Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lady Fierna 05-03-04, 05:56 PM	I plan to use gestalt characters in my campaign, but I don't want them to absoloutely tower over monsters & such of equal CR. Finally, I've found the solution: Restrictions are to be put into place upon which classes can combine. Here's my idea: Come up with a matrix matching all characters of similar types (martial, divine, arcane, skilled, wild, and psionic, classes can be of more than one type) and list restrictions on multiclassing between those classes (similar to in the first option) per this system: exes (no combination allowed), slashes (-20% xp until next level), and checks (no penalty). (should be based on concept, not balance) Classes can only gestalt with character classes of the same type. Rule that certain classes that do no require training or a large amount of commitment (such as the sorcerer, the wilder(XPH), the noble (DLCS), the akashic (AU), etc.) to be capable of multiclassing with all classes. Cultural exceptions would be common in this system. Non-cultural exceptions would also be viable (instead of having a mystic theurge PrC, when a character meets the requirements, he can become a wizard-cleric). Monsters (that are capable of gaining class levels, see SS) should gain (if PCs) a number of gestalt class levels equal to their ECL, whilst NPCs gain a number of gestalt class levels equal to their HD. Such characters should gain levels only in appropriate classes (as per the criterea for CR determining in the MM Revised) unless the DM gives special permission. This requires a bit of work on the part of the DM, but just adding the class features/spells in the NPC section of the DMG revised should basically do the trick. What do you think?
Veton 05-04-04, 10:34 AM	Well, the Gestalt option was made for the players to be stronger then the normal leveling system. Besides, they should "tower" over monsters of the same CR, since you reduce the CR of monsters by 1, or 2 if they require a failed saving throw to be deadly.
Lord Schpungus 05-04-04, 01:42 PM	Just give them a LA of +2. I've heard it works nicely.
Lady Fierna 05-09-04, 02:32 PM	The idea more to limit them than to weaken them, to prevent barbarian/wizards, fighter/courtiers, and druid/rogues (under normal circumstances). I posted my idea not for you to say "oh, use this instead" etc, but for you to tell me what you think of said idea. (However, I do like the +2 LA idea...)
Braids 05-09-04, 04:31 PM	I like it. I would rule that givin time to train in a class, they will be allowed to multiclass into it...or if they have a good background for their cjharacter.
castlemike 05-11-04, 03:28 AM	You had some excellent points particularly regarding the classes that require little training.
Banpai 05-11-04, 04:51 AM	A very interresting idea Lady Fierna though I have to ask myself if itīs really necessary to solve something like this with a rule restriction. Just an example I currently DM a group with my best friend and my little brother (both experieces roleplayers though their WIS sometimes needs an increase...) a gestalt game. My friend decided to create a dwarven Barbarian/Fighter that loves fighting dragons (red ones in particular) and my bother plays a cleric/wizard of Mystra and was fairly happy with it. The point I wanted to make is that as long as the players give a good (and in the case of barbarian wizards a truly great one) backroundstory the DM should allow it.
Kurama Youko 05-11-04, 11:24 PM	i dont even see the barbarian wizard even happing, sure the rage mage exist and all but besides that, the moment you rage you lose access to spells and everything. one problem of the fighter/mage is utility, why take fireball and lightning bolt if your role is to fight? shouldnt you be concentrating on that part of the character rather than trying to stay away from the enemy and hit him with your fireball? especially if you have the hp of a fighter. flip the switch why would a wizard run up on a red dragon even if he did have all the fighters bonus feats and say all martial weapon profiency (which is really is to get now in faerunian campaigns with a single feat.) could you imagine a barbarian/wizard in a party with no other arcane spell casters. Rogue/Druid: Okay we need Wizard/Barbarian to cast mage's disjunction on the creature to lower its antimagic field. Cleric/Monk: To late, we just lost him to his own emotions. Wizard/Babrian: Raaaaaghhhh!!! RAGE!!!!!!!
