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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anax" data-source="post: 1588286" data-attributes="member: 19868">Just about any combo can be really powerful.  I was talking with a friend the other day (we're thinking of having a gestalt campaign) and even though about pure melee mixes.Any melee+monk gives you the wonderful saving throws and nice immunities.  Spellcasters arguably benefit more here, since they're not going to be wearing armor anyway, and have nice spells to buff themselves up.Any melee+fighter is actually surprisingly powerful.  All those class features, *plus* you get the fighter's bonus feats.  Sure, stacking those won't give great saves all the time, but having 18 or 19 feats in addition to another class's abilities sure isn't bad.How about the fighter+rogue, who gets 8+int skills per level, almost one feat per level, and at level 20 has +20 BAB, +10d6 sneak attack damage, good fort and good reflex saves, *and* has the full choice of level 10+ rogue special abilities?Or the fighter+monk, with saves out to here and +20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5 attacks for 2d10 damage?For spellcasting action, I'm torn between mage+monk and mage+barbarian.  On the one hand, the monk gives more nice stuff for being unarmored.  On the other, a d12 hit die is nothing for a mage to sneeze at.Paladin+sorcerer is of course a deadly combination.And of course, there's always the question of multiclassing--allowing both sides to be multiclassed would probably be unreasonable, but what if you allow one side to be multiclassed while the other side must remain constant?  (So you could be a fighter+rogue/shadowdancer, or a rogue+fighter/shadowdancer, for example.)  That still might be too powerful, but allowing PrCs opens up a whole new can of frightening superpowers.</blockquote>

Verification