Gestalt Question

[tedcahill2]

I'm starting a game in which I am allowing players to gestalt any T4 class with a T5 class (or two T5s if they want).

One of my players would like to gestalt a rogue and scout (both T4s). My initial reaction was, "Nope", but as I look at the two classes they get very little benefit from the gestalt. They get a little better HD, a broader skill list, but both classes have the same base attack and skill points per level.

Sneak attack and skirmish are somewhat exclusive, since a rogue should aim to full attack with sneak attack, but you can't do that with skirmish.

So my question is this: If I am generally only allowing T4s to gestalt with T5s, would a gestalt rogue/scout be a clearly superior gestalt. Or do the similarities between the classes diminish the benefits of the gestalt?

[Cosi]

In general, because Gestalt causes abilities to overlap, rather than stack, you will benefit more from combining two things that are different than two things that are the same. Rogue and Scout have the same BAB, saves, and skill points. All Scout provides to the Rogue chassis is going from a d6 to a d8. The abilities also overlap pretty heavily. Getting Evasion or Uncanny Dodge or Trapfinding twice isn't super good. You get Skirmish, but that triggers off different things than Sneak Attack and the Rogue's problem was never that it didn't get enough damage in.

[Krazzman]

In general, because Gestalt causes abilities to overlap, rather than stack, you will benefit more from combining two things that are different than two things that are the same. Rogue and Scout have the same BAB, saves, and skill points. All Scout provides to the Rogue chassis is going from a d6 to a d8. The abilities also overlap pretty heavily. Getting Evasion or Uncanny Dodge or Trapfinding twice isn't super good. You get Skirmish, but that triggers off different things than Sneak Attack and the Rogue's problem was never that it didn't get enough damage in.

Yes, exactly. The problem with Uncanny Dodge and Evasion is that they don't even stack. The one who gets it earlier or in a better advancing takes precedent over the other. The same way Paladin Turn Undead and Cleric Turn Undead do not stack when used in Gestalt.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would allow it, but watch carefully for any references to the training dummy that allows for 10ft steps or travel devotion, or the feat that stacks rogue and scout levels for sneak attack and skirmish.

Honestly your player would likely have a better time mixing SA fighter and scout. SA fighter is tier 5, pretty solidly.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Sneak Attack and Skirmish do stack, and quite well--a little Travel Devotion goes a long way towards high-damage full attacks.

I wouldn't allow t4/t4 even if the pairing is suboptimal, because the rule is t5/t4. Go with Sneak Attack fighter instead.

[Waker]

So my question is this: If I am generally only allowing T4s to gestalt with T5s, would a gestalt rogue/scout be a clearly superior gestalt. Or do the similarities between the classes diminish the benefits of the gestalt?
As Cosi put it, the two classes are too similar to really get much of a boost. The end result is a slightly tougher and nature-y rogue or a more city savvy scout. While it's possible to get a good damage boost from being able to trigger both Skirmish/Sneak Attack, it will be difficult to regularly pull all. And if you come up against a foe immune to it, you are pretty much hosed.
If the player is set on this notion, they might wanna consider going with the Riposte Scout from Cityscape. Other ACFs that become more valuable with redundant class features are Disruptive Attack (PHBII), Feign Death (EoE), Friend's Evasion (CC), Poison Use (DotU), Spell Reflection (CM), Dungeon Specialist
(Ds). Alternate Class Features (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444354-3-5-Alternative-Class-Features-(ported-from-Wizards-community-boards)).

[tedcahill2]

That was sort of what I assessed as well.

So with that said, as compared to other gestalt T4+T5 options, does a rogue/scout have a clear advantage, or do the similarities between the classes actually weaken the overall gestalt?

In other words, should I allow a scout/rogue gestalt if I am in general only allowing T4+T5?

Another question: If I allowed them to all gestalt two T4 classes would than make them stronger than T3s?

[Fouredged Sword]

If you set a rule, you should hold to that rule. Especially when there are ways, like SA fighter // scout, to do the same thing within the rules given.

As for power levels, generally gestalting 2 tier 4 classes CAN make a tier 3 class, but it is so varied based on the choices that it cannot be made as a blanket statement. Rogue/scout is likely still tier 4. It will hit like a horse when it spring attacks though a flanking position and be a sneaky skill monkey, but not much else.

[Bakkan]

Another question: If I allowed them to all gestalt two T4 classes would than make them stronger than T3s?

No. You could gestalt every Tier 4, 5, and 6 class together at once and I seriously doubt you'd break out of Tier 3.

[Fouredged Sword]

No. You could gestalt every Tier 4, 5, and 6 class together at once and I seriously doubt you'd break out of Tier 3.

I don't know. A fighter 20 / rogue 20 is pretty close to their 3. It is good at fighting between full bab, power attack, two handed weapons or twfing with bonus feats, and sneak attack. Enough skills to cover most skill situations. That seems pretty much as generic an adventurer you could find. Good at DPS melee or ranged attacks and enough skills to be useful in almost any situation.