Lord Schpungus 05-13-04, 03:08 AM	That actually sounds hilarious. I think I'd die laughing if that happened in one of my games. I mean, Wizard/Barb? Sure, you're not going to be the most powerful either, but you're sure going to be memorable! Hmm...that gives me an idea for a character...
venomandme 05-14-04, 02:23 AM	i love some of the posted ideas and there is great mix and maych characters like a paladin/warrior or a Favored Soul/Barbarian i think the ideas are fueled by fantasy i wanted a Ninja/Pionic but my DM hates oriental i mean he really dislikes it -_-
Kurama Youko 05-14-04, 05:54 PM	i think i'd go with the Monk/Rogue Flurry of Blows plus Sneak attack damage when flanking someone. a true ninja. also Paladin/Ranger for the extra extra smiting/favored enemy against outsiders and other evil nasties not to mention the Special Mount and Animal Companion who are constantly traveling with me. I'd like a Druid/Favored Soul of a nature deity Samurai/Paladin = Holy Retainer! Hexblade/Planar Ranger = True Planar Champion. (justs needs amulet of the planes to get around.) all good saves divine and arcane spells, Fighter/Paladin = Fist of <insert church or orders name here.> Barbarian/Fighter = Warlord! Psion/Fighter = Jedi Psion/Paladin of Slaughter = Sith Lord
heretic888 05-16-04, 08:29 PM	i think i'd go with the Monk/Rogue Flurry of Blows plus Sneak attack damage when flanking someone. a true ninja. Ummmm.... not really. :rolleyes:
Kurama Youko 05-17-04, 09:12 AM	And your point is.......... Simply stating two functions in which combat served doesnt take away from what the character role play could be? If I took 30 levels of fighter yet told everyone I'm a Ninja who is to say otherwise. I think prehapes you should get a grip and let it go, so you werent born a ninja no reason to take that away from everyone elses fantasy. :smirk:
heretic888 05-17-04, 12:31 PM	And your point is.......... That the archetype you described is not a 'true ninja', using your own words. Simply stating two functions in which combat served doesnt take away from what the character role play could be? 'Ninja' is not a role, its a cultural concept and archetype. And, as such, I don't believe Flurry of Blows fits all that well. If I took 30 levels of fighter yet told everyone I'm a Ninja who is to say otherwise. It would depend on the specific situation, honestly. In any event, I don't subscribe to the "I think it and thus it must be so" school of narcissistic thought. I prefer logic. I think prehapes you should get a grip and let it go, so you werent born a ninja no reason to take that away from everyone elses fantasy. Uhhhh.... right. I'm not the one that made false claims I couldn't back up. :rolleyes: You said 'true ninja'. Those were your words, not mine. I have no problem with 'alternate' interpretations or depictions of ninja, but don't think for a second that those are 'true ninja'. Don't attack the messenger because you made a foul-up in one of your posts. Just choose your wording more carefully next time.
Kurama Youko 05-17-04, 12:47 PM	Are you honestly trying to dispute what you believe is true qualities of ninjitsu in a Fantasy setting, please tell me your not because if you are, you are on the wrong message boards. You'd be better situated on a "I am a Ninja!" forums for all the other people who claim to have some deep knowledge of a culture/tradition that is hundreds of years out of date. Its doesnt matter what you believe the archtype of a particular character is because there are so set archtypes, customizing is everything now, and just because you dont like someone elses particular ideals doesnt make right anymore than it makes them wrong. As I said before, I think you need to get a grip.
