Botched Gestalt in same party as regular dudes?

[DogbertLinc]

Ok...so in a new campaign I'm starting, I decided to offer my group the idea of gestalts, with a catch:

"You must take some horrible botched build, and then gestalt it to make it somewhat viable".

One of the biggest examples being the Forsaken PrC (or whatever is the name of the one who hates magic items) or an Arcane Duelist. (And I already told to not even bother trying to just stack Full Caster 20 on the other side).

Now...if someone is not on board with the idea, how bad would it be for him, to just play something that is already viable non-gestalt? My head tells me it'd be ok, but my head lies to me about balance all the time.

[Arael666]

Just restrict to tier 3 or 4, or either don't go gestalt. I don't know about your players but if my DM came to me and said "hey, you can go gestalt, but you can only take terrible classes to compensate for that". I wouldn't think twice and just say "no. thanks, but no. I'll just play a wizard instead."

[DogbertLinc]

Just restrict to tier 3 or 4, or either don't go gestalt. I don't know about your players but if my DM came to me and said "hey, you can go gestalt, but you can only take terrible classes to compensate for that". I wouldn't think twice and just say "no. thanks, but no. I'll just play a wizard instead."

Ah...no. It's a method to allow people to play stupid ideas that while really neat, are incredibly impractical (Arcane Duelist, Arcane Archer, Alienist, etc.).

The idea is to make awful **** into viable and probably create wacky dudes.

[Rubik]

Ah...no. It's a method to allow people to play stupid ideas that while really neat, are incredibly impractical (Arcane Duelist, Arcane Archer, Alienist, etc.).

The idea is to make awful **** into viable and probably create wacky dudes.While it's an unusual idea, be careful about the classes you force such players to play. The forsaker and the frenzied berzerker (and many exalted builds, as well as paladins) screw over the party as much as they screw over themselves. Don't make the party hate the players who take this option by using them.

[Talakeal]

I've always wanted to play a gestalt fighter / monk. Two terrible classes which are still sub par together, but allow me a nice selection of skills, saves, and feats.

Never found a DM who didn't insist it was horribly broken and I should just play something fair like a druid instead.

[Slipperychicken]

Randomly-rolled base class mish-mash for one side of the gestalt?

[CRtwenty]

Well now you can play a Bardbarian. I see no downsides.

[Mishkov]

Ah...no. It's a method to allow people to play stupid ideas that while really neat, are incredibly impractical (Arcane Duelist, Arcane Archer, Alienist, etc.).

The idea is to make awful **** into viable and probably create wacky dudes.

The fact that you've included Alienist into the mix worries me. That's a sub-par wizard, meaning it's still a tier one monster. If you're looking to make people use wacky character concepts and supplement them into being viable and more interesting, I'd just allow gestalt for all characters, restrict to oddball concepts, and it could be fun.

As a balance mechanic, it does not seem appropriate.

[DogbertLinc]

The fact that you've included Alienist into the mix worries me. That's a sub-par wizard, meaning it's still a tier one monster. If you're looking to make people use wacky character concepts and supplement them into being viable and more interesting, I'd just allow gestalt for all characters, restrict to oddball concepts, and it could be fun.

As a balance mechanic, it does not seem appropriate.

All I remember of Alienist is that it is a really crappy caster PrC. Arcane Duelist is THE example for this thing.

And that is the plan, the mixing is only in if case someone decides to be really lazy/a stick in the mud about it.

[Jeff the Green]

All I remember of Alienist is that it is a really crappy caster PrC.

It's not that bad. It forces you to burn Augmented Summoning (and probably Skill Focus (conjuration) too) to get in, and then makes you worse at summoning*. But you can still do all the other wizardly things. It's probably a bit worse than Wizard 20, but then so is just about everything.

*It's actually a bit more complicated than that. It makes your beatsticks beatstickier, but knocks a lot of the utility out of it.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So to clarify, are you saying those Gestalt need to make one of their classes a bad one?

In such a stance, I can see a regular dude just at a disadvantage.

Like as long as the weak class doesn't have negative features like destroy magic items, it's still a free second class, not a great one but still a second class.


I've always wanted to play a gestalt fighter / monk. Two terrible classes which are still sub par together, but allow me a nice selection of skills, saves, and feats.

Never found a DM who didn't insist it was horribly broken and I should just play something fair like a druid instead.

Really? Although that makes a Monk at least viable, it's still not broken in the least. It reminds me of when a past DM of mine claimed 40 feet per turn in heavy armor was OP...

*sigh* Oh how some people really need to learn the game better before being given DM rights.

[Spuddles]

Arcane Duelist is actually a decent class, at least for a two level dip. The poor BAB progression absolutely tanks the class' usefulness, though.

Otherwise, mix the following in a gestalt build:

Hexblade
Blackguard
Gloura
Monk (with Ascetic Mage)
Paladin of Tyranny
Arcane Duelist
Sublime Chord

You get 9th level spells, charisma to saves 4x and charisma to AC 3x.

Very, very feat heavy, though.

[sonofzeal]

I've always wanted to play a gestalt fighter / monk. Two terrible classes which are still sub par together, but allow me a nice selection of skills, saves, and feats.
Actually, it's not even that sub-par. Fighter's problem isn't so much that they can't get the numbers to be competitive, just that they don't have any utility. Monk's problem isn't that they don't have utility, just that they don't generally get the numbers to be competitive. So while a Fighter//Monk is never going to measure up to, say, a Warblade//Factotum, it still might manage to squeak in at a low T3 overall and work fine in a party with non-gestalt Factota and Warblades.

[JaronK]

Gestalt Arcane Duelist would actually be really good. Their "make duplicate mes to full attack" ability is incredible, and a lot of their abilities work amazingly with an Enfeebling Rapier or other "mess you up when I crit" abilities. When gestalted with something with full BAB and solid melee abilities the result would be a pretty incredible duelist.

JaronK

[Vaz]

Forsakers easy. Cast Magic Weapon on an arrow. Give 49 to archer, and 1 to Forsaker. Works with Psionics as well, which gestalt really well with their multitude abilities to get past action economy.

[Nightraiderx]

I've always wanted to play a gestalt fighter / monk. Two terrible classes which are still sub par together, but allow me a nice selection of skills, saves, and feats.

Never found a DM who didn't insist it was horribly broken and I should just play something fair like a druid instead.

Admit it you just want to get kithrow and kameha dudes with extra stunning.

Also, don't think that a monk/fighter is a bad build b/c if you have access to TOB and Complete warrior, trip, trip everything, AoO trip, trip while attacking, negating Power attacks and slipping between enemies on purpose so they can hit their buddies. Str and Dex to damage, grab martial monk and get weapon supremacy for +5 to all other attacks and twf.

[Alienist]

Ah...no. It's a method to allow people to play stupid ideas that while really neat, are incredibly impractical (Arcane Duelist, Arcane Archer, Alienist, etc.).

The idea is to make awful **** into viable and probably create wacky dudes.

I resemble that remark!