Mystic Theruge?

[RobbyPants]

I was thinking today about the color of Tsukiko's eyes, and the spells she casts (Inflict Critical Wounds obviously, and some sort of flight), and I'm wondering if she's a Mystic Theruge (or perhaps a True Necromancer).

It makes a lot of sense for a necromancer type, in that divine magic usually does a better job than arcane. I'm guessing her base arcane class is sorcerer, due to the coloration of her eyes, but I could be wrong. Her eyes are colored like that even if she's not casting. Any thoughts?

Also, what level would you think she is? Just from what we've seen, she'd need at least 7 divine caster levels, and (if she cast Fly) 5 arcane caster levels. If she instead cast Wind Walk (eliminating the need for arcane levels) she'd need at least 11 divine levels. So I'm thinking either:

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theruge 4 = Total 10
Cleric 3/Sorcerer 4/Mystic Theruge 4 = Total 11
Cleric 11

[Green Bean]

Ummm, her resume that she showed Xykon says she is a mystic theurge. So, yes. :smallbiggrin:

[Morty]

"Trained as Mystic Theurge". So it's 100% sure that she's Mystic Theurge.

[jindra34]

Also sorcerers rarely become MT's bonus spells do not help if you do not know any spells of that level...

[RobbyPants]

Ummm, her resume that she showed Xykon says she is a mystic theurge. So, yes. :smallbiggrin:

"Trained as Mystic Theurge". So it's 100% sure that he's Mystic Theurge.
Oops :smalleek: I'm a noob!

*goes back to reread latest OOTS*

All that analysis, and I could have just more closely read what Xykon said! Oh well...

[Closet_Skeleton]

She should be a true Necro but the Giant has returned to his core only ways.

[RobbyPants]

She should be a true Necro but the Giant has returned to his core only ways.
True, although MT is not a bad comprimise (assuming you don't care about losing some caster levels for versitility).

If my guesses in the OP on her minimum level were correct, she's probably about 10 or 11 (at least). She would certainly be a nice, competant addition to Xykon's army. Obviously, she'd get crushed by one or two members from OOTS head on, but I imagine she's more into subterfuge anyway (as are most who decide to focus in necromancy).

[TroyXavier]

Because it's annoying me...you still get new spells known when you take a prestige class. The only thing you lose is familiar benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if Miss Tsukiko wouldn't grab a few levels of TN at some point but it's not necessary.

[dragonseth]

Also sorcerers rarely become MT's bonus spells do not help if you do not know any spells of that level...
I don't know exactly what you mean by that. There is no halt in spell progression in Mystic Theurge.

[Deckmaster]

Wizards can cast any spell they have access to that they are high enough level to cast.

Sorcerers have to learn new spells every level, because they don't memorize them.

Mystic Theurge allows you to continue gaining new spells per day, but not learn new spells. Meaning it's more suited to a Wizard/Cleric than a Sorcerer/Cleric.

[jindra34]

Wizards can cast any spell they have access to that they are high enough level to cast.

Sorcerers have to learn new spells every level, because they don't memorize them.

Mystic Theurge allows you to continue gaining new spells per day, but not learn new spells. Meaning it's more suited to a Wizard/Cleric than a Sorcerer/Cleric.
Thank ye... i've been trying to get people to understand that for 2 days...

[Drakron]

Mystic Theruge ... oh how I remember WotC forums when THAT little munchkin rolled out in the web page.

Its basic a emulation of the incredible broken Wizard/Cleric multiclass of 2nd Ed. AD&D without the racial limitations.

But yes, its a better combo for a necromancer since clerics are better at necromancy that wizards.

[baerdith]

Thank ye... i've been trying to get people to understand that for 2 days...

The reason you've had such a hard time convincing people is that.......YOU ARE WRONG.

[jindra34]

The reason you've had such a hard time convincing people is that.......YOU ARE WRONG.

Then please show me the point where MT says it does anything other than improve spells per day and caster level.