heretic888 05-17-04, 12:59 PM	Are you honestly trying to dispute what you believe is true qualities of ninjitsu in a Fantasy setting, please tell me your not because if you are, you are on the wrong message boards. First off, its spelled 'ninjutsu'. And, secondly, I was contesting your particular wording (a 'true ninja'). As I said before, I have no problem with 'alternate' or 'fantastical' takes on the ninja --- provided they are recognized as such. You seem to have a problem with people doing things differently than you. As before, I do not subscribe to the "I think it, thus it is so!!" school of thought. You'd be better situated on a "I am a Ninja!" forums for all the other people who claim to have some deep knowledge of a culture/tradition that is hundreds of years out of date. 'Out of date'?? *shrugs* Ignorance is bliss, as they say. Its doesnt matter what you believe the archtype of a particular character is because there are so set archtypes, customizing is everything now, and just because you dont like someone elses particular ideals doesnt make right anymore than it makes them wrong. As I said before, I think you need to get a grip. Oh geez. :rolleyes: I, in fact, did not make any of the above claims (although you did). I said 'ninja' is not a role, as you falsely claimed --- it is a concept, an archetype. And, as before, I have no problems with alternate depictions of the archetype. I just have a problem with people get uppity whenever people have archetypes that they don't agree with. All I said was choose your wording more carefully next time. You're the one that said 'true ninja', not me.
MithrilWyrm 05-17-04, 01:39 PM	Originally posted by heretic888 First off, its spelled 'ninjutsu'. For what it's worth, it's neither. They're both anglicanizations of an eastern word that represents an eastern historical concept. I happen to think the concept is just like the spelling, foreign in that it comes from a culture seperated from ours by time and space. As such, both are equally valid because neither is really correct, at least not totally. They're approximations to something that no longer exists, at least not the way it used to. So please, can we just admit that none of us "REALLY KNOWS" a darned thing about this particular cultural artifact and stop blowing steam? Unless one of you really is a ninja.:) That'd be cool.
heretic888 05-17-04, 01:50 PM	For what it's worth, it's neither. They're both anglicanizations of an eastern word that represents an eastern historical concept. I happen to think the concept is just like the spelling, foreign in that it comes from a culture seperated from ours by time and space. As such, both are equally valid because neither is really correct, at least not totally. They're approximations to something that no longer exists, at least not the way it used to. Ummmm.... actually, no. 'Jutsu' (pronounced j'ts') is the proper romanization for the kanji referring to 'art' or 'skill'. 'Jitsu' (pronounced jeetsoo) is used for the kanji referring alternately to 'truth' or 'fruit' (weird, I know). So please, can we just admit that none of us "REALLY KNOWS" a darned thing about this particular cultural artifact and stop blowing steam? You may not. I, however, have happen to have done at least a little research into the subject and know a thing or two --- like, for example, the first concrete evidence we have of the 'shinobi' appearing historically was in 1487 (when they aided the Rokkaku family against an attack from the Ashikaga Shogun). Laterz.
Wolfwood2 05-17-04, 03:25 PM	Originally posted by Lady Fierna What do you think? You claim your goal is, "I don't want them to absoloutely tower over monsters & such of equal CR. Finally, I've found the solution." But the first part of your post appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the power level of the characters. Instead you say the matrix, "should be based on concept, not balance". You also say you will, "Rule that certain classes that do no require training or a large amount of commitment (such as the sorcerer, the wilder(XPH), the noble (DLCS), the akashic (AU), etc.) to be capable of multiclassing with all classes. Cultural exceptions would be common in this system. Non-cultural exceptions would also be viable (instead of having a mystic theurge PrC, when a character meets the requirements, he can become a wizard-cleric)." Only hidden in the last paragraph of your post do you say, "Monsters (that are capable of gaining class levels, see SS) should gain (if PCs) a number of gestalt class levels equal to their ECL, whilst NPCs gain a number of gestalt class levels equal to their HD. Such characters should gain levels only in appropriate classes (as per the criterea for CR determining in the MM Revised) unless the DM gives special permission. This requires a bit of work on the part of the DM, but just adding the class features/spells in the NPC section of the DMG revised should basically