Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kitaki 12-18-06, 01:10 PM	I've never played a Gestalt character before, how good would a Wizard/Psion be, since both use Int for their spells/powers?
strenoth 12-18-06, 01:33 PM	Pretty potent in that you have a single stat to focus on, and Lots of options, and options are good. But remember, you can still only take 1 action per round, and youa re still very fragile.
memberZ 12-18-06, 01:57 PM	At high levels new-Q-lar. Downside: low hit dice one good save bad BAB progression The nice thing about gestalt if your not trying to fill roles in the party is to negate class weakness.
FlameLover 12-18-06, 05:53 PM	I would go Psion/Warblade if I was you. Int is useful for both, both limited per day and unlimited abilities, d12 HD, 2 good saves IIRC, best BAB, manifesting in medium armor (heavy if you take the feat for proficiency). If you want straight caster though, Wizard/Psion is fine. Just start with a 20 Int by being something like a Grey Elf, and you will be fine from first level. For feats I recommend staying away from item creation mostly (although Craft Wondrous Item always has uses). Maybe even a Wizard/Erudite? You have the theoretical capacity to know every Wizard and Psion spell/power that way, and both are till Int-based. This only works in a high-psionics enviroment though. Those are just some of my opinions, although I haven't actually tried them myself so I can't say anything beyond their theoretical merit.
mkill 12-19-06, 04:41 AM	I've never played a Gestalt character before, how good would a Wizard/Psion be, since both use Int for their spells/powers? I don't think the question here is: have you played gestalt before. After all, it's just old D&D multiclassing ressurected for 3rd edition. The question is: have you played both wizard and psion before? Because, if you want to make that character work, you need to know both psionics and arcane magic by heart, or you'll slow down play by taking endless time to decide which of your spells or powers to use. Even more, a wizard/psion build depends on your skills as a player to (ab)use the right combination of powers and spells. Also notice that wizard and psion share the same weaknesses: low BAB, dead after a few hits, low fort and ref saves. You will have to spend a considerable amount of ressources in covering these up. For a gestalt tryout, rather combine something with punch (any class with full bab) with a full spellcaster (anything that gets 9th level spells / powers). You can't really do anything wrong that way.
Archmage Atrus 12-19-06, 10:07 AM	Psion/Wizard is honestly one of the weakest combinations you could possibly make. First off, you can only cast either one spell or one power per round. (Admittedly, quicken power is much better than quicken spell, hands down, and would allow you to quicken a power and a spell, but it in no way makes up for any of your gestalt flaws.) Due to the fact that Psion/Wizard are mechanically identical, save for the fact that one has spells and the other has powers, that means that at any given time you'll be acting as either a Wizard or a Psion. Whereas with a combination like Fighter/Psion, you can act like both, in that you can always take advantage of teh multitude of fighter feats, wear armor, get that good Fortitude save, and manifest powers without difficulty (and get that good BAB for touch/rnaged touch powers, too!) (Yes, there are better combinations out there - Ranger/Psion, for example, gives you a net benefit because of the higher Skill Points, IMHO, I'm just pointing out how the Wizard/Psion will, ultimately, not be as powerful as first thought.)
Tyler Do'Urden 12-19-06, 11:16 AM	I actually prefer psion/wilder because the power points are pooled. I played an egoist/wilder once that served as both blaster and healer.
Derrick 12-21-06, 07:03 PM	I actually prefer psion/wilder because the power points are pooled. Hrm. Both classes have the Power Points/Day class feature, which indicates that a psion^wilder gestalt character would take the better progression. (In this case, both progressions are the same, so it's up to the player.) Manifester classes also share the Maximum Power Level Known and Powers Known class features, and combine them in a similar way. This might make psychic warrior^wilder vaguely interesting, but I think it's a strong incentive against psion^wilder.
Fargren 12-21-06, 07:17 PM	Hrm. Both classes have the Power Points/Day class feature, which indicates that a psion^wilder gestalt character would take the better progression. (In this case, both progressions are the same, so it's up to the player.) Manifester classes also share the Maximum Power Level Known and Powers Known class features, and combine them in a similar way. This might make psychic warrior^wilder vaguely interesting, but I think it's a strong incentive against psion^wilder. With the same reasoning, uld you say a sorcerer//wizard only gains spells at the better progresion?
Derrick 12-21-06, 07:48 PM	With the same reasoning, uld you say a sorcerer//wizard only gains spells at the better progresion? That would be applicable, except that, per the RAW, spells per day are kept separately. There is some strangeness involved with the sorceror, however, as he's meant to be able to "cast any spell he knows" (the same is said of the Bard and, by extension, the Assassin). Bard^Sorceror may or may not get to combine their spells known, as the tables are headed up Bard Spells Known and Sorceror Spells Known, but these aren't identified as class features separate to "Spells". I'd suggest that the character either gain both progressions drawn from distinct lists, or the better (Sorceror) progression with the ability to pick from both lists. In either case, it seems that the character will be able to cast any of those spells with any of his spell slots. Sorceror^Wizard can probably use Sorceror spell slots to cast any of his Wizard spells. (The Wizard seems to "know" - at least - all the spells in his spellbook.) However, the reverse is definitely not true: the Wizard spells must be prepared from the book. Sorceror^Cleric or Sorceror^Druid, thankfully, can't pull the same trick; divine spellcasters don't seem to know their spells at all. (I guess they cast based on faith alone. :D) I don't have the Favored Soul on hand, but I am slightly concerned that they might "know" their spells and be able to cast any spells that they "know"...
Fargren 12-21-06, 08:24 PM	Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately. Wgy wouldn't that be applicalbe to power points?
Derrick 12-21-06, 08:44 PM	Wgy wouldn't that be applicalbe to power points? The short (and condescending) answer is: Because manifester classes are not spellcasting classes, and power points are not spells per day.
Fargren 12-21-06, 08:52 PM	Well, since it's not a balance concern, I'll just house-rule it. Well, it's gestalt, balance doesn't really matter either...
