PS: My variant made racial communities far more unique. Since all elves are wizards the places elves live would be wonderously magical places. Dwarves end up as a Strong race since every dwarf is fighter trained. Even the dwarf barmaid can knock a few heads together without it seeming unusual.
nothing like the bar maid kicking an adventurers ass for being a bit to forward eh? ;P
nothing like the bar maid kicking an adventurers ass for being a bit to forward eh? ;P
you think that happens alot to dwarven barmaids? (thinks back to past games with certain other players) oh umm never mind.
Aranna: I'd be interested in knowing the details of the system.
When I allow gestalt, I usually ask that the BABs for both classes be within one step of each other.
Interesting rules all around. I like this thread.
What does everybody think about allowing two simultaneous prestige classes in gestalt and related variants? How about "multiclass prestige classes" like the theurge or the arcane trickster? I've never tried, but I have mixed feelings.
My only requisite in my Gestalt STAP game was that if you went into a PrC you had to qualify using the class abilities on THAT side of the Gestalt. Feats, skills, BAB, and racial traits crossed the line of course, but everything else you had to stick to one side or the other. For example, a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight|(some other class[es] here) would have been legal in my game; however a Fighter/Eldritch Knight|Wizard would not, as there was no casting on that side. (Amusingly, Fighter|Wizard/EK would be legal, since all it requires from Fighter is BAB and proficiencies, which cross over. Maybe not the best example, heh.)
The most complex it got in my game was the Barbarian/Warblade|Incarnate/Sanctified One of Kord/Holy Vindicator.
How about "multiclass prestige classes" like the theurge or the arcane trickster? I've never tried, but I have mixed feelings.
These are inherently problematic, since they are balanced in single class by forcing a player to slow his progression in the two areas which the prestige class advances. However, in the dual class version, no slowing is required, thus allowing a character to easily get to a full arcane caster, a full divine caster, AND something else in the example of a mystic theurgist.
Even Orthos' method, while solving some of the problems, would not be fullproof. For example:
Level 1: Oracle/Sorcerer
Level 2: Oracle/Sorcerer
Level 3: Oracle/Sorcerer
Level 4: Oracle/Sorcerer
Level 5: Sorcerer/Oracle
Level 6: Sorcerer/Oracle
Level 7: Sorcerer/Oracle
Level 8: Sorcerer/Oracle
Level 9 onward: Mystic Theurgist/Paladin
I think those couple PrCs just need to be disallowed, at least without major revision.
Besides, the Mystic Theurgist, at least, serves no interesting purpose in a dual class system.
I had a general rule as well that once you'd taken a class on one side you couldn't take it on the other.
Didn't think it needed to be said, but there you go.
I guess I'd be willing to make an exception if someone wanted to go Wizard/Cleric/Theurge|Sorc/Oracle/Theurge, or something similar, but that's about it.
OK, first I messed up my copy/paste examples and didn't list how my system altered them. so:
As they are in the 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
As they would be in my system, keeping them at the total # of levels they had:
Ameiko: Aristocrat/Bard/Rogue Gestalt-5
Shalelu: Fighter/Ranger Gestalt-6
Tsuto: Monk/Rogue Gestalt-4
Nualia: cleric/Fighter Gestalt-6
I am of two minds about requiring a level in only a changed class, so I don't mind input on that, but I do feel that prestige classes should not be gestalted.
My system eliminates the need for averaging. If you never change classes, your BaB/HD/fort/Ref/Will always follow one progresssion set at the beginning of character creation. Less confusing and easier for a GM to check, rather than go back and review each level to make sure it's right. if you do change a class that changes a save, it's still easy to see how you got to that opoint.
Same with skill points. They will never change, the character will always receive the same amount, making skill calculaton and planning much easiter.
note: sorry for the delayed response, it seems that even in this day and age, the VA (at least here in Pittsburgh) doesn't offer WiFi.
I'm still not clear on one thing: What is Nualia's character level, for the purpose of things like CR and HD limits and whatnot?
After feedback here, and on the GitP forums, I'm making the following alterations:
* Instead of feats every level, feats every odd level, as well as multiples of four. That is, every level except 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.
