Mystic Theurge Fans: What's the Appeal?

[Trunamer]

Is it having a lot of spell slots to play with? Is it having access to a lot of spells via two spell lists? Is it some creative bit of fluff you've come up with to explain this PrC, or your favorite MT?

[Snowbluff]

Whenever I do it, it's for the spells/spells per day. I do prefer Arcane Heirophant, though.

[Tvtyrant]

I like the slots myself. Especially on a xleric-wizard you have s lot of options, and you never run out.

[IxenArcanissar]

I like the spell slots/per day, sure, but it's more the optimization potential that comes with it. I'm sure you're aware of all the early entry tricks and all of the different (and better) PrCs that use Arcane/Divine things. If I'm taking levels in MT it's because I have levels to burn before getting into a different PrC and I want to increase both classes' lists.

[Urpriest]

Because people think of Cleric and Wizard as qualitatively different, rather than two slightly different tracks that access broadly similar abilities. It's the same reason that some people think that Cure Light Wounds is inherently a Divine spell that shouldn't be castable by Arcane casters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Dude, I'll be... like... two casters at one, man!

[Trunamer]

Because people think of Cleric and Wizard as qualitatively different, rather than two slightly different tracks that access broadly similar abilities. It's the same reason that some people think that Cure Light Wounds is inherently a Divine spell that shouldn't be castable by Arcane casters.
You're saying that you like the MT because it transcends the arcane-divine divide that exists because Tradition?

[TypoNinja]

I made a Sorc/Cleric MT. Early entry so I'm only one level behind, and Versatile Spell Caster basically gives me hilarious numbers of spells a day. I never run low. I prepare all the strange situational spells on the cleric side (or anything a cleric gets sooner) and my crowd control, buffs/debuffs/save or suck/die, and even a little direct damage from the Sorc. Versatile Spell Caster lets me dump unwanted cleric spells into more Sorc spells, and an ACF lets me metamagic at normal speed spontaneously.

Finally, Runestaffs are a cheap way to supplement the Sorc spell list, actually the vast majority of my direct damage comes from an Evokers runestaff.

Did I mention Hilarious amounts of spells per day?

[Urpriest]

You're saying that you like the MT because it transcends the arcane-divine divide that exists because Tradition?

I don't like the MT, because there is no arcane-divine divide, due to Tradition or anything else. There are thematic differences, but you can build a Wizard-like Cleric, or a Cleric-like Wizard, without once picking up a level of another type of casting.

But people who mistakenly think that there is a fundamental arcane-divine divide, who think that Clerics and Wizards do fundamentally different things, those are the sort of people who like Mystic Theurges.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For the titular mystic theurge, I've got very little affection.

Ultimate Magus, however, makes me tingle in all the right ways. It actually feels like what its name suggests it should be. Properly built you get the best of both prepared and spontaneous arcane casting and the metamagic feature is awesome.

Personally, I don't mind the MAD of a sorcerer/ wizard blend; sorcerer to spam the spammy spells and wizard for the "right spell for the right job" angle, all drawn from the best list in the game.

[Talya]

For the titular mystic theurge, I've got very little affection.

Ultimate Magus, however, makes me tingle in all the right ways. It actually feels like what its name suggests it should be. Properly built you get the best of both prepared and spontaneous arcane casting and the metamagic feature is awesome.

Personally, I don't mind the MAD of a sorcerer/ wizard blend; sorcerer to spam the spammy spells and wizard for the "right spell for the right job" angle, all drawn from the best list in the game.
This, only using beguiler for entry actually eliminates the MADness.


I don't like the MT, because there is no arcane-divine divide, due to Tradition or anything else. There are thematic differences, but you can build a Wizard-like Cleric, or a Cleric-like Wizard, without once picking up a level of another type of casting.

But people who mistakenly think that there is a fundamental arcane-divine divide, who think that Clerics and Wizards do fundamentally different things, those are the sort of people who like Mystic Theurges.

This from the guy named "Urpriest?" Come on. Everyone knows Mystic Theurge is a nine-level PrC that you take after Urpriest and Sublime Chord.

[Metahuman1]

I always kinda wanted to figure out a build that got Caster level 20, a tone of spells per day, and could learn all the spells in the game. I just thought that would be neat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I always kinda wanted to figure out a build that got Caster level 20, a tone of spells per day, and could learn all the spells in the game. I just thought that would be neat.

Well archivist gets you the entirety of divine casting so that part's pretty easy. The trick is getting all the arcane spells in one place.

A bamboo spirit folk archivist/ wizard/ arcane heirophant/ mystic theurge will get you most of the way there. You'll miss out on a few gems on the arcane side, body outside body comes instantly to mind, but otherwise it's pretty close.

Note, however, that there's some room to interpret that getting trackless step from a racial feature, rather than a class feature, doesn't quite meet arcane heirophant's prerequisite. Honestly though, that argument always struck me as hollow. Trackless step is trackless step.

[ngilop]

I don't like the MT, because there is no arcane-divine divide, due to Tradition or anything else. There are thematic differences, but you can build a Wizard-like Cleric, or a Cleric-like Wizard, without once picking up a level of another type of casting.

But people who mistakenly think that there is a fundamental arcane-divine divide, who think that Clerics and Wizards do fundamentally different things, those are the sort of people who like Mystic Theurges.

I have no idea what you mean by any of this. Are you talking baout how up untill recently that all magic came from a divine source and it was not untill the more modern era where the 2 differeing sources came about?

but you are one of those peopel who refuse to accept society changes and think that all magic is magic and there is no arcane-divine split?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I have no idea what you mean by any of this. Are you talking baout how up untill recently that all magic came from a divine source and it was not untill the more modern era where the 2 differeing sources came about?

but you are one of those peopel who refuse to accept society changes and think that all magic is magic and there is no arcane-divine split?

There is no arcane/divine split. At the receiving end there's no functional difference whatsoever. The breadth and depth of the three big spell lists; cleric, druid, and sorc/wiz; are such that they overlap on very nearly all effects even if they get there in slightly different ways and adding bard gives the arcane side the one thing that it otherwise lacks; healing.

There's a difference in the caster chassis that the magic is funneled through but there's no appreciable difference in the two sides of magic themselves. They're two sides of the same coin.

[Kraken]

Arcane hierophant is rightly getting a lot of love, one tidbit I'll throw in is that it gets 4+int skill points/level and a good skill list - notably it has diplomacy, spot, and listen. If it had UMD it'd be almost perfect.

[Thanatosia]

I don't like the MT, because there is no arcane-divine divide, due to Tradition or anything else. There are thematic differences, but you can build a Wizard-like Cleric, or a Cleric-like Wizard, without once picking up a level of another type of casting.

But people who mistakenly think that there is a fundamental arcane-divine divide, who think that Clerics and Wizards do fundamentally different things, those are the sort of people who like Mystic Theurges.
I think there is a pretty large gap between Wizard and CLeric in the game as intended. Game as intended does'nt have Clerics trivially or frequently grabbing everyspell from some domain, and using obscure abilities to duplicate or copy the effects of most wizardry. Game as intended I don't think was ment to have Healing being such an ineffecient use of resources, or so trivial for Wizards to gain access to healing methods.

And it's very easy to run campaigns run closer to game as intended then game as optimized. If you dont actively try to exploit every obscure arcane loophole that lets you skip across the divide like a street gutter, there actually is a pretty broad divide between them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The gap isn't as large as you imagine. They get there in slightly different ways, but arcanists and divine casters are equally capable of filling each of the various magical archetypes with the lone exception of dedicated healer.

Seriously, pick one and I'll be happy to demonstrate.

[eggynack]

I have no idea what you mean by any of this. Are you talking baout how up untill recently that all magic came from a divine source and it was not untill the more modern era where the 2 differeing sources came about?

but you are one of those peopel who refuse to accept society changes and think that all magic is magic and there is no arcane-divine split?
People perceive the mystic theurge as a hole filler. The wizard list has all of these big holes in it that reduce the wizard's power level, and it is only through the addition of cleric casting that one can achieve true spell versatility. This, rather than spells/day, represents the true qualitative boost that would theoretically be provided by the mystic theurge.

However, it doesn't work that way in practice. The wizard list and the cleric list are actually really similar, so the one doesn't actually fill the holes in the other. Sure, there are places where one class has spells that the other doesn't, but it's not that many places, and it's not enough to cover the loss of spell levels. In fact, theurging ultimately reduces spell versatility, just because you lose access to higher level spells, and those are more different from lower level wizard spells than cleric spells are. That's the basic argument that Urpriest was presenting, rather than anything having to do with tradition, or society changes, or whatever other flavor thing you're talking about.

[Setra]

To me I just like Theurge types in general, I love having tons of spell slots, though I think Mystic Theurge needs... more to it, same with Cerebremancer.

I don't like Arcane Hierophant more because it's stronger, I just think it 'feels' better, keeping Wildshape and Animal Companion Progression is awesome, especially since the Polymorph line is banned here, I mean come on, Bear Wizard! It's awesome!

Ultimate Magus also feels pretty awesome, it gives you more than just 'Wizard + Sorcerer', there's a little something extra, which I think Mystic Theurge needs.

Maybe something that uses Turn Undead attempts like Ruby Knight Vindicator, but for boosting spells instead or something.

[hymer]

Seriously, pick one and I'll be happy to demonstrate.

Sounds fun! :smallsmile: I'll have a BFC favoured soul with a sprinkle of damage dealing, please.

On topic, my main draw towards such a class (though I've never played one) is the idea that you're unlikely to run out of spells. Which isn't always entirely true, but that's the main draw anyway. Well, there's also some fluff coolnesses, but those are pretty campaign specific.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The gap isn't as large as you imagine. They get there in slightly different ways, but arcanists and divine casters are equally capable of filling each of the various magical archetypes with the lone exception of dedicated healer.

Seriously, pick one and I'll be happy to demonstrate.

Dedicated Magic Missile spammer. Without the Force domain.

[SiuiS]

The concept of gestalting spiritual devotion and invocation with the more esoteric and agnostic practices of high ceremonial wizardry appeals to me. One says "I adore you and supplicate myself to your will, grant me this boon", and the other says "I have called your name while in the circle of iron within The circle of salt, and you are bound by ancient laws to perform for me", and making those both work – sublimating spiritual forces and being sublimated by spiritual forces – is an interesting feat of storytelling.

This is, of course, lost on people who see a divine caster as "casts spells from list of divine spells" and an arcane caster as "casts spells from list of arcane spells". :smalltongue:

[Craft (Cheese)]

The concept of gestalting spiritual devotion and invocation with the more esoteric and agnostic practices of high ceremonial wizardry appeals to me. One says "I adore you and duplicate myself to your will, grant me this boon", and the other says "I have called your name while in the circle of iron with I. The circle of salt, and you are bound by ancient laws to perform for me", and making those both work – sublimating spiritual forces and being sublimated by spiritual forces – is an interesting feat of storytelling.

This is, of course, lost on people who see a divine caster as "casts spells from list of divine spells" and an arcane caster as "casts spells from list of arcane spells". :smalltongue:

This. I love the Archivist for similar reasons.

[Yuki Akuma]

I always kinda wanted to figure out a build that got Caster level 20, a tone of spells per day, and could learn all the spells in the game. I just thought that would be neat.

Chameleon with Improved Spell Capacity taken 3 times?

Yeah it's epic and probably doesn't actually work but

[Thanatosia]

OK.... I'lll bite. without domain abuse (wich can bridge one specific gap generally) or other wierd trickery, Just using basic iconic spell lists and building an iconic wizard or cleric and not some power Optimized machine, how do....

Clerics Teleport the party around the globe, Hard seperate foes from each other (a'la Wall of Stone, Wall of force, forcecage, etc), Do decent blaster damage (Clerics can blast, but their spells tend to make wizard blasting look effecient!), Misdirect with illusions or invisibility?

Wizards heal the party up after each fight, Restore lost ability damage, status effects, and lost levels. Buff the party on a broad basis (OK, haste is probably OP here, but otherwise...)?

[CombatOwl]

OK.... I'lll bite. without domain abuse (wich can bridge one specific gap generally) or other wierd trickery,

Eh? How is picking a domain "domain abuse"?


Clerics Teleport the party around the globe,

Travel domain.


Hard seperate foes from each other (a'la Wall of Stone, Wall of force, forcecage, etc),

With Wall of Stone, Wall of [Alignment], Blade Barrier, etc.


Do decent blaster damage (Clerics can blast, but their spells tend to make wizard blasting look effecient!),

If they're really, really wanting to do that for some reason... pick up an elemental domain. It provides the spells required. Granted, I don't know why a cleric would do that. If not, well, there are a few okay blasty spells on the upper end of the cleric list, and a lot more against undead, opposite alignments, or outsiders.

Though its questionable as to why you'd even need a blaster-type caster. They're really not something you ought to play.


Misdirect with illusions or invisibility?

Trickery domain.

Seriously, two domains (not abuse of them with devotions and whatnot) solve the worst two problems, and the second problem wasn't actually a problem since the cleric list has options for it.


Is it having a lot of spell slots to play with? Is it having access to a lot of spells via two spell lists? Is it some creative bit of fluff you've come up with to explain this PrC, or your favorite MT?

In Pathfinder, the MT capstone is so good for action economy it's not to be believed. Well worth losing the spell level.

[Pluto!]

Usually MT's a class that's been taken in casual games where players don't plan their character progressions, have a level 3 Wizard or Cleric, and come to the conclusion for one reason or other that the party could use more Cure Spells or more Wizardlyness, so they multiclass to address that need.

When you're looking over the entirety of a game's literature and doodling complete character builds on paper compulsively for the seven years after a game's left print, yeah, MT loses a lot of its shine and gleam. But that's not a population that includes more than 1-2 other people I've gamed with, and they haven't been the ones Theurging.

[Trunamer]

I have no idea what you mean by any of this. Are you talking baout how up untill recently that all magic came from a divine source and it was not untill the more modern era where the 2 differeing sources came about?

but you are one of those peopel who refuse to accept society changes and think that all magic is magic and there is no arcane-divine split?
The arcane-divine divide has existed since Day 1 of D&D, so I don't think Ur-Priest is clinging to tradition here. I think what he and others are saying is that the divide is only a hard line for certain spell types (namely healing spells), and that 3.x splat books provide many ways to more-or-less bypass even that hard line.

