Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bryarr 10-13-03, 03:12 AM	After GMing nonstop since 3rd came out, I have my first chance to be a player soon. And I've been thinking about trying out the Mystic Theurge. Here's the thing, I've heard "broken!" from some people and "just plain lame" from others. So, is it good? Does it SUCK? Is it Broken? And I ONLY want to hear from people who have either actually played it or played with someone else running it. Thanks, Bry
Willie the Duck 10-13-03, 03:37 AM	Very weak. you're 3 levels behind in each spellcasting class. Imagine having to be 8th level before you get fireball? Like other versitality classes (bards and rangers being the biggest contentions) you end up being okay at multiple thing but good at neither. And against specialists, you just get hosed. oh and yes, this is from game experience.
Polaris 10-13-03, 04:54 AM	Bryarr, I have seen them, and I am one of the M-T biggest critics. The problem is that it is a badly designed PrC on many levels. First of all it does start out very weak if you play it as designed out of the DMG. The problem is of course is that it is weak not because the PrC itself is weak (in fact as I will show the PrC is too strong level for level) but because multiclassed spell casters get hosed so badly in DnD 3E and 3.5E. The main reason that the M-T seems so weak at first and why some argue that it is "balanced" is because you have to be a Wiz 3/Cleric 3 to qualify (costing you three caster levels of either in favor of having both) and because you only get ten levels of dual caster progression. Unfortunately against clever players (especially if you allow custom PrCs), it doesn't hold under close scrutiny. 1. The three level caster gap: There are three general ways to get around this. All are cheesy in the extreme. a. You can get a PrC that allows you to get 2nd level spells early. The Ur Priest is the poster child of this sort of abuse. b. You can use "Imbue with Spell ability" to qualify as a Wiz 4/Clr 1 which will only cost you one wizard level when all is said and done. c. You can possibly qualify by using racial innate spells ("Noble" Drow in FRCS can do this with the correct feat). This means you lose one caster level pluse the ECL of the race. 2. Andy Collins has already promised, the DMG encourges the construction of, and Dragon Magazine has already published PrCs that have dual caster progression. That means that if you have a second PrC that also gives dual wizard-cleric progression, and you stack it on top of the Mystic Theurge, then you can top out at 17/17 caster level in both clerical and wizard spells and that is just wrong (since you get 9th level in both prior to epic). *whew* Thus the Mystic Theurge is badly designed because it is too weak if you play it "straight", but becomes quickly broken if some of the underlying assumptions become invalid which can easily happen. -Polaris
Bryarr 10-13-03, 05:19 AM	Wow. That was awesome. Thanks for the indepth response. I really appreciate it. Bry
Manic Man 10-13-03, 06:10 AM	Polaris, weren't you a proponent that the MT was broken even before 3.5 came out (and when the rules actually became clear)? I also remember you gloating about something in the classes board and am contemplating doing the same as well. As for the original topic, i freely admit i have not played an MT yet and have only seen the MT as a NPC at level 7th (MT 1). However that NPC was pretty sucky, if that helps at all
Mole 10-13-03, 09:35 AM	Not having been a player since 3.5 hit the stores, I have only DMed, however I have used them as NPCs and have concluded that the MT is versatile but slightly weak (up to 14th level anyway, dunno about above that). However I take odds with some of Ian's points : Originally posted by Polaris Unfortunately against clever players (especially if you allow custom PrCs), it doesn't hold under close scrutiny. 1. The three level caster gap: There are three general ways to get around this. All are cheesy in the extreme. a. You can get a PrC that allows you to get 2nd level spells early. The Ur Priest is the poster child of this sort of abuse. b. You can use "Imbue with Spell ability" to qualify as a Wiz 4/Clr 1 which will only cost you one wizard level when all is said and done. c. You can possibly qualify by using racial innate spells ("Noble" Drow in FRCS can do this with the correct feat). This means you lose one caster level pluse the ECL of the race. -Polaris a) Ur-Priest is non-core. If a non-core rule breaks a core-rule, which is at fault ? Did you declare divine might to be at fault when you read persistant[ spell ? b) Only by a very liberal DM interpretation of the rules. So liberal as to be a house-rule. If you allow "Imbue with Spell ability" to qualify you for prcs, you might find several other prcs to be "broken" besides MT. c) No, this has been explicitly stated not to be correct. Can't remember if it was FAQ or where, but it was in relation to the plane-touched iirc. Conclusion : None of your 3 objections stand up to scrutiny. Originally posted by Polaris 2. Andy Collins has already promised, the DMG encourges the construction of, and Dragon Magazine has already published PrCs that have dual caster progression. That means that if you have a second PrC that also gives dual wizard-cleric progression, and you stack it on top of the Mystic Theurge, then you can top out at 17/17 caster level in both clerical and wizard spells and that is just wrong (since you get 9th level in both prior to epic). *whew* Thus the Mystic Theurge is badly designed because it is too weak if you play it "straight", but becomes quickly broken if some of the underlying assumptions become invalid which can easily happen. -Polaris Until the prcs appear it is too soon to declare the MT broken. For all you know there may be specific exclusions. Any aspect of the game could potentially be broken by yet-to-be-written rules. The MT is alright as written, weak but versatile, improving with higher levels. A little bit of a munchkin trap perhaps as it is not the route to uberness that some vociferous people (including Polaris) first feared.
Israfel666 10-13-03, 10:54 AM	I suggest people check the "Virtual Caster Level" system as an actually playable alternative to the Mystic Theurge. Can't find the link right now though - just do a web search for it.
edsonaoki 10-13-03, 11:16 AM	I actually never used MTs. They seem to be better as PCs than NPCs, however (versatility is much more important for PCs) For the most part I agree with Mole.
