The Fighter-Wizard is still better than a straight Wizard, since it can be played exactly like a straight Wizard except with some nice passive buffs from the Fighter (better Fort save, better BAB for ray spells, better hit die, bonus feats, etc). Pump Int and dump Str like any other Wizard.
It's wrong to say that a Gestalt Fighter-Wizard is just as good as a normal Wizard and a normal Fighter together, but it's even more obviously wrong to say that a Gestalt Fighter-Wizard is no better than a flat Wizard.
And yeah, this seems to just be Gestalt except made far more unnecessarily fiddly and complicated.
The Fighter-Wizard is still better than a straight Wizard, since it can be played exactly like a straight Wizard except with some nice passive buffs from the Fighter (better Fort save, better BAB for ray spells, better hit die, bonus feats, etc). Pump Int and dump Str like any other Wizard.
It's wrong to say that a Gestalt Fighter-Wizard is just as good as a normal Wizard and a normal Fighter together, but it's even more obviously wrong to say that a Gestalt Fighter-Wizard is no better than a flat Wizard.
And yeah, this seems to just be Gestalt except made far more unnecessarily fiddly and complicated.
Many of the Bonuses a Fighter get would be useless to the Wizard (at least in Pathfinder, was less so in 3.5), of course, there are archetypes and stuff.
That fighter wizard also will not have ability scores reach as high as either a straight fighter or straight wizard. He needs Str, Con, and Int . . . and his Int will have to reach 19 if he wants to cast his highest level spells. If he is an archer, he needs Dex as well. Lower ability scores (in general) will make the overall power level lower, despite having two classes.
And, don't take this the wrong way . . . but your system is too complicated and requires on constant DM discrestion on how to assign class features. Just use gestalt as written. That is a proven system.
MA
I second this.
With this averaging system, what happens if I take Ranger/Rogue 1, then advance with Wizard/Cleric? Does my reflex save go from +2 to a +1. Does it get worse by advancing?
I understand you're trying to come up with a specialized system, but it seems needlessly complex.
Many of the Bonuses a Fighter get would be useless to the Wizard (at least in Pathfinder, was less so in 3.5), of course, there are archetypes and stuff.
Yeah, Weapon Training and Armor Training in particular don't help, but the Combat Feat slots can all be filled with things that are at least reasonably useful for a wizard, like Dodge or Weapon Focus (Rays). Maybe some other class would be more useful, but the point is that adding Fighter does indeed make the character strictly more powerful than a regular Wizard - it's just plain not true to say things like:
they aren't even "more" powerful than normal characters...
Many of the Bonuses a Fighter get would be useless to the Wizard (at least in Pathfinder, was less so in 3.5), of course, there are archetypes and stuff.Yeah, Weapon Training and Armor Training in particular don't help, but the Combat Feat slots can all be filled with things that are at least reasonably useful for a wizard, like Dodge or Weapon Focus (Rays). Maybe some other class would be more useful, but the point is that adding Fighter does indeed make the character strictly more powerful than a regular Wizard - it's just plain not true to say things like:
they aren't even "more" powerful than normal characters...
If you take stuff from Unearthed Arcana, the Warrior Generic class is almost less of a waste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would have to take spell finesse, but otherwise, you'd be golden.3rd party feat, and in my opinion a completely broken one I would not allow. Neat idea for a build, though.
Spell finesse is broken? really?... huh, doesn't even come up on my "broken" radar. At least when you compare it to actual paizo feats, like dervish dance, which essentially does the same thing for all Magus and Bard classes.
Anywho, don't want to derail. I like the idea, and I don't think its really that difficult to handle. I usually agree with Master Arminas, but in this area I guess we see things differently :)
With this averaging system, what happens if I take Ranger/Rogue 1, then advance with Wizard/Cleric? Does my reflex save go from +2 to a +1. Does it get worse by advancing?
Nah. If you go ranger/rogue at level 1, then your reflex save is 2, as you correctly surmise. If at level 2, you add a level of wizard and cleric, since neither the wizard nor the cleric adds to your reflex save at their first level, it would stay at +2.
For further clarfication:
Level Class 1 Class 2 Base Reflex Save
1 Ranger Rogue +2
2 Ranger Cleric +3 (Rounded up from 2.5)
3 Ranger Rogue +3 (Not rounded)
4 Bard Rogue +4 (Not rounded)
I second this.
Nah. I appreciate the thought, but I hate the flaws in gestalt that I mentioned earlier, such as Ranger+Rogue getting the same skill points as Fighter+Rogue. I think it actually causes *more* imbalance in "right" versus "wrong" class combinations than my system does. Want to do a cleric/druid? Well, bad idea in gestalt (since they have the same BAB, hit points, and saves), but it would work fine under this system. Similar thing with Bard/Rogue, Fighter/Barbarian, and many others.
"Take the best" is easier, but stupid, in my opinion, as it effectively erases certain weakness of classes. I don't want to erase them. If you want to play an arcane caster, you are not going to have a maximized base fort save. You can mitigate it with fighter, but not eliminate it. That's how I want this system to work, I don't want casters with full BAB, or Armor Master fighters with full base reflex, and this system eliminates both of those as options.