[baerdith]

Then please show me the point where MT says it does anything other than improve spells per day and caster level.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/prestigeClassProgressions.htm
If the EPIC MT gets to add spells known, it is STUPID to not has the non epic do so as well, since the Epic casters usually DON'T add spells known.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12168595
As one poster said better than I:
"This is a fundamental part of the games design; by default, a spellcasting character learns new spells when he or she goes up levels. If the PrC is not intended to increase spells known it would explicitly say so."

[Jefepato]

Mystic Theruge ... oh how I remember WotC forums when THAT little munchkin rolled out in the web page.

The fury died down pretty quick when people figured out that straight-up casters are generally better than mystic theurges. (Delaying access to higher-level spells is worse than it sounds like at first, believe you me.)

And seriously, people...it's inane to think that sorcerer/mystic theurges don't get new spells known. WotC hates sorcerers, but they don't hate sorcerers that much.

[Kreistor]

And seriously, people...it's inane to think that sorcerer/mystic theurges don't get new spells known. WotC hates sorcerers, but they don't hate sorcerers that much.

Inane is a too strong a word. Unfortunately, reading the RAW (Rules as Written) actually can lead you to that conclusion.


Spells per Day/Spells Known: When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level.


Spells per Day: When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day and caster level accordingly. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class or more than one divine spellcasting class before he became a mystic theurge, he must decide to which class he adds each level of mystic theurge for the purpose of determining spells per day.

Unfortunately, the Archmage specifically does mention the Spells Known increase, while the MT does not! That suggests that it may not be an oversight that the Sorcerer was not intended to enjoy the benefits of the MT PrC.

I highly doubt, though, that any DM will dig his/her heels in on this issue. It's clearly not gamebreaking to allow the MT to work with the Sorcerer, and it gets you positive DM reputation to bend on such an issue. Basically, it's a great issue to use as trade bait to get players to agree to disallow something that really might be game breaking.

[brian c]

Spells per Day

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day and caster level accordingly. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class or more than one divine spellcasting class before he became a mystic theurge, he must decide to which class he adds each level of mystic theurge for the purpose of determining spells per day.

As much as it makes sense for it to add to spells known, it doesn't specify that it does or does not. It does say that you don't gain any "other benefits" from that class, but this obviously is meant to refer to bonus feats, turning, etc. A strict DM could rule you don't get new spells because of that, but a nicer DM would still let you learn them as a sorceror. Strictly by RAW though, I have to agree with Jindra that you don't learn new spells (though I don't think that makes sense, and as a DM I allow new spells learned)

edit: I can't even say ninja'd because Kreistor posted 19 minutes before me, but I may have actually taken that long to post since I'm multi-tasking. But yeah, same point.

[Innis Cabal]

ya Jindra and Brain, your wrong. It says you gain a level as a spell casting class, and yes as RAW it only referes to non spellcasting abilities, you were before taking the PrC, if what you said was true it would be useless to take ANY PrC that gave caster level as a sorcerer. Not only that but i have played Mystic Theurge since the PrC was made(2nd ed i was just a cleric of mystra....) and even if that was how it was wirtten, any good DM would make sure to not bone the sorcerer yet again

[Jefepato]

Unfortunately, the Archmage specifically does mention the Spells Known increase, while the MT does not! That suggests that it may not be an oversight that the Sorcerer was not intended to enjoy the benefits of the MT PrC.

But basic good sense suggests exactly the opposite. Do you seriously think the author of the MT intended for sorcerers to gain higher-level spell slots but no higher-level spells at all? Even in the fevered sorcerer-hating minds at WotC, there is no way that thought would pass muster.

[Demented]

It is also possible that the classes mentioning Spells Known were added after the MT, and mention it precisely because of the controversy regarding whether the MT gives spells known. Thus, they would not in that case provide a precedent (or antecedent, depending on the nature of the word).

In any case, reading so strictly and concluding so widely on the nature of the MT and known spells only establishes precedent for even worse counterinterpretations of other instances of the RAW. So, on principle, I would rule against the logic used to make that interpretation.

Not that I play DnD.

