Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SlatzGrubnik 12-02-06, 02:06 AM	Would the sneak attack damage from both classes stack? or would you simply get the better one?
Chrono Nexus 12-02-06, 02:23 AM	Gestalt rules = inherently broken. Since ninja do not receive a SA bonus, but rather sudden strike, they should stack as separate class features.
SlatzGrubnik 12-02-06, 02:29 AM	lol i know they are broken, im going to run a rediculously powerful campaign, just for fun :) the group i play with need to have more fun and relax, this campaign is not to be taken seriously... lol
DM Zoc 12-02-06, 02:29 AM	As a DM, I would rule that sudden strike is a subset of sneak attack, and you would only gain the sneak attack ability. More so than any other optional rule, gestalt requires the DM to be okay with making additional house rules in order to balance class combinations.
Krusk 12-02-06, 02:45 AM	Id say they do stack, but in order for both to get applied you are going to have to meet the prereques for both abilities. which are slightly diffrent. Its a little bit, but not much harder to sudden strike. Im pretty sure they stack in non gestalt so i see no reason why they dont in gestalt.
enlightened 12-02-06, 04:02 AM	My take on it is that they are different abilities and so you would have them both but you couldn't use them both at the same time. You would have to choose one or the other.
Wilds 12-02-06, 02:13 PM	Would you stop a Sorcerer/Wizard from having access to both spell casting abilities? No So why stop a Ninja/Rogue from getting its different abilities at the same time?
Retromancer 12-02-06, 02:54 PM	Gestalt rules = inherently broken. Isn't that the point?
enlightened 12-02-06, 05:19 PM	Would you stop a Sorcerer/Wizard from having access to both spell casting abilities? No So why stop a Ninja/Rogue from getting its different abilities at the same time? Would you let a sorcerer 3//wizard 3 cast both a sorcerer spell and a wizard spell at the same time? Or would you let them cast third level spells (as if they were 6th level casters)? Probably not, right? It's the same thing. The sorcerer//wizard has both abilities but he can't use them at the same time. He has to choose one or the other. So, it would seem logical that the same would hold true for other groups of similar abilities. Also, keep in mind that there is a big difference between these things stacking for a multiclass character and them stacking for a gestalt character. The mulitclass characters needs them to stack in order to be at the same power level as the rest of the group. However, if they were to stack for a gestalt character they would be above the power level of the group. I believe that gestalt characters are intended to have the abilities of two classes but not to have any single ability that is above what a character of their level could have. Just as a sorcerer3//wizard3 shouldn't be able to cast spells of higher level than a wizard3 could, a rogue3//ninja3 shouldn't be able to sneak attack better than what a rogue 3 could.
YamiSouru 12-02-06, 05:44 PM	been awhile sence i looked at sudden striek but if i remember right to use sudden strike you have to meet all the reqs for sneak attack and a few more things like actually being able to hit a vital spot. So iI would rule that they count as different abilties though this would make the combo extremely strong. Oh well one way or another you get a bitter deal.
andrewknaut 12-02-06, 05:45 PM	They are called two different abilites, and even though they basicly do the same thing they are different. If this character gets a person flat footed he would get both...after words he would not be getting sudden strike.
Wilds 12-02-06, 05:54 PM	I just meant that I wouldnt nerf some ones character just because it would be too powerful. That is the point of gestalt. And sneak attack and sudden strike while simialar are different abilities, i wouldnt make the player pick one or the other. Though they might face more undead or contructs or elementals :D
enlightened 12-02-06, 06:09 PM	My point is that a rogue 3//ninja 3 shouldn't have any abilities that are over what a rogue 3 or a ninja 3 could have individualy. My interpretation of gestalt is that you get more abilities not more powerful abilities. If they are multiclass they stack because the end result is an ability that is not over what a character of that level could achieve. However, if you allow them to stack for gestalt then you are giving a (for example) third level character the abilities of a sixth level character.
KurenaiYami 12-02-06, 06:17 PM	Would you let a sorcerer 3//wizard 3 cast both a sorcerer spell and a wizard spell at the same time? If one was quickened, yes.
Larz_Fang 12-02-06, 06:27 PM	I just keep hearing about Gestalt characters, but I don't quite understand them since I don't possess Unearthed Arcana yet, but I am getting my hands on one next week. What I do know is that Gestalt characters are supposed to get 2 or more classes as one class like for example Fighter/Druid(1) at first level instead of multiclassing as Fighter(1)/Druid(1). Am I correct?
Grizzled Gryphon 12-02-06, 06:50 PM	Indeed, that is exactly what Gestalt is. As to the OP, of course, if the requirements for any given ability are met, then the effects of that ability may be applied. Now, if sneak attack or sudden strike actually used an action to do, that might effect wether you can do both. However, if you meet the requirements for sudden strike, you also meet the requirements for sneak attack would apply. Thus, the player can apply both, one, or the other, as he/she wishes.
ravenshrike 12-02-06, 06:58 PM	Go rogue/scout or rogue/duskblade instead. Scout gets you skirmish damage and higher AC, Duskblade gets you arcane channeling. Both give you a higher hit die. The scout's probably more fun because you get a bunch of movement bonuses, which would help a lot in combat.
Magrus 12-02-06, 07:08 PM	I just keep hearing about Gestalt characters, but I don't quite understand them since I don't possess Unearthed Arcana yet, but I am getting my hands on one next week. What I do know is that Gestalt characters are supposed to get 2 or more classes as one class like for example Fighter/Druid(1) at first level instead of multiclassing as Fighter(1)/Druid(1). Am I correct? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm Enjoy.
Malakai_Demonos 12-02-06, 07:30 PM	I tend to run a lot of gestalt games; I don't know why, I just love them. Allowing sneak attack and sudden strike to stack isn't that powerful as it's hard to get both all the time. Yes, a ninja can go invisable; but, only so many times per day. Also, at higher levels sneak attack gets more and more worthless. There are many powerful monsters that are immune; someone already mentioned undead, plants, constructs and elementals; and people having fortificaton armor isn't too unordinary at high levels. Also, without his sneak attack or sudden strike damage, said charater is a little usless in combat and won't pack much power. However, going catfolk Ninja/rogue and taking catfold pounce is little overpowering. Catfolk pounce allows you to make a full attack whenever you charge someone who is flat-footed. Combined with two-weapon fighting and it's a recipe for lot's of damage in Gestalt.
Sphyre 12-03-06, 12:07 AM	Heh, if that doesn't work you can just take another class that has full sneak attack progression (I'm sure there's one, because what I'm about to suggest, i remember seeing elsewhere), you can take rogue1/something1 your first level, second level take rogue2/full SA class1 for your second level. Strictly speaking since rogue 2 doesn't have +1d6 sneak attack, you and the second full SA class does, you get another +1d6, so it's a d6 every level... But hey, if you're playing gestalt, you're playing it to be powerful to begin with, so what's stopping you?