Derrick 12-21-06, 10:01 PM	Well, since it's not a balance concern, I'll just house-rule it. House-rule it to what? Having two separate power point pools (as is implied by your quoting of the spellcasting separation clause)? That contradicts the more general rules for having levels in two different manifester classes. If you House-rule it to combining power points, then that's not following even the spirit of the rule you've cited. Well, it's gestalt, balance doesn't really matter either... Balance is somewhat concerning. Allowing full combination of power points is similar to the Bard^Sorceror spellcasting, except more potent. (If Favored Soul^Sorceror works the way that I think it might, then I guess the precedent already exists for this sort of madness.)
taltamir 12-22-06, 12:50 AM	second worse gestalt possible, not as bas as a sorc/wizard which is the absolute worse gestalt possible. You want something tough, like a monk or a warrior, to mix with something like a psion or wizard.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-22-06, 04:26 AM	The power points you get from gestalting two psionic classes are pooled because the power points you get from multiclassing two psionic classes are pooled. Sorcerer/wizards get their two sets of spells, so there's no reason psion/wilders shouldn't get two sets of power points, unless of course you just don't like psionics.
Evillain 12-23-06, 05:02 PM	Worst character ever? how about best character ever? just by the number of PrCs that can be aplied to this build, there is each one for wizard and psion, plus cerebremancer and others in dragon mags. I play a Wiz/Eru in a gestalt quest, it's hard to play, but he is easily the most powerfull character in the game. my DM can't even think of some one stronger than him. Yes he has weaknesses but the power he gets in return is amasing. Just check dragon 313, it has psi-spell feats that can enhance psionic abilities with spell slots and vis-versa.
Derrick 12-24-06, 10:40 AM	The power points you get from gestalting two psionic classes are pooled because the power points you get from multiclassing two psionic classes are pooled. Just like hit points and fortitude saves, then. Sorcerer/wizards get their two sets of spells, so there's no reason psion/wilders shouldn't get two sets of power points, unless of course you just don't like psionics. That's a different argument. If you want to say that the psion^wilder gets one power pool for his psion powers, and one pool for his wilder powers, that's (kinda) supported by UA. (I think there might be a problem with it in the XPH, though.) However, you've claimed that the points form one pool, which isn't even following the spirit of the spellcasting exception to class feature restrictions in gestalt.
taltamir 12-24-06, 05:30 PM	good point, either the power points make two seperate pools, or you get the HIGHER of the two... I mean, Hit die and saves dont stack, you get the better one... besides, massive amounts of PP aren't gonna help you in alot of fights because you would still only be able to use X power per turn... Although you could be less conservative in your use of powers and go for the strongest ones even in small encounters... meh, it has its good and bad points.
Fargren 12-24-06, 06:17 PM	besides, massive amounts of PP aren't gonna help you in alot of fights because you would still only be able to use X power per turn... You are only able to expende X powerpoint per power, but as many as you like/can per turn
taltamir 12-24-06, 06:29 PM	You are only able to expende X powerpoint per power, but as many as you like/can per turn I was obviously referring to the fact that you can only use one power per turn. Ofcourse that power may take as many points as you like, but there are only so many points you can push per power, and with only one power per turn...
memberZ 12-24-06, 10:31 PM	As to the psion/wilder : The points pool ; XPH states they do The powers are seperate. You can not wild surge a power you selected as a psion. You can only use as many power points per power as you manifester level, well besides overchanneling or surging. You normally can only use one power per turn, unless you use a power as a free action. Some powers can be augmented with extra power points (usually +6PP) to cast as free actions. In turns you cast a power as a free action you can cast a second power as a standard action.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-25-06, 01:47 AM	However, you've claimed that the points form one pool, which isn't even following the spirit of the spellcasting exception to class feature restrictions in gestalt.Look, when you gestalt two spellcasting classes, you do the exact same thing with their spells that you would do if you had used conventional multiclassing; you get two sets of spell slots and spells known, and bonus spells for each class based on the relevant ability score. When you gestalt two psionic classes, you do the exact same thing with their powers that you would do in conventional multiclassing; each class gets a separate list of powers, but the power points are pooled. It's on XPH p. 17. "If you have levels in more than one psionic class, you combine your power points from each class to make up your reserve." It's not that complicated. Given the complete lack of psionic content in UA, are you really surprised they forgot to mention this?
Evillain 12-25-06, 02:08 AM	Tyler is right, PPs stack, it does not really improve you char that much since his manifester level is still limited by his character level and furthermore it doesn't really give him more power, because he would basically be able to cast the same number of powers at about the same power. giving only the better progression is against the gestalt concept, (a wiz/sor doesn't gain the best spell slots he gets both). But back on topic, what did you think of dragon 313? psi-spell feats, an ho the amazing mind mage PrC...
Tyler Do'Urden 12-25-06, 02:17 AM	You can not wild surge a power you selected as a psion.Yes, you can. Why? Because there's nothing in the description of wild surge that restricts it to wilder powers. If you were a multiclass psion/wilder, you could wild surge psion powers. You would just apply the wild surge bonus to your psion manifester level. There's no reason gestalt characters should have fewer options than standard ones.
Evillain 12-25-06, 02:22 AM	that's right, the only limitation i see is in manifester levels, keep your powers separate because you ML might differ from wilder or psion. so a power learned could be cast by your psion 1/2 (at your psion ML) and anothe at by your wilder 1/2 (at your wilder ML).
memberZ 12-25-06, 02:59 AM	As a game balancing mechanic you treat the two classes separately. Powers and abilities linked to Charisma, and powers and abilities learned from Intelligence. The train of thought you imply leads people to pool wizard and sorcerer spells and casting. It’s about balance not what is directly written in a book that didn’t consider gestating.
