Gestalt headache.

[Drowbane]

I admit to being confused, because the method I described, which you quoted, has worked just fine for everything from 1st level to 26th. We've been using it in my gaming group since the book came out (I can never remember if it was in UA or AU - I get the names mixed up). Why does it not work for complex characters? I'd like to see an example.

Works fine, yes. Also tends to end up with characters with higher BAB and Saves than normal. Which your group (and mine) appears to be ok with.

As to the Double-caster PrC, it is only recommended against in the UA... but such a character is well within the concept of gestalt.

 

[Corsair]

It fits the character concept.

On top of that, D&D for my group is a smokeout-cumma-cooperative storytelling session-cumma-"kill the monsters with dice".

The numbers all add up, I positively adore the accounting session that is gestalt character construction.

I guess I'm just arbitrarily thumbing my nose at that rule.

I quote Call of Cthulhu on what to do with the rules in the book: "Do what thou wilt." If I'm seriously breaking any laws, I hope Ryan Dancey and the OGL rangers break into our session and drag me off to my just punishment

If you're the DM, thats fine. Make sure you tell the players this.

If you aren't the DM, then did you explicitly check this with the DM? Because this restriction is pretty explicit.

 

[XCorvis]

I admit to being confused, because the method I described, which you quoted, has worked just fine for everything from 1st level to 26th. We've been using it in my gaming group since the book came out (I can never remember if it was in UA or AU - I get the names mixed up). Why does it not work for complex characters? I'd like to see an example.

Sure.
The first thing I noticed was that it was actually much harder to do it this way, because you have to do a lot of subtraction and look at the difference between the current level and previous level. I'm actually not even sure I did it right because it was very confusing, so maybe you could check my work. (I also usually use the rule that you only get the +2 bonus for a good save once, not once for every new class, but I didn't use that with the method you described.)

1. Wiz1/War1 BAB +0, Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +2
2. Wiz2/War2 (simple incrementing)
3. Wiz3/War3 ...
4. Wiz4/War4 ...
5. Wiz5/War5 BAB +3, Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +4
6. Ult1/War6 BAB +4, Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +6
7. Swd1/Ult2 BAB +5, Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +8
8. Swd2/Ult3 BAB +6, Fort +3, Ref +5, Will +9
9. Ult4/War7 BAB +7, Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +10
10. Swd3/Ult5 BAB +8, Fort +3, Ref +5, Will +10

Compare that to my original version, which I consider "correct": BAB: +7, Fort +3, Ref +5, Will +7. Will is much higher because of multiclassing, BAB is slightly too high because of clever (or lucky) positioning of classes.

Here's the Wizard-Fighter/Wizard-Sorcerer build, using the "better of two values" method.

1 Wiz1/Ftr1 BAB +1 Fort +2 Ref +0 Will +2
2 Wiz2/Sor1 BAB +2 Fort +2 Ref +0 Will +5
3 Wiz3/Sor2 BAB +3 Fort +3 Ref +1 Will +5
4 Wiz4/Sor3 BAB +4 Fort +3 Ref +1 Will +6
...
20 Wiz20/Sor19 BAB +20 Fort +8 Ref +6 Will +14 (and caster levels of 20 and 19, respectively).

Compare that to my calculation of BAB +10, Fort +8, Ref +6, Will +12. Major difference in BAB. Obviously someone with 19 levels of Wizard-Sorcerer and one level of Wizard-Fighter shouldn't have a BAB higher than a regular Wiz19/Ftr1.

 

[javcs]

You messed up, the value increases for each level are of the classes being taken at that level.
Hench, your Wizard 20/ (Sorcerer 19 + Fighter 1) would have a BAB of +11, not +20. You got everything else right, though. His HD would be 1d10+19d4.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

I think it is coming down to a interpretation rule.

For example, on page 72 of the book, last paragraph in the second column, it says this:

"For example, a 1st-level gestalt fighter/wizard would have base saving throw bonuses of Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +2"

Which supports my interpretation.

However, the second part of that sentence is:

"-taking the good Fort save from the fighter class and the good Will save from the wizard class."

Which supports your interpretation.

Conclusion: WOTC wasn't clear enough.

 

[XCorvis]

You messed up, the value increases for each level are of the classes being taken at that level.
Hench, your Wizard 20/ (Sorcerer 19 + Fighter 1) would have a BAB of +11, not +20. You got everything else right, though. His HD would be 1d10+19d4.

Well, it was an example of an incorrect (but common) interpretation. Or did you mean my calculation via progression, because I'm pretty sure I did that part right...

 

[XCorvis]

I think it is coming down to a interpretation rule.

For example, on page 72 of the book, last paragraph in the second column, it says this:

"For example, a 1st-level gestalt fighter/wizard would have base saving throw bonuses of Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +2"

Which supports my interpretation.

At 1st level, there's no difference between any of the systems. They all give the correct value.

...
Conclusion: WOTC wasn't clear enough.

Definitely.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I guess I'm just arbitrarily thumbing my nose at that rule.

I quote Call of Cthulhu on what to do with the rules in the book: "Do what thou wilt." If I'm seriously breaking any laws, I hope Ryan Dancey and the OGL rangers break into our session and drag me off to my just punishment

Why not jsut make up the numbers out of whole cloth, if you are thumbing your nose at the rules? Something in the high triple digits will probably suit you fine for BAB and saves.