Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_of_69 02-14-08, 10:48 AM	I love gestalt do U? just wondering
nonsi 02-14-08, 03:45 PM	I love gestalt do U? just wondering I my view gestalt is a bad concept. take the following combos for instance: Barb - Wiz (illiterate scholar) Druid - Rogue (natural trapfinder) Spirit Shaman - Swash (spiritual daredevil) Clerit - Scout (holy saboture) Barb - Beguiler (diplomatic brute) Hexblade - Knight (hexing defender) And, here are some combos with little to no synergy: Fav. Soul - Shugenja Druid - Ranger Sorc - Warmage Rogue - Scout And Here are some totally broken combos: Beguiler - Druid (this one does everything by himself - combat, skill, divine & arcane) Barb - Monk (uber attack power) Warlock - Rogue (crazy damage dealer & unstopable infiltrator) Cleric - Wiz (uber spellpower) Ridiculous concepts and total imbalance between the different combinations.
ZiggZagg 02-14-08, 04:21 PM	Too bad the Barbarian Monk is illegal due to alignment restrictions :P I personally like Gestalt sometimes, but sometimes it's nice to go back to basics. However, gestalt allow more room for incredible power matches, like Swordsage/Warblade, Warblade/Crusader, Swordsage//Rogue/Scout (with Swift Ambusher Feat), and stuff like that...ok so I am biased towards Martial Adepts, but I just love them so much...and they gestalt so well :D
DracoPhoenix 02-14-08, 04:34 PM	I like it, but for every "reasonable" combo there's a dozen "broken" ones. But then I multi-class like crazy... (Incarnate / soulknife / Illumine soul, warlock / psion / thurge variant, totemist / incarnate / rogue, the list goes on)
deadkoo 02-14-08, 05:16 PM	Gestalting is VERY fun if you are in a group that doesn't enjoy needless powergaming. looking for a way to break the game and become uber powerful is fun and all that, but it isn't fun to PLAY that game for a long time. because, quite frankly, nothing can touch you. I am in a 3 player(4 w/ dm) and we are all gestalt. it works quite well and we all have fun
Legdiwena 02-14-08, 06:01 PM	Think a bar/ chaos monk is bad? How about a cleric/monk?
Legdiwena 02-14-08, 06:07 PM	Think a bar/ chaos monk is bad? How about a cleric/monk?
deadkoo 02-14-08, 06:34 PM	ewwww.... double post with a 6min interval..
Legdiwena 02-14-08, 06:45 PM	I clicked back and forgot, so I clicked post again. :hides:
pigknight 02-14-08, 07:19 PM	Here is how I gestalt: 1) Pick two base classes. 2) Stick with those.
navar100 02-14-08, 11:11 PM	Gestalt is inherently a high powered game by design. To complain you don't like gestalt because with it you become uberpowerful is non-sequitor. Just admit you don't like high-powered games and be done with it. That some classes gestalt with each other better than other combos is a feature, not a bug. Class synergy is the whole point. I like the image of barbarian/druid myself. Wild shape into an animal then rage. Have your character name be "Rabies". :D I would absolutely love to play a crusader/warblade.
HalfMunchkin 02-14-08, 11:28 PM	Think a bar/ chaos monk is bad? How about a cleric/monk? What is a Chaos Monk and what book is it in? I have seen it mentioned several times, but I have no idea what it is.
Legdiwena 02-15-08, 02:57 PM	Chaos monk is a chaotic aligned monk variant from dragon 335. Overall it's slightly weaker due to losing a few monk abilities, but not a bad class.
squidyak 02-15-08, 09:46 PM	A gestalt game might be fun except for one problem. I just don't see any way to justify not being a spell-caster. Gestalting allows you to remove the major penalty of spellcasters without losing anything. I can't think of any two non-magic types that could be anywhere near the power level of his spell-slinging companions. Fighter/Rogue gets owned by Fighter/Sorcerer. I almost got involved in what would have been a great gestalt pbp, but it fizzled. The concept was that the characters were the animal spirits of legend from American Indian (yes, I prefer American Indian to Native American) myth. Everyone was supposed to pick a class and a race from savage species. So you could be a minotaur/fighter, but not a fighter/cleric.