Xavon 12-03-06, 04:01 PM	The normal rules for multiclassing rogue, ninja, and scout allow for stacking if the attack meats all the requisites. So Gestalt should be the same...
DM Zoc 12-03-06, 04:39 PM	The easiest rule is to disallow gestalting of similar classes. No sorcerer/wizards, no fighter/barbarians, and no rogue/ninjas. This will help create many versatile characters, instead of focused characters who are focused even more narrowly than normal.
Millennium 12-03-06, 05:14 PM	I would rule that you gain both progressions as separate abilities, but they are in fact separate abilities: they don't stack. As precedent, I would put forth the fact that the caster levels of a gestalt wizard/sorcerer do not stack: even though they involve the same spells they are separate abilities.
enlightened 12-03-06, 07:15 PM	The normal rules for multiclassing rogue, ninja, and scout allow for stacking if the attack meats all the requisites. So Gestalt should be the same... I don't imagine that I will be changing your mind with this but... I think that multi class stacking and gestalt stacking should be handled differently. If you have a rogue 3/ ninja 3 // fighter 6 then I think the sudden strike damage from the three levels of ninja and the sneak attack damage from the three levels of rogue should stack, but .... If you have a rogue 6// ninja 6 then I don't think they should stack. There is no precedent of anything else in gestalt stacking (things overlap). Why should this be different?
Chrono Nexus 12-03-06, 07:37 PM	There is no precedent of anything else in gestalt stacking (things overlap). Why should this be different? Because they are seperate class features. They have different requirements. If you really want to play a balanced game of DnD, don't use gestalt. It's that easy.
enlightened 12-04-06, 08:04 AM	Because they are seperate class features. They have different requirements. This sounds like a reason to NOT let the player use them at the same time (i.e. NOT let them stack). Are there any other two class features that one can use at the same time in the game? Also, I'm not sure I agree that playing gestalt is a license to throw the concept of balance out of the window. But meh..
mkill 12-04-06, 11:16 AM	Guys, this is posting number #27 and I am the first one to actually look at the rules... "The extra damage from Sudden Strike stacks with the extra damage from sneak attack whenever both apply." There you are, right in the ninja class sudden strike ability description. And, even in Gestalt, this should be a minor problem. Why? Because Gestalt is about creating characters with a broad range of abilities. A ninja-rogue, on the other hand, is a one-trick pony. Okay, so he can pull of a +20d6 sneak attack / sudden strike at lvl 20/20. Whew, 70 damage, or 210 in 3 attacks... At what cost? - d6 hd - no spellcasting (!!!) - almost identical class skill list - 3/4 BAB - lots of wasted class abilities because you gain them twice - lots of combats where you are useless (undead, plants, constructs, oozes) Is that worth it? Compare what a Duskblade / Wizard 20/20 can do, or a Barbarian / Dread Necromancer, or a Cleric / Artificer, or a Warlock / Rogue ... The easiest rule is to disallow gestalting of similar classes. No sorcerer/wizards, no fighter/barbarians, and no rogue/ninjas. This will help create many versatile characters, instead of focused characters who are focused even more narrowly than normal. Any smart player who wants a powerful character will combine two very different classes. But then, the rule you suggested will rule out weak combinations like sorc/wiz, probably a good idea to ensure PC survival in a tough gestalt environment.
enlightened 12-04-06, 05:07 PM	Guys, this is posting number #27 and I am the first one to actually look at the rules... "The extra damage from Sudden Strike stacks with the extra damage from sneak attack whenever both apply." There you are, right in the ninja class sudden strike ability description. I think we are all in agreement about that in regards to normal multiclassing. We are just discussing whether or not that rule should transfer over to gestalt. See posts #9, #13 and #24. And, even in Gestalt, this should be a minor problem. Why? Because Gestalt is about creating characters with a broad range of abilities. A ninja-rogue, on the other hand, is a one-trick pony. Okay, so he can pull of a +20d6 sneak attack / sudden strike at lvl 20/20. Whew, 70 damage, or 210 in 3 attacks... At what cost? - d6 hd - no spellcasting (!!!) - almost identical class skill list - 3/4 BAB - lots of wasted class abilities because you gain them twice - lots of combats where you are useless (undead, plants, constructs, oozes) Is that worth it? Compare what a Duskblade / Wizard 20/20 can do, or a Barbarian / Dread Necromancer, or a Cleric / Artificer, or a Warlock / Rogue ... Any smart player who wants a powerful character will combine two very different classes. But then, the rule you suggested will rule out weak combinations like sorc/wiz, probably a good idea to ensure PC survival in a tough gestalt environment. I see your point. :D In the end, it may not actually make such a difference in the game. It's just the principle of the thing.
baltasar_basilius 12-04-06, 05:22 PM	If they are different abilities, and stack in a normal campaign.... why do they start being similar abilities that don't stack in gestalt? In the great wide, open world of gestalt- where broken builds flow like milk and honey... is stacking forms of attacks really that big of a deal? I agree with Mkill though- 2 classes that have very similar abilities shouldn't be your first line of defense.
DarkThoughts24 12-04-06, 05:35 PM	sudden strike sucks. (and I like the dread commando prc, hate to say it) unless you have a flick of the wrist twf dagger belt build, the odds of consistant sudden striking and sneaking people in battle is low. if dice of damage saved days, the warmage would be beloved by all. allow it and encourage them to take telling blow. they need all the use of those dice they are going to get.
enlightened 12-04-06, 06:20 PM	If they are different abilities, and stack in a normal campaign.... why do they start being similar abilities that don't stack in gestalt? First of all, I think you are confusing bonuses stacking with abilities stacking. Bonuses of different types stack all over the place, but this is the only place in the game where two abilities (in other words, actions) stack. I mean think about it. Can a Barbarian//rogue rage and sneak attack in the same action? Can a paladin//ninja (cool concept) lay on hands and sudden strike in the same action? Abilities (actions) don't stack anywhere else except this sneak attack/sudden strike thing. A rogue 5/ ninja 5 is a 10th level character and his sneak attack and sudden strike stack and together they give him the ability of a 10th level character. A rogue 10// ninja 10 is also a 10th level character but if you stack them for him he gets the sneak attack out put of a 20th level character. And regardless of how that stands up to the abilities of the other party members, on principle, that it just something that should not be, in my mind. But like I said, I don't imagine that it will cause any problems in play....it just simply shouldn't be possible for a 10th level character to gain the ability of a 20th level character. Over-powered or not, under-powered or not, gestalt or not, I just don't think it should be possible.
