Gestalt question 3.5

[Jgosse]

Hey guys so a while back I made a comment about gestalt and every one who saw it thought I was kinda crazy. When I run Gestalt I have always bonded the classes. so If you chose barbarian fighter as your Gestalt class then those classes are bonded and must be taken together, and if you wanted a level of something else you would bind that to another class like ranger rogue.

Is this so very strange and am I really the only person who does this? Do you know anyone else or do any of you run Gestalt like this?

[Rebel7284]

How do prestige classes work in this system?

[Jgosse]

How do prestige classes work in this system?

The way I have done it in the past is that you can not Gestalt Prestige classes.

[Yorrin]

I do a lot of gestalt and I've never heard of this type of system before. As Rebel7284 pointed out, this could be problematic for PrCs. This also severely limits build versatility, but I take it you intended that.

The closest I've heard of is where the tier on one half determined the tier on the other half. So a T1 had to be added to a T5, a T2 to a T4, and a T3 to a T3, with the option of taking a worse tier always acceptable. But that still allowed for multiclassing within your tiers.

[Jgosse]

I saw to much room for abuse in the gestalt system by letting them multiclass freely and not bonding the classes.

[prufock]

Yeah, this isn't so much gestalt as a third related option. You could call it "bonded classes" and even go so far as to outright combine 2 or 3 classes into one and call it a day. I've done some class creation of my own, and that's part of what I did for tier 4 and lower. For example, paladin is now a combination of paladin, hexblade, knight, and marshal. Ranger is a combo of ranger and scout.

[CalamaroJoe]

I do not have a great experience in gestalt, but this is the first time I hear such a thing.

Out of curiosity, how do you manage it? Are there some couples of bonded classes that are allowed and others that are not?

[Jgosse]

Yeah, this isn't so much gestalt as a third related option. You could call it "bonded classes" and even go so far as to outright combine 2 or 3 classes into one and call it a day. I've done some class creation of my own, and that's part of what I did for tier 4 and lower. For example, paladin is now a combination of paladin, hexblade, knight, and marshal. Ranger is a combo of ranger and scout.

but I follow the gestalt rules and each player picks there own classes.


I do not have a great experience in gestalt, but this is the first time I hear such a thing.

Out of curiosity, how do you manage it? Are there some couples of bonded classes that are allowed and others that are not?

Any class that is open to play can be bonded with any other no combinations are off limits. In the current game I have a monk/fighter, a fighter/barbarian, a barbarian/ranger, a ranger/druid, a sorcerer/warlock, and a favored soul/cleric.

[Yorrin]

Just as a general rule of thumb, any proposed system or houserule that decreases power and/or versatility across the board is going to receive a strong negative reaction on these forums, as the forums regulars are mostly concerned with "how much power can I get out of this" as their first reaction. So since this is a houserule that directly limits power and options, nobody here is really going to like it. That doesn't make it a bad system, just one less open to abuse (which by some definitions makes it a better system). Also, telling people that they CANT have things (especially such a large portion of the game as PrCs) usually doesn't go down well.

[Jgosse]

Just as a general rule of thumb, any proposed system or houserule that decreases power and/or versatility across the board is going to receive a strong negative reaction on these forums, as the forums regulars are mostly concerned with "how much power can I get out of this" as their first reaction. So since this is a houserule that directly limits power and options, nobody here is really going to like it. That doesn't make it a bad system, just one less open to abuse (which by some definitions makes it a better system). Also, telling people that they CANT have things (especially such a large portion of the game as PrCs) usually doesn't go down well.
I had expected that.
I never said they can't have PrCs just they can't Gestalt them. If one of my players does want a PrC then they only get a level in the PrC.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I find it weird to limit power in gestalt since by definition is a high powered variant, to each their own I guess.

[Yorrin]

I never said they can't have PrCs just they can't Gestalt them. If one of my players does want a PrC then they only get a level in the PrC.

Ah. Well, that's better than no PrCs at all, certainly. But still, you cant be surprised/upset for a negative reaction to your system on these boards. You'd need to find a community which is more concerned about balance than power to give you a more objective critique.

[Jgosse]

I find it weird to limit power in gestalt since by definition is a high powered variant, to each their own I guess.

I find it less about being high powered and more about being more flexible.

[Yorrin]

I find it less about being high powered and more about being more flexible.

So you make it less flexible...?

Also, this is a perfect example of the differences between how you think and how most of this board thinks. Because, to a degree, more flexible=more powerful, and so it really depends on which side you're emphasizing.