Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1546952" data-attributes="member: 5171">Excellent thought.&nbsp; That's a lot like what I was thinking, but I hadn't put it in such a coherent form.&nbsp; I might use it for a swashbuckling campaign where social skills are very important (kind of Musketeers-ish), and where a straight fighter would be considered a thuggish lout.&nbsp; In that campaign, I wouldn't tell people that they had to have a certain class as part of their gestalt, but I would say that they're going to want social skills and/or acrobatic skills in order to have a good time swinging on chandeliers and romancing the mademoiselles.&nbsp; A fighter/wizard wouldn't do very well there (although the thug fighter-variant|enchanter wizard-variant might have a good time), because of the lack of skills.&nbsp; The PCs should include a ranger, rogue, bard, monk, or something like that somewhere in their makeup, to get a bunch of skill points and a bunch of fun class skills -- a rogue/fighter is a good swashbuckler, as is a paladin(of freedom)/bard or monk/wizard -- or at least, they can be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Although that brings up another potential worry.&nbsp; Some of the variant classes are designed to make a class weaker in one area and stronger in others.&nbsp; With Gestalting, this can get ugly.For example, you take the ordinary cleric.&nbsp; Then you say, &quot;Oh, but I'd like to cloister him, give him more skill points and some other abilities in exchange for weaker combat abilities and fewer hit points.&quot;&nbsp; And then you say, &quot;Yes, I'll be gestalting this with Fighter.&quot;&nbsp; So you keep all the strengths and lose all the weaknesses, which is already what Gestalt does, but you're doing it even more.Dunno.&nbsp; Probably wouldn't come up very often.Nevertheless, a great way of putting it, Bendris.&nbsp; That pretty much encapsulates how I'd use it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1546952, member: 5171"] Excellent thought. That's a lot like what I was thinking, but I hadn't put it in such a coherent form. I might use it for a swashbuckling campaign where social skills are very important (kind of Musketeers-ish), and where a straight fighter would be considered a thuggish lout. In that campaign, I wouldn't tell people that they [b]had[/b] to have a certain class as part of their gestalt, but I [b]would[/b] say that they're going to want social skills and/or acrobatic skills in order to have a good time swinging on chandeliers and romancing the mademoiselles. A fighter/wizard wouldn't do very well there (although the thug fighter-variant|enchanter wizard-variant might have a good time), because of the lack of skills. The PCs should include a ranger, rogue, bard, monk, or something like that somewhere in their makeup, to get a bunch of skill points and a bunch of fun class skills -- a rogue/fighter is a good swashbuckler, as is a paladin(of freedom)/bard or monk/wizard -- or at least, they [b]can[/b] be. :) Although that brings up another potential worry. Some of the variant classes are designed to make a class weaker in one area and stronger in others. With Gestalting, this can get ugly. For example, you take the ordinary cleric. Then you say, "Oh, but I'd like to cloister him, give him more skill points and some other abilities in exchange for weaker combat abilities and fewer hit points." And [b]then[/b] you say, "Yes, I'll be gestalting this with [i]Fighter[/i]." So you keep all the strengths and lose all the weaknesses, which is already what Gestalt does, but you're doing it even more. Dunno. Probably wouldn't come up very often. Nevertheless, a great way of putting it, Bendris. That pretty much encapsulates how I'd use it. [/QUOTE]

Verification