Eldritch Theurge: Using Precocious Apprentice

[Corwin_of_Amber]

Is it possible to use the Precocious Apprentice feat to enter Eldritch Theurge with 1 level of Wizard, thus making a 1 level dip into a focused Warlock Build + 11 levels of Wizard on the side?

Also, on the topic of 1 level of Wizard, if your DM allows you to buy magic items without restriction from any city is Scribe Scroll useful? According to the DMG the base cost for making a given scroll is usually the same as just buying it.(maybe I'm missing some cost-reduction clause?)

[Sinon]

If your DM allows Precocious Shenanigans for prereqs, I'm sure he will in this case.

Scribe Scroll's cost is 1/2 the cost to buy on the open market. If you can Imbue Item, you could scribe scrolls and add the spells to your spellbook.

[Corwin_of_Amber]

I just looked at the DMG for this and noticed there's a table under the base cost one, I feel dumb now, thanks for pointing the 1/2 cost out to me.

As for the PA feat I was just wondering if this had been addressed before. I doubt my DM has even heard of it, I'm generally the one that tries to introduce various non-core things into our campaigns (despite being the 2nd newest player). While it does seem like a cheesy way to meat pre reqs, I figued since you'd be mostly a Warlock that you won't be too OP. Anyway you would probobly load up on the utility spells that are normally lacking.

[Sinon]

I haven't been paying attention for a while, but at one time there were a lot of arguments about PA.

My position is that "ability to cast second-level spells" or the like establishes a balance, that the benefits of the PrC are such that the character needs to be 3rd or 4th-level as a wizard in order to get its benefits.

PA is a workaround, and I don't approve.

But that's just my opinion.

[mucat]

I also would not allow PA shenanigans. If a game mechanic is already well balanced, and someone finds a rules loophole that unbalances it, the proper response is "Clever trick. Here's a gold star, a cookie, and a blank character sheet so you can go design your real character."

Now, you could easily argue that the Theurge classes are not balanced. And if we're comparing them to standard full casters, I agree; Theurges are pale shadows of the real thing. So if we're in a campaign with a lot of Tier-1 casters, I'll probably work with you to change the entry requirements of the class...but only because they should be changed for that campaign, not because you've found a loophole.

[Warlawk]

Maybe this is just me being particularly nitpicky...


Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.


Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school that is not barred to you.

Mystic Theurge and most other PRCs require you to be able to cast spells of level X. Bolded for emphasis. SpellS. Multiple. No possible ambiguity there.

Precocious Apprentice allows you to cast a spell. Singular. So by no stretch of the imagination do you qualify for the PRC.

Cheese aside (I would never allow it in my game, or try to use it as a player) a strict RAW reading of the requirement and ability is pretty straightforward and does not allow you to meet the requirements.

[SurlySeraph]

A 3rd-level wizard who doesn't have 14 or higher Int doesn't cast 2nd-level spells, by that logic, because he only gets one.

[Psyren]

Mystic Theurge and most other PRCs require you to be able to cast spells of level X. Bolded for emphasis. SpellS. Multiple. No possible ambiguity there.

Precocious Apprentice allows you to cast a spell. Singular. So by no stretch of the imagination do you qualify for the PRC.

Close, but no cigar. Yes, PA only gives you one spell, but the PrCs in question have no restrictions on how often you can cast said spell. Sure I may have to sleep between castings, but I can still cast it more than once at the time that I learn it.

Psyrogue'd by SurlySeraph

[Gorgondantess]

A 3rd-level wizard who doesn't have 14 or higher Int doesn't cast 2nd-level spells, by that logic, because he only gets one.

Excellent argument! I'm going to bring that one up with my DM.:smallbiggrin:
Anyways, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to gimp their wizard by becoming a theurge- or if they want to power up their warlock by becoming a theurge- more power to them. In my opinion, using PA shenanigans to get in doesn't make things broken, it makes things more balanced, as it draws everything closer to the same balance-line.

[Sinon]

Excellent until your DM replies that you actually can't cast: you can try to cast with a Spellcraft check.

