Gestalting

[Will]

I think it's also important to consider why the restriction is there -- it is a restriction based on abandoning the way of the paladin. Once you turn away from your role as holy warrior, they don't want you back.

Given that, the fact that you are ALSO a ranger/sorcerer/chef/lemur wrangler is incidental.

A paladin-sorcerer or a paladin-rogue is still following the path of a righteous holy warrior. The other argument would go further than overlapping abilities, it would be changing abilities; the restriction 'can't give up being a paladin' would become 'can't give up being a paladin-rogue, paladin-sorcerer, paladin-hexblade, etc.' I think that violates the design of gestalt.

 

[domino]

Don't abiliites of the same base class stack as specified in UA?

Each spellcasting "class" has their own set of spells, etc.

I don't see it being any different than how to handle them.

Would you then say that a Wizard 6//Fighter 3/Rogue 3 gets his third level spells?

One interpretation says he does, the (Wiz3//ftr3+Wiz3//rog3) just says he gets his 0-2nd level spells twice.

 

[irdeggman]

Exactly the same place as where they discuss Gestalt. (Look at the variant classes & alternate class features, in the sections right before Gestalt. They're all about making one class with features from another.)

Not the same thing at all.

Those variant and alternate class features pretty much follow the guidelines laid out in the DMG (pg 174+) on modifying existing classes and creating new classes. Everyone revolves around "swapiing" out abilities for other abilities. There is always a "trade-off". The gestalt specifically does not swap out anything - it defaultly adds things, the only things that aren't cumulative are things that "overlap" (e.g., hit die, BAB, saving throws, etc.)

Other than gestalt there are no examples of simply "adding things together" - the closest you get is when you add a template to race, but those have different rules and I haven't found any that come close to adding two classes together.

 

[Nifft]

Not the same thing at all.

Those variant and alternate class features pretty much follow the guidelines laid out in the DMG (pg 174+) on modifying existing classes and creating new classes. Everyone revolves around "swapiing" out abilities for other abilities. There is always a "trade-off". The gestalt specifically does not swap out anything - it defaultly adds things, the only things that aren't cumulative are things that "overlap" (e.g., hit die, BAB, saving throws, etc.)

So we're agreed that Gestalt is neither modifying existing classes nor creating new classes?

If so, good.

(If not, answer me the one about the Fighter levels.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

So we're agreed that Gestalt is neither modifying existing classes nor creating new classes?

Not creating per the 3.5 DMG guidelines.

Gestalt are by design more powerful than a standard class and thus any comparison to a standard class creation or modification is faulty.

Now as for the fighter issue.

If you look at the text:

"A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd level and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately."


Basically the characteristics (e.g., class abilities) follow the same pattern as do a lot of prestige classes with the "+1 spellcaster level to an existing class". They add together.

This does not alter the fact that each gestalt combo can be treated as a "different" class. It tells you how to add in characteristics at each level.

 

[Nifft]

Not creating per the 3.5 DMG guidelines.

Gestalt are by design more powerful than a standard class and thus any comparison to a standard class creation or modification is faulty.

So when the Gestalt description says it's like multi-classing, the Gestalt description is faulty?

Now as for the fighter issue.

If you look at the text:

"A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd level and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately."


Basically the characteristics (e.g., class abilities) follow the same pattern as do a lot of prestige classes with the "+1 spellcaster level to an existing class". They add together.

This does not alter the fact that each gestalt combo can be treated as a "different" class. It tells you how to add in characteristics at each level.

I want to clear this up.

1/ Are you claiming that "the two classes" in that passage means something other than the two standard classes used at each level?

2/ Are you claiming that features stack between classes that are actually different classes?

I think you're digging a hole here.

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

So when the Gestalt description says it's like multi-classing, the Gestalt description is faulty?

I want to clear this up.

1/ Are you claiming that "the two classes" in that passage means something other than the two standard classes used at each level?

2/ Are you claiming that features stack between classes that are actually different classes?

I think you're digging a hole here.

Cheers, -- N

Nope - no hole here.

The "new" gestalt "class" is comprised of a combo of 2 classes.

