824 réponses à ce sujet

[BartjeD]

Regarding epic spells and vampiric feast you could adopt the solution that i found in Baldur's Gate: the sword coast chronicles (persistent world). What happened there is that Epic spells can be resisted through spell resistance. Which is probably how they work in regular D&D. So long as Irenicus then has a spell mantle he won't be instantly killed, nor instantly loses half his hit points.

[BartjeD]

BTW it would also be really cool if you could lift the Counterspelling mechanic from BG:TSCC into Baldur's Gate 2 Reloaded. I imagine a counterspelling Irenicus would be a real fright!

[Arkalezth]

Can a mystic theurge cast two vampiric feasts?

I think suggestions are fine, but there's been more talk about the mechanics of a spell in this thread that about the frigging module. Just a couple of things to add before I leave the matter for good, and sorry for contributing to derail the thread:

- If you nerf one thing, you may as well start looking at other balance inconsistencies (funnily enough, mystic theurge is the first thing that comes to mind).
- Epic spells should be epic. VF is the only one which isn't lame.
- IMO, casters were generally stronger in BG2. They didn't have VF, but had many other things. Oh, and epic levels could be reached (and epic spells taken) as long as TOB was installed.
- Next time I play a level 3 module, I'm gonna cheat and give myself Vampiric Feast, because I can.

[Luminus]

The level cap existed in BG because it limited the amount of class and spell development they would have to do. That is a practical decision. Not the same circumstance as enforcing a level cap when the spells already exist in the game.

 
 

the lvl 10 cap was put for 3 reasons :
 
1 to not trivialise the game. If you out lvl to much the content it removes the challenge and the fun.
2 to be sure all character would end at the lvl cap. Without a lvl cap there is absolutly no point in ECL characters which is bad, beceause most of them are super cool.
3 to ensure continuity with the next mod, if you start at lvl 15 in SOAR, it doesn 't leave much room for improvment of your character while the game is bigger than BGR.

Well, the creator has spoken, and it seems I was right Kaldor. There was a balance purpose to put a level cap.
 
 

If VF has no save it could be a problem, I' ll check on it, it' s actually super fast and easy to put a save on the spell (could put  limitations similar as wave of the Banshee or weird for exemple).

Vampiric Feast has a save. On a successful save, you lose 50% of health. On failed save, you die instantly. http://nwn2.wikia.co.../Vampiric_Feast
But it has no Spell Resistance. In PnP epic spells have SR, like Hellball for example.
 

It 's true that Aerie real class is a mystic theurg, and since the beginning it 's a class I' d really like to have in game, but at the moment I'm working on one exterior area not even scripting it and it's super challenging and time consumming. My aim, is to do a playable module, not a playable custom class.
 
At the moment the Mystic theurg is out of scope, the fully scripted lvl up GUI is also out of scope, I started to work on it on BGR, to have only the availlable class of each NPC showing in the UI while lvling up, and I made it !  But after I saw that everything was hard coded, I couldn 't replug it to the rest of the lvling GUI. So I opted for the class selection in conversations.
 
Which mean in order for it to work, I have to redo all the lvling screens and all the control and rules assossiated with them, and not only the class selections screens, It 's perfectly possible and know how to do it, but it 's a really big work, and I put a line on it. BGR had to be finished. If Drew and I did everything we wanted in BGR, it probably wouldn 't be finished yet.

But I explained and put a screen on my previous post that shows that Mystic Theurge is already done by Reeron and works just fine for Cleric/Wizard.
You might want to check it out.

[Shallina]

We'll see.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

Well, the creator has spoken, and it seems I was right Kaldor.

Except that I wasn't talking about BGR was I. My comment was about BG.

 

That said, I do not agree with the use of level caps at all. A level cap is an arbitrary way to rob the player of the spoils of their victory, supposedly for their own good. If a player chooses to do every side quest and do everything he/she can to gain experience, then why shouldn't he/she benefit from the time they spend doing so?  No one talks about auto-leveling up people for a boss fight, but if all you care about is the balance of the end fight then wouldn't it make sense to do that also for the people who choose not to play side quests? For that matter why not scale every fight to the capabilities of the party and make all of their choices completely irrelevant, all for their own enjoyment of course.

 

I think the best course is allow people to play and they will either benefit from their choices or they will not. As far as I am concerned a level cap is about as reasonable a game mechanic as stripping players of all their equipment and spells just before a boss fight.

