theurge classes in gestalt

[Mystify]

I know that by RAW, you cannot take a class that are basically combinations of two classes:

"Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, 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"

However, I see one of the strong selling points of those classes is the ability to use their abilities in combination. The ability of an eldritch theurge to add their blast effects to spells, or to trigger area effects centered on their eldrich blast, for example. Such combinations of abilities is what makes the combination attractive. If that can be a draw to do both in a single-class campaign, why should that evaporate when you can be both?

So, my proposed adjustment is that such classes can be taken, but they only advance the class feature of one half of the normal combination. So, for a theurge class, you only get the caster level for one type. You will still need to take the actual class for the other side of your build in order to advance its capabilities, but this will allow you to synergize the two halves of the build.

This would end up more powerful than the theurge was in the first place, but it is gestalt, it is meant to be more powerful. Do you think this is a reasonable adjustment?

[Psyren]

It sounds fine to me. It's true that there are class features that would make perfect sense in gestalt, which are only available to Theurges - like the Soulcaster's ability to burn spell slots for essentia on the fly, or the Eldricth Theurge's goodies as you mentioned.

Of course, only theurges with class features would benefit, otherwise you might as well stay in the base class(es).

[Sir_Elderberry]

Maybe allow people to pick up those class features as feats?

[Psyren]

Maybe allow people to pick up those class features as feats?

Since you don't get additional feats in gestalt, this would put you behind the curve of other combinations. I mean, Spellblast is nice and all, but it's no Quicken.

Unless you throw in a few extra a la Pathfinder; that should do it.

[Namfuak]

Why not just separate the two sides of the build? So if you want to be a mystic theurge, you have to progress a divine and arcane spellcasting class as on one track of the gestalt, with the other not affected.

[sonofzeal]

I just require each side functions independently as far as possible. So Mystic Theurge is fine, but then you have to have Arcane and Divine casting on the same side that you take it with. In other words, half of your gestalt is a traditional MT build. This neatly resolves a lot of the fundamental oddity of gestalt, imo, and makes a wider range of options possible without much in the way of loopholes.

[Mystify]

Why not just separate the two sides of the build? So if you want to be a mystic theurge, you have to progress a divine and arcane spellcasting class as on one track of the gestalt, with the other not affected.


I just require each side functions independently as far as possible. So Mystic Theurge is fine, but then you have to have Arcane and Divine casting on the same side that you take it with. In other words, half of your gestalt is a traditional MT build. This neatly resolves a lot of the fundamental oddity of gestalt, imo, and makes a wider range of options possible without much in the way of loopholes.

That defeats the point of being a gestalt character. The entire point of being gestalt is to have 2 full sets of class abilities, turning around and limiting them to squishing both sets into one side in contrary to that. If I want to be a rage mage, I should be able to take barbarian on one half, wizard on the other, and spend my prestige classes to get the rage mage abilities to tie them together. That should be the entire build, not something that is crammed into half the build. You are not a better wizard/barbarian combo than a single-classed campaign, even though you are explicitly in a setting that is designed for having dual abilities

[sonofzeal]

That defeats the point of being a gestalt character. The entire point of being gestalt is to have 2 full sets of class abilities, turning around and limiting them to squishing both sets into one side in contrary to that. If I want to be a rage mage, I should be able to take barbarian on one half, wizard on the other, and spend my prestige classes to get the rage mage abilities to tie them together. That should be the entire build, not something that is crammed into half the build. You are not a better wizard/barbarian combo than a single-classed campaign, even though you are explicitly in a setting that is designed for having dual abilities
The thing you're trying to make as the "entire point of being gestalt" is exactly what the rules of Gestalt were trying to guard against when they made the PrC prohibition. So no. It's not the point of gestalt - it's outright contradictory to the intent.


Under this variant you still get the benefit of having a second side, though. For example:

Archivist3/Wizard3/Mystic.TheurgeX // Factotum8/WarbladeX

Mystic Theurge opens up just like normal, you can still use early entry tricks if you want to (Wiz4/Archivist1), and get the normal intended benefits of being gestalt.

[Psyren]

Archivist3/Wizard3/Mystic.TheurgeX // Factotum8/WarbladeX

Mystic Theurge opens up just like normal, you can still use early entry tricks if you want to (Wiz4/Archivist1), and get the normal intended benefits of being gestalt.

But with this setup, you lose out on 9ths for one of the two casting classes and are behind on spells even wiith early entry (plus being even further behind without.) Factotum shenanigans aside, you'd be better off as Wiz 20//Arch 20.

[Mystify]

The thing you're trying to make as the "entire point of being gestalt" is exactly what the rules of Gestalt were trying to guard against when they made the PrC prohibition. So no. It's not the point of gestalt - it's outright contradictory to the intent.


Under this variant you still get the benefit of having a second side, though. For example:

Archivist3/Wizard3/Mystic.TheurgeX // Factotum8/WarbladeX

Mystic Theurge opens up just like normal, you can still use early entry tricks if you want to (Wiz4/Archivist1), and get the normal intended benefits of being gestalt.
Its just that I see 0 point in trying to make a gestalt theurge. So what if I have a wizard spellbook and sorcerer spells? I cam still only casting one spell and a quickened spell per round, and I am giving up the potential for D12 HD and good saves. If I am trying to make a gish, I lose access to all of the gish abilities because they are all combination classes. However, if I play a barbarian rouge or a fighter monk, I get the full benefit of both classes in concert on everything.
It feels to me more like its trying to guard against you taking your two base classes, then put the combination class as your prestige class and then going off and doing other things.
It just seems blatantly wrong to me for a single-classed character to be better at being both classes than someone who is actually both classes in gestalt. Sure, mystic theurge is not going to be any better, but it was an early, poorly designed class. More recent theurge classes alway offer the ability to blend the abilities.

Gestalt was in the unearthed arcana, which was 2004. All of the classes it lists are in the DMG, which was released before that. They offered dual progression of abilities without merging them. It is the dual progression that the rule was intending to guard against. I am removing the dual progression from the equation.

Complete mage was released in 2006, and it has a tone of theurge-type classes that blend ablilities. They started doing this after that rule was created, so it can't be what they intended for the rule to guard against.

[sonofzeal]

Its just that I see 0 point in trying to make a gestalt theurge. So what if I have a wizard spellbook and sorcerer spells? I cam still only casting one spell and a quickened spell per round, and I am giving up the potential for D12 HD and good saves. If I am trying to make a gish, I lose access to all of the gish abilities because they are all combination classes. However, if I play a barbarian rouge or a fighter monk, I get the full benefit of both classes in concert on everything.
It feels to me more like its trying to guard against you taking your two base classes, then put the combination class as your prestige class and then going off and doing other things.
It just seems blatantly wrong to me for a single-classed character to be better at being both classes than someone who is actually both classes in gestalt. Sure, mystic theurge is not going to be any better, but it was an early, poorly designed class. More recent theurge classes alway offer the ability to blend the abilities.