Derrick 12-25-06, 04:18 AM	Look, when you gestalt two spellcasting classes, you do the exact same thing with their spells that you would do if you had used conventional multiclassing; you get two sets of spell slots and spells known, and bonus spells for each class based on the relevant ability score. That's because spellcasting got a specific exception to the more general rules on class features. Note that, when you gestalt two class that get Bonus Feat, you do something quite different with their Bonus Feats than you would have under conventional multi-classing; you only take the faster progression. Now, I'm sure that you think that this is because the designers wanted to help out spellcasters, but that's a mistake. The rule is there for clarity and - believe it or not - balance. If we try applying the standard rule for combining class features to, say, Paladin^Sorceror1, there are judgement calls all the way down. It probably leads to Bless Weapon et al four times a day with no arcane spell failure; perhaps this wouldn't have been so bad in itself, but I think it would have been the foot in the door for more game-wrecking consequences. When you gestalt two psionic classes, you do the exact same thing with their powers that you would do in conventional multiclassing; each class gets a separate list of powers, but the power points are pooled. Why don't you do the exact same thing with their class features that you do with any other combination of classes? It's on XPH p. 17. "If you have levels in more than one psionic class, you combine your power points from each class to make up your reserve." It's not that complicated. ... so, the redeeming virtue of your House Rule is that it's not that complicated? :) Seriously, though: you're ignoring the UA rules on Gestalt. There needs to be a reason for doing so. Given the complete lack of psionic content in UA, are you really surprised they forgot to mention this? Designer intent argument, I guess? It would stand up better if there was a need for a special rule to govern this situation. The RAW covers Psion^Wilder quite well, and does an equally good job on meldshaper and initiator gestalts. It might shut out some things that you'd like to do, but the RAW shuts out some things that other people would like to do, too, so surely that can't be a knock-down argument! :)
Tyler Do'Urden 12-25-06, 08:00 PM	Why don't you do the exact same thing with their class features that you do with any other combination of classes?What class features are you talking about?
Evillain 12-25-06, 09:06 PM	Derrick thinks you only get the better progression, wich is totally ridiculous. I think you get the 2 PPs pooled, wich is the easiest interpretation of what a gestalt does. You only get the best progression for same name class features, like HD,Saves, Bab, fighter bonus feats, Wizard caster level, Sorcere Caster level, WIzard spells know, Sorcerer spell know, Psion powers known, Wilder powers known, Psion PP and WIlder PP. So basically if your psion 10, then go for a psionic PrC wich you gestalt with psion, you only get 1 manifester level per class, you only take the fastest progression of PP. Because it is the SAME CLASS FEATURE. But in the case of a Psion/wilder or psion/erudite or psion/wtv with pp, it is not the same class ability so it stacks.
Derrick 12-25-06, 10:41 PM	Derrick thinks you only get the better progression, wich is totally ridiculous. Yeah. Heaven forbid that we play by the rules! :D Tyler, as Evillain hasn't really answered your question: I think that the class features relevant to this discussion are Power Points/Day, Maximum Power Level Known and Powers Known. In each case, the better progression should be used. (I also think that that manifester^manifester characters should be allowed maximum leeway in combining their powers, such that they can pick either key ability, take powers from both lists, etc.) I think you get the 2 PPs pooled, wich is the easiest interpretation of what a gestalt does. That's not an interpretation. It's a House Rule. You only get the best progression for same name class features, like HD,Saves, Bab, fighter bonus feats, Wizard caster level, Sorcere Caster level, WIzard spells know, Sorcerer spell know, Psion powers known, Wilder powers known, Psion PP and WIlder PP. The features you list after BAB don't exist in the RAW. Their equivalents are Bonus Feat, Spells, Powers Known and Power Points/Day. As noted, Spells has a specific exception to its combination in gestalt games. So basically if your psion 10, then go for a psionic PrC wich you gestalt with psion, you only get 1 manifester level per class, you only take the fastest progression of PP. Because it is the SAME CLASS FEATURE. But in the case of a Psion/wilder or psion/erudite or psion/wtv with pp, it is not the same class ability so it stacks. Could you explain to me how Power Points/Day is different from Power Points/Day? If it's because the class feature belongs to a different class in each case, then aren't you eliminating the restriction on combining identical class features? (i.e. There'd be no such thing as Uncanny Dodge - instead, we have Barbarian Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Uncanny Dodge, etc.)
Fargren 12-25-06, 11:00 PM	Yeah. Heaven forbid that we play by the rules! :D Tyler, as Evillain hasn't really answered your question: I think that the class features relevant to this discussion are Power Points/Day, Maximum Power Level Known and Powers Known. In each case, the better progression should be used. (I also think that that manifester^manifester characters should be allowed maximum leeway in combining their powers, such that they can pick either key ability, take powers from both lists, etc.) That's not an interpretation. It's a House Rule. The features you list after BAB don't exist in the RAW. Their equivalents are Bonus Feat, Spells, Powers Known and Power Points/Day. As noted, Spells has a specific exception to its combination in gestalt games. Could you explain to me how Power Points/Day is different from Power Points/Day? If it's because the class feature belongs to a different class in each case, then aren't you eliminating the restriction on combining identical class features? (i.e. There'd be no such thing as Uncanny Dodge - instead, we have Barbarian Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Uncanny Dodge, etc.) I think the concern is not RAW, it's balance. Gestalt wasn't written with psionics in mind, so it's understandable that RAW doesn't take psionics into account. Since manifesting is so similar to spell casting, I feel it'd be fair to apply a similar ruling. Two pools seems fine, even though normal psionic multiclassing gives you one big pool. Both options seem, to me, fairly balanced against Gestalt spell casting.
Derrick 12-26-06, 12:30 AM	I think the concern is not RAW, it's balance. Gestalt wasn't written with psionics in mind, so it's understandable that RAW doesn't take psionics into account. Since manifesting is so similar to spell casting, I feel it'd be fair to apply a similar ruling. You seem to be using balance outside of its usual meaning. :) Normally, balance is invoked in the sense that one option should not be clearly better than the majority of others available at the same level. (Familiar examples include Polymorph.) What I think you're talking about seems to be based on the idea that all options ought to be as good as one another - a fair use of balance, but not an unproblematic one. For starters, it seems to assume that players won't gravitate towards good options as they see them. It's also a collosal amount of work to balance out all the options in D&D. (If you do manage to create a completely option-balanced D&D, then I'll buy your product once I recover from the shock. :D) I'm quite happy to have some options be lame. So long as there's a big pool of good options, players will be fairly happy; discontent with a certain option not working as they thought it would is fleeting so long as they're not locked into the character choices that led to the situation. Two pools seems fine, even though normal psionic multiclassing gives you one big pool. Both options seem, to me, fairly balanced against Gestalt spell casting. Shelving my contrary intuitions, the concern I have with either House Rule is that Elan Psion^Wilders will get a huge amount out of Resilience - are you OK with that? It probably means that you won't see Psion^Wilders of other races...
