Flavorful, logical gestalt

[hushblade]

Gestalted characters are hardly short on power, but most every thread are about how to get the most powerful synergy you can out of a build. Most of these builds have very little logic behind how an individual could have both of these classes from a role play perspective.

So this thread is about gestalt characters that are built from the roleplay perspective in mind. powerful synergy isn't to be actively avoided, but that isn't really the goal here.

[Quietus]

Are you suggesting that something like Ranger//Scout isn't flavorful? Or Unarmed Swordsage//Druid? Is it really so shocking that a character that makes frequent use of Wildshape would want to learn techniques they could use in combat that would still apply when they aren't in their natural form?

Allow me to turn this back around on you; which combinations of classes are you most objecting to? Is there some particular combination that just rubs you the wrong way that you feel shouldn't be taken? I am willing to bet that any synergistic gestalt can also be described as a sensible, functioning character.

[Psyren]

I've yet to see a a gestalt combination that couldn't be backed up with fantastic roleplay. It's all about creativity and imagination, i.e. the things that make roleplay possible in the first place.

[AspectOfNihil]

By the sounds of things, the OP is objecting less to power, and more to people Having gestalt progressions looking like Class1 2/Class2 3/Class3 1//Class 4 1 etc.

Flavour and power aren't necessarily enemies, and in some cases they go together quite nicely. For example the Unarmed Sword-sage//Druid that was mentioned is close to the intention of the Fist of the Forest and would mesh well with the PrC.

[Psyren]

By the sounds of things, the OP is objecting less to power, and more to people Having gestalt progressions looking like Class1 2/Class2 3/Class3 1//Class 4 1 etc.

No, he's not. He's objecting even to streamlined gestalt progressions:



Most of these builds have very little logic behind how an individual could have both of these classes from a role play perspective.

[Suddo]

By the sounds of things, the OP is objecting less to power, and more to people Having gestalt progressions looking like Class1 2/Class2 3/Class3 1//Class 4 1 etc.

That's how most people do Gestalt due to not being able to double PrC. When you can double PrC its a lot more interesting. And it can still be perfectly logical.

[Helldog]

Ah, good old Stormwind Fallacy. Nice that it's still around. Wouldn't want to miss the future flamewars on the topic of "Roleplay vs. Rollplay". :smallsigh:

[hushblade]

I had one word which resulted in a poorly worded sentence, isn't it more logical to assume I'm fallible in my wording than to assume I'm an idiot that can't hold a consistent position?

AspectOfNihil summed up my position fairly well.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Gestalted characters are hardly short on power, but most every thread are about how to get the most powerful synergy you can out of a build. Most of these builds have very little logic behind how an individual could have both of these classes from a role play perspective.

So this thread is about gestalt characters that are built from the roleplay perspective in mind. powerful synergy isn't to be actively avoided, but that isn't really the goal here.

This is called playing your class, rather than playing your character. {{scrubbed}} The built-in flavor of every class is entirely optional, as long as the flavor of your specific character fits his capabilities then your class combination is perfectly logical from a role playing perspective.

[AspectOfNihil]

Ah, my bad, missed that particular nuance.

It's pretty hard to think of a straight progression gestalt character that couldn't be justified. The ones that couldn't are already alignment blocked anyway.

The more classes you try to stack on the harder it gets to justify. Sometimes they can follow the same vein, like a Fighter/EWM/Master Thrower//Rogue/Invisible blade, but most of the time, it is just power. However you can't apply the same rules to gestalt characters that you can to single progression. Gestalt is considerably more powerful and from what I've read and experienced is typically only used in high-op campaigns where RP isn't an issue anyway.

It's kinda a case-by-case basis on whether or not a given build would be fitting for a campaign, and ultimately, it's up to the DM of the group it's being played in. To each their own and all that.

[Psyren]

I had one word which resulted in a poorly worded sentence, isn't it more logical to assume I'm fallible in my wording than to assume I'm an idiot that can't hold a consistent position?

Your entire premise being ridiculous, why would I attempt to justify any of it?

Roleplay is not dependent on mechanics or builds, they are independent constructs.


Also, you still haven't actually edited it, despite admitting that it was a mistake.

[Boci]

I had one word which resulted in a poorly worded sentence, isn't it more logical to assume I'm fallible in my wording than to assume I'm an idiot that can't hold a consistent position?

