Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 8259003" data-attributes="member: 6750908">Now, that's a necro and StreamsoftheSky said most of what needed to be said twelve years ago.Of course... Pathfinder 1e is a very different game than it was when this thread was first committed to hard drives.The main mechanical points haven't changed: Gestalt makes ECL/MAD hurt even more, Gestalt amplifies the importance of the action economy. I agree fundamentally with StreamsoftheSky that dual class progression needs to be paired with some restriction on class selection, especially in regard to +X/10 spellcasting progression PrCs.Late PF1 did introduce some new wrinkles with archetypes and hybrid classes, and third-party concepts like talented classes and prestige progressions-- none of these more powerful than their predecessors normally, but allowing a Gestalt character to stretch even further across party roles, hide the drawbacks of one class archetype behind the abilities of the other class, and generally do everything people complained about Gestalt characters doing fifteen years ago... but better.Over the past fifteen years, I have played around quite a bit with turning optional Gestalt-- with various penalties-- into a viable substitute for the D&amp;D 3.5/PF1 multiclassing system. I came very close, thanks to a neat bit of third-party content-- look up Overhauling Multiclassing by Tipsy Tabby Publishing-- but I never quite stuck the landing.Standard Gestalt-- imagine some kind of restricted progression-- is very good at representing multiclass archetypes or kits from AD&amp;D, but it has some trouble with characters (or players) who want their character to be more straightforward: the single-class Human Fighter, no items, Final Destination. This was a major problem with my 2005-2007 (or so) D&amp;D groups.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DammitVictor, post: 8259003, member: 6750908"] Now, that's a necro and StreamsoftheSky said most of what needed to be said twelve years ago. Of course... Pathfinder 1e is a very different game than it was when this thread was first committed to hard drives. The main mechanical points haven't changed: Gestalt makes ECL/MAD hurt even more, Gestalt amplifies the importance of the action economy. I agree fundamentally with StreamsoftheSky that dual class progression needs to be paired with some restriction on class selection, especially in regard to +X/10 spellcasting progression PrCs. Late PF1 did introduce some new wrinkles with archetypes and hybrid classes, and third-party concepts like talented classes and prestige progressions-- none of these [I]more powerful[/I] than their predecessors normally, but allowing a Gestalt character to stretch even further across party roles, hide the drawbacks of one class archetype behind the abilities of the other class, and generally do everything people complained about Gestalt characters doing fifteen years ago... but better. Over the past fifteen years, I have played around [i]quite a bit[/i] with turning optional Gestalt-- with various penalties-- into a viable substitute for the D&D 3.5/PF1 multiclassing system. I came very close, thanks to a neat bit of third-party content-- look up [I]Overhauling Multiclassing[/I] by Tipsy Tabby Publishing-- but I never quite stuck the landing. Standard Gestalt-- imagine some kind of restricted progression-- is very good at representing multiclass archetypes or kits from AD&D, but it has some trouble with characters (or players) who want their character to be more straightforward: the single-class Human Fighter, no items, Final Destination. This was a major problem with my 2005-2007 (or so) D&D groups. [/QUOTE]

Verification