|
Looking for opinions:
What are some implications of allowing a Gestalt Sorcerer / Sorcerer PC?
The PC would have two Bloodlines and at each appropriate level would recieve the features of both.
The PC would get Spells Known and Spells per day for both, thus doubling the number of known and per/day spells.
.
.
.
Comparing this PC to a Gestalt Sorcerer / Wizard -- or a Sorcerer / Monk, they seem equitable.
Looking for opinions:
What are some implications of allowing a Gestalt Sorcerer / Sorcerer PC?
The PC would have two Bloodlines and at each appropriate level would recieve the features of both.
The PC would get Spells Known and Spells per day for both, thus doubling the number of known and per/day spells.
.
.
.
Comparing this PC to a Gestalt Sorcerer / Wizard -- or a Sorcerer / Monk, they seem equitable.
certain versions of Gestalt rules state that only one class can be a caster.
I probably wouldn't allow it in a game of mine. Gestalt generally gives more options, not doubling up on the things that usually limit a character... in this case doubling the number of spells on a caster and the number of spells known on a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gestalt picks the best of one or the other. Meaning you wouldn't get double the spells.
It'll be a bit stronger than a sorcerer/wizard, due to requiring just charisma instead of int/charisma. There might also be issues with the crossblooded archetype; I'd probably ban that archetype for a sorcerer/sorcerer character. Other than that, well, it's a niche build, and probably overall inferior to something with a bit more breadth to it.
Were I a player, I'd seriously consider alternatives like sorcerer/bard or sorcerer/summoner; they'd get much the same double-caster feel, similar overall arcane power, but with a broader set of options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go sage sorcerer/ Wizard and max out Int. You'll be a font of arcane power.
The biggest problems that might come up depend largely on how your players interact and how your games go.
I've run a fair number of gestalt games, it's my favorite house rule. Most of them were in the 3.5 environment with a blend of new and experienced players.
The reason I love gestalt so much is that it adds options of all types to PCs and prevents them from becoming one-trick ponies that eventually run out of novelty. It also can make it harder for new players to accidentally build characters that have a hard time doing their job.
That said, in my experience I explicitly disallowed taking the same class twice over to prevent hyper-specialists. The concept bugs me for two reasons- thematically, they are usually not as interesting as even two classes in the same role (the explanations for different mechanical abilities can make a character feel more individual). Mechanically, they turn conflicts of most types into a coin-toss- it either plays to their strengths and they pass it with dull ease, or it preys on their weaknesses and their failure is a foregone conclusion (and they can feel singled out for punishment, even if it was very much not the intent). Given the implied stance on rules your statement gives, you might appreciate the boost in theme that requiring different classes gives (creativity thrives on restrictions).
As for specifically a sorcerer-on-sorcerer combination compared to other combinations in the same role, it depends on party dynamics and how defined a role you think characters should have, neither of which I can comment on fairly without more context.
Saves will be lower then many gestalt characters that combine classes. If you gestalt one class with a weak save (say fort) and one with a strong, you end up with a save higher then a normal character with a strong save. So if a character does this, they wont get that nudge up on saves that cross.
Saves will be lower then many gestalt characters that combine classes.
True.
If you gestalt one class with a weak save (say fort) and one with a strong, you end up with a save higher then a normal character with a strong save. So if a character does this, they wont get that nudge up on saves that cross.
False.
If you gestalt a class with a strong save & a class with a weak save, you end up with exactly a strong save. Gestalt tracks fractions; it has to, or you get nonsensical results (like good save + weak save being somehow stronger than good save + good save).
|
|
By your tone, you don't seem to be looking for opinion but validation of a decision you already made.
Yikes, it wasn't suppose to come across that way. I guess when folks answered my question with "You can't do that; Gestalt doesn't work that way," I got snarky. Really, I am looking for what may happen if I allow it.
Here's all I did:
I made a chart of Spells for a Wiz 9, 20 INT / Sor 9, 18 CHA and compared it to another list, Sor 9, 22 CHA / Sor 9, same 22 CHA.
Not a very broad range there but a good start.
Looking at the lists there didn't seem to be a big difference in spells. Both PCs would have plenty of spells "known" and both would have plenty of spells per day.
