Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystic Theurge (3.5e Feat)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Nitpick)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 32: Line 32:
: Not sure how/if it should be changed. ''Should'' it be changed, for a start, and if so, why? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
: Not sure how/if it should be changed. ''Should'' it be changed, for a start, and if so, why? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::Time for some thread necromancy, but "why not"?  A druidic cleric sounds interesting.  Or maybe a hexblading wizard.  Also, may as well add the [[Multiclass (3.5e Feat Type)|Multiclass]] tag. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 03:51, 10 November 2019 (MST)

Revision as of 10:52, 10 November 2019


RatedFavor.png Spanambula favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
Definitely VH level, but a fantastic versatile feat with an initial investment requirement steep enough to justify it. Looking forward to playtesting this.

This is the most broken feat sense Leadership. Double firepower for a feat? Just no.--ParakeeTalk 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really just a simple way to make a mystic theurge that doesn't suck due to being at least a spell level behind in at least one if not both spellcasting classes as a result of dual investment. If the PrC only required 1st level casting in each, it wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't so, it's always behind on everything, which makes your horizontal versatility close to meaningless in the face of caster level differentials. That makes a HUGE that cannot be emphasized enough. Plus, it's Wizard-level, so that allows for a lot in and of itself. - TG Cid 01:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The complaint sounded like they were breaking action economy to allow MT's to fire one spell from each list a round. I'm relieved that isn't the case. This isn't bad really. It's got the craptacular requirements of MT, but makes the progression your HD -1 for spells. Personally I rather -2, as that has a slight more impact and you got the issue of Sorc 3/Cleric X and never taking another Sorc or Sorc-PrCing level again, but -1 isn't bad. -- Eiji-kun 01:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Parakee: Obviously it's overpowered. I'm surprised you didn't realize that things marked at wizard-level are obviously overpowered. (Which it is.) I highly recommend actually going back and reading the Balance Points article. --Ghostwheel 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is perfectly balanced, it's just that everything marked rogue-level is obviously underpowered. I highly recommend actually going back and reading the Balance Points article. --TK-Squared 02:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Blech, "is it overpowered" should never be the definition for any balance point. *Continues beating his horse* -- Eiji-kun 03:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me delve further into that. The reason why its wizard level is because this is a "must have" feat. For any sort of MT build, you want this feat, it makes you tons better. This is similar to my wizard feat example-Divine Metamagic. 9 out of 10 times DMM is always an upgrade for any sort of cleric. However, this just means it's very useful. Its only overpowered if the effect it gives ends up being too strong overall. DMM is close, enabling Persisted spells for "cheap" though its tempted by a high feat cost and a limited number of times you can cheapen things*. This is comparable, with the high pre-req cost, cost in level selection, and the general underwhelming performance of MT. While HD -1 is too much for my tastes, ultimately it gives users more options but not actually more "power". Their spells don't deal more damage, they can't fire off more than normal each round, etc. If anything it just means that they have more lasting power due to having more spell slots.
So in those respects it's not "overpowered". An example of overpowered would be... I believe there's a feat (out there (can't remember the name) that gives you a subtype and thats all well and good, but it gives you the traits of this stupidly powerful creature, which includes greater teleport at level 1. That's overpowered, wizard level or no, because you're getting something that belongs to ECL 13+, and it does it with very little investment to balance it out.
(*Before anyone brings it up, I'm aware of Nightstick abuse. I find that to be a flaw in how Nightsticks work rather than a flaw with DMM itself. Honestly I don't even agree with the wording which supports Nightstick abuse anyway.) Anyway, there's my 2 gp. -- Eiji-kun 03:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
A feat should never give the full benefits of taking levels in wizard level classes. Period. Wizard level material should never double power with a feat if it is already dangerously high. This is practically giving you the power of two spellcasters, minus the actions. No one but mundane characters would ever not want this feat. I'm fine with feats that everyone in a class wants, or every on in an achetype wants but this is akin to double levels. If I created a class just like wizard but gave double spells per day, then that is broken. --ParakeeTalk 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've partal agreement with you there. Which is why I think the penalty should be harsher, at least to keep them one spell level behind, as that IS part of the cost of going gestalt with MT. MT's problem is just that they do too much of it, don't offer class features to go along with it (Pathfinder's MT is better there at least), and the problem of all MT's and one not addressed by this feat: your first 6 levels are a life of pain as you quickly fall behind the curve and are good at nothing. -- Eiji-kun 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Toned down the power ever so slightly. Now if you want to be an MT at full power, you gotta stick with vanilla classes rather than PrCing. This is the price you pay for doubling your spellcasting. Still think it needs the -2 to spellcastings? --Ghostwheel 10:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Though it's assumed (and I'd houserule it as such) at the moment you can only do A and B type casting, and not the same type (but different lists). Cleric/Druid is divine/divine, which wouldn't be allowed as worded. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how/if it should be changed. Should it be changed, for a start, and if so, why? --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Time for some thread necromancy, but "why not"? A druidic cleric sounds interesting. Or maybe a hexblading wizard. Also, may as well add the Multiclass tag. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2019 (MST)