* Instead of rounding up for BAB & Saves, round down.
* The character only has one favored class by default, not two. If he has more than one favored class (such as by being a half-elf), then the total number of favored class bonuses he has received cannot exceed his character 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"
It's actually divide by 2 then add 1. It just feels clumsy. The add 1, especially. I don't like that it disincentivizes the extreme classes. You can get d11 hit points by pairing up any two full BAB classes, so why even look at barbarian? You can get 7 skill points by pairing up a large number of classes, so why look at rogue? The monk's overall save bonus feels completely wasted because you're literally never going to get full benefit out of it (and monk's already a pretty terrible class).
Also, in Pathfinder, you never round up. It's actually in the rulebook.
|
|
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"
It isn't "add everything and divide by 2", though. It's "add everything and divide by two, then sometimes but not always add 1, oh and round up when you never round up in d20". Gestalt is just "add everything up, take the highest" (note that it isn't per-level).
It just feels clumsy. Adding 1 to hit dice and skill points means that there's very little incentive to take barbarian unless you really want rage or rogue unless you really want the ability to find magical traps. Rounding up is just a very strange decision when there's actually a rule in the rulebook that says always round down. Averaging in general makes characters more average, which is a strange goal. Monks in particular are just about pointless under this system, since you only ever get half benefit from their saves and they offer very little to the other side of the combination.
I dropped all instances of rounding up, per advice.
And the adding one is only to skill points, the reason being that I want them to be handle some of the traditional skills from both of the classes that they are taking; that was the case from the beginning. Never mentioned adding one to Hit Dice.
Let me expound a bit more on the importance of adding 1 (I may actually end up adding more than 1) to skill points.
I'm envisioning this for a campaign involving three players, and I'm going to expect them (and tell them in advance that I expect them) to be able to handle just about any situation I can throw at them between their three characters. The fact that they have the same number of skills to spread among a smaller number of players, means that each player needs to be able to handle more skills that a player would in a normal game.
The difference between adding more skill points, and adding more hit points (and why I don't add more hit points than the average), is that more skill points doesn't, with few exceptions, actually make characters more powerful in any particular area; it just makes them able to do more things.
As for the comment on this making players more average, it's quite clear that players will be exceptionally more powerful under this system. I'm also not sure why you'd dismiss the monk out of hand; druid+monk=wild-shaping fun times, for example.
I'm still not clear on one thing: What is Nualia's character level, for the purpose of things like CR and HD limits and whatnot?
Given that the AP version is listed as a CR4, I'd put her at a CR6 at minimum. In all other ways, she's a 5th level character, so max hit dice would be as a 5th level character. Same for all characters created using my system: hit dice = character level, just as if they'd leveled up as a standard single or multi-class character.
I'm still not clear on one thing: What is Nualia's character level, for the purpose of things like CR and HD limits and whatnot?Given that the AP version is listed as a CR4, I'd put her at a CR6 at minimum. In all other ways, she's a 5th level character, so max hit dice would be as a 5th level character. Same for all characters created using my system: hit dice = character level, just as if they'd leveled up as a standard single or multi-class character.
This seems odd, as the single class version of Cleric 4/Fighter 2 would seem to be strictly more powerful, yet would be the same CR?
I think Paizo does tht to all multi-classed characters. They don't regard a multi-class as being as powerful as a single class of the same level.
I tend to agree, having played a multi-class Cleric/Erudite/Psychic Theurge who was noticeably weaker than the rest of the party.
It's late here and I'm tired so, tomorrow I'll see what happens if I make up the same characters using both your rules and mine.
Couple of things after skimming the thread...
A) If I were going to run a Gestalt game (And I have considered it before), I'd only do so in a low-magic-item game. In such a game, all magic items are Artifacts, and they are rare. So multiply all magic item costs by 5 (10K for a +1 longsowrd, 5K for a +1 breastplate). And PCs can't make magic items. Therefore, they need those gestalt abilities to keep up with CR at higher levels.