The fact is that if your DM is inclined to approve workarounds, he'll probably approve this one. If not, he won't.


Anyways, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to gimp their wizard by becoming a theurge- or if they want to power up their warlock by becoming a theurge- more power to them. In my opinion, using PA shenanigans to get in doesn't make things broken, it makes things more balanced, as it draws everything closer to the same balance-line. Ah! that thick and fuzzy-edged zigzag that is the balance line. I'm of the opinion that if you don't want to "gimp your wizard" with a theurge, don't. Just play your wizard.

If you think the costs of a PrC are too high, don't try for questionable discount. Just pick another PrC.

[Psyren]

Excellent until your DM replies that you actually can't cast: you can try to cast with a Spellcraft check.

By that logic you lose the ability to cast spells in adverse weather, simply because there is a chance of failure. :smallconfused:

And it's DC 8 for pete's sake!

[Corwin_of_Amber]

The thing is, I really like theurge classes, but only if you can make them mostly one class. For example I have a character that is a Beguiler/Wizard/Ultimate Magus that uses Practiced Spellcaster and Karu Sigil in order to get to 19th level Wizard spellcasting with just a spattering of 8th level Beguiler. At no point was it unbalanced since I ended up being about 4-6 levels behind the curve on Beguiler spellcaster levels, so they provided a decent, but not gamebreaking benefit. When I was DM for a game I had a player that wanted to be a Mystic Theurge but when planning out his character he realized that he was losing a lot. It was the 1st and only time I had been DM and I was woefully unexperienced in the game in general. I'm probobly going to DM again soon and now I'm going to rework that class so it can be a 10/7 progression similar to Magus so he can play it.

I figued it was questionable, so I won't try this, but I wanted to see if this was actually an accepted strategy. I'm all about flavor over power, so I wouldn't try to use this to make wizard-ClericZilla but I may try to get my DM to allow Warlock on UM.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

[Darrin]

The "must be able to cast multiple spell*s*" plural thing has always struck me as a weak, desperate argument.

Focused Specialist (Complete Mage) gets around this, though (as does Versatile Spell, Sanctum Spell, and Earth Spell). Precocious Apprentice gives you the equivalent of a 2nd level spell slot. Focused Specialist swaps that 2nd level spell slot for two specialist-only slots. Two slots = plural.

[Corwin_of_Amber]

The "must be able to cast multiple spell*s*" plural thing has always struck me as a weak, desperate argument.

Focused Specialist (Complete Mage) gets around this, though (as does Versatile Spell, Sanctum Spell, and Earth Spell). Precocious Apprentice gives you the equivalent of a 2nd level spell slot. Focused Specialist swaps that 2nd level spell slot for two specialist-only slots. Two slots = plural.

Also, as far as I can tell, there's nothing that says a Human Wizard 1 can't take PA twice.

[Sinon]

By that logic you lose the ability to cast spells in adverse weather, simply because there is a chance of failure. :smallconfused:
That's just it: there is no logic. If you want to allow it, you do and can find reasoning that appeals to you. If you don't like it, you can appeal to others arguments.

Don't take my word for it. Threadsurect some 6-year-old threads on any RPG forum. I've yet to see "reasons" change any minds.


For example I have a character that is a Beguiler/Wizard/Ultimate Magus that uses Practiced Spellcaster and Karu Sigil in order to get to 19th level Wizard spellcasting with just a spattering of 8th level Beguiler. At no point was it unbalanced since I ended up being about 4-6 levels behind the curve on Beguilerspellcaster levels, so they provided a decent, but not gamebreaking benefit. A decent, but not game-breaking benefit to a freakin' wizard, which is already one of the most powerful classes out there.


The thing is, I really like theurge classes, but only if you can make them mostly one class.Then play it. Stop focusing on the power you'll give up and look at what you'll have, and you'll see it is plenty and cool. It isn't like you're so weak you're a fighter.