I will point out though, that there is a divide. I believe it's mentioned at various points in the core books, including the DMG section on spell research unless I'm mistaken. (Not by name of course, but still.) There's a lot of overlap between primary caster spell lists, and different classes can more-or-less accomplish the same things. But if there were no divide at all, there wouldn't be different spell lists would there? There'd be one-spell-list-fits-all, with all casters getting access to particular spells at the same spell level. And most notably, sorc/wiz players wouldn't have to go splat-diving just to get access to the humble cure spells.

[Yuki Akuma]

Why wouldn't there be different spell lists? Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Shugenja are all Divine spellcasters and use different spell lists. Wizards, Bards, Wu Jen and Duskblades are all Arcane spellcasters and use different spell lists. Would removing the distinction between Arcane and Divine somehow also remove the distinction between class spell lists?

[Elderand]

Why wouldn't there be different spell lists? Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Shugenja are all Divine spellcasters and use different spell lists. Wizards, Bards, Wu Jen and Duskblades are all Arcane spellcasters and use different spell lists. Would removing the distinction between Arcane and Divine somehow also remove the distinction between class spell lists?

It can.

Take Arcana evolved, there is only one spell list. Everyone able to cast spell has at least access to simple spells (the spells being separated into simple, complex and exotic) with further access being determined by class.

Even in the core game the presence of the bard being able to cast arcane healing spells make the divide all but random and arbitrary.

[The Insanity]

Lots of spells, versatility and balance.

[Urpriest]

This from the guy named "Urpriest?" Come on. Everyone knows Mystic Theurge is a nine-level PrC that you take after Urpriest and Sublime Chord.

Actually, it's a three-level class that you take after Savage Bard and Urpriest. The nine-level one is Fochluchan Lyrist. :smalltongue:


I have no idea what you mean by any of this. Are you talking baout how up untill recently that all magic came from a divine source and it was not untill the more modern era where the 2 differeing sources came about?


No, that would be silly, and it's not even true of most campaign settings. The others have covered pretty well what I mean.


I think there is a pretty large gap between Wizard and CLeric in the game as intended. Game as intended does'nt have Clerics trivially or frequently grabbing everyspell from some domain, and using obscure abilities to duplicate or copy the effects of most wizardry. Game as intended I don't think was ment to have Healing being such an ineffecient use of resources, or so trivial for Wizards to gain access to healing methods.

And it's very easy to run campaigns run closer to game as intended then game as optimized. If you dont actively try to exploit every obscure arcane loophole that lets you skip across the divide like a street gutter, there actually is a pretty broad divide between them.

The Magic Domain is in Core, for one. Play a low-op Magic Domain Cleric with a few Spell Focuses and some metamagic and you accomplish the exact same thing, flavor and party role-wise, as a low-op Core Mystic Theurge.


The concept of gestalting spiritual devotion and invocation with the more esoteric and agnostic practices of high ceremonial wizardry appeals to me. One says "I adore you and duplicate myself to your will, grant me this boon", and the other says "I have called your name while in the circle of iron with I. The circle of salt, and you are bound by ancient laws to perform for me", and making those both work – sublimating spiritual forces and being sublimated by spiritual forces – is an interesting feat of storytelling.

This is, of course, lost on people who see a divine caster as "casts spells from list of divine spells" and an arcane caster as "casts spells from list of arcane spells". :smalltongue:


This. I love the Archivist for similar reasons.

This is the basic refutation, really. Archivist already is this concept. So is a Magic Domain Cloistered Cleric laden down with scrolls, or a Wizard with Domain ACFs and Divine Oracle. Mystic Theurge is the most inefficient way to get to this flavor, and it was even in Core. It only makes sense if you think that Cleric spells are necessary to be a priest, or that Wizard spells are necessary to play a scholar, which is something the sourcebooks beat you on the head to tell you is not true.



I will point out though, that there is a divide. I believe it's mentioned at various points in the core books, including the DMG section on spell research unless I'm mistaken. (Not by name of course, but still.) There's a lot of overlap between primary caster spell lists, and different classes can more-or-less accomplish the same things. But if there were no divide at all, there wouldn't be different spell lists would there? There'd be one-spell-list-fits-all, with all casters getting access to particular spells at the same spell level. And most notably, sorc/wiz players wouldn't have to go splat-diving just to get access to the humble cure spells.

The main point is that the difference between Cleric and Wizard is not a difference between Divine and Arcane magic, it's a difference between the Cleric and Wizard lists. They're not the same thing. Way too many players think that the Wizard list is a list of all Arcane spells, so they expect every Arcane class to have access to it, and when they discover that Bards have Cure spells, they think the Wizard can learn them too.

That said, another important point is that generally speaking, Clerics get quite a few Wizard-like spells a level or two later, or a rough level less powerful. You know who else is a bit more than a level behind? A non-cheese Mystic Theurge!

Examples:

A Core Cleric gets their first Wall as a 5th level spell (ignoring Wind Wall which serves a different purpose). A Core Wizard gets a few decent Walls as 4ths (though Wall of Stone is a 5th for both).
Wizards get a nice touch attack spell as a 2nd, in Scorching Ray. Clerics get a worse one as a 3rd with Searing Light. So for example, a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 deals 4d6 with a Ranged Touch Attack, while a Cleric 7 deals 3d8.
Clerics get Flame Strike as a 5th, Wizards get Fireball as a 3rd, but Flame Strike is also a better spell.


Clerics don't do as well on Illusions (though you can get some with Trickery), and they've got a lot fewer multi-target disables (though this gets better outside of Core, as do their other deficiencies). Still, nothing that justifies wedging on a whole 'nother spell list at a 3 level cost.

[Karoht]

One spot of appeal in pathfinder, Spell Synthesis.
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/mystic-theurge#TOC-Spell-Synthesis-Su-
Once a day they can cast 2 spells in a single standard action.
Once a day.
Wooooo.

[Thanatosia]

Eh? How is picking a domain "domain abuse"?
Abuse is probably the wrong term.... the point is, unless every cleric in the world happens to be Travel/Magic/Trickery/Scaleykind there are very powerful broad effects that are exclusive to Wizardry that Clerics dont have effective access too. By picking one of those domains, a Cleric closes one of the gaps, very few clerics have access to 2 or more to really blur the lines between Divine and Arcane magic.

Almost every wizard can Teleport, only a small subset of Clerics can, and then only in a single spell slot that has to be shared with his other domains spell of that level.

[Zale]

I was a Mystic Theurge once.

And then I got eaten by wolves.

[Karoht]

I was a Mystic Theurge once.

And then I got eaten by wolves.
I was expecting you to say "then I took an arrow to the knee" followed by a completely non-ironic story to go with it.

Honestly, anyone I've ever actually played with that went Mystic Theurge usually started to deeply regret it about the time the party hit level range 8-10, often wanting to either respec or make a whole new character. I can't say I've ever seen anyone play one for longer than that, or even discuss one outside of build discussions/thought experiments.

[Thanatosia]

Honestly, anyone I've ever actually played with that went Mystic Theurge usually started to deeply regret it about the time the party hit level range 8-10, often wanting to either respec or make a whole new character.
I'm currently playing a lv9 Scout1/Sorceror1/FavoredSoul1/Mystic Thurge6 in a campaign and quite enjoying it. In a party with a figher/barbarian, monk, and Druid.... so far the fighter/barb is still doing most of the heavy lifting in combat, tho the Druid's bear companion is pretty solid with tons of grappling . The Monk puts out crazy dps but is way too fragile for my liking. I spend most of the fights buffing the party with Prayer/haste/elation, then using Glitterdust, Unluck, and Grease to mess with the enemy, with Benevolent Transposition (often with low level summoned fodder) to do a bit of Battlefield manipulation. Then do most of the healing once combat is over, and use Silent Image and Invisibility for some OOC utility.

[Zale]

I was expecting you to say "then I took an arrow to the knee" followed by a completely non-ironic story to go with it.

Honestly, anyone I've ever actually played with that went Mystic Theurge usually started to deeply regret it about the time the party hit level range 8-10, often wanting to either respec or make a whole new character. I can't say I've ever seen anyone play one for longer than that, or even discuss one outside of build discussions/thought experiments.

I took a dire wolf to the throat.

Does that count?

[ngilop]

I was expecting you to say "then I took an arrow to the knee" followed by a completely non-ironic story to go with it.

Honestly, anyone I've ever actually played with that went Mystic Theurge usually started to deeply regret it about the time the party hit level range 8-10, often wanting to either respec or make a whole new character. I can't say I've ever seen anyone play one for longer than that, or even discuss one outside of build discussions/thought experiments.

I had a new player who at around 7th level realized how 'far behind' he was in regards to our Sorcerer.

I explained to him that Hybrid classes are going to take a couple of levels to start actually looking good and 'catching up' and when he hit 10th level he relaizes that having 7th casting in both classes was just as good as 10th in a single class, we played all the way to 18th level that game he ending up wizard3/cleric5/MT 10.

Of course I jambled around mystic theurge to operate more like ultimate magus ( sacrifice X spell from one list to meta magic spell from other list)

Unless you are meduim or higher optimizng MT is actualy decent.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It kind of misses the point when you need to beef up the MT to actually make it decent.

I've personally only seen it in play when early entry tricks where allowed. Losing a single caster level can be a worthwhile tradeoff for the added versatility and staying power.
Still doesn't make it clearly superior to a full progression single caster unless you add action economy abuse imo. Three caster levels? no way.

[ngilop]

Well 95% ( or more) of all PrC need to be beefed up to work.


Look at the reaping Mauler teh class is supposed to make you an ultra grappler but in the end you actually manage to GET WORSE at grappling.

again i want to stress that MT is decent if you do not optimize beyond low. 3 casters levels is not the 'now your worhtless why are you playing D&D anyways' that i see a lot on this forum. you can still get 9th level spells from one class so its not like you are the complete and utter fialure you are making it out to be.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The problem is that you get to 9th level spells 3 levels later than everyone else, if the campaign even goes that far.
Since you take the single class levels first you're 1-2 spells levels behind a pure caster for pretty much the entire game. That's huge.
If you start in the epic levels theurging isn't that bad but most games take place pre epic.

There's also the opportunity cost. Every level in MT could have been a PrC level that gives you a powerful new ability that makes your spellcasting even stronger. As a MT you can just suck twice as often per day.

[Talya]

The problem is that you get to 9th level spells 3 levels later than everyone else, if the campaign even goes that far.
Since you take the single class levels first you're 1-2 spells levels behind a pure caster for pretty much the entire game. That's huge.
If you start in the epic levels theurging isn't that bad but most games take place pre epic.

There's also the opportunity cost. Every level in MT could have been a PrC level that gives you a powerful new ability that makes your spellcasting even stronger. As a MT you can just suck twice as often per day.

The trick there is not to use MT to advance normal casting classes. Use it to advance PrCs that get 9th level spells over 10 levels.

[CombatOwl]

Abuse is probably the wrong term.... the point is, unless every cleric in the world happens to be Travel/Magic/Trickery/Scaleykind

By that logic, we can't talk about the advantages of any spell on the arcane list, because it's possible that it's on the wizard's banned school list. Domains are a basic class feature, and cannot be ignored in a comparison there.


there are very powerful broad effects that are exclusive to Wizardry that Clerics dont have effective access too.

Polymorph is about it.


By picking one of those domains, a Cleric closes one of the gaps, very few clerics have access to 2 or more to really blur the lines between Divine and Arcane magic.

All clerics get two domains. You can easily pick travel and trickery and fill 90% of the "holes", if even we characterize them as holes. Missing out on blasty evocation magic hardly counts in my opinion, because it's somewhere below "retreat" in terms of combat utility.


Almost every wizard can Teleport, only a small subset of Clerics can,

Any wizard who takes conjuration as a banned school can't teleport. Suggesting that most wizards won't ban conjuration is, in practice, a bit like suggesting that most clerics won't take travel. Travel is probably the single most selected domain for PC clerics.


and then only in a single spell slot that has to be shared with his other domains spell of that level.

You can prepare domain spells in your regular slots--the domain slot is simply a slot reserved exclusively for domain spells.

If you pick up the Domain Spontaneity feat for the domain you want, you can even spontaneously convert spells to domain spells.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The trick there is not to use MT to advance normal casting classes. Use it to advance PrCs that get 9th level spells over 10 levels.

That solves the lost caster level issue at least. You still trade special abilities for more spells per day since every theurge level could have been a level of a caster PrC with a special ability.
Those 7 theurge levels could have given you Metamagic Effect and Supernatural Spell, for example.

Also, unless you regularly run out of spells you trade those special abilities for a few numbers on your sheet that will rarely actually come into play.

I don't want to talk anybody out of playing a theurge, be it for the fluff or whatever other reason.
I just feel that from a technical standpoint theurges are completely inferior to a single caster with PrCs.

[Urpriest]

You can prepare domain spells in your regular slots--the domain slot is simply a slot reserved exclusively for domain spells.

That's flat-out false.

But since in a low-op campaign you're only casting Teleport once per day anyway, that doesn't matter especially much.

Again, it's not like MT cripples you. But Magic Domain Cleric accomplishes the same fluff and essentially the same range of capabilities with the same source restrictions and optimization level.

[Eldonauran]

I enjoy Mystic Theurge for several reasons. The main reason I choose to play one is I game with low to mid optimized groups and the sheer power lost with taking the prestige class is offset with the increased versatility. Now, I could make one super-op with early entry and fast progression classes but it never appealed to me to actually play one of them. Theoretical character builds are fun but I get much more enjoyment out of realistic characters. YMMV.

My most recent was a pathfinder druid3/sorcerer4/mystic theurge. I felt no power gap at all, since I planned ahead to make sure that damage was consistent on my part and I had an Animal companion to assist (full progression due to boon companion and a 3rd party feat to count theurge levels). I could heal and blast with the best of them, while retaining enough versatility to prep for many situations. Whatever I couldn't do, I was kept well supplied with wands and scrolls by the party.

Why do I like the Mystic Theurge? It's a bit of rebellion and a bit of wishful thinking. I like underdogs.