Gestalt was in the unearthed arcana, which was 2004. All of the classes it lists are in the DMG, which was released before that. They offered dual progression of abilities without merging them. It is the dual progression that the rule was intending to guard against. I am removing the dual progression from the equation.

Complete mage was released in 2006, and it has a tone of theurge-type classes that blend ablilities. They started doing this after that rule was created, so it can't be what they intended for the rule to guard against.
Under this variant, dual-progression options work just as normal. People have found all sorts of creative ways to shoehorn in various combinations. There's all sorts of early entry tricks and whatnot. If you want to access something like Arcane Heirophant that blends two paths, great!

...but I see no reason to have gestalt make that so much juicier than it already is. Non-gestalt D&D is already ridiculously flexible; Gestalt opens up an untold realm of new options. And a clever player is always going to find ways to synergize their two halves. PrCs like Arcane Heirophant or Ultimate Magus, that do the work for you and presume you got their by non-gestalt means, seem too much of a crutch to me. It's just too easy. Too much of a crutch. More importantly, it's specifically warned against by the rules.

You want dual progressions in gestalt? Great - earn them fairly. There's enough early entry tricks as it is.


But with this setup, you lose out on 9ths for one of the two casting classes and are behind on spells even wiith early entry (plus being even further behind without.) Factotum shenanigans aside, you'd be better off as Wiz 20//Arch 20.
Oh, quite. The simple, non-early-entry version was sufficient to demonstrate the case here. Optimizing it is better left as an exercise to to reader.
Possible answer: Arch1/Wiz4/MTX//Fac8/WarbX.

[Mystify]

Under this variant, dual-progression options work just as normal. People have found all sorts of creative ways to shoehorn in various combinations. There's all sorts of early entry tricks and whatnot. If you want to access something like Arcane Heirophant that blends two paths, great!

...but I see no reason to have gestalt make that so much juicier than it already is. Non-gestalt D&D is already ridiculously flexible; Gestalt opens up an untold realm of new options. And a clever player is always going to find ways to synergize their two halves. PrCs like Arcane Heirophant or Ultimate Magus, that do the work for you and presume you got their by non-gestalt means, seem too much of a crutch to me. It's just too easy. Too much of a crutch. More importantly, it's specifically warned against by the rules.

You want dual progressions in gestalt? Great - earn them fairly. There's enough early entry tricks as it is.



You seem to misunderstand me. I DON'T want dual progressions in gestalt. I am stripping the classes of the dual progression, and offering what remains.

I would also suggest modifying the entry requirements so accessing them doesn't occur any earlier; the gestalt rules specifically say that such an adjustment may be necessary, and this would be a perfect example of when to do so.

[Psyren]

Oh, quite. The simple, non-early-entry version was sufficient to demonstrate the case here. Optimizing it is better left as an exercise to to reader.
Possible answer: Arch1/Wiz4/MTX//Fac8/WarbX.

The problem is that optimizing it your way would be no different than optimizing it in non-gestalt. i.e. use a fast-casting class, or combine two theurges that can stack on top of one another, like MT+AH. Otherwise, one casting side will be stuck with a CL and spell progression 5+ levels behind the other, which is nigh-pointless in gestalt.

Your build above for example gains next to nothing from Archivist even with MT; better to go pure Wizard + some arcane PrCs on that side and toss the divine casting entirely.

But the OP's point is that there are theurges that grant unique effects (like Eldritch Theurge or Anima Mage) which end up being disallowed in most gestalt games due to complexity, removing some rich options from the variant.


I like Elderberry's idea too of simply taking the class features of these PrCs and making them feats, so long as there are more feats to go around.

[sonofzeal]

The problem is that optimizing it your way would be no different than optimizing it in non-gestalt. i.e. use a fast-casting class, or combine two theurges that can stack on top of one another, like MT+AH. Otherwise, one casting side will be stuck with a CL and spell progression 5+ levels behind the other, which is nigh-pointless in gestalt.

Your build above for example gains next to nothing from Archivist even with MT; better to go pure Wizard + some arcane PrCs on that side and toss the divine casting entirely.

But the OP's point is that there are theurges that grant unique effects (like Eldritch Theurge or Anima Mage) which end up being disallowed in most gestalt games due to complexity, removing some rich options from the variant.


I like Elderberry's idea too of simply taking the class features of these PrCs and making them feats, so long as there are more feats to go around.
I see the point, but I think gestalt optimizing should be like non-gestalt optimizing. The high-op field is rich enough already, imo. I feel no reason to add to it.

[Psyren]

I see the point, but I think gestalt optimizing should be like non-gestalt optimizing. The high-op field is rich enough already, imo. I feel no reason to add to it.

I can get behind that, but - putting aside that high-powered games are the intended goal of gestalt - is it really adding that much? Take a Warlock//Sorcerer: An Eldritch Theurge using the OP's rule (i.e. that only advances one side - say, Warlock) can't be much stronger than using Hellfire Warlock instead - especially when you consider that taking ET locks your sorcerer side out from adopting a PrC of its own (like Archmage, or Iot7FV) for 7 levels longer. And putting it on the Sorcerer side is even worse, because sorcerer has waaaay better PrCs to get into. All it really adds are some neat and fun abilities like Spellblast that you can't get from any other PrC.

Even the theurges with class features pale in comparison to the single-classed PrCs. Their biggest advantage power-wise was advancing two classes at once, and you can already get that from gestalt without them.

[Wings of Peace]

I know that by RAW, you cannot take a class that are basically combinations of two classes:

"Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, 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"


I feel it worth noting that by raw it's not against the rules to take theurge classes in gestalt, it's discouraged.

[rmg22893]

I feel it worth noting that by raw it's not against the rules to take theurge classes in gestalt, it's discouraged.

Yes, but if Unearthed Arcana, one of the most questionably broken books released for 3.0 (or 1st edition, for that matter), suggests that something can throw off the balance of a game, you know that it's a bad idea :P

[Wings of Peace]

Yes, but if Unearthed Arcana, one of the most questionably broken books released for 3.0 (or 1st edition, for that matter), suggests that something can throw off the balance of a game, you know that it's a bad idea :P

Oh I never said it wasn't a broken thing to do. :smallsmile:

[Godskook]

Yes, but if Unearthed Arcana, one of the most questionably broken books released for 3.0 (or 1st edition, for that matter), suggests that something can throw off the balance of a game, you know that it's a bad idea :P

No, no we don't. WotC never ever really appreciated what 'balanced' meant when it came to multiclassing and class combinations. Multiclass penalties themselves attest to this ignorance.

[Mystify]

I can get behind that, but - putting aside that high-powered games are the intended goal of gestalt - is it really adding that much? Take a Warlock//Sorcerer: An Eldritch Theurge using the OP's rule (i.e. that only advances one side - say, Warlock) can't be much stronger than using Hellfire Warlock instead - especially when you consider that taking ET locks your sorcerer side out from adopting a PrC of its own (like Archmage, or Iot7FV) for 7 levels longer. And putting it on the Sorcerer side is even worse, because sorcerer has waaaay better PrCs to get into. All it really adds are some neat and fun abilities like Spellblast that you can't get from any other PrC.