Tyler Do'Urden 12-26-06, 12:58 AM	Shelving my contrary intuitions, the concern I have with either House Rule is that Elan Psion^Wilders will get a huge amount out of Resilience - are you OK with that?Elan Resilience isn't half as cost effective as vigor, so yes, that's fine. Like it or not, psionics are a form of spellcasting. The effects and limitations are almost identical; only the nature of the daily limits differ. Psionics should be treated the same as all other forms of spellcasting when you do gestalt. A sorcerer/wizard gets two sets of spells/spells known with two different caster levels. A psion/wilder should be getting two sets of powers/power points with two different manifester levels. Your interpretation would literally halve the power of the latter with no acknowledgement of the former. Pooling the power points as you would in conventional multiclassing is just a logical next step. Choosing not to apply that portion of the RAW would then be a house rule. I'm sure you've been working in the gaming industry for many years, but if you'll kindly step down from your high horse and point out a single line of text that invalidates my interpretation, I'll happily recant.
memberZ 12-26-06, 12:59 AM	Tie the Elans racial abilities to one pool (if using the dual pool method), tie it to manifester level (using the super pool method). The slippery slope I see with Psion/Wilder is combining abilities such as Surge. If you say that one could surge powers that were chosen as a psion then you are stating that the powers are the same. If the powers are the same then you only gain powers as the better progression (the psions). One has to then point out that the PP then fall under the same dilemma. If you say they are different then the abilities tied to the powers are different. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-26-06, 01:12 AM	If you say that one could surge powers that were chosen as a psion then you are stating that the powers are the same.No I am not. There is nothing about the wild surge ability that says you can only use it on wilder powers. If you were a psion/wilder or a wilder/psychic warrior under standard multiclassing rules, you could still use wild surge on powers from other classes. The caveat is that if you surge a psion power, the bonus applies to your psion manifester level. However in the case of a gestalt psion/wilder, the two manifester levels are the same, so the difference is invisible.
Derrick 12-26-06, 05:00 PM	Like it or not, psionics are a form of spellcasting. The effects and limitations are almost identical; only the nature of the daily limits differ. Psionics should be treated the same as all other forms of spellcasting when you do gestalt. A sorcerer/wizard gets two sets of spells/spells known with two different caster levels. A psion/wilder should be getting two sets of powers/power points with two different manifester levels. Your interpretation would literally halve the power of the latter with no acknowledgement of the former. So, you're running the 'balanced option' argument, but with a psionics civil rights flavour? Well, my massive-minded neighbour, please understand that I don't have anything against psionic-adventurers. I'm not claiming that you aren't PCs, or saying that you should be kicked out of my game; my view that magic and psionics are different is actually respectful of your beautiful and diverse culture. Rather than saying that the proud manifesting folk are "like spellcasters, but," I say that you are defined in your own right. Power points to the people! ;) Seriously, though: I can run the same sort of argument on any class feature if I'm prepared to be intellectually dishonest enough. It still comes down to your misguided view about the purpose of the spellcasting exception: it isn't there to make spellcasters more powerful, it's there to clarify what happens when you take two spellcasting classes in a gestalt. You don't need that clarification when taking two manifesting classes, because it's already very clear what happens. Or at least, I thought it was very clear. :) Pooling the power points as you would in conventional multiclassing is just a logical next step. Choosing not to apply that portion of the RAW would then be a house rule. Yeah, but you're already in the weird and whacky realm of House Rules when you've decided to allow the combination of class features. Patching up House Rules is par for the course. I'm sure you've been working in the gaming industry for many years, but if you'll kindly step down from your high horse and point out a single line of text that invalidates my interpretation, I'll happily recant. That's silly - it's like asking someone to find a line of text that says that Bonus Feat and Sneak Attack are different things! :) The reason that I say that Psionics and Magic are different is because they're independently defined. There's a rule for their interaction (Psionics-Magic Transparency) because otherwise anything that affected a spell would never affect a power. By the way, nothing in Psionics-Magic Transparency supports your interpretation. :)
Tyler Do'Urden 12-26-06, 08:26 PM	Do they teach you to be that condescending in school in New Zealand? Because you're exemplary. I don't recall ever reading something so infuriating that didn't deal directly with politics. This is a gray area. Unearthed Arcana does not cover psionics at all. It's your word against mine and unfortunately, being longwinded doesn't make you correct.
Derrick 12-26-06, 09:24 PM	If you have issues with the way I'm posting, please PM me or a moderator. This is a gray area. Unearthed Arcana does not cover psionics at all. I'm confused. Are you now telling me that the UA Gestalt rules given need to be embelished by House Rules in order to work? (That doesn't seem to be consistent with your earlier position.)
Grug the Just 12-27-06, 02:46 AM	I've done the math once previously, forgive if it's off. I took the wizards spells per day, not counting bonus spells of course, and converted them to power points. 9the level spell equaling 17 points and such, what I came up with was that at 20th level, a psion has 4 less power points than a wizard would. So I can't agree with your argument on balance, Derrick. Unless you also think that basically the powers are more powerful then spells, overall. Honestly, I'm not terribly sure why you are so...persistent with your point. Aside from the fact the no one likes to be wrong.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-27-06, 04:01 AM	I'm confused. Are you now telling me that the UA Gestalt rules given need to be embelished by House Rules in order to work?Your rape of the phrase "house rule" is complete. You can put it down now. Unearthed Arcana is a book of house rules. To call my interpretation of a house rule a house rule is blatant baiting and I'm sorry to say it worked. Now, I'm saying what I have always been saying; Unearthed Arcana does not cover psionics, but it does cover magic. It is a small leap to give psionics the same treatment as magic. Spellcasting classes in gestalt are handled the same as spellcasting classes in conventional multiclassing; two sets of spells and soforth. I am simply proposing that gestalt manifesting classes also be handled the same as in conventional multiclassing. This entails two sets of powers and a single power point pool to which both classes contribute. I base this interpretation on the only RAW we have available, namely the spellcasting exception in the gestalt rules, and the multiclassing guidelines in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. I am not doing it to vindicate psionics, I am not doing it as an artificial attempt to achieve balance, I am not doing it to build more powerful characters, I am doing it because I genuinely feel that this is the correct interpretation of the RAW. What exactly, if you can define it, is your position? Do you even have one, or do you just enjoy being contrary? EDIT: I emailed Customer Service about this, by the way. They pretty much told me, "You figure it out." And do make note of the times on each message, because I think this is a record.Customer ([Tyler Do'Urden]) 12/26/2006 05:41 PM Cross referencing Unearthed Arcana and the Expanded Psionics