[brian c]

ya Jindra and Brain, you're wrong. It says you gain a level as a spell casting class, and yes as RAW it only referes to non spellcasting abilities, you were before taking the PrC, if what you said was true it would be useless to take ANY PrC that gave caster level as a sorcerer. Not only that but i have played Mystic Theurge since the PrC was made(2nd ed i was just a cleric of mystra....) and even if that was how it was wirtten, any good DM would make sure to not bone the sorcerer yet again

I'm not saying that it should be that way, I'm just saying that's how it is by RAW. It doesn't say that you learn any new spells, only that you gain spells per day which are completely different. I said in my post that I think DMs should allow you to learn to new spells, but technically they don't have to. It's a completely reasonably houserule, but all I was saying is that by RAW you don't learn new spells. Yes, that sucks. Yes, it's bad for several arcane classes, not just sorceror. Yes, those are the Rules As Written.

[brian c]

It is also possible that the classes mentioning Spells Known were added after the MT, and mention it precisely because of the controversy regarding whether the MT gives spells known. Thus, they would not in that case provide a precedent (or antecedent, depending on the nature of the word).

In any case, reading so strictly and concluding so widely on the nature of the MT and known spells only establishes precedent for even worse counterinterpretations of other instances of the RAW. So, on principle, I would rule against the logic used to make that interpretation.

Not that I play DnD.

Well, since Mystic Theurge is a Prestige Class, it's reasonable to assume that it was only designed after they designed base classes such as Sorceror and Wizard, which are the ones with specific spells known.

[BobTheDog]

Fact 1 - The MT description in the DMG states that Clr/Sor and Clr/Wiz are the most common class combinations, with the druid versions less common;

Fact 2 - Races of the Dragon lists Kurtulmak's (the Kobold deity) herald as a fiendish kobold Clr5/Sor5/Mys10.

I think that might be taken to mean that Sorcerer/MT works. Or that Kurtulmak and the common Clr/Sor Theurges have a lot of fun casting lvl7-slot Fireballs.

[Demented]

@brian_c
I was referring to the other prestige classes, like Archmage and the epic Mystic Theurge, which specify that known spells are included.

[brian c]

Fact 1 - The MT description in the DMG states that Clr/Sor and Clr/Wiz are the most common class combinations, with the druid versions less common;

Fact 2 - Races of the Dragon lists Kurtulmak's (the Kobold deity) herald as a fiendish kobold Clr5/Sor5/Mys10.

I think that might be taken to mean that Sorcerer/MT works. Or that Kurtulmak and the common Clr/Sor Theurges have a lot of fun casting lvl7-slot Fireballs.

Like I've been saying, it should work that way, and it was almost certainly intended to work that way, but unfortunately they didn't write it to work that way. I know there are other examples of not-so-well-written rules that end up working differently from their intentions (for starters, I don't think Clerics or Druids were intended to be the best tanks, but that's how it is)

[dragonseth]

I think this is an oversight, being that they use the same language in Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

[BobTheDog]

So, that means that a Ranger/Bard could become a Mystic Theurge? Feel the power!

(Talk about efficient multiclassing...)

(Elan better not read this..)

[Kitanin]

So, that means that a Ranger/Bard could become a Mystic Theurge? Feel the power!

(Talk about efficient multiclassing...)

(Elan better not read this..)

Yep. One of the more unusual ones, but totally doable.

:elan: In fact, my next character is going to be a Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge.





:belkar: An Evil Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge.





:xykon: Who intends to make his lute into a phylactery.





What?

[Cifer]

Feel the power!
What power? The power to basically throw away your halfway decent combat abilities? The power to engage in extreme MAD (multiple ability dependance)?

[jindra34]

What power? The power to basically throw away your halfway decent combat abilities? The power to engage in extreme MAD (multiple ability dependance)?

The power to toss around lots of low level spells.

[BobTheDog]

What power? The power to basically throw away your halfway decent combat abilities? The power to engage in extreme MAD (multiple ability dependance)?

Yea, you're feeling the power! :smalltongue:

And that sounds just like the kind of thing Nale would do. Or look for in a LG replacement.

