Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Galedemir 04-19-08, 05:21 PM	I don't know if the class was meant this way, but one of my friends certainly seems to think so, ergo... let us get an unbiased opinion, eh? The Loremaster's spells per day states that it can be from any previous spellcasting class, regardless of whether it was arcane or divine; does this mean that it could technically come from, say, the Mystic Theurge, thus combining the two major benefits of these PrCs?
Salla 04-19-08, 05:22 PM	I don't know if the class was meant this way, but one of my friends certainly seems to think so, ergo... let us get an unbiased opinion, eh? The Loremaster's spells per day states that it can be from any previous spellcasting class, regardless of whether it was arcane or divine; does this mean that it could technically come from, say, the Mystic Theurge, thus combining the two major benefits of these PrCs? No, Mystic Theurge does not have its own spellcasting progression.
M-bark 04-21-08, 03:05 AM	No, Mystic Theurge does not have its own spellcasting progression. While the MT does not have a spellcasting progression totally its own, it does have a spellcasting progression and thus would be eligible for the course of action as described by the OP.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-21-08, 03:11 AM	Wrong, the Mystic Theurge just causes two pre-existing spell casting progressions to advance simultaneously. The character in question could certainly choose to advance either his divine or his arcane spell casting progression with Loremaster, however he could not advance both simultaneously via Loremaster.
nightwyrm 04-21-08, 03:27 AM	Didn't something like this pop up a few weeks ago? I believe the conclusion of that thread was that it's blatant rule breaking and it doesn't work that way. I suggest the OP look for the thread.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-21-08, 03:56 AM	This seems to pop up fairly frequently, there's always some idiot that thinks he's found the next big thing. I was rather surprised to realize Loremaster will advance divine casting, though. I'm not a big fan of the class due to the requisites, but it may have use for some divine characters.
runestar 04-21-08, 04:57 AM	While the MT does not have a spellcasting progression totally its own, it does have a spellcasting progression and thus would be eligible for the course of action as described by the OP. Which are 2 completely different things. Both prcs improve the spellcasting capabilities of an existing spellcasting class you have. A spellcasting class is one which has its own spell list. Loremaster does not have a spell list (it merely augments that of another class), and is thus not considered as a spellcasting class for all purposes of interaction with any effects that target spellcasting classes. As such, mystic theurge cannot be applied to loremaster.
M-bark 04-21-08, 09:55 AM	A spellcasting class is one which has its own spell list. Since this is the line of which the whole thing is based off, I'd like to ask for an official source on this. Your argument sound perfectly reasonable, and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you if this line proves to be truthful, hence my asking.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-21-08, 01:51 PM	You're one of those kids that eats paste and insists that characters continue moving when dead unless specified otherwise due to the lack of an explicit statement in the rulebooks that dead = not alive, aren't you?
Galedemir 04-21-08, 09:24 PM	You're one of those kids that eats paste and insists that characters continue moving when dead unless specified otherwise due to the lack of an explicit statement in the rulebooks that dead = not alive, aren't you? ..I really hope you aren't referring to me :P Well, didn't know there was something like this already posted; again, just wanted a say in the matter, and it seems the general consensus is against this. Thanks for clearing up the issue.
ClockworkRevenge 04-22-08, 01:03 AM	Since this is the line of which the whole thing is based off, I'd like to ask for an official source on this. Your argument sound perfectly reasonable, and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you if this line proves to be truthful, hence my asking. RAI, not RAW, or RAYWSYCCTS (read as you want so you can cheese the system)
Cartigan 04-22-08, 09:30 AM	While the MT does not have a spellcasting progression totally its own, it does have a spellcasting progression and thus would be eligible for the course of action as described by the OP. No it doesn't.
jaelis 04-22-08, 10:35 AM	Since this is the line of which the whole thing is based off, I'd like to ask for an official source on this. Your argument sound perfectly reasonable, and I'll agree wholeheartedly with you if this line proves to be truthful, hence my asking. Doesn't this just follow from the fact that the wizard, cleric, etc have the "Spells" class feature, while the Loremaster and MT do not? (They have "Spells per Day" instead.)