Even the theurges with class features pale in comparison to the single-classed PrCs. Their biggest advantage power-wise was advancing two classes at once, and you can already get that from gestalt without them.
Yes, this is precisely my reasoning. There are some nifty abilities, but there is a distinct opportunity cost for taking a theurge class instead of some other prestige class. The class is being weakened by stripping out the dual-progression, whilst the synergistic abilities are stronger due to both sides being full power due to gestalt. This seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me, and opens up some fun dual-class abilities.

[sonofzeal]

Yes, this is precisely my reasoning. There are some nifty abilities, but there is a distinct opportunity cost for taking a theurge class instead of some other prestige class. The class is being weakened by stripping out the dual-progression, whilst the synergistic abilities are stronger due to both sides being full power due to gestalt. This seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me, and opens up some fun dual-class abilities.
I disagree on the opportunity cost portion, as in normal circumstances the cos" is less-than-full advancement in your primary class. Gestalt effectively removes that. You're supposed to have levels in different classes in Gestalt. Dual advancement under those circumstances just feels unnecessarily cheap. Money for nothing.

Take Arcane Trickster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneTrickster.htm) or similar classes. Arcane Trickster et al "rewards" you for multiclassing Wizard/Rogue. You've lost caster levels off Wizard, you've lost skill points and class feature advancement off Rogue, and in exchange you open up some new goodies. Sounds fair to me. Except in Gestalt, you can take Rogue up one side and Wizard/Arcane.Trickster up the other, and suddenly you've got full Rogue advancement, full Wizard advancement, and PrC goodies all at the same time. You're taking something that's supposed to cost you something, and getting it for free, on top of already being Gestalt.

Can't you see how that might be distasteful to some people?

[gkathellar]

I see the point, but I think gestalt optimizing should be like non-gestalt optimizing.

I don't think it can be the same, unless you explicitly avoid class synergy. For example, X-Stat-to-Y-Bonus becomes far more valuable in gestalt, because you can afford it. Many classes that wouldn't otherwise be valid become very good: Geomancer, for example, and just about anything that loses class levels. And sometimes two options just have explicit synergy that wouldn't be viable outside of gestalt — DMM: Persist and Initiate of Mystra for the Druid class, as another example.

Gestalt optimization is never going to look like regular optimization, because class synergy is too much a thing.

[Mystify]

I disagree on the opportunity cost portion, as in normal circumstances the cos" is less-than-full advancement in your primary class. Gestalt effectively removes that. You're supposed to have levels in different classes in Gestalt. Dual advancement under those circumstances just feels unnecessarily cheap. Money for nothing.

Take Arcane Trickster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneTrickster.htm) or similar classes. Arcane Trickster et al "rewards" you for multiclassing Wizard/Rogue. You've lost caster levels off Wizard, you've lost skill points and class feature advancement off Rogue, and in exchange you open up some new goodies. Sounds fair to me. Except in Gestalt, you can take Rogue up one side and Wizard/Arcane.Trickster up the other, and suddenly you've got full Rogue advancement, full Wizard advancement, and PrC goodies all at the same time. You're taking something that's supposed to cost you something, and getting it for free, on top of already being Gestalt.

Can't you see how that might be distasteful to some people?

And instead you could be taking wizard up one side, rouge up the other, and then spending your presitge on incantrix or something. You are getting less out of the dual advancement class because you have to spend the other half of your gestalt on the abilities, whilst normally you would be getting both on one side. Yes, its more powerful than the single class progression. But that is what gestalt does, it gives you an entire seperate set of abilities to make you stronger.

Compare the benefit gained from the transition to gestalt from theese two cases:

1. a. rouge 3, wizard 5, arcane trickster 10
you have 7d6 sneak attack and 15 caster levels, and you can used ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack a couple times per day

b. rouge 18/ wizard 8, arcane tricketer 10
you have 9d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and can used ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack a couple times per day

c. rouge 18/wizard 18
you have 9d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and 2 extra wizard bonus feats

d. rouge 18/wiszard 5, wizard presitge class 10
you now have 9d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and ALL of the class features of a casting prestige class.

the jump between a and b is primarily a leap to gestalt. the difference between b and c is just the difference between a base class and a prestige class, and is going to be weaker than b to d. A theurge class has most of its power coming from the dual progression. The remaining class features will be weaker than a prestige class that only advanced one casting level, assuming both were somewhat balanced against each other in the first place.


2. a.Barbarian 18
You are tough, you can rage, and hit things with an axe

b. Barbarian 18/ wizard 18
you are tough, can hit things with an axe, and have 18 caster levels.

This is the normal power increase from taking gestalt. Note that you are gaining FAR more in comparison than when you are not coming from a dual-class prestige to start.

All this rule does is allow the special abilities of the theurge-type classes to be available. The classes are weakened due to losing the dual casting, which is made up for the inherent synergistic value of the abilities.

[AmberVael]

Mystify- I have actually seen the method you're suggesting used before, and have in fact built several characters that have used it. I've never seen a significant problem with it, and I definitely prefer it over the clunky 'must be advanced on one side' option, which doesn't even accurately represent the gestalt system in the first place (which I have also seen used).

Really, a theurge class that advances only one class is about equal with any other prestige class.

[sonofzeal]

1. a. rogue 3, wizard 5, arcane trickster 10
you have 7d6 sneak attack and 15 caster levels, and you can used ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack a couple times per day

b. rogue 18/ wizard 8, arcane tricketer 10
you have 14d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and can used ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack a couple times per day

c. rogue 18/wizard 18
you have 9d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and 2 extra wizard bonus feats

d. rogue 18/wiszard 5, wizard presitge class 10
you now have 9d6 sneak attack, 18 caster levels, and ALL of the class features of a casting prestige class.
Fixed that for you. Sneak Attack advancement stacks between Arcane Trickster and Rogue. And Rogue/Rouge is a pet peeve of mine.

And you are effectively getting (d), as "Arcane Trickster" is within the subset of "Wizard Prestige Classes". Admittedly, part of my argument depends on these pseudo-theurge classes being superior to non-pseudo-theurge classes -and while there's certainly notable exceptions (IotSV, I'm looking at you), it takes a very poorly designed pseudo-theurge PrC (Eldritch Knight, I'm looking at you) to reach the level most non-pseudo-theurge PrC's are at as a matter of course.

There are what, three or four Rogue/Wizard PrC's? We've got what, Spellwarp Sniper, Unseen Seer, Daggerspell Mage, any others? And most of them are better than Arcane Trickster.

The balance point for pseudo-theurge classes is inarguably higher than non-pseudo-theurge classes because they assume you're at least partially nerfing yourself in the process of getting in. My approach handles them well - qualify all on one side, accept the same partial nerfing that non-Gestalt characters take to get those goodies, and make it up to yourself with the same Gestalt goodies other more-traditional Gestalt classes take. How does your approach handle it?

[Mystify]

Fixed that for you. Sneak Attack advancement stacks between Arcane Trickster and Rogue. And Rogue/Rouge is a pet peeve of mine.