AspectOfNihil summed up my position fairly well.

So you object to multiclassing in gestalt? If you want to avoid misunderstandings, perhaps you should give a sample gestalt you deem to lack flavour and logci and explain why it does.

[hushblade]

My objection is irrelevant to the point of this thread, I was hoping for a brainstorm of ideas of class combinations that are flavorful, logical combinations of classes, not simply one focused on optimizing power. I'm not going to bother commenting on any more posts that don't follow in that vain.

[Quietus]

My objection is irrelevant to the point of this thread, I was hoping for a brainstorm of ideas of class combinations that are flavorful, logical combinations of classes, not simply one focused on optimizing power. I'm not going to bother commenting on any more posts that don't follow in that vain.

In that case, I suggest anything//anything, with a heaping helping of backstory to explain who your character is and what brought them to where they are.

If your objection is to multiclassing, well, there are different views on that. Some view a class as a profession - a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Exotic Weapon Master is someone who's jumped around from one job to another and collected a bit of stuff from each. Others, like myself, view the sum of everything a character can do as their profession, where the above build would suggest a sneaky, precise woodsman who frequently uses unusual weapons - possibly just whatever he's got laying around - to good effect. Converting this to one side of a Gestalt build doesn't lessen my ability to justify that collection of classes into a coherent character.

[RaggedAngel]

I agree that any combination of classes can be flavorful, but here's what the OP wants:

1. Wizard//Archivist. You are an intelligent collecter of spells of all varieties, who seeks to use his intelligence against his foes with both divine and arcane magic.

2. Warblade//Factotum. You are a brilliant, skillful warrior with a dozen tricks up your sleeve. You can take a beating like a champion, and dish out just as much as you can take.

3. Barbarian//Totemist. You are a wild, powerful berserker who draws strength from the most powerful creatures in nature and from yourself.

[Boci]

My objection is irrelevant to the point of this thread, I was hoping for a brainstorm of ideas of class combinations that are flavorful, logical combinations of classes, not simply one focused on optimizing power.

Its kind of hard for us to do that if we don't know what your problem is with existing gestalt combinations.

Human / Warblade//Factotum - witty scoundrel with a variety of tricks, as well as a battle style no one of his meagre combat training has any right to possess

Necropolitant Elf / Duskblade//Dreadnecromancer - Former knight seduced by a necromancer who took over his lover's estate after a paladin killed her

Pixie / Artificer//Warlock - A fey whose natural magic vastly exceeds anyone else in his village who also has an intricate understand of the relationship between magic and steel

What do you think of those?

[Psyren]

Its kind of hard for us to do that if we don't know what your problem is with existing gestalt combinations.

Exactly. Which ones are a problem?

Warblade//Psion - A gifted strategist who wins all his battles mentally before ever drawing his blade.
Hook: "I warn you, don't draw - you've already lost."

Warlock//Binder - An unlucky or foolhardy individual, slave to strange powers, as much cursed as s/he is blessed.
Hook: "It's so much easier than learning magic in some dusty school; what could go wrong?"

Dragonfire Adept//Totemist - A shaman who channels power from the most powerful beasts in nature's food chain - at the top of which are the mighty dragons.
Hook: "You think me a man, but in my veins courses far more than mere blood."

Ardent//Incarnate - An agnostic who wanders the world, seeking objective proof of aloof gods even as he seeks to work through his own complex worldview.
Hook: "There is surely something there, but... could all religions be wrong?"

[rmg22893]

Druid//Wizard/Geomancer/IotSV

An arcane spellcaster who was trapped in the wilderness and gradually absorbed the latent energies of the woodlands, transforming him into a peculiar being.

[Cespenar]

Druid//Swordsage (Setting Sun): Pacifist, hermit. Classic "sensei".

Druid//Swordsage (Tiger Claw): Went to live with the animals for the purpose of learning how they fight. Fights with a pack of animals, with him being the alpha.

Druid//Swordsage (Stone Dragon): Specializing in earth and rock themed spells, this dwarf also inherited the power of the mountains to deliver unstoppable blows. A hardy, ranger-type guy.

Etc.