So, I'm definitely going with some sort of averaging system, that was never a question. I was just looking for feedback on potential loopholes in the system, and I've gotten some good input on that front, which I really appreciate.
I don't think this relies on DM discretion either. Every ability is capped by what level of that ability could be achieved by a single class character at the same character level. That's really the rule.
Many of the Bonuses a Fighter get would be useless to the Wizard (at least in Pathfinder, was less so in 3.5), of course, there are archetypes and stuff.
Many, but not all. Not even most. Again, hit points, BAB (for touch spells), and numerous feats that, despite bearing the name "combat feats" can be used for wizardly advantage (I listed some examples earlier) are far from useless for a wizard.
It isn't a bad idea in the Gestalt system.
Then again the Gestalt system isn't meant for powergaming.
Thanks to many comments, I think I've managed to clarify (and remove a lot of unnecessary wording from) the rules a lot. The saving throws, BAB and HD sections should be, hopefully, much, much easier to understand, as well as the "Power limitation" section. Please let me know if I succeeded. I didn't change the intro or the prestige class section, and so left them out of this post. The description now reads as:
Rules for Double Class Play:
SAVING THROWS & BAB:
For calculating the base saving throws and base attack bonus of your character, you need to do two steps. One, add together the values from all levels of all classes that you have (*exactly* as you would for a single class character). Second, divide by two and round up. That is the value that you use.
HD:
Whenever you gain a level in two classes, simple determine the hit points that you receive from each class (just from the hit die itself), add them together, and divide by two. After this, add favored class bonuses and CON bonuses. Half hit points are not rounded up, but they are carried over to the next level (where they may potentially form a full hit point with another lonely half hit point)
SKILLS:
All class skills of any classes that you have levels in are class skills for you.
Whenever you gain a level, average the base number of skills gained from both classes, add one, and then add your intelligence modifier (and any favored class bonus). For example, the Paladin / Monk would get 3 (the average of 2 and 4) + 1 + INT = 4+INT skill points. If you gain a level in Rogue and Wizard, you gain 5 (the average of 8 and 2) + 1 + INT = 6 + INT skill points.
FAVORED CLASSES:
At level 1, you automatically gain two favored classes. (The half-elf has three favored classes). Whenever you gain a level in a favored class, you gain an appropriate favored class bonus. If you gain a level in two favored classes at once, gain a bonus for each. Special: for only one of the two classes are you permitted to gain a hit point as your favored class bonus. You must choose which class this is at first level.
CLASS LIMITATIONS:
You are subject to all limitations and restrictions (most notably alignment restrictions) of all classes that you have levels in.
FEATS:
You gain a feat every level.
STAT GAINS:
You gain a point in one of your primary statistics every even level EXCEPT THAT you cannot add a point to the same stat twice in a row. At most, you can go back and forth between two stats. For example, a fighter/wizard combo could add a point in intelligence at level 2, then one in strength at level 4, then one in intelligence at level 6, etc.
POWER LIMITATION:
The point of this system is to diversify, not focus, power. While it's certainly possible to make a more powerful wizard under this system than you can under the single class system, there are strict limitations on how far you can go.
Simply put, similar abilities from multiple classes stack, but not beyond the maximum achievable by the single class system. You cannot cast as a 10th level wizard before you are level 10. You cannot have +4d6 sneak attack damage before you are level 7. Example: If you take five levels each of rogue & ninja, your abilities stack to +6d6 sneak attack damage, but if your character level is only 5, it is capped at +3d6 sneak attack damage.
Also, I realize too late that this probably should have been in the "House Rules" section of the forum. I'm happy to have it moved; I don't know how that works.
Also, I realize too late that this probably should have been in the "House Rules" section of the forum. I'm happy to have it moved; I don't know how that works.
Flag you first post as "thread in wrong forum"
|
Want to do a cleric/druid? Well, bad idea in gestalt (since they have the same BAB, hit points, and saves), but it would work fine under this system.
Err, what? As far as I can tell, both systems would produce identical results for a cleric|druid, as far as class-dependent variables are concerned.
Also, I have no clue what you're talking about with respect to the following:
The second is that it makes it so that player power depends on the *order* in which you gained your levels, and that's something that should be avoided at all costs, in my opinion.
Gestalt has nothing to do with the order you take levels in. A Fighter|Barbarian 2 that then takes a level in Bard|Rogue comes out identically to a F|B 1 -> Bd|R 1 -> F|B 2. Or any other class combo.
Err, what? As far as I can tell, both systems would produce identical results for a cleric|druid, as far as class-dependent variables are concerned.
That is correct, but the two systems don't produce identical results for the, say, Barbarian/Bard. The Barbarian/Bard is much, much, much better in gestalt than it is under this system. Thus, *relatively* speaking, the cleric/druid loses out in gestalt.
Also, I have no clue what you're talking about with respect to the following:
The second is that it makes it so that player power depends on the *order* in which you gained your levels, and that's something that should be avoided at all costs, in my opinion.Gestalt has nothing to do with the order you take levels in. A Fighter|Barbarian 2 that then takes a level in Bard|Rogue comes out identically to a F|B 1 -> Bd|R 1 -> F|B 2. Or any other class combo.
