Making a Mystic Theurge

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
I am playing a sorcerer, level 10 currently. A MT is the natural progression for my character due to the storyline. I really don't want to give up 3 caster levels to do it though, and the prereqs only state that I "must be able to cast 2nd level divine spells". It doesn't say that I need to be a 3rd level divine caster. Anyone have a loophole here that may only have to take one level of cleric to accomplish this?

Ur Priest can give divine casting, and gets it at a fairly excelerated rate. Any prestige class with its own casting progression is also a smart move. 


Rainbow servant adds all cleric spells to your sorcerer list without dropping levels, so that seems like it might do what you want without sucking. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

I am playing a sorcerer, level 10 currently. A MT is the natural progression for my character due to the storyline. I really don't want to give up 3 caster levels to do it though, and the prereqs only state that I "must be able to cast 2nd level divine spells". It doesn't say that I need to be a 3rd level divine caster. Anyone have a loophole here that may only have to take one level of cleric to accomplish this?

Sounds like you're after a rules answer. This is player advice. I recommend you talk to your DM about it, rather than looking for a loophole. If it's a "natural progression" the DM may agree and be willing to bend the rules for you.

Edit: I have to say, though, that I've never understood the concern with giving up caster levels. Aren't full casters just ludicrously overpowered anyway? Even sorcerers?

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Edit: I have to say, though, that I've never understood the concern with giving up caster levels. Aren't full casters just ludicrously overpowered anyway? Even sorcerers?

Thats exactly it. You gain a ludicroiusly powerful ability. Why are you giving it up for anything else?


Mechanically, if you give up a caster level you are behind forever. There is no trick or method to restore it, your character is just perminatly worse than he could otherwise be. Its not like "Ill skip fighter level 4, but I really wanted that bonus feat. I'll have to wait until 6 now and get one". You skip it, and its gone forever. 


Lastly, all your existing and future spells trigger off your caster level. Giving up a caster level means that every single one of your class features just got signifigantly worse.


"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Lastly, all your existing and future spells trigger off your caster level. Giving up a caster level means that every single one of your class features just got signifigantly worse.

The way I look at it, it's not significant. At high levels, a pure caster, even a relatively weak one, is essentially unstoppable, unless the DM is picking on them directly, and sometimes even then. Giving up a few caster levels makes a caster significantly worse than a full caster, but still massively better than a non-caster, and still more than capable of handling any reasonable threat in the game.

But, yeah, if someone is actually worried about their personal power level, rather than their relative power level, don't multiclass. With all the spell options out there, it's probably possible to pick ones for your sorcerer that give you the story feel you want without sacrificing those precious caster levels.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I've never understood the allure of Mystic Theurge.  The PrC suffers from MAD like crazy.

That said, Ur-Priest is probably the quickest way for you to get into MT (assuming you already have the requisite skill ranks).  2 levels of Ur-Priest will give you 2nd level divine spells, and half your caster level from Sorceror levels will apply to your divine caster level from Ur-Priest spells.  So at taking level 1 of  Ur-Priest will give you level 1 divine spellls, with a divine caster level of 6.  At level 2, your divine caster level will be 7, and if you have a Wisdom of at least 14, you will have 2nd level divine spells.

Ultimately, if you end up as a Sorceror10/Ur-Priest2/Mystic Theurge8, you will cast as a level 18 Sorceror, and a level 10 Ur-Priest (which will mean level 9 arcane and divine spells).  Your arcane caster level will be 18, and Your Divine caster level (for caster-level determined effects) will be 19. 

The way I look at it, it's not significant. At high levels, a pure caster, even a relatively weak one, is essentially unstoppable, unless the DM is picking on them directly, and sometimes even then.


It hurts when you are fighting the stereotypical evil mage or necromancer. Going against other full casters who didn't. 


----


In actual play its not a huge deal to miss out on a couple you are generally right. The DM can take it into account when designing encounters, or the rest of the group is playing something like monk 20. It shouldn't be a big deal. 