Eldren 10-13-03, 11:38 AM	Polaris, your post was nothing short of brilliant. I haven't had the chance to play the class yet, but we were looking at it in my group just this past Saturday night, because one of the guys hasn't had a chance to look at the 3.5 books yet (he was curious why the Red Wizard has become a Core prestige class), but the first thing he said was "broken". :nonono: However, as Mole has noted, all of the reasons you use for why the prestige class is "broken" are from non-Core supplements. You can expect, unless the Dungeon Master is really tight-fisted in controlling the prestige classes, to find the Mystic Theurge in Core play. The Ur Priest, however, is highly unlikely even to be found in generous non-Core play, for one simple reason: It's from the Book of Vile Darkness, a supplement that doesn't have a single thing in it meant for players. In its entirety, that book is a supplement for the Dungeon Master's Guide. More than that, though, the issue of stacking two classes on top of each other that both offer dual-caster progression... I would almost apply the normal rules for magic stacking to that. I've never been a fan of people doing massive multiclassing in order to get neat abilities from each class so that by the time they're 20th level, there's no conceivable way to call the character an actual Dungeons & Dragons character. At best, it's a fantasy d20 character. There's just nothing in the game that can normally lead to a character like that, and at that point they're obviously treating multiclassing as a purely mechanical exercise, and not as a role playing exercise. It's one thing if a Wizard goes into Cleric because they suddenly start worshipping a Power, or if a Fighter becomes a Paladin, or if a Bard becomes a Druid, but when you have someone stacking a level of Fighter here, a level of Cleric there, another level of Wizard, four or five levels of Mystic Theurge, etc., it just gets past the point. I understand wanting the players to have options, so they can have fun in the game, but I've had to essentially lay down a rule in my campaigns that while players can multiclass through Core classes as much as they like, they're limited to a single prestige class in non-Epic play. Once play goes Epic, they can either have a single class from the Epic Level Handbook or they can add another non-Epic prestige class (although I don't understand why they'd want to; the abilities granted by the non-Epic prestige classes just aren't meaningful enough to make impact in Epic play). The sacrifice of the Mystic Theurge is that you're losing access to the highest-level spells from both arcane and divine casting. While it hurts to lose access to Prismatic Sphere, Horrid Wilting, Miracle and Greater Restoration, there are still a lot of really cool spells and great power that you can access, and more to the point, your spell selection has effectively doubled, particularly if you multiclass into Mystic Theurge from a Sorceror/Cleric perspective instead of a Wizard/Cleric. Personally, I think this class is massively cool, and I'm likely to try something like this with my next character. That may be awhile, as I'm doing everything possible to keep my current 11th level Rogue alive, while doing as much Sneak Attack damage with him as possible, but it's still a distinct possibility. :)
lantzer 10-13-03, 12:16 PM	Caveat: I have not played a mystic theurge. I, as a DM and player, am not in favor of the MT as a prestige class. Why? Well, I've followed the arguments about why it's too good, or too pathetic, and I understand the points that folks are making for both sides. The problem with many of them is they compare the MT to single-classed characters, instead of multiclassed characters. Here's my view: The MT is not a good design for a PrC, because it is significantly better than a straight Cleric/Mage. It's a design philosophy point. A prestige class should, in my opinion, be offering a mechanical class to provide a little more 'coolness' though specialization, at the cost of generalist ability. The MT gives up little compared to a multiclassed character of the same level. So every cleric/mage will be better with MT than without, at the same character level. Not a good design. Compare a W3/C3/MT10 to a W13/C3 or W3/C13 or W8/C8. Not much of a comparison, is there? I won't even go into the use of PrCs as role-playing hooks tied to organizations and the my opinion of 'generic' PrCs.
canamrock 10-13-03, 12:26 PM	Originally posted by Israfel666 I suggest people check the "Virtual Caster Level" system as an actually playable alternative to the Mystic Theurge. Can't find the link right now though - just do a web search for it. http://www.totalrpgs.com/vcl.html Oh, and as a thought... if the requirement is to cast 2nd level divine spells, wouldn't you need multiple IwSA's for it to work? (Thank the gods for rules-defense-lawyering.) Also, the Ur-Priest is broken enough on its own, and you need to be CL 8 to take it, so you're probably not too much better off overall going in, and that's not saying too much. I don't like it myself, however, because of its mixing problems (solvable easily enough, really) and its overall poor design. VCL works much better, IMO (since I refined it, what would one expect?).
baerdith 10-13-03, 12:58 PM	Delete
canamrock 10-13-03, 01:17 PM	Originally posted by lantzer So every cleric/mage will be better with MT than without, at the same character level. Not a good design. Compare a W3/C3/MT10 to a W13/C3 or W3/C13 or W8/C8. Not much of a comparison, is there? In case you haven't been keeping score at home, the Clr/Wiz multiclass is entirely too weak if you actually try to keep it balanced class-level-wise. The point of the MyTh was PRECISELY to be better than the multiclass, because the multiclass option suxx0rzed. It's called a "Patchwork PrC", along with the EK (and the AT, to a lesser extent).
FireHeart 10-13-03, 01:53 PM	Originally posted by Bryarr After GMing nonstop since 3rd came out, I have my first chance to be a player soon. And I've been thinking about trying out the Mystic Theurge. Here's the thing, I've heard "broken!" from some people and "just plain lame" from others. So, is it good? Does it SUCK? Is it Broken? And I ONLY want to hear from people who have either actually played it or played with someone else running it. Thanks, Bry Well, since I'm playing one (granted she's epic), I thought I'd respond. Personally, I like it...while it does limit the progression in so much as you don't get the specific class abilities (my familiar is stuck at like a level 6...sigh...) it does allow you to have a wider variety of spells to cast at an earlier time. My current character can cast cleric spells through 7th level even through she is only a 6th level cleric (I think) and I cast as a 20th level sorcerer. Now, I'll point out that part of the reason I became a Mystic Theurge was storyline based. I was playing a drow sorcerer worshipping Ellistreae who decided she wanted to be a cleric of Elistreae and "preach the light to other drow." She multiclassed to a cleric and then realized she really didn't want to lose her connection to the Weave (we play FR), the MT allowed her to progress both as a cleric and a sorcerer. My GM didn't have a problem with it and I've not seen any problems in terms of game-play with it either. So I'd say if it's something that interests you and your GM is okay with it...go for it! Fireheart
Lago AM3P 10-13-03, 03:12 PM	So? A blackguard is also significantly better ex-paladin than an ex-paladin/evil cleric. We can't have game balance if we're trying to balance an average-to-good case build on a worst-case scenario. And multiclassed cleric/wizards were pretty much worst case.