The Sor/Wiz looked a little bit better to me but -- well, I'm biased towards Wizards over Sorceres cuz of the quicker spell progression. And in the Gestalt case the Sor/Wiz seems better because the PC gets the higher level spells quicker without losing spells per day.
But that's all I did. I didn't consider any other ramifications of Sor/Sor. I didn't even do the Ability Score math to see if my example was equal -- it just seemed equal.
So if you guys think of anything else -- let me know, please.
I’ve actually allowed something similar in some of the games I’ve ran in the past and to be frank there aren’t any real “problems” beyond those already present. Gestalt characters are more powerful then normal characters, and of course, this is still the case. Yes, being a sorcerer/sorcerer means that they can capitalize on their high charisma but so what? A wisdom-based sorcerer/cleric can do that just as easily and has a wider range of spell casting ability.
If you decide to allow it one thing you might want to consider is how that works with other archetypes as well. For example a ranger/ranger could be a ranger (skirmisher)/ranger (trapper). Or it could get really wild and you could have something like a monk/monk that goes monk (master of many styles/sohei)/monk (monk of the four winds/ drunken master/monk of the sacred mountain). Obviously the combinations could get a little crazy. If you don’t mind, great, but it’s something you should be aware of.
Another thing to consider is special cases. For example I wouldn’t allow a cleric/cleric or for that matter a cleric/paladin of two separate gods.
Gestalt picks the best of one or the other. Meaning you wouldn't get double the spells.
This is also true unless you change it, personally I allowed twice the spells known which gave them greater variety but did not allow twice the spells per day.
I honestly don't think it would have really hurt anything if I had allowed double the spells per day. It would have given them a power boost certainly, but probably nothing significantly greater then some of the better combinations can give you. Still it's worth thinking over as it's likely to spawn quite a few umm... doubled up single classed spell casters xP and that's likely an indication that allowing the spells per day to be cumulative may be a little to good.
By your tone, you don't seem to be looking for opinion but validation of a decision you already made. Well here you go. You're the GM, so it's valid.
I don’t believe he’s looking for validation of any kind. He already knows he can do and has said as much. The question, as I understand it at least, was what should he expect to happen in the game if he chooses to allow it.
Assuming I’m reading the OP correctly, as a GM he is asking for advice as to what he may see in a game as a result of this decision so that he can plan accordingly if he decides to allow it and possibly to make an informed decision as to whether or not to allow it in the first place.
edit: and ninja'd by the OP xP Incidently were you only interested in only sorcerer/sorcerer or were you thinking of doing in general?
|
|
A ranger/ranger could be a ranger (skirmisher)/ranger (trapper). Or it could get really wild and you could have something like a monk/monk that goes monk (master of many styles/sohei)/monk (monk of the four winds/ drunken master/monk of the sacred mountain).
LOL
That's awesome.
I'm pretty big on taking each case individually. In this case it's a Player with a pretty good Sor/Sor concept that isn't interfering with any other Players' character concepts.
If someone, even for the same campaign, wanted to do, for example, Ran/Ran or, LOL, Monk/Monk, I'd look at only that and make a decision (likely with the help of my fellow Paizonians).
... And yes, only interested in Sor/Sor, specifically a Fire Genasi (Ifrit) Sorcerer: Fire Elemental-Bloodline / Sorcerer: Starsoul-Bloodline.
Balance-wise, it is probably going to be a bit weaker than other similar builds, with less MAD. Gestalt allows a better breadth of power and works best when it is used for that purpose.
Flavorwise, it seems pretty cool...a demon and dragon in your ancestry, or something of that sort?
Just as a DM heads up, you might want to decide whether or not the characters spells known and spells per day are kept separate or pooled.
I wouldn't double daily or known spells. Not unless they're tracked separately.
But I would totally allow for 2 bloodlines, if the player made them mesh in a non-stupid (or flavorless-but-exploitative) way.
Maybe I'd meet halfway and allow spell slot/known pooling if we use Pythagorean math for spells known/daily. Y'know, effectively multiply the spells known & spells per day by root 2, rounded (up or down). Could easily spreadsheet that progression chart up in 5 minutes.