[erikun]

I have to agree with being a bit confused about the point of the thread. Is a Wizard/Geomancer//Cleric any less of a "magical master of many spells" than a straight Wizard//Cleric? How about the Wizard/Divine Oracle/Incantrix//Factotum compared to just a Wizard//Factotum? I don't quite get how taking prestige classes on one side makes a gestalt any less "logical", or how multiclassing would either. Even something like the Omnicaster fits in quite well with the magic-master concept that it is trying to create.

[Incanur]

I favor two-class gestalts for their elegance and simplicity. Factotum/Warblade, for example, gives you versatile martial character. Fighter/Rogue approaches my ideal of the default skillful hero.

[Andreaz]

Aegis//Psion(Egoist or Shaper) - A war savant who explored and mastered the true depths of his own mind

Paladin//Oracle - A warrior gifted with a vision that blesses his way.
---------------------------------

And not always the classes even need to be connected to work. Can be done just by plain multiclassing.
Warblade//Incarnate - The perfect fighter, blessed with energies of the world around him.

[Rubik]

I have a Dragonwrought kobold shaper/constructor/astral zealot//factotum/totemist/unarmed swordsage going that is perfectly fine flavor-wise.

He was an illithid experiment rescued from a hive in the underdark, and started manifesting odd (fluffed as racial) psionic powers, which he uses to manipulate ectoplasm, the substance of thought itself. Later on, he was recruited into the resistance against an evil empire by a doppelganger master thief. He taught him how to be an assassin and sneakthief who uses his mental powers as an all-purpose tool, both to infiltrate and abscond, and to kill when needed.

[Hirax]

My objection is irrelevant to the point of this thread, I was hoping for a brainstorm of ideas of class combinations that are flavorful, logical combinations of classes, not simply one focused on optimizing power. I'm not going to bother commenting on any more posts that don't follow in that vain.

Wizard5/incantatrix10/halruaan elder5 is mega, mega, powerful. And to add to that insanity, Halruaan clerics usually take up worshiping either Mystra or Azuth. So you could throw cheater of Mystra on the other side of the build. I don't think there's any reasonable objections that could be made about this, it's rock solid on fluff consistency.

[FMArthur]

Even if you refuse to accept that a class is not a character in itself, I'm sort of struggling to see how any but the least powerful combinations would fail to be totally logical. You almost have to be focusing on basically unsynergistic abilities to have them not feel related to one another on the character. :smallconfused:

[zlefin]

fighter/cleric - it's a paladin, but better, and of any alignment.

[Psyren]

fighter/cleric - it's a Warpriest, but better, and of any alignment.

Fixed that for you

[Agrippa]

Exactly. Which ones are a problem?

Warblade//Psion - A gifted strategist who wins all his battles mentally before ever drawing his blade.
Hook: "I warn you, don't draw - you've already lost."

I think you mean this:

"Let me make this situation clear for you. I know what special abilities you have. I can see the enhancements. I can detect the increased electrical activity in your brain. I know what moves you're preparing to make. I've fought our fight already, in my head, in a million different ways. I can hit you without you even seeing me. I'm what soldiers dream of growing into. I'm what children see when they first imagine what death is like. I'm the Midnighter. Your Move." - Midnighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnighter) of the Authority to a supervillain holding a child hostage.

[Greenish]

Gestalt is considerably more powerful and from what I've read and experienced is typically only used in high-op campaigns where RP isn't an issue anyway.What sort of utter rubbish is that, now?

[onemorelurker]

Gestalted characters are hardly short on power, but most every thread are about how to get the most powerful synergy you can out of a build. Most of these builds have very little logic behind how an individual could have both of these classes from a role play perspective.

This is because roleplaying is (a) something most people like to work out for themselves, and (b) something that's pretty tough to give advice on unless one is familiar with the particular setting. If a player can't think of an IC reason to have any given gestalt build, I would say that's a flaw of the player, not the build.

[Urpriest]

The only optimized gestalts that lack coherent fluff are the NxCaster mashups where someone tries to pack as many 9ths into a build as humanly possible. Pretty much everything else that is considered optimized in gestalt is pretty thoroughly flavorful, and most of the worse choices are pretty bland and/or implausible.

[AspectOfNihil]

@Greenish

I can only speak from personal experience, and most of my personal experience revolving around gestalt has depended on a series of large coincidences or planned alignment chances. Sometimes both.

I acknowledge that different groups have different experiences, and that some groups will be better than others at roleplaying their characters. I am simply expressing my experiences for the purposes of rounding out the discussion and playing a sort of Devil's Advocate.