Darkhyena 10-13-03, 03:43 PM	I have been playing a thurge for about three months. I started out in a different light. I started as a cleric of Pelor and rose to the third level. All of the other characters were fighter or thief types. I saw the mystic thurge on line and since there was no mage in the party and because our DM kept sending mages after us I thought that I would at least get a few levels - the identify spell came in handy. At first I was falling behind the other characters and I wasn't having as much fun, but at ninth level I was able to use third level spells in each class. I had bonus spells from Pelor, my intelligence, and my wisdom. I actually became a very strong member of the party - counterspell is saved us as I used it against another mages fireball that would have screwed our party. Spontaneous healing and a massive spell library was the key to many victories. In my experience the thurge was powerful, but if you have other mages or clerics they will be stronger. So it depends on the party make-up. A thurge can be a great asset or a liability. I am now a 3/3/7 cleric/mage/thurge and really with enough invisible fighters and thieves we have taken mass slaughter to a new level - if only I had my necromatic cleric I would have an army of invisible undead. Like I said a thurge is what you make it.
Eldren 10-13-03, 05:38 PM	I suppose this is ultimately a matter of opinion, but to me, a Prestige Class ought to give you things that no combination of Core classes can give. It ought to be that tiny much better than Core classes, even when you're multiclassing. The benefits of this class far outweigh what you'd get if you multiclassed as a Cleric/Wizard. At that point, assuming you equaled things out, you'd be a Cleric 10/Wizard 10, meaning you would have access to both divine and arcane spells, but nothing would be higher than 5th level. With the Mystic Theurge, you get 7th level spells from both classes' spell lists, which is much preferable. This will go up if you're going into Epic play and choose to become an Epic Mystic Theurge. You will eventually have 9th level magic from both the Cleric list and the Wizard list, certainly not something to scoff at. On top of that, you have the Epic feats available at that point. If you're in the Forgotten Realms, this is even better, because you'll be a counterspelling fool. You take "Improved Counterspell" and you can counterspell an incoming spell with another spell of the same school, as long as it's one level higher, and then you take "Reactive Counterspell" and you don't have to ready an action to counterspell in the first place. These feats make the power of a Mystic Theurge highly desirable. In Core play, the balancing factor of this prestige class is that you're denied 8th and 9th level spells of both divine and arcane nature. But you've got some of the best Wizard spells in levels 1 through 7, as well as Cleric spells (including Heal, Harm, etc.). Plus, for Dungeon Masters, this keeps you from having headaches dealing with Gate-happy Wizards summoning dragons and solars to take care of the party's problems. From top to bottom, this is a good class to have around. Damn, I've certainly convinced myself. I already know what my next character is going to be. :D
Polaris 10-13-03, 06:54 PM	Eldren, Actually IMHO the best "core" combination for the mystic theurge [assuming the IwSA cheese is disallowed....a safe bet for most tables] is this: Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 10/Archmage 4 This gives you the casting abilities of a 17th level wizard (which is 9th level spells) and a 13th level cleric (which is 7th level spells) which is a great deal. The Archmage PrC makes the loss of spell level a lot less painful as well. -Polaris
Ertai Planeswalker 10-13-03, 06:58 PM	Allowing Imbue with spell-like abilities to allow qualification for prc's is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. No sane DM will allow this. and if he or she does and it screw up his or her entire balance he or she deserves it. And if he or she than cannot tell why, he or she is too dumb to DM. Ppl, seriously get a grip. Eve the RPGA would not allow this.
Polaris 10-13-03, 08:04 PM	Gentleman, To all those who are constantly whining at me for bringing up Imbue with Spell Ability, I have two things to say to you: OBERONI FALLACY Seriously, just because you can houserule it away, does not mean it isn't broken (and should be fixed). -Polaris Edited to omit inadvertant masking. Edited to spell Oberoni's name right.
Giant in the Playground 10-13-03, 08:38 PM	Sorry, no. As canmarock pointed out, the Mystic Theurge requires you to be able to cast divine spells, plural. No matter how many Imbue with Spell Abilities are cast, no creature, according to the spell description, can be imbued with more than a single 2nd level spell. Thus, it cannot be be used to meet the prerequisite for the Mystic Theurge. Ridiculously-literal rules interpretations can cut both ways. More to the point, one would have to be a fool of a colossal order to take a class based on prerequisites that can be dispelled. The first dispel magic that hits such a MyTh would take away all of his spellcasting increases from the class, because if you lose the prerequisite to a class, you lose the class' abilities. Not to mention the fact that somewhere, there's a 7th+ level cleric who can take away your class abilities as a free action—because Imbue with Spell Ability is a dimissable spell that continues to use up the casting cleric's spell slot.
Oberoni 10-13-03, 09:04 PM	1. Oberoni. O-O-O-Oberoni. The extra "O's" are for the extra O. 2. Funny web comic, GitP. I dig it in a way I can't properly express right now due to having minor food poisoning. But if it's funny now, when I feel like someone took a brick to my head, that's pretty good.
Shrou 10-13-03, 09:17 PM	Polaris, I feel that the Imbue with Spell Ability problem is a problem with the spell, not the Mystic Theurge. Plus, I'll houserule it that you can't until errata comes out on that subject.(seriously, they didn't mean for that to happen, so if Wizards at all smart they will release errata on it.)