navar100 02-16-08, 12:07 PM	And wizards "pwn" fighters RAW anyway. "Figthers suck." :rolleyes: We have a thread discussing this in the Classes forum. See also CoDzilla Fallacy.
squidyak 02-16-08, 03:09 PM	And wizards "pwn" fighters RAW anyway. "Figthers suck." :rolleyes: We have a thread discussing this in the Classes forum. See also CoDzilla Fallacy. But gestalts exacerbate the problem by giving them the same attack bonus and hit points as the fighter. All the fighter can do without taking spellcasting classes is maybe get sneak attack by taking rogue levels.
JimProfit 02-16-08, 03:14 PM	Well, as i made in a past topic, if sneak attack could stack and it always be triggerd with AoO, then a gestalt sneak attack varaint fighter/rogue would cripple anyone who provoked attack of oppurtunity immideatly. He really couldn't do much else. But menh. If GMs enforced the rules of cost for spells, spellcasting wouldn't be so powerful. I'd drop concentration and just make spellcraft the check for casting. (Knowledge arcana could do what spellcraft normaly does) Somatic components: Kindof makes it hard to peform a spell if you have anything in your hand other then matireal components for a spell, so if you've got even a weapon in hand you should take a -4 penalty. Verbal components: If for some reason you can't pronounce the words of the spell, that's gonna make it go awry too. (Just watch evil dead) Differant spells should come in differant languages, and obviously you can't just speak it but gotta know how to read/write. -8 penalty if you don't know the language both verbaly and written. Matireal components: Obviously matireal components plays a huge role as an offering and or some alchemist like mixture. You might be able to getby on just a few of the components, but you can take anywhere from a -2 to -5 penalty. Sorcerers would not need matireal components for thier spells, it's not quite spell-like ability. But close enough to make it easier on you. Bards can replace thier spellcraft check with a peform check, though they still need all the requirements. This just saves them from having to spend skillpoints and they can make money while doing a spell. (David Blaine would make a good bard you know it to be true!) From the way this sounds, spellcasting is both tedious and random. Immagine being a gestalt spellcaster build. You think you're tottaly invunerible. Even if the check is only 10+the spell's level. You get shot in the hand with a crossbow bolt, suddenly that hand isn't equipped to do spells, now you take the -4 penalty. This spell was written in draconic and you only know common/elven! You take a -8 penalty. And whod've thought of bringing two copper pieces?! You take a -2 penalty. And a failure shouldn't mean "nothing happens", it should mean "things don't go your way". This obviously does not solve all dillemmas. For example the warlock's invocations are immune, and the druid still has wildshape. (Infact one of my friends suggested a druid/rogue to sneak attack while in beastly form for large amounts of damage) I could go on and on about changes, but the sad fact remains wotc failed to create game balance with the core classes. Let alone non-core matireal.
navar100 02-16-08, 06:39 PM	But gestalts exacerbate the problem by giving them the same attack bonus and hit points as the fighter. All the fighter can do without taking spellcasting classes is maybe get sneak attack by taking rogue levels. Someone plays a fighter/rogue gestalt because he wants to. He might even choose fighter/barbarian. He doesn't have to "justify" why he's not a fighter/sorcerer. All you are really saying is "fighters suck". It has nothing to do with gestalt. The current debate in Classes Forum about this is 37 pages as I type this and counting ...
squidyak 02-16-08, 06:55 PM	Someone plays a fighter/rogue gestalt because he wants to. He might even choose fighter/barbarian. He doesn't have to "justify" why he's not a fighter/sorcerer. All you are really saying is "fighters suck". It has nothing to do with gestalt. The current debate in Classes Forum about this is 37 pages as I type this and counting ... No, it isn't what I'm saying. I don't think fighters suck. In a gestalt game, a wizard gains far more by taking levels in a warrior class than a fighter gains by taking a second non-magical class. The wizard gets to keep his spell casting while eliminating all his weaknesses, while the fighter only gets to add a few more abilities. If you'd prefer, I'll replace the fighter with the barbarian, ranger, paladin, or any other class that is primarily a non-spellcaster. You are completely misenterpreting my post. It is not in any way an attack on the viability of the fighter as a stand alone class.