I have nothing against Gestalt, and many combinations enhance RP value rather than stunt it, but I just can't be happy with the RP value of planned alignment changes or muting certain PreReqs such as deity or story based events.

[Hirax]

I just can't be happy with the RP value of ... muting certain PreReqs such as deity or story based events.

Even when the adaption section of some classes suggest that be done? That feels more like you're stifling RPing than fostering it.

[Wyntonian]

The only optimized gestalts that lack coherent fluff are the NxCaster mashups where someone tries to pack as many 9ths into a build as humanly possible. Pretty much everything else that is considered optimized in gestalt is pretty thoroughly flavorful, and most of the worse choices are pretty bland and/or implausible.

I'll assume you mean written-in fluff, like that of the druid being a woodland protector type. I could write a story for any of those double/triple 9ths, it would just be a little harder than with a Scout//Ranger or Dragon Shaman//Sorcerer.

[AspectOfNihil]

I am not referring to consistant alignment with changing alingment prereqs, I am referring to sticking to the alignment requirements of a class then changing later to qualify for another class.

Such as a bard going until he gets Inspire Greatness then changing to a lawful alignment in order to take a few levels of Knight.

As you say, adapting a class to an alignment not intended for it can indeed be a great boost to the variety of character concepts you can make with it. Keeping the class as it was from-the-box so to speak, but planning changing the characters entire mindset and worldview simply to qualify for another class seems a bit unlikely.

[onemorelurker]

I am not referring to consistant alignment with changing alingment prereqs, I am referring to sticking to the alignment requirements of a class then changing later to qualify for another class.

Such as a bard going until he gets Inspire Greatness then changing to a lawful alignment in order to take a few levels of Knight.

As you say, adapting a class to an alignment not intended for it can indeed be a great boost to the variety of character concepts you can make with it. Keeping the class as it was from-the-box so to speak, but planning changing the characters entire mindset and worldview simply to qualify for another class seems a bit unlikely.

Characters aren't restricted to one alignment for their entire lives. As long as there was something it the character's backstory or roleplaying (depending on the starting level) to justify the change, I wouldn't bat an eye if a bard went from NX to LX, nor would I describe such a change as "changing the character's entire mindset and worldview." Alignment drift happens.

[AspectOfNihil]

Yeah, alignment change happens, but planning, at first level, exactly what level you change alignment at level X seems a bit far-fetched. Planning to change your characters alignment when appropriate story-based influences occur would be fine, but when you can't tell when that influence will exert itself, saying 'I will change alignment at level 10' doesn't seem right.

[Wyntonian]

Honestly, if your DM still makes people follow the whole "Bards can't be lawful" thing, there's a bigger problem at hand.

[Psyren]

I agree with Aspect concerning the whole "I'll be a Barbarian for two levels, then undergo an existential crisis and become lawful so I can enter monk" sort of thing. I also don't like to see that.

I also agree that Bards should be any alignment though. Yay Pathfinder!


I think you mean this:

"Let me make this situation clear for you. I know what special abilities you have. I can see the enhancements. I can detect the increased electrical activity in your brain. I know what moves you're preparing to make. I've fought our fight already, in my head, in a million different ways. I can hit you without you even seeing me. I'm what soldiers dream of growing into. I'm what children see when they first imagine what death is like. I'm the Midnighter. Your Move." - Midnighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnighter) of the Authority to a supervillain holding a child hostage.

Love that guy :smallbiggrin:

[Urpriest]

I'll assume you mean written-in fluff, like that of the druid being a woodland protector type. I could write a story for any of those double/triple 9ths, it would just be a little harder than with a Scout//Ranger or Dragon Shaman//Sorcerer.

No, I mean written-in-mechanics. Racial requisites, thematic groupings of spells, that sort of thing. Especially for a full-list caster, the themes aren't especially plastic since the character can access anything on their list, so the only overarching themes to what they have access to are what the designers thought the themes of the class are. This goes double if you're trolling the splats for the perfect persisted buffsuite.

Look, you've probably seen Anthrowhale's Rashemi Beholder Mage build or whatever it was called. Yes it could all be plotted out, but the story was absolutely torturous.

