleric/psywarrior or druid/ninja). Mystic Theurge (at it's relatives) are my baseline in this fashion, something that's flavour-light but and will work just as well (for the given value of "well") for a Ranger/Sorcerer and for a Wizard/Druid.

Types of class to be combined:

Arcane caster
Divine Caster
Invoker
Psionic
Fighter paradigm (I.e high bab, straight-foward thumpy)
Rogue paradigm (aiming more for stabby-in-the-backy, e.g. Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike/Skirmish-y, since skill monkey isn't too hard to do with feats (or even a Pathfinder-y type skill system))
Martial Adepts (there are far too few adept PrCs and they are all rather too flavoury or just plain potentially broken (ruby knight winidactor, lookin' at you) and I don't like the more sporadic manouvers granted; I think +1 class level/ adept class would be better for my purposes).
Monk paradigm: (i.e. unarmed punch-y-in-face-ism)

Soulknife might also benefit from some treatment (though I use Untapped Potential's version which sort of files that away under psionic).

I'm not going to address Incarnum/Tome of Magic classes personally, since I neither own nor use them and thus have no ideas what to do with them. Anyone who wnats to contribute in that regard, though, go right ahead!



But before I start doing that fairly extensive amount of effort, I want to try and lock down what is currently available in this regard (or is quite close) as a good baseline to work from and expand. (And perhaps reduce the amount of effort entailed.)

So then, as the starter for ten, what have we actually got at the moment between those groups? (Some PrCs and a few feats.)

Fighter paradigm/Arcane: Spellsword Eldritch Knight (among others)

Fighter paradigm/Divine: Quite a few Clr-y PrCs

Arcane/Divine: Mystic Theurge

Arcane/Psion: Cerebremancer

Divine/Psion: Divine Theurge

Invocation/Arcane: Eldritch Theurge

Invocation/Divine: Eldritch Disiple

Invocation/Psionic: ?

Arcane/Arcane: Ultimate Magus (but only for spontanous/prepared)

Divine/Divine (or at least Clr/Drd): ?

Arcane/Rogue paradigm: Arcane Trickster

Divine/Rogue paradigm: Divine Trickster (Clr/Rogue (paradigm) only)

Psion/Rogue paradigm: Shadowmind (especially when broadened using the adaption suggestions.)

Arcane/Adept: ?

Divine/Adept: ?

Psion/Adept: ?

Invoker/Adept: ?

Rogue paradigm/Adept: ?

Arcane/Monk Paradigm: Enlightened fist (mostly moribund abilities and can be entered without ever touching monk at all.)

Divine/Monk Paradigm: Sacred Fist (but can't use weapons at all)

Invoker/Monk Paradigm: ?

Psion/Monk Paradigm: Tashalatora feat (pretty good if you ignore multiclassing restrictions and thus eliminate Monastic Training)

Monk/Rogue Paradigm: Ascetic Rogue feat (only gives you unarmed damage imporvement)

Monk/Adept Paradigm: Unarmed Swordage variant

The next questions are: what currently existing PrC in this vein have I missed (and I will have)? Could some of these be done with better multiclassing feats (e.g Ascetic Rogue, but better)? And does anyone have an initial ideas or comments on anything that hasn't yet been covered. (I don't know of any Warlock/Psion combos, nor certainly any Warlock/Adepts for example!)




1There is also that fasinating disparity that says full casters tend to tier 1 and so are heinously more powerful than nonfull-casters; yet at the same time under no circumstances should you play a full-caster and drop casting levels...I don't think Mystic Theurge (et al) is a particulary bad class (at least not as bad as it's rep)2; granted not as powerful as a straight caster class. But if you wanted flat-out power, you'd be going Cleric 20/Druid 20/Wizard 20 anyway...

2Epic Mystic Theurge, on the other hand, is simply utterly and indefensibly assinine on the part of the writer in that it is worse than taking levels in it's component classes. If and when it ever were to come up, I'd simply give it dual progression as in non-Epic so that it was not made of pure Stupid. Seriously, I don't care who wrote up that, they deserve a cricket-bat to the bonce for managing to make a PrC so thoroughly completely defeat it's entire point...

Morth
2010-05-10, 03:37 PM
Enlightened Fist is a Monk/Arcane, and the Tashalatora is an amazing feat that combines Monk/Psion of choice.

Edit: Also, you have Shadow Sun Ninja as a Monk/Adept prestige class.