deadkoo 02-16-08, 07:09 PM	as I said before. If you are playing with powergamers, then a gestalt game is going to go down the crapper VERY fast. Play with a group of heavy RPers and people that enjoy getting into their PCs and playing them as they REALLY would act (like that 6int barb blindly does what the rogue tells him too "Cuz te lil guy i' so smert!". alternativly, if you have a small number of players, then gestalt can be really handy... Last but not least, the MAJOR thing about gestalt, is that you still only get one action per round. As a lvl 10 gestalt PC you aint gonna be fighting CR 10 creatures(at lvl 8 my group is roughly fighting 11-12CR battles, sometimes more depending on situation). We basically get our asses kicked every time, but due to our versatility we can adapt and turn the battle around into our favor.. true, I normally end up close to negative HP, and our tank has been killed a few times, but we find it fun. and at the end of the day, thats what counts. If you and your PCs/DM are having fun, then your doing something right.
Galadare 02-16-08, 07:26 PM	Personally, the problem I have with gestalt classes is that (from the DM's standpoint) 3.X generates enough homework as it is without also giving spells to the tanks. If the players are having fun but the DM isn't, the game is just as broken.
squidyak 02-17-08, 03:00 PM	as I said before. If you are playing with powergamers, then a gestalt game is going to go down the crapper VERY fast. Play with a group of heavy RPers and people that enjoy getting into their PCs and playing them as they REALLY would act (like that 6int barb blindly does what the rogue tells him too "Cuz te lil guy i' so smert!". Even with heavy rpers, it's no fun to play a character that isn't any where near the rest of the party's characters. Playing a non-spellcasting gestalt is like playing an aristocrat in a standard game. Just flat-out behind the curve.
Rhyvurg 02-17-08, 07:13 PM	I'm currently DMing a level 15 Gestalt game, and strict class combo rules are keeping the powergaming down, like only one full-casting/manifesting class. But I like Gestalt for the occasional bit of indulgent fun.
Thane26425 02-17-08, 07:59 PM	Gestalt can be fun and I agree that it isn't all about powergaming or the "best" combos. My current character it a warlock/mage gestalt. He's working out pretty well. In my campaigns, including the one I am playing this character in because the DM liked the idea, is to use the multiclassing rule, that more than one class distracts attention and slows advancement. Gestalts take a 20% xp penalty. There are also some mis limitations like others have mentioned, so there is no stacking sneak attack with skirmish for insane damage or anything like that. I also don't require everyone to to gestalt, which also works out well, particularly if I give a solo or small group advanture for the gestalters to keep them from getting too far behind the non-gestalt players.
JimProfit 02-17-08, 08:28 PM	If you want game balance maybe you should roll d100s and use the background generator introduced in unearthed arcana. Restricting what a person can be/do/what feats and skills they have. It works alot better. Not everyone can be a wizard, even if they want too. Combined with stat rolls it forces players to think strategicaly and as a team instead of "i have the most power, therefore i win"..
pigknight 02-17-08, 10:02 PM	In my gestalt campain I disallow multiclassing (including PrCs) because with two classes you can make any archtype. Want a death knight? Fighter/Cleric. Want a barbarian/beserker? Fighter/Barbarian. Want a rockstar? Barbarian/Bard (I've play tested it actually is pretty good). Want a mystic theurge? Wizard/Archivist. The funny thing is that my players aren't min-maxed (except the tank). A lvl 8 Dragonborn (homebrew version) fighter/gold dragon shaman, a lvl 8 human knight/fighter, a lvl 8 human fighter/negative cleric of death and retribution, and a lvl 6 gnome ninja/rogue.
