-2

There are a number of “theurge” Prcs in D&D 3.5 and D&D 3 — classes that progress both their own and the base class's spellcasting — and I've notice a lot of hate for them that I don't understand. Why all the hate?

I've found many discussions online where people ask for advice for builds with such classes, with answers that are mostly negative.

  • Some are just outright dismissive. They range from "this class is utter garbage" through "only for fun and acting" to "only useful with cheese strategies revolving around early entry combinations or caster level enhancement tricks".

    Most such replies are only semi-correct in very narrow range of character levels (let's say 5 to 15). They're completely, utterly wrong for levels 15 to 40+ (also known as epic/mythic), since progressing beyond level 20 nullifies most of the issues people raise (like having only 10 levels of double progression class, since epic levels allow taking levels beyond a class's standard maximum).

  • Other common popular replies revolve around basic attributes required for casting, but don't seem to realize (or simply ignore) that Wizard/Archivist isn't the only combination.

    In fact, there's nearly infinite combinations using same attribute, considering all the base classes. Each type of caster (arcane, divine, psionic, etc.) comes in several flavours, witch (arcane, wisdom), mystic (divine, charisma), wilder (psionic, charisma) to name just a few.

  • People also argue against them based on the action economy.

    This one is also easily solved using cloning, schismas, time-stop-like effects, casting through crystals or familiars and several other methods of circumventing limits on actions taken. Which is also better: the more such effects are available to the player with every casting class having their own.

    Besides, once the character gains level 9 spells (or equivalent maximum) in both base classes, and reaches character level 21+ for epic spells there is no downside compared to single-progression caster. Versatility from having access to two full spell lists also translates to epic spell creation (which is based on skill points and "spell effects" known instead of actual strength of spells in 1-9 spell lists).

So I wonder if I'm missing something:

  • Are there any downsides for level 21+ double progression caster characters?

  • Is there any mechanical benefit of playing single-class caster character I'm not seeing? (I understand the storytelling and acting arguments but let's ignore those in this topic.)

SevenSidedDie
  • 243,609
  • 44
  • 785
  • 1,025
Nec Xelos
  • 2,493
  • 8
  • 19
  • I'm noticing a couple issues with your questions. First, this site is a one question/one answer format. If you have 3 questions about Theurge type classes, you should be asking 3 different questions, trimming down the background detail to what applies. Second, and possibly more important, we don't answer questions for/about opinions. There is the potential of "is this sub-par, mechanically" and "is this lore appropriate in a given universe" but not "what is other people's (whom we may not even know) mindset". – Ifusaso Nov 14 '18 at 17:54
  • Take our quick Tour to learn a little bit more and earn a badge. – Ifusaso Nov 14 '18 at 17:55
  • 1
    One further thought, the answers for this are going to be drastically different if you limit it to 3.5 or Pathfinder. While it's technically, as you say, backward compatible, Pathfinder is not designed to exceed 20th level PC's except by Mythic, which is not the same as having additional Class Levels. You may need to have separate questions regarding the different versions as well, or specify a 3.5 with Pathfinder or Pathfinder with 3.5 material question – Ifusaso Nov 14 '18 at 17:57
  • I changed to question to revolve around 3.5. I understand most people aren't specialists in entire golden trio.

    As far as opinion-based: my question is NOT. I expect answers from pure power-gaming point of view. I want mathematical, objective answers, no opinions allowed, just as the rules say. Hope that clarifies things.