 

I have a campaign in which there is a sword that is intended to be used for the final boss fight.  One campaign player found the sword, returned to town, sold it, used the money to outfit their party with good gear and then returned to fight the final boss.  The player then complained to me that the final fight was too easy. The truth is that he/she took a risk and it paid off. That the campaign allowed that choice was not a weakness but a feature.  If I play a game and manage to solo my way through it and get to the final battle and seriously kick butt then that is the ending I deserve.  The developer has no business messing up that ending. 

[Shallina]

There is always a lvl cap, and most of the games always had one, it 's for good reasons. In NWN2 the absolute one is at 30. And in TOB you can trust me to make it super challenging to beat the final fight with a full decked lvl 30 party for those who choose to play in hard core rules or harder.

[Tchos]

Along the lines of what Kaldor and Tsongo are saying, I actually intentionally put an alternate means of dealing with a particular boss fight into my module.  If the player manages to pull it off (it's difficult, but I tested to make sure it's possible), then they get to bypass a large part of the fight, and they deserve that reward!

 

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if a player manages to get past something in a way that I didn't intend, but which uses only the normal game rules and the resources I provided, they deserve extra XP for that, not punishment.

 

Same goes for grinding.  If a player wants to grind to make a later fight easier, that should not be prevented by a level cap.

[Luminus]

It's two different philosophies.

Personally, I want the final battles to be tough and challenging. If I unintentionally grind and then destroy the final boss, I am turned off and disappointed.
Like "Really?... This is the final boss?".

Many people haven't played the originals. If the cap was removed from the original and people could get to level 15 for example or more, they would steamroll Sarevok and then there would be no going back.

The designers wanted the final battle to be a challenge for everyone. So one of the reasons they put a level cap in BG1 was also to prevent overleveling and having posts on the forums saying "Wow, what a disappointing final battle. I thought it would be tougher."

For example, many many years ago, I played Final Fantasy 7. I wanted to do everything in the game and get all the super weapons and got to level 99. Then I got to the final battle and steamrolled through the final boss, shrugging and going "...Well, that was easy. The final battle should be tougher than that."

If you don't know how hard the final battles would be the first time you play, how would you know not to overlevel? Get spoiled by walkthroughs and other people?

This is why level caps are needed. It's a way of saying: "You cannot overlevel because we want our game to stay challenging."

No, you can never please everyone, but if the designers want their game to be challenging, that's their decision to make even if others disagree.
Because it's their game.

If others disagree on putting caps on SOAR, go to the Toolset - > Open Campaign - > change level cap. Done. Takes 2 mins and less.

And I find "just don't level up" argument pretty silly. Gaining a level is an achievement and a reward.
It's the designers job to regulate the challenge, xp gain and item gain, not mine.

Otherwise the game would tell you "Here's the max xp and the best weapon, if you think it's too easy, don't level up and don't use it."

[Tchos]

It's two different philosophies. Personally, I want the final battles to be tough and challenging. If I unintentionally grind and then destroy the final boss, I am turned off and disappointed.

For example, many many years ago, I played Final Fantasy 7. I wanted to do everything in the game and get all the super weapons and got to level 99. Then I got to the final battle and steamrolled through the final boss, shrugging and going "...Well, that was easy. The final battle should be tougher than that."
If you don't know how hard the final battles would be the first time you play, how would you know not to overlevel? Get spoiled by walkthroughs and other people?

No, you can never please everyone, but if the designers want their game to be challenging, that's their decision to make even if others disagree. Because it's their game.

Otherwise the game would tell you "Here's the max xp and the best weapon, if you think it's too easy, don't level up and don't use it."

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially about it being two different philosophies.  My philosophy is player-focused -- The player gets to decide how to enjoy my work.  If some creators want to alienate some players by preventing them from enjoying the game the way they prefer, then that's their decision.

 

That said, I'm a relatively hardcore player.  Like you, I want battles (the majority of them, not just final ones) to be tough and challenging -- for me, and for the players who want that, but not for those who don't.  Most people who have played my module have commented that it's on the difficult side, though I know at least one such person who rejected my suggestion of setting their game's difficulty lower, or playing with a higher-level party to make it easier for them, and wanted me to nerf everything for everyone.  I didn't do that, because I wanted to give hardcore players a challenge, while providing ways for non-hardcore players to set it to their preference.  It's easy to make a hard game easy, but it's hard to make an easy game hard.

