Gestalting

[irdeggman]

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?

Well except for the fact that it is not fighter 5/barbarian 1 it is fighter/barbarian and it is 4 levels of fighter/rogue.

So a gestalt with 4 levels of fighter/rogue and 1 level of fighter/barbarian would gain (at 5th level - the level of fighter/barbarian):

1d12 hit dice
+1 BAB

+2 Fort (because of the +2 that a good fort gives at first level - things change but are more consistent if using the optional fractional base save and attack bonus system)

+1 to Ref and Wil saves

4 + Int mod in skill points (he has just added barbarian skills as class skills (and they cost 1 sp/rank at this level))

Fast movement, rage 1/day (as a barbarian of 1st level)


Basically a fighter/rogue gestalt gets:

d10 hit points
Good BAB progression
Good Fort and Ref save progressions
Poor Will save progression
8 + Int mod skill points per level

Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all armors and shields (including tower shields), hand crossbows (an exotic weapon that rogues get proficiency in)

The following are class skills:
Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Deceipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, KNowledge (local), Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device, Use Rope

And
Handle Animal and Ride

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

Now a figher/barbarian gets:
d12 hit points
Good BAB progression
Good Fort save progression
4 + Int mod skill points per level

The following are class skills:
Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Ride, Survival, Swim

Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all armors and shields (including tower shields)

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

Restrictions:

Must be nonlawful
If he ever becomes lawful he loses the ability to rage and cannot advance as a fighter/barbarian - he retains all other "barbarian" benefits.

Does that make more sense?

It seems to fit the description of the text for gestalt to a "T" and accounts for all restrictions and such already.

 

[Nifft]

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

Could you show your work here?

Thanks, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

Could you show your work here?

Thanks, -- N

What do you mean?

For the 4 fighter/rogue and 1 barbarian/fighter

You have the special abilities of a fighter of 4th level (from the fighter/rogue levels) and an extra level of fighter special abilities from the 1 level of barbarian/fighter. So a 5th level fighter's special abilities are "none". Nothing in the special ability category (i.e., no fighter bonus feats at 5th level)

A 1st level barbarian gets what I listed.

Is there something else you are looking for?

 

[Nifft]

What do you mean?

For the 4 fighter/rogue and 1 barbarian/fighter

You have the special abilities of a fighter of 4th level (from the fighter/rogue levels) and an extra level of fighter special abilities from the 1 level of barbarian/fighter. So a 5th level fighter's special abilities are "none". Nothing in the special ability category (i.e., no fighter bonus feats at 5th level)

A 1st level barbarian gets what I listed.

Is there something else you are looking for?

I wanted the specific list, which you've now provided.

I must ask: if there's no difference between what you'd give a Fighter 5 and what you'd eventually derive would accrue to a [(Fighter)//Rogue] 4 + [(Fighter)//Barbarian] 1, why go through the contortions?

Also: there's a potential violation of the "accrue at the faster rate" in your example, since you don't specify that the Barbarian gets Improved Uncanny Dodge at character level 5. Could you explain why he doesn't get this feature?

(In my version it's trivial to figure out when he gets Improved Uncanny Dodge, and I'm happy to explain it if it's not obvious.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

Also: there's a potential violation of the "accrue at the faster rate" in your example, since you don't specify that the Barbarian gets Improved Uncanny Dodge at character level 5. Could you explain why he doesn't get this feature?

(In my version it's trivial to figure out when he gets Improved Uncanny Dodge, and I'm happy to explain it if it's not obvious.)

Cheers, -- N

Hmm I just don't understand what you are getting at.

Where is this 5th level barbarian coming from?

The example you told me to use was a 4th level fighter/rogue and a 1st level barbarian/fighter.

If it was a 4th level fighter/rogue and a 5th level fighter/barbarian then he would get improved uncanny dodge. Or actually a 4th level fighter/rogue who then takes 2 levels of fighter/barbarian would get it (as specified in the pHB - which happens to match the text in UA since the barbarian advances quicker with that ability).

Barbarian and rogue equivalent levels do not stack in any system (that I am aware of) to get higher level abilities.

A barbarian/rogue can't acquire improved uncanny dodge any earlier than 5th level.

I didn't list the info on stacking abilities since it is already specified in UA as is having separate spell casting lists - I'm sorry I thought that would be obvious.

 

[irdeggman]

I must ask: if there's no difference between what you'd give a Fighter 5 and what you'd eventually derive would accrue to a [(Fighter)//Rogue] 4 + [(Fighter)//Barbarian] 1, why go through the contortions?

