Gestalting

[Zelc]

Try Monk/Psion with the Carmeldine Monk feat -- this feat makes monk abilities work off INT --

this combo gives you all kinds of cool monk abilities, full caster power -- all good saves, AC through the roof -- basically you are an insanely defensive psion who in a pinch can melee and throw shuriken -- besides its fun to comnbo a monks high movement with up the walls and run behind them -- than trigger your belt of battle and DBZ your foes

Wow, no kidding. And with Control Body, you get Int to attack and damage instead of Str or Dex, and 2x Int to AC (instead of 1x Int and 1x Dex). So basically you only need Con and Int and some Wis for feats.

 

[Andor]

Druid/PsyWarrior. No MAD and all those lovely buffs work just fine for animals, not to mention the PsyWarrior claw powers. Inertial Armour.

It is a beautiful thing of cheese.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Been thinking about a paladin 2/cleric x/fighter/x for insane DMM cheese.

Yes you do have MAD with wis and cha but you'll have a ton of uses of turn undead you can use to power DMM (and if I read it correctly, extra turning will give you 8 extra). The fighter is there for the extra feats, paladin is there for the turning attempts and divine grace.

You could either go as a tank or go a zen archery route

Nope. You do not get the same ability doubled. You take the best.

 

[Dice4Hire]

One thing about Gestalt. If you are planning to go to high levels, be sure to get full casting somewhere. In a normal game it is so easy for non-spell casters to get left behind, and in gestalt, it is so much easie as nearly everyone is a spell caster.

 

[irdeggman]

First off, questions end with one of these: "?" If you end a sentence with one of these: "." I'm likely to think you are asserting a statement, rather than asking a question.

I will attribute that to fat fingers and poor keboard response. I can't count the times that the darn thing insists that "the" is spelled "hte". I never meant to imply something other than a question.

Secondly, you have it wrong. As several others have said in this thread already, there's a reasonable way to look at Gestalt which includes the ability to sensibly apply things like the Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions.

Interesting.

How can I get it wrong when I have quoted the rules?

As far as several others have mentioned ways here are the only ones mentioned (in this thread):

In post #4 – BlueBlackRed mentioned:

“Yes, but a lot of DM's get rid of that restriction anymore.”


In post #31 – Will said:

“The way we've dealt with it is that each 'side' is treated separately for things like 'can't stop being a paladin.'”


One is a house-rule that applies to all paladins in any game. The other I agreed was a way of handling it - but still maintained the restriction on multi-classing.

I have mentioned already the house-rule factor and the use of several feats that bypass the multiclass restriction.


This was your first response to my multiclass restriction comment:


"So you think Paladins and Monks are useless with Gestalt? That's an odd interpretation, since the designers specifically use Paladin//Sorcerer as an example Gestalt character."


You then seemed to back down some and say that

"I can see applying the Paladin multi-classing rules to the "paladin side", but why would they apply to the "sorcerer side"?"

The combination of statements seems to imply (I know I am reading implications instead of actual statements) a stance of the multiclass restriction does not normally apply but I can see applying it in such a way.

I said at one time:

"I think that either interpretation can work fine. One assumes that each gestalt combination is treated as a separate class while the other looks at the individual aspects( that is parts of the gestalt). IMO either one meets the paladin class restriction - but the application should be consistent across other combinations in the same game."

As far as which way is the "correct" way to look a gestalt - a hybrid class or simply multiclassing that is subject to opinion. Although I think that the text on "combining" abilities and "taking the best of overlapping ones" sure seems to imply that it is to be treated more like a "single hybrid class" instead.

 

[Nifft]

I will attribute that to fat fingers and poor keboard response. I can't count the times that the darn thing insists that "the" is spelled "hte". I never meant to imply something other than a question.

I must apologize as well. I read your sentence as saying "So you are" rather than "So are you"... the latter is quite clearly a question, and I'm being a bit of a jerk about the punctuation.

Interesting.

How can I get it wrong when I have quoted the rules?