And you are effectively getting (d), as "Arcane Trickster" is within the subset of "Wizard Prestige Classes". Admittedly, part of my argument depends on these pseudo-theurge classes being superior to non-pseudo-theurge classes -and while there's certainly notable exceptions (IotSV, I'm looking at you), it takes a very poorly designed pseudo-theurge PrC (Eldritch Knight, I'm looking at you) to reach the level most non-pseudo-theurge PrC's are at as a matter of course.

There are what, three or four Rogue/Wizard PrC's? We've got what, Spellwarp Sniper, Unseen Seer, Daggerspell Mage, any others? And most of them are better than Arcane Trickster.

The balance point for pseudo-theurge classes is inarguably higher than non-pseudo-theurge classes because they assume you're at least partially nerfing yourself in the process of getting in. My approach handles them well - qualify all on one side, accept the same partial nerfing that non-Gestalt characters take to get those goodies, and make it up to yourself with the same Gestalt goodies other more-traditional Gestalt classes take. How does your approach handle it?
Your "correction" clearly shows that you do not understand what I am proposing. You do NOT get the sneak attack progression from arcane trickster. Alternatively, you do not get the spellcasting progression. You are stripping the class of the dual advancement, and instead using it as prestige class that only advances one half of the combination, but offers class features designed for the combination.

Your approach is to try to squish everything on one side. My approach is to have it effectively take up both sides. You can take the spellcasting progression and class features on one side, but if you want to get the sneak attack as well, you must still take all of the rouge levels. You are not getting double progression.

[sonofzeal]

Your "correction" clearly shows that you do not understand what I am proposing. You do NOT get the sneak attack progression from arcane trickster. Alternatively, you do not get the spellcasting progression. You are stripping the class of the dual advancement, and instead using it as prestige class that only advances one half of the combination, but offers class features designed for the combination.

Your approach is to try to squish everything on one side. My approach is to have it effectively take up both sides. You can take the spellcasting progression and class features on one side, but if you want to get the sneak attack as well, you must still take all of the rouge levels. You are not getting double progression.
But... ah, I see it now. Sort of. Rogue is more than just Sneak Attack advancement though, and I'm not sure you can reduce everything that way. They're all different. Should Rogue-based pseudotheurge'd classes have their skillpoints or skill lists dropped if you're cutting out the Rogue side? What about a hypothetical Fighter-based pseudotheurge class - bonus feat advancement is obvious, but what about BAB?

It really seems to me that you'd end up having to houserule every single multiclass-entry PrC individually after a certain point. I can see how it could be done in many cases, but I still feel like it's not really any better than just asking the DM to houserule something up. Isn't that the Oberoni Fallacy?

[Mystify]

But... ah, I see it now. Sort of. Rogue is more than just Sneak Attack advancement though, and I'm not sure you can reduce everything that way. They're all different. Should Rogue-based pseudotheurge'd classes have their skillpoints or skill lists dropped if you're cutting out the Rogue side? What about a hypothetical Fighter-based pseudotheurge class - bonus feat advancement is obvious, but what about BAB?

It really seems to me that you'd end up having to houserule every single multiclass-entry PrC individually after a certain point. I can see how it could be done in many cases, but I still feel like it's not really any better than just asking the DM to houserule something up. Isn't that the Oberoni Fallacy?
Even if you do need the DM to rule on the unclear instances, simply being able to declare that, as a general rule, dual advancement classes can be split and taken allows players to consider those options, then iron out any peculiarities of that specific build. I am mainly trying to establish that this is a reasonable rule to use as a DM (or argue for as a player).

[Swooper]

What I would suggest doing, and have done myself once for a ToB/arcane homebrew class (based on Krimm's ToB Eldritch Knight that is somewhere on the homebrew forums), is to rewrite the theurge-class so that it takes up both sides of the gestalt. This is actually suggested in the UA section on gestalt rules but everyone seems to ignore it...

This way, you can get a powerful prestige class that blends the two styles you want perfectly, and makes gestalting a much more pleasant experience for theurge types.

If anyone's interested in my implementation of that class I mentioned, PM me and I'll share it with you.

[sonofzeal]

Even if you do need the DM to rule on the unclear instances, simply being able to declare that, as a general rule, dual advancement classes can be split and taken allows players to consider those options, then iron out any peculiarities of that specific build. I am mainly trying to establish that this is a reasonable rule to use as a DM (or argue for as a player).
I'll grant that it's reasonable. But given that DMs (and players) often aren't, and that I'm lazy with the actual homebrewing of stuff, I hope you'll understand if I prefer a simple universal rule that might be a little awkward to work with some times but doesn't rely on judgement calls and prevents 98% of the exploitation the original prohibition was trying to prevent, while opening those PrCs up to be taken by the truly committed. I see that as a win all round.

[Psyren]

What I would suggest doing, and have done myself once for a ToB/arcane homebrew class (based on Krimm's ToB Eldritch Knight that is somewhere on the homebrew forums), is to rewrite the theurge-class so that it takes up both sides of the gestalt. This is actually suggested in the UA section on gestalt rules but everyone seems to ignore it...

This way, you can get a powerful prestige class that blends the two styles you want perfectly, and makes gestalting a much more pleasant experience for theurge types.

If anyone's interested in my implementation of that class I mentioned, PM me and I'll share it with you.

You mean having the theurge straddle both sides of the gestalt, right? Something like Archivist/Mystic//Theurge/Wizard, right?

It seems to me that doing it this way would either be strictly superior to a base//base gestalt (if you're using a PrC that advances both sides perfectly and has class features), or redundant with regular gestalt (if using a theurge with no class features.) I'm not sure that's what the OP is looking for.

Where I do see this method being useful is a theurge that advances some features of the component classes but not others (and specifically, meaningful ones.) For instance, Soulcaster advances meldshaper level, soulmelds and essentia from the Incarnum side, and spellcasting from the arcane side - but doesn't advance chakra binds. And Eldritch Theurge advances spellcasting and invocations, but not the Warlock's crafting tricks. The choice then becomes "do I want Spellblast/Spellweave, or the ability to create any item?" Or "do I want Distillation, or my Heart and Soul binds?" (Well, that's an easy choice.)

But for combinations like Ardent/Psychic // Theurge/Cleric, where you lose next to nothing, it doesn't add much.

[Mystify]

I'll grant that it's reasonable. But given that DMs (and players) often aren't, and that I'm lazy with the actual homebrewing of stuff, I hope you'll understand if I prefer a simple universal rule that might be a little awkward to work with some times but doesn't rely on judgement calls and prevents 98% of the exploitation the original prohibition was trying to prevent, while opening those PrCs up to be taken by the truly committed. I see that as a win all round.