[Sinon]

For example I have a character that is a Beguiler/Wizard/Ultimate Magus that uses Practiced Spellcaster and Karu Sigil in order to get to 19th level Wizard spellcasting with just a spattering of 8th level Beguiler.And if this flew, then your DM will likely have no problems with PA. :)

[Warlawk]

A 3rd-level wizard who doesn't have 14 or higher Int doesn't cast 2nd-level spells, by that logic, because he only gets one.

Close, but no cigar. Yes, PA only gives you one spell, but the PrCs in question have no restrictions on how often you can cast said spell. Sure I may have to sleep between castings, but I can still cast it more than once at the time that I learn it.

Psyrogue'd by SurlySeraph

It doesn't say "Spells per day" it says spells.

A 3rd level 14 int wizard can only cast one per day, but it can be any one of a number of spells, because he is capable of casting any one of the spells in his spellbook. He is capable of casting spells.

A 1st level wizard with PA is capable of casting a second level spell. Just one. no selection process. He can cast a spell, he cannot cast spells.

A nitpick perhaps, and you may not agree, but it is an important distinction and pretty clear definition. PA does not allow you to cast second level spells. It allows you to cast a spell, singular.

Mostly moot I suppose anyways since no one I play with would ever try it, much less try to rules lawyer it if the DM said no. However, the verbiage chosen in the abilities pretty clearly does not match. Fortunately, no kittens will be killed if we do not agree on this oh so unimportant point.

EDIT: Grammar correction.

[Tvtyrant]

As someone who has played a MT straight out of core, I can say a few things about the balance;
1. You are not going to be good at rocket tag. Your DC's aren't high enough.
2. Your actually not in danger of MAD to the degree that people think. You get both Owl's Wisdom and Fox's Cunning to deal with that hurdle.
3. You have a lot of spell slots; you can't play God, but you can play Batman. Pick a spell for every possible occasion and you will still have slots left. Also you get to use/make both divine and magic items.
4. You get Overland Flight, Displacement and Magic Vestment, so your okay on defense.
5. Several Debuffs don't allow saves; including Enervation. These are going to be breadwinners.
6. Do not ban evocation; its a bad school but in this case your going to need it. Also you need Necromancy and probably Illusion. Enchantment is too save based to keep, and Abjuration will be covered by Cleric.

[Corwin_of_Amber]

Then play it. Stop focusing on the power you'll give up and look at what you'll have, and you'll see it is plenty and cool. It isn't like you're so weak you're a fighter.

The thing is, our DM has occasional lapses into DM vs Player encounters and tries to kill us, just barely short of cheating. So, while I don't play my characters in an ostentatiously OP and obnoxious way, I need to have some "oh sh*t" buttons that I can press if we're in a bad spot.


And if this flew, then your DM will likely have no problems with PA. :)
The UM build was sound by the rules and didn't go into any gray areas of what is actually meant by wording. Based on the pre reqs it seems that this class in meant to be enterd into by Sor 1/Wiz4 and advances you to Sor 11/Wiz 11 so I'm under the impression that the only reason that they didn't make this just like the MT was so that this can be used with Practiced Spellcaster. The fact that Comp Arcane was published, with the PS feat, before Comp Mage would further support this. Please do note, I don't wany ways of rules-lawyering my DM into giving me what I want based on previous decisions. Each such combination should, realistically, be approved on a case-by-case basis. But, thank you for the insight you've given on this thread.

EDIT: @Tvtyrant my DM gave me a long speach about how the severely limiting nature of Domain Wizard (eg- I can only prepare 1 spell in each slot) makes up for the versatility of not giving up schools, so yeah... I just roll with that logic and take Domain Wizard.

[Gorgondantess]

It doesn't say "Spells per day" it says spells.

A 3rd level 14 int wizard can only cast one per day, but it can be any one of a number of spells, because he is capable of casting any one of the spells in his spellbook. He is capable of casting spells.

A 1st level wizard with PA is capable of casting a second level spell. Just one. no selection process. He can cast a spell, he cannot cast spells.