Polaris 10-13-03, 10:03 PM	Giant, Actually if you really want to get technical, you are not correct on several points: 1. If the character has at least one level of cleric, then that imbued 2nd level spell can be spontaneously changed to a cure. That means that the character has the ability to cast more than one 2nd level spell. 2. In technical english (which is the language of rulebooks), the plural form of the noun is the default case unless you specifically want to specify one and only one. Thus "ability to cast 2nd level spells" means the ability to cast one or more 2nd level spells in standard technical (rulebook) english. 3. In 3.5 you do not lose the special abilities of a class if you lose the prerequisites. This has been confirmed many times by WOTC. 4. Technically once you have one level of mystic theurge, you no longer need to meet the prerequisites but may continue to advance in the class normally. Read the 3.5 DMG yourselves if you doubt me on this. -Polaris
Dirichlet 10-13-03, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Giant, Actually if you really want to get technical, you are not correct on several points: 1. If the character has at least one level of cleric, then that imbued 2nd level spell can be spontaneously changed to a cure. That means that the character has the ability to cast more than one 2nd level spell. 2. In technical english (which is the language of rulebooks), the plural form of the noun is the default case unless you specifically want to specify one and only one. Thus "ability to cast 2nd level spells" means the ability to cast one or more 2nd level spells in standard technical (rulebook) english. 3. In 3.5 you do not lose the special abilities of a class if you lose the prerequisites. This has been confirmed many times by WOTC. 4. Technically once you have one level of mystic theurge, you no longer need to meet the prerequisites but may continue to advance in the class normally. Read the 3.5 DMG yourselves if you doubt me on this. -Polaris Polaris, that was masterful. I would not by any means suggest that it would be "reasonable" to allow Imbue to qualify someone for Mystic Theurge, but the arguments you presented show exactly why (by the letter of the rules) someone could. That just means any DM who disagrees with this effect of the rules should house-rule to disallow it as unbalancing. Simple as that.
Lago AM3P 10-13-03, 11:00 PM	1. If the character has at least one level of cleric, then that imbued 2nd level spell can be spontaneously changed to a cure. That means that the character has the ability to cast more than one 2nd level spell. No. The cleric has to do this with prepared spells on his list. A cleric/paladin can't spontaneously change paladin spells into cure spells, so cannot change spells granted not of their spell list into a cure spell. Good try, though.
Lago AM3P 10-13-03, 11:07 PM	b. You can use "Imbue with Spell ability" to qualify as a Wiz 4/Clr 1 which will only cost you one wizard level when all is said and done. Polaris, are you one of those people who claim that since Shades allows you to duplicate major creation which in turn is used to drown the opposition in gallons of DC 48 poison, that the poison is broken?
Dirichlet 10-13-03, 11:14 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Polaris, are you one of those people who claim that since Shades allows you to duplicate major creation which in turn is used to drown the opposition in gallons of DC 48 poison, that the poison is broken? Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it? That's ok. The world needs Fry Cooks too. Just don't burn my burger boy! Seriously, he was not arguing that this is how it should be in a reasonable or well-run game. He was merely pointing out the fact that within the logical construct of the 3rd ed D&D ruleset that this was possible.
Lago AM3P 10-13-03, 11:41 PM	Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it? That's ok. The world needs Fry Cooks too. Just don't burn my burger boy! Bite me. The main reason that the M-T seems so weak at first and why some argue that it is "balanced" is because you have to be a Wiz 3/Cleric 3 to qualify (costing you three caster levels of either in favor of having both) and because you only get ten levels of dual caster progression. Unfortunately against clever players (especially if you allow custom PrCs), it doesn't hold under close scrutiny. 1. The three level caster gap: There are three general ways to get around this. All are cheesy in the extreme. a. You can get a PrC that allows you to get 2nd level spells early. The Ur Priest is the poster child of this sort of abuse. b. You can use "Imbue with Spell ability" to qualify as a Wiz 4/Clr 1 which will only cost you one wizard level when all is said and done. That sounds pretty much like blaming the effect (Mystic Theurge levels) rather than the cause (Imbue with Spell cheese) to me. So... go away.
Polaris 10-13-03, 11:52 PM	Lago, You are correct. A cleric can only change prepared spells on the cleric list to spontaneous cures. It is too bad that I have already thought of that: A Wiz 4/Clr 1 is imbued with Bull's Strength. This spell happens to be on the cleric list and because he has a level of cleric, it happens to be his class spell list. Hence, he can spontaneously change it into a cure and thus qualify for Mystic Theurge. That said, Dirichlet understands my position perfectly. I am not suggesting that this is a reasonable thing to allow. In fact I am arguing just the opposite, but by the rulebook it is legal and it has to be considered (DMs get your houserules ready; WOTC you need to errata this ASAP). My real point about the Mystic Theurge is not that I am blaming the Mystic Theurge for this per se. Rather, I am pointing out that the Mystic Theurge is balanced in a very fragile gaming ediface. If some of the underlying balance assumptions turn out be faulty (which is my real point here), then the PrC because broken beyond belief. *THAT* was my original point. -Polaris
Lago AM3P 10-14-03, 12:00 AM	It's cool.
sparkster4242 10-14-03, 01:59 AM	I really enjoy playing the come-to guy, the problem solver. My favorite wizards are basically head-cases, but the rest of the party keeps them around because they are worth the effort of lugging along an entire library. I have actually had the party fighter seriously consider delaying that +5 weapon commission in favor of a spell-scroll... He finally decided on the sword, but it was a close call. (The rogue, he chipped in. He knows a good investment opportunity when he sees it :P) My rogues tend to fill a similar niche; there are all kinds of uses for skill points in addition to hide/move silently. As for the MT, oh dear lord, i almost had 'Im glad i prepared a spell for that' tattooed on my forehead, i said it so often. Oh, the whacked-out spells you can use when you dont need to worry about running out of more mainstream stuff... (This and spell-synergy are one of the main reasons some people say 'overpowered'.) Of course, that spell-level lag can make itself felt. And there is a slight tendency for enemies to make their saving throws more often. And those missing 3 damage dice. And SR ... eww. (These are the main reasons some other people say 'id rather play a single-class caster'.) There are definitely more popular ways to build a spell-blaster. For my money though, MT is a sweet deal.
strenoth 10-14-03, 03:00 AM	I'm playing an MT right now, at 3C/3W/ 8MT And even as buffed as this is rigth now, in the battle we are currently embroiled, i'm hurting. BUT, I have used Evards effectivly, well, soemwhat, and I have heal spells available. personally, if it's nto feelign overwhelmingly powerful at 8 of 10 levels, I'm not worried about it. heck, I still occasionally fail Spell Penetration when using Spell penetration, greater Spell Penetration, and an oragne Ion stone.