M-bark 04-22-08, 05:02 PM	Doesn't this just follow from the fact that the wizard, cleric, etc have the "Spells" class feature, while the Loremaster and MT do not? (They have "Spells per Day" instead.) That does sound reasonable. It's just that in my eyes, if you gain a level in a class and your spellcasting abilities are increased to, it must mean you have leveled in a spellcasting class. Hence why I think that MT and Loremaster are spellcasting classes.
Senevri 04-28-08, 04:20 PM	it should be noted that there's no such thing as "Loremaster" or "Mystic Theurge" spell lists, so even if you could, in fact, give the slots to the PrC, you couldn't fill them with spells anyway.
Cartigan 04-28-08, 05:04 PM	They arn't spellcasting classes because they don't have a spell list. They advance another class(es)' spell list and thus grant caster levels every time they advance that spell list. There are only a handful of caster PrCs.
Vegepygmy 05-02-08, 03:04 PM	That does sound reasonable. It's just that in my eyes, if you gain a level in a class and your spellcasting abilities are increased to, it must mean you have leveled in a spellcasting class. Hence why I think that MT and Loremaster are spellcasting classes.I don't feel like doing the research of finding official proclamations on the matter, but I can assure you, Loremaster and Mystic Theurge are not "spellcasting classes."
RobbieAB 05-04-08, 09:56 AM	I don't have a link handy, but it was the subject of a Sage Advice question back in the early days of the Mystic Theurge, possibly even predateing the 3.5 PHB due to the fact the MyTh was one of the class pre-released. The definition was "A Spellcasting class is a class that has a spell-list", a class that adds to a spell-casting class is NOT a spell casting class in it's own right. TBH, I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to spell-casting basic class, which kills almost every abuse of the MyTh instantly.
Anearysm 05-05-08, 10:03 PM	it may not work by the rules, but it certainly doesn't seem too IMBA compared to some other optimized things I've seen.
Aethios 05-06-08, 01:37 AM	it may not work by the rules, but it certainly doesn't seem too IMBA compared to some other optimized things I've seen. Optimization isn't really the problem in my eyes. The logic is flawed in this case(The case of taking MT levels to gain spell-casting levels in both arcane and divine spell-casting classes through use of loremaster progression), but in others, some ideas are perfectly sound. If you optimize a class or set of classes just because that's what you do, that's fine. No biggie and they can still be chalk full of flavor. The err is when that player makes a PC to break the campaign. That's when it catches heat. Whatever. As for trying to use the LM progression to utilize the MT's; wrong (as stated before). Neither have their own spell-lists and so they are exempt. Simple as that, but good try. :D It's all just trial and error. On a side note, RAW holds as much water as RAI in my book. It just depends on what lens you feel like looking through. I play for the fun and for the story of it. But people think differently and so you have different styles of play. Some people read, some people write, some do both.
Fallenangel359 05-06-08, 11:24 PM	While not lore master, want to see lore abuse? la buyoff game, shadowwalker template cloistered cleric 2 paragnostic apostle 5, harper priest 3, harper master 10. with knowledge history 5, headband of the lore binder, and the obscure lore feat, thats a lore check of 50+int... with full divine spell casting... Highest lore check is 40 its a fun toy
M-bark 05-07-08, 08:24 AM	I don't have a link handy, but it was the subject of a Sage Advice question back in the early days of the Mystic Theurge, possibly even predateing the 3.5 PHB due to the fact the MyTh was one of the class pre-released. The definition was "A Spellcasting class is a class that has a spell-list", a class that adds to a spell-casting class is NOT a spell casting class in it's own right. TBH, I wouldn't be surprised to see that changed to spell-casting basic class, which kills almost every abuse of the MyTh instantly. Sure. Sounds good enough to satisfy me. Just to note, I wanted to have the definition of "spellcasting class" clear. I know that by RAI they never wanted Loremaster abuse (or anything gamebreaking at that), but often it is RAW that makes things a problem. Good to see that even RAW makes it so that Loremaster abuse is a no-go. And if one of the players in my group ever wanted to abuse the Loremaster like this, I'd take a swing at them with whatever the heaviest book is that I'd have at my disposal at that time.