Rivelstraz 12-04-06, 08:13 PM	This sounds like a reason to NOT let the player use them at the same time (i.e. NOT let them stack). Are there any other two class features that one can use at the same time in the game? Also, I'm not sure I agree that playing gestalt is a license to throw the concept of balance out of the window. But meh.. Sneak attack + Smite Evil, while raging, with stunning fist (there's even a feat combining both, aestic rogue or something like I think), with death attack (since it's an expanded use to say so) and a long list. With Smite Evil (or good, for Blackguards who got both Smite & SA) you get a bonus to your attack and damage for sneak attack. I fail to see your point of combining two class features to be honest. Perhaps I'm just tired. I don't see the problem of both stacking. By RAW, they stack. Gestalts, as said multiple times in this same thread, are not balanced to begin with. A non-gestalt Cleric or Druid at level 10 (or higher) is probably stronger in combat than a gestalt of rogue/ninja anyways.
enlightened 12-04-06, 08:39 PM	Sneak attack + Smite Evil, while raging, with stunning fist (there's even a feat combining both, aestic rogue or something like I think), with death attack (since it's an expanded use to say so) and a long list. I guess I must be interpreting the rage rules differently than you guys. I feel that sneak attack, death attack, smite evil, and possibly even stunning fist require concentration which would make them unusable during rage. Even though it doesn't specifically mention them it does imply that you can't do anything that would require finesse or focus, which I think all of those require. I understand that many people are not that strict on the interpretation, though. By RAW, they stack. I just think that it shouldn't be that way for gestalt....but it's fine for normal multiclassing, though. Gestalts, as said multiple times in this same thread, are not balanced to begin with. I think gestalt can be balanced if you try to. The reason it usually isn't balanced is because everybody agrees not to think about balance when it comes to gestalt. A non-gestalt Cleric or Druid at level 10 (or higher) is probably stronger in combat than a gestalt of rogue/ninja anyways. In comparision, it is not an over-powered ability, I agree. I just think that the idea of a 10th level character getting a 20th level ability, is on principle not a good thing. And would be a bad precedent to set. To cap this conversation I would like to say that, of course, the "letter" of the rules doesn't disallow this is any way, but it goes against the "spirit" of the rules. And the spirit of the rules is "Thou shalt not possess abilities above thine level.....no matter what".
Derrick 12-05-06, 10:29 AM	I guess I must be interpreting the rage rules differently than you guys. I feel that sneak attack, death attack, smite evil, and possibly even stunning fist require concentration which would make them unusable during rage. Even though it doesn't specifically mention them it does imply that you can't do anything that would require finesse or focus, which I think all of those require. I understand that many people are not that strict on the interpretation, though. The example given was suspect. The rules on Rage prohibit using abilities that require patience or concentration - that will certainly rule out death attack, and probably sneak attack as well. (I don't see anything wrong with Smite Evil being used while raging, however, and Stunning Fist doesn't seem any more demanding than using the Disarm maneuver.) That said, your reply is insufficient. If we redraw the example without Rage, you've failed to do anything to suggest that Smite, Sneak Attack, Death Attack, Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm shouldn't be allowed to be combined in a single attack. Further, even if you had provided an argument to this effect, there'd be the slippery slope reply. (If you're not familiar with it, it asks a series of questions, such as, "Well, then, can a Monk Quivering Palm and Stunning Fist on the same attack? Can a Blackguard Smite Good and Sneak Attack on the same attack? ... Can a Fighter use Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on the same attack?" and inserts a "Why is that case different?" if you change your answer.) I think gestalt can be balanced if you try to. The reason it usually isn't balanced is because everybody agrees not to think about balance when it comes to gestalt. What do you mean by "balance"? I think it's important to internally balance gestalt, by making sure that the characters all have a role in the party and that the party faces threats appropriate to its abilities. I don't, however, think that it's important to make sure that a character in my game is limited in the same way that they would be in your game. In comparision, it is not an over-powered ability, I agree. I just think that the idea of a 10th level character getting a 20th level ability, is on principle not a good thing. And would be a bad precedent to set. The principle is actually pretty clear. Gestalt characters may freely combine abilities provided that these abilities have different titles. To cap this conversation I would like to say that, of course, the "letter" of the rules doesn't disallow this is any way, but it goes against the "spirit" of the rules. And the spirit of the rules is "Thou shalt not possess abilities above thine level.....no matter what". Define "abilities above thine level". It doesn't sound like a principled convention to me, unless you're going to be so restrictive as to ban the simultaneous use of Weapon Specialization and Smite Evil by characters with less than four non-Paladin (or whatever's providing the Smite power) levels, etc. This practice would, of course, have nothing to do with balance, as you've already admitted that you wouldn't try to stop some of the more potent gestalts.
Norr 12-05-06, 11:13 AM	It seems that many think you should disallow the ninja/rouge one ability or limit him/her in some way. These rulings are based on the conception that Gestalt is broken which, admittedly, it is, unless ALL characters are gestalt. Sneak attack and Sudden strike are similar, yes, but they are different class abilities, just as Sneak attack and Skirmish. A rouge2/ninja2 get 1d6 sneak attack and 1d6 sudden strike. A gestalt rouge/ninja 4 get 2d6 sneak attack and 2d6 sudden strike. A gestalt rouge/ninja 5 get 3d6 sneak attack and 3d6 sudden strike. If this character flanked a target he would sneak attack for base damage + 3d6. If the same character instead struck a flat-footed target he would sneak attack AND sudden strike the target for base damage + 6d6 (3d6 sneak attack and 3d6 sudden strike). A maxed bluff skill and the improved feint feat are a must for every melee ninja. Bottom line: There is no reason for disallowing this char to have both class features, at least not in the RAW. Sure, you can 'balance' gestalt characters so that they are not SO overpowered, but that takes away the whole point of gestalt. If you are worried about balance, don't run a gestalt campain, multiclass instead. NOTE: This is only partly for you who started the thread (ie allow him both abilities, let him rock ;)), but mostly for those other posters who complain about the gestalt. It's an optional rule, intended for use with ALL PCs going gestalt. With NPCs also going gestalt (at least BBEGs) and powerful monsters gestalt rules are not overpowered, they merely set a higher power level for the campain. It's a game, people! Oh, and if the caster complains about not being able to dish out the damage of this guy, give him the chokers Quickness special ability, that'll amp him up good :D (also, there are plenty of casters nowadays who use int, including the wizard, psion, erudite (variant psion), archivist and duskblade. Combine away.)
Norr 12-05-06, 11:43 AM	The example given was suspect. The rules on Rage prohibit using abilities that require patience or concentration - that will certainly rule out death attack, and probably sneak attack as well. As a matter of fact, the sage (or the FAQ) say sneak attack is entirely possible while raging. Death attack is and is not since it requires three rounds of study. But once the three rounds are complete, you may start raging as or before you execute the actual attack (provided it doesn't tip off the mark, as per description).
enlightened 12-05-06, 06:27 PM	To summarize my standpoint... You guys are citing RAW and you are right. They stack in normal mulitclassing as well as in gestalt. Through out this entire thread I have never disagreed that RAW says that they stack. If I said anything that makes sound like I was not aware of that it was a mistake. All I'm saying, as one gamer's opinion, is that I think it shouldn't be that way for all the reasons that I have introduced above (i.e. it doesn't seem to fit what I believe the game designer's intention was in saying that they should stack for multiclassing). And about other abilities not stacking (stunning fist, death attack, etc.), I wrote that with out thinking it through, and so yes, there are many that stack. And on a side note about that, I feel that things that can only be used a certain number of times per day stacking (rage, smite evil, etc.) is sort of inherently self-balancing and not really a problem. The problem would be having two classes in gestalt that both give rage and trying to stack those, or two classes that both give smite evil and trying to stack those. However, if it were in normal multiclassing, I wouldn't have a problem with them stacking because the end result could not be above what a single class character could achieve. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing what I think RAW is, but rather what I think RAW should become.