A nitpick perhaps, and you may not agree, but it is an important distinction and pretty clear definition. PA does not allow you to cast second level spells. It allows you to cast a spell, singular.

Mostly moot I suppose anyways since no one I play with would ever try it, much less try to rules lawyer it if the DM said no. However, the verbiage chosen in the abilities pretty clearly does not match. Fortunately, no kittens will be killed if we do not agree on this oh so unimportant point.

EDIT: Grammar correction.

Yes, and what of the 4th level sorcerer with the singular 2nd level spell? Are you saying he can't qualify for the class? Are you a spellcastingmethodist? Some of my best friends are sorcerers, you know.:smallannoyed:

[Stephen_E]

The UM build was sound by the rules and didn't go into any gray areas of what is actually meant by wording. Based on the pre reqs it seems that this class in meant to be enterd into by Sor 1/Wiz4 and advances you to Sor 11/Wiz 11 so I'm under the impression that the only reason that they didn't make this just like the MT was so that this can be used with Practiced Spellcaster. The fact that Comp Arcane was published, with the PS feat, before Comp Mage would further support this. Please do note, I don't wany ways of rules-lawyering my DM into giving me what I want based on previous decisions. Each such combination should, realistically, be approved on a case-by-case basis. But, thank you for the insight you've given on this thread.

Basically the PA feat does allow u a fudge entry into the MT style prestige classes without any odd reading to justify it.

That said -
1) It's an especially poorly worded feat.

2) A significant body of players see it as a cheat entry into the relevant prestige classes and use a) the poor wording of the feat, and b) the feat writer having said he hadn't intended the feat for that use, as reasons to produce a lot of poorly chopped logic to support disallowing it.


So use it if you and your GM are happy with it.
Doing so isn't a "house rule" and generally isn't considered a powerbreaking move.
It is using a feat in a way the designer hadn't intended, but if that was a problem no one would ever playing anything but blaster wizards. :smallwink:


Stephen E

[Sinon]

The thing is, our DM has occasional lapses into DM vs Player encounters and tries to kill us, just barely short of cheating. So, while I don't play my characters in an ostentatiously OP and obnoxious way, I need to have some "oh sh*t" buttons that I can press if we're in a bad spot.Then he deserves the party he's going to get.

Wizards are the most, or are at least a viable contender for the most, powerful class in 3rd edition. I don’t like to judge the way other people play, but if I have to play one of those classes as a full caster or my DM will kill me, I have no interest.

As presented, without shenanigans, the eldritch theurge has spells, invocations, and cool class abilities. It is fun to play and worth playing without doing anything cheesy.

The UM build was sound by the rules and didn't go into any gray areas of what is actually meant by wording. Based on the pre reqs it seems that this class in meant to be enterd into by Sor 1/Wiz4 and advances you to Sor 11/Wiz 11 so I'm under the impression that the only reason that they didn't make this just like the MT was so that this can be used with Practiced Spellcaster. What? Look dude, I think that’s a cute trick, but it’s still a trick. Neither of us know what the designer meant by the wording. (Unless you are him, or know him personally.)

For my money:

Playing it straight costs you four levels of prep-casting while gaining

10 levels of spontaneous casting

class abilities:

Arcane Spell Power to +3
Augmented Casting (metamagic power)
Expanded Spell Knowledge x4

I even get 2 of the 3 bonus feats a regular wizard would’ve gotten.

The trick makes it so I still get the class abilities, the feats, and 8 levels of spontaneous casting for the price of one wizard level.

Yeah, no grey when you set those two options side by side. :smalleek:

[Psyren]

It doesn't say "Spells per day" it says spells.

Generally, the less specific wording is also less restrictive :smallwink:

[Darrin]

It doesn't say "Spells per day" it says spells.

A 3rd level 14 int wizard can only cast one per day, but it can be any one of a number of spells, because he is capable of casting any one of the spells in his spellbook. He is capable of casting spells.


As Gorgondantess points out, this isn't a very strong argument. The usual counter-argument is ok, the 4th level Sorcerer only knows one spell, but he can cast multiples of it, hence spells plural.