Sorry, I'll try to illustrate what I mean. Take your example. Suppose that we're comparing the two following orders:
Level 1: Barbarian+Fighter
Level 2: Rogue+Bard
to:
Level 1: Barbarian+Rogue
Level 2: Fighter+Bard
Under gestalt, the latter order is clearly superior, because you get high skill points, high hit points, high BAB and high saves on both levels (no will save at level one, but other than that max). If you take the first order, you lose out, because you only get high fort saves at level one, and high will and reflex at level 2. You get high BAB at level one, and high skills at level 2.
The system I've described, in contrast, produces identical results for the two orders of leveling.
With this averaging system, what happens if I take Ranger/Rogue 1, then advance with Wizard/Cleric? Does my reflex save go from +2 to a +1. Does it get worse by advancing?Nah. If you go ranger/rogue at level 1, then your reflex save is 2, as you correctly surmise. If at level 2, you add a level of wizard and cleric, since neither the wizard nor the cleric adds to your reflex save at their first level, it would stay at +2.
For further clarfication:
Level Class 1 Class 2 Base Reflex Save
1 Ranger Rogue +2
2 Ranger Cleric +3 (Rounded up from 2.5)
3 Ranger Rogue +3 (Not rounded)
4 Bard Rogue +4 (Not rounded)
So if the +1/2's are rounded up, I just need to stagger my levels correctly and get tons of increases. Or, they get rounded down and if I'm not stacking two classes I never get an increase ever.
Or, you have to add all the class levels together to get the averages, in which case the worsening saves happens.
So if the +1/2's are rounded up, I just need to stagger my levels correctly and get tons of increases. Or, they get rounded down and if I'm not stacking two classes I never get an increase ever.
Or, you have to add all the class levels together to get the averages, in which case the worsening saves happens.
No, I guess I'm still not being clear. The order in which you stagger your classes makes no difference in this system (*unlike* gestalt, in which the order in which you stagger classes can make an enormous difference, actually). The halves are rounded up, but they're still there in the background. Let me show the chart again with a bit more detail:
Level Class 1 --- --- Class 2 --- --- Base Reflex Save
1 --- Ranger1 (+2) Rogue1 (+2) --- -- (2+2)/2=+2
2 --- Ranger2 (+3) Cleric1 (+0) --- --- (3+2+0)/2=+2.5, rounded to +3
3 --- Ranger3 (+3) Rogue2 {+3) --- --- (3+3+0)/2=+3
4 --- Bard1 {+2) -- Rogue3 (+3) --- --- (2+3+3+0)/2=+4
Do you see how, at each level, I add the total reflex saves from all the classes I have levels in, and divide the total by 2? If you do it this way, staggering make zero difference. At character level four, no matter what order I take these levels in, I'm still going to have +2 from the bard levels, +3 from the ranger levels, +3 from the rogue levels, and +0 from the cleric levels. That adds to 8, giving me a base reflex save of 8/2 = +4.
In contrast, staggering for 4 levels in gestalt can easily make the difference between a +8 save and a +4 one.
If this is what you meant by "worsening saves" then yes. On average, characters under this system will not have as good BAB or base saves as gestalt characters, which is part of the point.
I see you decided to stick with a feat every level.
I would lower that back down to normal feat advancement myself or characters will have crazy numbers of feats by high level. I would like feats to still feel like important choices not like candy sprinkles that you can have as many as you want of.
It seems fine otherwise. I even like the way you let people improve two stats as they level instead of one. This lightens the MAD tax on gestalt characters.
Going with 3.5e gestalt would be easier to teach to players but your system seems just fine. As long as you are fine with all the extra work you will have checking if people averaged stuff correctly then its a fine variant of gestalt.
I see you decided to stick with a feat every level.
I would lower that back down to normal feat advancement myself or characters will have crazy numbers of feats by high level. I would like feats to still feel like important choices not like candy sprinkles that you can have as many as you want of.
I do understand this problem, but there is a counterbalancing problem with the normal feat progression. Namely, due to feat scarcity for a dual-class build, fighter would become the go-to mix in. No one is going to do a Barbarian/Wizard, or a Ranger/Wizard rather than a Fighter/Wizard under the normal feat progression. The fighter's bonus feats become relatively too valuable for dual-class builds.
I'm open to suggestions though; any idea how one would avoid that issue?
I don't mind the crazy number of feats myself; I've made a few builds, and I've still been unable to take even close to all the feats that I wanted to, due to the fact that you have feats relevant to two classes now. It really only lets you diversify more.
It seems fine otherwise. I even like the way you let people improve two stats as they level instead of one. This lightens the MAD tax on gestalt characters.
Glad that works for you :)
Going with 3.5e gestalt would be easier to teach to players but your system seems just fine. As long as you are fine with all the extra work you will have checking if people averaged stuff correctly then its a fine variant of gestalt.
Actually, one thing I like about this is that it's actually much easier to verify that a character is correctly calculated than it is for gestalt. You just have to add up the numbers from each of the classes, and divide by two. In gestalt, you'd have to keep track of the order in which levels were gained, and then, for each individual level, figure out how much each number increased by.
Thanks for the feedback!
I am coming from 3.5e as my background and we got by on far fewer feats than Pathfinder gives out. But if you still think it isn't enough maybe give out an extra bonus feat every 4 or 5 levels above standard feat progression? Actually 4 levels would be easier to remember since that was the place you would have gotten your stat bump.