Derrick 12-05-06, 11:41 PM	Norr - thanks, I did not know that. While it does seem a little whacky, it's more plausible than Beholders, so it's fine for my game. :) To summarize my standpoint... You guys are citing RAW and you are right. They stack in normal mulitclassing as well as in gestalt. Through out this entire thread I have never disagreed that RAW says that they stack. If I said anything that makes sound like I was not aware of that it was a mistake. All I'm saying, as one gamer's opinion, is that I think it shouldn't be that way for all the reasons that I have introduced above (i.e. it doesn't seem to fit what I believe the game designer's intention was in saying that they should stack for multiclassing). When you make a claim about designer intent, you're doing something more than just stating your opinion of how the game ought to work. When House Ruling, we normally make claims about how the game ought to work in the context of disagreeing with the designer. For what reason do you believe that the designer actually intended things to work in the way that you've laid out? And about other abilities not stacking (stunning fist, death attack, etc.), I wrote that with out thinking it through, and so yes, there are many that stack. And on a side note about that, I feel that things that can only be used a certain number of times per day stacking (rage, smite evil, etc.) is sort of inherently self-balancing and not really a problem. OK. So, what about combining Weapon Specialization and Sneak Attack? Those are two damage-increasing abilities, that you can use any number of times per day, and that a multi-class character wouldn't be able to combine at such a low level. Do you think that combination is "unbalanced"? Also, are you ever going to provide the definition for balance that you're using? The problem would be having two classes in gestalt that both give rage and trying to stack those, or two classes that both give smite evil and trying to stack those. That's the position of the RAW. However, if it were in normal multiclassing, I wouldn't have a problem with them stacking because the end result could not be above what a single class character could achieve. Still the position of the RAW. Your distinctive claim is that certain other abilities that are non-identical should not be able to be used at the same time (now amended to exclude those with a limited number of uses per day - which, of course, undercuts the intuition pump about spellcasting that you gave above). Keep in mind, I'm not arguing what I think RAW is, but rather what I think RAW should become. Arguments involve reason. As far as I've seen, you're just writing.
enlightened 12-06-06, 12:48 AM	You know, I just don't have the analytical brain necessary to argue through this nearly as logically or as clearly as you guys do (and I'm not being sarcastic). But think about it like this. I'm sure we've all had an experience in which we see something that just doesn't feel right. Maybe you can't explain it in words, but you know that something is wrong. You just get that feeling in your gut. And then you analyze it and try to find what exactly it is that is off,....but you don't always get it right. Well, that's what I did here. I saw this sneak attack/sudden strike thing and it didn't seem right, so I tried to find the reason that it didn't seem right to me. First, I thought it was the stacking aspect but after thinking more and seeing the other opinions, I guess that's not it. Next, I thought maybe it's because it's too powerful, but that's not it either. But the feeling in my gut remains. I had some other ideas why and I posted them (and at the time of posting I thought they were the right answers), but on closer inspection they had holes too..........but the feeling in my gut remains. Think about it. If someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, Mike, can a 10th level character get an ability equal to a 20th character?" With nothing more to go on than that, most people's initial reaction would be "No". And even if they then pulled out a bunch of RAW-based example builds showing how it is, in fact, possible it still wouldn't erase that feeling you had that something like that just isn't right. If someone came up with a way to give a 10th level character a BAB of +20 or give a 10th level caster a caster level of 20 (red wizard), even if it was all using only RAW most people would probably feel some aversion to that. It would give you one of those moments when you tilt your head, cross your arms, narrow your eyes and grunt disapprovingly "hmmmm". Like, even if it's possible, you just shouldn't do it, kind of thing..... Like many many things throughout the books, it almost feels as if the writers of RAW just simply forgot to disallow it. I guess that is really the bases of my point of view, and I apologize for not being able to express it more clearly( and again, I'm not being sarcastic).
Derrick 12-06-06, 08:57 AM	So, basically, you're telling us that you looked this one up in your gut, and found that it was wrong? :) Seriously, though: Having a feeling that something is out of line is a good reason to check if something is going wrong. It shouldn't, however, be mistaken for proof that something has gone wrong. While the Ninja/Rogue is very, very good at giving people the shiv, she's pretty bad at a lot of other things; like most specialists, she's made a lot of sacrifices to get that narrow ability. Gestalt characters are simply more powerful than normal characters and that's not a problem, because they don't exist side-by-side. If you don't want to play using the option, that's your choice - but don't try telling other people that their game is 'unbalanced' because it's different to yours.
enlightened 12-08-06, 08:38 AM	This is what I wanted to say :D Please read. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=592166
Derrick 12-11-06, 10:09 AM	enlightened, I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean to give us a list of guidelines for putting characters in front of DMs. This is, after all, a discussion mainly on how DMs ought to evaluate characters constructed under a certain option. (By the way, I can't help but feel that the remarks on intent that you've linked to so approvingly are somewhat ironic in this context. Throughout the discussion, you've claimed that the designer intent was not to create a very powerful option. However, in UA, the designers come out and tell us that Gestalt is a powerful option, giving advice on how to alter other game aspects to suit it. As such, it seems like "what you meant to say" and what you actually said are not really communicating with one another. :))
DrMorganes 12-11-06, 12:06 PM	Gestalt rules = inherently broken. Since ninja do not receive a SA bonus, but rather sudden strike, they should stack as separate class features. Gestalt rules were presented as a variant to help offset issues stemming from having fewer than 4 PCs in a party. The developers KNEW these rules were broken when compared to standard rules, and specifically said so in Unearthed Arcana. They only work if EVERYONE is a gestalt character, PC and NPC alike. Mixing gestalt and standard characters in the same campaign is NOT recommended...
Chrono Nexus 12-11-06, 02:55 PM	Gestalt rules were presented as a variant to help offset issues stemming from having fewer than 4 PCs in a party. The developers KNEW these rules were broken when compared to standard rules, and specifically said so in Unearthed Arcana. They only work if EVERYONE is a gestalt character, PC and NPC alike. Mixing gestalt and standard characters in the same campaign is NOT recommended... Well, thanks for telling me something I new. And I don't think the rules work, period. The DM should not have to fix every npc and monster the pc's encounter to re-balance them for gestalt. Playing gestalt makes more work for the DM than if he just balanced encounters for a smaller group in the first place. What I post has context. The OP asked if Rogue/Ninja SA/SS stacking was balanced. My reply was it didn't matter. Gestalt is inherently broken.