Its a distinct loss for the theurge. In order to get the interesting synergy abilities, they have to give up all of their base power that simply being a gestalt would afford them. If I want to be an eldritch theurge in a gestalt game, I want to have full sorcerer and warlock power, and blend them together to potent effect. If I want to be an ultimate magus, I want to be an awesome sorcerer and wizard, and utilize the two in conjunction. If I am just going to be a normal eldritch theurge with a side of rouge, I may as well just play it in a normal campaign. The entire point of my building the combination in gestalt is to get both halves of the power curve. When your system is expecting people to have twice as many abilities, having the two sets of abilities that are weaker means it lacks the punch you want.

Seriously, that ruling would destroy the concept to the point where I wouldn't even bother with it. I don't care if I could get druid, cleric, and wizard spellcasting all at once(which is arguably more powerful than just letting them take the theurge class), it is not the concept I'd be going for.

[AmberVael]

The 'half advancement' suggestion is a lot more clean cut when you're dealing with something that advances two spellcasting classes. If Mystic Theurge were worth taking, for example, you could just slice out divine or arcane advancement and be done with it.

And most of the time, whether or not to take out skills and BAB is going to be irrelevant, because you'll be taking the other class on the other side. What does it matter where the skills, skill points, or BAB is coming from, if you'd be getting it anyway? Not that there aren't circumstances in which it might need to be defined, but the most common one (such as the builds Mystify presented) makes it a complete non-issue.

Though, looking at it in this kind of light, it really might just be simpler to say "it takes up both sides, tada." Because that's essentially what's going on.

[sonofzeal]

Its a distinct loss for the theurge. In order to get the interesting synergy abilities, they have to give up all of their base power that simply being a gestalt would afford them. If I want to be an eldritch theurge in a gestalt game, I want to have full sorcerer and warlock power, and blend them together to potent effect. If I want to be an ultimate magus, I want to be an awesome sorcerer and wizard, and utilize the two in conjunction. If I am just going to be a normal eldritch theurge with a side of rouge, I may as well just play it in a normal campaign. The entire point of my building the combination in gestalt is to get both halves of the power curve. When your system is expecting people to have twice as many abilities, having the two sets of abilities that are weaker means it lacks the punch you want.

Seriously, that ruling would destroy the concept to the point where I wouldn't even bother with it. I don't care if I could get druid, cleric, and wizard spellcasting all at once(which is arguably more powerful than just letting them take the theurge class), it is not the concept I'd be going for.
For me it becomes a game of finding synergy. For Warlock/Sorcerer, it's either stacking Eldritch Theurge up one side and finding a "passive side" that augments it somehow, or taking Warlock and Sorcerer up the two sides and choosing powers and spells that fit well together. And if neither of those is good enough for you, I've pretty much lost sympathy.

Synergy is what you make of it. Needing a class feature to tell you that you're synergizing feels like all those people who insist on treating classes like in-game constructs, and who refuse to allow even simple refluffs.

[Mystify]

For me it becomes a game of finding synergy. For Warlock/Sorcerer, it's either stacking Eldritch Theurge up one side and finding a "passive side" that augments it somehow, or taking Warlock and Sorcerer up the two sides and choosing powers and spells that fit well together. And if neither of those is good enough for you, I've pretty much lost sympathy.

Synergy is what you make of it. Needing a class feature to tell you that you're synergizing feels like all those people who insist on treating classes like in-game constructs, and who refuse to allow even simple refluffs.

Its more that if you are a single caster, you have eldritch theurge which offers some neat abilities. The you go into gestalt, where that type of character would be really fun, and poof, those cool abilities go away. Those abilities are what I wanted to base a hybrid sorcerer/warlock on, and then in a gestalt setting where a hybrid sorcerer/warlock is a natural possibility, they evaporate. My starting point in being interested in the combination is that ability.

[Tyndmyr]

I know that by RAW, you cannot take a class that are basically combinations of two classes:

"Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, 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"

That is a recommendation, not a rule. You can tell because of the word "should".


However, I see one of the strong selling points of those classes is the ability to use their abilities in combination. The ability of an eldritch theurge to add their blast effects to spells, or to trigger area effects centered on their eldrich blast, for example. Such combinations of abilities is what makes the combination attractive. If that can be a draw to do both in a single-class campaign, why should that evaporate when you can be both?

So, my proposed adjustment is that such classes can be taken, but they only advance the class feature of one half of the normal combination. So, for a theurge class, you only get the caster level for one type. You will still need to take the actual class for the other side of your build in order to advance its capabilities, but this will allow you to synergize the two halves of the build.

This would end up more powerful than the theurge was in the first place, but it is gestalt, it is meant to be more powerful. Do you think this is a reasonable adjustment?

Not really. While I love theurge-hood, and view gestalt/tristalt/etc as an interesting challenge to fit all of the spellcasting ever into one char...it's really not necessary. There are multiple ways in non-gestalt to get basically everything on one chars spell list or get ridiculous amounts of spells.

A more potent option in gestalt is just to add a good passive side that does things like screwing with the action economy.

[Mystify]

That is a recommendation, not a rule. You can tell because of the word "should".



Not really. While I love theurge-hood, and view gestalt/tristalt/etc as an interesting challenge to fit all of the spellcasting ever into one char...it's really not necessary. There are multiple ways in non-gestalt to get basically everything on one chars spell list or get ridiculous amounts of spells.

A more potent option in gestalt is just to add a good passive side that does things like screwing with the action economy.

Its not that there aren't other things to do, its that this thing is what I want to do, and it thematically fits perfectly.

[Tyndmyr]

Its not that there aren't other things to do, its that this thing is what I want to do, and it thematically fits perfectly.

Thats not a mechanical reason.

Consider, if you have Ultimate Magus either taking up both sides or only acting as a CL progression for one side...it basically becomes terrible. Sure, you get some minor features, like a bit of limited metamagic reduction...but in return, it's basically a poor wiz//sorc build. You could just take Incantatrix* or something instead on the wizard side and be strictly superior. It only gets worse with classes like Mystic Theurge that don't actually offer abilities, and in which you're just wasting your ability to PrC into something useful.

Look, if someone is going Wiz//Sorc, they're already doing something remarkably sub-optimal. Why penalize them further?

*Or other full casting progression PrCs.

[Psyren]

A more potent option in gestalt is just to add a good passive side that does things like screwing with the action economy.

But that's exactly what e.g. en Eldritch Theurge does, just in a different way than the played-out Factotum/Psionics/ToB methods.

For instance, there's no other way to put spells on your Eldritch Blast and, say, shoot AMF bubbles at people. Or pepper mooks with Sickening Magic Missiles.

The ultimate end is the same (spells and eldritch blasts in one turn, i.e. action economy) but the specific means is fun and unique.

[Mystify]

Thats not a mechanical reason.

Consider, if you have Ultimate Magus either taking up both sides or only acting as a CL progression for one side...it basically becomes terrible. Sure, you get some minor features, like a bit of limited metamagic reduction...but in return, it's basically a poor wiz//sorc build. You could just take Incantatrix* or something instead on the wizard side and be strictly superior. It only gets worse with classes like Mystic Theurge that don't actually offer abilities, and in which you're just wasting your ability to PrC into something useful.

Look, if someone is going Wiz//Sorc, they're already doing something remarkably sub-optimal. Why penalize them further?