I am coming from 3.5e as my background and we got by on far fewer feats than Pathfinder gives out. But if you still think it isn't enough maybe give out an extra bonus feat every 4 or 5 levels above standard feat progression? Actually 4 levels would be easier to remember since that was the place you would have gotten your stat bump.
Yeah, that's something to think about. Pathfinder normally has 10 feats in 20 levels; maybe 15 feats in 20 levels. Hmm... I will ponder, thanks.
You may want to go with two feats every second interval.
so 1 feat at level one and 2 at level 3 and so on. It would work just as well in reverse.
I've been following this thread. I have to state up front that I find Gestalt preferable and far less confusing. Still, your system does have an interesting, if unintended, historical background:
The 2nd Edition AD&D rules used 8 character classes divided into 4 groups: Warriors (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin), Wizards (Mage, Illusionist, & Other specialists), Priest (Cleric, Druid & Other specialists), and Rogues (Thief & Bard). Non-humans could also have combinations of these classes called Multiclasses, allowing them to have two or three classes at once. Humans couldn't multiclass, only Dual class. Of the 8 main classes, Paladin & Bard could never multi/dual class.
Which classes you could take in a multiclass depended on the race of your character as shown below:
Dwarf:
Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Cleric
Elf:
Fighter/Mage
Fighter/Thief
Mage/Thief
Fighter/Mage/Thief
Gnome:
Fighter/Cleric
Fighter/Illusionist
Fighter/Thief
Cleric/Illusionist
Cleric/Thief
Illusionist/Thief
Halfling:
Fighter/Thief
Half-Elf:
Fighter/Cleric
Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Druid
Fighter/Mage
Cleric/Ranger
Cleric/Mage
Thief/Mage
Fighter/Mage/Cleric
Fighter/Mage/Thief
Experience for the multiclassed character is divided evenly among his various classes. If a Fighter/Thief gains 1000 experience from killing an evil Halfling of Doom, then his Fighter half gains 500 experience and his Thief half gains 500 experience. Thusly, the multiclassed character usually levels up at half the speed of "plain" characters. This does not mean that this multi- character will be half the levels, he usually is only a couple levels behind.
Hitpoints are handled similarly. When the Fighter/Thief gains a Fighter level, he gains 1/2 the normal Fighter HP. Fighters normally get 10 HP per level, and the Fighter/Thief would gain 5 HP max for a Fighter level and 3 for the Thief level. Constitution bonuses are handled in one of two ways:
1: You get the bonus once per number level. So, our Fighter/Thief would get the CON bonus when his Thief level goes up as that levels up faster.
2: The CON bonus is divided by your number of classes and you get one part per each class' level. If you were a Fighter/Thief you would still get the extra CON for warriors.
Dual classing is the Human answer to Multiclassing. At level 2 or higher, a human can decide to switch to a new class. Then for a time he will be JUST that class until his new class exceeds the level of his old class. At that point your old classes' abilities return and you become similar to a Multiclass... except that you are only leveling one class now, rather than dividing your exp amongst classes.
There are several conditions to Dual Classing:
1: You MUST be Human.
2: You MUST be at least level 2.
3: You MUST start from a Class that can dual. Paladins/Bards cannot Dual to anything, nor can you dual anyone to a Bard/Paladin.
4: The combination MUST be a valid "Multiclass." If you can't find it on the list above (ignore the race restrictions), then you can't dual it. An example of an ILLEGAL class would be a Fighter/Ranger. Not a valid Multiclass, so you can't Dual it either.
5: You need to have sufficient Stats. You need at least 15 in the Prime Stats of your current class (i.e. 15 STR for a Fighter) and at least 17 in the Prime Stats of your desired class (i.e. 17 INT for a Mage).
Note: Specialist Mages have an extra "Prime Stat" beyond just INT.
6: Finally there is also an Alignment Requirement. Thieves cannot be Lawful, so a Lawful Good Fighter cannot Dual to a Thief. Also Druids must be True Neutral.
So, a level 2, Neutral Good Fighter with 15 STR and 17 DEX can dual to a Thief. While a level 2, Neutral Good Thief with 15 STR and 17 DEX can't dual to fighter. (he would need 17 STR and 15 DEX) When the first hypothetical character gained level 3 as a Thief, he would become a true Fighter/Thief, however he would only gain Thief levels.
Note: It doesn't matter which order you go from. You can start out as Thief and dual to a Fighter, or a Fighter to a Thief. It amounts to the same thing. Which way you do it only affects which class will continue to gain experience.
It's also kind of amusing to see the changes in the system since then as reflected in this information.
(Sorry about the deleted post for those who saw it; I had had a player from pathfinder society for a game I ran log in on this computer to register his character, and I'd never logged him out, so was still logged in as him...)
Anyway:
Actually, I thought it would be going back too far to mention it, but that multiclass system was in part the inspiration for this. I grew up in AD&D, both through pen and paper, and then the Baldur's Gate series.
Thanks for laying it out, though, for those unfamiliar :)
I admit to being baffled at those who find Gestalt to be less confusing, since in gestalt you have to pay careful attention to things like the order in which you take classes in it (to make sure you take them in the "best" order), and make note of not just the total value of each save, but the amount by which it increased at each level. I find it more confusing and tedious myself, but I think that's largely a matter of opinion and/or comfort with an established system.