Grizzled Gryphon 12-12-06, 01:02 AM	LOL, this is becoming a flame war... I am out of this one.
X-Codes 12-12-06, 01:25 AM	Well, thanks for telling me something I new. And I don't think the rules work, period. The DM should not have to fix every npc and monster the pc's encounter to re-balance them for gestalt. Playing gestalt makes more work for the DM than if he just balanced encounters for a smaller group in the first place. What I post has context. The OP asked if Rogue/Ninja SA/SS stacking was balanced. My reply was it didn't matter. Gestalt is inherently broken. Yes, Gestalt is inherently broken, but Rogue/Ninja is the weakest exploit of Gestalt I can think of. Yeah, you throw dicebags of damage when you hit a flat-footed target, but when that target hits you back it'll hurt at least as bad. Having d6 HD, 3/4 BAB, and poor Fortitude AND Will saves is simply unforgivable in Gestalt. I'll post here a likely conversation between a dead Ninja/Rogue and a party healer: Ninja: Come on, RES ME PLEASE. Cleric: :censored: no! Ninja: PLEASE!? You can sell my gear for the material components! Cleric: Why? So you can die again!? :censored: no! Ninja: Well you aren't doing anything with my stuff, so having me is better than having my stuff. PLEASE REZ!!!11 Cleric: Until we sell all the rest of your stuff ressing you, then the next time you die we won't have you or your stuff. :censored: NO!!! Ninja: WAHH HA HAAAAAa......:weep: Just like in normal D&D, being effective in Gestalt includes not being a hindrance on your party.
mkill 12-12-06, 10:14 AM	Well, thanks for telling me something I new. And I don't think the rules work, period. The DM should not have to fix every npc and monster the pc's encounter to re-balance them for gestalt. [ ] You understood the whole point of gestalt. [ ] You understood the role of the DM. The DM always has to think about making the game challenging, before play, during play, whether it's an Epic gestalt game or first-level commoners. "I don't want to use my brain when DMing" is not an argument. Playing gestalt makes more work for the DM than if he just balanced encounters for a smaller group in the first place. Probably true. While this may be the reason why you choose not to use gestalt when you DM, which is fine, it does not rule out that gestalt works for other groups. What I post has context. The OP asked if Rogue/Ninja SA/SS stacking was balanced. My reply was it didn't matter. Gestalt is inherently broken. Broken as in "a party of 5 gestalt characters is inherently more powerful than a party of 5 non-gestalts of the same level, which is intended and clearly stated in the description". Duh.
Chrono Nexus 12-12-06, 01:29 PM	[ ] You understood the whole point of gestalt. [ ] You understood the role of the DM. The DM always has to think about making the game challenging, before play, during play, whether it's an Epic gestalt game or first-level commoners. "I don't want to use my brain when DMing" is not an argument. Glad we agree on that. But some things are just a waste of time. Like arbitrarily raising the power of the class mechanic, and then retroactively re balancing the system to accommodate them. A big waste of time. Probably true. While this may be the reason why you choose not to use gestalt when you DM, which is fine, it does not rule out that gestalt works for other groups. Um... ok? Does this have a point? If gestalt works for other groups, fine. But I was responding to DrMorganes's post, which claimed that the monster list needs to be scrapped and replaced for Gestalt play. So, if Gestalt requires that the DM balance it to work, then doesn't that mean that you are no longer playing gestalt? Because players no longer have an edge over the monsters and opponents they face. Everything in the game would be more powerful. So, in my opinion gestalt fails to do what it was designed to do, at least in games where the DM takes such a focus to balance, even when that isn't the objective of a gestalt game. Broken as in "a party of 5 gestalt characters is inherently more powerful than a party of 5 non-gestalts of the same level, which is intended and clearly stated in the description". Duh. Yes, yes, that is what I said. Do you actually have a point, or do you just like to reiterate what I say? The "Duh" implies that you think what I said is obvious. You're right, it is. But the OP and Enlightened seem to think balancing gestalt for play is worthwhile. Either play gestalt with uber characters and accept it, or play normal DnD. Don't try to balance gestalt, it isn't worth the effort to.
starfire311 12-13-06, 06:14 PM	this is a tough issue for me, 1st you must take a stance on stacking similar abilities lets look at some examples take a fighter 6-Blackgaurd 4// Rogue 10 you get +5D6 SA for rogue and +1D6 SA for Blackgaurd, I rule that you must take the better of the 2 progressions, so this character on gets +5D6 since this is my view, I also feel that SA, Sudden strike and skirmish are similar enough that if say you take a level in a class that grants 1 of these and gestalt it with a class that gets one of this you must choose to progress in only one of the abilities. This does make gestalting in rogue, scout and ninja in some combination with each other exceedingly bad, I feel that it is in line with the intent of the gestalt rules.
Eikcuf 12-13-06, 06:19 PM	Always remember anything you as a player can do, the Dm has the option of doing as well. This is about as balanced as gestalt gets. Sorry :(
Malkieri 12-14-06, 03:33 PM	It seems to me that a lot of the people that post about Gestalt are those that are making assumptions, i.e., have never played the actual variation. Gestalt is not overpowered. Why? Because their abilties are still not any more powerful than a normal character of that level, they merely have more of them. A 5th Fighter/Rogue is going to have the HP of a 5th level Fighter, the Base Attack of a 5th level Fighter, base saves no higher than a normal character of 5th level, and no more skill points than a normal 5th level rogue character. Power-wise a Gestalt is not more powerful than a normal "x" level character. Where the distinction is made, is in abilities. Gestalt characters have more abilities, and thus are able to survive more cotinuous/varied encounters than a normal party. Regardless, if you pit a 5th level Gestalt party vs. a CR 10, chances are just like with the normal 5th level party, they will die. Yes they can handle CR's 1-2 higher because they are more likely to have the ability/spell/etc. that is needed to take down a certain challenge, but that's being more versatile, not more "powerful" by the way most people mean. As to the OP and sudden strike/sneak attack. No, they do not stack. The reasons are very simple. For one, sudden strike is treated just like sneak attack dice in concern to feats, special abilities, and Prestige Classes, so by game mechanics, it IS sneak attack, there's even a little sidebar in CAdv mentioning this, which means he could qualify for certain feats, etc. WAY before he was supposed too, even in gestalt games. Secondly, it's just like trying to go rogue/rogue, it just doesn't work, because as a Gestalt, you still aren't supposed to have MORE sneak attack dice/caster levels/ etc than a normal character of your level. A 3 Sorc/Wiz still only has a caster level of 3 in each class and no more than 2nd level spells. A 3rd rogue/ninja shouldn't have any more than 2d6 sneak attack/sudden strike dice, you see how that works? A 3rd level Gestalt will not have the +4d6 sneak attack of a character 4 levels higher. As for the "sudden strike sucks" argument, yes it is limited, but there are nearly endless ways for a rogue/ninja to deny another character their dexterity bonus to AC. Feint, Invis, spells, items... it's not nearly as restrictive one would think. At least until that Fortification armor starts getting thrown around. In the end, when it comes to Gestalt, it is a matter of knowing that the relative "power" [in levels] of the character is not supposed to exceed an equal level character, it's a matter of abilities [though some abilities can be used in conjuction to create nasty combos, that's not the same]. Realizing this baseline, ANY, and I do mean ANY gestalting question can be easily answered. On a humorous note, I might allow a character to do the rogue/ninja, just so he could see how much of a one trick pony he'd be- The point of Gestalting is versatility, not power. After seeing how poorly this kind of character would do, no one would want to play such again.