[onemorelurker]

Yeah, alignment change happens, but planning, at first level, exactly what level you change alignment at level X seems a bit far-fetched. Planning to change your characters alignment when appropriate story-based influences occur would be fine, but when you can't tell when that influence will exert itself, saying 'I will change alignment at level 10' doesn't seem right.

Why does the Bard want to become a Knight? Does it make a difference whether the player's answer is "I'm taking an incredibly nonintuitive path to a gish PrC" or "I want to be a better frontline fighter and think the Knight gives me good Cha synergy" or even "I just really like both classes, okay?" As long as there's a sensible IC explanation, the player's motivation doesn't matter much to me, and a good roleplayer can easily make a one-step alignment change plausible.

Further, as a DM, if a player told me, "I want my character to make this alignment shift at 10th level, and circumstances X and Y would make my character change alignments," (and I was unable to waive alignment restrictions for some reason, 'cause Hushblade is right about them being pretty silly in this case), I would try to have circumstances X and Y happen before the character hits 10th level, the same way I would include an event that a character needed to fulfill an story-based PrC prereq.


I agree with Aspect concerning the whole "I'll be a Barbarian for two levels, then undergo an existential crisis and become lawful so I can enter monk" sort of thing. I also don't like to see that.

Again, I don't really see "alignment change" as a synonym for "existential crisis." If the Barbarian was being played as CN and then suddenly became LG, then yeah, that would probably be bullcrap. But a single-step alignment shift (from NG to LG, say) isn't necessarily a huge deal.

[Agrippa]

Love that guy :smallbiggrin:

You're welcome.

[Tvtyrant]

Totemist//Binder- You worship the concept of the "unique." You place aberrations and magical beasts on a pedestal and find yourself at odds with both necromancers and druids.

Artificer//Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage- A gnome born with an inward need to remake the world, the Shadowficer creates items out of nothing and infuses them with power. At the height of his power the Shadowficer is like unto a God, able to make anything and everything from nothing.

[gorfnab]

Bard/ Sublime Chord/ Virtuoso // Crusader - "The minstrel boy to the war has gone..."

Bard/ Dirgesinger/ Sublime Chord/ Virtuoso // Dread Necromancer

http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Michael-Jackson-Thriller-Movie.jpg

Dread Necromancer // Paladin of Slaughter or Tyranny - Death Knight. Raises an undead army and leads them into battle.

Warforged Artificer // Warblade - Basically a self repairing tank.

Ninja // Druid - No one suspects that the stray cat walking down the street is a master assassin.

[DoctorGlock]

The only optimized gestalts that lack coherent fluff are the NxCaster mashups where someone tries to pack as many 9ths into a build as humanly possible. Pretty much everything else that is considered optimized in gestalt is pretty thoroughly flavorful, and most of the worse choices are pretty bland and/or implausible.

Not necessarily/at all. I made a non gestalt triple 9 build (without beholder mage) and justified the fluff. A mad trickster god who stole all the secrets. Heck, that's basically an archetype. But I admit anyone who uses beholder mage is going to be hard put for justification.

[cthulhubear]

Not necessarily/at all. I made a non gestalt triple 9 build (without beholder mage) and justified the fluff. A mad trickster god who stole all the secrets. Heck, that's basically an archetype. But I admit anyone who uses beholder mage is going to be hard put for justification.

Builds like that are theoretical, and aren't really meant to be played. I mean, you can attempt to play one, but good luck not getting a book thrown at you the second the dm sees it.

[enderlord99]

I agree with Psyren. On everything.

[Boci]

Builds like that are theoretical, and aren't really meant to be played. I mean, you can attempt to play one, but good luck not getting a book thrown at you the second the dm sees it.

The trick is to not ambush them with it. Besides, DoctorGlock's main point was that such a character can have decent fluff behind it.

[DoctorGlock]

Builds like that are theoretical, and aren't really meant to be played. I mean, you can attempt to play one, but good luck not getting a book thrown at you the second the dm sees it.

The party consisted of an Ardent/Slayer/Monk tash with SU transform and reality revision, an Incantatrix/tainted scholar/ultimate magus, a dry lich, a shadowcraft mage and this guy. All of us had backstory. No books were thrown.

[Psyren]

The party consisted of an Ardent/Slayer/Monk tash with SU transform and reality revision, an Incantatrix/tainted scholar/ultimate magus, a dry lich, a shadowcraft mage and this guy. All of us had backstory. No books were thrown.