Order wasn't relevant in Gestalt. But for those who were confused, the fractional BAB/Save advancement made it easy to understand.
Order is relevant, though. Consider the example I gave earlier:
Suppose that we're comparing the two following orders:
Level 1: Barbarian+Fighter
Level 2: Rogue+Bardto:
Level 1: Barbarian+Rogue
Level 2: Fighter+BardUnder gestalt, the latter order is clearly superior, because you get high skill points, high hit points, high BAB and high saves on both levels (no will save at level one, but other than that max). If you take the first order, you lose out, because you only get high fort saves at level one, and high will and reflex at level 2. You get high BAB at level one, and high skills at level 2.
The system I've described, in contrast, produces identical results for the two orders of leveling.
Ok I thought you were talking about something else...
Yes your system allows for complete disregard for the order where Gestalt made the order taken more important. But that was an artifact of taking the best vs averaging. We were talking about ease of understanding however. ~shrug~ Maybe I am just used to the established system.
So if the +1/2's are rounded up, I just need to stagger my levels correctly and get tons of increases. Or, they get rounded down and if I'm not stacking two classes I never get an increase ever.
Or, you have to add all the class levels together to get the averages, in which case the worsening saves happens.
No, I guess I'm still not being clear. The order in which you stagger your classes makes no difference in this system (*unlike* gestalt, in which the order in which you stagger classes can make an enormous difference, actually). The halves are rounded up, but they're still there in the background. Let me show the chart again with a bit more detail:
Level Class 1 --- --- Class 2 --- --- Base Reflex Save
1 --- Ranger1 (+2) Rogue1 (+2) --- -- (2+2)/2=+2
2 --- Ranger2 (+3) Cleric1 (+0) --- --- (3+2+0)/2=+2.5, rounded to +3
3 --- Ranger3 (+3) Rogue2 {+3) --- --- (3+3+0)/2=+3
4 --- Bard1 {+2) -- Rogue3 (+3) --- --- (2+3+3+0)/2=+4Do you see how, at each level, I add the total reflex saves from all the classes I have levels in, and divide the total by 2? If you do it this way, staggering make zero difference. At character level four, no matter what order I take these levels in, I'm still going to have +2 from the bard levels, +3 from the ranger levels, +3 from the rogue levels, and +0 from the cleric levels. That adds to 8, giving me a base reflex save of 8/2 = +4.
In contrast, staggering for 4 levels in gestalt can easily make the difference between a +8 save and a +4 one.
If this is what you meant by "worsening saves" then yes. On average, characters under this system will not have as good BAB or base saves as gestalt characters, which is part of the point.
Okay, then you need to clean up your explanation. When you said "average", I assumed you'd be dividing by numbers greater than 2 if you had more than 2 classes. Always dividing by 2, regardless of number of classes/levels, is not an average, it's dividing by 2.
It seems like your system is designed to water down the classes. You're not going to encourage differences in classes, but rather specialization. I don't see the advantage of your complex system, but you like it, so I'll stay out of the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, then you need to clean up your explanation. When you said "average", I assumed you'd be dividing by numbers greater than 2 if you had more than 2 classes. Always dividing by 2, regardless of number of classes/levels, is not an average,...So if the +1/2's are rounded up, I just need to stagger my levels correctly and get tons of increases. Or, they get rounded down and if I'm not stacking two classes I never get an increase ever.
Or, you have to add all the class levels together to get the averages, in which case the worsening saves happens.
No, I guess I'm still not being clear. The order in which you stagger your classes makes no difference in this system (*unlike* gestalt, in which the order in which you stagger classes can make an enormous difference, actually). The halves are rounded up, but they're still there in the background. Let me show the chart again with a bit more detail:
Level Class 1 --- --- Class 2 --- --- Base Reflex Save
1 --- Ranger1 (+2) Rogue1 (+2) --- -- (2+2)/2=+2
2 --- Ranger2 (+3) Cleric1 (+0) --- --- (3+2+0)/2=+2.5, rounded to +3
3 --- Ranger3 (+3) Rogue2 {+3) --- --- (3+3+0)/2=+3
4 --- Bard1 {+2) -- Rogue3 (+3) --- --- (2+3+3+0)/2=+4Do you see how, at each level, I add the total reflex saves from all the classes I have levels in, and divide the total by 2? If you do it this way, staggering make zero difference. At character level four, no matter what order I take these levels in, I'm still going to have +2 from the bard levels, +3 from the ranger levels, +3 from the rogue levels, and +0 from the cleric levels. That adds to 8, giving me a base reflex save of 8/2 = +4.
In contrast, staggering for 4 levels in gestalt can easily make the difference between a +8 save and a +4 one.
If this is what you meant by "worsening saves" then yes. On average, characters under this system will not have as good BAB or base saves as gestalt characters, which is part of the point.
Kind of harsh, but whatever.
I think it makes sense in that the idea is to incorporate two distinct and different ways of playing, thus diversifying the portfolio of the player character. I don't think the original intent was to take the best of everything all at once... It's like multiclassing, you take two separate classes and benefit from both, but you aren't as good as both together.