I'm having trouble trying to compare Sor/Monk or Sor/Rog with Sor/Sor. I'm stuck to comparing Sor/Wiz to Sor/Sor.
In that Gestalt combo Saves are identical but yeah, Sor/Rog would have a better Ref and Sor/Monk would have better Ref & Fort.
Doubling up on Sorcerer alone preserves their flexibility in choosing spells on the fly, but they are completely at the whimsy of their spell known list. It's entirely possible this won't be a problem, but if they split Sorc/Wizard the odds of it happening really go down since their Wizard half can be re-invented as needed.
I usually have characters with two spellcasting classes track each spell progression separately- Sorc/Wizard can't cast his Wizard spells using his spontaneous sorcerer slots, he needs to have the spell as a sorcerer spell known. It's a bit of a paperwork headache for some people, but most everyone had the patience for it in my groups.
Doubling up on Sorcerer also means that they have quite a bit of endurance before their spell slots are spent, and it's going to be more pronounced than prepared casters since they just virtually wake up and go. Sorc/Wizard will have to prepare their wizard complement for the day, but has Sorcerer spells for flexibility in case they prepared badly. Preparing spell slots, and the occasional "lame duck" choices they make, can help cut down on the seemingly endless supply of spells for every problem.
|
|
I've been thinking about spells known and my gut says don't combine the two Classes. Let one Bloodline have x number of Spells to cast from that Spells Known list and another number of spells to cast from the other Bloodline.
But -- should I allow this -- that's exactly the kind of thing we can playtest during the campaign. We can start one way and, if after a few sessions it seems it could work better the other way, switch it without really upsetting the game.
On the other hand, if I allow Sor/Sor and it's completely too strong or too weak we couldn't make a minor adjustment in the game -- we'd have to kill the PC and let the Player start from scratch and that sucks.
I've been thinking about spells known and my gut says don't combine the two Classes. Let one Bloodline have x number of Spells to cast from that Spells Known list and another number of spells to cast from the other Bloodline.
But -- should I allow this -- that's exactly the kind of thing we can playtest during the campaign. We can start one way and, if after a few sessions it seems it could work better the other way, switch it without really upsetting the game.
On the other hand, if I allow Sor/Sor and it's completely too strong or too weak we couldn't make a minor adjustment in the game -- we'd have to kill the PC and let the Player start from scratch and that sucks.
From my experience Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is far too weak of a build.
Compare the Following:
Wizard/magus
Sorcerer/magus
Sorcerer/summoner
Summoner (synthesis)/Magus (Black blade)!!!!!
Then think how weak a Sorcerer/Sorcerer gestalt would be.
Just my two cents.
Yeah. Thinking about it, compare a Sorc/Sorc to a Sorc/Paladin. It's no contest; the S/P would overshadow the S/S in a big way through sheer flexibility and synergy.
Thinking of Arcane Armor Training, Metamagic Still Spell rods, and so on...
Well, if you are a little gun shy so to speak, start with only allowing the bloodline abilities, I’m certain they won’t be to stronger then other gestalt characters with only the extra bloodline abilities and will probably be weaker (almost certainly in fact). Then, after a few sessions, if you feel they are to weak grant them additional spells known. Later if you still find them underpowered increase their spells per day by 50%. Finally, if you really think you need to, give them the full spells per day from both classes.
Honestly, I’d be a little surprised if you make it that far. As I mentioned earlier I’ve GM’d for a sorcerer/sorcerer and allowed them to have their extra bloodline abilities and spells known but no additional spells per day and it seemed to work alright. Though personally if I did it again I'd be sorely tempted to increase their spells per day by 50% to see how that worked out.
In any case if you scale it up gradually as you test the waters, I'm confident you'll find a spot where it feels balanced and both you and your player can enjoy the game.
|
|
Hmmm, good food for thought.
One Gestalt PC being weaker than the others is not fair.
(Side note: For the record -- I won't allow Gestalt Summoner Anything out of hand because you end up with two full PCs. A full Eidolon plus, for example, a full Fighter.)