Handbook, how, exactly, do you gestalt two psionic classes? The way I had been handling it is based on the spellcasting exception and the multiclassing rules from the XPH. A gestalt psion/wilder for example would gain a list of powers known from both of his classes and the power points from both classes would be pooled to determine the character's power point reserve as in normal multiclassing. The save DC for each power as well as the maximum power level you could learn would be based on which class granted that power; psion powers are controlled by Intelligence, wilder powers by Charisma, and so forth. Bonus power points would be derived from both classes; one-half your Charisma mod times your wilder level plus one-half your Intelligence mod times your psion level. A recent discussion on the boards has thrown this way of doing things into question. There are those that feel that the power points from each class should be kept separate as well as those that feel that "power points per day" is one of those like class features that "accrues at the rate of the faster class." What, exactly, is the correct way of handling a gestalt between two classes that grant powers and power points?Six minutes later...Response (Sam S.) 12/26/2006 05:47 PM Hi there [Tyler], When you combine the wealth of information available in Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 with the boundless imagination of Dungeon Masters and players everywhere, an enormous variety of questions are bound to come up! In the past, we in Customer Service have done our best to answer every rules related question that has come to us. We found that more and more often, there simply was no answer in the rules to what the players and Dungeon Masters were asking. But this is the nature of Dungeons & Dragons! We sometimes get so caught up in all the rules and crunchy aspects of the game that we as players and Dungeon Masters forget one very important detail – The Dungeon Master is in complete control of the play experience that he/she is providing for the players. There are many situations that are not specifically covered in the rules – situations that require someone to interpret and apply the rules creatively, and situations that require someone to make new rules on the fly. The Dungeon Master is that someone. The Dungeon Master has always been, and will always be, the final arbiter on how things work in his/her campaign or adventure. What does this mean for us and you? It means that if you are a player with a rules question, you should work with your Dungeon Master to form an answer that works in that campaign. What your Dungeon Master says trumps any answer we could possibly give you. This also means that if you are a Dungeon Master looking for an answer to a complex rules question, we in Customer Service are not able to help you. You have many resources available to you, and you’ll first want to make sure you’ve looked through all the relevant rules sources. If you don’t feel you have enough information to make a ruling after going through those books, you may want to check the errata and FAQ on the D&D website. If at that point you are still unsure of what to do, you may want to visit the message boards and discuss the situation with other DMs and players, to see if any of them can provide a solution that you are comfortable with. What counts as a complex rules question? Basically anything that you can’t find rules for in the books. For example, if you want to know how a specific spell interacts with another spell, feat, ability, etc., and the rules simply do not mention anything about the interaction, then it is up to the DM to make a decision. That is a complex rules question. However, if you want to know how a specific spell, feat, ability, etc. works on its own and the text simply doesn’t make sense to you, then give us a call or drop us an e-mail! We’ll be more than happy to help you understand the rules. We will also continue to pass on errata suggestions and feedback to the good folks that make the game, so if you find some incorrect or obviously missing information, feel free to send that in as feedback. We’ll make sure it gets to the right people. Even though we won’t be able to help you with those complex questions, it is important to remember that the game belongs to the Dungeon Master, and he/she is sharing it with the players! The Dungeon Master has all the power in the world to make and break the rules as he/she sees fit! As long as players are informed on what rules are being applied and how they work, and everyone is doing their best to make the gaming experience fun and exciting, then everyone is already following the real “rules” of the game. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Sam Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Evillain 12-27-06, 04:39 AM	this is getting off topic. Why don't we continue this duscisison off the boards, let's say over a good game a poker and a beer mug?
Tyler Do'Urden 12-27-06, 04:42 AM	You buying?
Evillain 12-27-06, 05:07 AM	Sure, first round is on me, and check the other thread for my super wiz/eru combo. Wizard/Erudite (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11013681&postcount=44)
Derrick 12-27-06, 09:48 PM	I've done the math once previously, forgive if it's off. I took the wizards spells per day, not counting bonus spells of course, and converted them to power points. 9the level spell equaling 17 points and such, what I came up with was that at 20th level, a psion has 4 less power points than a wizard would. So I can't agree with your argument on balance, Derrick. Unless you also think that basically the powers are more powerful then spells, overall. Honestly, I'm not terribly sure why you are so...persistent with your point. Aside from the fact the no one likes to be wrong. I've presented two claims about balance. One has to do with the reason for the spellcasting exception, and considers the alternative (free and radical combination of spellcasting features under Paladin^Sorceror). The other is that the type of balance being invoked by the folks I'm disagreeing with isn't the familiar type - it's option-equivalence, rather than freedom from dominating options. Could you identify the argument that you're addressing, and explain how your mathematical analysis affects the conclusion? If 'option-equivalence' doesn't make sense (and it probably shouldn't :(), here's an explanation: When I write 'option-equivalence', I'm talking about the principle that all options ought to have the same, or similar, values. If option-equivalence was actual in D&D, then creating a character completely at random (but in accord with the rules) will produce a result similar in efficacy to a character that's been fully optimised. (This does depend on how much option-equivlance there is, of course. Optimisation still might be worth it in an option-equivalence ruled game.) The fact that option-equivalence isn't actual in D&D isn't a terrible blow against it. It just shows that the designers don't believe in the principle, and they can, of course, be wrong about that. As regards my 'persistence', my core claim has very little to do with balance. If you're interested, here's a intensely long-winded explanation of the debate: The point of distinction between Tyler and I is on how UA's rules ought to treat Psionics. My position is that following the letter of the rules works in a clear, consistent and predictable way. Therefore, there is no need for embelishing them with any assumptions about designer intent (or counter-factual designer intent). The claim to the contrary has a different basis. Fargren, for example, openly believes in option-equivalence, so he and I can agree to disagree. (Even though I haven't, I suppose I should. :)) Tyler refuses to admit to believing in anything I suggest. As such, his position as he insists on it being seems to be that little leaps should be leapt because they're there. :rolleyes: Because that's obviously absurd, I suspect that Tyler really is a believer in option-equivalence; without that assumption, his argument doesn't make sense. To make that more clear, here's a summary of Tyler's latest argument: 1. It is a small leap to give manifesting class features the same treatment as spellcasting class features. 