The abilites stack with previous ones.

That is - it is just like the "+1 level of spell casting class" - a mechanic that has been used previously in other WotC products.

The logic fits the text as written, it also helps explain how to handle "special" restrictions like a paladin (or monk) on multiclassing.

Just because you do not agree with the logic doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or works mechanicallly. Gestalt by its very nature requires a "broader" view of the game than does other class structures (including variant classes).

 

[Nifft]

The logic fits the text as written, it also helps explain how to handle "special" restrictions like a paladin (or monk) on multiclassing.

Your "logic" leads to questions like:

- Do Clerics face Wizard restrictions on spellcasting (spellbook scribing & arcane spell failure), or do Wizards face Cleric restrictions on spellcasting (can't radically change alignment, can't cast spells of other alignments)?

- Does a fallen Paladin // Fighter lose all his Fighter bonus feats?

"Restriction pooling" comes from outside the rules, and leads to insanity. The text says this:

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.

... and that's a direct contradiction to your claim.

Since Gestalt "is similar to multiclassing", we should look to multiclassing to determine how abilities and restrictions work.

Just like a Cleric//Wizard can't spontaneously convert his Wizard spells into Cure spells, a Paladin//Sorcerer doesn't lose his Sorcerer spellcasting if he grossly violates his Code.

Just because you do not agree with the logic doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or works mechanicallly. Gestalt by its very nature requires a "broader" view of the game than does other class structures (including variant classes).

Logic isn't subject to opinions. The language of the text is open to some interpretation, but those interpretations have consequences.

Your interpretation has nasty consequences, and the only thing it does conclusively is of questionable value -- most people in my group don't much care for Paladin multiclass restrictions.

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

Your "logic" leads to questions like:

- Do Clerics face Wizard restrictions on spellcasting (spellbook scribing & arcane spell failure), or do Wizards face Cleric restrictions on spellcasting (can't radically change alignment, can't cast spells of other alignments)?

- Does a fallen Paladin // Fighter lose all his Fighter bonus feats?

"Restriction pooling" comes from outside the rules, and leads to insanity. The text says this: ... and that's a direct contradiction to your claim.

Since Gestalt "is similar to multiclassing", we should look to multiclassing to determine how abilities and restrictions work.

Just like a Cleric//Wizard can't spontaneously convert his Wizard spells into Cure spells, a Paladin//Sorcerer doesn't lose his Sorcerer spellcasting if he grossly violates his Code.

Logic isn't subject to opinions. The language of the text is open to some interpretation, but those interpretations have consequences.

Your interpretation has nasty consequences, and the only thing it does conclusively is of questionable value -- most people in my group don't much care for Paladin multiclass restrictions.

Cheers, -- N

Since you seem to constantly ignore (or choose to refute) the main premise of my point

(That the "new" gestalt "class" is comprised of a combo of 2 classes.

The abilites stack with previous ones.

That is - it is just like the "+1 level of spell casting class" - a mechanic that has been used previously in other WotC products)

There can be no discussion of the issue without that premise.

WotC has constantly made it clear that spellcasting applies only to the single "class". That is if a specialist wizard chooses enchantment as one of his opposition schools that restriction only applies to "wizard" spells.

Basically with my core premise all of the text fits and it allows for use of mutli-classing restrictions as well.

 

[Nifft]

I suspect your "stacking" mechanism is inconsistent. Here's a test case:

Fighter 4//Rogue 4 --> takes a level of Fighter 5//Barbarian 1.
What does he gain this level up?

WotC has constantly made it clear that spellcasting applies only to the single "class". That is if a specialist wizard chooses enchantment as one of his opposition schools that restriction only applies to "wizard" spells.

Agree 100%.

However, you now seem to agree that Gestalt characters treat their composite classes as distinct (not as a single entity).

Basically with my core premise all of the text fits and it allows for use of mutli-classing restrictions as well.

Your core premise is unnecessary.

The only thing it would seem to buy you is the ability to tell a Paladin//Sorcerer that he can't take a level of Paladin//Loremaster. Why would you WANT to do that, even if you could?

Cheers, -- N