Thinking about the Sor/Sor against the Sor/Pal or Sor/Magus or whatever, I dunno... It seems that the PC is all about casting the best Arcane spells every round, never using a sword or what have you. A Sor/Ftr is supremely useless. A Sor/Magus is even worse.
A Sor/Monk or Sor/Rog would still cast the best arcane spells every round, just with cool Monk stuff (AC, Movement, Saves) or Rogue stuff (Skills).
All in all, I think Sor/Wiz is enough better that I'll ask the Player to consider that option and try to build that PC instead -- shouldn't be a problem to keep his character concept with Sor/Wiz instead of Sor/Sor.
But keep the ideas coming.
|
The main thing that you need to decide is if the bloodline arcana affects only spells known by that version of the sorcerer, or if it applies to both sides.
For example, if I play an arcane bloodline sorcerer/fey bloodline sorcerer, and my fey bloodline side knows confusion, if I cast a Widened confusion, is the save DC +2 (because of my fey bloodline arcana) or +3 ( because of my fey bloodline arcana and my arcane bloodline arcana).
If the former, the class is likely balanced but can be a bookkeeping nightmare. A player could easily forget which bonuses from each bloodline belong to each spell known, even if doing so with no intent to defraud the game system.
If the later, the combination may well provide too many synergies and be slightly overpowered, despite the (very real) factor of not having maximized hit dice, saves, and skill points.
|
|
As I wrote earlier, the build in question is Sorcerer: Fire Elemental Bloodline and Sorcerer: Starsoul Bloodline.
And yes, I feel that his Voidwalker Fire Resistance should stack with any other Fire resistance.... And yes, I think that his Breaching the Gulf +3 CL to teleportation subschool spells should count even if his Teleport is on his Fire Elemental Bloodline spells known list (but I'm pretty sure that won't happen: one would only have a certain spell on one spell list, right ... and Teleport would be put on the Starsoul list.
I'm of the opinion that the bloodline abilities should synergize/stack.
The more I mull it over, the more I realize that this gestalt is so far from optimal, I'd let it all stack, pool and so on wherever it can; bonus feats, spells/day, spells known, bonus spells, etc. It would have a near zero chance of overshadowing other, more optimal gestalts. I mean low HP, low BAB, 1 good save, and low skill ranks all add up to a character who has glaring weaknesses and limitations compared to his comrades.
If you (as DM) allow a warlock conversion, then Sorcerer/Warlock could rock. Maybe. Or a Sorcerer/Hexblade.
Master Arminas
For that specific bloodline combination - I'd say go for it. Treat the two sorcerer classes as if they were separate in this case - so the character would have two separate known spell lists, spell per day slots, etc. But the arcana would, of course, stack for both as normal.
I can't imagine such a character ending up too strong for a gestalt game - and if (s)he ends up too weak, well, then just find a way to give out a metamagic rod of quicken spell or something.
I wouldn't allow it for the same reason I don't allow people to play Commoners in standard games. Poor BAB, only one good save, and no skill points? Getting double Spells Known and double Spells per Day isn't worth as much as a whole class.
If you want to go double arcane, go Bard//Sorcerer (Archaeologist//Draconic/DD is awesome) or Kensei//Sage.
Meh. If after playing awhile you find he suxx0rz, just let him undergo some superhuman transformation, like become an Azer. Or let him die and become a Ghost with the Malevolence ability, so he can possess some big brute (like a Troll) who the party drags around. Or give him lycanthropy. Or have him die and be reincarnated as a tough race, like a cloud giant.
There's tons if in-game ways to power up a PC, so long as you collaborate a bit (so as to not force the PC to play something they don't like).
|
|
If you (as DM) allow a warlock conversion, then Sorcerer/Warlock could rock. Maybe. Or a Sorcerer/Hexblade.
Well, I'm open-minded to any Player request but the Player is the one asking -- I'm the one thinking about it. Had the Player asked about a different unusual build, I would have come to the Boards with a different question.
With your suggestion, however, one of the other Players is going Tiefling Warlock / Fighter that will be a true badass (I've played Warlock Pally before; I know!). And since there aren't many PCs, I try to avoid two Players with a similar build. Can't always be helped but still, we try to avoid it.
|
|
(If he sucks) just let him undergo some superhuman transformation, like become an Azer,...Ghost,... or give him lycanthropy.