Gestalt mechanics really seem to be focused on sticking to the two classes you picked initially, otherwise things get weird. The beauty of the above idea is that multiclassing inside this multiclass system actually works pretty easily.
In other words, once you know how it works, it isn't fussy.
Okay, then you need to clean up your explanation. When you said "average", I assumed you'd be dividing by numbers greater than 2 if you had more than 2 classes. Always dividing by 2, regardless of number of classes/levels, is not an average, it's dividing by 2.
It seems like your system is designed to water down the classes. You're not going to encourage differences in classes, but rather specialization. I don't see the advantage of your complex system, but you like it, so I'll stay out of the way.
I apologize if I was unclear but, in my defense, I did explicitly say to divide by 2 in both the original, and in the "clarified" version of the rules I posted. I only used the term average in those explanations as applied to hit points at each level, and skill points at each level, since those are, in fact, only using the numbers from two classes. Again, I'm not trying to confuse you.
I admit I don't see how this would encourage specialization; if you could give an example of what you mean, I would really appreciate it.
Finally, I'm still baffled as to how dividing things by 2 makes this a particularly complicated system. Certainly it's more complicated than single class, but is adding up all your saves and dividing by 2 really *that* much more complicated than just adding up all your saves?
Just FYI here are MY Pathfinder Gestalt rules:
Building a Gestalt Character:
To build a gestalt character, choose two or three standard classes. No character may have more than three classes in a Gestalt. The classes must be ones that could multiclass under the multiclass rules. Build your character according to the following guidelines.
To explain how it works, I will use these examples from the Rise of the Runelords/Jade Regent Aps.
Ameiko Kaijitsu has three classes; Aristocrat-1, Bard-3, and Rogue (rake)-1.
Shalelu Andosana has two classes; Fighter-2 and Ranger-4.
Tsuto Kaijitsu has two classes; Monk-2 and Rogue-2.
Nualia Tobyn has two classes; Cleric-4 and Fighter-2
Hit Dice
Choose the larger Hit Die.
Ameiko: Her options are: Aristocrat (d8), Bard (d8) Rogue (d8). Gestalt Ameiko uses a d8 hit die.
Shalelu: Her options are: Fighter (d10), Ranger (d10). Gestalt Shalelu uses a d10 hit die.
Tsuto: His options are; Monk (d8), Rogue (d8). Gestalt Tsuto uses a d8 hit die.
Nualia: her options are; Cleric (d8), Fighter (d10). Gestalt Nualia uses a d10 hit die.
Base Attack Bonus
Choose the better progression from the two classes.
Ameiko: All three of Ameiko's classes have the same BaB.
Shalelu: Both of Shaelu's classes have the same BaB.
Tsuto: Both of Tsuto's classes have the same BaB.
Nualia: The fighter has a better BaB, therefore Nualia uses the Fighter BaB.
Base Saving Throw Bonuses
For each save bonus, choose the better progression from the chosen classes, with the following restriction: The character must take at least one bonus from each class in the gestalt.
Ameiko: An Aristocrat's best save is Will; a Bard's best saves are Ref & Will; a Rogue's best save is Ref. This means that Ameiko will have to use the Aristocrat's Will save, the Bard's Fort save, and the Rogue's reflex save. She will have one poor save.
Shalelu: A Fighter's best save is Fort; a Ranger's best saves are Fort and Reflex. Shalelu will use the Fighter's Fort save and the Ranger's Reflex save and will have a poor will save.
Tsuto: All three of a Monk's saves are good; a Rogue's best save is Ref. Tsuto uses the rogue's reflex save and the Monk's Fort and Will. He has no poor saves.
Nualia: A Cleric's best saves are Fort and Will; a Fighter's best save is Fort. Nualia uses the fighter's Fort save, the Cleric's Will save and has a poor Reflex save.
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.
Ameiko: Aristocrat (x skill ranks), Bard (6 skill ranks), Rogue (8 skill ranks). Ameiko gains 8 skill ranks per level.
Shalelu: Fighter (2 skill ranks), Ranger (6 skill ranks). Shalelu gains 6 skill ranks per level.
Tsuto: Monk (4 skill ranks), Rogue (8 skill ranks). Tsuto gains 8 skill ranks.
Nualia: Cleric (2 skill ranks), Fighter (2 skill ranks). Nualia gets 2 skill ranks per level.
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, Aura, 1st-level Cleric spells, Orisons, Domain Powers and the Channel Energy ability. Class- and 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 always takes the best aspects of each class in the Gestalt when he levels.
A few caveats apply:
a: Class features that two classes share (such as Uncanny Dodge) don’t stack; they accrue at the rate of the faster class.
b: Players must specify one of their classes as their favored class. Races or Feats allowing more than one Favored Class may take one other of their classes as favored.
c: Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.
d: Prestige classes cannot be part of a Gestalt. A character wishing to take a prestige class stops leveling in the Gestalt classes and the prestige class is the only class that character can take that level, though he may return to the Gestalt at a later level.
e: If a PC wishes to change one of the classes in his Gestalt, he must spend on level taking ONLY the new class before going back to a Gestalt including that class.
f: Likewise, the PC may take a level in a base or core class not included in his Gestalt, but that is the only class he can take that level.