[brian c]

Yea, you're feeling the power! :smalltongue:

And that sounds just like the kind of thing Nale would do. Or look for in a LG replacement.

So if Unnatural Wizardry Girl's stint with team Evil doesn't work out, she would be a perfect fit with the Linear Guild... hm...

[BobTheDog]

So if Unnatural Wizardry Girl's stint with team Evil doesn't work out, she would be a perfect fit with the Linear Guild... hm...

ONLY if she's in truth a Ranger/Bard/Theurge...

[Cifer]

Well, she'd certainly enjoy herself with Sabine...



And that sounds just like the kind of thing Nale would do. Or look for in a LG replacement.
Nah, he believes bards to be horribly underpowered.

[Jaysyn]

But basic good sense suggests exactly the opposite. Do you seriously think the author of the MT intended for sorcerers to gain higher-level spell slots but no higher-level spells at all? Even in the fevered sorcerer-hating minds at WotC, there is no way that thought would pass muster.

Yes, because you could still use them for metamagic.

[Kreistor]

The power to toss around lots of low level spells.

I just want to expand on this.

To determine if something is powerful, one must know two things. First, you need to know what tradeoff you are making in your output. Second, you must know how that will affect your target.

With the MT, you are trading a few higher DC castings for a lot of lower DC castings. (You give up 3 levels in one class to gain 13 levels in a second.) Each casting will also have a lower maximum damage output, lower duration, lower range, and/or lower number of targets (damage spells are 1HD/CL, range is y+x/CL, rnd/min/hour per CL, one target/CL, etc.). In turn, you are gaining up to 13 caster levels of another class. For instance, by taking a 16th level Wizard and instead MT'ing him, he becomes 13 level arcane and 13 level divine. In some cases, you can nearly double the number of spells you cast.

Now, that doesn't sound like a terrible trade-off, and you know what? It might not be a terrible trade-off, but the analysis is incomplete. You need to know what the targets are.

To determine whether the targets are good for the tradeoff, we need to know who is better affected by lower level spells. Clearly, higher level NPC's are resistant to lower level DC's and CL based effects, so lower level targets are more affected by lower level spells. If you look in the DMG, you can find the CL equivalency table that tells you how many low level NPC's are worth fighting for higher level EL's. That is a higher number, which means there are more than one targets. This reveals a weakness for low level NPC's... a MT with lots of castings can kill more enemies than a specialist arcane caster facing the same situation with higher level spells. Every casting for a pure Wizard uses up more percentage of resources than every casting for an MT, and their higher level resources may be overkill for the targets.

So, what it comes ddown to is frequency of encounter. A DM that likes to present you with single monster, high CR encounters will resist the benefits of the MT, which means the pure Wizard was better. Conversely, a DM that likes lots of high enemy count fights will find the increased castings per day of the MT proving increased utility.

So, if your DM likes big fights with lots of low CR enemies, the MT is a good choice.
But if your DM likes little fights with individual high CR enemies, the MT is a poor choice.

There is no single "This chocie is better than that in all situations" statement we can make here. DM's have a wide variety of preferences, which makes the decision on whether a choice is good or bad very game dependent.

[jindra34]

I just want to expand on this.

To determine if something is powerful, one must know two things. First, you need to know what tradeoff you are making in your output. Second, you must know how that will affect your target.

With the MT, you are trading a few higher DC castings for a lot of lower DC castings. (You give up 3 levels in one class to gain 13 levels in a second.) Each casting will also have a lower maximum damage output, lower duration, lower range, and/or lower number of targets (damage spells are 1HD/CL, range is y+x/CL, rnd/min/hour per CL, one target/CL, etc.). In turn, you are gaining up to 13 caster levels of another class. For instance, by taking a 16th level Wizard and instead MT'ing him, he becomes 13 level arcane and 13 level divine. In some cases, you can nearly double the number of spells you cast.

Now, that doesn't sound like a terrible trade-off, and you know what? It might not be a terrible trade-off, but the analysis is incomplete. You need to know what the targets are.