Tibbaerrohwen
2010-05-10, 05:59 PM
For Cleric/Rogue PrC how about Shadowbane Stalker from CA?
From the same book you have Shadowmind, an okay Rogue/Psion PrC. Though, if you're looking for Rogue/Psion progression, the Lurker from....I think Expanded Psionics is an excellent base class.
It seems allot of what you''re looking for is covered by base classes invented specifically for the mixture of two classes into one, such as Duskblade, Beguiler, etc. A number of base classes are also perfect for easing your way into these double paradigmed PrC, like Archavist or Favoured Soul.
Dragon Magazine has madea large amount of feats AND substitute class abilities available for better blending Fighters into multiple paradigms, replacing bonus feats and such. I'll add a issue number when I can find one.
Searching through any Arcane source book, or any of the Completes will give a vast horde of Arcane/Fighter paragirm prestige classes. Complete Champion and Compelte Divine, along with BoED have something to say about divine monk and divine fighter mixes, with, I think, a few divine rogue classes mixed in.
When I have the time I'll try and post the actual classes.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-11, 10:50 AM
Shadowbane stalkers are a prime example of the problem. They are about one of the only three Clr/Rog PrC flaoting around. The Black Flame Zealot is one (evil-flavoured and argueably worse than a straight Clr/Rog). Shadowbane stalkers are margianlly better but are again aligned and the special abilities are a bit banal. I am always generally opposed to mechanics which cause you to burn spell slots to get a fairly piffling bonus. Best case scenario, a Rogue 5/Clr5 stalker 10 can do up to 12D6 sneak attack once per round (6D6 thereafter), which is about the same as three strikes from a 20th Rogue but only about two rounds per day. Seriously, how often do you want to be burning a 6th level spell slot to do that (since you can't even burn a 7th), when you're better SA with a Harm spell (etc). And with up to 4th level spells, you'll do more damage with an Inflict/Cure (1-4D8+lvl verses 1-4 D6) in virtually all circumstances...

Rich's divine trickster is much better than either, but even that's not without the problem that it's only any use to clerics of three specific domains. While this might be alright some of the time you want a clr/rog, it's not good for all outcomes.

Enlightend first is closer to what I'm aiming for, but's still not hugely great. Fist of energy is basically Fiery Fist; arcane fist and hold ray are both fairly solid abilities (and ones which perhaps could bear keeping). Arcane rejuvenation is insultingly bad. A standard action that lets you heal 1-9 damage? 9 at 20th level, if you go into the class as a wizard 5, by sacrificing a 9th level spell slot? The equivalent that one single CLW can do at level 1 (and average at level 5)?!? That should be a bare minimum of 3-4 hp/level as a standard or 2-3 as a move action to even be worth looking at. And probably more. But I'll add it to the temporary list as it's at least a start.

Ditto with shadowmind, which is, actually, reasonably good. Swapping out the powers a bit as suggested in the adaption, and it'd be fair for pretty much any psionic class, actually. (Might still need a touch of boosting, but I think that's pretty decent, comparitively.)

Tibbaerrohwen, you mean the Lurk (which is Complete Psi). Which, admittedly, does the job of psionic rogue (as indeed does the actual psionic rogue) but that's subtly not the same as a (say) Rog/PsyWar or a Psion/Scout. Most of the other hybridism base classes are like this; excellent at their particular niche combo, but no good if you want to do something that's not their niche combo. The point of this project is to make Mystic Theurge-y sort of class that pretty much any two classes to the requisite type can join to cover those bits that the binary sort of classes don't.

(And, yes, I didn't bother with Arcane/Fighter too much simply because there are so many options to pick from, from fairly generic to fairly specific.)

Tashalatora doesn't seem all that special in light of an essentially wasted feat; but in an environment that rightfully tosses multiclassing restrictions out the window) though, removing that requirement, it is quite a bit better than the similar feats like Ascetic et al, as it gives you flurry as well as unarmed and AC (which is kinda what you want). (Assuming I'm understanding what I do from googling it as I don't have any world-specific sourcebooks).



On to the next big question, then.

How far behind a full caster should a not-quite-full-caster be? The Mystic Theurge is heaped scorn upon for being non-optimal, and yet full-casters are top end tier. So, if 15/15 casting at 20th level is not good enough, what is? (Obviously 20/20 would be insanely overpowered.) this question also gives us a clue as to therefore, how far behind a not-quite-full caster should actually be lagging during the progression.

(I think part of the trouble is with some of the PrCs is that the designers often don't seem to account for the fact that the characters have already taken a progression hit by taking levels in a not-their-casting class putting them behind the curve to start with. I'm starting to lean towards most of these types of classes giving you full casting progression because you'll have already essentially paid for the drop already.)

So, my first guessed answer to the question of "how far behind, given 15/15 is considered too much" is 17/17 casting at 20th.