BenjCano 10-14-03, 01:45 PM	Originally posted by Polaris OBERONI FALLACY Seriously, just because you can houserule it away, does not mean it isn't broken (and should be fixed). Polaris, Just out of curiosity, what's the Oberoni Fallacy? I dug out my old logic textbook and looked it up, but no soap. Anyway, the point I wanted to make was in regards to your statement, which I quoted. I have a book that I'm reading right now, Show of Evil, by William Diehl. On page 54, there's a typographical error that puts a quotation mark in the wrong place, so that our valliant hero appears to be telling his boss what an idiot he is. This bucks the entire flow of the conversation, and doesn't even make sense with the following dialouge, but there it is. I can read the passage as if there was a quotation mark there, and it's just fine. If I loaned the book out, I'm pretty sure most people would be able to catch the missing quote and imagine it in play, if they even notice that a quotation mark is missing. I can cope with a single error, and so can others. What we don't do is send our books back to the publisher, demanding that the error be fixed. So long as the book isn't so misprinted as to make it unreadable, so long as we can enjoy the book, who cares if it's perfect or not?
bitnine 10-14-03, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by BenjCano Just out of curiosity, what's the Oberoni Fallacy? I dug out my old logic textbook and looked it up, but no soap. Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni. Taken from TROLLBILL’S UNOFFICIAL DICTIONARY OF COMMON D&D MESSAGE BOARD TERMINOLOGY, (Ver. 1.22) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46916&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) [Edit: It's even above the "if you dare to point out a loophole that you want to see fixed, you must be telling everyone to use that loophole and encouraging DMs to accept it" fallacy. I think that one's name is the "tick bitnine off" fallacy. /Edit]
Ertai Planeswalker 10-14-03, 07:50 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Gentleman, To all those who are constantly whining at me for bringing up Imbue with Spell Ability, I have two things to say to you: OBERONI FALLACY Seriously, just because you can houserule it away, does not mean it isn't broken (and should be fixed). -Polaris Oberoni Falacy my backside! (No offence to Oberoni) Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense will understand that this is not the case. Temporary abilities can never be used as qualifications for anything. Otherwise, casting Fox's Cunning just before i level up would grant extra skill points too. You had higher int when you leveled up right? Wrong. And for the same reason Imbue does not work either. Examples: Church Inquisitor 5th level monk could qualify using Imbue. Can't tell me this seems right to you. Shifter 3rd level wizard who gets a 3rd level spell imbued qualifies. Wrong again. (Might i add the 3.5 dmg states that prc's shoud always bar entry before 5th level. I am too lazy to look up thep age number, but it's located under the 'designing own prc' heading) [b] This reeks of munchkinism...
Polaris 10-14-03, 08:28 PM	Ertai, Imbue with Spell Ability is not temporary. Read the spell. If an item can be used to qualify for a PrC (and it can), then this is legal as well. You are quite right when you say it isn't right, but that isn't the issue here. -Polaris
bitnine 10-14-03, 08:34 PM	Originally posted by Polaris If an item can be used to qualify for a PrC (and it can), then this is legal as well. I was about to draw that same parallel, but you beat me to it. Indeed. [Edit: Items : Ability Prerequisites, as IwSA : Spellcasting Requirements. /Edit]
canamrock 10-14-03, 08:37 PM	I'd suggest rewording the IwSA to make it so the spell imbued is treated as if cast by the original caster (but from the location of the imbued person). Alternatively, the imbued spell could be treated as an SLA, which cannot be used for this prerequisite. If not those, the IwSA could specifically receive an addendum that precludes it from use as prerequisites for feats or prestige classes on the part of the target imbued thusly. Of course, I will defend and 'attack' Polaris at once with this: This is not Polaris' desire to have the MyTh be brokenly overpowered, but he has only proven that the game designers have yet again taken their propensity for mixing terms in a way that causes such headaches. It's not overpowered; it's just dumb. Of course, this is why I use VCL instead. (shrug)
Dirichlet 10-14-03, 08:40 PM	Originally posted by canamrock I'd suggest rewording the IwSA to make it so the spell imbued is treated as if cast by the original caster (but from the location of the imbued person). Alternatively, the imbued spell could be treated as an SLA, which cannot be used for this prerequisite. If not those, the IwSA could specifically receive an addendum that precludes it from use as prerequisites for feats or prestige classes on the part of the target imbued thusly. Of course, I will defend and 'attack' Polaris at once with this: This is not Polaris' desire to have the MyTh be brokenly overpowered, but he has only proven that the game designers have yet again taken their propensity for mixing terms in a way that causes such headaches. It's not overpowered; it's just dumb. Of course, this is why I use VCL instead. (shrug) See, this is the exactly the kind of productive posts that I would hope to see on this board. I would contrast this post with the unproductive, vaugely insulting and wholly inane post by Ertai.
Willie the Duck 10-14-03, 09:59 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Lago, You are correct. A cleric can only change prepared spells on the cleric list to spontaneous cures. It is too bad that I have already thought of that: A Wiz 4/Clr 1 is imbued with Bull's Strength. This spell happens to be on the cleric list and because he has a level of cleric, it happens to be his class spell list. Hence, he can spontaneously change it into a cure and thus qualify for Mystic Theurge. He may still qualify, but this is false. You can only spontaneously turn your memorized, non-domain cleric spells into cures. If my cleric3/wizard3 has memorized bulls strength as a wizard spell, he couldn't turn it into a cure, even if it's on the cleric spell list.
Lago AM3P 10-14-03, 10:48 PM	On the other hand, why would you even use Imbue with Spell? You could take a single cleric level anyway, and then totally burn a candle of invocation, and then BAM, you qualify. 8,400 gp.