This works for lots of gamers but not me. While it has been years since I allowed something like this, the few times I did failed miserably. Ultimately, I'm good at designing challenging encounters for PCs when all the PCs are apples. When some are apples and some are oranges, my encounter design fails. The game suffers.
So no party werewolf or ghost in my games (unless they're all werewolves or ghosts).
If his build ends up too weak we'll have to kill him.
But I don't think it will.
The other Players absolutely have better Saves, tricks and AC -- but will have to spend their loot on weapons. This PC can spend ALL his loot on Saving Throw & AC wondrous items. He won't have to buy wands or rods cuz he'll have plenty of spells for metamagic feats and artillery. And a fully loaded arcane blaster is a frightening thing indeed -- let the little fighters and barbarians play with their swords. Wait till this guy doesn't run out of fireballs and lightning bolts.
(But I'm still not sure.
Hmmm...)
This direction lies madness.
I get it, you're the GM but by stretching the gestalt rules this way is kind of arbitrary. Gestalt as an optional rule doesn't stack abilities; it gives you the better of each.
I know you know that. But here's where the madness comes in...
If you're allowing sorcerers to get double their known spells and spell slots, why isn't the barbarian getting double the BAB, and double the rage bonus/penalty? Why doesn't a monk/monk get twice as many attacks? A cleric should be able to channel energy twice as many times per day for twice as much result. A summoner should get twice as many evolution points, two eidolons, and should be able to assign those points as he sees fit, perhaps giving an uber eidolon a baby friend.
While stacking spells for a sorcerer isn't as dramatic as any of those are, saying "this rule stacks but only when I say so" is inconsistent and arbitrary. As a player, I'd dislike it.
I'm not trying to argue with you, but give you some input on why gestalt doesn't stack. You take the same class twice, you look exactly like a single-class PC. House-rule as you will, but know that the examples above are the logical extension of what you're doing.
This direction lies madness.
If you're allowing sorcerers to get double their known spells and spell slots, why isn't the barbarian getting double the BAB, and double the rage bonus/penalty? Why doesn't a monk/monk get twice as many attacks? A cleric should be able to channel energy twice as many times per day for twice as much result. A summoner should get twice as many evolution points, two eidolons, and should be able to assign those points as he sees fit, perhaps giving an uber eidolon a baby friend.
While stacking spells for a sorcerer isn't as dramatic as any of those are, saying "this rule stacks but only when I say so" is inconsistent and arbitrary. As a player, I'd dislike it.
No, no they're not logical extensions. Compare to wizard/sorcerer, for example. Same base attack, saves, skills... but "doubling up" on known spells, spells per day, and class special abilities - in other words, it looks almost exactly like a sorcerer/sorcerer as described. Since the character would have two separate pools of spells/day, and two separate known spell lists. In fact, the only thing on your list that's an actual logical extension is the cleric/cleric being able to channel twice as often per day - but it would be for the normal amount of healing per channel.
However, if you wanted to do this character under slightly more normal gestalt rules, you could use the crossblooded archetype for sorcerer, and (with only minor houserules) spend feat slots to pick up the missing bloodline powers (ala the eldritch heritage sequence). Then set the other half of the gestalt to something else - perhaps wizard if you really want oodles of arcane power.
|
|
I get what Anguish is saying -- I certainly understand why it can't be allowed in many games.
The unspoken premise there -- which is certainly a truism for pretty much every other gaming group -- is that what is allowed for one character is allowed for another. So another Player could make a Gestalt Ftr/Ftr or I could make a Marilith Gestalt Brb/Brb.
But in my games that Premise is not used. Just because my monsters get free Improved Initiative, for example, doesn't mean the PCs do. I will bend or twist the character generation rules to make it work for a particular campaign whenever I feel it will provide for a more fun, more playable experience.
I have no problem ruling that one Gestalt combo is allowed while another is not -- my basis being that all PCs must be equitable. Thus my earlier post that NO GESTALT SUMMONER / ANYTHING is a rule.
