Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord_Tirian 01-31-07, 08:49 PM	I've thought about something: Many say, there are some base roles (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Skills) in the D&D classes, right? Many of the new base classes (Beguiler, Duskblade) are centered on a combination of these roles... but would it be possible to unify this stuff, without getting so many base classes? Hard... goes into Generic Classes, but then I got an idea: Gestalt. Essentially Gestalt allows you to combine two classes. What, if we would stat up each of the four roles as essentially underpowered classes, and then apply the Gestalt concept to gain normally balanced classes. Like: Arcane class would have 1/4 BAB, and 1/2 Spellcasting progression, then Arcane/Arcane would have (1/4+1/4)= 1/4 BAB, and (1/2+1/2)= Full Arcane Spellcasting progression (making spellcasting dependant on you caster level). A Martial/Martial would have (1/2+1/2) BAB = Full BAB, and would gain feats or something like this. An Arcane/Martial would have (1/4+1/2)=3/4 BAB and 1/2 spellcasting... and so on. The only problem I see is, that we would often have double-whammy levels, followed by "dead" levels, if Martial gives Fighter-like feats, then it would get 2 at once, then nothing, and so on. What do you think about the general idea? Workable? Dumb? Nice? Stupid?
Sphyre 01-31-07, 09:49 PM	While what you're describing is not gestalt, it is quite doable. There are even a few basic classes out there that let you choose exactly what class abilities you get, from hit dice, skill points, and bab to types of spells.
ShinoAburame 01-31-07, 11:01 PM	That's not quite gestalt. Why not seperate what players can gestalt with based on which character type they pick? They can't pick a class outside thier character type for gestalt. Arcane: Wizard Sorcerer Bard Divine: Paladin Cleric Druid Ranger Monk Warrior: Fighter Barbarian Paladin Monk Ranger Skill: Bard Rogue Ranger Notice some classes are in several categories, I'd also suggest using supplemental classes to broaden the diversity.
jagggar 01-31-07, 11:35 PM	Well, I think it'd be a lot easier to do if there weren't so many dead levels already. I was gunna say to split each Generic Class in two and have a Warrior A and a Warrior B, but if you had Warrior A be odd levels and Warrior B be even levels, Everyone would pick Warrior B since it got all the feats. I'll mess around with it some and see what I come up with.
Sphyre 02-01-07, 12:45 AM	This (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9906571&postcount=2) , by Szatany, slightly modified might be a good way to go with what you're looking for. Make your base classes, and make everyone be a Complete Adventurer.
Enialis_Gryphon 02-01-07, 10:39 AM	While that class from Szatany is cool, it is overly complicated. I don't see it being used all that much. To the OP, I don't see anything wrong with the plethora of base classes that are basically mix's of two. At least, not like you are talking about. My problem is, they seem to lose too much in comparison to an actual gestalt. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that gestalt should be the norm. But, if you want a rogue with some blasty spells, the beguiler isn't the way to go. If you want a fighter with spells of deception, then the duskblade isn't the way to go. In other words, the only two really mixed classes, like you are talking about, are the Beguiler and the Duskblade. And they are very focused on one concept. Good concepts, but not nearly as universal as a rogue/sorc or a fighter/wizard. Actually, those are the only two I can think of rigt now. I suppose the Spellthief is one, and the Hexblade is another, but they are very poor examples compared to the actual gestalt combo. They are very poor compared to any multiclass, too. I think, anyway. Aside from that, the other base classes are Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Scout, Ninja, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Archivist, Dread Necromancer, and, from Eberron, the Artificier. None of them are really a mix of other classes. Well, I guess the Scout could be consider a mix of the rogue and ranger, and the swashbuckler could be considered a mix of the fighter and the rogue, but only just barely. At least, those are the base classes I know from my books. What, exactly, are you trying to fix, here? Is it the fact that there are so many choices? If that is what you want to do with the base classes idea, have everyone gestalt the NPC classes as a class. So, you could have a Warrior/Adept, or a Expert/Warrior, or the like. Then, make up some of the class abilities as feats, from which they can choose two or three at character creation. Even a Warrior/Warrior would be possible with this option. Basically, use the incremental bab and saves, and then you can get a better bab than the plain warrior by taking the other side as warrior. I don't know, it is just an idea.