That's easy. Many people do it all the time.

But let me turn the question around. Where do you see the Gestalt rules defining -- or even discussing -- a "new class" (which is an amalgam of the two "standard classes")? All I see is that the character gets the maximum benefit derived from two "standard classes", not that a new class is created. The relevant bits are underlined:

In this high-powered campaign variant, characters essentially take two classes at every level, choosing the best aspects of each. The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap.

There's nothing about a 'gestalt class', only that the character gains the benefits of two classes.

As far as which way is the "correct" way to look a gestalt - a hybrid class or simply multiclassing that is subject to opinion. Although I think that the text on "combining" abilities and "taking the best of overlapping ones" sure seems to imply that it is to be treated more like a "single hybrid class" instead.

Gestalt is neither multi-classing nor is it a means for deriving a new amalgamated class. It's a new mechanic. However, the text explicitly states that it is like multi-classing.

Since it's not actual multi-classing, the Paladin's restrictions on multi-classing don't apply -- Paladin is allowed in a Gestalt character.

Since it's not an amalgam with linked restrictions, the Paladin's restrictions don't apply to the non-Paladin "side".

- - -

Of course, I could also claim that not having multi-class restrictions is a benefit, and thus any time a Paladin is in Gestalt with an unrestricted class, the character gains the maximum benefit -- thus, the character gains a lack of multi-class restrictions. But that's cheesy.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Drowbane]

I can't believe that nobody has mentioned Warblade | Psion... holy crap are they badass.

I've been tempted to try a Barbarian | Wilder... but I couldn't figure out which would better represent his "pissed off side".... Rage or Wild Surge Blasting.

 

[irdeggman]

But let me turn the question around. Where do you see the Gestalt rules defining -- or even discussing -- a "new class" (which is an amalgam of the two "standard classes")? All I see is that the character gets the maximum benefit derived from two "standard classes", not that a new class is created. The relevant bits are underlined: There's nothing about a 'gestalt class', only that the character gains the benefits of two classes.

Gestalt is neither multi-classing nor is it a means for deriving a new amalgamated class. It's a new mechanic. However, the text explicitly states that it is like multi-classing.

But it also clearly lays out a system where it is treated like a single class.

You only get 1 hit die per level (that is what defines class levels in core RAW).

You get the best save and BAB progression.

You get all "benefits" of both classes.

You get all "restrictions" of both classes - regardless of combination.

Since it's not actual multi-classing, the Paladin's restrictions on multi-classing don't apply -- Paladin is allowed in a Gestalt character.

It does not state that the paladin's multiclass restriction does not apply. In fact the rules specifically state that all restrictions apply regardless of class combos.

Since it's not an amalgam with linked restrictions, the Paladin's restrictions don't apply to the non-Paladin "side".

Only if you assume it is not an amalgam. The rules seem to indicate otherwise without clearly specifying it (see the steps involved and tell me again how not mixing and matching is not the same as an amalgam). Making it an amalgam also makes it such that the paladin's multiclass restriction does not apply to the gestalt level (i.e. it is treated as single class).

Of course, I could also claim that not having multi-class restrictions is a benefit, and thus any time a Paladin is in Gestalt with an unrestricted class, the character gains the maximum benefit -- thus, the character gains a lack of multi-class restrictions. But that's cheesy.

Not only cheesy but in direct conflict with the requirement that all restrictions apply regardless of class combos.

Class and ability based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid's prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

 

[Elethiomel]

Class and ability based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid's prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

That quote cuts both ways, irdeggman. It doesn't say "other half of the class" or "other part of the amalgam". It says "no matter what the other class is". Which leads me to believe that it doesn't matter what the other class is with regards to multiclassing restrictions.

 

[Kurashu]

I can't believe that nobody has mentioned Warblade | Psion... holy crap are they badass.

I saw a Factotum//Warblade on the CharOP board...thing looked scary as...words I can't say lest I offend Eric's Grandma.