Polaris 10-14-03, 11:12 PM	Lago, Actually you can't use a Candle of Invocation. It is true that it would turn a first level cleric into a third level one but only for four hours. Since this is explicitly a temporary effect, you can't use it to qualify for mystic theurge. Willie, No sorry, it is still legal. Imbue with Spell Ability is used to transfer a clerical bull's strength to the Wiz 4/Clr 1. Since the bull's strength is a memorized, prepared clerical spell, he can now spontaneously change that into a cure. The Arcane Bull's strength has nothing to do with anything. -Polaris
Lago AM3P 10-14-03, 11:31 PM	Where does it say that? (Temporary effects don't qualify you for PrCs) At any case, the imbue with spells is as temporary as the candle of invocation; heck, it can last even shorter.
Polaris 10-14-03, 11:52 PM	Lago, You are correct in part. There is (to my knowledge) no specific rule that prevents you from using a temporary effect to qualify for a PrC. That said, AFAIK precedence says that you can not and a candle is an explicit temporary effect (four hours). Imbue with Spell Ability lasts for as long as you want. Thus a candle of Invocation would be like using a spell to meet an attribute requirement. Illegal. OTOH, IwSA is like using a stat-enhancing item to meet an attribute requirement. Legal. -Polaris
Draco Argentum 10-15-03, 01:11 AM	Classic mistake, Polaris. If something is broken only if X is included then perhaps X is broken and not the original thing. In this case its obvious that IWSA is poorly written. That makes it the first choice for assigning blame in the myth/IWSA combination, not the second.
Polaris 10-15-03, 01:35 AM	Draco, You would be correct if that was the argument I was making. It isn't. My point is more subtle than that. What I am saying is this: The Mystic Theurge is a poorly designed PrC because it's balance rests on some very fragile balance assumptions. If those assumptions ever become invalid (and IwSA is just one example), then the PrC falls apart. If the assumptions were hard coded into the PrC, that would be different. Unfortunately they are not. -Polaris
Draco Argentum 10-15-03, 02:37 AM	Can you think of a way to invalidate those assumptions without useing something that is broken on its own?
Polaris 10-15-03, 02:43 AM	Draco, Well, supposedly the Ur Priest is not broken on his own, especially if used as the BBEG as he was intended. However, if you marry the Ur Priest with the Mystic Theuge then the combination becomes insanely broken even for a BBEG. Likewise, any individual class that allows a dual-caster progression (like the Green Whisperer) may not be broken on it's own, but when combined with the mystic theurge it becomes so. It is the second assumption/paragraph that actually concerns me more than the first. It would be fairly easy with some clever and concise errata to insure that a Mystic Theurge always pays the three caster level "price". However, it is only a matter of time (by Andy Collin's own admission) before another dual-caster PrC is released that will break it and the mystic theurge. Thus I think my point should be well taken. The mystic theurge rests on some veeeery fragile balance assumptions that are not necessarily valid.......and that makes it badly designed. -Polaris
Draco Argentum 10-15-03, 02:48 AM	Pretty much the whole system rests on assumptions. Assumptions that supplements have a history of violating. If something is fine in the core rules but broken with supplements the worst it deserves is chonjurer's non-core rating. Even then its often the supplement's fault entirely.
canamrock 10-15-03, 03:09 AM	Indeed. IwSA reaffirms one of the things I dislike about allowing non-inherent bonuses impacting qualifications. Otherwise, all game designers should be expected to take the MyTh into account. That means they can either write a note that a new PrC replaces the MyTh (which, since all PrC's are optional by default, solves it well enough), or make it so the stacking principle does not work so that the two PrC's 'uberstack'. I'll advertise VCL (http://www.totalrpgs.com/vcl.html) at this time because it does what the DMG's 50/50 PrC's were supposed to do, but it does it better and solves many other problems as well.
Kaya Kenobi 10-15-03, 04:22 AM	Polaris, You have yet to even post your reasoning behind Imbue other than your figures on a warped point of view. I would love to see anything that is official that even supports your belief that it is somehow broken. It's at best a houserule, and one I will never allow in my game at that.
canamrock 10-15-03, 04:45 AM	The justification is this, as I understand it: IwSA allows the recipient to cast a 2nd level Clerical spell one time. This ability lasts indefinately until cast, thus permanently (until cast). Since a magic item that enhances a stat, if worn long enough, can be used to qualify for feats or PrC's while worn, the spell's effect supposedly allows the character access to the PrC. This leads me to think that making IwSA use an SLA (with the normal casting time and requirements of the spell) for its effect, this would solve the problem, overall. The main counter to this is that it's exactly the same sort of logic that would allow Southern Magician to work, and this would make more sense to work, given that the divine spells can be cast somewhat regularly thanks to the spell type conversion.
Polaris 10-15-03, 04:50 AM	Canamarock, You understand my position w/r/t IwSA perfectly. As for 'Southern Magician' it was my understanding that the type of spell you could cast did not change. Thus a southern magician could learn cure light wounds (for example), but it would be an arcane spell. If southern magician does allow a wizard to learn divine spells as divine magic, then indeed, it could be used to qualify for Mystic Theurge which also breaks it. This only reinforces my basic point: The mystic theurge is built on a very fragile balance ediface and that makes it a very poorly designed PrC. -Polaris
canamrock 10-15-03, 05:04 AM	Well, what I was going to say is that both require that being able to cast a divine spell without having a spell list as a class feature is the prerequisite for entry. That means that if you were to change the general rule for 'spellcasting' requirements to that you had a class feature of a spellcasting list of the required type(s) of X+ level, that would solve those problems entirely. Of course, this is much more difficult to write out or explain, but in the name of hyper-literalistic correctness, that's what must be done.
Polaris 10-15-03, 05:08 AM	Canamrock, Um, I am not sure it does solve the problem. After all a Wiz 4/Clr 1 has the full spell list for both classes (this becomes important for such things as wands). Because of that, you could still slide in with IwSA and maybe Southern Magician. -Polaris
canamrock 10-15-03, 05:37 AM	Allow me to reword that... the abilities of having the spell list as well as being able to cast spells from that spell list using the spellcasting ability granted by the same class would be needed. There ya go.