But if you are talking about an optimized choice its a very simple one. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

The way I look at it, it's not significant. At high levels, a pure caster, even a relatively weak one, is essentially unstoppable, unless the DM is picking on them directly, and sometimes even then.

It hurts when you are fighting the stereotypical evil mage or necromancer. Going against other full casters who didn't.


Sure, but in that case it's not meant to be a one-on-one fight anyway, right? The caster's better than the party caster, but not better than the whole party, I would think.
In actual play its not a huge deal to miss out on a couple you are generally right. The DM can take it into account when designing encounters, or the rest of the group is playing something like monk 20. It shouldn't be a big deal.

I think one reason people like the idea of optimizing is that it removes the uncontrollables, like a DM willing to work with you, and the level of the other players' optimization. As long as you're as "good" as you can be you have as much control as the game will give you, which for 3.5 casters is a lot.

But if you are talking about an optimized choice its a very simple one.

Which is a key reason why I tend to despise optimization.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

3.5 games can totally have instances where a single PC encounters an enemy. Actually thats an edition neutral comment. Anytime a PC is seperated, by choice or trickery he by definition encounters things by himself. Not including those encounters will really limit your design options. Especially if you let the players dictate the story, and allow them to do things by themselves or things that lead to them becoming seperated by accident.


--------


For the rest of your comments, my reply isn't meant to be dismissive. I think we just have a drastically different expectation when it comes to the game in a lot of areas and this is one of them. I'm sure you are familiar with the link below, but if anyone stumbles onto this and isn't enjoy.


Stormwind Fallacy.


dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2011/12/storm...


There is no reason to despise optimization. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

I've removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

You can read how to prevent edition wars here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

....? 



  • Player "I am going to do some scouting ahead in the tunnels" 

  • DM  "You sneak into the air ducts and below you is the big bad plotting on his war map"

  • Player "I go in for a closer look."

  • DM "You can record some positions. As you finish drawing he sends his generals out of the room so he can consult with the sages. You see him go into a meditative trance and look into a scrying pool"

  • Player "This is my change, I go to sneak up and kill him,  ending the war here and now". 

  • (You can roll some die and the player fails, or maybe the player wants to fail because its more interesting) 

  • DM "The lich turns and faces you. Roll init"

  • Player "Oh man, if I can survive a round or two I can get to the window and get away lets do this"


besides in 4e caster level is not an issue.

We were just talking about why its a bad idea to lose a caster level in 3.5. Of course caster level isn't an issue in 4e. There is no such thing as caster level in 4e. What is and can be a very similar issue would be having PCs of different levels in the same party. Thats what missing a caster level in 3.5 is the equivilent of in 4e. 

Stop your edition warring, and bashing of anything that isn't 4e and explain how that situation above can never come up. You can do it in whatever system you want.  


I hate optimization because it's boring. I want to play an interesting multiclass, I want to take a weird paragon path, I want to use an unusual weapon, and I want to see players challenge themselves along those lines.

playing your monk/artificer who heals doesn't run counter to optimization in any way shape or form. Especially if you explain what the concept is. Many optimizers would jump at the chance to help you optimize that, with the end goal of making your character concept as capable of pulling its weight as possible. You may be directed to change classes, but the core concept of unarmed dude who makes magic items for people that heal them would remain in tact. 

Your constant No True Roleplayer stuff is starting to wear thin. Especially when you bring it up without provocation, in a thread directly related to "Please help me optimize my 3.5 character choice". Bring it up all your want in the DM/player advice threads. Dude posted in the wrong forum, but you understood the intent of the thread.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

....? 

  • Player "I am going to do some scouting ahead in the tunnels" 

  • DM  "You sneak into the air ducts and below you is the big bad plotting on his war map"

  • Player "I go in for a closer look."

  • DM "You can record some positions. As you finish drawing he sends his generals out of the room so he can consult with the sages. You see him go into a meditative trance and look into a scrying pool"

  • Player "This is my change, I go to sneak up and kill him,  ending the war here and now". 

