[PF] Aasimar Wizard 1/Cleric 3/MT

[Spore]

Greetings again, my dear playground,

I would ask you to evaluate above class combination for power. I need arguments for my DM to allow me to use the once a day SLA (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow) to qualify for 2nd level spellcasting for the theurge (keep in mind, SLAs are arcane in nature). I would like to try and reason about the absolute power compared to a true classed Cleric since trading off 1 cleric level, most domain powers and spells is certainly not overpowering, but underpowering a cleric (while giving flexibility).

I could understand his reasoning behind 1 spell not being the same as an entire spell list, so I ask of you.

1) How much power would a Wizard1/Cleric3/MT (5 in my case) really bring?

2) Would you allow it? How would you argue pro and contra that build?

My DM is very picky anyway and that interpretation is stretching the rules for even the most generous DM.

[holywhippet]

Even with that FAQ ruling the PrC does say second levels spells and that SLA only gives you one. Still, it does appear Paizo are happy to allow it as most PrC say much the same thing. But DMs do have rule 0 on their side.

1) It's not the most broken build, but by getting early entry like that means you have more arcane and divine spells known and available than expected. Since spells known and spells per day are the reason spellcaster are so powerful it does make the build fairly broken.

2) I wouldn't as I feel it would be exploiting loopholes in the rules to get more power for a character who will already end up pretty powerful. Losing out on a single cleric level won't hurt much compared to the benefit in the long run getting access to arcane spells.

[Spore]

Well I still hope that thread won't attract the "MT is a trap" guys. Additional opinions are welcome.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well I still hope that thread won't attract the "MT is a trap" guys. Additional opinions are welcome.

MT is a trap because it puts you behind on so many casting levels. MT is amazing when you manage to work your way around this, either through early-entry tricks (as you've done here) or through fast-progression stuff like Ur-Priest or Beholder Mage.

1 - You've got 8th-level Cleric casting and 6th-level Wizard casting at ECL 9. Your main disadvantage is that you're behind a spell level: The straight-classed clerics and wizards already have 5th-level spells by this point. Huge improvement over the standard (and RAI?) Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 3 build, though.

2 - I'm of two minds here: On the one hand, this method of qualification is clearly not RAI, and frankly it's drown-healing levels of absurd.

But on the other hand, Mystic Theurge is a really cool and flavorful concept hampered by being mechanically very weak without tricks: I'm all in favor of fudging the rules for the purposes of making your character feel as awesome in play as they are in your head. I'd probably go about this by using a homebrew/houserule fix for MT though rather than allowing you to use your Daylight SLA to qualify, though.

As for whether I'd approve this character, it honestly depends on the campaign. If your party mates are a Monk, a Rogue, and a Cavalier, I'm gonna say no unless you promise to hold back your full power (and be quick to revoke your right to play the character if you break this promise). If your party mates are a Planar Shepard, an Incantatrix, and a Dweomerkeeper, I'd probably be giving you a little additional help!

[Averis Vol]

MT is a trap because it puts you behind on so many casting levels. MT is amazing when you manage to work your way around this, either through early-entry tricks (as you've done here) or through fast-progression stuff like Ur-Priest or Beholder Mage.

1 - You've got 8th-level Cleric casting and 6th-level Wizard casting at ECL 9. Your main disadvantage is that you're behind a spell level: The straight-classed clerics and wizards already have 5th-level spells by this point. Huge improvement over the standard (and RAI?) Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 3 build, though.

2 - I'm of two minds here: On the one hand, this method of qualification is clearly not RAI, and frankly it's drown-healing levels of absurd.

But on the other hand, Mystic Theurge is a really cool and flavorful concept hampered by being mechanically very weak without tricks: I'm all in favor of fudging the rules for the purposes of making your character feel as awesome in play as they are in your head. I'd probably go about this by using a homebrew/houserule fix for MT though rather than allowing you to use your Daylight SLA to qualify, though.

As for whether I'd approve this character, it honestly depends on the campaign. If your party mates are a Monk, a Rogue, and a Cavalier, I'm gonna say no unless you promise to hold back your full power (and be quick to revoke your right to play the character if you break this promise). If your party mates are a Planar Shepard, an Incantatrix, and a Dweomerkeeper, I'd probably be giving you a little additional help!

I agree with what you say for the most part, but I have to mention that this is a PF game, which makes almost full dual casting close to the one of the strongest playable build (as long as at least one side ends with 9ths). While this in 3.5 is not really considered too insane, pathfinder absolutely lacks the options to make incantrix levels of broken builds*

*Not all incantrix are absolutely broken, but they are a good example for broken builds, feel free to interchange it with planar shepherd