Gestalt Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Gestalt Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mtgoracle
09-13-04, 09:09 PM In my gestalt campaign, I've houseruled that the Mystic Theurge and Cerebremancer are unplayable, because they grant you the power of two classes at once, which kind of defeats the purpose of gestalt.
My question is, should the Sacred Fist class also be banned for this reason in my campaign? Are there any other classes that should be banned for this reason?
Dark Cyril
09-14-04, 01:03 AM I don't know about banning the PrCs... maybe you could just change the ruling so that those classes take up both slots of the gestalt character.
Riznar
09-14-04, 05:18 PM The gestalt rules say that you should get rid of those PrC, as well as arcane trickster and eldritch knight.

As for the sacred fist, I'm not sure, it has some very different abilities that niether clerics or monks get.
Razorblade Smile
09-14-04, 07:49 PM I don't know about banning the PrCs... maybe you could just change the ruling so that those classes take up both slots of the gestalt character.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class.

And that's the thing they failed to drive home in the gestalt rules. You're not advancing as two seperate classes. You're combining two classes to form ONE new class. You're not a Wizard and a Cleric, you're a Wizard-Cleric. You're not a Fighter and a Rogue, you're a Fighter-Rogue. You're not a Ranger and a Weapon Master, you're a Ranger-Weapon Master.

I have no idea why they complicated matters the way they did, but... oh well. Never did have much faith in WotC's designers to begin with. :)
Kiri Sittori
09-14-04, 11:52 PM Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class.

And that's the thing they failed to drive home in the gestalt rules. You're not advancing as two seperate classes. You're combining two classes to form ONE new class. You're not a Wizard and a Cleric, you're a Wizard-Cleric. You're not a Fighter and a Rogue, you're a Fighter-Rogue. You're not a Ranger and a Weapon Master, you're a Ranger-Weapon Master.

I have no idea why they complicated matters the way they did, but... oh well. Never did have much faith in WotC's designers to begin with. :)

I'm thinking that Andy wanted to bring back the "feel" of 2e multiclassing when he wrote gestalt: notice that single-pair gestalts are pretty well defined by the RAW, but that adding other classes or PrC's is very, very nebulous. Then think of 2e, where the idea of a fighter/thief picking up mage levels was *impossible* by 2e rules.
philopharynx
09-15-04, 12:15 AM Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class.

The reason they banned it was to prevent somebody taking a fighter-mystic theurge. Which is better than a wizard-cleric. Especially when you consider that they probably started with wizard-cleric and so doesn't lose caster levels for being a mystic theurge.
Razorblade Smile
09-15-04, 12:52 AM The reason they banned it was to prevent somebody taking a fighter-mystic theurge. Which is better than a wizard-cleric. Especially when you consider that they probably started with wizard-cleric and so doesn't lose caster levels for being a mystic theurge.
Err, it may have gotten lost somewhere down the road, but that was my point. The reason they were "banned" had more to do with the fact that they're very very very weak gestalted classes already. If you want to play a Wizard-Cleric gestalt, you're far and away better off continuing to be a Wizard-Cleric than a Mystic Theurge (note the lack of an additional class because of its quasi-gestalt status).

The problem lies more with the presentation of these rules than the rules themselves. They should have said something along the lines of the following: "Prestige classes like the Mystic Theurge are already considered a gestalt class, so you cannot merge them with any other class. However, you are in most cases better off avoiding classes like this because they don't measure up to a genuine gestalt class like the Wizard-Cleric."

Not that I really have a problem with a gestalted Mystic Theurge in the first place. While their spellcasting abilities progress, all of the other perks of the class suffer (familiars, metamagic feats, free spells, turning undead, bardic music, wild shaping, etc.). All the Mystic Theurge receives is extra spell progression, that's it. Sure, a class like the Sorcerer who only has to ditch seeing their familiar advancing has little to lose in a deal like that, but the point still stands in general. And, as you well know, that's why the Mystic Theurge stinks in a normal campaign, let alone a gestalt one.