If you find a way to break the game in my campaign, using RAW, by making your PC better than the other PCs, I will work with you to weaken your RAW PC.
But that's me.
Saves will be lower then many gestalt characters that combine classes.True.
If you gestalt one class with a weak save (say fort) and one with a strong, you end up with a save higher then a normal character with a strong save. So if a character does this, they wont get that nudge up on saves that cross.False.
If you gestalt a class with a strong save & a class with a weak save, you end up with exactly a strong save. Gestalt tracks fractions; it has to, or you get nonsensical results (like good save + weak save being somehow stronger than good save + good save).
I dont have the rules in front of me but I dont remember the unearthed arcana rules using fractions though I think the rules for fractional bonuses were also in unearthed arcana. The description I remember is you pick one class or the other at each level, in which case the above mentioned result isn't nonsensical it is just the result. It was something I houseruled away the few times I ran something with gestalt rules so I am pretty sure those were the default rules, but my group could have just misinterpreted to start and stuck with it, I'll check when I get home today.
If you (as DM) allow a warlock conversion, then Sorcerer/Warlock could rock. Maybe. Or a Sorcerer/Hexblade.
Well, I'm open-minded to any Player request but the Player is the one asking -- I'm the one thinking about it. Had the Player asked about a different unusual build, I would have come to the Boards with a different question.
With your suggestion, however, one of the other Players is going Tiefling Warlock / Fighter that will be a true badass (I've played Warlock Pally before; I know!). And since there aren't many PCs, I try to avoid two Players with a similar build. Can't always be helped but still, we try to avoid it.
If you are good with Psions, suggest that he look at Sorcerer/Psion for his gestalt build. Between the two, he should be able to shore up any weaknesses in spells known/powers known. Or, if he wants to blast things, suggest a Warmage/Soulknife. That is a kick-butt combination in gestalt.
Master Arminas
A gestalt Fighter/Wizard would have good Fort & Will, and no-good Reflex.
A gestalt Rogue/Wizard would have good Reflex & Will, and no-good Fort.
A gestalt Monk/anything would have all good saves.
That's how it works:
A gestalt Fighter/Wizard would have good Fort & Will, and no-good Reflex.
A gestalt Rogue/Wizard would have good Reflex & Will, and no-good Fort.
A gestalt Monk/anything would have all good saves.That's how it works:
Take the best stats of each of the classes (BAB, Saves, HD, skill ranks/HD) and ignore the inferior stat of each, like an optimizing salad bar. Take the class abilities of both (spell progression, bonus feats, special abilities etc.) Merge the class skill lists.
The way i read the rules was that you did that at each individual level, not overall. So at level 1 to 2 you would take the fighter's fort save, and at level 3 you take the rogues fort save (thus having +4 at 3rd level). For my own table I houseruled that to mean you chose the total save from either the fighter or the wizard. But again without an actual rules quotation or my book, i am not sure.
To make a 1st-level gestalt character, choose two standard D&D classes. (You can also choose any of the variant classes in this book, though you can't combine two version of the same class.). Build your character according to the following guidelines.
Hit Dice: Choose the larger Hit die. A monk/sorcerer would use d8 as her Hit Die adn have 8 hit points (plus Constitution modifier) at 1st level, for example.
Base Attack Bonus: Choose the better progression from the two classes.
Base Saving Throw Bonuses: For each save bonus, chose the better progression from the two classes. For example, a 1st-level gestalt fighter/wizard would have base saving throw bonuses of Fortitude +2, Reflex +0, and Will +2--taking the good Fortitude save from the fighter class and the good Will save from the Wizard class.
Class Skills: Take the number of skill points gained per level from whichever class grants more skill points, and consider any skill on either class list as a class skill for the gestalt character. For example, a gestalt barbarian/bard would gain skills points per level equal to 6 + Int modifier, and can purchase skills from both the barbarian and bard lists a class skills.
Class Features: A gestalt character gains the class features of both classes. A 1st-level gestalt rogue/cleric, for example, gets sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding, 1st-level cleric spells, and the ability to turn or rebuke undead. Class- adn ability-based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid's prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.
A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.
Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.
Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per seperately.
A gestalt character can't combine two prestige classes at any level, although it's okay to combine aprestige and a regular class. Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations--such as the arcane trickers, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight--should be prohibited if you're using gestalt classes, because they unduly complicate the game balance of what's already a high-powered variant. Because it's possible for gestalt characters to qualify prestige classes earlier than normal, the DM is entirely justified in toughening the prerequisites of a prestige class so it's available only after 5th level, even for gestalt characters.
This direction lies madness.
If you're allowing sorcerers to get double their known spells and spell slots, why isn't the barbarian getting double the BAB, and double the rage bonus/penalty? Why doesn't a monk/monk get twice as many attacks? A cleric should be able to channel energy twice as many times per day for twice as much result. A summoner should get twice as many evolution points, two eidolons, and should be able to assign those points as he sees fit, perhaps giving an uber eidolon a baby friend.
You're half right.
The doublebarb would get double the number of rage rounds, because they're class abilities (essentially having two separate pools of rage to draw from). They would not get double the bab for the same reason that no combination does.
And a doublefighter would have twice the feats. Yeah.
The thing is, some abilities stack and others don't and you just have to exercise common sense and GM fiat when making a ruling.
A doublerogue would not get twice the sneak attack because they're the exact same ability granted by two separate versions of the class (if you want to get really technical they'd have two separate "pools" of sneak attack damage but could only apply one at a time to an attack, so it becomes moot). They would get twice the rogue talents though, since each instance is a separate and unique ability.
A doublesummoner would have two eidolons, and two seperate evolution pools, one for each. No big deal, just a lot of bookkeeping.
Sorcerer spells are the same way. They'd have two pools to draw from and two spell lists and would need to track the usage separately, because when they ran out of spells per day in one pool they'd all of a sudden lose access to half their spell list. (that pool would be depleted.
I've run many Gestalt games and never had a problem with such combinations. Even the doublefighter wasn't really too bad. The limiting factors are still HP, BaB and Saves, and while most Gestalt characters are strong in those areas they aren't over the expected numbers according to their level. They can't cast more spells per round or attack more times than normal. They are just more versatile and have greater longevity than normal characters, which is good because it avoids the "10 minute adventuring day".
In my opinion, a Gestalt character isn't ever more than a +2 ECL over a normal character.
that you did that at each individual level, not overall. So at level 1 to 2 you would take the fighter's fort save, and at level 3 you take the rogues fort save (thus having +4 at 3rd level). For my own table I houseruled that to mean you chose the total save from either the fighter or the wizard. But again without an actual rules quotation or my book, i am not sure.
Your houserule is the actual rule. You don't pick the better number by level, you pick the better overall progression.
A better way of thinking of Gestalt is that you are essentially making a new class (alled whatever you like) taking the best progressions of two classes and with all the class abilities of both. Some class abilities stack, some don't. Figuring that out is the only complicated thing about the Gestalt rules but as soon as you realize that duplicate abilities get tracked separately (sometimes making one version of them irrelevant) it becomes a lot clearer.
I get what Anguish is saying -- I certainly understand why it can't be allowed in many games.
Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure you'd thought of that angle.
If you're doing 3.P, Sage Sorcerer//Beguiler is pretty sweet. Warmage//Bard/Sublime Chord is also a good option. Both are compatible with Rainbow Servant.
Thematically, you can run Archaeologist/Wyrm Wizard//Arcane Sorcerer/Pathfinder Savant.
If you're going to combine casters, it's more important to get access to different spell lists than to double spell slots and spells known within a single list. The action economy is your biggest impediment here.
that you did that at each individual level, not overall. So at level 1 to 2 you would take the fighter's fort save, and at level 3 you take the rogues fort save (thus having +4 at 3rd level). For my own table I houseruled that to mean you chose the total save from either the fighter or the wizard. But again without an actual rules quotation or my book, i am not sure.Your houserule is the actual rule. You don't pick the better number by level, you pick the better overall progression.