do the trick." It appears to me that you're mixing two separate ideas in one post. Your first idea seems to be to add greater realism to your game by creating a matrix of "appropriate" classes to gestalt, with the assumption that classes with similiar training or no training requirements will be easier to learn together, while classes with heavy, uncomplementary training will be tougher to learn together. Your second idea seems to be to make monsters tougher by "gestalting" them as well. You give them free class levels equal to their hit dice, presumably boosting them up by the same amount as your PC's? Is this a correct interpretation of what you wrote? In this case, I would have to say I don't like your matrix suggestion, but I like your monster suggestion. IMO, the whole point of a gestalt campaign is to go a little wild and crazy with cool class combination. Be a paladin-rogue, be a barbarian-wizard, whatever suits your fancy. It's supposed to be high-powered and fast-paced. Just ask the player to come up with a backstory explaining the character and go from there. Disallowing combinations and slapping on XP penalties sucks all the fun out of it. However, I like your second suggestion. Sauce for the gander and all that. Giving the monster free class abilities for every monster hitdie sounds like a great idea. It'll ensure that the PC's are appropriately challenged. I'm not sure I'd do it with _every_ monster, though. You might want to save it for elite "boss" opponents, not your common mook. I think if you had spearated your suggestions a bit more carefully, you might have gotten more on-point responses.
Kurama Youko 05-17-04, 03:49 PM	You know it really does make me sick to my stomach when I see things like this, its a crying shame. Reason why? Because in all honesty I to used to be a little otaku freak to a certain degree. It was to the point i just wanted to curl up and try to find deeper insight into a culture that had nothing to do with me. Now with time and certainly alot more wisdom I've learned to seperate my appreciation for it and my own realization that no matter how much I wish it, read it, fantasize about it or preach to other about it. I will never be a Japanese, I will never be wear a little japanese yukate that has a secret inner lining that folds out into a ninja outfit. In other words give it a rest, take pride in whatever little culture you parents past on to you, because infact its what people will see and expect of you on a first inpression anyway. So for all the babble about studying feudal Japan during the Meji era or what ever so on and forth will do nothing more than further your delusion of being something you can never be. Or maybe you can, be.. yes you can be a Cyber Ninja. Preach on ninja boy, preach on.
heretic888 05-17-04, 04:08 PM	You know it really does make me sick to my stomach when I see things like this, its a crying shame. Reason why? Because in all honesty I to used to be a little otaku freak to a certain degree. It was to the point i just wanted to curl up and try to find deeper insight into a culture that had nothing to do with me. Now with time and certainly alot more wisdom I've learned to seperate my appreciation for it and my own realization that no matter how much I wish it, read it, fantasize about it or preach to other about it. I will never be a Japanese, I will never be wear a little japanese yukate that has a secret inner lining that folds out into a ninja outfit. Ummmm.... right. :rolleyes: I think you're projecting some of your own insecurities (which you seem to be freely admitting) onto me (Freud, anyone?). Nowhere did I claim to be a "ninja" or that I wanted to be Japanese. As a matter of fact, however, I do study Ninpo. All I was pointing out before was your poor wording ('true ninja'). In other words give it a rest, take pride in whatever little culture you parents past on to you, because infact its what people will see and expect of you on a first inpression anyway. That entire mindset reaks of sociocentrism (not to mention outright superficiality). I want no part of it. So for all the bable about studying feudal Japan during the Meji era or what ever so on and forth will do nothing more than further your delusion of being something you can never be. Or maybe you can, be.. yes you can be a Cyber Ninja. Preach on ninja boy, preach on. This is the most illogical thinking I have ever come across on here. This is like saying someone trying to study Hellenestic philosophy is secretly trying to pretend they are Plato. This is like saying someone interested in World War II history secretly wishes they were a war vet. This is like saying someone interested in researching Charles Manson secretly wishes they were a homocidal cult leader. It has absolutely no logical coherence whatsoever, its just a conceited attempt to attack someone for no other reason than they know more about a subject than you do. *chuckles* laterz.