Of course if the designers had actually designed the core classes so they offered something good and useful with every level or two, it would be a non-issue. But... I'm getting into a rant. Time to pull out. :D
philopharynx
09-17-04, 01:50 AM Well, there's also the fact that the mystic theurge gives you the lowest hp, lowest skill points and only one favored save, most of which are usually alleviated by gestalting.

Actually you can look at a mystic theurge as a wizard or sorceror that gets divine spellcasting levels as class abilities, which makes them rock. Personally, I think familiars blow and the bonus feats every five levels are just so-so. The main reason these classes are weak is that you have to lose caster levels to get them in the first place. With gestalt charcters, that's not an issue.

For another look, let's check out this progression
sor 1/clr 1
sor 2/clr 2
sor 3/clr 3
drd 1/mth 1
drd 2/mth 2

With this, you get the full spellcasting ability of a sorceror and the full casting ability of a cleric, and the casting ability and special features of a druid 2 levels below you.

how's that for nasty?
Razorblade Smile
09-17-04, 05:26 AM For another look, let's check out this progression
sor 1/clr 1
sor 2/clr 2
sor 3/clr 3
drd 1/mth 1
drd 2/mth 2
Except I'm saying that the Mystic Theurge is already a gestalt class so it wouldn't work like that. If allowed, it would look like this:

1st: Wizard-Cleric 1
2nd: Wizard-Cleric 2
3rd: Wizard-Cleric 3
4th: Mystic Theurge 1
5th: Mystic Theurge 2
6th: Mystic Theurge 3

...etc. But being the weak gestalt class that it is, it was (apparently) easier to ban it and not get into a discussion about it. You're always going to be better off with a genuine gestalt class like the Wizard-Cleric. Mystic Theurge offers nothing compared to what you get from that.