You can't get to tier 2, but the difference between tier 4 and tier 3 is how good you are at things OUTSIDE your niche. A tier 4 character is good at one thing and nothing else or decent at a lot of things but not good at anything specific. A tier 3 character combines those two and is good at one thing and decent at a lot of things at the same time.

[ExLibrisMortis]

All tier 4-5-6 together has a perfect chassis, tons of bonus feats, decent casting (paladin, ranger, hexblade), some incarnum, some shadowcasting, some auras, some X to Y (at least WIS or CHA to AC from monk and battledancer, plus CHA to saves from paladin/hexblade), some specialty stuff (rage, animal companion, knight's defensive abilities). It's definitely tier 3.

[Bakkan]

Perhaps I was unclear. You would definitely get to Tier 3, but you would not get out of Tier 3, i.e. by getting to Tier 1 or 2.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Perhaps I was unclear. You would definitely get to Tier 3, but you would not get out of Tier 3, i.e. by getting to Tier 1 or 2.
Ah, right you are. Carry on then, I didn't say anything.

[Fouredged Sword]

Yeah, miss-read you. I think we all agree.

[Godskook]

Sneak attack and skirmish are somewhat exclusive, since a rogue should aim to full attack with sneak attack, but you can't do that with skirmish.

Travel Devotion
Greater Many Shot(need SA activator, but that's a normal problem with Bow-Rogues)
Anklets of Translocation + Sparring Dummy of the Master
Pounce-options
Belt of Battle
Access to Hustle as a Swift Action
Sudden Leap via ToB item
Chronocharm of the Horizon Walker(750g to add it to other magic items, 1/day, so....cheap)

Other options:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce-or-Free-Movement

Basically, Skirmish and SA are fully compatible damage types.


So my question is this: If I am generally only allowing T4s to gestalt with T5s, would a gestalt rogue/scout be a clearly superior gestalt. Or do the similarities between the classes diminish the benefits of the gestalt?

The similarities between the classes diminish the intent of Gestalt, imho, as Scout and Rogue are near-carbon-copies of one another. Worse, the combination is an explicit violation of your hard-standard. If it were me, I'd sooner allow Barbarian//Rogue or Barbarian//Scout than I'd allow Scout/Rogue.

Is it unbalanced? Maybe not. Probably not. Otoh, its a lot of cheap power, and cheap power will be "OP" in low-optimization groups, so.....maybe?

Is it completely missing the point? *DEFINITELY*

[Hackulator]

Perhaps I was unclear. You would definitely get to Tier 3, but you would not get out of Tier 3, i.e. by getting to Tier 1 or 2.

In 95% of games, you definitely would.

In the insane optimization level that people on this forum think games actually operate at, you would not.

[NomGarret]

Same difference. In 95% of games, people are playing around T3-T4, so this bizarre mess of a class, which would certainly be a strong T3, would be overpowered at those tables. This doesn't make it T2 on a more "absolute" scale.

[Hackulator]

Same difference. In 95% of games, people are playing around T3-T4, so this bizarre mess of a class, which would certainly be a strong T3, would be overpowered at those tables. This doesn't make it T2 on a more "absolute" scale.

People are still playing T1/T2 characters, they're just not optimizing them to silly gamebreaking levels and DMs are making rational RAI rulings to keep their game working. What T1/T2 actually is in practice is different than in the theorycrafting that goes on here. An "absolute" scale is amost meaningless in D&D cause all games are actually controlled by a DM.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A Scout will aim to full attack with Skirmish too; it's not that difficult. Travel Devotion and Pounce are the big ways, but there are a lot (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?473666-New-Scout-Handbook). As for Scout//Rogue... it's unnecessary. Even if Swift Ambusher (which lets you stack Rogue and Skirmish levels for the purposes of skirmish damage) isn't on the table, something like a Scout//Sneak Attack Fighter will probably be a superior choice.

As for the "all T4 and below" class, it would be "Tier 3 but broken." Both in the "your raw numbers will probably be much too high for most groups" sense, and in the "such a wild mishmash of class features you'll have trouble functioning" sense.You won't have the sort of strategic, campaign-breaking power of a full caster abusing divinations and minionmancy and the like, but you'll probably demolish any sort of combat encounter.

[NomGarret]

People are still playing T1/T2 characters, they're just not optimizing them to silly gamebreaking levels and DMs are making rational RAI rulings to keep their game working. What T1/T2 actually is in practice is different than in the theorycrafting that goes on here. An "absolute" scale is amost meaningless in D&D cause all games are actually controlled by a DM.

I think we agree but are just talking past each other. My point was that given average degrees of applied optimization and whatnot, most games are functionally played at a T3/T4 range. People are still playing wizards and clerics in those games, but not always at their full potential. Not that that's a bad thing.

So when we both say that hypothetical mismash class is overpowered for most normal play, if not for theoretical CharOp play, we're both making the same point from different angles.