[Trunamer]

The main point is that the difference between Cleric and Wizard is not a difference between Divine and Arcane magic, it's a difference between the Cleric and Wizard lists. They're not the same thing. Way too many players think that the Wizard list is a list of all Arcane spells, so they expect every Arcane class to have access to it, and when they discover that Bards have Cure spells, they think the Wizard can learn them too.
Can't say that I've ever met a player who made this particular mistake, but I can see how a novice might make it. In any case, this is not the phenomenon I'm referring to.

I think the problem is that my idea of the arcane-divine divide is different than the idea which you and some others have of it:

Why wouldn't there be different spell lists? Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and Shugenja are all Divine spellcasters and use different spell lists. Wizards, Bards, Wu Jen and Duskblades are all Arcane spellcasters and use different spell lists. Would removing the distinction between Arcane and Divine somehow also remove the distinction between class spell lists?
I've been playing loose with terminology, and I apologize. So to clarify, when I talk about casters, spell lists, and the arcane-divine divide, what I'm specifically referring to is the vanilla or generic full casters and their spell lists: the cleric, the favored soul, the wizard, and the sorcerer. These are the classes that are expected to cover a wide range of character archetypes. Yes, there's some minor variations there between the spont casters and the prep casters, but the two spell lists of these four generic caster classes are what I mean when I refer to the arcane-divine divide.

There are of course specialist caster classes (bard, druid, etc.) that cross the divide, but they have specific fluff (and often restrictions) associated with them.

Anyhow, I think that what you and Urpriest are thinking when you hear 'arcane-divine divide' is 'Arcane and divine casters do fundamentally different things. No arcane caster can cast any divine spell, and no divine caster can cast any arcane spell. Ever ever EVER.' Which of course is false.

Whereas what I think when I hear the same term is 'Generic arcane and divine casters have limited or delayed access to spells which the game's sundry writers have deemed to be divine or arcane, respectively.' So while Urpriest gives the following as proof that there is no divide...


Examples:

A Core Cleric gets their first Wall as a 5th level spell (ignoring Wind Wall which serves a different purpose). A Core Wizard gets a few decent Walls as 4ths (though Wall of Stone is a 5th for both).
Wizards get a nice touch attack spell as a 2nd, in Scorching Ray. Clerics get a worse one as a 3rd with Searing Light. So for example, a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 deals 4d6 with a Ranged Touch Attack, while a Cleric 7 deals 3d8.
Clerics get Flame Strike as a 5th, Wizards get Fireball as a 3rd, but Flame Strike is also a better spell.

...I take these examples as proof that there is a divide. Generic divine casters get delayed access to walls because Arcane. Generic divine casters get delayed access to second-rate zappy spells because Arcane. Generic divine casters get access to a special divine-damage blasty spell because Divine. Generic arcane casters don't get to heal (without resorting to obscure options) because Divine.

So maybe it would be helpful to have two terms: a Hard Divide (your definition) and a Soft Divide (my definition). The hard divide is a myth, while the soft divide is real. Agreed?

[Psyren]

The art mostly:

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/103/5/8/mystic_theurge_by_jasonengle-d4w2g6j.jpg

I also like that it exists for other theurges to use, e.g. Noctumancer and Arcane Hierophant.

But I would take Cerebremancer or Soul Manifester over it any day. As Ur-Priest said, there isn't enough of a divide between arcane and divine to make MT worthwhile.

[Urpriest]

Can't say that I've ever met a player who made this particular mistake, but I can see how a novice might make it. In any case, this is not the phenomenon I'm referring to.

I've never met anyone who made this sort of mistake, but it crops up about once a month on these boards. In any case, your mistake is actually related.



I think the problem is that my idea of the arcane-divine divide is different than the idea which you and some others have of it:

I've been playing loose with terminology, and I apologize. So to clarify, when I talk about casters, spell lists, and the arcane-divine divide, what I'm specifically referring to is the vanilla or generic full casters and their spell lists: the cleric, the favored soul, the wizard, and the sorcerer. These are the classes that are expected to cover a wide range of character archetypes. Yes, there's some minor variations there between the spont casters and the prep casters, but the two spell lists of these four generic caster classes are what I mean when I refer to the arcane-divine divide.

There are of course specialist caster classes (bard, druid, etc.) that cross the divide, but they have specific fluff (and often restrictions) associated with them.


No no no no no. This is a misapprehension, and it's a problematic one. The Sorc/Wiz list is not generic for an arcane caster. The Favored Soul/Cleric is list not generic for a divine caster. Wizard is not a generic spellcaster class. Rather, it is very, very specific. There are only four base classes in 3.5 that use anything like a spellbook, only two that actually use one, while no other base classes can specialize in a school. Similarly, two base classes get domains, and only one gets them from worshiping a god. Cleric and Wizard are classes that represent very specific fantasy concepts, they are not the default, and they are not generic.

Furthermore, this attitude is very problematic. The idea that the Core classes, in particular Wizard and Cleric, are somehow more "generic" or more "normal" than other classes is a mistake, one that keeps players from understanding the fluid nature of 3.5 content. It also contributes to the "only T1 get nice things" problem of 3.5, and it causes game writers and homebrewers alike to use "Wizard" or the like when they mean "Spellcaster", causing innumerable problems down the line. It's really important to phrase mechanics and build goals truly generically if you want to use the game intelligently, which requires throwing out the idea that particular elements are "normal".



Anyhow, I think that what you and Urpriest are thinking when you hear 'arcane-divine divide' is 'Arcane and divine casters do fundamentally different things. No arcane caster can cast any divine spell, and no divine caster can cast any arcane spell. Ever ever EVER.' Which of course is false.

Whereas what I think when I hear the same term is 'Generic arcane and divine casters have limited or delayed access to spells which the game's sundry writers have deemed to be divine or arcane, respectively.' So while Urpriest gives the following as proof that there is no divide...


...I take these examples as proof that there is a divide. Generic divine casters get delayed access to walls because Arcane. Generic divine casters get delayed access to second-rate zappy spells because Arcane. Generic divine casters get access to a special divine-damage blasty spell because Divine. Generic arcane casters don't get to heal (without resorting to obscure options) because Divine.

So maybe it would be helpful to have two terms: a Hard Divide (your definition) and a Soft Divide (my definition). The hard divide is a myth, while the soft divide is real. Agreed?

What there is is a soft divide between Clerics and Wizards, not between arcane and divine.

There definitely is a (soft) divide between the capabilities of the classes! It's just soft enough that a (non-early entry, non-fast progression) MT doesn't accomplish anything more than the various other methods that alter the softness of the progression.

[Metahuman1]

Well archivist gets you the entirety of divine casting so that part's pretty easy. The trick is getting all the arcane spells in one place.

A bamboo spirit folk archivist/ wizard/ arcane heirophant/ mystic theurge will get you most of the way there. You'll miss out on a few gems on the arcane side, body outside body comes instantly to mind, but otherwise it's pretty close.

Note, however, that there's some room to interpret that getting trackless step from a racial feature, rather than a class feature, doesn't quite meet arcane heirophant's prerequisite. Honestly though, that argument always struck me as hollow. Trackless step is trackless step.

Does it get 9's? Cause now that I think about it, I can juice spell craft and make Wizard versions of any Arcane spells that aren't on the Wizard list. Hell, I'm in a game now were if my current character bites it I might roll that up as a replacement.

[Trunamer]

No no no no no.
You know, this discussion is sounding more and more like a "Nuh uh!" "Yah huh!" argument. I try to understand your ideas, and you say that I'm mistaken because some anonymous gamers on the forum conflated some spell lists with each other. I'm not interested in having this kind of 'discussion,' so happy holidays and good night.

[Snowbluff]

Does it get 9's? Cause now that I think about it, I can juice spell craft and make Wizard versions of any Arcane spells that aren't on the Wizard list. Hell, I'm in a game now were if my current character bites it I might roll that up as a replacement.

Yes, it can very easily.

[Metahuman1]

Yes, it can very easily.

What would the level break down/feat progression have to look like to get it 9's on both sides as fast as possible?


Cause I am seriously liking this idea the more I think about it.

[Snowbluff]

Wiz2/Arc1/MysticTheurge/
Archeir10

Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician or whatever. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Flipped the 2 PrCs. Off the top of my head, MT has easier skill requirements.

[Urpriest]

You know, this discussion is sounding more and more like a "Nuh uh!" "Yah huh!" argument. I try to understand your ideas, and you say that I'm mistaken because some anonymous gamers on the forum conflated some spell lists with each other. I'm not interested in having this kind of 'discussion,' so happy holidays and good night.

...were we not talking about what misconceptions about MT make new players like it? I rather thought that was the discussion topic.

[Metahuman1]

Wiz2/Arc1/MysticTheurge/
Archeir10

Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician or whatever. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Flipped the 2 PrCs. Off the top of my head, MT has easier skill requirements.

Where do I find those two feats?

[Snowbluff]

Where do I find those two feats?

Precocious Apprentice is Complete Arcane, and Southern Magician is Races of Faerun. Southern Magician requires a human, but a nice DM might allow the grandfathered rule about Knowledge Local. Otherwise use Versatile Spellcaster, and Alacritous Precognition.

[Metahuman1]

I recognize Versatile Spellcaster, but not Alacritous Precognition.

[Snowbluff]

I recognize Versatile Spellcaster, but not Alacritous Precognition.

Sorry, tired. Alacritous Cogitation. Complete Mage. It give the ability to cast spells spontaneously to qualify for Versatile Spellcaster.

[Metahuman1]

Ah. Ok, cool.

Hehehe, now one last question, does anyone know if anyone ever put together a list of arcane only spells that the Wizard doesn't normally have access too?

Cause I am totally gonna use some rules exploits to save time on scribing new spells into the book every level and to off set the cost of doing so, and make this character learn through this build + spell craft research to be able to cast every single spell in the game. :smallamused:

[Pluto!]

Alacritous Cogitation is from Complete Mage and the similar Uncanny Forethought is from Exemplars of Evil. Both let wizards cast a couple spells spontaneously.

AC with Versatile Spellcaster feels really sketchy since AC only gives one spontaneous spell per day, but it doesn't contradict any explicit parameters in the written rules, so it could work.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sounds fun! :smallsmile: I'll have a BFC favoured soul with a sprinkle of damage dealing, please.

On topic, my main draw towards such a class (though I've never played one) is the idea that you're unlikely to run out of spells. Which isn't always entirely true, but that's the main draw anyway. Well, there's also some fluff coolnesses, but those are pretty campaign specific.

Okay. I won't bother doing a level by level break-down (I already have another project I'm working on and I don't like to overload) but I'll list some BFC spells off of the cleric list at various levels. Saves are just a matter of tweaking the ability scores and getting an appropriate periapt of wisdom.

1st) Obscuring mist, Summon Monster 1, Summon Undead 1

2nd) darkness, consecrate, desecrate, SM 2, SU 2, darkway*

3rd) glyph of warding, stone shape, wind wall, anarchic/axiomatic/holy/unholy Storm, wall of light, SM 3, SU 3

4th) control water, wall of <alignment>, wall of sand, SM 4, SU 4

5th) wall of stone, doomtide, greater stone shape, wall of dispel magic, zone of respite*, SM 5, SU 5

6) Animate objects, antilife shell, greater glyph of warding, ice flowers, sarcophagus of stone, SM 6

7) repulsion, planar bubble*, slime wave SM 7

8) dimensional lock, earthquake, wall of greater dispel magic, SM 8

9) storm of vengeance, summon elemental monolith, SM 9

As you can see, there are numerous battlefield control options available from the generic cleric list. All of the above are from the generic list in the PHB and SpC. Those marked with a * require a touch of creativity in use. The summoning spells are of particular use in that they can get creatures on the field that can distract or lock down individual enemies and a number of them can even produce battlefield control effects themselves.




Dedicated Magic Missile spammer. Without the Force domain.

That's not an archetype. It's a very specific concept and beyond the scope of what I actually said. Not that it can it can't be done but doing it doesn't actually prove or disprove anything related to the point I was making.


OK.... I'lll bite. without domain abuse (wich can bridge one specific gap generally) or other wierd trickery, Just using basic iconic spell lists and building an iconic wizard or cleric and not some power Optimized machine, how do....

Clerics Teleport the party around the globe, Hard seperate foes from each other (a'la Wall of Stone, Wall of force, forcecage, etc), Do decent blaster damage (Clerics can blast, but their spells tend to make wizard blasting look effecient!), Misdirect with illusions or invisibility?

Wizards heal the party up after each fight, Restore lost ability damage, status effects, and lost levels. Buff the party on a broad basis (OK, haste is probably OP here, but otherwise...)?

Teleportation can come from the spells word of recall and refuge. They're a bit higher in level and more restricted than straight teleport but they serve the function when it's absolutely necessary and, as others have pointed out, simply picking up the travel domain, no tricks or weirdness necessary, can get you the sorc/wiz version.

Wall of stone is actually on the cleric list. Darkway can be used to the same effect as wall of force with a few more restrictions.

Misdirection is a skill. Illusions are a tool with which to employ that skill but they can't do it by themselves. Stealth is also accomplished more by careful maneuvering than simple invisibility and silence though they certainly help. In either case, if you demand illusions to do them with, both the trickery and illusion domains offer most of the best spells on the sorc/wiz list, no trickery or weirdness required.

Also, anyspell. The spell domain grants you access to virtually all of the sorc/wiz tricks as long as you have domain slots to prepare in.

I've already conceded that healing is the one area where divine magic outweighs arcane for the most part but the simple fact of the matter is that healing is -best- handled by magic items and good tactics. Even divine casters have to either really pump the bejeezus out of their healing ability or sacrifice the rest of their utility in combat to make it really matter.

[hymer]

Mmm, Slimewave! :smallwink:
Thanks KP! :smallbiggrin:

[CRtwenty]

I like it because they're the Reeses of spellcasters.

"You got your Arcane Magic in my Divine Magic!"
"You got your Divine Magic in my Arcane Magic!"
"Yum"

Plus there's a lot of fun in playing a class whose main ability could be described as "All the Magic".

[TypoNinja]

Sorry, tired. Alacritous Cogitation. Complete Mage. It give the ability to cast spells spontaneously to qualify for Versatile Spellcaster.