To determine whether the targets are good for the tradeoff, we need to know who is better affected by lower level spells. Clearly, higher level NPC's are resistant to lower level DC's and CL based effects, so lower level targets are more affected by lower level spells. If you look in the DMG, you can find the CL equivalency table that tells you how many low level NPC's are worth fighting for higher level EL's. That is a higher number, which means there are more than one targets. This reveals a weakness for low level NPC's... a MT with lots of castings can kill more enemies than a specialist arcane caster facing the same situation with higher level spells. Every casting for a pure Wizard uses up more percentage of resources than every casting for an MT, and their higher level resources may be overkill for the targets.

So, what it comes ddown to is frequency of encounter. A DM that likes to present you with single monster, high CR encounters will resist the benefits of the MT, which means the pure Wizard was better. Conversely, a DM that likes lots of high enemy count fights will find the increased castings per day of the MT proving increased utility.

So, if your DM likes big fights with lots of low CR enemies, the MT is a good choice.
But if your DM likes little fights with individual high CR enemies, the MT is a poor choice.

There is no single "This chocie is better than that in all situations" statement we can make here. DM's have a wide variety of preferences, which makes the decision on whether a choice is good or bad very game dependent.
ARe you a profensional anylist by any chance?

[Wolf53226]

If you read the Main D&D FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip), the first question in the Prestige Classes section asks this question. While the example given is pretty poor, since they use Loremaster which specifically states you spells known goes up, the wording is such that it is obvious that they meant that any time your spell caster level went up, your spells known would change in the same way that it would have for the base class.

[brian c]

If you read the Main D&D FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip), the first question in the Prestige Classes section asks this question. While the example given is pretty poor, since they use Loremaster which specifically states you spells known goes up, the wording is such that it is obvious that they meant that any time your spell caster level went up, your spells known would change in the same way that it would have for the base class.

Nothing personal, but the FAQ is pretty spotty; he'll answer the same question two different ways on the same page. I try not to base important judgements off of anything from the FAQ; like I've been saying, I'm sure you're supposed to learn new spells as a Sorcerer when you level up in Mystic Theurge, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the books.

[GymGeekAus]

Oh boy, remind me to screen potential DMs with this question in the future!

I would only add to this discussion that the DMG3.5 includes this in the section under Mystic Theurge: Spells Per Day.


For example, a 3rd-level cleric/3rd-level wizard who takes a level in mystic theurge has the same access to spells as a 4th-level cleric and a 4th-level wizard. What is "access to spells?"

For a cleric, the point is moot. Under the description for a cleric from the PHB3.5, it states in the Spells section that "a cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation." So a cleric gains "access" to their entire spell list at 1st level.

A wizard, you could argue, has access to his entire spell list too--after he inscribes them into his spellbook. However, this seems to run contrary to the provided example. After all, one 4th-level wizard might have all the 2nd-level spells in his spellbook, whereas another might only have four. I think it's probably safest to assume the rule refers to what spells the character has access to, without additional research/inscribing.

What happens if you substitute the word "sorcerer" for "wizard" in that example? "A 3rd-level cleric/4th-level sorcerer (I added one to meet the prerequisite of 2nd-level spells) who takes a level in mystic theurge has the same access to spells as a 4th-level cleric and a 5th-level sorcerer."

A sorcerer's access to spells, well that's defined by the "Sorcerer Spells Known by Level" table. So I think that makes it clear the intent of the example, even if the language was unfortunate.

A legitimate argument could be made, especially by DMs who consider the Mystic Theurge to be overpowered, that the class feature that grants two additional spells to a spellbook is outside of the rules provided by the Mystic Theurge. Cutting off the free spells per level that an arcanist/wizard would get could be seen as a way to equalize the benefits of that particular class pairing--since it runs off of Int alone.

I will only point out that all other dual-progression spellcasting prestige classes have a clearer explanation of their spell progression that does include spells known.

Oh, and the mystic theurge isn't overpowered. ;) But that's just an opinion.

[Irbis]

So, that means that a Ranger/Bard could become a Mystic Theurge? Feel the power!

(Talk about efficient multiclassing...)

(Elan better not read this..)