B) You can absolutely multiclass or gestalt Barbarian/Monk, and you can get a VERY nasty combo by doing so.
Martial Artist (Archetype)
The martial artist pursues a mastery of pure martial arts without the monastic traditions. He is a master of form, but lacks the ability to harness his ki.
Alignment: A martial artist may be of any alignment.
Pain Points (Ex): At 3rd level, a martial artist's advanced knowledge of humanoid anatomy grants a +1 bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls and increases the DC of his stunning fist and quivering palm by 1. This ability replaces still mind.
Martial Arts Master (Ex): At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality. This ability replaces slow fall.
Exploit Weakness (Ex): At 4th level, as a swift action, a martial artist can observe a creature or object to find its weak point by making a Wisdom check and adding his monk level against a DC of 10 + the object's hardness or the target's CR. If the check succeeds, the martial artist gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls until the end of his turn, and any attacks he makes until the end of his turn ignore the creature or object's DR or hardness.
A martial artist may instead use this ability as a swift action to analyze the movements and expressions of one creature within 30 feet, granting a bonus on Sense Motive checks and Reflex saves and a dodge bonus to AC against that opponent equal to 1/2 his monk level until the start of his next turn.
This ability replaces ki pool.
Extreme Endurance (Ex): At 5th level, a martial artist gains immunity to fatigue. At 10th level, he also gains immunity to exhaustion. At 15th level, he gains immunity to stunning. At 20th level, he gains immunity to death effects and energy drain. This ability replaces purity of body, diamond body, and perfect self.
Physical Resistance (Ex): At 7th level, if a martial artist suffers any effect that causes ability damage, ability drain, or temporary ability score penalties, the effect is reduced by 1 point. This reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 7th (to a maximum reduction of 5 at 19th level). This ability replaces wholeness of body, timeless body, and tongue of sun and moon.
Defensive Roll (Ex): At 13th level, a martial artist may use the defensive roll advanced rogue talent once per day, plus once per three levels beyond 13th (to a maximum of 3 times a day at 19th level). This ability replaces diamond soul.
Quivering Palm: A martial artist may use this ability one additional time per day per level above 15th, but may not have more than one in effect at a time.
Greater Defensive Roll (Ex): At 19th level, a martial artist suffers no damage on a successful defensive roll, and only half damage if the Reflex saving throw fails. This ability replaces empty body.
So, a Neutral or Chaotic Barbarian/Martial Artist monk is immune to fatigue at level 5 or higher. That's a MAJOR advantage. Combine the D12 HD for the Barbarian to the AC bonuses for the monk. You can go with a DEX/WIS monk, and use the Barbarian rage to boost the monk's str, and do it at will from level 5 on, on a round by round basis (with no fatigue). Sorry, but that's a nasty combo.
Just lock them into two classes at the beginning and let them take the best of everything. Simple, effective, and no possibility for stupid exploits.
That approach has severe limitations which this thread has been devoted to discussing, in the hope that they can be avoided.
Nothing on this site irritates me more than the legions of people who say "just do X!" without answering the original poster's stated problems with X. Seriously, why are you even in a homebrew forum with that attitude?
If I am going gestalt I still would not go monk, but that is another thread in and of itself.
Monk/empyreal sorcerer would seem like a decent fit though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm considering changing the skill points (the only thing I'm still really unsettled on) to be a sum minus 2, rather than an average plus 1. For example, rogue/wizard would be 8 + 2 - 2 = 8 + INT, rogue/ranger would be 8 + 6 - 2 = 12+INT.
This would answer the objection about rogue mixes never getting as many skill points as a pure rogue, while also keeping a mix of two skill classes having more skill points than a skilled and a low skilled one (as shown in the example above). It would also give a better incentive to use skilled classes, as opposed to things like paladin/sorcerer. I don't, however, know if it's too many skill points. I want the rogue/ranger to be able to handle all the skills that one rogue and one ranger could handle together, but there's going to be overlap (there's a good chance that both classes would invest in stealth, acrobatics, etc.).
Thoughts?
Just lock them into two classes at the beginning and let them take the best of everything. Simple, effective, and no possibility for stupid exploits.