However, this argument also has problems. A precocious apprentice casts a 2nd level spell on Monday. On Tuesday, he casts it again. Multiple 2nd level spells, plural.

The PrC requirements never mention "per day" or specifies a time limit, but again, a precocious apprentice can even meet a daily requirement: a few minutes after midnight he casts his 2nd level spell. Then he sleeps for more than 8 hours, gets up, and prepares his spells again. Later that day, he casts another 2nd level spell. Two 2nd level spells, same day, plural.

The other argument put forward is oh, well, he can't cast it automatically, he only has a *chance* to cast a spell. I don't really buy this, either. With the right build or under certain conditions, a precocious apprentice can make that caster level check with 0% failure. A higher-level wizard who picks up even a simple shield only has a *chance* to cast a spell due to ASF. Or he could be standing next to a barbarian who hits him with a tree on an AoO and he has to make a Concentration check, which he may fail.

What it all boils down to is this: either your DM allows certain early-entry tricks to work or he/she doesn't. It's as simple as that.

[BeholderSlayer]

Precocious Apprentice doesn't even say you CAN cast a second level spell. The specific wording is that it gives you one (singular) second level spell slot that must be used to cast the specific spell you picked. Sounds stupid, but that's what it says and there's no debating that.

The important part of the feat to stress is the second paragraph, that states "when you become able to cast second level spells." This infers that you are not able to cast second level spells earlier than usual, despite having one second level slot.

Doesn't make sense, but that's how it's written, and by RAW it shouldn't work (with a strong emphasis on the "should," though sometimes it's allowed).

FWIW the authors are on record somewhere saying it's not intended. OTOH, Versatile Spellcaster works just fine for this, apparently, according to WotC (don't ask me where I read that, I just know I did).

On a more personal note, I'd let a player qualify for the PrC in my campaigns. I am just explaining where the logic may come from.

[Corwin_of_Amber]

The trick makes it so I still get the class abilities, the feats, and 8 levels of spontaneous casting for the price of one wizard level.
Yeah, no grey when you set those two options side by side. :smalleek:

Just to be clear, it's 1 feat, one sub-optimal race choice for everything but this class, MAD or playing a Beguiler, you cannot take item creation nor a reserve feat in place of the 2 bonus metamagic feats, and the opportunity cost of not being able to enter things like Archmage, Iot7V, or Magus of the Arcane Order before level 16 (unless you cut this class short). Don't think of it in terms of what you need to do to get in, think of it in terms of what options getting in prevents.


Wizards are the most, or are at least a viable contender for the most, powerful class in 3rd edition. I don’t like to judge the way other people play, but if I have to play one of those classes as a full caster or my DM will kill me, I have no interest.

Just because a class is powerful doesn't mean you have to use it to its full potential. My wizards tend to incapacitate enemies and buff the party in order for others to deal the damage. My 2nd Wizard character (my 1st was the 1st time I played, he had Toughness x2 because I thought giving him 2 extra HD was good) was a specialized transmuter and I didn't use Polymorph BS, banned Evocation, and dealt close to no damage, instead doing things like summoning many lesser creatures to aid another my allies, and making sure the meleers never died.

Also, for not liking to pass judgement, you last few comments have seemed awfully condemning in response to the question of whether there is precedent for this tirck or not.

[Tvtyrant]

EDIT: @Tvtyrant my DM gave me a long speach about how the severely limiting nature of Domain Wizard (eg- I can only prepare 1 spell in each slot) makes up for the versatility of not giving up schools, so yeah... I just roll with that logic and take Domain Wizard.

Then victory is yours! Pick wholesome ones!