Master_of_69 02-18-08, 09:43 AM	Yeah I am running a Martial combo Fighter 13 /warblade 11 / master of nine 2 the combo of thicket of blades stance with ribolors gambit = insane number of attack of oppourtunity not sure what direction to take him next...
yellowdingo 02-23-08, 08:12 AM	I called it a metaclass long before they brought out the Gestalt, but I enjoyed the Shadowblade (an executioner made from thief-fighter), the Crusader (a non-chaotic Cleric-Fighter), the Scout (a non LG Fighter-Thief), the Wardens (LN Druid-Fighter) with their steam pistols and a warrant, The Artisan (Mage-Thief), even the Mystaran Elf (Fighter-Mage), Mystaran Witchdoctor (Necromancy mage-Death Cleric). They can have the power of two classes (Warden L5 = Fighter L5 / Druid L5) but they must earn double the exp.
Dan Hemmens 02-23-08, 08:39 AM	I my view gestalt is a bad concept. take the following combos for instance: Barb - Wiz (illiterate scholar) Druid - Rogue (natural trapfinder) Spirit Shaman - Swash (spiritual daredevil) Clerit - Scout (holy saboture) Barb - Beguiler (diplomatic brute) Hexblade - Knight (hexing defender) What's wrong with ... well ... any of those? Sure if you take the most simplistic and restrictive stereotype of each class you have huge issues, but then you always do: Fighter/Rogue (stealthy tank), Fighter/Wizard (armoured caster), Rogue/Ranger (wilderness thief). If you stop looking at the class and look at the characters, you'll see that there's basically nothing wrong with *any* of the characters you list.
Kursk 02-23-08, 09:43 AM	GESTALT AWESOME... or not? From the viewpoint of "does it improve the D&D game system?" Not.
Tytalus 02-26-08, 11:04 AM	From the viewpoint of "does it improve the D&D game system?" Not. I disagree. It allows a variety of character concepts to be mechanically viable that are otherwise hard to realize without excessive multiclassing.
Selgard 02-26-08, 12:01 PM	It's also a very useful variant for *small* campaigns. (and by small i mean 2-3 people + dm). The game (and by that, i mean the CR system and published modules) assume you have a tanky type, a healy type, an arcane caster type, and someone who can detect traps. Gestalt allows you to do this, even in the boundaries of 2 players and a DM.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-26-08, 12:05 PM	Gestalt can really screw you over if you don't know what you are doing. For example, compare Fighter/Barbarian to Fighter/rogue or fighter/cleric. Doubling up on similar classes doesn't actually make you much better. But using two different archetypes does in fact make you pretty good.
elondir 02-26-08, 01:17 PM	I prefer gestalt where you pick two or three classes and stick with them. In addition, playing a gestalt character gives you a +1 level adjustment per class after the first that cannot be bought back with xp, and forbids you from taking any other classes. So if you pick fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue you're a fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue your whole career, with a permanent +3 level adjustment. This system is very close to the 2nd edition AD&D multiclass system without some of the annoyances like racial level limits, weapon & armor restrictions, and the half-xp effect after 9th level. I also ignore arcane spell failure.
squidyak 02-26-08, 07:32 PM	In addition, playing a gestalt character gives you a +1 level adjustment per class after the first that cannot be bought back with xp, and forbids you from taking any other classes. I really like that, it actually makes gestalts playable in all campaigns. The only problem I see is combinations like fighter/wizard. A 6th level fighter/wizard is significantly more powerful than a 7th level fighter. Maybe the first class being a +2 adjustment would work. 7th level fighter vs 5th level fighter/wizard seems fair.
Legdiwena 02-26-08, 07:44 PM	Gestalt works with any campaign by default, you make all PC gestalt and important NPC gestalt.
Hellsbells 02-26-08, 08:46 PM	I once decided to make a shamany druid type figure without using druid and decided to go with a gestalt barbarian/sorcerer. It was pretty fun. My group is heavy on RP though.