Sphyre 02-01-07, 11:10 AM	While that class from Szatany is cool, it is overly complicated. Actually, the OPs explaination of saves and BAB combination are pretty much the exact same thing as Szatany's class. The only difference is that Szatany took the time to put it into silly D&D style format, as opposed to just creating new progressions.
Lord_Tirian 02-01-07, 12:14 PM	What, exactly, are you trying to fix, here? Is it the fact that there are so many choices? Actually, I don't want to "fix" it, it was a half-random idea, after I've read an ENworld-thread, where the outstanding role of the "classic" classes were highlighted by a poster. The concept behind is rather "expanding the generic classes, while keeping 'em generic". I like the idea of the generic classes, but they don't fulfill the "mixed roles" as good as the current base classes, because multiclassing often hampers... especially the spellcasting variants. But all the posts here gave some ideas, and the link to Szatany's post was also nice :)
jagggar 02-01-07, 06:56 PM	I worked this out last night, then my computer restarted as I was almost done with the chart. Yes, I know I misspelled warrior. That way I wouldn't have to realign everything. Level Caster A | Caster B 1 | 2 | 3 Feat | 4 | Feat 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Feat | 12 | Feat 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 Feat | 20 | Feat Level Expert A | Expert B 1 Feat | 2 | Feat 3 | 4 | 5 Feat | 6 | Feat 7 | 8 | 9 Feat | 10 | Feat 11 | 12 | 13 Feat | 14 | Feat 15 | 16 | 17 Feat | 18 | Feat 19 | 20 | Level Warior A | Warior B 1 Feat | 2 | Feat 3 | 4 | Feat 5 Feat | 6 | 7 Feat | 8 | Feat 9 | 10 | Feat 11 Feat | 12 | 13 Feat | 14 | Feat 15 | 16 | Feat 17 Feat | 18 | 19 Feat | 20 | Feat I'm not entirely sure on caster staggering. Right now, I believe that Caster A should get a caster level every odd level and Caster B get a caster level every even level.
Lord_Tirian 02-01-07, 08:31 PM	I'm not entirely sure on caster staggering. Right now, I believe that Caster A should get a caster level every odd level and Caster B get a caster level every even level. Looks pretty nice :) I also think, that the A-classes should always get the bonuses on the odd-levels, because the A is your "first"-choice, therefore it should give you an slight edge (and it is perhaps easier than the "1/2-caster level" thing, because then, we'd need a 40-entry spellcasting table... not so good. About skill points: My idea was: Warrior: 2 skill points per level, select 2 class skills. Expert: 4 skill points per level, select 4 class skills. Caster: 1 skill point per level, select 3 class skills. Hit points (after thinking 'bout A/B-concepts): A B Warrior: 1d6 +3 Expert: 1d4 +2 Caster: 1d3 +1 To keep the HD-total intact, I'm using static modifiers instead (at least for the B-class). This will make not very much difference for the average, but tends to make people a bit tougher - but that's not soo bad, because it will increase the survivability on lower levels, and will give you less "D'oh, rolled a 1"-feel, only bad thing: pure warriors will have a better average than the fighter (6.5 vs. 5.5), but a lower maximum - I tooling around with the exact numbers, but otherwise, I'm fairly happy.
jagggar 02-02-07, 12:13 PM	Hmm. I came up with progressions, but not actual rules for using them. :P If you went Class A/Warrior B at first level and Warrior A/Warrior B every level after that you'd end up with double feats some levels and sometimes several dead levels. Probably needs some work to get a smooth coat if you allow multiclassing instead of just saying, "This is your progression, you're stuck with it." I'd up the number of class skills the Expert is allowed to take. I'd honestly just take it striaght from UA and cut it in half so the Expcert would get 6 skills known, the warrior three skills known, and the spellcaster two skils known (plus knowldeges (maybe only half of them? and either craft or profession). Oh, and saves. Did you mention saves? I'd say find the medium save progression and use that too. If you want a good save, you pick the same save for each of your classes.