Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Kaelik]

To be fair, mystic theurges aren't nearly as bad as everyone claims. They are, after all, casters who get ninth-level spells. That doesn't mean that they're less good than pretty much every other caster out there, though.

No one cares what you can do at level 20. By that logic, Warmage is fucken broken, because it just wins the game.

Mystic Theurge is ass, because at every level you are a Mystic Theurge, and most levels before, you suck.

1: You are a Wizard or a Cleric.
2: See 1
3: See 1
4: You are like a level 3 Wizard or Cleric.
5: You are like a level 3 Wizard or Cleric.
6: You are a gestalt level 3 character.
7: You are now a gestalt level 4 character. You are casting 2nd level spells. Other people are casting 4th level spells. You are ass.
8: Woot, you can finally cast Fireball and Slow and Stinking Cloud.
9: Hey look, they can cast Cloudkill. But you still have Stinking Cloud.
ect.

It's not level 20 that matters. It's level 4-19 where you are at least one spell level, and often two, behind.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Kaelik is correct. To make things even worse, Mystic Theurges are further boned by two things:

1) There's only ten levels in the class. So unless you're doing an expansion option that lets you chain together dual-spellcasting classes you end up stalling out at level 16 anyway.

2) There are in fact quite a lot of ways to plunder spells from another person's list anyway. The only thing Mystic Theurges really have on a cleric with the Spell domain or wizard with a spellpool/Arcane Disciple or Archivists period is the volume of spells. Then one of those classes reveals to you that they took some shit like Red Wizard of Thay and then you break down into tears.


Mystic Theurge isn't bad if your DM will let you abuse the difference engine or if you're doing something completely insane like comboing it off of Ur-Priest levels, but for the most part anyone who says that this PrC is broken, good, or even 'not-bad' is high.

[Orion]

The hack I always used was to change the requirement to "Level 2 Divine, Level 1 Arcane Spells".

That way you get a cleric who gives up a little casting and a lot of beatstick for a sizeable helping of arcane utility and crowd control. It's decent and recognizeable starting from level 6, where you have Web and Magic Circle.

EDIT: If your DM won't accept that rule, try to convince them that the feat from a COmplete Arcane sidebar that gives you one 2nd-level spell at 1st level counts as "2nd level arcane spells"

[Psychic Robot]

You might be a spell level behind, but a large portion of the characters don't have spell levels or they have crippled spellcaster progression. Are you telling me that a level 10 mystic theurge (wiz 3/cler 3/theurge 4) is somehow worse than a level 10 noncaster?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Depends, but on-the-whole a level 10 MT is probably going to be slightly worse than a well-built maxxed noncaster unless the MT is doing something stupid like Divine Metamagic + Godsticks. Seriously. When it comes to the spellcasting game you're slightly better than a fucking bard. And then said bard will hand you your naughty ass in later levels (after having the gap widened from levels 11-16) because they're about to take levels in Sublime Chord.

What is the Mystic Theurge character supposed to do? They've behind on the DCs, they're behind on the highest-level spell progression, they're behind on class features. Wizards do have some good buffs a cleric would salivate over, but if they wanted to be a buffer that bad they could've had a regular cleric with the spell domain.

[Kaelik]

You might be a spell level behind, but a large portion of the characters don't have spell levels or they have crippled spellcaster progression. Are you telling me that a level 10 mystic theurge (wiz 3/cler 3/theurge 4) is somehow worse than a level 10 noncaster?

If for whatever reason you have a Monk in your fucking party, you are better than him.

But see, funny story, most people don't play shitty characters, so if someone else is a "non-caster" they either do elevendy billion damage per attack, or they no save rape your eyeballs or are Tome characters.

I mean "dude, I'm better than a Monk or a Core Fighter" is not an argument for actually using a character.

[Cielingcat]

People who know what they're doing don't play shitty characters, but people who don't pay attention to the intricacies of rules or people who are simply new to the game have no idea what constitutes a shitty character. When someone picks up the game, they're going to play something they think is cool, and they're going to do things based on "common sense," which is to say they'll do things that seem to make sense, but don't because they rely on a misunderstanding of the game's mechanics. It's only when people have played and dissected the game that they start to understand what's good and what isn't.

Of course, that's still a point against the Mystic Theurge, because it's a trap option that makes players who don't understand the system suck.

[Psychic Robot]

In a heavily-optimized game with well-versed min-maxxers, the MT is going to suck. In the majority of games, the MT is going to be about on par with the other players, and most of the time the number of utility spells he has available are going to make the rest of the spellcasters jealous.