Wouldn't your first level of the divine class let you qualify for versatile spellcaster? Clerics can Spontaneously cast Cure's, Druids can Spontaneously cast SNA's.

[Coidzor]

In theory I like the idea that it represents someone who has mastered the path of the Gods and the path of Man and thus mastered their self, becoming a creature purely of magic, with no part of it cut off from them.

In practice I'm less than keen on it unless Urpriest is involved.

edit: I've been toying with the idea of homebrewing an alternate version which gradually gives access to spells from either the cleric list or wizard list depending upon what casting one already had, sort of like a staggered version of Rainbow Servant's capstone. What class features to pair with it has been my main conceptual difficulty.

[The Insanity]

...were we not talking about what misconceptions about MT make new players like it? I rather thought that was the discussion topic.
No. The Topic is "What's the Appeal (of MT)?" Misconceptions about it is a tangent that may or may not be semi-on topic. IMO it's not, 'cause it doesn't matter if it's false or not, it's a reason for some people and calling it badwrongfun won't change that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does it get 9's? Cause now that I think about it, I can juice spell craft and make Wizard versions of any Arcane spells that aren't on the Wizard list. Hell, I'm in a game now were if my current character bites it I might roll that up as a replacement.

Definitely. Even without early entry tricks it'll still get 9's on both sides at 20.

Unless you have a pretty lax DM, I wouldn't count on being able to get all of the non-wizard arcane spells converted and I probably wouldn't do it even if I could with the cost of spell research running at least 1000gp for a first level spell; too expensive for anything but the real gems and you're not missing many of those.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That's not an archetype. It's a very specific concept and beyond the scope of what I actually said. Not that it can it can't be done but doing it doesn't actually prove or disprove anything related to the point I was making.

I was just being a smartass.

[SiuiS]

This is the basic refutation, really. Archivist already is this concept. So is a Magic Domain Cloistered Cleric laden down with scrolls, or a Wizard with Domain ACFs and Divine Oracle. Mystic Theurge is the most inefficient way to get to this flavor, and it was even in Core. It only makes sense if you think that Cleric spells are necessary to be a priest, or that Wizard spells are necessary to play a scholar, which is something the sourcebooks beat you on the head to tell you is not true.


I don't think it is.

The archivist is touted as the guy who discovers new divinities within conceptual things. When you go delving, you aren't supposed to find an archivist spell book; you enter the sunken jungle temple of the Mayan ruins, and after studying their art and observing the basic rituals painted in all the murals of sacrificing a heart to the sun, you come up with an idea for magic. That's completely different than what the mystic theurge ran on. Both require the (often entirely absent, sadly) sense of mystery and wonder that is supposed to accompany spiritual things, but they go about them in different ways.

Cloistered cleric is a cleric who isn't a crusader. A wizard with domains is perhaps similar, or perhaps just a wizard with a specific patron, which still falls under the aegis of "calling. Alien and chthonic entities for power".


The main point is that the difference between Cleric and Wizard is not a difference between Divine and Arcane magic, it's a difference between the Cleric and Wizard lists. They're not the same thing. Way too many players think that the Wizard list is a list of all Arcane spells, so they expect every Arcane class to have access to it, and when they discover that Bards have Cure spells, they think the Wizard can learn them too.

This may be the mathematical layout, but the presentation and inertia of things paints a different picture. Cleric is Divine Class Basic, and Druid paladin and ranger are specific retextured versions. Wizard/Sorcerer is Arcane Class Basic, and bard is this weird shift from that.

The differences are not solely in their lists. Wizard is presented as the generic arcane standard class, so assuming that any class based off the standard class will be based off the features of the standard class, or that the features of the standard class are indeed standard, is less false and more a single, true, but not solely true, concept.


The problem is that you get to 9th level spells 3 levels later than everyone else, if the campaign even goes that far.
Since you take the single class levels first you're 1-2 spells levels behind a pure caster for pretty much the entire game. That's huge.
If you start in the epic levels theurging isn't that bad but most games take place pre epic.

There's also the opportunity cost. Every level in MT could have been a PrC level that gives you a powerful new ability that makes your spellcasting even stronger. As a MT you can just suck twice as often per day.

Is it important to have 9s? It's nice, but is it mandatory? Is it a quadratic qualitative shift? Because I always felt the difference between level 8 spells and level 9 spells was like the difference in fourth edition of having or not having that crowning +1; everyone makes a huge ruckus but it's only a 5% difference.



No no no no no. This is a misapprehension, and it's a problematic one. The Sorc/Wiz list is not generic for an arcane caster. The Favored Soul/Cleric is list not generic for a divine caster. Wizard is not a generic spellcaster class. Rather, it is very, very specific. There are only four base classes in 3.5 that use anything like a spellbook, only two that actually use one, while no other base classes can specialize in a school. Similarly, two base classes get domains, and only one gets them from worshiping a god. Cleric and Wizard are classes that represent very specific fantasy concepts, they are not the default, and they are not generic.

See, the trouble here is, wizard has accreted over the years to be the generic spell casting class. It has. This is a thing.
Merlin the Druid? Model with wizard. Vizier? Model with wizard. Shifty necromancer cultist? Model with wizard. Cunning illusionist? Model with wizard. Dimensional scholar? Model with wizard. Adventurous book learned archaeologist? Model with wizard. Archmage puppet master? Model with wizard. War-bent destroyer of armies? Model with wizard. Tinkering machinist with a clockwork army? Model with wizard. Craftsman and purveyor of goods magical and rare? Model with wizard.

Are there classes now which covers these as well or better? Yes. Do those classes have going on fifty years of accumulation and acceptance? No. Wizard as a class is designed to cover any niche. This resulted in them coverig all niches when handled right. This creates feedback. Feedback where the people who make the wizard and write more things for wizard accept wizard as the generic arcane template. It may not have been intentional but it's the same shift as with prestige classes from early to late 3.0, they went from specific to understood by their general use.

Both cleric and wizard were made, originally, to be generic. The latest iteration may not have been written for third edition that way, but they were written that way originally and that original intention wasn't changed when the classes were brought over.


Furthermore, this attitude is very problematic. The idea that the Core classes, in particular Wizard and Cleric, are somehow more "generic" or more "normal" than other classes is a mistake, one that keeps players from understanding the fluid nature of 3.5 content. It also contributes to the "only T1 get nice things" problem of 3.5, and it causes game writers and homebrewers alike to use "Wizard" or the like when they mean "Spellcaster", causing innumerable problems down the line. It's really important to phrase mechanics and build goals truly generically if you want to use the game intelligently, which requires throwing out the idea that particular elements are "normal".


I'm with you there.



What there is is a soft divide between Clerics and Wizards, not between arcane and divine.

There is a hard divide between arcane and divine, actually, in that when preparing spells, an arcane caster goes "I am preparing fireball" and they get fireball, whereas a divine caster goes "I will prepare flame strike today" and the DM can go "no, you actually get Cure Moderate Wounds". It's a jerk move, but it's rather implicit (and in the olden days, very explicit) in the nature of the magic. That's even the justification for why the cleric got their entire list instead of specific spheres; because they had soft barriers in place.


...were we not talking about what misconceptions about MT make new players like it? I rather thought that was the discussion topic.

It seems like the other person is under the impression that you aren't discussing any things, you're saying "no you're wrong" without giving their opinion due consideration.

I don't know if that's what you're doing mind! That's just my read of their statement.

[Snowbluff]

Wouldn't your first level of the divine class let you qualify for versatile spellcaster? Clerics can Spontaneously cast Cure's, Druids can Spontaneously cast SNA's.

Yes, but the requested build used Archivist.

[eggynack]

Is it important to have 9s? It's nice, but is it mandatory? Is it a quadratic qualitative shift? Because I always felt the difference between level 8 spells and level 9 spells was like the difference in fourth edition of having or not having that crowning +1; everyone makes a huge ruckus but it's only a 5% difference.
Yes, it's a quadratic qualitative shift. It might be presented as more important than it is, because there are campaigns that don't get that high, but for ones that do, that difference is ridiculous. For druids, that level represents the movement from a pile of mass SoL's, like red tide, unearthly beauty, and frostfell, to shapechange. Shapechange, as I will repeat when we come to wizards, is everything. That's actually a literal thing, as it means access to just about every other magical effect. The difference between mass SoL's and all things is a big one.

For clerics, assuming no domains for a moment, you shift from having a couple of 8th's, which are reasonably powerful, to having constant spontaneous access to every 8th level or lower cleric spell in existence, plus every 7th level or lower non-cleric spell, plus you're astrally projecting for nigh on immunity, plus you have gate, which is neat.

For a wizard, you go from stuff like polymorph any object, which is a fantastic spell, to just about every powerful 9th in existence. You have shapechange, which is just about as ridiculous for you as it was for the druid, along with disjunction, gate, astral projection (which is even better on a wizard, due to native genesis access), time stop, wish, ice assassin, and mind rape. Basically, in the shift from 8th's to 9th's, top tier casters shift from really amazing abilities to a homogeneous shapechange blur of all abilities ever. It's quite a leap.

[SiuiS]

My current high-level campaign is at "level" 48. We've had sessions that consisted entirely of ten hours of detailed logistical analysis. I was totally prepared to argue this into the ground... Until you said Shapechange.

I would say that for most games, the difference between 8 and 9 is moot, because you'll either A) play at low OP and it's not an issue or B) play at high OP and get access to powers like Shapechange and wish much, much sooner than level 15. But shape change is one of those things that create a difference when there normally wouldn't be one.

[eggynack]

My current high-level campaign is at "level" 48. We've had sessions that consisted entirely of ten hours of detailed logistical analysis. I was totally prepared to argue this into the ground... Until you said Shapechange.

I would say that for most games, the difference between 8 and 9 is moot, because you'll either A) play at low OP and it's not an issue or B) play at high OP and get access to powers like Shapechange and wish much, much sooner than level 15. But shape change is one of those things that create a difference when there normally wouldn't be one.
Yeah, shapechange is something else. Still, I think that some of those other spells represent a significant qualitative difference. Not as significant a difference, but we'd still be talking about some level of quadratic caster growth. Except for druids. Druids just have shapechange.

[Talderas]

My current high-level campaign is at "level" 48. We've had sessions that consisted entirely of ten hours of detailed logistical analysis. I was totally prepared to argue this into the ground... Until you said Shapechange.

I think theurge classes become more valuable as level increases and you've hit epic. Epic levels remove any BAB and save considerations for take a class level leaving just hit die (practically worthless) and skill points. At this point, once you've grabbed all the special abilities that you want from the various prestige classes the question is whether any of those abilities you are using scale with the prestige classes. If not, pretty much the only thing left to increase is caster level and over the long run a theurge class will provide you far more effective caster levels. In otherwords, I think theurge classes are what you finish the character with and not what you build it with.

[georgie_leech]

I think theurge classes become more valuable as level increases and you've hit epic. Epic levels remove any BAB and save considerations for take a class level leaving just hit die (practically worthless) and skill points. At this point, once you've grabbed all the special abilities that you want from the various prestige classes the question is whether any of those abilities you are using scale with the prestige classes. If not, pretty much the only thing left to increase is caster level and over the long run a theurge class will provide you far more effective caster levels. In otherwords, I think theurge classes are what you finish the character with and not what you build it with.

Quibble: Epic Theurge isn't. Rather than progressing both halves at once, it alternates, at a slower Epic Feat progression than either Wizard or Cleric, without progressing class features like the Familiar or Turn Undead like just alternating levels would.

[BWR]

I've only played in one game with an MT and the entire group is pretty low-op compared to what seems to be the norm for this place.

The single-classed wizard was a better offensive caster and had higher level, useful spells. The single level cleric was a better buffer with higher level spells.
The MT never ran out of spells and always had at least one useful spell one hand no matter the situation. While the other two would be very good at what they did, they were limited to those few things. The MT was a jack of all trades and could participate in a mechanically meaningful way in just about every situation, which the single-classed PCs were not always able to.

Apart from the mechanical issues, the fluff issues are fun. Gods of arcane magic, for instance, seem to be natural candidates for producing MTs. Going by the requirements for clerics of the Magic Gods in Dragonlance in 2e, they are almost required to be MTs (need to cast 2nd level arcane spells before taking their first level of cleric). It's a lovely cover for divine casters in places like Glantri in Mystara, where divine magic is outlawed. Or the magically rich empire of Alphatia (50% of the population are casters), where some might feel like trying both types of magic.

[TypoNinja]

Yes, but the requested build used Archivist.

Ahh, had missed that, thanks.

My one beef with MT is that it has NO class features. Every other thurge gets some kind of class features designed to key off its merged magic. MT just gets hosed for that.

On the other hand, I think its the easiest thurge to qualify for, so there is that.

[Talya]

Quibble: Epic Theurge

I thought that class was actually Epic Fail.

Anyway, I think he means you take the first 10 levels of regular mystic theurge during epic levels.

[Bonzai]

I have a player who almost always plays a theurge in my campaigns, of various types. Currently a Cleric/Psion. What I have learned is that the character's are a slow burn, until the low to mid teens. Then the sheer versatility becomes apparent. Invariably he becomes a swiss army knife, problem solver. Whatever curve balls I throw, he is one psychic reformation or alacritous cogitation away from having an answer for it. Last time we got into epics, and he was in no way lacking power.

So for a long running game? Why not play one? For a short, low level adventure? Probably not the best choice.

(Edit: I should probably be clear that I house rule that he can continue to take the prestige class beyond 10 levels).

[Angelalex242]

Mystic Theurge are for everyone who played Final Fantasy 1 and went 'Hey I want to be a Red Mage!'

Red Mages have white spells and black spells, but can't do either as well as the dedicated white mage or the dedicated black mage.

In Final Fantasy 1, though, Red Mages had it made...they didn't miss the lack of the highest level spells much because magic was so limited. So you had to rely on swordplay except bosses, and the most powerful spell in the game was FAST/Haste, a 4th level spell...which the Red Mages had full access to. They also had access to all the direct damage spells. and 2 Red Wizards frankly did double the damage per round of one Black Wizard. And when magic started losing usefulness next to fighting ability, two Red Wizards hasted the Knights and Masters twice as fast.

See, FF1 was exactly the opposite of D&D. Melee is High Op, pure casters are Low Op. And hence, the Theurge/Red Wizard rocks.

