Gestalting

[irdeggman]

Wait. Illiteracy is a class feature, more so than a Paladin's multiclass restriction. Illiteracy appears in the table, and is a specific bold-faced section in the class features list.

Cheers, -- N

Hmmm


Didn't I lay it out as:

Special:
As a fighter (+1 per level)
As a barbarian (+1 per level)

Wouldn't this then meet the requirement:

Illiteracy: Barbarians are the only characters who do not automatically know how to read and write. A barbarian may spend 2 skill points to gain the ability to read and write all languages he is able to speak.

A barbarian who gains a level in any other class automatically gains literacy. Any other character who gains a barbarian level does not lose the literacy he or she already had.

Since it is a "+1 per level" of fighter abilities and under the Speak Language skill:

• A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet.

And the character is a barbarian/X not a barbarian - so by default technicality the character is not a barbarian but is a character that gets barbarian abilities.

And as you point out, illiteracy is not a restriction but a class ability so the UA requirement that

"Class and ability based restrictions apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is does not apply.

Thanks for making my case even more appropriate.

 

[Nifft]

Hmmm


Didn't I lay it out as:

Special:
As a fighter (+1 per level)
As a barbarian (+1 per level)

Wouldn't this then meet the requirement:



Since it is a "+1 per level" of fighter abilities and under the Speak Language skill:




And the character is a barbarian/X not a barbarian - so by default technicality the character is not a barbarian but is a character that gets barbarian abilities.

And as you point out, illiteracy is not a restriction but a class ability so the UA requirement that

"Class and ability based restrictions apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is does not apply.

Thanks for making my case even more appropriate.

Don't worry, I didn't.

The class feature applies to what you are calling "the class".

Either the Barbarian // Wizard is multi-classed already, or he's illiterate.

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

Don't worry, I didn't.

The class feature applies to what you are calling "the class".

Either the Barbarian // Wizard is multi-classed already, or he's illiterate.

Cheers, -- N

How about the section under Speak Language?

Doesn't that apply?

Isn't that more specific and thus have a higher level of significance rules-wise?

 

[Nifft]

How about the section under Speak Language?

Doesn't that apply?

Isn't that more specific and thus have a higher level of significance rules-wise?

So you're claiming that a Barbarian//Wizard isn't actually a Barbarian?

-- N

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think one of us is confusing how gestalt works.

Each level is a "new" class that combines the features (and restrictions) of the two composites.

If you want to be that restrictive, let's look at it logically.

Level One: Paladin/XX(Let's say sorcerer)

Ok, you now have the paladin restriction about no multiclassing, specifically "A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities." (SRD)

So on to level two

Level Two: Paladin/Sorcerer

Well, now by your logic of hybrid classes, the paladin just took a non-paladin class. He sis not take paladin, he took Palerer or some such, so the multicalssing clause kicks in and he cannot take any paladin again. By your logic the Paladin clause clearly means paladin only, which is what I find ridiculous.

Gestalting is clearly taking two classes, but not taking all the benefits of each, only the stronger ones.

 

[Dice4Hire]

So you're claiming that a Barbarian//Wizard isn't actually a Barbarian?

-- N

Yeah, that is the basic fallacy at the root of his entire argument.

 

[irdeggman]

If you want to be that restrictive, let's look at it logically.

Level One: Paladin/XX(Let's say sorcerer)

Ok, you now have the paladin restriction about no multiclassing, specifically "A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities." (SRD)

So on to level two

Level Two: Paladin/Sorcerer

Well, now by your logic of hybrid classes, the paladin just took a non-paladin class. He sis not take paladin, he took Palerer or some such, so the multicalssing clause kicks in and he cannot take any paladin again. By your logic the Paladin clause clearly means paladin only, which is what I find ridiculous.

No. I have said repeatedly something different. {It helps to go back through the thread and follow the arguments instead of just jumping on the last statement}.

The paladin/sorcerer would be restricted from taking paladin/sorcerer levels if taking levels in a different "class" (excluding the introduction of house-rules or the ascetic feats)


Last time
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4197494&postcount=66


First time

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php...90&postcount=25

second time
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php...04&postcount=28

and third time
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php...35&postcount=34
__________________

Gestalting is clearly taking two classes, but not taking all the benefits of each, only the stronger ones.

Not really - read the text of UA (it has been posted over and over again by Nifft and myself).

In essence you get all the benefits (as in class abilities) of both classes - but when things overlap (like hit dice, BAB, saving throws, special abilites (like uncanny dodge or turn undead) you take the "better" progression). Note this is a summary of the text - check out the written text for the actual requirements.

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, that is the basic fallacy at the root of his entire argument.

Well since I laid out how the "gestalt class" proceeds in this thread

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4203091&postcount=81

It would appear that I must now lay out why this is much closer to what the gestalt system is becasue it more closely describes it than "multi-classing". Give me a few to write that one up. But trust me there are a lot (a whole lot) of differences between gestalting and multi-classing (IMO quite enough to dismiss the "similar" argument and instead look for somethe better).

 

[irdeggman]

So you're claiming that a Barbarian//Wizard isn't actually a Barbarian?

-- N

You are saying this like it is new something new to you.

It is the entire basis of my stance and has been the point of our entire "arguement".

That each gestalt combo is treated as a separate class with combined "abilities" of each of the parts.

I thought I laid that out very clearly here:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php...91&postcount=81

 

[Nifft]

You are saying this like it is new something new to you.

It is the entire basis of my stance and has been the point of our entire "arguement".

That each gestalt combo is treated as a separate class with combined "abilities" of each of the parts.

No, you're saying two different things.

The text of Barbarian -- which is the most specific text on the Barbarian -- lists Illiteracy as a class feature. It's far less fiddly than the "Ex-Paladins" sub-section.

Are you saying that a Wizard//Barbarian can be literate because the Illiteracy class feature says that it applies to Barbarians only?

-- N