mkill 12-16-06, 05:05 AM	Secondly, it's just like trying to go rogue/rogue, it just doesn't work, because as a Gestalt, you still aren't supposed to have MORE sneak attack dice/caster levels/ etc than a normal character of your level. A 3 Sorc/Wiz still only has a caster level of 3 in each class and no more than 2nd level spells. A 3rd rogue/ninja shouldn't have any more than 2d6 sneak attack/sudden strike dice, you see how that works? A 3rd level Gestalt will not have the +4d6 sneak attack of a character 4 levels higher. "They should not stack..." ... well, this is an opinion, but RAW sneak attack dice and sudden strike dice do in fact stack, as it is clearly and unmisunderstandably stated in the passage I already quoted in post #27. Simply because every class special that stacks for normal characters stacks for gestalt. And I clearly don't see why a gestalt ninja/rogue should be nerfed when a wizard / rogue can add sneak attack dice to a scorching ray (and all kinds of other spells), a scout / rogue gets to combine skirmish and sneak attack, a barbarian rogue can rage / sneak and cleave, a ranger / rogue can sneak and have favored enemy bonuses, a warlock can get sneak attack dice to eldritch blast, a paladin / rogue can sneak attack / smite evil. If you want to get silly, a Dread Necromancer / Rogue can use Spectral Hand + Chill Touch / Sneak Attack. And I didn't even start with psionics and the tons of newer splatbooks yet. Now repeat the list with the ninja. So yes, a third level Rogue / Ninja gestalt *will* have the sneak attack of a third level rogue *and* the sudden strike of the ninja, and if he can manage a sudden strike both will stack. Yes, this will be some 5d6 damage, assuming a short bow. Nice, but the fighter / rogue can easily deal 4d6 with a greatsword + sneak attack, and Power Attack for the missing +4 damage. The wizard / rogue does 6d6 damage with a scorching ray + sneak attack (not strictly better because he can only pull that one off 2 times per day at 3rd level)
starfire311 12-16-06, 02:07 PM	"They should not stack..." ... well, this is an opinion, but RAW sneak attack dice and sudden strike dice do in fact stack, as it is clearly and unmisunderstandably stated in the passage I already quoted in post #27. Simply because every class special that stacks for normal characters stacks for gestalt. yes and Sneak attack also stacks with sneak attack in different classes by RAW, so would you let someone take 2 classes that grant sneak attack dice at the same time and let them stack? And I clearly don't see why a gestalt ninja/rogue should be nerfed when a wizard / rogue can add sneak attack dice to a scorching ray (and all kinds of other spells), a scout / rogue gets to combine skirmish and sneak attack, a barbarian rogue can rage / sneak and cleave, a ranger / rogue can sneak and have favored enemy bonuses, a warlock can get sneak attack dice to eldritch blast, a paladin / rogue can sneak attack / smite evil. If you want to get silly, a Dread Necromancer / Rogue can use Spectral Hand + Chill Touch / Sneak Attack. And I didn't even start with psionics and the tons of newer splatbooks yet. this is completly irrelevent IMO, I am not arguing about balance, i am arguning about RAI, since IMO the RAW is lacking. Now repeat the list with the ninja. So yes, a third level Rogue / Ninja gestalt *will* have the sneak attack of a third level rogue *and* the sudden strike of the ninja, and if he can manage a sudden strike both will stack. Yes, this will be some 5d6 damage, assuming a short bow. Nice, but the fighter / rogue can easily deal 4d6 with a greatsword + sneak attack, and Power Attack for the missing +4 damage. The wizard / rogue does 6d6 damage with a scorching ray + sneak attack (not strictly better because he can only pull that one off 2 times per day at 3rd level) would you allow 2 seperate classes that grant SA to be taken att he same time and let SA stack 2 times.? Yes by RAW, SA stacks with SA from other classes, but IMO this is not how gestalt was intended to work.
mkill 12-20-06, 09:54 AM	yes and Sneak attack also stacks with sneak attack in different classes by RAW, so would you let someone take 2 classes that grant sneak attack dice at the same time and let them stack? Yeah, so what. It's a gestalt game. If you intend on nerfing gestalt combinations just don't start it in the first place. What's next after doubled sneak attack damage? Scared about full-caster + full bab + d10 hd? Scared about characters casting every spell in the game? Scared about monsters with huge LA adding a full caster class? Is that all "unintended"? Really, there is enough crazy **** you can do with gestalt. Who cares about an ability that is neither an area effect nor a save or die nor does it affect undead, constructs, oozes and plants? Heck, you can't even kill a swarm properly. A simple Armor enhancement completely negates that damage. It's also not a touch attack. Heck, try to kill a simple skeleton with that impressive 20d6 SA. Yes, you *can* overcome those weaknesses of the sneak attack, but then you would have to add different classes and not rogue / ninja, and it costs feats.
Derrick 12-21-06, 11:59 AM	yes and Sneak attack also stacks with sneak attack in different classes by RAW, so would you let someone take 2 classes that grant sneak attack dice at the same time and let them stack? Actually, this isn't allowed in the RAW - it's a case of two classes granting the same class feature. In these instances, the class feature takes the faster progression only. I also feel that SA, Sudden strike and skirmish are similar enough that if say you take a level in a class that grants 1 of these and gestalt it with a class that gets one of this you must choose to progress in only one of the abilities. Could you explain what you mean by "similar"? Assuming that you're offering up this as advice to other DMs, they ought to be able to use it without being you, or bothering you with each of their players' queries.
Krusk 12-21-06, 03:12 PM	Actually, this isn't allowed in the RAW - it's a case of two classes granting the same class feature. In these instances, the class feature takes the faster progression only. It is allowed by RAW because they say +1d6 sneak attack, saying that this characters sneak attack damage improves by +1d6. It says they stack in the text. The exact wording is "deals an extra d6 when ......" They are not gaining the same class feature, they are gaining continued progress for a class feature. By your logic, a class that grants +1 existing spell caster level does not stack with your existing spell caster level, they overlap and you get whichever is higher. By similar he means they are alike enough in effect and reason to gain, that you have to pick one or the other, not both.
