PDA

View Full Version : [3.5/PF] Top level of spells as a measure of character power



GoatBoy
2010-11-20, 06:01 AM
I have been looking at character builds for dual-progression spellcasters, and since PrC's such as Mystic Theurge are so unpopular, it was making me wonder what the answer is to the following question:

Approximately what proportion of a primary spellcaster's power is made up of their top level of available spells?

A Mystic Theurge will lose, without early entry tricks, at least three levels of spellcasting from each class. This puts them one level of spells behind their single-progression peers at any given time, and two levels behind half the time. So do their abundance of lower-levelled spells count for little to nothing?

A simpler question might be, does 80% of a cleric and 80% of a wizard equal 100% of either one? 80 is arbitrary, so if someone can give me a number which better represents the true nature of things, please do. How much do you lose by taking a dual-progression PrC?

I also find it odd that Mystic Theurge is listed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0) as a tier -1 PrC, while the Arcane Hierophant, which will probably have the same spellcasting potential, is tier +1. Is that solely due to the nice class features?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Frenchy147
2010-11-20, 07:57 AM
Alot of it. At lower levels, it makes up most of your spellcasters power, alough at higher levels it isn't as big of a deal

Runestar
2010-11-20, 07:57 AM
IMO, the key reason why lower lvs spells aren't so useful to a higher lv caster is because you don't have infinite rounds to slowly plink your foes to death with magic missiles and scorching rays.

All other things equal, higher lv spells should allow you to finish off your foes faster. The quicker they fall, the lesser damage they deal to your party, and so the lesser resources expended by the rest overall.

Lower lv spells might have a place in the form of longer-duration buffs such as stoneskin, but from experience, my party tends to metamagick them (via chain spell) or simply use the mass version (which require higher lv slots). For example, it is typically much more efficient to just cast mass death ward on the entire party in the first round of combat, then try to buff each individual PC with death ward.

Basically, just ask yourself - would you play a wizard with a LA+3 race? That is basically what you are doing with playing a MT.

Grommen
2010-11-20, 12:03 PM
I have been looking at character builds for dual-progression spellcasters, and since PrC's such as Mystic Theurge are so unpopular, it was making me wonder what the answer is to the following question:

Approximately what proportion of a primary spellcaster's power is made up of their top level of available spells?

A Mystic Theurge will lose, without early entry tricks, at least three levels of spellcasting from each class. This puts them one level of spells behind their single-progression peers at any given time, and two levels behind half the time. So do their abundance of lower-leveled spells count for little to nothing?

A simpler question might be, does 80% of a cleric and 80% of a wizard equal 100% of either one? 80 is arbitrary, so if someone can give me a number which better represents the true nature of things, please do. How much do you lose by taking a dual-progression PrC?

I also find it odd that Mystic Theurge is listed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0) as a tier -1 PrC, while the Arcane Hierophant, which will probably have the same spellcasting potential, is tier +1. Is that solely due to the nice class features?

Thanks in advance for any input.

One spell level behind, perhaps two is ok for me. At low level it sucks when everyone else is casting 3rd level spells (Haste, Fireball, etc.) and I'm still zapping people with (Magic Missile). But eventually at the higher end of the game it does not suck so much. The gap between 7th and 9th level spells is not as dramatic.

If your giving up something to get something in return though, it's even better. Sure you loosing a level of wizard spells, but your gaining how many divine levels? Even with say the Eldrich Knight, ya I loose a level or two of magic, but I gain a decent unbuffed BAB and more hit points.

Also depends on your DC to resist your spells and your actual caster level. I mean who cares what level the spell is, if the DC is so high no one can make their save?

Besides everyone says that spell casters are so awesome, loosing a spell level or two should keep them in check.

Your mileage may vary, but in my games (we are not very Over Powering) it's a good trade.

nightwyrm
2010-11-20, 12:10 PM
Action economy plays lot into this. It doesn't matter if you have an infinite number of spells, you can generally only cast one spell (two if you quicken, which also requires higher lv spell slots) per round. All else being equal, casting a 9th level spell is have more impact than casting a 7th lv one.

People doing damage talks about DPR. Spells aren't exactly the same thing but impact per round is still an important consideration for a caster.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 12:14 PM
At high levels (12+) MT is fine. But if you are starting lower, a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 1 is going to be so far behind a single-class caster 7 it will be a joke. 2nd-level spells - even lots of them - just can't match 4th-level.

gbprime
2010-11-20, 05:05 PM
YEah, but 3 levels is a HUGE difference in how quickly you can shut the bad guys down. You cast Arc of Lightning, i'm casting Mass Flesh to Salt. You cast Confusion, I'm casting Stun Ray. By the time you get Disintegrate, I'm throwing Horrid Wilting or Irresistable Dance.

If you cannot early entry at least one half of the dual caster build, then don't do it.