As Mortuum suggests, one of the purposes of this system is to allow free multiclassing without it being a source of excessive gaming and abuse. Your approach, while simple, severely limits creativity in character creation.
I would think that the requirements of the rogue/ ranger with respect to statistic spread might mitigate an abundance of skills. In the proposal above, I would imagine that this class would place intelligence fairly low on the priority list.
With respect to a wizard/rogue however, there may be some issue.
I think a simpler idea might be to simply let them gain double the normal amount of levels (or a bit less than double), but they can't have more levels in a single class than half their total amount of levels.
No, the problem with that is that if they, say, go straight fighter/barbarian, their BAB will be twice their character level, which is obviously untenable. Their saves will likewise be absurd. You can't just add everything together and leave it at that.
Trogdar: I think you're right for rogue/ranger. For wizard/rogue, they'll get 8+INT, which will indeed end up being a lot of skills. I think this is a fine tradeoff, though, as the wizard/rogue combination is otherwise unremarkable in this system; the sneak attack is not very useful to the wizard, for example. So, a spellcasting skill monkey would be a fine balance, i think, in comparison with things like the paladin/sorcerer, or fighter/arcane archer/wizard.
fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells? I could have sworn they applied, let me go check.
They do, but you can't full-attack with spells.
Yeah!
But hey, there's a reason for that. ranged touches are going to do something nasty in addition to those extra D6's. Seems good all around to me.
fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?
If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.
fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.
not to mention even under the normal gestalt rules this still would happen
fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.
They don't have to be flat-footed, it's enough if they can't add their dex to AC. Which means invisibility does the job - something wizards often have.
They don't have to be flat-footed, it's enough if they can't add their dex to AC. Which means invisibility does the job - something wizards often have.fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.
Ah, true. Makes the build slightly better than I was thinking. Still, a wizard doing ranged touch attack damage spells is rarely doing his job right, compared to the potential of the wizard, and he would still have to be within 30 feet, which a wizard often wants to avoid.
I don't think it's a bad build, I just don't find it even remotely overpowered when compared to some of the other possibilities in this system.
They don't have to be flat-footed, it's enough if they can't add their dex to AC. Which means invisibility does the job - something wizards often have.fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.Ah, true. Makes the build slightly better than I was thinking. Still, a wizard doing ranged touch attack damage spells is rarely doing his job right, compared to the potential of the wizard, and he would still have to be within 30 feet, which a wizard often wants to avoid.
I don't think it's a bad build, I just don't find it even remotely overpowered when compared to some of the other possibilities in this system.
me neither.
I think it's going to be necessary to limit Divine Grace, otherwise every single build using charisma (besides barbarian ones) is going to dip into Paladin for two levels. I'm thinking Divine Grace bonus is capped at 1+(Paladin Level/2). That is, up to +2 at level 2, +3 at level 4, +4 at level 6, etc.
Thus, for example, Paladin/Sorcerers are still awesome, but they have to actually stick to paladin to get truly ridiculous saves.
Thoughts?
thats fair I guess, though most builds will have near full saves (if optimized) or have a barb superstition mechanic etc...
thats fair I guess, though most builds will have near full saves (if optimized)
In standard gestalt, yes, but not under this system.
They don't have to be flat-footed, it's enough if they can't add their dex to AC. Which means invisibility does the job - something wizards often have.fair enough... don't sneak dice apply to damaging ranged touch spells?If within 30 feet, and with an opponent flatfooted. Not going to happen that often for the wizard.Ah, true. Makes the build slightly better than I was thinking. Still, a wizard doing ranged touch attack damage spells is rarely doing his job right, compared to the potential of the wizard, and he would still have to be within 30 feet, which a wizard often wants to avoid.
I don't think it's a bad build, I just don't find it even remotely overpowered when compared to some of the other possibilities in this system.
Agreed. It has it's uses but isn't that good at most levels. Though it wouldn't be that bad with Scorching Ray - at level 7 we're talking spending a 7nd level slot for two touch attacks at range, each dealing 8d6 damage with no save.