Finally, Gestalt characters level at a different rate.
A character with only one class uses the Fast Experience Track.
A character with two Gestalted classes uses the Medium Experience Track.
A character with three Gestalted classes uses the Slow Experience Track.
Note: In a game using these rules a character who wanted to do standard multiclassing would advance via the much faster 3.5 Track.
These rates do not change if the character takes a different class, a prestige class or changes a Gestalt class. Once the PC chooses a Gestalt path the experience rate will never change.
@Spiral_Ninja: Pretty much a slightly altered 3.5 Gestalt... And closer to the original gestalt rules...
Spiral_Ninja:
I really like your experience idea. Couldn't use it in the current campaign I'm designing for this system, but I might do something similar in the future.
One aspect I find confusing, though: if I was a fighter/wizard gestalt, level 2, and I wanted to add in rogue, I would have to take plain rogue as my 3rd level, and then after that I could take fighter/wizard/rogue as my 4th? Which would make me a fighter 3/wizard 3/rogue 2, character level 4? If that's right, I confess I fail to understand why one wouldn't just do fighter/wizard/rogue from the beginning, and be a fighter 4/wizard 4/rogue 4 at character level 4.
@Spiral_Ninja: Pretty much a slightly altered 3.5 Gestalt... And closer to the original gestalt rules...
I would call this a pretty serious alteration, actually, since it allows for things like 3 classes at once, and identifies the character with a single class combination rather than allowing a lot of multiclassing, and varies the experience based on that. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat alteration, but I wouldn't call it "slight"
Spiral_Ninja: Can you perhaps explain the process by which, say, Nualia came to have 4 levels of cleric and 2 of fighter?
Yeah Spiral_Ninja's stuff is closer to "Ultimate Multi-class" rather than true gestalt.
@Spiral_Ninja: Pretty much a slightly altered 3.5 Gestalt... And closer to the original gestalt rules...I would call this a pretty serious alteration, actually, since it allows for things like 3 classes at once, and identifies the character with a single class combination rather than allowing a lot of multiclassing, and varies the experience based on that. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat alteration, but I wouldn't call it "slight"
You haven't read the original Gestalt system neither.
You haven't read the original Gestalt system neither.
Have I done something to offend you? If so, I apologize. If not, then I'm sorry for misreading you :)
In any case, you said it was a slight modification of the 3.5 gestalt rules, which I have read thoroughly after they were linked earlier in the thread. It is not a slight modification from that. If that is not what you mean by the "original" gestalt, then I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's certainly reminiscent of the multiclass system of AD&D in many ways, which I think was the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see what's supposed to be so complex about "add up your BAB and base saves from everything, divide by 2, round up" compared to gestalt's "compare BAB and base saves this level and use the highest". It's a tiny bit more involved, fine, but it does eliminate some of the complexity that gestalt's system causes.
As for the skill points and hit points from classes, they're always divided by 2 and they're always divisible by 2. What's so troublesome?
I do question the need to round up though. Everything else rounds down. Why the exception?
Do people really think gestalts aren't more powerful than regular characters? Honestly?
Even Rudy2's rules, with averages rather than highest values makes characters far stronger. It seems obvious to me that adding full sneak attack to the fighter makes him straight up better at his normal job, so why shouldn't adding sneak attack, rogue talents, skills, reflex and evasion do the same? Craziness.
Compare a lore warden/kensai gestalt to either of his component classes some time and tell me I'm wrong.
I too am unconvinced by the need to hand out double feats. I can see the fighter being very popular either way. I see nothing wrong with the most generic class being the most commonly used in a double classes system, I don't think it'll become compulsory for players who want to see their characters shine and any character using this system has more than enough stuff to track already.
And yeah, this seems to just be Gestalt except made far more unnecessarily fiddly and complicated.
This. HD based on dice that don't exist? BAB and skills outside of the standard progressions due to some weird averaging? When there's already a functional system that works much more smoothly without the headache of recalculation? Yeah no thanks.
I fail to see what's supposed to be so complex about "add up your BAB and base saves from everything, divide by 2, round up" compared to gestalt's "compare BAB and base saves this level and use the highest". It's a tiny bit more involved, fine, but it does eliminate some of the complexity that gestalt's system causes.
As for the skill points and hit points from classes, they're always divided by 2 and they're always divisible by 2. What's so troublesome?
Thanks.
I do question the need to round up though. Everything else rounds down. Why the exception?
Upon reflection, you're absolutely right about this. It should round down, and I'll change that. That has the nice added symmetry of making a mix of a full BAB and 1/2 BAB progression proceed at exactly a 3/4 progression. (i.e., if you round down, a fighter/wizard proceeds at exactly a 3/4 BAB).
I too am unconvinced by the need to hand out double feats. I can see the fighter being very popular either way. I see nothing wrong with the most generic class being the most commonly used in a double classes system, I don't think it'll become compulsory for players who want to see their characters shine and any character using this system has more than enough stuff to track already.
I think I'm going to change it to a sort of "3/4" feat progression: Feats on odd levels and multiples of 4. I'm still convinced that the normal feat progression is too miserly when you have two sets of class abilities to apply them to.
This. HD based on dice that don't exist?