*Or other full casting progression PrCs.
using incantatrix is a really bad example, as everyone knows that class is stupidly overpowered. But you are right that a mystic theurge would be a really bad choice... so why would you take it? That is like saying gestalt is really underpowered because you could make a monk/knight and their class abilities would conflict. The presence of a poor choice does not mean the rule is bad. Its not like I am saying they must take the combination class, I am only trying to restore it as an option.

And a ultimate magus can easily quicken 5th level spells without incroachign on their higher level spells slots. an incantrix will still need to use a 7th level spell slot on the quicken. Is incantrix better? Sure. But as I mentioned, it is known to be overpowered. Worse than incantrix does not mean bad.

and ultimate magus can have a lot of fun with persist,the likes of which you normally need divine metamagic to pull off. Spend a 6th level and a 5th level slot, and you have a persistant 5th level effect, aka an 11th level spell. Incantrix can get that down to a 9th level slot, but I think a 5th+6th slot is more useable than a 9th level slot, esp. since you have two classes worth of low-level slots to burn on these things. I would not dismiss ultimate magus so quickly.


But that's exactly what e.g. en Eldritch Theurge does, just in a different way than the played-out Factotum/Psionics/ToB methods.

For instance, there's no other way to put spells on your Eldritch Blast and, say, shoot AMF bubbles at people. Or pepper mooks with Sickening Magic Missiles.

The ultimate end is the same (spells and eldritch blasts in one turn, i.e. action economy) but the specific means is fun and unique.

ooh, AMF on a eldritch blast. That one didn't occur to me.

or an energy drain that deals 2d4+2 negative levels, as a simple example. With a maximize rod ,that is 10 negative levels on one touch attack.

[Psyren]

ooh, AMF on a eldritch blast. That one didn't occur to me.

It's not quite as uber as it sounds - the bubble is centered on a corner of their square rather than on them, so they can arguably walk out of it on their turn and keep casting. It's an interesting way to create "dead magic zones" in a heated battle if you fire off enough of them, though. And depending on the positions of obstacles, allies etc. they may not be able to 5-foot step out of it - I'm sure the BSF will appreciate the free AoO on the hapless caster.

[Swooper]

You mean having the theurge straddle both sides of the gestalt, right? Something like Archivist/Mystic//Theurge/Wizard, right?

It seems to me that doing it this way would either be strictly superior to a base//base gestalt (if you're using a PrC that advances both sides perfectly and has class features), or redundant with regular gestalt (if using a theurge with no class features.) I'm not sure that's what the OP is looking for.

Where I do see this method being useful is a theurge that advances some features of the component classes but not others (and specifically, meaningful ones.) For instance, Soulcaster advances meldshaper level, soulmelds and essentia from the Incarnum side, and spellcasting from the arcane side - but doesn't advance chakra binds. And Eldritch Theurge advances spellcasting and invocations, but not the Warlock's crafting tricks. The choice then becomes "do I want Spellblast/Spellweave, or the ability to create any item?" Or "do I want Distillation, or my Heart and Soul binds?" (Well, that's an easy choice.)

But for combinations like Ardent/Psychic // Theurge/Cleric, where you lose next to nothing, it doesn't add much.
Obviously, gestalt theurge classes wouldn't advance the "regular" class features of the classes used to qualify for it. In my class's case (assuming warblade//wizard entry), you're sacrificing warblade class features other than manoeuvres, wizard bonus feats, the skill ranks/feats used to qualify (I think I had a skill focus in there), d12 HD (down to d10) and anything reliant on class levels in either class (like familiar advancement).

Sure, it's superior to a straight warblade//wizard (that's kind of the point), but not strictly so.

[Mystify]

It's not quite as uber as it sounds - the bubble is centered on a corner of their square rather than on them, so they can arguably walk out of it on their turn and keep casting. It's an interesting way to create "dead magic zones" in a heated battle if you fire off enough of them, though. And depending on the positions of obstacles, allies etc. they may not be able to 5-foot step out of it - I'm sure the BSF will appreciate the free AoO on the hapless caster.

I know, but throwing up antimagic fields someplace thats not on me is something I've always wanted to do.

[Tyndmyr]

But that's exactly what e.g. en Eldritch Theurge does, just in a different way than the played-out Factotum/Psionics/ToB methods.

For instance, there's no other way to put spells on your Eldritch Blast and, say, shoot AMF bubbles at people. Or pepper mooks with Sickening Magic Missiles.

The ultimate end is the same (spells and eldritch blasts in one turn, i.e. action economy) but the specific means is fun and unique.

So? Why create a general rule to make a whole bunch of classes unplayable that happens to work for one class you want?

Why not just modify that one class?

[Mystify]

So? Why create a general rule to make a whole bunch of classes unplayable that happens to work for one class you want?

Why not just modify that one class?

what is making a whole bunch of classes unplayable? This is aimed at making a lot of existing classes useable.

[Psyren]

So? Why create a general rule to make a whole bunch of classes unplayable that happens to work for one class you want?

What is this making unplayable, exactly? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

what is making a whole bunch of classes unplayable? This is aimed at making a lot of existing classes useable.

Mystic theurge, is, by RAW, useable as is. It's not fantastic, but it's a playable option.

With your rule, it is now a dead loss, and there is never a reason to take it under any circumstances.

It has made existing classes unusable.

Theurge classes are not broken in gestalt. They're not a good target for nerfing.

[Mystify]

Mystic theurge, is, by RAW, useable as is. It's not fantastic, but it's a playable option.

With your rule, it is now a dead loss, and there is never a reason to take it under any circumstances.

It has made existing classes unusable.

Theurge classes are not broken in gestalt. They're not a good target for nerfing.
Mystic theurge is not meant to be used in gestalt. It lets you advance arcane and divine casting, which you can due simply by taking both classes. The rules specifically call it out as a class that should not be allowed in gestalt. Dual advancement classes are not meant to work with gestalt.

However, some dual advancement classes have abilities a gestalt character may be interested in. By making them into single advancement classes instead, you retain those abilities as options.

And yes, with these rules, there is no point to take mystic theurge. It has no point in gestalt anyways. It simply takes something that is disallowed and makes it into something useless, which doesn't bother me. There are more interesting theurge classes that do offer things, and those are what I am interested in bringing to the table.

[Tyndmyr]

Mystic theurge is not meant to be used in gestalt. It lets you advance arcane and divine casting, which you can due simply by taking both classes. The rules specifically call it out as a class that should not be allowed in gestalt. Dual advancement classes are not meant to work with gestalt.

However, some dual advancement classes have abilities a gestalt character may be interested in. By making them into single advancement classes instead, you retain those abilities as options.

And yes, with these rules, there is no point to take mystic theurge. It has no point in gestalt anyways. It simply takes something that is disallowed and makes it into something useless, which doesn't bother me. There are more interesting theurge classes that do offer things, and those are what I am interested in bringing to the table.