ToastedAmphibian 02-26-08, 09:10 PM	Also, gestalt works well if you want your players to use alot of higer powered critters with LA and or Racial HD (Like gargoyles or half-giant wear bears or some such) Or if you want to restrict magical power without hampering the party too much. (Say, not letting them have more levels in a casting class than 1 per 2 hd)
I_roll_ones 02-27-08, 04:12 PM	Barb - Wiz (illiterate scholar) Once the barbarian takes his wizard level, he gains the literate benefit of the Wizard, so he's never actually illiterate. But what happens if a barbarian culture has contact with a non-barbarian culture? Some might learn to read, if only to know what other people are doing. (And perhaps to figure out what store signs mean, if they decide to do trade). Perhaps a character was born of two cultures, and as a child, spent time in both. Maybe he was frailer then his agemates, so when he heard of a travelling wizard who saw magical potential in him, the child decided to become an apprentice, so that he could benefit his clan, and bolster his combat abilities with magic. Druid - Rogue (natural trapfinder) I'd be more worried about wildshape, but if that is not an issue, then it is a druid that seeks to protect their forest/area. They realize that they cannot be everywhere at once, but rather then risk the lives of their animals unnecessarily, they instead use traps to defend their grove. The traps protect when they are not present, or against larger forces. It might also encourage people to go elsewhere, and pester some other druid(Or not go near the holy site) Spirit Shaman - Swash (spiritual daredevil) Pick up air spells. The spirit that the Spirit Shaman communes the most with are the air spirits, and they have granted the Spirit Shaman increased agility. Double awesome if the spirt shaman reveres air spirits or an air god. Cleric - Scout (holy saboture) Several PrC like that out there. And it makes a lot of sense for assassin gods, trickster gods, etc. I'm not familar with Greyhawk, but FR has PLENTY of gods that either have clerics with access to the Trickery Domain, have cleric/rogues, or cleric/assassins. Wasn't this even an acceptable multiclass option for orcs in 1st edition? Not sure what the issue is with this one. Barb - Beguiler (diplomatic brute) Barbarians are chaotic or neutral. Maybe one is from a tribe that uses magic(Maybe there are both warriors and casters, and some take on both). They see the arcane as a tool and a weapon to be used against their enemies. Maybe they were once enslaved by a magic-wielding culture, and decided to fight fire with fire. Instead of witches and sages that are divien casters, they respect intelligence as much as fighting ability, and go to their casters for tactical advice. But because life is also harsh, these casters must use their intelligence to train in the skills necessary to defend themselves, by either making alliances with other tribes and resovling disputes, or to make traps to protect the village. They have their own sort of honor, which is that if you fall to a spell, too bad, the others win. The character would be unusually adept at both, being a powerful member of their tribe. Hexblade - Knight (hexing defender) An evil knight, sworn to curse, befuddle and weaken his enemies in the service of his lord, perhaps a god, or even a cleric or mage who the knight/hex blade protects. He weakens the opponents so that his lord can use divine wrath to destroy their bodies and sap their wills. He exposes weakness in his enemies for the folly of daring to defy him. He is sworn to protect his lord at all costs, so that those who claim to be righteous will be proven to be the weak fools that they are, and to conquer the world, allowing his lord to take his rightful place as a ruler over all. I don't see the issue with most of these concepts, through I'll admit that the beguiler/barbarian is a tad weak. I did actually RP a character like this once, through it was a Bard/Fighter/BG. She had Cursesong, and didn't really act like a bard(Videogame, so I couldn't take Hexbalde, but that suited the concept more) in that she didn't care about are, she cared about power to better serve her god and his chosen followers. If she could weaken the fools in her Lord's way, then she was helping her god bring about his plans. It was quite fun, really. For a knight, the character would need to be LE, but it's sorta like a LE blackguard or a Paladin of Tyranny. The knight provides a twisted, evil code of honor, and the hexblade is used instead of auras. However, gestalt can make more varied characters with lots of nifty abilities. It also decreases the need for certain classes, if you can fulfill more roles with one character.