  • (You can roll some die and the player fails, or maybe the player wants to fail because its more interesting) 

  • DM "The lich turns and faces you. Roll init"

  • Player "Oh man, if I can survive a round or two I can get to the window and get away lets do this"



Awesome. I could see coming up with something like that with a player.

What is and can be a very similar issue would be having PCs of different levels in the same party.

I didn't think that was common. It shouldn't be.

Thats what missing a caster level in 3.5 is the equivilent of in 4e.

I thought the issue was with going up against an enemy who was a full caster, when one wasn't a full caster. Comparisons to other party members don't really matter.

Stop your edition warring, and bashing of anything that isn't 4e and explain how that situation above can never come up. You can do it in whatever system you want.

Why? Of course that situation can come up, and I could see composing something like that with a player. What I don't see is why never having situations like that is a meaningful limit. Or why not being a full caster is particularly going to matter. The challenge the player faces will be the challenge the player & DM are interested in the player facing.

playing your monk/artificer who heals doesn't run counter to optimization in any way shape or form. Especially if you explain what the concept is.

There's no concept. I just want to see if I can make that build work.

Many optimizers would jump at the chance to help you optimize that,

I don't want their help.

with the end goal of making your character concept as capable of pulling its weight as possible.

The idea of "weight" that needs to be pulled is another aspect of optimization I hate.

You may be directed to change classes, but the core concept of unarmed dude who makes magic items for people that heal them would remain in tact.

I want to play those classes. I like my challenges to come during the game, as I play the hand I've dealt myself. Other people prefer the upfront challenge of making a character that will make play less challenging, or the challenge of the mental exercise. I get that. I just dislike the message that seems to come out of the optimization board that there are "useless" options. I think you and I both know that it's possible to "optimize" a harder build, and I do, but the optimization mindset is pervasive and harmful to players who just want to play what they want to play.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.


playing your monk/artificer who heals doesn't run counter to optimization in any way shape or form. Especially if you explain what the concept is.

There's no concept. I just want to see if I can make that build work.

And you are complaining about optimizers? You arbitrarily pick some classes for no reason and want to play them, but when someone says "Tell me about your character, what's he like I'd like to help you build it, so that its mechanically viable" you don't want their help and call them a dirty optimizer? 


That might be the first time I have ever heard that definition of optimizing. I remember some other thread, where you made up your own definition. Can you please define optimizer for me? I have a feeling you made up another definition and didn't share with the rest of the class. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

And you are complaining about optimizers?

Yep.

You arbitrarily pick some classes for no reason

Not no reason. I want to see if I can make them work. That's a reason.

and want to play them, but when someone says "Tell me about your character, what's he like I'd like to help you build it, so that its mechanically viable" you don't want their help

No, I don't want their help. I didn't ask for it, and the character is already "mechanically viable." Maybe not by an optimizer's definition, but my point is that their definition isn't the only one.

and call them a dirty optimizer?

No.

That might be the first time I have ever heard that definition of optimizing. I remember some other thread, where you made up your own definition. Can you please define optimizer for me? I have a feeling you made up another definition and didn't share with the rest of the class.

No.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Thats two threads in a row where you respond to any questions or challenges that you may be incorrect or wrong with the word no. 


If you are not interested in discussing things with others a message board might not be the place for you. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Thats two threads in a row where you respond to any questions or challenges that you may be incorrect or wrong with the word no.

Not how I'd characterize what it was I was responding to.

If you are not interested in discussing things with others a message board might not be the place for you.

I discuss things on this message board all the time. You just don't get to decide what.


If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

The way people determine if someone has good ideas is seeing them challenged, defended, and explained. The way to determine if someone is worth listening to is seeing how they do that, and how they modify their ideas and theories based on those challenges, defenses and explanation. 


If you refuse to do this you are not having a conversation or allowing for that verification. You are essentially shouting things at random, and running out of the room. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"