You could do that by making MT a 14-level class. And/or drop the requirements to allow entry at, say 4th level to smooth out the progression a touch so it slows down more towards the top (and most abusable); when you've already got crap-loads to rely on, and you get your concept earlier without struggling for a couple of levels.

I.e the requirements could be something like "2nd level arcane and 1st divine or 2nd divine and 1st arcane" which would make you a 3/1.

Or maybe "1st level arcane and 1st level divine and BAB 2" which would make you a 2/2 (as I can't think of any classes, save perhaps Duskblade that get full BAB and 1st level spells; you could make a case for will saves instead, but I think that may be unecessary.)

I don't think MT, which gives you nothing apart from dual progression would be game-breaking to allow in at lower level. (Since it's not really a "prestige" class more of an "slightly adavanced" one.)

Ditto for Cerebramancer (replacing "duskblade" with "marksman" (UT)) and Psychic Theruge (and there aren't apparently any divine classes with full bab and 1st level casting.)

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-11, 11:10 AM
How far behind a full caster should a not-quite-full-caster be? The Mystic Theurge is heaped scorn upon for being non-optimal, and yet full-casters are top end tier. So, if 15/15 casting at 20th level is not good enough, what is? (Obviously 20/20 would be insanely overpowered.) this question also gives us a clue as to therefore, how far behind a not-quite-full caster should actually be lagging during the progression.

It's not very well regarded because although even a 15/15 caster is better than noncasters, the MT sucks in comparison to other options the caster could have taken. It's like comparing a rogue to a factotum--if you're looking for a pure skills focus, rogue isn't bad by any means, it's just that the factotum blows it out of the water. There are cases where you'd want the rogue, just like there are several things MT does better than a pure arcane or pure divine build, but for what your goal is for a given build (which is for a factotum "get your skill mod into the stratosphere" and for a wizard "be as ridiculously powerful as you can"), it falls behind.


You could do that by making MT a 14-level class. And/or drop the requirements to allow entry at, say 4th level to smooth out the progression a touch so it slows down more towards the top (and most abusable); when you've already got crap-loads to rely on, and you get your concept earlier without struggling for a couple of levels.

I would actually drop entry to 3rd level; first, dual-progression classes aim for an even split, so going from arcane 3/divine 3 to arcane 1/divine 1 works better than arcane 2/divine 1 or the revers, and second, it's at the lower levels where lack of spells is felt. The whole point of the mystic theurge is sacrificing power for breadth, so starting you out with double progression early and then easing off sharply at higher levels works better.

glennfrogknight
2010-05-11, 11:25 AM
I would actually drop entry to 3rd level; first, dual-progression classes aim for an even split, so going from arcane 3/divine 3 to arcane 1/divine 1 works better than arcane 2/divine 1 or the revers, and second, it's at the lower levels where lack of spells is felt. The whole point of the mystic theurge is sacrificing power for breadth, so starting you out with double progression early and then easing off sharply at higher levels works better.

I think he meant wizard2/cleric2 by level 4.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-11, 12:37 PM
I think he meant wizard2/cleric2 by level 4.

I know. And I mean wizard 1/cleric 1/MT 1 by level 3.

Tibbaerrohwen
2010-05-11, 12:53 PM
Thank you Aotrs, I did mean the Lurk.
You are right, there are not many PrC that give full progression for two seperate types (ie: full rogue and full divine caster progression in one class/PrC). I think this may be in an attempt to keep classes and PrC balanced, however. If you give full progression for two seperate paradigms in one PrC, which is rarely done, you run the risk of making the PrC miserably broken.

Fail
2010-05-11, 01:20 PM
Attempts at the same problem (and others) here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48557). On the half-warrior classes, note: those assume better warrior base classes, as per the the Tomes (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453), and all assume and have been tested under the same CR guidelines as the latter.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-11, 02:17 PM
Thank you Aotrs, I did mean the Lurk.
You are right, there are not many PrC that give full progression for two seperate types (ie: full rogue and full divine caster progression in one class/PrC). I think this may be in an attempt to keep classes and PrC balanced, however. If you give full progression for two seperate paradigms in one PrC, which is rarely done, you run the risk of making the PrC miserably broken.

Well, first off, a dual-class PrC won't ever be as powerful (in it's paradigm) as the single class of each side, simply because you'll lose some levels (somewhere) to the levels in the other class; and it's base numbers (i.e BAB/saves/skills and HD) should be either the weaker of the two or maybe somewhere in between. (Though you could make a case for save being of either.)