I'm happy for your group, but games like that are very much the minority. The existence of fringe cases doesn't invalidate the point of what is and isn't considered TO by the community at large.


I agree with Psyren. On everything.

If I had an ego sig, you sir would be in it.

[DoctorGlock]

I'm happy for your group, but games like that are very much the minority. The existence of fringe cases doesn't invalidate the point of what is and isn't considered TO by the community at large.



If I had an ego sig, you sir would be in it.

the point was that it is possible to both justify it and play it. Also I'd not really consider it particularly TO compared to alot of the stuff tossed around here

[Novawurmson]

Psion//Factotum - Sherlock Holmes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/).

[Cespenar]

Psion//Factotum - Sherlock Holmes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/).

That's not Sherlock Holmes. That's Batman with a Green Lantern ring.

[shadow_archmagi]

I've yet to see a a gestalt combination that couldn't be backed up with fantastic roleplay. It's all about creativity and imagination, i.e. the things that make roleplay possible in the first place.

This is extremely true.


The only optimized gestalts that lack coherent fluff are the NxCaster mashups where someone tries to pack as many 9ths into a build as humanly possible. Pretty much everything else that is considered optimized in gestalt is pretty thoroughly flavorful, and most of the worse choices are pretty bland and/or implausible.



Dwarven Wizard-Barbarian: Proud warrior who supplements his combat prowess with the powers of his ancestors. Every morning he consults an iron tome covered in ancestral runes so that he can fully deploy their spiritual fury.

Barbarian Druid: A feral druid.

Psychic Warrior/Swordsage: A warrior who has mastered his inner self, and fights without thought, trusting his instincts.

Paladin Wizard: A paladin who has begun learning the arcane to supplement his evil-fighting power.

[Qwertystop]

But I admit anyone who uses beholder mage is going to be hard put for justification.

Wizard willing to do anything for power, who has discovered after much research that Beholders who have lost their central eye can gain magical power at a speed that surpasses nearly any other method.

[Greenish]

Paladin Wizard: A paladin who has begun learning the arcane to supplement his evil-fighting power.There's even canned fluff for that, Mystic Fire Knight and Sword of the Arcane Order.

[JackRackham]

Off the top of my head, and with no experience gestalting:

I think a wizard/Factotum would be logical and interesting. Potentially very good as well, as the factotum abilities would buff some of the wizard's weaknesses. Arcane Dilettante could be re-fluffed such that the character is improvising spells on the fly based on his superior intellect and knowledge of spellcasting to allow him/her to BS spells he/she doesn't even know.

Likewise a Factotum/Rogue would be a lot of fun to play, regardless of power-level. Now, I would argue that multiclassing in Gestalt is just fine, so long as one picks classes that ALL fit together from a RP perspective, so even a gestalt that dips one level of SS on the Factotum half and goes Daring Outlaw on the Rogue half would be ok by me and would net some really, really nice synergies all around.

Cleric/Monk could be another good option. With this build, in a good party, I would be tempted to play it as an ascetic priest achetype and take a bunch of vows and exalted feats (I know everyone's beef with this, I know DMM is more powerful, I think it could work in the right party and be powerful enough that I wouldn't care if there were a better option). For a hiigher-powered version, one could obviously substitute unarmed SS for Monk.

Knight/Paladin, Knight/Crusader, Paladin/Crusader, or some combination of the three (MAYBE, even some cleric thrown in on the Paladin side...) would be interesting as a Templar-like character.

Barbarian/Scout would make a f*ck-ton of sense RP-wise and would offer some really nice mechanical synergies, especially with the Spirit Totem Barbarian ACF and possibly the DEX-based rage variant. In general, though, many Barbarian builds are high-dex and would fit with Scout.

Lower-op, fighter-rogue would be nice as a thuggish bandit or (thug) character, probably dual-wielding, maybe multiclassed in a logical way on both sides after level 6 or 8.

Rogue/Bard or Factotum/Bard would be fun if for no other reason than GLIBNESS - again, with the potential for multiclassing on the rogue side in the case of a rogue-bard. Even in Gestalt, I find it hard NOT to multiclass a Rogue build. there are just too many synergies to be gained from multiclassing.

I'm sure there are a hundred others out there as well...