'Course, people have a hard enough time understanding that gestalt classes are completely new classes in and of themselves, not simply characters advancing in two classes simultaneously. So, really, it's not all that surprising that they have trouble with this concept, too.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mtgoracle 09-13-04, 09:09 PM	In my gestalt campaign, I've houseruled that the Mystic Theurge and Cerebremancer are unplayable, because they grant you the power of two classes at once, which kind of defeats the purpose of gestalt. My question is, should the Sacred Fist class also be banned for this reason in my campaign? Are there any other classes that should be banned for this reason?
Dark Cyril 09-14-04, 01:03 AM	I don't know about banning the PrCs... maybe you could just change the ruling so that those classes take up both slots of the gestalt character.
Riznar 09-14-04, 05:18 PM	The gestalt rules say that you should get rid of those PrC, as well as arcane trickster and eldritch knight. As for the sacred fist, I'm not sure, it has some very different abilities that niether clerics or monks get.
Razorblade Smile 09-14-04, 07:49 PM	I don't know about banning the PrCs... maybe you could just change the ruling so that those classes take up both slots of the gestalt character. Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class. And that's the thing they failed to drive home in the gestalt rules. You're not advancing as two seperate classes. You're combining two classes to form ONE new class. You're not a Wizard and a Cleric, you're a Wizard-Cleric. You're not a Fighter and a Rogue, you're a Fighter-Rogue. You're not a Ranger and a Weapon Master, you're a Ranger-Weapon Master. I have no idea why they complicated matters the way they did, but... oh well. Never did have much faith in WotC's designers to begin with. :)
Kiri Sittori 09-14-04, 11:52 PM	Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class. And that's the thing they failed to drive home in the gestalt rules. You're not advancing as two seperate classes. You're combining two classes to form ONE new class. You're not a Wizard and a Cleric, you're a Wizard-Cleric. You're not a Fighter and a Rogue, you're a Fighter-Rogue. You're not a Ranger and a Weapon Master, you're a Ranger-Weapon Master. I have no idea why they complicated matters the way they did, but... oh well. Never did have much faith in WotC's designers to begin with. :) I'm thinking that Andy wanted to bring back the "feel" of 2e multiclassing when he wrote gestalt: notice that single-pair gestalts are pretty well defined by the RAW, but that adding other classes or PrC's is very, very nebulous. Then think of 2e, where the idea of a fighter/thief picking up mage levels was impossible by 2e rules.
philopharynx 09-15-04, 12:15 AM	Though in almost every case it's pointless. You're much better off taking both classes together. But if you really want that Mystic Theurge flavor and firmly believe the only way to score it is by taking the class, go for it. It'll just pale next to the actual Wizard-Cleric gestalt class. The reason they banned it was to prevent somebody taking a fighter-mystic theurge. Which is better than a wizard-cleric. Especially when you consider that they probably started with wizard-cleric and so doesn't lose caster levels for being a mystic theurge.
Razorblade Smile 09-15-04, 12:52 AM	The reason they banned it was to prevent somebody taking a fighter-mystic theurge. Which is better than a wizard-cleric. Especially when you consider that they probably started with wizard-cleric and so doesn't lose caster levels for being a mystic theurge. Err, it may have gotten lost somewhere down the road, but that was my point. The reason they were "banned" had more to do with the fact that they're very very very weak gestalted classes already. If you want to play a Wizard-Cleric gestalt, you're far and away better off continuing to be a Wizard-Cleric than a Mystic Theurge (note the lack of an additional class because of its quasi-gestalt status). The problem lies more with the presentation of these rules than the rules themselves. They should have said something along the lines of the following: "Prestige classes like the Mystic Theurge are already considered a gestalt class, so you cannot merge them with any other class. However, you are in most cases better off avoiding classes like this because they don't measure up to a genuine gestalt class like the Wizard-Cleric." Not that I really have a problem with a gestalted Mystic Theurge in the first place. While their spellcasting abilities progress, all of the other perks of the class suffer (familiars, metamagic feats, free spells, turning undead, bardic music, wild shaping, etc.). All the Mystic Theurge receives is extra spell progression, that's it. Sure, a class like the Sorcerer who only has to ditch seeing their familiar advancing has little to lose in a deal like that, but the point still stands in general. And, as you well know, that's why the Mystic Theurge stinks in a normal campaign, let alone a gestalt one. Of course if the designers had actually designed the core classes so they offered something good and useful with every level or two, it would be a non-issue. But... I'm getting into a rant. Time to pull out. :D
philopharynx 09-17-04, 01:50 AM	Well, there's also the fact that the mystic theurge gives you the lowest hp, lowest skill points and only one favored save, most of which are usually alleviated by gestalting. Actually you can look at a mystic theurge as a wizard or sorceror that gets divine spellcasting levels as class abilities, which makes them rock. Personally, I think familiars blow and the bonus feats every five levels are just so-so. The main reason these classes are weak is that you have to lose caster levels to get them in the first place. With gestalt charcters, that's not an issue. For another look, let's check out this progression sor 1/clr 1 sor 2/clr 2 sor 3/clr 3 drd 1/mth 1 drd 2/mth 2 With this, you get the full spellcasting ability of a sorceror and the full casting ability of a cleric, and the casting ability and special features of a druid 2 levels below you. how's that for nasty?
Razorblade Smile 09-17-04, 05:26 AM	For another look, let's check out this progression sor 1/clr 1 sor 2/clr 2 sor 3/clr 3 drd 1/mth 1 drd 2/mth 2 Except I'm saying that the Mystic Theurge is already a gestalt class so it wouldn't work like that. If allowed, it would look like this: 1st: Wizard-Cleric 1 2nd: Wizard-Cleric 2 3rd: Wizard-Cleric 3 4th: Mystic Theurge 1 5th: Mystic Theurge 2 6th: Mystic Theurge 3 ...etc. But being the weak gestalt class that it is, it was (apparently) easier to ban it and not get into a discussion about it. You're always going to be better off with a genuine gestalt class like the Wizard-Cleric. Mystic Theurge offers nothing compared to what you get from that. 'Course, people have a hard enough time understanding that gestalt classes are completely new classes in and of themselves, not simply characters advancing in two classes simultaneously. So, really, it's not all that surprising that they have trouble with this concept, too.