So... how many levels of each would be needed? :smallwink:

And even more important - can a paladin become one? :smallbiggrin:

[jindra34]

And even more important - can a paladin become one? :smallbiggrin:

Yeeeeeeeees

[Tsunomaru]

Trump card in favor of MT being awesome:

contingency + resurrection

I had a mystic theurge who would have got along pretty well with Tsukiko -- he was a follower of Hecate, and Hecate=moon=tsuki. And he was set to use the above spell combination. The fun part was designing his Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion and excluding from it a party member who had used area-effect psionics that hit the party.

[SquireJames]

The mystic theurge is an excellent partner for a fighter-type in a 2-person party. Basically a gestalt cleric/wizard who can play in a non-gestalt game in exchange for 3 caster levels. A little rough at low levels, but well worth the wait later on. Kind of like a monk in that respect.

As for the rules-lawyers who don't think sorcerer MT's get spells known, it seems almost pointless to ask them to use "common sense" (I may be wrong, they can't hear you over that loud "RAW" they're shouting). I wonder how those people play the Cleave feat. Read the text in the PHB (I don't know if the SRD did a better description or not), and tell me if an archer can take a free whack at a nearby foe with his bow (or, if read differently, an arrow) if he brings an opponent down with a ranged attack (i.e. the feat says nothing about the attack that downs the foe being a melee weapon, only the extra attack) - and get the ranged attack bonus when doing so (i.e. it explicitly says it's the same bonus as the original attack)! Now let's talk again about common sense... and the idea that it should be applied in a THICK layer over any "RAW" sound you might be hearing.

[jindra34]

The mystic theurge is an excellent partner for a fighter-type in a 2-person party. Basically a gestalt cleric/wizard who can play in a non-gestalt game in exchange for 3 caster levels. A little rough at low levels, but well worth the wait later on. Kind of like a monk in that respect.

As for the rules-lawyers who don't think sorcerer MT's get spells known, it seems almost pointless to ask them to use "common sense" (I may be wrong, they can't hear you over that loud "RAW" they're shouting). I wonder how those people play the Cleave feat. Read the text in the PHB (I don't know if the SRD did a better description or not), and tell me if an archer can take a free whack at a nearby foe with his bow (or, if read differently, an arrow) if he brings an opponent down with a ranged attack (i.e. the feat says nothing about the attack that downs the foe being a melee weapon, only the extra attack) - and get the ranged attack bonus when doing so (i.e. it explicitly says it's the same bonus as the original attack)! Now let's talk again about common sense... and the idea that it should be applied in a THICK layer over any "RAW" sound you might be hearing.
Cleave allows an immediate MELEE attack by raw.

[Shatteredtower]

Trump card in favor of MT being awesome:

contingency + resurrection.

Contingency works on spells of no higher than 6th level (for an 18th level caster), so resurrection (7th level) is out. You could opt for raise dead instead, however.

[Kreistor]

ARe you a profensional anylist by any chance?

An application engineer. I analyze technical problems and find solutions. So, yes, I do analyze for a living; however, I am not an analyst. Busniess has adopted that term for use in Marketing and IT (Business Analyst and Systems Analyst). Some engineering jobs have gotten a title of "analyst", but it is not typical.

[Jefepato]

Yes, because you could still use them for metamagic.

Okay, now you're really stretching. Especially since sorcerers suck at metamagic and have no use for the highest-end metamagic feat in the core rules (Quicken Spell).

[baerdith]

Nothing personal, but the FAQ is pretty spotty; he'll answer the same question two different ways on the same page. I try not to base important judgements off of anything from the FAQ; like I've been saying, I'm sure you're supposed to learn new spells as a Sorcerer when you level up in Mystic Theurge, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the books.

The FAQ is supposed to CLARIFY rules, and it says this plain as day:

"Adding spells to your spellbook or personal repertoire is part of spellcasting."

[BobTheDog]

So... how many levels of each would be needed? :smallwink:

And even more important - can a paladin become one? :smallbiggrin:

Ranger (or Paladin) 11 / Bard 7 / Theurge 3

IF the character has both WIS and CHA over 16, for a bonus 3rd lvl spell.

