Gestalt vs core classes

[thorimar]

PS: What's wrong with Cerebremancer?

Sorry, wasn't familiar with the Cerebremancer. I haven't actively used psionics myself since 2nd edition, though a few of my players like them so I allow them at the table. It looks like what I was aiming for. 3rd edition Psionics are missing some of the key things he used to use, but I can put a few of those back in easily enough. Thanks for all the input. I might still end up with a gestalt character depending on the rest of the group. The original concepts for 2 of the PCs are from an old 2nd edition campaign and it is hard to get the paladin/mage build without alternate rules. Thanks again!

T

 

[Will]

Well, the best estimate I've heard is '+1 LA per 5 levels.'

The problem is, gestalt is a much different 'shape' of balance, so it's hard to compare.

Gestalt characters often have difficulty penetrating the SR of targets and targets are more likely to save against them (since enemies will tend to be higher level). On the flipside, they have dynamic benefits, fewer weaknesses, and more endurance.

 

[Shin Okada]

The original concepts for 2 of the PCs are from an old 2nd edition campaign and it is hard to get the paladin/mage build without alternate rules.

Gestalt rule, and Unearthed Arcana itself, is on the extreme end of "alternate rules". Thus, using that book makes difficult to keep game balance without a lot of modifications to your campaign.

Regarding Paladin/Mage build, I suggest you to check Complete books for feats and prestige classes which enable to carry over those characters' concepts into 3.5e. Actually, combination of Paladin and CHA-based mages such as Sorcerer or Warmage works very well, especially with Practiced Spellcaster feat and various warrior/mage type prestige classes.