Kaya Kenobi 10-15-03, 10:51 AM	I understand your thinking, but: A: You have never shown proof officially B: Requirements say you must be able to cast spells, not just one C: Who would allow such to even qualify? I mean, even a headband of intellect will not allow bonus skill points now.
bitnine 10-15-03, 10:58 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi B: Requirements say you must be able to cast spells, not just one Hm, you think that part of the requirement is being able to cast more than just one spell? Would you delay a caster who had a single spell at a given level for qualifying for a PrC, then. (Like, say, a caster with a single 7th level spell from qualifying for archmage?)
Dalaeck 10-15-03, 12:40 PM	I've watched this discussion from afar and I must say it's time to apply the bitnine brick solution . I really see the Urge now as nothing more than a marketing ploy to boost sales by catering to the minority of people interested in overpowered 2E wiz/clr. The whole thing is a mess from beginning to end.
q'afuu 10-15-03, 12:48 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Hm, you think that part of the requirement is being able to cast more than just one spell? Would you delay a caster who had a single spell at a given level for qualifying for a PrC, then. (Like, say, a caster with a single 7th level spell from qualifying for archmage?) That caster could cast a single spell again and again each day he prepared it. This doesn't apply to a spell you can cast thanks to IwSA.
Polaris 10-15-03, 12:52 PM	q'afuu, That is not relevant. Besides, I already showed that if you had one level of Cleric (or Druid in 3.5), you sidestep even this misreading of technical english nicely. In technical english, the plural form of a noun is the default case unless you want to talk about one and only one. Technical english is the language that rule books (including gaming books) are written in. -Polaris
tonkounakaki 10-15-03, 01:01 PM	A brick to the head?
Israfel666 10-15-03, 01:46 PM	My 2 cp: Oberoni's fallacy seems to cause more headaches than it was meant to heal.
q'afuu 10-15-03, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Polaris 1) That is not relevant. Besides, I already showed that if you had one level of Cleric (or Druid in 3.5), you sidestep even this misreading of technical english nicely. 2) In technical english, the plural form of a noun is the default case unless you want to talk about one and only one. Technical english is the language that rule books (including gaming books) are written in. 1) This allows you to cast 1 spell from a selection of several, not several spells, possibly the same one several times. 2) Technical english is supposed to be free of any ambiguity. Hardly a quality I'd attribute to the core rule books, but if you want the plural to be unambiguous you can only interpret is as strictly plural. The only way to state 'more than one' unambiguously is by saying 'more than one'. In a technical manual, that's an option since how it sounds isn't a consideration for such books. Rule books for roleplaying games are supposed to be written in such a way that they sound right. The expression 'able to cast a 2nd level spell' would express 'one or more' admirably while still sounding normal. IOW, there are alternatives for using the plural as you interpret it, which lack the ambiguity.
Polaris 10-15-03, 03:06 PM	q'afuu, We could argue the point all day, but that isn't really the issue. The thing is that the rules can be read within their strict logical context to allow IwSA to qualify for Mystic Theurge Early. The same logic may apply to feats like 'Southern Magician' as well. At best, the mystic theurge earns Chonjurer's non-core rating because it is built on very fragile balance assumptions. My personal opinion is somewhat stronger than that. -Polaris
q'afuu 10-15-03, 04:45 PM	As an aside, can someone post me a link to the origin and definition of chonjurer's non-core rating? I think I've seen the term used 2 or 3 times lately, and a search only comes up with this thread. On topic, there are miriads of problems that might arise from interpreting the rules as written in various ways. That doesn't bother me, because only one interpretation is the correct one. If the books don't make it clear enough that that interpretation is the correct one and leave too much room for error, that's not a design flaw - it's a writing flaw, or possibly an editing flaw. A class can be well-designed, but appear flawed because the text explaining said class is badly written. This doesn't change the quality of the class itself, but it does potentially cause erroneous interpretation which leads to use of a faulty variant of the class. I'd say the MyTh is indeed not a very well designed class, but not because it can lead to broken characters due to bad interpretations of the rules. It's a weak design because it's godawfully boring, IMO.
Lago AM3P 10-15-03, 04:48 PM	AFAIK, the non-core rating applies to spell effects, not to prestige classes; furthermore, even if it was applied, this is a problem with Imbue with Spell (and its bastard son Rary's Mneunomic Enhancer) rather than the Mystic Thuerge.
WizO_Catoblepas 10-15-03, 07:25 PM	Ok, I"m going to copy this thread and start send out some e-mail to members who don't understand that the posts should be about the topic of the thread, and not each other. For those who have been able to do this, excellent job and carry on. For the rest of you, you should be hearing from me very shortly.
anglar 10-15-03, 08:04 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu On topic, there are miriads of problems that might arise from interpreting the rules as written in various ways. That doesn't bother me, because only one interpretation is the correct one. <lines up the camera. Takes snap shot> I don't like the MT because I don't think all multiclass combos should be equal. This wasn't so much a problem in the previous editions, IMX.
q'afuu 10-15-03, 08:27 PM	I might call it the q'afuu fallacy: 'a rule/class/spell/item/skill/thingy isn't broken because one possible interpretation of said rule/class/spell/item/skill/thingy or other, related rule/class/spell/item/skill/thingy allows it to be broken, against another possible interpretation which doesn't allow it to be broken and which is in line with design intent.'
canamrock 10-15-03, 08:47 PM	The obvious counter to this is that when there is an ambiguity, one has no right to claim he can divine the intent of the designers as proof of the correctness of the interpretation. Why not? Simply because you have to assume that everyone will conclude that same intent. However, some people will believe that IwSA was MEANT to work as it potentially can, and that is a problem.
q'afuu 10-15-03, 08:55 PM	Not quite, Canamrock - I'm saying something isn't broken as long as there is a rule interpretation by which it isn't broken (and since balance is supposed to be a core tenet of 3E, said interpretation should be more correct than those that do allow for brokenness). IOW, just because something can possibly be broken by one of a variety of interpretations, it isn't absolutely broken as long as there is at least one other interpretation that doesn't break it. If there is an ambiguity, there is no proof of brokenness. Since balance is the intent, I'd say the rule in question is innocent of brokenness until proven guilty. If people choose to interpret an issue otherwise, that doesn't make it broken in general. They are still making an error, even if they can't be blamed for it due to bad writing/editing by WotC employees.