 

In your example, you intentionally leveled to what I presume is the max, and got all super weapons.  I think that any such intentional grinding should be expected to make the ending easy.  Even the first time you play, you should assume that just playing through normally without going out of your way to grind or find secrets or optimum gear, should be adequate to face the final boss.  I haven't played FF7, but I played Chrono Trigger, and I completed it without grinding, power-leveling, or finding the best gear and spells, with a sub-optimal party.

 

Modern games give you overpowered stuff all the time, and the only option is not to use them.  The biggest challenge sometimes is avoiding forced power-increases.  Kingdoms of Amalur, for example, a legendarily easy game even at its hardest difficulty, is more like a reasonable challenge if you never use Reckoning mode and rarely upgrade your gear (though you do have to ignore the constantly pulsing Reckoning meter and its repeated tooltip reminders that you have a full Reckoning bar, and also the irritating "Do you want to change to a lower difficulty level?" prompt if you die on a boss in several attempts), but advancing through the main storyline periodically gives you unavoidable permanent stat bonuses.  I haven't found it possible to avoid outleveling entire zones before I've even started them.

 

Similarly, the game Dishonoured gives you all you really need at the beginning of the game, and there's no need to upgrade anything or level up.  I find it more enjoyable to play that way, and also with all of the objective pointers and other helpers turned off.  I like the fact that the options are there for those who want them, though.

[Luminus]

I'm not bothered about level caps in this game and I can quite happily change things with the toolset so wont lose any sleep over it, I just don't like them in any game at all. I think game makers put in level caps because they're lazy and can't be bothered to make more content not to make it more challenging and enjoyable for the player because that's a complete nonsense. Why not make everybody high level so everybody's challenged and that way the player gets the satisfaction of advancing their character.

Probably because sticking the big boss at the end in at a level that you'll hit if you do the minimum stuff and making everybody that arrives at that point get the same fight is a lot easier than having to try and work it out or make new levels for those that do more. You say yourself that gaining a level is an achievement and a reward so why support caps ? It's impossible to regulate what every player does in a game so why not just let the ones that do more have it a bit easier as part of their reward ?

I don't care about boss fights I always like the journey there more than the final battle and couldn't care less if I kill the big baddie in one hit or one hundred so long as he/she is dead.

I disagree that the reason they put level caps is because they're lazy.
First, a designer cannot predict if a player is going to grind the hell out of their game or play the game normally and as intended.

If you made the final boss extremely difficult and high level as you said, then it would be unfairly difficult for people that didn't grind.
If you grinded and you were 18 level and Sarevok was level 20 for example, it would be still easy for you or just a bit difficult.
If you didn't grind and just did the quests and got at Sarevok at level 10, he would destroy you and you would have no hope.

With a level cap, it's assured that even if you grinded or just played the game normally, you cannot be underleveled or overleveled. It's an equalizer.
By the way, ignoring  all the sidequests and rushing to the final boss, makes it your own fault if you get killed.

The game is made assuming you do most of the sidequests and did all the stuff you needed to do.

And because that's what the designers intended. They wanted to keep the final battle challenging and memorable. If they allowed you to grind your way to epics, you automatically destroy that challenge.

It's saying: "we want everyone to be challenged by the final fight and not steamroll it, so we put a level cap."
That's a design decision.
It's like asking: "Why make Dark Souls so difficult? If you want to steamroll it, you should be able to."
It's because the designers wanted everyone to be challenged.
 

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially about it being two different philosophies.  My philosophy is player-focused -- The player gets to decide how to enjoy my work.  If some creators want to alienate some players by preventing them from enjoying the game the way they prefer, then that's their decision.

 

That said, I'm a relatively hardcore player.  Like you, I want battles (the majority of them, not just final ones) to be tough and challenging -- for me, and for the players who want that, but not for those who don't.  Most people who have played my module have commented that it's on the difficult side, though I know at least one such person who rejected my suggestion of setting their game's difficulty lower, or playing with a higher-level party to make it easier for them, and wanted me to nerf everything for everyone.  I didn't do that, because I wanted to give hardcore players a challenge, while providing ways for non-hardcore players to set it to their preference.  It's easy to make a hard game easy, but it's hard to make an easy game hard.