In most games, the bard will not take Sublime Chord, the melees are not going to be a Charging Smite-Leap Attack-Shock Troopers that cause the enemies to explode into a fine red mist when they make a Jump check, and the rogues are not going to be flask rogues (not that flask rogues exist in Pathfinder). The majority of games are going to have fighters full attacking for mediocre damage while the clerics cast cure light wounds and the wizards throw out d6s of damage.

There is a vast difference between how D&D functions and how it functions in most games. In most games, the MT is going to be a fine addition to any party in the same way that the fighter is probably going to get the killing blow on a monster.

(Heck, some guy on /tg/ was arguing that his hexblade/duelist was a strong character because he "did some cool stuff" with him.)

Oh, and MTs in Pathfinder get to be good once per day: they can toss out three spells in a round with their awesome capstone:

At 10th level, a mystic theurge can cast two spells, one from each of his spellcasting classes, using one action. Both of the spells must have the same casting time. The mystic theurge can make any decisions concerning the spells independently. Any target affected by both of the spells takes a –2 penalty on saves made against each spell. The mystic theurge receives a +2 bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance with these two spells. A mystic theurge may use this ability once per day.

Just think: the MT can do something nifty .006944% of the time.

[Kaelik]

Oh, and MTs in Pathfinder get to be good once per day: they can toss out three spells in a round with their awesome capstone:

At 10th level, a mystic theurge can cast two spells, one from each of his spellcasting classes, using one action. Both of the spells must have the same casting time. The mystic theurge can make any decisions concerning the spells independently. Any target affected by both of the spells takes a –2 penalty on saves made against each spell. The mystic theurge receives a +2 bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance with these two spells. A mystic theurge may use this ability once per day.

Just think: the MT can do something nifty .006944% of the time.

No, MT's get to be awesome once per campaign at most, because campaigns don't start at level 16, and don't go to level 16, so you can play hundreds of MTs and only once actually use that ability.

[Juton]

Funny thing is, all the new Paizo adventure paths stop at level 15, so MT will never get a chance to be awesome. :

[K]

I'm now reading a thread about gishes. Aside from A Man In Black smacking down James Jacobs, I am feeling a slight degree of rage due to the fact that anyone wanting play a gish is apparently a huge powergaming munchkin.

EDIT: Oh, Lord, they're literally arguing about whether or not "gish" is a sexual term. This is why I stopped posting there.

Damn you for getting me to read that thread.

The fact that people think it's some bizarre sexual fetish boggles the mind. The fact that I can't seem to figure out what that fetish is annoys me too.

The MT thread is also annoying, but I guess Pathfinder draws in the crowd who want to be awesome at some future date that will never come because the campaign has ended, and not be awesome now when their party needs them.

Because hey, you might fail at being awesome now, but you can always be awesome in the future you imagine.

[Psychic Robot]

According to Urban Dictionary, "gish" means:

Gush + Jizz: When semen escapes with vigor from a well-used vagina.

To urinate, usually from a well-used fanny.

The term is often used by Glaswegian prostitutes.

a typical, everyday vagina

A gish is someone who has sex with his foot

a piercing of the anus.

The amputated penis... a knob, if you will.

I used to think that UD was useful.

[Username17]

Actually, that's pretty helpful. It tells you that "gish" is just a sound effect for things being sqeezed together while wet.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

And I think this once and for all proves that the swordmage should not be called 'gish' anymore, unless you want to have the next Winnie the Pooh on your hands.

[Crissa]

Well, it is what you get when you soak your D&D book and then squeeze it.

-Crissa

[hogarth]

The inquisitor is fiddly as hell. It's a divine rogue built around about three or four different smites.

I particularly dislike the way their Judgment abilities suck on the first round you use them and get slightly better over time. It's all the fun of sucking, keeping track of fiddly short durations, and adding up a bunch of tiny bonuses all rolled into one!

Paizo has been having teasers of the Advanced Player's Guide in their blog recently. Apparently they ditched the "gets slightly better over time" aspect of the Judgment ability. Now it's just a static (minor) bonus:

Now, whenever the inquisitor uses her judgment ability, she selects the type and gains a bonus based on her level. For example, take a look at this judgment of purity.

Purity: The inquisitor is protected from the vile taint of her foes, gaining a +1 sacred bonus on all saving throws. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, the bonus is doubled against curses, diseases, and poisons.