     – Nec Xelos Nov 14 '18 at 18:07
  • Hereabouts, 3.5 by default covers 3e. Unless you're curious about an exclusively 3e rules element in a 3e context, there's no reason to make the distinction. Also see Why a Revision? that says, "This [3.5] revision is compatible with existing [3e] products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments" (Dungeon Master's Guide 4). Further, there's no reason to signal edits to your question; the site has a robust edit-tracking feature. Folks interested in the question's evolution can see edits made by clikcing the edited… ago link. – Hey I Can Chan Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
  • It seems You're wrong. First answer (below) just ignored the fact I edited Pathfinder out of the question. So it seems announcing my edits widely might be a good idea after all. – Nec Xelos Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
  • 1
    I gave this a big overhaul to make it easier for people to read, and therefore more likely to get quality answers. I think this is on-topic, since there are objective things that can be explained on the subject, and the arguments elsewhere are adequately summarised for our experts to engage with productively (it's not too vague what the question is reacting to). This shouldn't require opinion, and is no longer too broad. – SevenSidedDie Nov 14 '18 at 18:26
  • 1
    @NecXelos We definitely don't signal edits — we have a sophisticated edit history and notification system that makes edit signalling redundant, and so signaled edits merely make questions less clear (a potentially close-worthy issue). The first answer was almost certainly started before you removed Pathfinder from the question — it takes more than a moment to answer a question like this — and because we highly endorse editing and revision of all posts to make them their best version, it will likely have the Pathfinder material revised away before long, don't worry. – SevenSidedDie Nov 14 '18 at 18:28
  • @SevenSidedDie I agree that the question's interesting and that the site can answer it, but I think the title—and the subsequent evidence for that title—might be a distraction. That is, first, a discussion of why people online think a certain way is typically beyond the site's scope, and, second, the question What're the drawbacks to playing an epic theurge? appears strong enough to stand on its own. Could the question Why is D&D 3.5 focused more on playing at levels 1 through 20 than on epic levels? be saved for later? – Hey I Can Chan Nov 14 '18 at 18:44
  • 1
    @HeyICanChan I don't think any of those are representative of the asker's actual problem. If their problem is located in a difference in priorities between themself and the people they're reading (as it seems to be), all these things are of a piece. We've had previous questions about “Why do people online think X” that have worked before. – SevenSidedDie Nov 14 '18 at 18:45
  • For starters: big thanks for edit SevenSidedDie. It is indeed more readable this way. I might argue against some grammar mistakes there but it doesn't really matter in terms of understanding the text and my original version most likely wasn't bug-free either. As for DnD 3.5 being focused on levels 1-20, it's NOT. And it has to be said out loud. Players might be but not the system itself. Even if Epic Handbook wasn't re-released in 3.5 version (it has the errata though) lots of enemies, great heroes, great villains, etc. are specified well above level 20 in books. – Nec Xelos Nov 14 '18 at 20:52
  • 1
    I absolutely think this question needs to be split up: the premise of all the discussion “hating” dual progression classes is rooted in 1st to 20th (at most) gameplay, so any discussion of that “hate” is completely unrelated to any discussion of those classes at 40th-ish levels. A question asking why discussions focus on 1st to 20th is valid, a question asking whether there are any compelling reasons to avoid dual-progression classes for a 40th-level character like there is for an at-most-20th-level character is fine, but they aren’t the same question. – KRyan Nov 14 '18 at 22:01
  • 5
    I've closed this question as off-topic because evidence from comments on answers shows that it is actually a 1st post in a discussion, which we do not host. If you want to discuss the topic with fellow RPG players, you'll have to use a discussion forum instead of a strict Q&A site like this is. We have put together a list of RPG discussion forums to make it easier for people to transition from here to a more appropriate forum. – SevenSidedDie Nov 14 '18 at 22:19
  • 1
    @Ifusaso if Pathfinder is backwards compatible then it is compatible with the Epic Level Handbook which provides unupdated rules for 21+ level play. It's, obviously, extremely wonky because the ELH is terrible and because many of those rules are clearly the sorts of rules that Pathfinder generally was changing (XP thresholds and feat progression, for example), but that's just because Pathfinder isn't actually backwards compatible nearly as much as it says it is. – Please stop being evil Nov 15 '18 at 01:27

2 Answers2

6

You've asked:

Why are people restricting their mindset (which affects their answers) to levels between 5 and 15? It's like reading a 5 chapter book and throwing it away halfway through chapter 2.

Most actual campaigns do not reach the high levels you're interested in. For example, the popular Pathfinder Adventure Path series tend to start at level one and max out around levels 16-17. In D&D 3.5, the Living Greyhawk rules required adventurers to retire once they hit sixteenth level. My own campaigns (those that I play in, and those that I run) are all about levels 1-10.

I can imagine a campaign that started at level 1 and planned to go to level 30. Some homebrew campaigns are that ambitious. In my experience, many such campaigns tend to fall apart before they get past level seven. But, even if someone was playing in a game that they expected to reach level 30, it would be a weird strategy to play a class that was known to be weak and ineffective for the first ten levels. That would represent a very long time spent playing a bad character! I don't think that would be a fun way to play a game.

If you're about to join a campaign that will start at very high levels, I agree that playing a "theurge" class might well be reasonable.

From your comments, it sounds like you're not actually playing in a game, and you're just interested in theoretical behavior of very-high-level characters. That's fine, and I'm not going to tell you what levels you should be interested in. But you've asked why most people are only interested in low-level characters, and the reason is that we're playing in actual campaigns and the actual campaigns are happening at low levels.

Dan B
  • 89,473
  • 14
  • 195
  • 337
3

The discussion you see reflects the games people actually play. You see people focusing discussion on lower levels—say, 1st through 6th—because people tend to play far, far more of the lower levels than they do of higher levels. In fact, many people actively avoid higher levels—to say nothing of Epic levels—, either by designing the campaign to end before they come up or by using E6. By the amount of time people spend playing characters at them, 16th+ represents a minuscule fraction of the game. Epic rules are nigh-universally regarded as a mistake or an outright sham; they do not work and just about everyone who has ever having tried to use them regrets it.

That’s it: discussions reflect gameplay. (Almost) no one discusses Epic levels because (almost) no one plays Epic levels. There is no large community of players who spend most of their games in Epic levels, but only ever discuss pre-Epic levels. There simply is no large community of players who spend most of their games in Epic levels. If there was, you would see their presence online, and discussions of the way the game works at those levels would be more prevalent.

In short, by the very fact that you have asked this question, you yourself have already observed that almost no one uses those rules.

KRyan
  • 350,913
  • 58
  • 915
  • 1,459