 

In your example, you intentionally leveled to what I presume is the max, and got all super weapons.  I think that any such intentional grinding should be expected to make the ending easy.  Even the first time you play, you should assume that just playing through normally without going out of your way to grind or find secrets or optimum gear, should be adequate to face the final boss.  I haven't played FF7, but I played Chrono Trigger, and I completed it without grinding, power-leveling, or finding the best gear and spells, with a sub-optimal party.

 

Modern games give you overpowered stuff all the time, and the only option is not to use them.  The biggest challenge sometimes is avoiding forced power-increases.  Kingdoms of Amalur, for example, a legendarily easy game even at its hardest difficulty, is more like a reasonable challenge if you never use Reckoning mode and rarely upgrade your gear (though you do have to ignore the constantly pulsing Reckoning meter and its repeated tooltip reminders that you have a full Reckoning bar, and also the irritating "Do you want to change to a lower difficulty level?" prompt if you die on a boss in several attempts), but advancing through the main storyline periodically gives you unavoidable permanent stat bonuses.  I haven't found it possible to avoid outleveling entire zones before I've even started them.

 

Similarly, the game Dishonoured gives you all you really need at the beginning of the game, and there's no need to upgrade anything or level up.  I find it more enjoyable to play that way, and also with all of the objective pointers and other helpers turned off.  I like the fact that the options are there for those who want them, though.

This is the problem. I want the game to challenge me by design. When you first play a game, you don't know how challenging it is. You level up normally, craft powerful stuff, get powerful stuff etc.
Someone that doesn't know difficult the game is, will take every option to make their lives easier, only to find later or too late that the game by default is very easy and the way to challenge themselves is to self-rescript themselves.

For example, the original Baldur's Gate games are my favorite and the first example. They are praised because they are hard and force you to adapt to them, than adapt the whole game to you.

Skyrim and Oblivion is the other example. The games are EXTREMELY easy on the normal difficult. Because you don't know what you do or don't. Even increasing the difficulty doesn't help because it's the mechanics that give you the edge and the design of the game.

There's a mod for Oblivion that tried to make the game into the first category, making everything harder and nerfing and changing some stuff here and there.
It's Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul and probably one of the most popular mods for Oblivion out there, if not the most popular.
It's because people wanted a game to challenge them and not have to self-restrict them.

And in general, too easy games are considered a bad thing (NwN2 OC, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed). Challenging games are praised (Dark Souls, Ninja Gaiden, Baldur's Gate, Witcher).

I prefer being honest to your players and say "this game is difficult and you should play smart and be careful" than making everything easy for everyone and people having to self-restrict themselves when it's too late.

My example about FF7 is that I made the final boss too easy and a joke without knowing it. I had no idea how hard it would be so I thought I would be prepared. So I ended up messing it up and steamrolling it.
Because I assumed that I would need those to win.

A better example is from Breath of Fire 4. Even if you did almost everything, even grinded with random battles and got the best weapons, the final boss is still very difficult.

And in the spirit of the original games, BGR and SOAR are made with level caps and are made to be challenging.
Design decision by the creators and one I fully support in this case.
BGEE still has a level cap even though all the BG2 spells and abilities exist in the game.

TL;DR: The game should be made to challenge you. You shouldn't be made to challenge yourself.

[Tchos]

It's saying: "we want everyone to be challenged by the final fight and not steamroll it, so we put a level cap."
It's like asking: "Why make Dark Souls so difficult? If you want to steamroll it, you should be able to."
It's because the designers wanted everyone to be challenged.
 

This is the problem. I want the game to challenge me by design. When you first play a game, you don't know how challenging it is. You level up normally, craft powerful stuff, get powerful stuff etc.
Someone that doesn't know difficult the game is, will take every option to make their lives easier, only to find later or too late that the game by default is very easy and the way to challenge themselves is to self-rescript themselves.

And in general, too easy games are considered a bad thing (NwN2 OC, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed). Challenging games are praised (Dark Souls, Ninja Gaiden, Baldur's Gate, Witcher).

 

A key point where we disagree is that I consider the player to be doing the work in either case, and you don't.  They were challenged.  They dealt with the challenge differently -- by putting in the time and effort to make themselves powerful enough to defeat the boss easily.  They spread out the work over time instead of concentrating it in a single battle.  I consider that a valid play style and not something to be restricted.