[Urpriest]

I don't think it is.

The archivist is touted as the guy who discovers new divinities within conceptual things. When you go delving, you aren't supposed to find an archivist spell book; you enter the sunken jungle temple of the Mayan ruins, and after studying their art and observing the basic rituals painted in all the murals of sacrificing a heart to the sun, you come up with an idea for magic. That's completely different than what the mystic theurge ran on. Both require the (often entirely absent, sadly) sense of mystery and wonder that is supposed to accompany spiritual things, but they go about them in different ways.

Ideally, perhaps. But both cover similar niches, namely, scholars of magic with an interest in the divine. If only one had existed and not the other, nobody would notice that anything was missing.


Cloistered cleric is a cleric who isn't a crusader. A wizard with domains is perhaps similar, or perhaps just a wizard with a specific patron, which still falls under the aegis of "calling. Alien and chthonic entities for power".

Cloistered Cleric is a scholarly Cleric, not just one who isn't a crusader (they're not a good representation of a Friar or other mendicant-type, for example). With the Magic Domain, they're a scholar with a strong interest in arcane magic, and with enough scrolls and wands they cast arcane magic as well. And if a Wizard who is strongly devoted to a deity is "calling on alien and chthonic entities for power", then so is a Cleric.




This may be the mathematical layout, but the presentation and inertia of things paints a different picture. Cleric is Divine Class Basic, and Druid paladin and ranger are specific retextured versions. Wizard/Sorcerer is Arcane Class Basic, and bard is this weird shift from that.

The differences are not solely in their lists. Wizard is presented as the generic arcane standard class, so assuming that any class based off the standard class will be based off the features of the standard class, or that the features of the standard class are indeed standard, is less false and more a single, true, but not solely true, concept.

See, the trouble here is, wizard has accreted over the years to be the generic spell casting class. It has. This is a thing.
Merlin the Druid? Model with wizard. Vizier? Model with wizard. Shifty necromancer cultist? Model with wizard. Cunning illusionist? Model with wizard. Dimensional scholar? Model with wizard. Adventurous book learned archaeologist? Model with wizard. Archmage puppet master? Model with wizard. War-bent destroyer of armies? Model with wizard. Tinkering machinist with a clockwork army? Model with wizard. Craftsman and purveyor of goods magical and rare? Model with wizard.

Are there classes now which covers these as well or better? Yes. Do those classes have going on fifty years of accumulation and acceptance? No. Wizard as a class is designed to cover any niche. This resulted in them coverig all niches when handled right. This creates feedback. Feedback where the people who make the wizard and write more things for wizard accept wizard as the generic arcane template. It may not have been intentional but it's the same shift as with prestige classes from early to late 3.0, they went from specific to understood by their general use.

Both cleric and wizard were made, originally, to be generic. The latest iteration may not have been written for third edition that way, but they were written that way originally and that original intention wasn't changed when the classes were brought over.


You really shouldn't think of Wizard and Cleric in 3.5 as having anything to do with Wizard and Cleric in prior editions. Each edition of D&D is its own game, much moreso than for many RPGs. Core mechanics change pretty radically in each edition, and I think it's a mistake to think of any class as carrying over the baggage from prior editions. Think about the change to 4e, after all. Just because someone is a Cleric in 3.5, doesn't mean they ought to be represented by a Cleric in 4e (in many cases, they should be an Invoker, or some other Divine class, instead). Similarly, just because in early editions of D&D all divine casters were Clerics doesn't mean that Cleric in 3.5 itself is generic.



There is a hard divide between arcane and divine, actually, in that when preparing spells, an arcane caster goes "I am preparing fireball" and they get fireball, whereas a divine caster goes "I will prepare flame strike today" and the DM can go "no, you actually get Cure Moderate Wounds". It's a jerk move, but it's rather implicit (and in the olden days, very explicit) in the nature of the magic. That's even the justification for why the cleric got their entire list instead of specific spheres; because they had soft barriers in place.


Ha! Sir (or Ma'am, don't have time to check the gender icon), you are disproving your own point here. The permission of the gods is not about the divide between divine and arcane magic, because it only applies to Clerics.

In Forgotten Realms, every divine caster worships a god. But in every other setting, it's only the Cleric whose spells are granted by deific choice. Favored Souls are tied to a god, but that god explicitly has no control over their actions and cannot deny them spells. Paladins often worship gods, but are known to oppose their gods when they are guilty of injustices, with no loss of power. Druids and Rangers, by default, have nothing to do with gods at all! Cleric is the only class that gets their spells this way, which seems to demonstrate that they're the complete opposite of a generic divine spellcasting class!



Apart from the mechanical issues, the fluff issues are fun. Gods of arcane magic, for instance, seem to be natural candidates for producing MTs. Going by the requirements for clerics of the Magic Gods in Dragonlance in 2e, they are almost required to be MTs (need to cast 2nd level arcane spells before taking their first level of cleric). It's a lovely cover for divine casters in places like Glantri in Mystara, where divine magic is outlawed. Or the magically rich empire of Alphatia (50% of the population are casters), where some might feel like trying both types of magic.

In 3.5, though, gods of magic don't require their Clerics to be able to cast a certain level of arcane spells. Instead, they give them the Magic domain, which lets them use arcane items, study arcane texts, etc. That's how the MT fluff works in 3.5: it's what a Cleric with the Magic domain is: someone who has a divine gift and also studies arcane magic.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I can't see most gods denying spell access except in the obvious case.

The Priest of Heironeus shouldn't be preparing Unholy Smite, Blasphemy, and Cloak of Chaos.

The Priest of Kord probably shouldn't prepare Order's Wrath

...and the priest of Nerull shouldn't be preparing Holy Smite

That is, clerics shouldn't prepare spells with alignment descriptors opposite that of their god. It kinda goes against what the god stands for.

That's why 'protection from good' isn't even on the Paladin spell list...that's the gods trying to idiot proof Paladins. (Often necessary, since Int is a dump stat for Paladins.)

[Scow2]

No no no no no. This is a misapprehension, and it's a problematic one. The Sorc/Wiz list is not generic for an arcane caster. The Favored Soul/Cleric is list not generic for a divine caster. Wizard is not a generic spellcaster class. Rather, it is very, very specific. There are only four base classes in 3.5 that use anything like a spellbook, only two that actually use one, while no other base classes can specialize in a school. Similarly, two base classes get domains, and only one gets them from worshiping a god. Cleric and Wizard are classes that represent very specific fantasy concepts, they are not the default, and they are not generic.

Furthermore, this attitude is very problematic. The idea that the Core classes, in particular Wizard and Cleric, are somehow more "generic" or more "normal" than other classes is a mistake, one that keeps players from understanding the fluid nature of 3.5 content. It also contributes to the "only T1 get nice things" problem of 3.5, and it causes game writers and homebrewers alike to use "Wizard" or the like when they mean "Spellcaster", causing innumerable problems down the line. It's really important to phrase mechanics and build goals truly generically if you want to use the game intelligently, which requires throwing out the idea that particular elements are "normal".Despite you saying this, the Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric ARE designed to be the broad/"normal" casters of Arcane and Divine spells, respectively. This is stated in the DMG. The core classes are the classes from which all other non-subsystem classes are derived, and all casters are derived from the Wizard and Cleric (With druid being its own thing, being a spinoff of what was an alternate Cleric class that wanted to be a Wizard and became an unnatural abomination with too many class features and subsystems slapped on it. And yes, the druid IS a cleric variant).

It's VERY clear that the wizard and cleric are generic just by looking at their list of class features past level 1 (And noting that Sorcerers and wizards share the exact same spell list). All other arcane and divine classes are created with discrepencies/differences to make them stand out from the Wizard/Cleric generic baseline, such as the Bard's access to healing spells to distinguish it from a "two-thirds powered sorcerer", and the Druid's lack of Turn Undead and the bargain-bin resurrection (In exchange for OH GOD WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THIS TO A SINGLE CLASS!?), and a few Paladin/ranger spells that were added to make them swordier, or releveled when the designers saw just how bad half-progression casting is.

To argue that Wizards and Clerics aren't supposed to be the generic/primary/iconic users of divine and arcane magic respectively is to argue against the history of D&D and against the intent of the classes laid out by the authors of the PHB, DMG, MM, and "Complete" series.

You really shouldn't think of Wizard and Cleric in 3.5 as having anything to do with Wizard and Cleric in prior editions. Each edition of D&D is its own game, much moreso than for many RPGs. Core mechanics change pretty radically in each edition, and I think it's a mistake to think of any class as carrying over the baggage from prior editions. Think about the change to 4e, after all. Just because someone is a Cleric in 3.5, doesn't mean they ought to be represented by a Cleric in 4e (in many cases, they should be an Invoker, or some other Divine class, instead). Similarly, just because in early editions of D&D all divine casters were Clerics doesn't mean that Cleric in 3.5 itself is generic.
You mean, other than being called out as generic in the third edition's Dungeon Master's Guide? The different editions of D&D ARE NOT supposed to be radically different games, even if they mutated into such. It's why 4e has been collectively disowned as D&D - but 4e's departure from how D&D works is the exception, not the rule, of how iterations of D&D are supposed to function. Furthermore, D&D Next is going to the 'Shared precedent" of AD&D and D&D 3rd Edition (And its revision).

3.X was a streamlining and re-adjustment of AD&D's core mechanics, updating the game from "How it was originally written" to "How it's largely being played now, with tweaks to make it run smoother."

[BWR]

In 3.5, though, gods of magic don't require their Clerics to be able to cast a certain level of arcane spells. Instead, they give them the Magic domain, which lets them use arcane items, study arcane texts, etc. That's how the MT fluff works in 3.5: it's what a Cleric with the Magic domain is: someone who has a divine gift and also studies arcane magic.

I know. Which is why I specified that it was a hold-over from 2e, specifically Dragonlance. Since we started that campaign with 2e rules then converted, we kept the levels of wizard because we liked that better. The guy still chose Magic Domain, obviously, but it fit better with the fluff idea of having to have studied as a wizard without any divine abilities before the gods of magic deign to take you on as their personal servant: you have to show your talent in magic on its own rather than relying on someone else to give you spells.
I still prefer that idea.

[fishjam]

The appeal of the Mystic Theurge for me is kinda simple.

I like knowing i have the versatility to cover what is needed in the party. I pay with Low Optimized groups so i restrict myself to core and maybe a handful of other books at best. Mystic theurge just has the feel of "the Mage" for me, that i always end up playing as no one else seems to "get" how to play one.

Its also exceedingly fun to make witty comments such as


"I've got a spell for that"
"I may not get the best spells, but i do get the most"
"ner ner ner ner, still got spells!"


But thats just me..

[Talderas]

Quibble: Epic Theurge isn't. Rather than progressing both halves at once, it alternates, at a slower Epic Feat progression than either Wizard or Cleric, without progressing class features like the Familiar or Turn Undead like just alternating levels would.

Counter Quibble: Unless I'm mistaken, there's no general rule regarding spellcasting progression for theurge style classes. There's only the specific rule for mystic theurge which alternates.

[Fates]

You know, this discussion is sounding more and more like a "Nuh uh!" "Yah huh!" argument. I try to understand your ideas, and you say that I'm mistaken because some anonymous gamers on the forum conflated some spell lists with each other. I'm not interested in having this kind of 'discussion,' so happy holidays and good night.

That's funny, because after reading through your discussion, it doesn't seem like an argument at all, much less a "Nuh uh/Yah huh" argument. It seemed like a well-reasoned, respectful debate on both ends, until you were faced with evidence you couldn't refute, at which point you decided that it would be easier to hit your opponent with some patronizing remarks and use them as an excuse not to rebut than to toughen up and admit you were wrong, and leave the discussion gracefully. You probably won't actually end up reading this, but this being a personal pet peeve, I felt the need to point out how transparent your little temper tantrum was.

EDIT: Okay, right, the MT. I suppose I can see the appeal, but I've never seen it actually work better than a straight caster, principally because of MAD, action economy, feat-starvedness, etc. While theurge classes for different magic subsystems (IE the eldritch theurge/disciple, noctumancer, cerebremancer) are generally much more useful and much more fun to play, because there's not the same degree of overlap in the functionality of the magic that they use.

[Ramza00]

So maybe it is me, but wouldn't mystic theurge be vastly better if it was a 1 level dip plus a feat instead of a prestige class (when I say vastly better I am not saying super op, instead I am saying a slight power boost so the 3 level loss pain is not so bad while still keeping the same flavor and idea.)

This is how I would see the feat working if we homebrew it to replace the prestige class.


Mystic Theurgery

You have learned via your dabbling with arcane and divine magic how to cast divine spells with arcane slots and vice versa.

Prerequisite: 1st level of Wizard, 1st level of Cleric (of course this feat or other similar feats can be used for other combinations but the word choice needs to be restructured to make it more generic.)

Benefit:
You can prepare cleric spells in your wizard spell slots. To do so you do not need knowledge of the cleric spell in your spellbook for you received the knowledge of the divine magic from up on high, and you prepare the cleric spell as you normally would for a cleri. When you prepare a cleric spell in a wizard spell slot it takes up a slot 1 level higher than if you were to cast it as a cleric. For example to prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot you must prepare it as a 2nd or higher level slot while if you were to prepare it as a cleric slot it only took a 1st level or higher slot.

You can also prepare wizard spells in your cleric spell slots. To do this you still need knowledge of the wizard spell in your spellbook, and you still prepare the spell normally as a wizard would. When you prepare a wizard spell in a cleric spell slot it takes up a slot 1 level higher than if you were to cast it as a wizard. For example if a wizard prepared fireball in a cleric slot it would require a 4th level slot or higher instead of a 3rd level slot.

Thus a Cleric 1/Wizard 19 would be able to cast all the way up to 8th level divine spells, and 9th level wizard spells and only be 2 levels behind a normal wizard. There is a cost though of casting divine spells for they take a level higher spell slot. Would you rather cast mass death ward in your 9th level wizard slot or would you rather cast shapechange?

A Cleric 1/Wizard 19 would get 3 bonus feats and be more arcane feeling, a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 would get higher bab and hitpoints and be more cleric feeling. You can still prestige out with this feat, but regardless one side of your character would feel more arcane or divine due to the earlier spell access.