Draco Argentum 10-15-03, 11:28 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P AFAIK, the non-core rating applies to spell effects, not to prestige classes; furthermore, even if it was applied, this is a problem with Imbue with Spell (and its bastard son Rary's Mneunomic Enhancer) rather than the Mystic Thuerge. Well obviously conj created it for spells but it could be applied to anything. The myth is a little like plane shift. If you introduce a strange plane you could have a problem. The plane and the spell are okay seperately but together there is a mess. If there was a non-broken 3.5 non-core thing that broke the myth non-core would apply. Obviously nothing like that has been published by WotC yet or Polaris would be mentioning it.
canamrock 10-15-03, 11:48 PM	q'afuu, while this is a noble sentiment (one I agree with when determining modifications), there is a fundamental flaw with this. Sometimes, what is balanced makes no logical sense, and what makes logical sense is not balanced. Not everyone is good at determining what is balanced. Therefore, it's always better for a game to fix an ambiguity which can cause a problem when someone doesn't understand balance properly. If you believe this isn't a problem, and that everyone can see what is balanced, I suggest looking around the boards some. This is why I don't accept 'common sense' arguments when there is an obvious disjunction.
anglar 10-16-03, 02:09 AM	Honestly, I was only taking the picture because I laugh every time I think of that quote. Apply what he says to things outside of the gaming world, like religion and politics, so you can laugh with me. As for saying "only one interpretation is the right one" for D&D, I could care less what Skip "The Sage" Williams has to say. I popped out $100 bucks each time for the two new editions, and, if WoTC couldn't make their points clear with "The Errata Edition", I'm not going to bother with what they have to say now. They're no smarter than I am, and I can make my own decisions on what's best for my game.
Mazarick 10-16-03, 03:03 AM	Well...they've been saying that forever. Maybe not the part about you being smarter, but certainly about you knowing what's best for YOUR game.
q'afuu 10-16-03, 05:24 AM	Originally posted by canamrock Therefore, it's always better for a game to fix an ambiguity which can cause a problem when someone doesn't understand balance properly. If you believe this isn't a problem, and that everyone can see what is balanced, I suggest looking around the boards some. Oh, I definitely agree it's a problem. What a lot of people don't seem to see is that the problem is one of language and interpretation, not of rule design (at least in this case, but also in a lot of others - see the Darkness/shadowy illumination catastrophe for another example). A class or mechanic or whatever isn't badly designed because its writeup sucks. The writeup doesn't inherently change the class/mechanic/whatever - all it does is either clearly explain or muddle the issue. Of course I'm in favour of clear, unambiguous writing. I'm just saying that just because the writing isn't perfect, the ideas it represents are not necessarily flawed.
q'afuu 10-16-03, 05:27 AM	Originally posted by anglar Honestly, I was only taking the picture because I laugh every time I think of that quote. Apply what he says to things outside of the gaming world, like religion and politics, so you can laugh with me. Where the problem doesn't bother me with D&D (a game I have complete control over as DM), it does bother me both with religion and politics. In the larger scheme of things, these three aren't exactly comparable. ;)
Mole 10-16-03, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by Polaris If some of the underlying balance assumptions turn out be faulty (which is my real point here), then the PrC because broken beyond belief. *THAT* was my original point. -Polaris The real point is the use of the word if. If they do. Currently they do not (despite your desperate and unsuccessful efforts to prove otherwise) therefore by your own admission the MT is not broken. Crying over spilt milk is not recommended, crying over the potential to spill milk is mind-boggling.
Polaris 10-16-03, 11:11 AM	Mole, That is simply incorrect. Currently they can. Just in published material we have the problems with: 1. The Ur Priest, True Necromancer and similiar PrCs 2. Imbue with Spell Ability 3. (maybe) with Southern Magician Furthermore if DMs follow the PrC advice given in the DMG, then they also may already be having problems with "stacking" and the Green Whisperer is also now published. Thus I made my point very well which was really was that the Mystic Theurge needs a huge warning label on it, and that alone makes it badly designed. -Polaris
YRM 10-16-03, 02:22 PM	The Mystic Theurge is neither too strong or too weak. There are a variety of ways to play this class out. As with any spellcaster, they are weaker at first, but they stay weaker longer than a straight caster. When a Theurge gets to high levels, like to the point when it can cast 8th or 9th level spells ANYWAY, it has some clear advantages over a straight caster. If you play one of these, play it to buff your party... you have an almost UNLIMITED supply of low level spells, so try to take Extend Spell as a feat and toss on as many Magic Vestments, Greater Magic Weapons, Bull's STR, Cat's Grace, Endurance, (and any other stat that helps whatever classes are in the party), Haste, Heroism, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Blur, Displacement, Divine Might, Good Hope, etc. Before entering almost any room, or even at random times, just start slapping spells on various party members... your not likely to run out of spells easily, and the strength of the class is best put to use when you're using 80% of your spells every day, with a few in reserve in case you get interrupted while resting. Spells with long durations are your best friend. You have enough spells to basicly mimic Mass Improvement spells as long as you have the time to cast them. Another route, if the party lacks a pure cleric, is to just convert most of your cleric spells to healing, and use your weaker mage skills as your offensive contribution. Either way, the Theurge is an insanely useful spellcaster to everyone else in the group, but no, 1-1 they probably don't beat an Archmage in a spellfight. It works out pretty well as a multi-class character with the most spell versatility in the game.
canamrock 10-16-03, 07:22 PM	Originally posted by Polaris The Ur Priest, True Necromancer and similiar PrCs ...were written in 3.0E, before there was solid knowledge of the MyTh coming down the pipe. In addition, the Ur-Priest is already broken on its own (9th level spells @ CL 15), so that's a point against that comparison. As for the others... Green Whisper seems somewhat chinsey, so I'd probably disallow that first. However, you are right that a problem with creating any alternate MyTh's is that you need to label them as being mutually incompatible with the MyTh. However, this is a matter of course that I have yet to see any game designer do, so... Then again, the alternative to this that gets around that problem ends up requiring the addition of new values into the system, which some may not like. At least PrC's are optional.