 

I agree that it's nice to have challenging games.  I disagree that they should be challenging for everyone.  I'm ambivalent about whether it would be nice to know in advance if the final boss will be significantly out of proportion in difficulty compared to the challenges we've been facing up until that point.  In most games (not all), they're pretty good about being harder, but not being orders of magnitude harder, so if you're surviving fine up until that point, you can probably assume that you have a reasonable shot at the final boss.

[Dann-J]

Scaling bosses according to the level of the party would remove the need for a level cap.

 

I had many key NPCs level up to match the party level in Isle of Shrines. At higher levels some encounters got exponentially more difficult due to the greater number and variety of spells and feats the enemies had. One particular deep gnome wizard encountered in one of the three storylines was brutal at epic levels. Often you were better off starting at level one.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

The only level capping that should be necessary is when the content runs out. If you don't have spells for level 31 wizards then don't allow level 31 wizards.  Beyond that there should be no issue.  There should not be any grinding opportunities in SOAR, so unless people import high level characters to start with the designers should know what level characters will be, give or take a level or two. And if someone wants to import high level characters then why not let them? My philosophy is to let people play the game the way they want to and the developers should stay out of the way. If I earned the xp for a level then I should get that level unless the game does not have the content needed to support that level.

 

What I would prefer is no level capping.  The devs can simply state what levels the game is designed for. That is all that is needed to set expectations. There will not be mass outpouring of grief over the last boss battle being too easy. People will instead complain about why they are not leveling up, which is exactly what happened when people played BG and BG2 originally all those years ago.  The cap level removers were the most commonly downloaded patches.  The designers may have thought that capping was good, but players did not. Did anyone play BG without removing the level cap?

 

In the end though it doesn't really matter.  I'll just release an enhancement that removes the level cap.

 

Regards

[Luminus]

Scaling bosses according to the level of the party would remove the need for a level cap.

 

I had many key NPCs level up to match the party level in Isle of Shrines. At higher levels some encounters got exponentially more difficult due to the greater number and variety of spells and feats the enemies had. One particular deep gnome wizard encountered in one of the three storylines was brutal at epic levels. Often you were better off starting at level one.

I REALLY hate when designers do this. It seems lazy and unorganic to me, no offense.
In Oblivion that was an issue where you would find 30 level bandits in Daedric Armor derping around. I despised that.

Part of the fun is outsmarting the enemy with clever tactics like in the Infinity Engine games or feeling the power when you return somewhere and destroy weaker enemies.

I really hate scaling in games. It feels like there's no progression and you are basically at the same level power and just get new stuff.

I prefer static, challenging encounters, both for levels and enemies. Level scaling is something I hate and I know many others that agree with me.
There was this talk in Pillars of Eternity forum, where people really didn't want any scaling in it.
 

The only level capping that should be necessary is when the content runs out. If you don't have spells for level 31 wizards then don't allow level 31 wizards.  Beyond that there should be no issue.  There should not be any grinding opportunities in SOAR, so unless people import high level characters to start with the designers should know what level characters will be, give or take a level or two. And if someone wants to import high level characters then why not let them? My philosophy is to let people play the game the way they want to and the developers should stay out of the way. If I earned the xp for a level then I should get that level unless the game does not have the content needed to support that level.

 

What I would prefer is no level capping.  The devs can simply state what levels the game is designed for. That is all that is needed to set expectations. There will not be mass outpouring of grief over the last boss battle being too easy. People will instead complain about why they are not leveling up, which is exactly what happened when people played BG and BG2 originally all those years ago.  The cap level removers were the most commonly downloaded patches.  The designers may have thought that capping was good, but players did not. Did anyone play BG without removing the level cap?

 

In the end though it doesn't really matter.  I'll just release an enhancement that removes the level cap.

 

Regards

I stand by my opinion that a designer should put some limits so their game doesn't become trivialized.
And yes, I played BG with level caps. And I enjoyed the challenge of the last fight.

If developers don't mind about people steamrolling through their game, then it's fine. But I don't like it.

It's better to have some designed limitations so some people can remove them if they want, than having no limitations so others have to limit themselves.
Because in the first case, only some people will remove the cap. While in the second, only some people will actually follow the instructions and limit themselves.

In short, most will play the game as designed.  Not as instructed to be played. That's why limitations are needed in some form.
 

Different opinions, there's no right or wrong. But I stand by Shallina and Drew and their decision to have a level cap like in the original.
SOAR is a different case as the cap was removed when ToB was released (probably because Watcher's Keep was in).