[Karoht]

DnD has plenty of things that all sound good on paper but in practice don't work out nearly as well as advertised.
Monks.
Vow of Poverty.
Mystic Theurge.

Sure, you can MAKE them work if you try hard enough, but it can be challenging to keep up with your party.

As for Mystic Theurge? If Arcane and Divine Tier 1 casters are already covered in the party, but I still want to play a caster and not outshine anyone? I could see that being a great time to play a Mystic Theurge, if other roles are already looked after well enough. Perhaps a Mystic Theurge who focuses on NOPE buttons and abjuration in general, while the other two casters focus on the YES buttons. Maybe.

[Talya]

As for Mystic Theurge? If Arcane and Divine Tier 1 casters are already covered in the party, but I still want to play a caster and not outshine anyone? I could see that being a great time to play a Mystic Theurge, if other roles are already looked after well enough. Perhaps a Mystic Theurge who focuses on NOPE buttons and abjuration in general, while the other two casters focus on the YES buttons. Maybe.


I really don't see how that would work well.

Besides, it's not as if there aren't piles of different full caster builds who could work well together in a group.

How about:
Batman
ClericZilla
The Mailman
Druid (no need for 'zilla, the cleric has it covered and druid has a more effective combat spell list.)

[Snowbluff]

DnD has plenty of things that all sound good on paper but in practice don't work out nearly as well as advertised.
Monks.
Vow of Poverty.
Mystic Theurge.

Sure, you can MAKE them work if you try hard enough, but it can be challenging to keep up with your party.


One of those things is not like the other. Can you tell which one? A Cleric1/Wiz2 with versatile spellcasting is better than an equal level wizard in pretty much every way. Even if you are not cheesing it, the Versatile spellcaster feat is incredibly strong at low levels.

[Urpriest]

Despite you saying this, the Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric ARE designed to be the broad/"normal" casters of Arcane and Divine spells, respectively. This is stated in the DMG. The core classes are the classes from which all other non-subsystem classes are derived, and all casters are derived from the Wizard and Cleric (With druid being its own thing, being a spinoff of what was an alternate Cleric class that wanted to be a Wizard and became an unnatural abomination with too many class features and subsystems slapped on it. And yes, the druid IS a cleric variant).

It's VERY clear that the wizard and cleric are generic just by looking at their list of class features past level 1 (And noting that Sorcerers and wizards share the exact same spell list). All other arcane and divine classes are created with discrepencies/differences to make them stand out from the Wizard/Cleric generic baseline, such as the Bard's access to healing spells to distinguish it from a "two-thirds powered sorcerer", and the Druid's lack of Turn Undead and the bargain-bin resurrection (In exchange for OH GOD WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THIS TO A SINGLE CLASS!?), and a few Paladin/ranger spells that were added to make them swordier, or releveled when the designers saw just how bad half-progression casting is.

To argue that Wizards and Clerics aren't supposed to be the generic/primary/iconic users of divine and arcane magic respectively is to argue against the history of D&D and against the intent of the classes laid out by the authors of the PHB, DMG, MM, and "Complete" series.

You mean, other than being called out as generic in the third edition's Dungeon Master's Guide? The different editions of D&D ARE NOT supposed to be radically different games, even if they mutated into such. It's why 4e has been collectively disowned as D&D - but 4e's departure from how D&D works is the exception, not the rule, of how iterations of D&D are supposed to function. Furthermore, D&D Next is going to the 'Shared precedent" of AD&D and D&D 3rd Edition (And its revision).

3.X was a streamlining and re-adjustment of AD&D's core mechanics, updating the game from "How it was originally written" to "How it's largely being played now, with tweaks to make it run smoother."

I'll acknowledge that the designers definitely thought that the Wizard, Cleric, etc. were generic. That's clear in the way that they focused on writing material for them, at the expense of their other classes.

I still think it's a mistake to actually treat them that way in a game, though. As I pointed out, Wizard and Cleric both have very, very unique mechanics which don't show up in any other class. Arcane and Divine magic do have differences, but if you want to use the game smoothly you need to infer those differences from the way the rules interact, not from what the designers say about the rules. So for example, Arcane magic is tied to familiars more closely than Divine magic, while Divine magic is more tied to turning through Divine Metamagic.

[Setra]

DnD has plenty of things that all sound good on paper but in practice don't work out nearly as well as advertised.
Monks.
Vow of Poverty.
Mystic Theurge.

Sure, you can MAKE them work if you try hard enough, but it can be challenging to keep up with your party.
That depends entirely on your party.

[Fates]

That depends entirely on your party.

Generally, in optimization discussions the assumption is that the rest of the party will be well-optimized. Obviously, if all your teammates are poorly-made mundanes, a mystic theurge is going to outshine them all unless she's doing something horribly wrong, but as a general rule that won't be the case in a high-op party.

[Doug Lampert]

I was expecting you to say "then I took an arrow to the knee" followed by a completely non-ironic story to go with it.

Honestly, anyone I've ever actually played with that went Mystic Theurge usually started to deeply regret it about the time the party hit level range 8-10, often wanting to either respec or make a whole new character. I can't say I've ever seen anyone play one for longer than that, or even discuss one outside of build discussions/thought experiments.

Not shocking

Level 1-3 you're single classed.
Level 4-6 you're setting up for the MT, of course you suck, weak now for power later is stupid ballance, but its a form of ballance many expect.
Level 7 you're barely into the MT class, why should it work yet?

So basically, what you're saying is that as soon as the player could reasonably EXPECT it to work, he realizes that it sucks and doesn't work.

By Level 9 you'd reasonably expect MT to have come on line. You've dedicated almost half your expected career to this path that gives you "Lots of slots".

Core only, low to mid op, assume abilities are high enough for one bonus spell of the highest level in all classes. (Which typically costs the MT more than the single classed character.)

MT Cleric/specialist wizard has caster level 6, spells slots are 9 9 9 7, 34 total slots, 25 above level 0.

Pure cleric has caster level 9, spell slots are 6 7 6 5 4 3, 31 total slots, 25 above level 0.

So you've given up levels 4 and 5 spells in order to have 3 extra cantrips!

It took you nine levels to reach the point where "you suck". Seriously. You've spent far more resources on your casting attributes than the cleric in order to be worse at spellcasting, you also have fewer HP, worse AC, lower caster level, and your much vaunted extra slots are 3 level 0 slots and that you've traded down the level 4 and 5 slots for the same number of lower level slots.

The pure cleric may have trouble teleporting (but that can be worked arround easily enough if you really care about teleports), the MT absolutely can not teleport under his own power.

Do a similar analysis at level 13 and you'll find that the MT gets extra level 0 and 1 spells in exchange for losing levels 6 and 7. This is good how?

At level 17 you've lost levels 8 and 9 spells for those minimal extra low level slots. Seriously, how is this good?

At level 20 you finally get your level 9 spells, are arguably more powerful than the single classed character, and are about to experience the great sea of suck called the MT epic progression....

Additional sources help MT, but only early entry or full progession prestige classes can make it good, and at that level of cheeze you should be competing with Planar Shepard and Incantrix types.

[Snowbluff]

Additional sources help MT, but only early entry or full progession prestige classes can make it good, and at that level of cheeze you should be competing with Planar Shepard and Incantrix types.

It ain't cheese if a disproportionate amount of power isn't being gained.

[Doug Lampert]

It ain't cheese if a disproportionate amount of power isn't being gained.

You're going from "sucks" to "works" with about the same level of effort as is needed to go from "works" to "breaks the game".

In either case the power gained is game changing. How is one more disproportionate than the other?

[Snowbluff]

You're going from "sucks" to "works" with about the same level of effort as is needed to go from "works" to "breaks the game".

In either case the power gained is game changing. How is one more disproportionate than the other?
A single feat?

Let me get this straight. You are saying:
1) Theurge sucks.
2) If you can make it work, you are cheating. This is regardless of how much effort is put in.
3) It has to be game-breaking levels of good to be acceptable.

According to you, Clr1/Wiz2 with 1 feat is just as much effort and cheesier as Incantatar, which actually has more prerequisites to enter, takes more time to fill out the feats, and requires spellcraft bonuses to operate at it's full potential.

[Tyndmyr]

Is it having a lot of spell slots to play with? Is it having access to a lot of spells via two spell lists? Is it some creative bit of fluff you've come up with to explain this PrC, or your favorite MT?

I like magical options. The bigger the toolbox, the bigger the odds that I'll have just the thing I need to solve this issue.

That said, wands, scrolls, etc can also provide this.

Edit: Also, I usually do not go wizard/cleric. I tend to prefer Ur-Priest.

[Eldonauran]

I've done a bit of math, if that helps anyone. This is comparing spells per day of a cleric/specialist Mystic Theurge versus a single classed version of themselves, core only. We also account for the total spell levels available to the character (9th level spell = 9 spell levels). I've done the math for level 9, 10, 13 and 16. Mystic Theurge levels 3, 4, 7 and 10


Pure spellcaster (Lvl: Daily spell + domain/specialized (high ability score) = total spells)

Level 9 (Assuming 20 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 9
5th: 1+1 (1) = 3
4h: 2+1 (1) = 4
3rd: 3+1 (1) = 5
2nd: 4+1 (1) = 6
1st: 4+1 (2) = 7
Total Spells = 25
Spell Levels = 65

Mystic Theurge 3
3rd: 2 +1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
2nd: 3 +1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
1st: 3 +1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
Total Spells = 30
Spell Levels = 56


Level 10: (Assuming 20 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 10
5th: 2+1 (1) = 4
4h: 3+1 (1) = 5
3rd: 3+1 (1) = 5
2nd: 4+1 (1) = 6
1st: 4+1 (2) = 7
Total Spells = 27
Spell Levels = 74

Mystic Theurge 4
4th: 1+1, 1+1 (1+1) = 6
3rd: 2 +1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
2nd: 3 +1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
1st: 3 +1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
Total Spells = 36
Spell Levels = 70


Level 13 (assuming 24 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 13
7th: 1+1 (1) = 3
6th: 2+1 (1) = 4
5th: 3+1 (1) = 5
4th: 4+1 (1) = 6
3rd: 4+1 (2) = 7
2nd: 5+1 (2) = 8
1st: 5+1 (2) = 8
Total Spells: 41
Spell Levels: 139

Mystic Theurge 7
5th: 2+1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
4h: 3+1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
3rd: 3+1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
2nd: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
1st: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
Total Spells = 58
Spell Levels = 158


Level 16 (Assuming 26 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 16
8th: 2+1 (1) = 4
7th: 3+1 (1) = 5
6th: 3+1 (1) = 5
5th: 4+1 (1) = 6
4th: 4+1 (2) = 7
3rd: 5+1 (2) = 8
2nd: 5+1 (2) = 8
1st: 5+1 (2) = 8
Total Spells: 51
Spell Levels: 203

Mystic Theurge 10
7th: 1+1, 1+1 (1+1) = 6
6th: 2+1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
5th: 3+1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
4th: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
3rd: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
2nd: 5+1, 5+1 (2+2) = 16
1st: 5+1, 5+1 (2+2) = 16
Total Spells: 84
Spell Levels: 286



So, what we can tell is by 9th level, the Mystic Theurge is already casting more spells per day than a pure caster, though the pure caster is swinging higher level spells (more total spell level). Level 10 shows the mystic theurge outpacing the straight caster in spells per day, as we would expect. We can also see that the total spell level available to the Mystic Theurge is dangerously close to the straight caster. This varies slightly from level to level, with the Mystic Theurge starting to pull ahead of is pure casting competitor.

Level 13 is where we begin to see the biggest change. The mystic theurge is casting 58 spells per day, compared to the 41 of the pure caster. The theurges spell levels are solidly ahead of the pure caster. I'd say this is the point where the pure caster only has their higher level spell selection going for them, and a caster level that is 3 higher.

Level 16 (Theurge level 10) is a pretty good example as well. Theurge has 84 spells per day (vs 51), 286 spell levels (vs 203) and 7th level spells. The only thing the pure caster has that outshines the Mystic Theurge is 4 8th level spells. The Mystic Theurge has more 7th level spells than a pure caster. Sure, the pure caster gets 9th level spells next level and that is something to look forward to. At this point, I fully expect the Mystic Theurge to focus on something useful like Archmage (or, provided the DM is lenient, keep taking Mystic Theurge levels as if it was a 14th level prestige).


Aside from all that, I do not believe a Mystic Theurge should be held comparible to a pure caster. It loses a lot for its ability to weild both arcane and divine magic. I firmly reject the idea that it is useless and 'sucks'. Perhaps people who are of that opinion are not looking at it with the right perspective. That, or it doesn't fit their play style.

[Doug Lampert]

A single feat?

Let me get this straight. You are saying:
1) Theurge sucks.
2) If you can make it work, you are cheating. This is regardless of how much effort is put in.
3) It has to be game-breaking levels of good to be acceptable.

According to you, Clr1/Wiz2 with 1 feat is just as much effort and cheesier as Incantatar, which actually has more prerequisites to enter, takes more time to fill out the feats, and requires spellcraft bonuses to operate at it's full potential.

Nope, I am saying that a single feat is comparable to a single prestige class in "that can't be cheese because it's so simple".

I'm saying that the single feat and the prestige class are similar in how greatly they increase the character's power proportionately.

I'm therefor saying that these are comparable levels of cheese.

WHAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT? Cause all I hear you saying is "even with cheese it's still not all that good therefor the cheese isn't actually cheese at all.

But that's not even YOUR OWN DEFINITION of cheese which had ONLY to do with disproportionate impact on character power.

A single feat that speeds spell advancement by two levels is CLEARLY disproportionate return for a feat, grossly so, and that is what YOU gave as the definition of cheese. It's only because you've hung it on the lame ass frame of a MT that it's still not all that good, but the feat itself is pure cheese, it's from a different source and makes an option vastly more powerful than intended based on what was available when the option was published.