2. The UA rules on Gestalt dictate that spellcasting class features are not taken at the fastest progression, but are instead kept separate. 3. Therefore, it is a small leap to say that the UA rules on Gestalt dictate that manifesting class features are not taken at the fastest progression, but are instead kept separate. (1&2) From there, Tyler argues that we ought to follow the XPH and merge the power pool, but he doesn't ever come back and explain why that small leap needs to be taken. As such, I can happily nod along and agree with Tyler that it is a small leap. However, unless Tyler is then going to assert that small leaps are always worth leaping, there isn't any force to the argument. So, I think that there must be option-equivalence at work here. If you believe in the principle, then Tyler has advanced a pretty good argument as to why you'd want to allow two separate sets of manifester class features to be combined. That brings us to discussing why we shouldn't leap to option-equivalence, even if it's only a little leap. And my basic answer is this: option-equivalence is very little fun for people who like to optimise. Character Optimisation is fun in its own right if you have a certain kind of personality, but it also has an instrumental value. Put more plainly, people CO not just because they like shuffling numbers, but also because it makes their characters better at kicking butt. Bragging rights are fun, too. :) Option-equivalence is also a bad idea in that it's a huge amount of work to create option-equivalent systems, especially large ones. (And D&D is a large system.) That's not a knock-down argument. There are answers, and I do feel the force of them (I've admitted to having some option-equivalent guided house rules, after all :)). However, I think that option-equivalence is basically ignored by the designers, and as such can't be held up as a principle for interpreting the RAW. Now, I'm happy to admit that I may have made a mistake in interpreting Tyler - particularly as it looks like we're arguing past one another. If there is something else at work here, then I'd be interested in seeing it - but further insistence that "it's just the RAW" isn't going to enlighten anyone. (As the 'something else' may be that Tyler found the 'Power Points to the People' bit to be insulting, I apologise for any injury caused. It was meant to be funny in its own right, not funny as an attack on your position.) Tyler objected to my use of 'House Rules' in relation to UA, so I suppose I ought to offer a principled distinction: It comes down to what you tell people about your game. When playing Gestalt as it's written, you can honestly say, "We're playing D&D with the Gestalt option in Unearthed Arcana." If your game allows manifester^manifester Gestalts to work the way that Tyler argues that they ought to, then you ought to say, "We're playing D&D with the Gestalt option in Unearthed Arcana, except that we make allowances for Psionics." That "except that we" bit is when you know you have a bona fide House Rule, as opposed to an Option.
PhaedrusXY 12-27-06, 09:57 PM	First off, you can only cast either one spell or one power per round. This is absolutely not true at the upper levels of the game. Go look at this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=476377) and this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=471148). When asked "how many spells/powers can a high level psion/wizard cast/use in a round?" the correct answer is "all of them". :D As a Gestalt, you can go far above either of them, as you'll have synergy that neither has alone. Check this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457351) out. I think a gestalt psion/wizard could do it by himself without the cohort. And things can get even more insane than that... (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=573248)
Grug the Just 12-27-06, 11:34 PM	Well, here's my reply, quite long. Hope it helps somewhat. Very well said Derrick. Before I pose any sort of counter argument, which may outline our difference of opinions and therefore make any arguements we have towards the other's moot. You should know that I am good friends with Tyler there. I game with him twice a week in fact. We do tend to disagree on good number of rules queries. Mainly because my outlook on rules is rather loose. I am of the mind set that pretty much anything presented in books is not a viable option unless the DM agrees to it. This is because, many things presented in 3rd party books, (I'm looking at you Mongoos Publishing) usually contains rules that are... let's say, less than balanced. So, in my eyes, my games are a collaboration of rules sets cobbled together to form a fully functioning game. Now don't get me wrong, I allow most rules from Wizards products on good faith alone, and only bother omitting rules as I catch them ruining the playabilty of any particular game. That, to me, is the most important thing, playability. Which could lend to why when I'm on these boards I only give suggestions, for the most part. Anyway, onto my main point. Given that UA is devoid of psionics, I am only led to assume that "gestalt-ing" two psionic classes would have to work similarly to how it would be done with two spellcasting classes. Spells being powers and spells per day being power points. Now I can see your arguement for how it should work by the RAW, but I cannot agree that is how it should be interpreted for the sake of balance. I see a precedent in that spellcasters gain full benefit of their full spells per day from both classes, although they cannot pool them together as easily as psionic power point can be pooled. I don't think this game was designed with a huge degree of "option-equivalance" as you so put it, but some semblance of balance should be maintained for the game as a whole. In my opinion as a DM, it only seems fair to allow psionic classes the same benefits as spellcasters. Full casting/manifesting for each. I hope I didn't seem to accusitory with the "persistence" statement, that was not my intent. 1. It is a small leap to give manifesting class features the same treatment as spellcasting class features. A "leap" though it may be, I see it also a leap to assume that because psionics a listed differently, that they should be treated as a whole different "breed of animal" than spellcasting. That brings us to discussing why we shouldn't leap to option-equivalence, even if it's only a little leap. And my basic answer is this: option-equivalence is very little fun for people who like to optimise. I'm sorry, but this statement seems to me that you would be in favor of "gimping" certain classes in order to have the others shine by comparison. I still think that at some point a certain recalibration of the rules may need to take place, or for better results examining each rules query that comes up and make the best judgement call based on precendent. As a result, my opinion is that the should stack, option equivalence not even considered here. I mean, some people could change their characters ever so slightly, the difference of a single feat and end up with wildly different results. At the core, there should still be something mitigating that fine line of balance. Though I probably sound like a broken record by now, I think this one may come down to opinion rather than fact. You see no facts claiming my case true, and vice versa. I hope I've cleared things up a bit, but judging from what has been typed prior, I doubt there has been a significant change in your opinion. I can't force my opinion on you, only widen my description of it. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, I'd happy to proceed in a friendly discourse.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-28-06, 12:19 AM	As regards my 'persistence', my core claim has very little to do with balance. If you're interested, here's a intensely long-winded explanation of the debate:I'm not. As I said earlier, being longwinded doesn't make you correct. If you can't state your opinion briefly, succinctly, I no longer have any interest in it. You're not going to change how I and many others run psionic gestalt characters, and you've obviously never run them, so I think we can just agree to disagree.