There really isn't any more contortions since you have to do the same work in any method used - I just list them out, instead of doing it in my head.

It also allows for an easier way of handling things like "multi-classing restricions", which in your game is pretty much ignored so it is not an issue. I am only trying to address a system that would work with the rules as written.

 

[Nifft]

There really isn't any more contortions since you have to do the same work in any method used - I just list them out, instead of doing it in my head.

It also allows for an easier way of handling things like "multi-classing restricions", which in your game is pretty much ignored so it is not an issue. I am only trying to address a system that would work with the rules as written.

Nah, the rules-as-written work like multi-classing, which has real implications other than screwing Paladins.

For example, your interpretation would force a Barbarian//Wizard to be illiterate, which is absurd.

The standard interpretation is that a Barbarian//Wizard is considered to be multi-classed, and thus has lost his illiteracy.

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

For example, your interpretation would force a Barbarian//Wizard to be illiterate, which is absurd.

Cheers, -- N

Why?

I see it is one of those "combine the best of the two classes" and if a barbarian has a level in a class that can read/write - he automatically can read/write. Similar to the number of class skills and weapon & armor proficiencies. It is only applicable (as in questionable) at the first level of gestalt - since that is not a level-based issue.

So it is not a problem under my interpretation at all.

Illiteracy is not a special class ability so doesn't fall in there.

The biggest problem (IMO) is the one that exists regardless of the stance taken -

How to handle turn undead.

When using combinations of paladin and cleric with other each other or with other classes the methodology causes questions (but so does the core rules with regard to how the paladin and cleric levels "stack"). Well at least a lot of people have had some pretty intense discussion on the subject in the past on these boards.

 

[Nifft]

Why?

I see it is one of those "combine the best of the two classes" and if a barbarian has a level in a class that can read/write - he automatically can read/write. Similar to the number of class skills and weapon & armor proficiencies. It is only applicable (as in questionable) at the first level of gestalt - since that is not a level-based issue.

So it is not a problem under my interpretation at all.

Illiteracy is not a special class ability so doesn't fall in there.

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.

... but if we are allowed to merely take the better features from each class, than Gestalting a Paladin with something that isn't restricted from multi-classing would remove the Paladin's restriction, right?

The biggest problem (IMO) is the one that exists regardless of the stance taken -

How to handle turn undead.

When using combinations of paladin and cleric with other each other or with other classes the methodology causes questions (but so does the core rules with regard to how the paladin and cleric levels "stack"). Well at least a lot of people have had some pretty intense discussion on the subject in the past on these boards.

That's trivial. "Accrues at the faster rate". If either side would have given the equivalent of a Cleric level for Turn Undead, the whole Gestalt level gives a level of Cleric for Turn Undead.

So this combo would have full Turn Undead (full means HD = equivalent Cleric level):

1 - Cleric 1 // Paladin 1
2 - Cleric 2 // Paladin 2
3 - Cleric 3 // Paladin 3
4 - Rogue 1 // Paladin 4
5 - Rogue 2 // Palaidn 5
6 - Rogue 3 // Paladin 6
7 - PrC 1 // Paladin 7
8 - PrC 2 // Paladin 8
(etc.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

That's trivial. "Accrues at the faster rate". If either side would have given the equivalent of a Cleric level for Turn Undead, the whole Gestalt level gives a level of Cleric for Turn Undead.

So this combo would have full Turn Undead (full means HD = equivalent Cleric level):

1 - Cleric 1 // Paladin 1
2 - Cleric 2 // Paladin 2
3 - Cleric 3 // Paladin 3
4 - Rogue 1 // Paladin 4
5 - Rogue 2 // Palaidn 5
6 - Rogue 3 // Paladin 6
7 - PrC 1 // Paladin 7
8 - PrC 2 // Paladin 8
(etc.)

Cheers, -- N

That is how I thought you were reading "accrues at the faster rate" as.

This, IMO, is incorrect.

I think that statement only applies when the gestalt class has two classes with the same feture (like a barbarian/rogue or a paladin/cleric).

It only applies for that specific combination and not for subsequent ones.

For example:

A barbarian/rogue follows the uncanny dodge advancement of a barbarian (the fastest one).

But a fighter/barbarian who takes levels of sorcerer/rogue must add the levels up levels of rogue and barbarian separately and follow the rules for when the appropriate uncanny dodge chain falls in.

Well, that is how I read that section of the text.