Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 4193274" data-attributes="member: 16285">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". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   I never meant to imply something other than a question.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.</blockquote>

Verification