A better way of thinking of Gestalt is that you are essentially making a new class (alled whatever you like) taking the best progressions of two classes and with all the class abilities of both. Some class abilities stack, some don't. Figuring that out is the only complicated thing about the Gestalt rules but as soon as you realize that duplicate abilities get tracked separately (sometimes making one version of them irrelevant) it becomes a lot clearer.
You are right. I guess this is a case where someone read it wrong early on and we collectively never corrected ourselves on what we thought the raw was because we quickly houseruled it to what raw actually was. That is kind of amusing. But anyway, a gestalt sorc-sorc is still likely to have lower stats then most other gestalt combinations where different saves are strong (or those combined with monk)
A Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is far weaker than a Magus/Sorcerer or a Wizard Sorcerer when it comes to spell power. Allowing the Sorcerer/Sorcerer to have 2x spells, 2x spells known, and 2x bloodlines still will not come close to the other combinations out there.
Examples (10th Level)
Magus/Sorcerer (Sage):
HD d8,
Bab +7/+2,
Spells known (All, 13, 10, 9, 4, 1)
-->not including blood line spells, or Intelligence bonus at first level.
Spells Castable (11, 11, 10, 8, 4, 0)
* Note at 6th level all the sorcerer spells will be usable for spell combat.
**Can cast spell and still attack in the same round!!!!!
So at 10th level our Magus/Sorcerer has 1 bloodline Arcan, 3 bloodline powers, 4 bloodline spells, 1 bloodline feats, Cantrips and Eschew materials, and Arcane pool, spell combat, spellstrike, Magus Arcana, Spell recall, Bonus Feat, magus arcana, Knowledge pool, medium armor, improved spell combat, magus arcana, Fighter training.
Wizard/Sorcerer (Sage):
HD: D6
BAB: +5
Spells Known (S):9, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
**Spells Cast (S): 6, 6, 6, 5, 3
*Spells Known (W): 13, 12, 8, 7, 6, 5
**Spells Cast (W): 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2
* Not including spells gained through adventure
**Not including INT modifier bonus to spells.
So at 10th level our Wizard/Sorcerer has 1 bloodline Arcan, 3 bloodline powers, 4 bloodline spells, 1 bloodline feats, Cantrips and Eschew materials, and Arcane bond, arcane school, cantrips, Scribe Scroll, Bonus Feat, Bonus Feat
Sorcerer/Sorcerer
HD D6
BAB +5
Spells Known: 18, 12, 8, 8, 6, 2
Spells Castable: All, 12, 12, 12, 10, 6
(I've included bloodline spells into the known spells)
So at 10th level our Sorcerer/Sorcerer has 2 bloodline Arcana, 6 bloodline powers, 8 bloodline spells, 2 bloodline feats, Cantrips and Eschew materials
PROS:
M/S = Better Hit Dice, Better Saves, Better Base Attack, Less Spells known, Less Spells per Day (Still won't run out). Plus one bonus feat Can cast a spell and attack in the same round! Best action economy of the group.
W/S = More Spells known, Less Spells per Day (Still won't run out), Gets a familiar, arcane bond, scribe scroll plus 2 bonus feats.
S/S= More spells per day (Still won't run out, Gets double the standard sorcerer stuff.
Overall I think that a Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is not a problem for game balance. Compared to the other options above. Giving the Sorcerer/Sorcerer x2 everything from the sorcerer class does not overbalance it, heck I would argue it under balances it. Depending on what the character is looking for a Magus/Sorcerer or Magus/Wizard would be what I would worry about in derailing a game.
|
|
Actually, Mr. Green, your example makes it look like there IS a game-balance problem -- that PC will be too weak. I'm just not sure yet HOW too weak the PC will be.
I'll have to give more thought and talk with the Player -- hopefully a Sor / Wiz: Starsoul Bloodline (instead of School) will be appealing.
One thing to note about the Magus/Sorcerer is that unless you bend Gestalt to allow them, by default, their Sorcerer spells will still suffer Arcane Spell Failure for armor while their Magus spells do not. Broad Study specifically picks out that when using spells not on the Magus spell list, they suffer Arcane Spell Failure as normal for those spells.
When I run Gestalt games I keep arcane spell failure on the spells of each class separately. Since I do that, though, I suppose I can't really comment on full-armor full-caster balance in practice.