Derrick 12-21-06, 06:20 PM	It is allowed by RAW because they say +1d6 sneak attack, saying that this characters sneak attack damage improves by +1d6. It says they stack in the text. Hold on. Do you mean that they stack under standard multi-classing? If so, that's non-controversial: they do. The exact wording is "deals an extra d6 when ......" They are not gaining the same class feature, they are gaining continued progress for a class feature. I will admit that I only looked at the Rogue and the SRD Prestige Classes, but all of them have the class feature "Sneak Attack". That class feature's benefits are summarised in the class tables in the form "Sneak Attack +Xd6". If I leveling up my character in a Gestalt game and both my character classes have the "Sneak Attack" class feature, then my character is only eligible for the faster progression. You'll note that I haven't made any claims about stacking or overlapping; all I'm claiming is that, in Gestalt, you don't get to take both progressions (instead, you take only the faster). By your logic, a class that grants +1 existing spell caster level does not stack with your existing spell caster level, they overlap and you get whichever is higher. This is a straw man argument, grounded on the false impression that I'm making claims about which class features stack or overlap. To reiterate, I am not making claims of that kind, but rather, I am making claims about combining class features using the Gestalt option. In Gestalt, base spellcasting and +1 spellcasting-type class features neither stack nor overlap. They are either the same (in so far as +1 spellcasting-type abilities make use of the "as if" clause) which limits a character to gaining the benefit of the faster progression, or they are different, which allows a character to gain two separate spellcasting progressions simultaneously. To be absolutely clear, in normal multi-classing, +1 spell caster level adds to the appropriate spellcasting ability. By similar he means they are alike enough in effect and reason to gain, that you have to pick one or the other, not both. That's just a paraphrase, rather than an explanation. How do I know what abilities are "alike enough"? Heck, how do you know which abilities are "alike enough" in starfire311's opinion?
starfire311 12-21-06, 06:37 PM	Hold on. Do you mean that they stack under standard multi-classing? If so, that's non-controversial: they do. But this is the whole argument for letting sudden strike and SA stack, because they do in standard multi-classing, so therefore they should in gestalt multi-classing. That is where I disagree, the game treats sudden strike just like SA in just about every circumstance except sudden strike has a few more restrictions on its use, therefore, when multiclassing standard or gestalt you should treat them as the same ability, except for the few extra restrictions that sudden strike has. If you feel that 2 classes with SA taken at the same time in gestalt should let SA stack, then you should also let 2 classes taken at the same time one with SA and one with sudden strike stack. If you feel that 2 classes with SA taken at the same time in gestalt should not let SA stack, then you should also let 2 classes taken at the same time one with SA and one with sudden strike not stack. It is about consistancy, I really don't care which way you rule, both can work, but be consistant... personally I view it in the later.
Derrick 12-21-06, 07:17 PM	But this is the whole argument for letting sudden strike and SA stack, because they do in standard multi-classing, so therefore they should in gestalt multi-classing. That's not the whole argument. The claim is that, if Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike can be combined under standard multi-classing and because the Gestalt rules do not prohibit their combination, these abilities can be combined under the Gestalt rules. That is where I disagree, the game treats sudden strike just like SA in just about every circumstance except sudden strike has a few more restrictions on its use, therefore, when multiclassing standard or gestalt you should treat them as the same ability, except for the few extra restrictions that sudden strike has. So, this is a case just like Sorceror and Wizard spellcasting, then? :) It is about consistancy, I really don't care which way you rule, both can work, but be consistant... personally I view it in the later. Rejecting your false dichotomy, I endorse a third consistent approach: to additionally restrict combination of class features in gestalt by the identity criteria.
starfire311 12-21-06, 07:51 PM	So, this is a case just like Sorceror and Wizard spellcasting, then? :) nope, because you can not use sorc spell casting to fulfill requirements that call specifically for wizard spellcasting, but you can use sudden strike to fulfill requirements that call specifically for sneak attack.
Derrick 12-21-06, 08:22 PM	nope, because you can not use sorc spell casting to fulfill requirements that call specifically for wizard spellcasting, but you can use sudden strike to fulfill requirements that call specifically for sneak attack. :D That was a trick question. I'm glad that you leapt at it, rather than actually providing any response to the substance of the argument, as it indicates the weakness of your position. Sorceror and Wizard - in fact, any class - spellcasting can only be combined in gestalt characters because of an explicit exception in UA. (That's because these classes share the Spells class feature, which would otherwise be governed by the more general rule on shared class features.) It has absolutely nothing to do with "similarity" and everything to do with identity. To reiterate my position on the Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike, Sneak Attack/Sneak Attack situation: 1. Stacking and overlapping are not relevant to Gestalt characters. I've adopted the unladen term "combine" to describe getting more than one of the class features under discussion. 2. Sudden Strike is not Sneak Attack. Therefore, they're not governed by the shared class feature rule, and can be combined under the RAW. 3. Sneak Attack is Sneak Attack. Therefore, they're governed by the shared class feature rule, and cannot be combined under the RAW. (Instead, the faster progression is used.)
starfire311 12-21-06, 09:35 PM	:D That was a trick question. I'm glad that you leapt at it, rather than actually providing any response to the substance of the argument, as it indicates the weakness of your position. Sorceror and Wizard - in fact, any class - spellcasting can only be combined in gestalt characters because of an explicit exception in UA. (That's because these classes share the Spells class feature, which would otherwise be governed by the more general rule on shared class features.) It has absolutely nothing to do with "similarity" and everything to do with identity. To reiterate my position on the Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike, Sneak Attack/Sneak Attack situation: 1. Stacking and overlapping are not relevant to Gestalt characters. I've adopted the unladen term "combine" to describe getting more than one of the class features under discussion. 2. Sudden Strike is not Sneak Attack. Therefore, they're not governed by the shared class feature rule, and can be combined under the RAW. 3. Sneak Attack is Sneak Attack. Therefore, they're governed by the shared class feature rule, and cannot be combined under the RAW. (Instead, the faster progression is used.) that didnt attack my point at all, my point is that DnD treats Sudden strike as Sneak attack in every situation except the listed exceptions in Sudden strike, so why treat tehm differently in a gestalt game? One are you adding an additional exception to the RAW, that they are to be treated the same.