Nah. Instead, just ignore the suggestion against combo classes. Play as per RAW. Nothing is broken. Even if you did qualify for Arcane Trickster or whatever by using both sides of the Gestalt...meh. Most PrCs are easier to qualify for in gestalt.

[Mystify]

Nah. Instead, just ignore the suggestion against combo classes. Play as per RAW. Nothing is broken. Even if you did qualify for Arcane Trickster or whatever by using both sides of the Gestalt...meh. Most PrCs are easier to qualify for in gestalt.
so I take druid3/wizard3, arcane heirphant 10/cleric 10, mystic theurge 7/druid 7, and end up as a 20th level wizard, 20th level druid, 17th level cleric, with full wild shape abilities, full druid armour use,and a full animal companion(arguebly more than full) with the ability to cast spells with it.

Yeah, thats nothing broken, you can just essentially get 3 classes instead of 2....

[Tyndmyr]

so I take druid3/wizard3, arcane heirphant 10/cleric 10, mystic theurge 7/druid 7, and end up as a 20th level wizard, 20th level druid, 17th level cleric, with full wild shape abilities, full druid armour use,and a full animal companion(arguebly more than full) with the ability to cast spells with it.

Yeah, thats nothing broken, you can just essentially get 3 classes instead of 2....

So...being gestalt instead of normal means you get one extra class...

That's normal.

Getting dual nines in a vanilla game is quite doable in a variety of ways. It's not hard. Getting triple nines in Gestalt is not imbalanced. You're getting an extra class selection.

Now, you have a giant pile of spells but still only cast one spell a turn. I'm fairly unimpressed with this build, and could crush it in vanilla with a straight wizard.

[Mystify]

So...being gestalt instead of normal means you get one extra class...

That's normal.

Getting dual nines in a vanilla game is quite doable in a variety of ways. It's not hard. Getting triple nines in Gestalt is not imbalanced. You're getting an extra class selection.

Now, you have a giant pile of spells but still only cast one spell a turn. I'm fairly unimpressed with this build, and could crush it in vanilla with a straight wizard.

I'm not even doing anything tricky, and you are stating that there are single class optimized builds that do far more. Those builds are generally a huge mismatch of twisted rules to acheive things the system was never intended to do. The existence of more broken strategies does not justify a broken mechanic. The intended transition from a theurge build to a gestalt build is to strengthen both halves to full power. The theurge classes were designed with the tradeoff that you would be sacrificing raw power in order to accomplish it. In gestalt, that basic assumption is violated, and hence the guidline that the dual progression classes be disallowed.

gestalt also amkes the base premise of those classes moot. Namely, to allow you to advance multiple skill sets at once. You can do that innately in gestalt, there is not need to have classes do it for you. Later classes offer ways to blend the two halves, which is what I am trying to restore, but the need for a dual progression is nonexistant.

The mere fact that you are using the dual-nine builds as an arguement for balance shows me that you do not have a strong sense of balance. What it is possible to optimize the system to do and what is balanced have no relation to each other.

[Psyren]

Mystic theurge, is, by RAW, useable as is. It's not fantastic, but it's a playable option.

With your rule, it is now a dead loss, and there is never a reason to take it under any circumstances.

It has made existing classes unusable.

Theurge classes are not broken in gestalt. They're not a good target for nerfing.

Why on earth would you use MT in gestalt to begin with? It has no features.
And it's still usable, it's just a bad idea in gestalt like it always was.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not even doing anything tricky, and you are stating that there are single class optimized builds that do far more. Those builds are generally a huge mismatch of twisted rules to acheive things the system was never intended to do. The existence of more broken strategies does not justify a broken mechanic. The intended transition from a theurge build to a gestalt build is to strengthen both halves to full power. The theurge classes were designed with the tradeoff that you would be sacrificing raw power in order to accomplish it. In gestalt, that basic assumption is violated, and hence the guidline that the dual progression classes be disallowed.

You misunderstand. Triple nines in Gestalt is not all that tricky. Neither is dual nines in vanilla. As cheese levels rise, the amount of casting you could cram into there rises. Regardless, Gestalt being one full 1-20 class ahead of vanilla is...entirely normal and expected. You can start with any power level you play with, and gestalt being that far ahead is entirely normal.

Allowing theurging on both sides of the gestalt would be a problem...but fortunately, PrCs are limited to one side, so there's no issue with that.

The guideline comes from the people who understood balance problems...poorly. Some of UA is great, some is downright terrible. Take their advice with caution.


gestalt also amkes the base premise of those classes moot. Namely, to allow you to advance multiple skill sets at once. You can do that innately in gestalt, there is not need to have classes do it for you. Later classes offer ways to blend the two halves, which is what I am trying to restore, but the need for a dual progression is nonexistant.

Why not? In a world where everyone is a dual specialist, why is the concept of a guy who spreads himself over more things bad?


The mere fact that you are using the dual-nine builds as an arguement for balance shows me that you do not have a strong sense of balance. What it is possible to optimize the system to do and what is balanced have no relation to each other.

Dual nines is...fairly easy. Either early entry OR one accelerated casting class will get you there. In at least one case(Cerebremancer), neither is required. Triple Nines requires notable work and cheese. More than that gets into pun-pun level munchkinry.

Dual nines is not generally something I'd pick up as a particularly broken build. Oh, it's not bad, mind you. It's just that it doesn't add anything other than more spells available. Meh. A straight wizard already has a LOT of spells available. It's not his weak point. Going for triple nines in gestalt is most certainly not optimal.


Psyren, MT in gestalt is useful normally. It's not exceedingly useful, but it has a purpose in supporting the guy who gleefully wants to have lots and lots of options. If you drop it to only progressing one side, there is literally no reason to ever take it instead of just taking normal class levels. It's an utter waste of what could be useful PrC levels.

[Mystify]

You misunderstand. Triple nines in Gestalt is not all that tricky. Neither is dual nines in vanilla. As cheese levels rise, the amount of casting you could cram into there rises. Regardless, Gestalt being one full 1-20 class ahead of vanilla is...entirely normal and expected.

Allowing theurging on both sides of the gestalt would be a problem...but fortunately, PrCs are limited to one side, so there's no issue with that.

The guideline comes from the people who understood balance problems...poorly. Some of UA is great, some is downright terrible. Take their advice with caution.



Why not? In a world where everyone is a dual specialist, why is the concept of a guy who spreads himself over more things bad?



Dual nines is...fairly easy. Either early entry OR one accelerated casting class will get you there. In at least one case(Cerebremancer), neither is required. Triple Nines requires notable work and cheese. More than that gets into pun-pun level munchkinry.

Dual nines is not generally something I'd pick up as a particularly broken build. Oh, it's not bad, mind you. It's just that it doesn't add anything other than more spells available. Meh. A straight wizard already has a LOT of spells available. It's not his weak point. Going for triple nines in gestalt is most certainly not optimal.