[Dann-J]

I REALLY hate when designers do this. It seems lazy and unorganic to me, no offense.
In Oblivion that was an issue where you would find 30 level bandits in Daedric Armor derping around. I despised that.

Part of the fun is outsmarting the enemy with clever tactics like in the Infinity Engine games or feeling the power when you return somewhere and destroy weaker enemies.

I really hate scaling in games. It feels like there's no progression and you are basically at the same level power and just get new stuff.

I prefer static, challenging encounters, both for levels and enemies. Level scaling is something I hate and I know many others that agree with me.
There was this talk in Pillar of Eternity were people really didn't want any scaling in it.

 

I only ever do it for special NPCs. I figure they're probably adventurers like the players are, so could conceivably reach any level a player could. I doubt any boss creature sits about resting on their laurels either.

 

I don't see the point of having epic-level commoners attack players with +5 adamantine pitchforks though. In Isle of Shrines I sometimes had several blueprints for each type of encounter-spawned creature, but each creature type had its own level cap. The player might encounter some level 1 crabs, or a level 2 'large' crab, or even a level 3 'giant' crab, but that was as tough as that particular creature could get.

 

One thing I like in any game is replayability. If encounters scale with the player (within appropriate limits), then you get a different experience depending on what level you choose to start at. Many games will present you with different enemies depending on what difficulty mode you choose. Basing it on player level rather than a difficulty mode allows for far more variation in encounters, enhancing replayability.

[Luminus]

Yes, we agree that there shouldn't be epic commoners with 500 HP around for example. (Vanilla Oblivion, I despise you)

For example, in the case of Irenicus, he already had time to become an epic mage. If that encounter was scaled, you could speedrun the game and up fighting a level 15 Irenicus for example.

Or the other extreme, meeting him at level 30 after grinding and he would be level 50, more levels than a god.

For scaling, I prefer something else: decide how powerful an NPC or creature would be based on their background. An archmage wouldn't be level 10 for example.
Put them at a challenging level based on the amount of items and experience the player would more or less have.

Then, if they are higher than the intended level, use lackeys instead or monsters to back him up instead of giving him levels.
So if I overleveled and fought him, he has hired some bodyguards and monsters by then.

This happened in ToB, where if you made a new game in ToB, Illasera would be alone but if you encountered her with a party, she had her own party to back her up.

In your module I would go: "...An epic gnome archmage? Seriously?". I would prefer to just go back and try doing some stuff to level up and be able to take him on or use different tactics.

Numbers over levels, concerning level-scaling is certainly what I prefer.
Facing another party is more exciting than breaking immersion with epic creatures that shouldn't be epic.

[Eguintir Eligard]

Did anyone play BG without removing the level cap?

Yes me and everyone I knew who played it. What was the point of exceeding the level the game is made for? Is it supposed to be fun being level forty with level 7 gear and spells and enemies?

And as for full range scaling encounters if that's going to be the case then why even have levels or sequentially better equipment. None of this is relevant if the campaign is planned well anyway. And I don't care to make or play poorly planned works.

[Shallina]

In TOB reloaded the difficulty scalling is in the difficulty slider.

 

 

Easy = super easy.

Normal = like the original game, probably harder than anything in NWN2 official stuff except maybe the end of the OC, should be similar to it.

Above = it' s made to really challenge the player.

[Shallina]

Mystic theurg need a custom lvling GUI process in order to work correctly, the GUI doesn 't allow access to spell selection if you put a dual spellcasting progression. it's possible to do it, but it ' s out of scope at the moment. So aerie won 't be a mystic theurge.

[rjshae]

@Shallina: do you mean like this GUI?

[Luminus]

Mystic theurg need a custom lvling GUI process in order to work correctly, the GUI doesn 't allow access to spell selection if you put a dual spellcasting progression. it's possible to do it, but it ' s out of scope at the moment. So aerie won 't be a mystic theurge.

It's not necessary for her to select Wizard spells. She can learn them from scrolls, like in the original. And Clerics get all the spells automatically.
 

 

@Shallina: do you mean like this GUI?

It can also work with this GUI but that's only "needed" for spontaneous casters. A Cleric/Wizard or Druid/Wizard or a Cleric/Druid (if such a combo exists for a PrC) all get their spells automaticall.y