Now THAT's effective multiclassing.

Not to mention you'd need to get 7 levels of Bard, change your alignment to Lawful, get the Paladin levels, and then the Theurge. Not a problem for the Ranger/Bard, though.


Okay, now you're really stretching. Especially since sorcerers suck at metamagic and have no use for the highest-end metamagic feat in the core rules (Quicken Spell).

Arcane Preparation feat. (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic Specialist substitution level. (PHB2)

Two nice ways to fix that. One costs a feat, the other costs your familiar.

[baerdith]

Ranger (or Paladin) 11 / Bard 7 / Theurge 3

IF the character has both WIS and CHA over 16, for a bonus 3rd lvl spell.

Now THAT's effective multiclassing.



How about THIS:
Ranger4 /Bard7/Sublime Chord1/MT10 With Practiced Spellcaster(Divine) and Practiced Spellcaster (Arcane) and Obtain Familiar?

THAT's effective multiclassing.

[see]

Ranger 2/Fighter 4/Blackguard 3/Assassin 3/Mystic Theurge 8.

[Jefepato]

Arcane Preparation feat. (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic Specialist substitution level. (PHB2)

Two nice ways to fix that. One costs a feat, the other costs your familiar.

Erase "nice" from that sentence and it might become true.

Besides, the mystic theurge wasn't written with them in mind (seeing as they aren't core material), so they're not directly relevant to this argument.

[Krytha]

I wonder if the penchant to call the MT a Theruge will turn into a Rouge like epidemic.

[BobTheDog]

Erase "nice" from that sentence and it might become true.

Besides, the mystic theurge wasn't written with them in mind (seeing as they aren't core material), so they're not directly relevant to this argument.

Not nice?! Trade in that annoying Raven/Cat/Toad for the ability to Quicken, and use all the other metamagic feats more effectively?

Though I'll admit it's kinda Evil, since you're depriving the Dragons of a tasty battle-snack.

And I never stated that that stuff was relevant to the Sorcerer/Theurge argument.

[jindra34]

Not nice?! Trade in that annoying Raven/Cat/Toad for the ability to Quicken, and use all the other metamagic feats more effectively?

Though I'll admit it's kinda Evil, since you're depriving the Dragons of a tasty battle-snack.

Your also depriving yourself of improved familiars... which rock.

[BobTheDog]

Your also depriving yourself of improved familiars... which rock.

Are they tastier or anything? :smalltongue:

[jindra34]

Are they tastier or anything? :smalltongue:

no their actually useful... in combat...

[dragonseth]

I personally find that substituting out familiars is preferable. Most of my characters use sub levels and if they're a wizard or sorcerer, I usually sub out their familiar.

[baerdith]

Are they tastier or anything? :smalltongue:

Well, that Flying Cat from FR might be..... Ever had Cat Wings? UUMM Tasty!! :)

[Charity322]

Would a Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge really be very useful? What I mean is you still wouldn't get any spells you wouldn't normally get from either class and Ranger spells only go up to level 4 plus there are a lot fewer of them. For a mainly spellcasting class is that really useful?

Oh and how can you sacrifice your familiar? :smalleek: I have a bad habit of taking classes that give me a pet just for the pet. :smallbiggrin:

[BobTheDog]

Would a Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge really be very useful? What I mean is you still wouldn't get any spells you wouldn't normally get from either class and Ranger spells only go up to level 4 plus there are a lot fewer of them. For a mainly spellcasting class is that really useful?

Come on! Any class that mixes Ranger with Bard levels and builds upon their spellcasting potential is a powerhouse! :smalltongue:


Oh and how can you sacrifice your familiar? :smalleek: I have a bad habit of taking classes that give me a pet just for the pet. :smallbiggrin:

Well, if you take a level substitution, you never get the familiar in first place. So no "kitty sacrifice".

Unless, of course, you get the Improved Familiar feat, which gives you a better familiar "when you'd normally get one". Getting a new familiar means your old familiar needs to die...