Krusk 12-21-06, 10:54 PM	Hold on. Do you mean that they stack under standard multi-classing? If so, that's non-controversial: they do. Yes I do, and according to your arguement earlier in the thread you said they did not. Making it controversial. I will admit that I only looked at the Rogue and the SRD Prestige Classes, but all of them have the class feature "Sneak Attack". That class feature's benefits are summarised in the class tables in the form "Sneak Attack +Xd6". If I leveling up my character in a Gestalt game and both my character classes have the "Sneak Attack" class feature, then my character is only eligible for the faster progression. you are right you only get the faster of the two, but if only one allows sneak attack and a prestige class grants it, you can combine them for a bigger sneak attack. EX- level 3 rogue-3 class that grants +2d6sneak attack/fighter6 You would have sneak attack dealing damage of a 3rd level rogue+2d6. You'll note that I haven't made any claims about stacking or overlapping; all I'm claiming is that, in Gestalt, you don't get to take both progressions (instead, you take only the faster). This is a straw man argument, grounded on the false impression that I'm making claims about which class features stack or overlap. To reiterate, I am not making claims of that kind, but rather, I am making claims about combining class features using the Gestalt option. In Gestalt, base spellcasting and +1 spellcasting-type class features neither stack nor overlap. They are either the same (in so far as +1 spellcasting-type abilities make use of the "as if" clause) which limits a character to gaining the benefit of the faster progression, or they are different, which allows a character to gain two separate spellcasting progressions simultaneously. To be absolutely clear, in normal multi-classing, +1 spell caster level adds to the appropriate spellcasting ability. Yes it does do that, but using your example gives the idea that it does not. I was pointing out a flaw in what you said, and why it was nto according to RAW as you decided to cite. That's just a paraphrase, rather than an explanation. How do I know what abilities are "alike enough"? Heck, how do you know which abilities are "alike enough" in starfire311's opinion? Because you and I know what he ment, you are just being difficult, for some reason no one but yourself knows. - i unbolded, because that was unneeded, and if read using the intonation that you implied there I would probably just turn and leave while you still spoke. :D That was a trick question. I'm glad that you leapt at it, rather than actually providing any response to the substance of the argument, as it indicates the weakness of your position. what is the reason for using trick questions, they dont help people better understand the rules, they just serve to show how you are -incorrectly- better than someone.
Derrick 12-21-06, 11:03 PM	that didnt attack my point at all, my point is that DnD treats Sudden strike as Sneak attack in every situation except the listed exceptions in Sudden strike, so why treat tehm differently in a gestalt game? Hmm. I will admit that I'm not looking at the Ninja description right now, but my recollection of the Sudden Strike class feature is not a short section that says, "Like Sneak Attack, except:" but rather, a long section with a description of an ability that is similar to Sneak Attack (but less good), and a rule about Sudden Strike counting as Sneak Attack for prerequisites. Now, I won't claim that my recollection is perfect, but in the discussion so far, nobody else has raised Sudden Strike's description in the way that you have, while others have cited the rule about counting-as for prerequisites. Inferring on this basis that the description is more or less as I recall it, I'm left to think that you're somewhat embelishing what's in the text. (But I will RTFR in the weekend.) FWIW, if it seemed as though I wasn't attacking your answer about Sorcerors and Wizards, then it's likely that I was simply being too tactful. I would like apologise for that uncharacteristic lapse. :) To put my point more plainly: your answer gave the wrong reasons for the right conclusion. If you knew the core rules, you'd have cited them, rather than giving that rather flakey answer about fulfilling requirements. In short, you don't seem to know what you're writing about. One are you adding an additional exception to the RAW, that they are to be treated the same. I think you're talking about my point 2, though I would prefer not to have to guess. It is my understanding that the RAW doesn't state that Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike are to be treated as the same, but rather that they are interchangeable for the purposes of of meeting prerequisites.
Derrick 12-22-06, 12:19 AM	Yes I do, and according to your arguement earlier in the thread you said they did not. Making it controversial. No, I didn't. I'll save you the trouble of looking back by copy-and-pasting: yes and Sneak attack also stacks with sneak attack in different classes by RAW, so would you let someone take 2 classes that grant sneak attack dice at the same time and let them stack? Actually, this isn't allowed in the RAW - it's a case of two classes granting the same class feature. In these instances, the class feature takes the faster progression only. The exchange is confusing, so I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that I'm simply contradicting Starfire311's view on what the RAW say about multi-classing. However, I can't see how you maintained that impression when looking at what I say ought to be done instead of stacking: what does "the faster progression" mean in normal multi-classing? Yes it does do that, but using your example gives the idea that it does not. I was pointing out a flaw in what you said, and why it was nto according to RAW as you decided to cite. There was a flaw in that what I wrote was unclear, but as your personal adherence to norms of non-confusion isn't exactly robust, I don't see any ground from which you can take issue. Because you and I know what he ment, you are just being difficult, for some reason no one but yourself knows. I am not being difficult -or at least, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult! :) Starfire311 gave a vague handwave at something that ought to be answered precisely. Lots of things in D&D are "similar" (or "alike") given a particular stance on what constitutes meaning under those terms. In order for similarity to guide what ought to be allowed to be combined and what ought not to be allowed to be combined, it needs to be made clear. For example, Resist Nature's Lure and Still Mind do have a "similar" effect. I'm pretty sure that these aren't "similar" in the appropriate sense, but I don't know that without further explanation. If I really wanted to be difficult about this, then I'd compile a list of things that are, in any sense, "similar" and ask which of them can be combined and which of them can't. I'm sure that at least one of the many "similar" pairs in D&D would be rejected as not being similar enough, at which point we get back to asking, "what do you mean by similar?" As for the editorialising: If you have personal issues with me, PM or take it to a moderator.
starfire311 12-22-06, 11:18 AM	so, since I don't know what I am talking about, I have a question. If a special ability, feat, or class has a requirement of 4D6 sneak attack, would a gestalt Rogue 3/Ninja 3 meet the prerequisites?
Evillain 12-23-06, 05:35 PM	It stacks, if you don't like it house rule it.
Derrick 12-24-06, 10:26 AM	so, since I don't know what I am talking about, I have a question. If a special ability, feat, or class has a requirement of 4D6 sneak attack, would a gestalt Rogue 3/Ninja 3 meet the prerequisites? It depends on how you choose to interpret the Complete Adventurer's sidebar on the Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike. (I didn't see an official clarification in the FAQ.) Either way, the answer will be the same as that offered to the multi-class Rogue 3/Ninja 3. According to my interpretation of the sidebar, this character does meet the 4d6 sneak attack prerequisite. If Sudden Strike is to be treated as equivalent to Sneak Attack for this purpose, then it ought to operate in exactly the same way as Sneak Attack does; that means it would add to the other Sneak Attack dice. At this point, I suppose you want to say I'm being inconsistent, or I'm retracting my IIRC above. While I agree that there are differences between what I recalled and the RAW, those differences are minor. Importantly, equivalent for prerequisites is no more in accord with your 'interpretation' that the class features are the same with a few exceptions than interchangeable for prerequisites.
Evillain 12-25-06, 02:20 AM	your sudden strike does not because a sneak attack, it is just that for the prereqs it is considered sneak attack. (have you seen a prc that says : req 4d6 sudden strike?) but it evolves normally, and if the class gives you SA it should give you SS instead, if you have both, you choose.