[Rubik]

Likewise a Factotum/Rogue would be a lot of fun to play, regardless of power-level. Now, I would argue that multiclassing in Gestalt is just fine, so long as one picks classes that ALL fit together from a RP perspective, so even a gestalt that dips one level of SS on the Factotum half and goes Daring Outlaw on the Rogue half would be ok by me and would net some really, really nice synergies all around.There's so much overlap in rogue and factotum that it's not even funny. All you get from your rogue side is a sneak attack progression, +2 skill points per level, and a few random abilities like Evasion (most of which can be gotten via WBL). That's it. And sneak attack really isn't very good in anything but optimal conditions.

[enderlord99]

There's so much overlap in rogue and factotum that it's not even funny. All you get from your rogue side is a sneak attack progression, +2 skill points per level, and a few random abilities like Evasion (most of which can be gotten via WBL). That's it. And sneak attack really isn't very good in anything but optimal conditions.

I think you're a bit confused. Factotum gets 2 more than rogue.

[Greenish]

I think you're a bit confused. Factotum gets 2 more than rogue.Rogue's 8 skillpoints per level is more than factotum's 6 per level. Two points more, to be exact. :smallamused:

[enderlord99]

Rogue's 8 skillpoints per level is more than factotum's 6 per level. Two points more, to be exact. :smallamused:

Factotum get 10 per level, not 6.

[Curious]

Factotum get 10 per level, not 6.

Er, no, they don't.

[Kantolin]

A gestalt build I've contemplated in my head before is the Spirit Shaman // Binder.

I have no idea precisely how effective it is (I guess both classes do want a good charisma?), mind you, but the idea is about a tribal spirit shaman who found these... other spirits. After some discussion with his tribe, he opted to hesitantly nudge towards them, with the presumption that they're just lost spirits. He then discovers more of what they're about, and becomes curious about the whole 'vestige' thing as a whole. This'd work especially well with the spirit shaman's anti-ghost schtick working on vestiges, and I'd like to play up the connection between himself and the vestiges - especially as the more 'normal' spirits he's used to are not fond of these vestige things.

...then again, I also have my idea for a dwarven binder whos goal is to try to give Halphax a proper rest, and I don't really want/need to mix the two ideas nor really add a second class to said dwarf, so my poor Spirit Shaman // Binder isn't too likely to ever pop up. :P

[hex0]

Factotum get 10 per level, not 6.

I don't think ANY class gets 10 skills per level.

Although I personally think having 6 skills per level of ANY skills (factotum) is better than having 8 skills per level of most of the skills. (Rogue or Scout)

[kardar233]

Only the Chameleon Rogue substitution levels get 10/level, IIRC.

[Manateee]

I've been partial to Archivist//Warblade/Duskblade/Eternal Blade for the trained field commander in a magical world.

[Helldog]

Only the Chameleon Rogue substitution levels get 10/level, IIRC.
Changeling.

[legomaster00156]

Well, I think a Sorcadin is quite natural, myself. A Sorcerer's magic can come from many sources, including a god's fancy. This is further aided in Pathfinder, with such ideas as a Celestial Bloodline (to emphasize divine guidance) or the Abyssal Bloodline (to show a constant struggle to remain on the path of goodness and law).

[Psyren]

Well, I think a Sorcadin is quite natural, myself. A Sorcerer's magic can come from many sources, including a god's fancy. This is further aided in Pathfinder, with such ideas as a Celestial Bloodline (to emphasize divine guidance) or the Abyssal Bloodline (to show a constant struggle to remain on the path of goodness and law).

Celestial/Fiendish bloodlines (including those of celestial/fiendish dragons, even) exist in 3.5 as well; typically though this fluff is relegated to PrCs. Celestial fluff is found in the Exalted Arcanist (BoED), while fiendish fluff is found in the Fiendblooded (HoH), among others.

[Agrippa]

How about this one. Female human ardent//crusader/Desert Wind favoring swordsage. Warhammer 40K Adepta Sororita living saint. Simple enough I think.

[gkathellar]

Bard//Anything. Watch.

Bard//Barbarian - A striking, cunning war leader who works himself and his allies up into battle-frenzy with valorous tales and songs of ancient heroes.

Bard//Cleric - A church chorister in youth turned adventuring priest in adulthood, who uses knowledge of the bardic arts to glorify his god.

Bard//Druid - A child of civilization and getting by in the great cities who has sought out understanding of the wilderness.