Bergtann 05-07-08, 03:37 PM	it may not work by the rules, but it certainly doesn't seem too IMBA compared to some other optimized things I've seen. If it was allowed, you'd trigger Mystic Theurge with Loremaster, then apply one of the "+1" from Mystic Theurge back to Loremaster, triggering another increase of Mystic Theurge...etc. Any two "+1 to spellcasting" PrCs instantly achieve infinite caster level and level 20 casting.
Anearysm 05-07-08, 09:01 PM	If it was allowed, you'd trigger Mystic Theurge with Loremaster, then apply one of the "+1" from Mystic Theurge back to Loremaster, triggering another increase of Mystic Theurge...etc. Any two "+1 to spellcasting" PrCs instantly achieve infinite caster level and level 20 casting. because all DM's allow infinite caster level increases in a single level. What I meant was, why not allow the loremaster to add spellcasting in both the divine and arcane BASE caster class levels via MT. Seeing as the MT is rather underpowered, I don't see why not to give it a little boost with this, even though it does not exactly hold up with the rules. This is all with DM permission, of course. If the great Lord Behind The Screen says it, it shall be so. If he doesn't, too bad.
Vegepygmy 05-08-08, 01:46 AM	What I meant was, why not allow the loremaster to add spellcasting in both the divine and arcane BASE caster class levels via MT.Because then there would be no point in taking more than one level of MT.
Bergtann 05-08-08, 02:53 AM	What I meant was, why not allow the loremaster to add spellcasting in both the divine and arcane BASE caster class levels via MT. That would be better done by just houseruling the Loremaster to be a dual-progression divine/arcane spellcasting class. My point was that doing it by changing the definition of "Spellcasting class" unbalances the system in several places. If such a rule is applied consistently, every "+1" spellcasting class becomes dual progression with one level of Mystic Theurge backing it.
M-bark 05-08-08, 03:08 AM	The question is, would it be overpowering to change the Loremaster's progression to +1 arcane and +1 divine? Of course, you would need to change the prereqs a bit to include things like "must be able to cast both divine and arcane spells", but that wouldn't be such a big deal, I'd think - as long as it wouldn't be overpowering. I mean, there's the Arcane Hierophant, and that guy gets more than the MT!
Anearysm 05-08-08, 06:37 PM	My point was that doing it by changing the definition of "Spellcasting class" unbalances the system in several places. If such a rule is applied consistently, every "+1" spellcasting class becomes dual progression with one level of Mystic Theurge backing it. Well, my reasoning behind that was that MT users could use some kind of ability progression (as an MT loses its turning/wild shape+animal companion, familiar bonuses, and possibly bonus feats, as well as being a poor PrC in general). And the picking of nits: I wasn't changing the definition of a spellcasting class as much as you infer. Most PrC's specify whether arcane or divine, while loremaster specifies nothing, and Mystic theurge is neither. Another option would be to just houserule the bleeding MT into getting bonus feats every 4th level, or at least familiar progression, and keep the spellcasting class definition the same. It's terrible PrC!!!!
Vegepygmy 05-08-08, 07:11 PM	It's terrible PrC!!!!I've played one, and I didn't think it was underpowered at all. YMMV.
Anearysm 05-10-08, 11:36 AM	I've played one, and I didn't think it was underpowered at all. YMMV. strange how several people can do the same thing and both think differently about it
Aethios 05-10-08, 06:34 PM	strange how several people can do the same thing and both think differently about it Not really.