The revision I made fixed that, since people seemed to be bothered by dice that could not exist in reality =D http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6ev1&page=2?TwoClassesAtOnce-System#63
BAB and skills outside of the standard progressions due to some weird averaging?
I'm not sure that dividing by 2 is that weird, but I accept your opinion. Any sort of multiclassing, even in normal pathfinder or normal gestalt, screws up the "standard" progressions, though, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal.
When there's already a functional system that works much more smoothly without the headache of recalculation? Yeah no thanks.
Functional in some ways, not in others. It works pretty smoothy, yeah, as long as you stick to only two base classes. Otherwise, you need to keep track of your order of levels. If I, as a DM, want to verify your build, I have to go through level by level, and figure out which is the "best" increase each time, rather than just adding everything up at the end. That's the headache to me, but that could be another matter of opinion.
And, again, my main problem with gestalt is that a rogue/ranger gets the same skills as a rogue/fighter, and a fighter/wizard gets the same BAB as a fighter/barbarian. Many are not bothered by this, and that's fine (if baffling to me), but I find it utterly unacceptable, hence my rejection of "classic" gestalt.
Yeah I don't see a problem with it, in fact I like those things. Why shouldn't a Rogue|Ranger and a Rogue|Fighter get the same skills? They're both taking the same amount of Rogue training - the only differences are the training they're getting on the other side of the equation. Plus being a sucker for skill points, the only way you'd ever get to take advantage of a rogue's superior skills in your system would be to twin-class Rogue|Rogue, which is pretty pointless otherwise. Every other class, since Rogue's 8/level is the max in the system, would pull them down with an averages-based system, and that bothers me.
Speaking as a GM who ran a Gestalt campaign for a year, up to level 12, allowing pretty much all 3.5 content along with PF and let players multiclass freely as they liked. (The Savage Tide link in my profile leads to the journal for that game.) That and I trust my players and really don't have much need to ever look over their sheets; plus they're posted publicly for me and the rest of their teammates to see, so if someone fudges up during a level or something it's quickly spotted and corrected or pointed out.
The thing I liked about the Gestalt system was the ability to get the desired increase in power while keeping the mechanics simple. Take the best of every progression in your options, simple as that. Your system makes it much more complex, with the needing to factor out averages and the like, which ruins the simplicity.
I guess we find each other's mindset equally bizarre.
Yeah I don't see a problem with it, in fact I like those things. Why shouldn't a Rogue|Ranger and a Rogue|Fighter get the same skills? They're both taking the same amount of Rogue training - the only differences are the training they're getting on the other side of the equation. Plus being a sucker for skill points, the only way you'd ever get to take advantage of a rogue's superior skills in your system would be to twin-class Rogue|Rogue, which is pretty pointless otherwise. Every other class, since Rogue's 8/level is the max in the system, would pull them down with an averages-based system, and that bothers me.
They're not getting the same amount of ranger training, though. Does not a ranger have skills worthy of attention?
Actually, a Rogue/Ranger would get 8+INT/level according to the rules I laid out above, as would a Rogue/Bard.
Speaking as a GM who ran a Gestalt campaign for a year, up to level 12, allowing pretty much all 3.5 content along with PF and let players multiclass freely as they liked. (The Savage Tide link in my profile leads to the journal for that game.) That and I trust my players and really don't have much need to ever look over their sheets; plus they're posted publicly for me and the rest of their teammates to see, so if someone fudges up during a level or something it's quickly spotted and corrected or pointed out.
Seems like a fun system. It reminded me, though, about another bad aspect of the way multiclassing works in Gestalt. A munchkin can really take advantage of the system by staggering his levels in the "right" way. As established earlier in the thread, the order in which you take levels in the classes make a huge difference in gestalt, and I'm loathe to give additional opportunities to munchkins who optimize level order. If a player wants to combine 3 classes, I don't want them to have to figure out what the "best" order to combine them in is, though that may be another matter of opinion.
The thing I liked about the Gestalt system was the ability to get the desired increase in power while keeping the mechanics simple. Take the best of every progression in your options, simple as that. Your system makes it much more complex, with the needing to factor out averages and the like, which ruins the simplicity.
Again, I don't personally find dividing numbers by 2 to be any more complex than taking the best of two progressions at each level.
Yeah, still not seeing why "add up everything from each class and divide by 2" is noticeably harder than "take the highest from each of your two classes at each level"
I use hit dice which don't exist at level ups as part of a bell-curve HD house rule. It's the easiest thing in the world. Only one guy even had to ask how it would work, explaining it took 5 seconds and he found it amusing. Nobody at my table seems to dislike it in the slightest. Besides, you can get dice with odd numbers of sides, they're just not part of the traditional D&D dice set.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
I am happy to see you reconsider a feat per level.
I made a Gestalt variant a while back that never got play tested.
I may as well post it up here in case someone likes it... my players didn't even want to try. :(
It basically worked similar to normal 3.5e Gestalt except that it locked one side of your build to your favored class. So for example all my Halfling characters would be Rogue/something. In the case of races like Humans you had to define your favored class at level 1, but could pick any base class. I used this method as a tool to reinforce racial stereotypes and strengthen player builds in a predictable (less easy to tweak) fashion. It was sort of intended to make everyone both a single classed character and a multi classed character at the same time.