Bard//Fighter - A minstrel who has seen his fair share of wars. (Fighters are generic.)

Bard//Monk - A member of a monastic order of assassins or bodyguards who devote themselves to the courtly arts of music and hedge-magic to stay hidden in plain sight among their targets or clients.

Bard//Paladin - A courtly knight, encouraged as a squire to cultivate his fine singing voice and similar talents to amuse and court the land's gentry.

Bard//Ranger - The classic Celtic bard, a solitary wanderer and collector of stories at home in the wilderness.

Bard//Rogue - A true adventurer, whose bravado and passing knowledge of just about everything push him by on luck alone.

Bard//Sorcerer - A natural-born mage for whom magic is a matter of panache, energy and style, and who cultivates these skills above all else.

Bard//Wizard - A student of the bardic arts whose impressive understanding of hedge-magic grew into an academic study of the arcane.


Factotum get 10 per level, not 6.

Nope. You better check your books before you wreck your ... nevermind, that doesn't make any sense.

[FMArthur]

I think the idea there was to reference the fact that a factotum really is going to wind up with more skill points than a rogue because intelligence investment is guaranteed on a factotum. An 18 in Int at character creation is common, making the 4 point difference from a presumed 10 on the rogue. I don't think it could possibly have been said in a less forthright manner, though. :smallsigh:

[Greenish]

I think the idea there was to reference the fact that a factotum really is going to wind up with more skill points than a rogue because intelligence investment is guaranteed on a factotum.But in a factotum//rogue gestalt, rogue is the "side" contributing extra skill points.

[Prime32]

A gestalt build I've contemplated in my head before is the Spirit Shaman // Binder.

I have no idea precisely how effective it is (I guess both classes do want a good charisma?), mind you, but the idea is about a tribal spirit shaman who found these... other spirits. After some discussion with his tribe, he opted to hesitantly nudge towards them, with the presumption that they're just lost spirits. He then discovers more of what they're about, and becomes curious about the whole 'vestige' thing as a whole. This'd work especially well with the spirit shaman's anti-ghost schtick working on vestiges, and I'd like to play up the connection between himself and the vestiges - especially as the more 'normal' spirits he's used to are not fond of these vestige things.Do you even need to distinguish between the two?

[Dr.Epic]

Fighter/Rogue

Cunning combatant that relies on skill rather than brute strength to win.

Fighter/Cleric

Warpriest; 'nuff said

[Rubik]

Factotum get 10 per level, not 6.Only in base 6.

[Axier]

Personally, Factotum/Any, but Factotum/Any//Chameleon would be quite good. Go from Factotum/Rogue to Chameleon and you can fill the needs of pretty much any class, at least wing it. Of course, I enjoy the occasional change of character, so it is kind of a personal joy of chameleon.

I also thought of a Dragonwraught Kobold Sorcerer/Dragonfire Adept. The raw power of Draconic Magic under the controll of a small dragon.

Marshal/Dragon Shaman, the charasmatic warleader who rallies his allies with his draconic aura. (A.K.A. Massive party buffing in overdrive.)

[Psyren]

Has the OP even come back to tell us which gestalts s/he finds illogical or unflavorful?

[Boci]

Has the OP even come back to tell us which gestalts s/he finds illogical or unflavorful?

Mope. Kinda ironic that they were only too pleased to tell us we were doing it wrong on the first page and then never commented on our examples.

[Psyren]

Mope. Kinda ironic that they were only too pleased to tell us we were doing it wrong on the first page and then never commented on our examples.

It makes sense from a certain perspective:

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m633/PsyrenY/GestaltNIR.png?t=1325867779

[Wyntonian]

It makes sense from a certain perspective:


So and it does. But I think the OP forgot we're a little too civilized for that.

[Kantolin]

Do you even need to distinguish between the two?

No.

But for the plot, it'd be interesting if they did - it is reasonable for people to put a gap between them. This way, the plot could go 'Well.. they're really the same' or emphasize the differences between those out of existence and those who are spirits.

Alternately, you could have them not differentiate between the two - then he is simply searching for more spirits(binds) and doesn't understand why other people are all whiny about it, or he can end up discovering that vestiges and spirits are actually different - maybe some things they think are 'spirits' are actually vestiges and vice versa.

All four options would be neat. ^_^