Slippery Mind II 05-20-04, 04:06 PM	This is just too amusing. Do go on. I would like to know more about the finer points and diferences between a "role" and a "concept." As far as a "monk/fighter" being a "true ninja" or not, it seems to be kurama's "concept" of what a "true ninja role" is. Sheesh. :rolleyes: Edit: Poor word choice. Hmmm. I think I understood what was meant. I think other people understood what the person meant. So, I guess the point was made. You even knew wnough of what was meant to correct the person, saying his/her word choice was poor. I don't see it that way, so it seems you are on your own there, Heritic.
riceisnice 05-20-04, 04:38 PM	Dear Kurama Youko and heretic888, Nobody cares. Love, riceisnice
Lilt 05-20-04, 07:48 PM	Actually, I care. I must admit that the possible abilities of the Rogue/Monk combination do actually bear semblance to the abilities of a Ninja, although I admit that I am no expert on ninjas. OK: so the monk abilities may not make sense in some cases, I'm not sure if they used traps much in feudal japan either. From what I have read: Ninjas are trained in unarmed combat, diorienting and confusing enemies through rapid strikes (stun attack+flurry anyone?), stealth, 'sense motive' (they actually had an art for this or something, Gojo-Goyuku?), bluff (*lots* of it), striking the right kidney of an enemy (they had a separate art for it, sneak attack?), martial arts for moving in unexpected ways (wis bonus to AC+tumble anyone?), climbing, balance, they had to fit in anywhere in society (wide range of skills such-as perform, craft, ETC). I think you could certainly play a rogue/monk as a true ninja, although being a rogue/monk does not automatically entitle you to being one.
Slippery Mind II 05-21-04, 02:24 AM	Be careful you use the right choice of words Lilt... True ninja? Noooooooo! You said it!
heretic888 05-24-04, 11:53 PM	This is just too amusing. Do go on. I would like to know more about the finer points and diferences between a "role" and a "concept." Very simply, a roleplaying "role" and a roleplaying "concept" are not the same thing. Roles tend to be much more broad and generic, concepts do not. Most roleplaying concepts tend to fit into one or more roles, but not vice versa. For example, a roleplaying role might be "melee combatant" or "tank" (if you like) --- a lotta different character concepts and archetypes, all of which are quite diverse, could fit this role. As far as a "monk/fighter" being a "true ninja" or not, it seems to be kurama's "concept" of what a "true ninja role" is. Sheesh. As before, I do not subscribe to the "I think it, thus it must be so!" school of philosophy. The word 'sandwich' doesn't mean lightbulb, no matter how much you want it to. You even knew wnough of what was meant to correct the person, saying his/her word choice was poor. I don't see it that way, so it seems you are on your own there, Heritic. On my own or not, my point was still valid. I wonder if anybody here would be playing the same tune if something like "true Christian", "true Wiccan", and so forth were used... I must admit that the possible abilities of the Rogue/Monk combination do actually bear semblance to the abilities of a Ninja, although I admit that I am no expert on ninjas. OK: so the monk abilities may not make sense in some cases, I'm not sure if they used traps much in feudal japan either. Traps were used, but not like the ones associated with the medieval West. From what I have read: Ninjas are trained in unarmed combat, diorienting and confusing enemies through rapid strikes (stun attack+flurry anyone?) Rapid strikes?? Errrr.... not that I've seen. 'sense motive' (they actually had an art for this or something, Gojo-Goyuku?), I think you may be referring to 'sakkijutsu'. striking the right kidney of an enemy (they had a separate art for it, sneak attack?), There are various different ways of attacking kyusho points, with different disciplines focusing on different emphases. You may be referring to kosshijutsu, though. I think you could certainly play a rogue/monk as a true ninja, although being a rogue/monk does not automatically entitle you to being one. This I would basically agree with --- more or less. Laterz.