So if my campaign lasts until level 12, I'll eventually get a +3 to saves (which a paladin could easily get at level 2)? Oh joy.

[TOZ]

I'm more irritated that it sounds like the Antipaladin is going to be a Paladin with Evil scratched out and replaced with Good on all the class abilities. And then nerfed the same as the Paladin was.

[virgil]

Some of the stuff they have going on with the Summoner's eidolon is damned confusing. They share chakra points with their owner, cannot wear armor, and require an evolution to be ridden as a mount (and ONLY the summoner can ride it). Eidolons are becoming less like a Final Fantasy summon, and more like a constantly shifting chaos beast.

[magnuskn]

Some of the stuff they have going on with the Summoner's eidolon is damned confusing. They share chakra points with their owner, cannot wear armor, and require an evolution to be ridden as a mount (and ONLY the summoner can ride it). Eidolons are becoming less like a Final Fantasy summon, and more like a constantly shifting chaos beast.

Well, there was a lively discussion as to how make a copy of Cthulhu.

[Crissa]

Well, you can't ride a foal or medium dog, either.

-Crissa

[hogarth]

Eidolons are becoming less like a Final Fantasy summon, and more like a constantly shifting chaos beast.

I've never played Final Fantasy other than the original one -- did the Summoner class ride a summoned creature?

What seems dumb to me is that they seem to be determined to make the Summoner worse at summoning creatures (and having a pet) than the Druid.

[Archmage]

The whole "the Eidolon is a malleable called creature" defense/argument is a huge pile of garbage. It doesn't mean anything at all.

Your eidolon isn't an animal, it's not an animal companion, it's not a pet, it's not a familiar, it's not, in essence, a thing with a perfect predictable form that shows up the exact same way every single time. It's a malleable called creature that can't accurately mimic any other creature and is slightly different every time you call it. It's because of its malleable nature that you can frequently re-shape it by re-spending your evolution points. It can't be ridden, because it's not the exact same creature every time. Adding a ride evolution allows us to say, "Okay, you've chosen in the creation of your eidolon for it to show up similar enough each time that you're capable of learning to ride its current form."

And the follow-up:

I should also point out that there's a vast difference between "my eidolon can carry me" and "I can ride my eidolon into combat and use the mounted combat rules while riding my eidolon." If you want your eidolon to carry you, great! If you want your eidolon to be ridden into combat and use the mounted combat rules, you'll need to buy the ride evolution.

What the hell is this? What the hell is an Eidolon even supposed to look like if it "can't accurately mimic any other creature?" You summon something that is specifically a quadruped, but you can't ride on it because it isn't exactly the same as any other quadruped that it was last time down to the last detail? It is, as virgileso said, a crazy chaos beast.

Apparently you can ride it, but as soon as the combat music starts playing you're not allowed to ride it anymore if you don't have the right adaptation. Or, presumably, you can continue to be carried around by it, but you can't "use the mounted combat rules." Huh? Why? And what does that even mean?

[FatR]

I'm more irritated that it sounds like the Antipaladin is going to be a Paladin with Evil scratched out and replaced with Good on all the class abilities. And then nerfed the same as the Paladin was.

The PF Paladin was nerfed? Where?

[magnuskn]

I'm more irritated that it sounds like the Antipaladin is going to be a Paladin with Evil scratched out and replaced with Good on all the class abilities. And then nerfed the same as the Paladin was.

The PF Paladin was nerfed? Where?

His Smite Evil ability. Versus Undead, Evil Outsiders and Dragons it was supposed to double the damage and to-hit modifiers it already gets. This was nerfed down to only the first strike getting double the smite modifiers, while the rest gets the normal smite modifiers.

[hogarth]

What the hell is this? What the hell is an Eidolon even supposed to look like if it "can't accurately mimic any other creature?" You summon something that is specifically a quadruped, but you can't ride on it because it isn't exactly the same as any other quadruped that it was last time down to the last detail? It is, as virgileso said, a crazy chaos beast.

Apparently you can ride it, but as soon as the combat music starts playing you're not allowed to ride it anymore if you don't have the right adaptation. Or, presumably, you can continue to be carried around by it, but you can't "use the mounted combat rules." Huh? Why? And what does that even mean?

The logic is stupid and makes no sense. I wouldn't have a problem if they just said that, by default, eidolons are "ill-suited" as mounts as per the Ride rules. But I'm not sure why they need to do that in the first place.