I personally think sacrificing your cat or toad (biology class, anyone?) is Evil, and it's much better to send it to melee an Elder Dragon one-on-one. At least it has a chance to prove its value...

[see]

Would a Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge really be very useful?

No, it wouldn't be. It would be rather useless. BobtheDog's "So, that means that a Ranger/Bard could become a Mystic Theurge? Feel the power!" was a joke.

But, bards are still much more reasonable arcane spellcasters than assassins, so mystic theurge levels for a bard/ranger still wouldn't be quite as useless as the mystic theurge levels for a ranger 8/assassin 3/mystic theurge 9.

(That would give you a 20th level character with the spellcasting of a 17th level ranger and a 12th level assassin, other class abilities of an 8th level ranger and 3rd level assassin, BAB of a 19th level rogue, average hit points of a 20th level rogue, saves of +10/+12/+8 from the classes, and a painfully fractured skill advancement.)

[Silverlocke980]

I've found that Mystic Theurges- and mages in general- become more or less useful at different levels depending on the type of game. Now, I generally avoid playing with anyone who looks (or smells!) like they haven't had a bath in a few days, and it's greatly helped my game experience.

More importantly, it's kept everything from being hack-n-slash the whole time.

Essentially, I've noticed that, if the campaign is heavily combat-oriented, higher-level spells are the way to go. High-up spells tend to be real army slayers.

On the other hand, in less combat-heavy scenarios, mages are actually more useful at lower levels, since the variety of effects they can use outside battle are much more useful (and a lot more likely to get used! Nobody prepares a non-doom spell in a D&D these days!).

My point being that Mystic Theurge is an awesome class, for both its history and roleplaying style, and not necessarily its overall "effectiveness".

(The only Theurge I've ever known was a psycho torn between loving good and loving evil- hence his class. He would almost randomly switch between giving health and dealing death at any given moment, which was hilarious when he was busy patching up the wounded after a battle.)

(The NPC wounded. :)

[Wolf53226]

Nothing personal, but the FAQ is pretty spotty; he'll answer the same question two different ways on the same page. I try not to base important judgements off of anything from the FAQ; like I've been saying, I'm sure you're supposed to learn new spells as a Sorcerer when you level up in Mystic Theurge, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the books.

I'm sorry you feel that the FAQ is spotty, I don't often read it so I can't really comment on that. But it is a clarification of the RAW, and thus is RAW, so it answers this:


Then please show me the point where MT says it does anything other than improve spells per day and caster level.

Since this is becoming a RAW discussion and not a discussion about the comic, we should take it to a different forum if you would like to continue.

Later :smallbiggrin:

[RobbyPants]

Would a Ranger/Bard/Mystic Theurge really be very useful?
It would be a terrible waste.

Your BAB would drop to poor (1/2), when it was previously good (1/1) and average (3/4)
Your hit dice would drop to d4, when it was previously d8 and d6
You would not gain any abilities from either class (which both of them have lots of).

[SpyOne]

It is also possible that the classes mentioning Spells Known were added after the MT, and mention it precisely because of the controversy regarding whether the MT gives spells known. Thus, they would not in that case provide a precedent (or antecedent, depending on the nature of the word).

This appears to be the case: in the 3.0 DMG, the Loremaster prestige class reads much like Mystic Theurge quoted above. At some point after the creation of Mystic Theurge, the wording for spellcasting prestige classes was changed to what is listed for Archmage above, most likely to address this very issue.

[SpyOne]

Cleave allows an immediate MELEE attack by raw.


Let's read carefully folks:


...(i.e. the feat says nothing about the attack that downs the foe being a melee weapon, only the extra attack)...

So, SquireJames agreed that Cleave allows an immediate melee attack, but points out that it does not require the first attack to be a melee attack.

Thus, as he said, the RAW make it legit to strike down an opponent with an arrow fired from your bow, then use the extra attack granted by the Cleave feat to use your bow as a club against another opponent. And, since it specifies you get "the same bonus" as the first attack on the second, you can use any bonusses to ranged attacks you used on the arrow on the attack with the bow.
Which is stupid, but that's what RAW says.