Derrick 12-28-06, 02:16 AM	Tyler, Chill. :) To save you from the horrors of hitting the Show button on my last post, here's my position, copy-and-pasted from the first paragraph: "My position is that following the letter of the rules works in a clear, consistent and predictable way. Therefore, there is no need for embelishing them with any assumptions about designer intent (or counter-factual designer intent)." The longwindedness only resulted from laying out how I see the debate as a whole (including how I currently understand your position). (If you find this reply too wordy, don't feel like you have to take the time to write anything in return. I'll just take the absence of text to mean "Shut up, Derrick - I hate you!" :)) Grug, Thanks. Blocks preserved to improve skimming. Now don't get me wrong, I allow most rules from Wizards products on good faith alone, and only bother omitting rules as I catch them ruining the playabilty of any particular game. That, to me, is the most important thing, playability. I'm not sure if I share that perspective or whether I'm just sympathetic to it. At any rate, our starting points aren't too far away from one another. Given that UA is devoid of psionics, I am only led to assume that "gestalt-ing" two psionic classes would have to work similarly to how it would be done with two spellcasting classes. Spells being powers and spells per day being power points. Now I can see your arguement for how it should work by the RAW, but I cannot agree that is how it should be interpreted for the sake of balance. OK. Just to clarify, are you saying that I'm misrepresenting the RAW? Tyler claims that his view is the real RAW, and I'm passing off some ersatz version thereof, so there's no agree-to-disagree available. If you're instead just saying that the RAW needs patching up with a House Rule, then we're into the area of taste. In terms of House Rules (as opposed to Optional Rules in a WotC product), I don't have a strong opinion. It seems to me that non-combination is a better principle, just in case something abhorrent leaps out of the precedent set. At the moment, I'm looking over Incarnate^Totemist, and intend to look at Swordsage^Warblade next. The former eventually runs out of places to shove their soulmelds, but that's a fairly curious form of problem. The collosal essentia pool (and the stacking of the extra capacity features) is a bit hard to estimate the effects of without playtesting, but it's enough to make my spider-senses tingle. I hope I didn't seem to accusitory with the "persistence" statement, that was not my intent. I didn't take any offence. Actually, I thought it kinda funny, in the same way that I do Tyler's accusations of longwindedness. :) (If we lived in a small village, I would be OK with being known as "Derrick the Persistent" or "Derrick the Longwinded".) A "leap" though it may be, I see it also a leap to assume that because psionics a listed differently, that they should be treated as a whole different "breed of animal" than spellcasting. My problem with that argument is that you can run it with anything. The only thing dividing Sneak Attack from spellcasting is that it's listed and described differently. I'm sorry, but this statement seems to me that you would be in favor of "gimping" certain classes in order to have the others shine by comparison. That does seem to be what the designers had in mind with the Fighter.... :) Point taken. I think I may have left the point a bit blunt. In the particular case, I don't think that Psion or Wilder ought to be crippled in Gestalt, but just packing them together is "pile it on" play, rather than innovative combination. I still think that at some point a certain recalibration of the rules may need to take place, or for better results examining each rules query that comes up and make the best judgement call based on precendent. I hold up the same principle. What I'm concerned with is establishing a precedent that will keep out future pile-it-on combinations that really are broken. (Such as the gestalts I pointed toward from Magic of Incarnum and the Tome of Battle.) Though I probably sound like a broken record by now, I think this one may come down to opinion rather than fact. You see no facts claiming my case true, and vice versa. Well, I only partly agree. I do see some merit to what I think your position is (I'm not dead-set against option-equivalence). The claim that the spellcasting exception establishes a precedent is non-trivial, and my best argument to the contrary is to claim that the spellcasting exception is for clarity, not for the advantage of spellcaster^spellcaster characters. If that claim appears non-intuitive, then skim upthread and compare the relative ease with which I can lay out how to take the better progression in the case of a manifester^manifester gestalt with my uncertainty as to how you'd do so with spellcaster^spellcaster gestalt. (In the latter case, it might look easy with, say, Sorceror^Wizard, but Sorceror^Paladin is another thing entirely.) Ultimately, though, the argument seems to be "Allowing spellcaster-type abilities to combine is good for gestalt" against "Not allowing spellcaster-type abilities to combine is good for gestalt" - they could both be true, even though we can only use one option in any given game. By comparison, the dispute between Tyler and myself isn't nearly so driven by taste: the RAW can only be one thing or the other.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-28-06, 02:33 AM	My position is that following the letter of the rules works in a clear, consistent and predictable way.Agreed. Therefore, there is no need for embelishing them with any assumptions about designer intent (or counter-factual designer intent).Nobody here is doing that. Is that it?
Grug the Just 12-28-06, 06:26 PM	OK. Just to clarify, are you saying that I'm misrepresenting the RAW? Tyler claims that his view is the real RAW...Well, my opinion is that RAW is an idea that only works on the boards what works during a game really matters and that boils down to DM's interpretation of the RAW.
Derrick 12-28-06, 08:35 PM	Grug, OK. :) But we are on the boards right now... unless I'm really deeply immersed into someone's rather mundane game of D20 Modern? :eek: Nobody here is [embelishing the rules with assumptions about designer intent (or counter-factual designer intent)]. Where's the rule that tells you that manifester^manifester Gestalt characters acquire their manifesting-related class features separately?
Grug the Just 12-28-06, 09:21 PM	OK. But we are on the boards right now... unless I'm really deeply immersed into someone's rather mundane game of D20 Modern? True, but essentially my opinion on both your and Tyler's interpretations on the RAW is that since psionics isn't diliberately taken into account, there is no clear answer. This boils down to a DM call, my call would be, it stacks with magic, psionics is very similar, it stacks in psionics.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-28-06, 11:53 PM	Where's the rule that tells you that manifester^manifester Gestalt characters acquire their manifesting-related class features separately?It's a logical interpretation of the spellcasting exception, based on the fact that the book is apparently written with no awareness of psionics.
Derrick 12-29-06, 12:53 AM	It's a logical interpretation of the spellcasting exception, based on the fact that the book is apparently written with no awareness of psionics. So, are you telling me that, had the designers catered to psionics, they would have ruled the same way that you have?
Evillain 12-29-06, 01:57 AM	I think it is a question of style, althought i can see derrick's point, I still will apply my interpretation of the rules to my games and tyler will do the same, call house rule or raw, in my game it's the rules. :p We didn't really make any progress here, looks like it's a question we'll have to ask our dear ol' wizards.....