[Sinon]

Just to be clear, it's 1 feat, That you probably would have taken anyway. :smallsmile:
one sub-optimal race choice for everything but this class,So, for this class, not sub optimal.:smallsmile:
MAD or playing a Beguiler, Which is what you played.:smallsmile:
you cannot take item creation nor a reserve feat in place of the 2 bonus metamagic feats,For a class with improved metamagic use.:smallsmile:
and the opportunity cost of not being able to enter things like Archmage, Iot7V, or Magus of the Arcane Order before level 16 (unless you cut this class short). So, I can't take those PrCs because I'm too busy taking another? :smallsmile:


Just because a class is powerful doesn't mean you have to use it to its full potential. My wizards tend to incapacitate enemies and buff the party in order for others to deal the damage. My 2nd Wizard character (my 1st was the 1st time I played, he had Toughness x2 because I thought giving him 2 extra HD was good) was a specialized transmuter and I didn't use Polymorph BS, banned Evocation, and dealt close to no damage, instead doing things like summoning many lesser creatures to aid another my allies, and making sure the meleers never died.But you want an obviously stronger option.That you’ll hold back once you’ve gotten it isn’t really a consideration for me.

There are two interpretations of the rules, and you advocate one that is obviously superior, so much so that it seems too good to be true.

If you and your DM are cool with that, cool. But don’t try to argue that you should get it because you aren’t going to use its full potential or that the designers must have wanted it to be that way based on the fact that the feat happened to be published first.


Also, for not liking to pass judgement, you last few comments have seemed awfully condemning in response to the question of whether there is precedent for this tirck or not.Well, I wouldn't have mentioned that I normally don't like to pass judgment if I weren’t about to do so. :smallsmile:
I make no secret of the fact that there are a lot of people who approve of this.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not one.

I have been hard on your DM. If you have to play top-tier casters or he'll kill you, I think that sucks.

I have been hard on your reasons or thinking these trick work because I think they are misplaced.
I mean, I don't agree with Gorgondantess, but at least he's pointing to the text. (Even though I like better the part of the text BeholderSlayer points to.)

I think most cases like this are never going to be resolved; people decide and then pick the arguments that suit them. With the publishers full well of the controversy and not only refusing to clarify the issues, but continuing to churn out more ambiguous stuff.

[Ernir]

So, I can't take those PrCs because I'm too busy taking another? :smallsmile:
Exactly.

With the way 3.5 ended up, this is the main factor for caster PrC balancing. Comparing a caster PrC to the base class was the theory, but since every Wizard and their cohort has a PrC after ECL 5, it is useless.

Hence, you compare the stuff you get out of a PrC with the stuff you get out of another PrC.

Comparing the old Krau Illumian Wizard/Beguiler/UM build to the other PrCs out there... meh. Loses a caster level, gains respectable metamagic shenanigans. Might be slightly ahead of the curve of classes that people actually use, but not by much, I'd think.

[Corwin_of_Amber]

If you and your DM are cool with that, cool. But don’t try to argue that you should get it because you aren’t going to use its full potential or that the designers must have wanted it to be that way based on the fact that the feat happened to be published first.

Isn't the decision to play a class that isn't 100% optimized the same as choosing to play a somewhat optimized (you can't deny that wizards do stupider stuff than this with Incanrix, etc) class in a manner that doesn't disrupt balance? It's just a difference of whether you choose to make the concession of power vs flavor during creation or during execution. I do not believe that I am entitled to use it because it has been printed, I am merely making the point that I could play a Kobold without being Pun Pun.

I by no means wish to attempt to sway you to my way of thinking, your point of view is one I have wanted to try myself. In my next campaign I'm going to ask if the players would want to try a magic-limited environment, requiring them to take 4-6 level equivalents that do not promote primary spellcasting. To this end I am making a compilation of various LA races, Bloodlines, Theurge classes, the PrC base classes, and melee/skillmonkey & caster combination classes. At some point I was planning on making a thread on this concept concerning the application of ToB on such an environment.

Also, I believe I have portrayed our usual DM in a less than flattering light. He's quite good at what he does, it's just that we sometimes bait him a bit and he naturally responds.

One last thing, this conversation seems to be growing a bit heated (I do not wish it to escalate to the point of offensiveness) so, without denying you a last rebuttal, I would like to ask that we discontinue the discussions of the moral implications of using a "trick" to increase power.