Rich's Divine Trickster, for example, gives you 10/10 casting progression and 5/10 sneak attack (plus a few other quite nice abilities). I'd not call it broken (in fact, it's about right for a cleric/rogue of the right domains). And the classic example is MT itself, with full caster progression on both sides...

I think the trick is to determine what level you Not Be As Good as the single-class of the two classes you are having. I think the level should be a bit closer to AD&Ds multiclassing (i.e. a 11/11 Ftr mage was effectively only a level behind a 12th single class). Note quite that close, obviously, but I think it could arguably stand to be better than now. With the case of the Clr/rog (which I keep coming back to, since there's so few examples it's easy), you get the Black Flame Zealot 5/10 casting and 3/10 sneak attack.

Compared to a straight clr/rog (let's say clr11/rog9)

Zealot (Clr5/rog5/Zealot10) SA +6D6, spellcaster level 10, BAB 13, 15D6 + 5D8, F/R/W 8/12/12

Clr11/rog9 SA +5D6, spellcaster level 11, BAB 15, 11D8+9D6, F/R/W 10/10/10

The straight class is basically better (and has the additional advantage of more levels of clr and rog special abilites, whichbeat the zealot's hands down.

Rich's divine trickster would give you

DT (Clr5/rog5/DT10) SA +8D6, spellcaster level 15, BAB 13, 15D6 + 5D8, F/R/W 8/12/12

Which is much better, but still behind a Rog 20 or a clr 20 in it's own area. (And you're only a feat away from your cleric spells not being dispelled instantly by the BBEG at 20th level!) As PairO'Dice Lost said, you're sacrificing power for breadth.

I think the case should be such a character should be somewhere around the 75%-80% as effective in each bit as the single character; (because of course level-scaling numbers means you don't want to be much more than about -5 from the average at most or you'll not be really able to do much (+/-2-3 would be better).

That's my current line of thinking anyway.



It's not very well regarded because although even a 15/15 caster is better than noncasters, the MT sucks in comparison to other options the caster could have taken. It's like comparing a rogue to a factotum--if you're looking for a pure skills focus, rogue isn't bad by any means, it's just that the factotum blows it out of the water. There are cases where you'd want the rogue, just like there are several things MT does better than a pure arcane or pure divine build, but for what your goal is for a given build (which is for a factotum "get your skill mod into the stratosphere" and for a wizard "be as ridiculously powerful as you can"), it falls behind.

So you could arguably leave it at a 10-level progression as is, then, and just drop the entry requirements a fair chunk. I must confess to being ambivilent on the MT's power level; I think 8th/8th arcane/divine is plenty good enought to be going on with, but it never hurts to test the waters.

I think you're probably right though, you could drop down to level 3 entry. Givne the choices of going from 1arc/1div to 2arc/2div or 2arc/2div to 3arc/3div or something, I think you're right, the former is better (and easier to right up!), as the progression is smoother. The only arguement against it you might make against it is that you'll only be a level behind the pure caster (until 12th level) and if you're a wiz/drd and he's a sorcerer, you'll be pacing him for much longer. I'm not sure, though, that it makes all that much difference (heck, you can still only make one spell per round - generally - so...)


Attempts at the same problem (and others) here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48557). On the half-warrior classes, note: those assume better warrior base classes, as per the the Tomes (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453), and all assume and have been tested under the same CR guidelines as the latter.

An interesting read, thank you; and one that would propose the opposite suggestion, that even 17/17 casting for a hybrid character isn't enough. (Personally, I think that trying to account for Leadership's huge power isn't worth doing. Anyone can pick up that feat, including a single-class CW Samurai and have a batman wizard 2 level lower. I think that balance problem is Leadership's own. One should never make the mistake of trying to balance an entire system around one point; proud nails and all that...!)

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-11, 02:25 PM
So you could arguably leave it at a 10-level progression as is, then, and just drop the entry requirements a fair chunk. I must confess to being ambivilent on the MT's power level; I think 8th/8th arcane/divine is plenty good enought to be going on with, but it never hurts to test the waters.

Essentially.


I think you're probably right though, you could drop down to level 3 entry. Givne the choices of going from 1arc/1div to 2arc/2div or 2arc/2div to 3arc/3div or something, I think you're right, the former is better (and easier to right up!), as the progression is smoother. The only arguement against it you might make against it is that you'll only be a level behind the pure caster (until 12th level) and if you're a wiz/drd and he's a sorcerer, you'll be pacing him for much longer. I'm not sure, though, that it makes all that much difference (heck, you can still only make one spell per round - generally - so...)