Tyler Do'Urden 12-29-06, 02:23 AM	So, are you telling me that, had the designers catered to psionics, they would have ruled the same way that you have?You frame your questions like you work in the White House. I'm not altering anything. I'm interpreting the rules available so I can apply them to a situation that they do not cover. But putting your word choice aside, yes, I am confident that should Customer Service or the Sage attempt to answer the question "how do you gestalt two manifesting classes," that their answer would match mine. We didn't really make any progress here, looks like it's a question we'll have to ask our dear ol' wizards.....I did. Post #41. They sent a form response that basically said, "you figure it out."
Derrick 12-29-06, 03:03 AM	You frame your questions like you work in the White House. I'm not altering anything. I'm interpreting the rules available so I can apply them to a situation that they do not cover. I didn't suggest that you have altered anything. Why do you believe that the rules do not cover this situation?
Tyler Do'Urden 12-29-06, 04:33 PM	::sigh:: I'm hallucinating. At 2am, I managed to read "would have ruled" as "would alter the rules". I blame the parents. I've listed my reasons repeatedly, but the biggest, most recent one would be the fact that CustServ just said, "the rules do not cover that situation."
sren 12-29-06, 06:03 PM	To the original poster: Psion / Duscblade or Psion / Beguiler would propably be a better build if you want an arcane/psi mix that both use INT. The duscblade doesn't have the arcane capacity or might of a wizard, but brings armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, best BAB and good FORT save to the mix, all of which complement and are compatible with the psion. The only downside (which is also faced with a psion/wizard build) is the low skill points being split between arcane and psionic skills. The beguiler version is similar, gaining light armor proficiency and REF saves in exchange for arcane versitility. This versoin doesn't have the skill limit, but the spell list isn't as useful for some campaigns (at low levels, most of the beguiler's spells are useless against non-humanoids, and few of its spells EVER affect constructs, undead or oozes, and none of the spells are likely to affect dragons unless they roll a 1 on the save). Another option if arcane power better suits you is Wizard / Psychic Warrior. The PW brings higher HD BAB and FORT save ot the table in exchange for higher level psionic power, which are all good for the wizard, but it uses a different ability score and wizards can't cast spells in armor, makign melee combat dangerous. Wizard / Lurk might also be a good option if you have the Complete Psionics book. The lurk has decent weapon/armor proficiency and power progression, is INT dependant, a good REF save, and decent special powers, but only d6 for HD. Again, the main downside is the wizard's problem with armor, but the lurk is more of a sneaky class, so lower armor class might not be as problematic. Overall, the Wizard / Psion is powerful, but has a lot of weaknesses, and still only really fills one party role. Unless the rest of the party are getting all of the other roles filled, you'll need to find a way to fill two roles, and the pwion / wiz combo will make that hard as both have low skill points, and few bonus feats. If you're too weak compared to the rest of the party, they may see you as a liability and be less than enthusiastic to resurect the weak link when you die (and at low levels, in a gestalt group playing the published modules, you will be in trouble with d4 for HD). But the goal of the game should be to have fun, if the psion / wizard looks fun to you and you're prepared to deal with the problems of the combo, then have fun. Just my 2 cents. S'Ren
taltamir 12-29-06, 08:09 PM	I've done the math once previously, forgive if it's off. I took the wizards spells per day, not counting bonus spells of course, and converted them to power points. 9the level spell equaling 17 points and such, what I came up with was that at 20th level, a psion has 4 less power points than a wizard would. So I can't agree with your argument on balance, Derrick. Unless you also think that basically the powers are more powerful then spells, overall. Honestly, I'm not terribly sure why you are so...persistent with your point. Aside from the fact the no one likes to be wrong. Except, a psion has flexability in which level power he uses those power points. He may choose to call ALL 9th level powers. A wizard or sorc is "stuck" with spell slots in levels that they can't properly use, either not casting them at all, or using a lower level spell in them (thus wasting the slot). For example, cantrips are rarely used (while a psion would use the powerpoint for a more powerful power), and level 2 slots are best used for the level 1 spell: magic missle. There are just some rather useless "slots". I Would take power points casting for a wizard (with reduced power points) over the slot based one anyday. Also the whole argument is completely irrelevant to how to apply gestalt (since its discussing relative powers of two classes). A gestalt is NOT a muliclassing experience but a specialized option that works differently then normal, it needs and HAS consistent rules that say very specific things about any form of magic, that is, all classes receive separate and independent magic casting abilities from their classes. And before you discuss feats, feats are not spellcasting abilities, they are FEATS (ie, special abilities) and based on the feat might work for more then one class. Just like the "dodge" feat works regardless of the class, and regardless of if you got it for "free" as a part of a class progression or if you had to "purchase" it with a feat slot.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-30-06, 08:04 AM	Except, a psion has flexability in which level power he uses those power points. He may choose to call ALL 9th level powers.Or he may choose to manifest detect psionics 300 times, we know. This mindset doesn't take into account the fact that psionic powers almost never automatically scale. When a 5th-level wizard cast a 5d6 lightning bolt and a 10th-level wizard casts 10d6 lightning bolt, they do so with the same investment; a 3rd-level spell slot. When a 5th-level psion manifests a 5d6 energy bolt, he does so by spending 5 power points. When a 10th-level psion manifests a 10d6 energy bolt, he must spend 10 power points; twice the investment. The wizard doesn't have to use up two spell slots to get her full damage, she just does it. But this whole mess is discussed at length over on the psionics boards in the various myth threads.
taltamir 12-30-06, 10:44 PM	Or he may choose to manifest detect psionics 300 times, we know. This mindset doesn't take into account the fact that psionic powers almost never automatically scale. When a 5th-level wizard cast a 5d6 lightning bolt and a 10th-level wizard casts 10d6 lightning bolt, they do so with the same investment; a 3rd-level spell slot. When a 5th-level psion manifests a 5d6 energy bolt, he does so by spending 5 power points. When a 10th-level psion manifests a 10d6 energy bolt, he must spend 10 power points; twice the investment. The wizard doesn't have to use up two spell slots to get her full damage, she just does it. But this whole mess is discussed at length over on the psionics boards in the various myth threads. exactly, its a caster comparison issue and is irelavant to the gestalt issue. For the issue at hand, either assume they are balanced already, or balance them with house rules. Then you must still treat them the same way when you gestalt them, using gestalt rules.