I disagree Rudy, that's why I said near full and not full.
The build I posted earlier would have fast will progression and medium/fast reflex and fort progression.
At level ten it would be something like 5/5/6 base saves.
I'm not suggesting that your alteration of the ability doesn't make sense, just that saves are probably going to be pretty solid for most optimized builds.
I see what you mean, but it really depends on the classes. A sorcerer/paladin is going to have a good will save, a bad reflex save, and a "medium" fort save; it will really be depending on the Divine Grace ability to get truly good saves.
The wizard/rogue example will actually be weak when it comes to saves: low fort, medium will, medium reflex, if it just goes straight in both classes.
I agree, however, I doubt either of us would come to the conclusion that the wizard/rogue is optimized when compared to a dawnflower dervish/hexcrafter. they aren't in the same ballpark...
I think it's going to be necessary to limit Divine Grace, otherwise every single build using charisma (besides barbarian ones) is going to dip into Paladin for two levels. I'm thinking Divine Grace bonus is capped at 1+(Paladin Level/2). That is, up to +2 at level 2, +3 at level 4, +4 at level 6, etc.
Thus, for example, Paladin/Sorcerers are still awesome, but they have to actually stick to paladin to get truly ridiculous saves.
Thoughts?
If you find yourself having to target specific class features with nerfs or new rules, your system does not work. It's inelegant and something worse than whatever you stop will inevitably get through. I recommend against this change.
In general, you may be correct, but I think there are excellent builds that don't end up with near perfect saves.
I threw together a Wizard (Spellbinder, Conjurer [Teleportation]) 13/Arcane Archer 10/Fighter (Archer) 13/Rogue (Sniper) 4 that ends up being pretty unbelievably good offensively. Base saves, at level 20, are 9/8/8. I wouldn't call that near max myself. If you consider it so, then we're just talking at cross purposes :).
If you find yourself having to target specific class features with nerfs or new rules, your system does not work. It's inelegant and something worse than whatever you stop will inevitably get through. I recommend against this change.
That's a fair point. I'm comforted by the fact that a 2 level Paladin dip is an easy abuse in standard gestalt as well, unless you place strong restrictions on multiclassing.
I'll have to think about it. I'm discomfitted by the fact that I can't imagine any charisma-based character *not* dipping into Paladin in this system, but you're correct that I don't want to start making a lot of artificial rules.
Could just be super strict about enforcing the paladin code.
I don't think you need to be strict. That code is a hell of a thing to commit to. Only lawful good characters can become paladins anyway, and 2 levels in your variant are equivalent to one level in standard pathfinder. A single level dip is still a significant cost, and a high proportion of characters based on a specific ability score having one level in common doesn't sound like a bad situation to me anyway.
2 levels in your variant are equivalent to one level in standard pathfinder.
This isn't quite accurate, as you can still maintain a full caster level in one class. That is, if your general build is oracle/sorcerer, losing two casting levels in oracle is not as bad as losing one in each of oracle & sorcerer.
Still, your general point is well taken; I'll leave it be unless it proves to be a bigger problem in application than anticipated.
If you find yourself having to target specific class features with nerfs or new rules, your system does not work. It's inelegant and something worse than whatever you stop will inevitably get through. I recommend against this change.
Not necessarily. We got rid of the Initiative stat, replacing it with a reflex roll. That was, to our group, a great house rule since it's put the fast characters on top of iniative again, made reflex a save worth caring about, and made the single BBEG at least a little more frightening as higher HD means they often go first. As a bonus it got rid of a stat.
It did force us to change a few specific class abilities (inquisitors init-boost ability, and diviner wizard, and maybe some other) but that doesn't mean the house rule didn't work.
EDIT: That said, I do feel these gestalt-rules are a bit too complex for me to try, and I have a hard time theorizing on what the effects would be.
Any more thoughts on the skill points? Right now I like what I currently have written here, and it would seem to answer the common objection that any rogue mix should have at least as many skills as the rogue (which I'm sympathetic to, as the rogue's skills are really one of its primary class features), while maintaining the importance of the number of skills from both classes, not just the larger one.