People already manage a 2/1 early entry on MT, and no one complains about outshining single-class casters. Remember, that normal caster is probably PrCing as well, so while you're only one spell level behind, you're also missing out on all the PrC abilities he has.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-11, 02:49 PM
By this logic, then, all the hybrid PrCs should have full caster levels or full "levels of primary class feature" progression, possible with slightly less progression in ancillary features for those without casting/manifesting.

I.e., full SA attack for rogues (et al), full Unarmed/AC/flurry (maybe) for monks.

Not quite sure about adepts, though, since they multiclass well anyway. I think the question is either give them the same treatment (full manouvre/stance progression), with them losing very little to nothing only a few levels, or perhaps near (say 80-90%) progression.

So, a thought experiment, then (which is of particular relevance to me, as I'm trying to do both of these things at once to get ready for a big game in July!). I'm working on (among everything else) a dragon progression (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8443510) (working from ground-up dragons, completely replacing the ones in the MM).

I won't go into huge detail here (as I don't need to), but basically it gets a moderate breath weapon (basically damage equal to SA progression but based on character level) and all the basic things dragons get (full BAB, D12 HD good saves, 6 skills points etc). At the moment, you have to take 6 levels of it (to get all your racial progression - which effectively eliminates level adjustment as a concept altogether (and good riddance!)). It gets the option at 7th level or later to get spellcasting.

So, then, would you all consider full casting from then on (on top of the very sturdy base chassis) too much? Actually, strictly speaking, as at currently stands, it looses up to 5 levels to massive stat boosts (three of which are size increases and are optional) so, it's final caster level would only be 9-12th, though that could easily be fixed up to 14th.) Arguably, it would be reasonably fair under the above logic. Yes? No?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-11, 02:58 PM
By this logic, then, all the hybrid PrCs should have full caster levels or full "levels of primary class feature" progression, possible with slightly less progression in ancillary features for those without casting/manifesting.

Kind of; again, it's a matter of relative rather than absolute power. Because spell levels improve exponentially, one extra level of spells + PrC abilities will usually more than make up for extra lower-level slots. The same doesn't necessarily hold for 1 fewer sneak attack die or 1 fewer rage or the like.


So, then, would you all consider full casting from then on (on top of the very sturdy base chassis) too much? Actually, strictly speaking, as at currently stands, it looses up to 5 levels to massive stat boosts (three of which are size increases and are optional) so, it's final caster level would only be 9-12th, though that could easily be fixed up to 14th.) Arguably, it would be reasonably fair under the above logic. Yes? No?

So essentially it's like a warblade 6/caster X--great chassis with some fancy abilities, then casting later. Would you consider that too powerful?

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-11, 05:25 PM
Kind of; again, it's a matter of relative rather than absolute power. Because spell levels improve exponentially, one extra level of spells + PrC abilities will usually more than make up for extra lower-level slots. The same doesn't necessarily hold for 1 fewer sneak attack die or 1 fewer rage or the like.

That's what I figured. The noncasting class would want slightly higher buff than the caster levels (but not enough to totally eclipse the single class); one might follow the Divine Trickster's example and add some of the other class abilities in as well as the primary progression.

I mean, you do run the risk of it being "better" than the base noncaster class, but then again, in most cases, so is the single-caster side, so I don't think that's sort of a problem1.


So essentially it's like a warblade 6/caster X--great chassis with some fancy abilities, then casting later. Would you consider that too powerful?

Hah. Good point. I'd not thought of it like that. No, I certainly wouldn't. Thank you, I think you just solved by dragon dilemma. (Mostly!)



1Our groups, despite being moderatly optimise-y, do tend to more to base class than PrC overall. Interestingly, at our current highest level party (ever), the dizzy heights of 17th level, the fighter and the specialist archer are still making a considerable contribution. (Admittedly, some of that is serious over-gearing, thanks to several converted AD&D modules I didn't look at the treasure too hard and the general spiralling of NPC loot.) I did let fighters take a feat every fighter level, which does allow them to be really good at one thing or have more than one trick at any rate. At least for our games. So I don't think there's any danger quite yet of rogue becoming redundant2.

2I'm kinda worried about the characters for the next game for our Monday group (who are playing the 17th level party currently), which is going to be Shackled City. The party will be a wizard, a wizard, a cleric, a wizard/cleric3, a paladin (Seerow and OneWinged4ngel's rebalanced version from the old WotC boards) and a Tracker (one of my homebrew which is basically trapfinding on a spell-less ranger with slightly better hitpoints). The latter character of whom I suspect, might feel a tad superfluous after a bit.

Gods help me if they think about using co-operative spell...! *shudder*

3Who will be delighted with the upgrade to MT...