[Doug Lampert]

Level 13 (assuming 24 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 13
7th: 1+1 (1) = 3
6th: 2+1 (1) = 4
5th: 3+1 (1) = 5
4th: 4+1 (1) = 6
3rd: 4+1 (2) = 7
2nd: 5+1 (2) = 8
1st: 5+1 (2) = 8
Total Spells: 41
Spell Levels: 139

Mystic Theurge 7
5th: 2+1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
4h: 3+1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
3rd: 3+1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
2nd: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
1st: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
Total Spells = 58
Spell Levels = 158

I see what you did there, you gave the MT a 24 in two casting stats at level 13. Just how is he managing that on the same resources that the pure caster is only a 24 in one casting stat?

A pure caster starting with an 18 and putting his increases in the obvious way and getting a +6 item gets to 27.

The MT starting with an 16 and 16 (more build points), and getting a +6 and +4 item (more items), gets something like 22 and 23 respectively.

24 for both ignores the strength of the core single class over core MT that the core MT is MAD.

[Eldonauran]

I see what you did there, you gave the MT a 24 in two casting stats at level 13. Just how is he managing that on the same resources that the pure caster is only a 24 in one casting stat?

A pure caster starting with an 18 and putting his increases in the obvious way and getting a +6 item gets to 27.

The MT starting with an 16 and 16 (more build points), and getting a +6 and +4 item (more items), gets something like 22 and 23 respectively.

24 for both ignores the strength of the core single class over core MT that the core MT is MAD.

I wasn't attempting to do anything but compare straight numbers. I do not care how the mystic theurge gets a 24 in both casting stats. A bonus spell or two is not going to skew the numbers in any meaningful manner and there were too many variables to plot all of them out. Lowering the casting stat by two is perfectly fine as, it will cost the mystic theurge two (or four) bonus spells near the bottom of his list, depending on how the stat breaks down on the spellcasting table.

I did not ignore the difficultly of aquiring a 24 in two stats. It can be done with effort and even not, the numbers change only slightly. I'm not interested in semantics.

[eggynack]

Level 16 (Theurge level 10) is a pretty good example as well. Theurge has 84 spells per day (vs 51), 286 spell levels (vs 203) and 7th level spells. The only thing the pure caster has that outshines the Mystic Theurge is 4 8th level spells. The Mystic Theurge has more 7th level spells than a pure caster.
I don't really see how this is a real advantage. The mystic theurge gets one more 7th, and the wizard gets four more 8th's. When you add it all up, the wizard gets three more spells of 7th level or greater, which is pretty obviously better.


Aside from all that, I do not believe a Mystic Theurge should be held comparible to a pure caster. It loses a lot for its ability to weild both arcane and divine magic. I firmly reject the idea that it is useless and 'sucks'. Perhaps people who are of that opinion are not looking at it with the right perspective. That, or it doesn't fit their play style.
I don't think anyone thinks it's useless. People just think it's significantly worse than a full caster, which is true. New players think mystic theurges are the bee's knees, to the point where they consider them almost cheesy, and in the counterarguments the impression is created that mystic theurge is the worst. At the very least the mystic theurge is tossing around casting that's three levels below normal, and that kinda casting is still better than what most classes can toss out. On top of that you get a different kind of casting, which is also nice.

However, the theurge is a deeply flawed class, for reasons that are discussed often. It's not bad, but it's worse, and worse thing are often looked down on even more than bad things, because worse things feel bad, and bad things just feel like whatever they feel like. No one likes a step down in power, which is also the reason that entering MoMF through wild shape ranger is a popular choice over getting there through a druid. And it is worse, though it can be strong with some effort. Not the strongest, but probably better than a straight classed caster.

[Eldonauran]

I don't really see how this is a real advantage. The mystic theurge gets one more 7th, and the wizard gets four more 8th's. When you add it all up, the wizard gets three more spells of 7th level or greater, which is pretty obviously better.

I have no disagreement there. The pure caster has more power ... until those higher levels spells are used up for the day. They get to squeeze a slightly higher caster level out of all the rest of their spells at that point. It is at that point that the Mystic Theurge shows its true colors and can outlast that pure caster, spell for spell.

I think this is one of the main draws of the Mystic Theurge. I am attracted to this prestige classes mainly because of this.


I don't think anyone thinks it's useless. People just think it's significantly worse than a full caster, which is true. New players think mystic theurges are the bee's knees, to the point where they consider them almost cheesy, and in the counterarguments the impression is created that mystic theurge is the worst. At the very least the mystic theurge is tossing around casting that's three levels below normal, and that kinda casting is still better than what most classes can toss out. On top of that you get a different kind of casting, which is also nice.

However, the theurge is a deeply flawed class, for reasons that are discussed often. It's not bad, but it's worse, and worse thing are often looked down on even more than bad things, because worse things feel bad, and bad things just feel like whatever they feel like. No one likes a step down in power, which is also the reason that entering MoMF through wild shape ranger is a popular choice over getting there through a druid. And it is worse, though it can be strong with some effort. Not the strongest, but probably better than a straight classed caster.

I still think the Mystic Theurge is the 'bee's knees'. I think a lot of people look at the class and think it can do more than it does. You are going to be behind the curve on a lot of things until you get at least halfway through Mystic Theurge and even then, you are fighting an uphill battle. It will take sheer determination and every trick you possess to make yourself useful.

Mystic Theurge is hard work.

[Snowbluff]

A single feat that speeds spell advancement by two levels is CLEARLY disproportionate return for a feat, grossly so, and that is what YOU gave as the definition of cheese. It's only because you've hung it on the lame ass frame of a MT that it's still not all that good, but the feat itself is pure cheese, it's from a different source and makes an option vastly more powerful than intended based on what was available when the option was published.
It's quite simple. Casting second level spells at level 3 is not cheese, and casting third level spells at level 5 is not cheese. In reality, you are the one with the hang up. I am not personally attached to the method or the class itself, and the earlier statement only concerned the limited viewpoint of an assistant. I have to discourage for the sake of some DMs. The fact of the matter is that their is nothing wrong with the result and the method to achieve it. There are probably a dozen methods of achieving the same goal without changing the total power of the build. The PrC can be produce near-perfect (in this case, similiar) progression without using early entry tricks thanks to spell casting PrCs.

Oh, and then you used the word intended. Remember kids, if you see something you don't like, lie and say the authors don't like you doing it!

[sleepyphoenixx]

Level 16 (Theurge level 10) is a pretty good example as well. Theurge has 84 spells per day (vs 51), 286 spell levels (vs 203) and 7th level spells. The only thing the pure caster has that outshines the Mystic Theurge is 4 8th level spells. The Mystic Theurge has more 7th level spells than a pure caster. Sure, the pure caster gets 9th level spells next level and that is something to look forward to. At this point, I fully expect the Mystic Theurge to focus on something useful like Archmage (or, provided the DM is lenient, keep taking Mystic Theurge levels as if it was a 14th level prestige).

You rarely use up all your spells even as a single class caster at those levels. Also, your comparison only works if you compare a MT with a pure wizard (with no PrCs).
By level 16 you could already have several high powered abilities from PrCs or, if you want access to as many spells as possible, be a Wizard/Rainbow Servant with full access to both lists without losing high level spells.

Mystic Theurge is probably the worst offender here since it has nothing besides dual spellcasting advancement. Low HD, low skills, no class abilities.
Other Theurge classes offer at least some synergy (and often work with only a 1 level sacrifice), making them far more playable.

[Eldonauran]

You rarely use up all your spells even as a single class caster at those levels.

Your point is noted but that doesn't change the numbers. Depending on the situation, inability to rest for long periods of time, something that can happen in a real game, these things come up.


Also, your comparison only works if you compare a MT with a pure wizard (with no PrCs).

By level 16 you could already have several high powered abilities from PrCs or, if you want access to as many spells as possible, be a Wizard/Rainbow Servant with full access to both lists without losing high level spells.

Indeed. Hence why I compared it with a straight cleric and/or specialized wizard. No one is arguing that prestige classes build a better caster. I am not budging from my numbers as listed and will not engage a conversation regarding anything other than what my numbers reflect.


Mystic Theurge is probably the worst offender here since it has nothing besides dual spellcasting advancement. Low HD, low skills, no class abilities.
Other Theurge classes offer at least some synergy (and often work with only a 1 level sacrifice), making them far more playable.

Other prestige class? Check. No comment.


No one is saying the Mystic Theurge is the best prestige class. My whole point of posting the numbers is to show that it isn't as horrible as it is made out to be. There are better options for different character concepts. Use them.

[Urpriest]

Your point is noted but that doesn't change the numbers. Depending on the situation, inability to rest for long periods of time, something that can happen in a real game, these things come up.


In actual games that's a pretty rare situation. Yes, occasionally you get a special plot that requires it. But generally speaking, new DMs stick to the guidelines for adventure design because they don't know any better, while experienced DMs stick to them because they know the game is built with them in mind.

Basically, if you want to compare straight Cleric or Wizard to MT, you should only be comparing their top 16 spells per day at most, with lower level spells being relevant primarily for how much you can buff up your party with them before fights.

[Snowbluff]

Mystic Theurge is probably the worst offender here since it has nothing besides dual spellcasting advancement. Low HD, low skills, no class abilities.
Other Theurge classes offer at least some synergy (and often work with only a 1 level sacrifice), making them far more playable.

I concur. MT has lax entry requirements, so it does end up in other theurge builds, even if it doesn't add much. Arcane Hierophants interested in shoring up their druid casting with wizard stuff can easily take levels.

[Talya]

No one likes a step down in power, which is also the reason that entering MoMF through wild shape ranger is a popular choice over getting there through a druid. And it is worse, though it can be strong with some effort. Not the strongest, but probably better than a straight classed caster.

I understand and agree with your point, but disagree with your application!

Wildshape Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order 10/MoMF10 is just as good as, and possibly better than Druid 10/MoMF 10.

[Eldonauran]

In actual games that's a pretty rare situation. Yes, occasionally you get a special plot that requires it. But generally speaking, new DMs stick to the guidelines for adventure design because they don't know any better, while experienced DMs stick to them because they know the game is built with them in mind.

This is true. Then again, the game wasn't designed for handling the super optimized mail-man characters. When the players decide to take the game to another level, the DM needs to step up as well. Starving the spellcaster of periods of rest is one of th emost effective ways of making sure the character doesn't 'go nova' and ensures that the party resources get used up in the manner directed in the DMG. If you aren't using party resources equal to 1/3 1/5 of your daily supplies per equal CR encounter, you are not being challenged. At that point, you need more encounters (or harder ones) until you get to that point.


Basically, if you want to compare straight Cleric or Wizard to MT, you should only be comparing their top 16 spells per day at most, with lower level spells being relevant primarily for how much you can buff up your party with them before fights.

You are free to do so. The numbers are listed above for your viewing pleasure. Its just not well organized for that.

[Scow2]

This is true. Then again, the game wasn't designed for handling the super optimized mail-man characters. When the players decide to take the game to another level, the DM needs to step up as well. Starving the spellcaster of periods of rest is one of th emost effective ways of making sure the character doesn't 'go nova' and ensures that the party resources get used up in the manner directed in the DMG. If you aren't using party resources equal to 1/5 of your daily supplies per equal CR encounter, you are not being challenged. At that point, you need more encounters (or harder ones) until you get to that point.
Fixed that number for you... I swear, people keep trying to shrink the number of daily CR-appropriate encounters a party is supposed to try to get through all the time... It's 1/5th - 20%. Or, in Sadist DM's terms "One full party member."

[Eldonauran]

Fixed that number for you... I swear, people keep trying to shrink the number of daily CR-appropriate encounters a party is supposed to try to get through all the time... It's 1/5th - 20%. Or, in Sadist DM's terms "One full party member."

Ah, many thanks for that. You are right, of course. My fingers have a mind of their own.

[eggynack]

I understand and agree with your point, but disagree with your application!

Wildshape Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order 10/MoMF10 > Druid 10/MoMF 10.
You're probably right about the situation with that breakdown, but I usually look at it with 5 levels of the wild shape class, and in that case I think that the druid comes out a bit ahead. Not by as much as against a regular ranger, but it's running 3rd's as compared to 2nd's, and that's likely an advantageous position. I mean, opening up with ten levels of the wild shape class probably makes for a more powerful character, because more spells, but the five level version gets you good at the thing you're trying to do faster.

[Snowbluff]

Fixed that number for you... I swear, people keep trying to shrink the number of daily CR-appropriate encounters a party is supposed to try to get through all the time... It's 1/5th - 20%. Or, in Sadist DM's terms "One full party member."

I don't know about you guys, but I use my spells for more than fighting. Social encounters and other stuff get a huge amount of spellwork from me, and I usually have a ton of buffs running all day.

Theurges are handy when you are bad at predicting needs as well. Having 2 pools of spells/day lets you prepare a wide variety of spells.

[Togo]

In actual games that's a pretty rare situation. Yes, occasionally you get a special plot that requires it. But generally speaking, new DMs stick to the guidelines for adventure design because they don't know any better, while experienced DMs stick to them because they know the game is built with them in mind.

That depends entirely on your local game, and for some games, the MT is a valid trade-off. Remember, it doesn't matter how common you think it is overall, the option exists to use in the games that use it.

In some groups I play with, it's seen as a requirement to run people out of daily resources. The fact that spellcasters get a limited number of spells is a primary weakness of their class, so if they're not running low on high level spells every so often, or taking options to conserve their more effective spells, then clearly you're coddling the spellcasters. They'd no more have a campaign where you never ran out of spells than they would a campaign where the fighter never met an opponent he couldn't hit in melee.

It's a big hobby, with a wider range of playstyles than you're giving it credit for. MT isn't a particularly powerful option, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

[Eldonauran]

I don't know about you guys, but I use my spells for more than fighting. Social encounters and other stuff get a huge amount of spellwork from me, and I usually have a ton of buffs running all day.

Yeah, this is were I get a little hesitant. Using spell in a social encounter sets off alarm bells to me, as a DM. I am here, roleplaying random NPC 56 and all of a sudden Mr Spellcaster here starts to cast a spell that I have no idea what it does and it starts to freak me out. I am liable to call for the guards and my attitude towards the character immediately shifts negatively. This is what happens in my games when a player suddenly decides to use magic in a social encounter without warning anyone.

If the NPC knows and/or trusts you, no big deal. Random acts of magic near a total stranger? Yeah, do that. I smell a plot hook.