Psyren, MT in gestalt is useful normally. It's not exceedingly useful, but it has a purpose in supporting the guy who gleefully wants to have lots and lots of options. If you drop it to only progressing one side, there is literally no reason to ever take it instead of just taking normal class levels. It's an utter waste of what could be useful PrC levels.
The way I see it, a full eldirtch theurge with both arcane and warlock abilities is a perfectly good build, even for gestalt, with 7 levels free for other prestige classes. And depending on how much you care about greatreach blast, you could easily drop out after 5 levels and do other things. Even without the dual advancement, that seems like a perfectly reasonable class for a gestalt character

I think you are too used to playing with high optimization cheese builds if you are dismissing the significant adanatage dual progresion offers a normal gestalt character. Most early entry methods are made of cheese, as is using a fast advancement caster class in a theurge. Your arguement is still boiling down too "There are worst ways to cheese the system, so this one should be allowed too".

[Psyren]

Psyren, MT in gestalt is useful normally. It's not exceedingly useful, but it has a purpose in supporting the guy who gleefully wants to have lots and lots of options. If you drop it to only progressing one side, there is literally no reason to ever take it instead of just taking normal class levels. It's an utter waste of what could be useful PrC levels.

I think you're the one misunderstanding. There's no reason to take MT in gestalt now. The only class that would be totally indifferent to it is sorcerer since they get zip after first level.

This proposal isn't intended for MT, or Cerebremancer, or Psychic Theurge - there's no reason to take any of those instead of simply base//base, or even better, base/single-PrC//base/single/PrC. Vanilla theurges lose nothing from this, because there's nothing more for them to lose.

Rather, it's intended for those theurges that do have class features, but whose use would otherwise be discouraged in gestalt.

[Tyndmyr]

The way I see it, a full eldirtch theurge with both arcane and warlock abilities is a perfectly good build, even for gestalt, with 7 levels free for other prestige classes. And depending on how much you care about greatreach blast, you could easily drop out after 5 levels and do other things. Even without the dual advancement, that seems like a perfectly reasonable class for a gestalt character

All it's really doing is making the char spend the other side of his progression on whatever side isn't being advanced. Functionally, it's no different than saying that the PrC takes up both sides of your gestalt.

In short, why do you believe theurge classes are so powerful that they are equivalent to gestalt?


I think you are too used to playing with high optimization cheese builds if you are dismissing the significant adanatage dual progresion offers a normal gestalt character. Most early entry methods are made of cheese, as is using a fast advancement caster class in a theurge. Your arguement is still boiling down too "There are worst ways to cheese the system, so this one should be allowed too".

Dual progression is vastly overrated. It is not cheese. Even early entry is frequently suggested as "meh, at least it makes the class worthwhile".


I think you're the one misunderstanding. There's no reason to take MT in gestalt now. The only class that would be totally indifferent to it is sorcerer since they get zip after first level.

This proposal isn't intended for MT, or Cerebremancer, or Psychic Theurge - there's no reason to take any of those instead of simply base//base, or even better, base/single-PrC//base/single/PrC. Vanilla theurges lose nothing from this, because there's nothing more for them to lose.

Rather, it's intended for those theurges that do have class features, but whose use would otherwise be discouraged in gestalt.

There is a reason to take MT currently in gestalt. It's because you have casters on both sides, and would like freedom to drop in another base class on the non-MT side. It's not a stellar reason, but sorc//cleric going into MT//something else is better than staying strictly sorc//cleric. However, going MT//something else is not ridiculously good. It's just competitive with other fairly low tier options. You can use it to pick up some free fighter feats or low level class abilities, or a third kind of casting....but in return, you're not getting any sexy PrC abilities. There's a reason, but not at all a broken one.

As for base/single-PrC//base/single/PrC, that's not actually legal, and thus, is a non issue.

There is nothing about classes like Arcane Trickster that requires nerfing in Gestalt either. The extra abilities added on generally come at the cost of slower progression. Ultimate Magus is also an excellent example. It's got some fun abilities, at the cost of 8/10 progression on one side, and makes a fun, functional char in vanilla. It'll do exactly the same in gestalt. Sure, qualification is a bit easier....but that's true of EVERYTHING in gestalt. Meh.

[Psyren]

There is a reason to take MT currently in gestalt. It's because you have casters on both sides, and would like freedom to drop in another base class on the non-MT side.

You mean the very reason they suggest prohibiting these classes? If you want to play tristalt that badly, just play it - doing an end-run around game balance to cram three progressions into your build is a far worse prospect than what is being proposed here.


As for base/single-PrC//base/single/PrC, that's not actually legal, and thus, is a non issue.

Of course it is, just structure your progression such that you always have a base class and a PrC opposite one another at each level. You don't have to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

[Mystify]

All it's really doing is making the char spend the other side of his progression on whatever side isn't being advanced. Functionally, it's no different than saying that the PrC takes up both sides of your gestalt.

In short, why do you believe theurge classes are so powerful that they are equivalent to gestalt?



Dual progression is vastly overrated. It is not cheese. Even early entry is frequently suggested as "meh, at least it makes the class worthwhile".



There is a reason to take MT currently in gestalt. It's because you have casters on both sides, and would like freedom to drop in another base class on the non-MT side. It's not a stellar reason, but sorc//cleric going into MT//something else is better than staying strictly sorc//cleric. However, going MT//something else is not ridiculously good. It's just competitive with other fairly low tier options. You can use it to pick up some free fighter feats or low level class abilities, or a third kind of casting....but in return, you're not getting any sexy PrC abilities. There's a reason, but not at all a broken one.

As for base/single-PrC//base/single/PrC, that's not actually legal, and thus, is a non issue.

There is nothing about classes like Arcane Trickster that requires nerfing in Gestalt either. The extra abilities added on generally come at the cost of slower progression. Ultimate Magus is also an excellent example. It's got some fun abilities, at the cost of 8/10 progression on one side, and makes a fun, functional char in vanilla. It'll do exactly the same in gestalt. Sure, qualification is a bit easier....but that's true of EVERYTHING in gestalt. Meh.
Ok, we have 2 types of theurge classes:

a) early designed theurge classes.
These advance 2 class abilities, and offers little to no extra abilities. These are not needed in gestalt, as that is what being gestalt does by default. Go take other prestige classes and be better.

b)later designed theurge classes
they eventually decided that the initial theurges were too weak, and gave up too much. So they added in class abilities that let you synergize the two halves. ultimate magus gets to spend spell slots for free metamagic, and gets caster level boosts to help with raw power. Eldritch theurge gets to apply blast essences to spells and spell effects to eldritch blasts, making hte fusion of their 2 abilities feasible. I could go on.

Due to the nature of the class features in B, they amplify the power of the dual -caster specifically. Spellweave is a much more powerful class feature when you are a full warlock and a full wizard than when you have the normal theurging penalties. The extra caster level to both classes and the ability to spend the spell slots for free metamagic is also increased by having the full progression.

though this power increase may not be enough to justify the theurge class as taking up both halves of your progression, letting htem take it as a normal prestige class with half advancement and couple it with the base class advancement on the other side helps give it an additional boost. You can access the class features of the other half, beyond the progression the class normally offers. And depending on what you are doing, if you are not overly concerned with one of the classes lagging, you can mix in another class at the same time.