Theurges are handy when you are bad at predicting needs as well. Having 2 pools of spells/day lets you prepare a wide variety of spells.
I like to think of it as 'handling the unexpected'. Doubling up on your buff spells, like haste and fly, don't hurt either.

[TuggyNE]

Yeah, this is were I get a little hesitant. Using spell in a social encounter sets off alarm bells to me, as a DM. I am here, roleplaying random NPC 56 and all of a sudden Mr Spellcaster here starts to cast a spell that I have no idea what it does and it starts to freak me out.

Why would you be visibly casting within the encounter? :smallconfused: Pre-buff, or conceal spellcasting in some way. That's basically rule 1 of social spellcasting.

[Snowbluff]

If the NPC knows and/or trusts you, no big deal. Random acts of magic near a total stranger? Yeah, do that. I smell a plot hook.
I avoid directly using magic, but if I have the option, I'll have Glibness or a charmed companion cast beforehand.

EDIT: Kind of ninjaed. :smalltongue:


I like to think of it as 'handling the unexpected'. Doubling up on your buff spells, like haste and fly, don't hurt either.

Definitely.

[Eldonauran]

Why would you be visibly casting within the encounter? :smallconfused: Pre-buff, or conceal spellcasting in some way. That's basically rule 1 of social spellcasting.

You'd be surprised at how many people forget their spells have verbal and somatic components that the average NPC can recognize. If you can hide it, then you should be just fine.

[Talya]

For the record, I would use Mystic Theurge for the same thing I would use Ultimate Magus for. (Except, given a choice, I'd use Ultimate Magus instead.) Stick a spontaneous caster on one side and a prepared caster on the other. You can take the spells you intend to use constantly as your basic bread and butter on the spontaneous side, and memorize things that are situationally fantastic on the other.

(I'd still try to do it with something like Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord instead of basic classes, so I don't end up behind the other players much.)

[georgie_leech]

Counter Quibble: Unless I'm mistaken, there's no general rule regarding spellcasting progression for theurge style classes. There's only the specific rule for mystic theurge which alternates.

I'm only speaking for Mystic Theurge. Other Theurge classes have their own perks, but MT (which is what the thread seems to be asking about, less theurging in general) is absolute rubbish in Epic.

[TypoNinja]

I've done a bit of math, if that helps anyone. This is comparing spells per day of a cleric/specialist Mystic Theurge versus a single classed version of themselves, core only. We also account for the total spell levels available to the character (9th level spell = 9 spell levels). I've done the math for level 9, 10, 13 and 16. Mystic Theurge levels 3, 4, 7 and 10


Pure spellcaster (Lvl: Daily spell + domain/specialized (high ability score) = total spells)

Level 9 (Assuming 20 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 9
5th: 1+1 (1) = 3
4h: 2+1 (1) = 4
3rd: 3+1 (1) = 5
2nd: 4+1 (1) = 6
1st: 4+1 (2) = 7
Total Spells = 25
Spell Levels = 65

Mystic Theurge 3
3rd: 2 +1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
2nd: 3 +1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
1st: 3 +1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
Total Spells = 30
Spell Levels = 56


Level 10: (Assuming 20 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 10
5th: 2+1 (1) = 4
4h: 3+1 (1) = 5
3rd: 3+1 (1) = 5
2nd: 4+1 (1) = 6
1st: 4+1 (2) = 7
Total Spells = 27
Spell Levels = 74

Mystic Theurge 4
4th: 1+1, 1+1 (1+1) = 6
3rd: 2 +1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
2nd: 3 +1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
1st: 3 +1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
Total Spells = 36
Spell Levels = 70


Level 13 (assuming 24 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 13
7th: 1+1 (1) = 3
6th: 2+1 (1) = 4
5th: 3+1 (1) = 5
4th: 4+1 (1) = 6
3rd: 4+1 (2) = 7
2nd: 5+1 (2) = 8
1st: 5+1 (2) = 8
Total Spells: 41
Spell Levels: 139

Mystic Theurge 7
5th: 2+1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
4h: 3+1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
3rd: 3+1, 3+1 (2+2) = 12
2nd: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
1st: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
Total Spells = 58
Spell Levels = 158


Level 16 (Assuming 26 in casting stat)

Cleric or Specialized Wizard 16
8th: 2+1 (1) = 4
7th: 3+1 (1) = 5
6th: 3+1 (1) = 5
5th: 4+1 (1) = 6
4th: 4+1 (2) = 7
3rd: 5+1 (2) = 8
2nd: 5+1 (2) = 8
1st: 5+1 (2) = 8
Total Spells: 51
Spell Levels: 203

Mystic Theurge 10
7th: 1+1, 1+1 (1+1) = 6
6th: 2+1, 2+1 (1+1) = 8
5th: 3+1, 3+1 (1+1) = 10
4th: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
3rd: 4+1, 4+1 (2+2) = 14
2nd: 5+1, 5+1 (2+2) = 16
1st: 5+1, 5+1 (2+2) = 16
Total Spells: 84
Spell Levels: 286



So, what we can tell is by 9th level, the Mystic Theurge is already casting more spells per day than a pure caster, though the pure caster is swinging higher level spells (more total spell level). Level 10 shows the mystic theurge outpacing the straight caster in spells per day, as we would expect. We can also see that the total spell level available to the Mystic Theurge is dangerously close to the straight caster. This varies slightly from level to level, with the Mystic Theurge starting to pull ahead of is pure casting competitor.

Level 13 is where we begin to see the biggest change. The mystic theurge is casting 58 spells per day, compared to the 41 of the pure caster. The theurges spell levels are solidly ahead of the pure caster. I'd say this is the point where the pure caster only has their higher level spell selection going for them, and a caster level that is 3 higher.

Level 16 (Theurge level 10) is a pretty good example as well. Theurge has 84 spells per day (vs 51), 286 spell levels (vs 203) and 7th level spells. The only thing the pure caster has that outshines the Mystic Theurge is 4 8th level spells. The Mystic Theurge has more 7th level spells than a pure caster. Sure, the pure caster gets 9th level spells next level and that is something to look forward to. At this point, I fully expect the Mystic Theurge to focus on something useful like Archmage (or, provided the DM is lenient, keep taking Mystic Theurge levels as if it was a 14th level prestige).


Aside from all that, I do not believe a Mystic Theurge should be held comparible to a pure caster. It loses a lot for its ability to weild both arcane and divine magic. I firmly reject the idea that it is useless and 'sucks'. Perhaps people who are of that opinion are not looking at it with the right perspective. That, or it doesn't fit their play style.

I take issue with this breakdown. You have taken a MT with no early entry. MT's one strength is that its the easiest thurge to get into. How much better would we do with an intelligent build?


I'm only speaking for Mystic Theurge. Other Theurge classes have their own perks, but MT (which is what the thread seems to be asking about, less theurging in general) is absolute rubbish in Epic.

Wouldn't the Epic rules for advancing non-epic PrC's make the Epic thruge redundant as well as inferior?

[TuggyNE]

Wouldn't the Epic rules for advancing non-epic PrC's make the Epic thruge redundant as well as inferior?

Presumably, which just makes it that much more infuriating.

[hymer]

Fixed that number for you... I swear, people keep trying to shrink the number of daily CR-appropriate encounters a party is supposed to try to get through all the time... It's 1/5th - 20%. Or, in Sadist DM's terms "One full party member."

Take that thought through to the end. Resources include such things as daily charges on magic items, hit points and spells. If 20% of their starting resources are spent on each encounter, the party is dead by the end of the fifth encounter. They should probably stop before that. :smallsmile:
Even if they are just barely alive, any sort of random or unexpected encounter could easily be the death of them.

[atomicwaffle]

For me, it's more flavour than anything (shocking i know. That a character can exist outside of numbers and abilities, and numbers of abilities).

A mystic theurge is obsessed with magic, all magic. It is not limited to arcane or divine, and can learn and cast both. Thematically, my theurge is a cleric of Kord, who believes in the pursuit of strength. So, my theurge decided to pursue strength through magic. Learning spells, creating spells, finding and creating magical items.

When i took that wizard level, i specialized as a transmuter, banning abjuration and illusion. As a cleric, i get a lot of the abjuration spells i care about.

It's tough to level up, you gotta be smart, ruthless, and dedicated...exactly what a practicer of both arts would have to be. I'm currently lvl 13, and it took a year and a half.

This char has been and still is so much fun to play.

[Eldonauran]

I take issue with this breakdown. You have taken a MT with no early entry. MT's one strength is that its the easiest thurge to get into. How much better would we do with an intelligent build?
You are free to do so. I was running one comparison, sticking strictly to Core (PHB, DMG) without early entry shenanigans. I think it would be a bit redundant to make a comparison at this point, seeing how the number above already reflect that a Core only Mystic Theurge is not as bad as people make it out to be. Reducing the level investment needed to enter the class is only going to make the Theurge better.

You are free to use my posted breakdown and modify as you wish. A word of caution though, the moment you try to compare early entry with a straight caster, you will be prompted to show a prestiged and equally optimized pure caster. I did not want to go there as it will turn into a battle between class features and spell choices, rather than spells per day and spell levels known, ie no longer just about numbers. That is where the arguments based on opinions start and never end.



Take that thought through to the end. Resources include such things as daily charges on magic items, hit points and spells. If 20% of their starting resources are spent on each encounter, the party is dead by the end of the fifth encounter. They should probably stop before that. :smallsmile:
Even if they are just barely alive, any sort of random or unexpected encounter could easily be the death of them.
Yeah, isn't it great? Of course, you won't always have 5 encounters a day. A. Smart group is going to decide to rest up after 3 or 4 fights. That's how the game was deigned to function. 20% DAILY resources spent equals an equivalent CR encounter. The game doesn't take into account expenditure of consumable resources as much as renewable ones, like spells. The game does assume you have consumables.

[Vizzerdrix]

I'll only play a theurge type if we have a small party and everyone else is fretting over a lack of a band-aid an adhesive medical strip. And then only if the DM is okay with early entry so I don't have to suffer for the group's paranoia.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Houserule idea: At 1st level, and again at 3rd level, a Mystic Theurge advances whichever class has the lowest caster level twice. If both classes have the same caster level, you may choose which one gets the double advancement. This cannot make your effective caster level in a class greater than your HD.

So, e.g., a Wizard 1/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 3 casts as a Cleric 6/Wizard 6.

[Snowbluff]

I'll only play a theurge type if we have a small party and everyone else is fretting over a lack of a band-aid an adhesive medical strip. And then only if the DM is okay with early entry so I don't have to suffer for the group's paranoia.
But all you handed out was mostly sawdust!

[Psyren]

Some theurges work fine without early entry - typically the ones that have great synergy between their entry halves. Cerebremancer, Noctumancer and Soulcaster are among these.

[Zale]

Honestly, Mystic Theurge can only drop you, like, one tier at the most.

Even if you're weaker than God-Wizards, you can still probably wipe the floor with just about anything else.

After all, a caster is still a caster.

[Snowbluff]

Okay, is that even how tiers work? T1 and T2 are the same for the most part.

[TypoNinja]

Okay, is that even how tiers work? T1 and T2 are the same for the most part.

Sort of. Tier 1 will break the universe from a multiple choice list of awesomeness, Teir 2 will break the universe in the one thing it specialized in.

At mid level OP they'll probably be about the same.

[Snowbluff]

It was a rhetorical question. T1 and T2 are the same, save for a spellbook or two. At high level play, the T2 can mimic T1 lists. At mid level play, the T1 isn't doing crazy things. At low level play, neither is being played right.

[Angelalex242]

Ya know...I wonder if it'd still suck if Theurges got to keep normal progression through epic levels. It'd only take a few of those to reach Level 20 casting in Cleric and Wizard, and then epic spells, of which it can hold twice as many cause they had to max out knowledge arcana and knowledge religion and, of course, spellcraft to actually cast them.

If the normal +1 Arcane/+1 Divine continued indefinitely, The Theurge should eventually overtake the one classed caster by virtue of more epic spell slots and equal access to 9th level spells, only more of them per day.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Ya know...I wonder if it'd still suck if Theurges got to keep normal progression through epic levels. It'd only take a few of those to reach Level 20 casting in Cleric and Wizard, and then epic spells, of which it can hold twice as many cause they had to max out knowledge arcana and knowledge religion and, of course, spellcraft to actually cast them.

If the normal +1 Arcane/+1 Divine continued indefinitely, The Theurge should eventually overtake the one classed caster by virtue of more epic spell slots and equal access to 9th level spells, only more of them per day.

All you really need by RAW is ranks in the knowledge skills and the ability to cast divine spells. So Wizard 21 with Alternative Spell Source and Knowledge:Religion, Arcana & Nature 20 would have 6 epic spells slots, same as the MT.

He would cast less spells per day but have other PrC abilities like Metamagic Effect, Supernatural Spell, Archmage High Arcana, IotSV abilities or Circle Magic... the list of really strong caster PrCs is rather long.
You can make up the lack of spell slots with scrolls, wands and other consumables. Getting special abilities outside of PrCs is a lot harder.

[TypoNinja]

All you really need by RAW is ranks in the knowledge skills and the ability to cast divine spells. So Wizard 21 with Alternative Spell Source and Knowledge:Religion, Arcana & Nature 20 would have 6 epic spells slots, same as the MT.


Not quite. you need the ability to cast 9th level spells for the type to go with your knowledge ranks.


Epic Spellcasting [Epic]
Prerequisite

Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (arcana) 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane spells. OR Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level divine spells. OR Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (nature) 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level divine spells.

Since you need 9th's and alternative spell source casts as one level lower, you need something like Improved Spell Capacity to get a 10th level spell slot so you have 9s where ever you want.

[Karnith]

[A]lternative spell source casts as one level lower,
Actually, they're only cast at one caster level lower; an Alternative Source'd spell retains its normal spell level.

[sleepyphoenixx]

My mistake about the exact prereqs, i was going from memory. The point still stands though.

Unless you regularly spend all your slots you can cover the situations where you need a little more with consumables and get the benefit from PrC special abilities all the time.
Versatility is also easily attainable for a single class caster with stuff like Uncanny Forethought, Rainbow Servant on Beguiler or Warmage, Summon Monster/SNA (the list of available SLAs is huge) or, in the case of a wizard, just leaving a slot per spell level open.