Gestalt and IL (3.5) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

flappeercraft

2018-11-11, 01:45 PM

Essentially a discussion between me and a player, gone RAW thread, gone into its own thread. All the details have been explained in the quotes below.

Q352 How does gestalt interact with initiator levels?

Me and a player got into a bit of a discussion regarding this topic. I rather just not houserule and we both decided to take it here so here are our arguments.

I don't think most people realize this, but RAW initiating is more powerful than normal in gestalt, or at least it advances faster...because of the way Initiator level scales with other class levels.

Initiator level = total initiator class levels + 1/2 all other class levels.

So a generic gestalt 12 Warblade//12 Commoner (or any other class) gets level 9 maneuvers.

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work that way. For example, if you were to try and play as a Rogue on one side, and a Sneak Attack fighter on the other. The two sources of Sneak Attack will not end up stacking with each other, especially if you get them at the exact same level as each other. If I alternated the levels I took those classes with another class, it would end up working yes, but that's because I'm not getting +1d6 sneak attack from two different sources at once.

Hence, you don't get the +1/2 from the other class levels, just the total IL from your initiator classes.

That would be a reasonable house rule if we were going for a less cheesy game.

RAW is quite clear though. Gestalt prohibits progression in any class feature from "both sides" at the same time:

UA 73, "Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class."

However, all of the multiclass initiator levels are being added by the initiator side:
ToB 39, "If you are a multiclass martial adept, and you learn a new maneuver by attaining a new level in a martial adept class, determine your initiator level by adding together your level in that class + 1/2 your levels in all other classes. Look up the result on the table below to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can take. You still have to meet a maneuver’s prerequisite to learn it.

For example, a 7th-level Crusader/5th-level swordsage has an initiator level of 9th for determining the highest level maneuvers he can take as a crusader. As a result, he can take 5th-level crusader maneuvers. As a swordsage, his initiator level is 8th, allowing him to take 4th-level swordsage maneuvers.

This process applies to all of a character’s levels, whether they are in martial adept classes or other classes."

Actually after reading in many points the classes seem to work more like dual levels rather than separate. Also it is implied in many places that it is such. Meaning that each would be a level rather than two for the purposes for initiation.

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm), "Because the player of a gestalt character chooses two classes at every level, the possibilities for gestalt characters are almost limitless."

Please do correct me if you believe I am interpreting this wrong. Also keep in mind that I'm posting this from a place where the SRD is blocked so I had to use the classic google translate trick to get the info so the sentences might be wrong, possibly causing a misinterpretation.

12 Warblade//12 Commoner counts as a twelfth level character, yes. But at no time do they not also count as a fully 12th level level Warblade and a fully 12th level Commoner. It's Character level vs Class level.

Just as you could have a Paladin//Ranger gestalt with the Devoted Tracker feat. It adds class levels together for your mount and companion and also stacks them one animal so they advance much faster than normal. And you don't even need gestalt to pull this trick off, because in the RAW regular game you can prestige into Halfling Outrider to advance both at the same time and advance both features beyond your character level.

Well that would be by class level yes, I agree on the Devoted Tracker thing. However from the same page you posted I found something that would point towards the it wouldn't work like that, although it does not address gestalt.

ToB 39, ""If you lack any martial adept levels, your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character level.""

Although that does not go RAW it does imply by RAI. However I found another quote under the gestalt in the SRD that would back it up.

SRD, "Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics."

The initiator level progression is an aspect of the classes, so if you took 1 level in crusader and 1 level in barbarian rather than having it stack and gaining 1.5 you see one gains 1 and another 0.5, take the best which is 1. If you take rogue and barbarian both gain 0.5 so you take the best which regardless is 0.5.

I'm not saying that wouldn't be a reasonable house rule...That's not how it works RAW though.

If you don't have an initiating class level or the Martial Study feat, then you don't gain .5, rather you have no initiator level.

But...if you become an initiator later, you still get that .5 per level bonus. So it can't have anything to do with "Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics."

In your crusader/barbarian example, you gain 1 IL per crusader level, then the general Martial Power/Maneuver rules add the multiclass bonus. This does not truly come from either side, but if forced to assign it to one, it should clearly be the initiating class level.

A352

Core of the Debate: Do initiator levels stack "across the gestalt"?

I think this quote sums it up:

Based on this, you were right. If you build a Warblade 1 || Commoner 1, Warblade gives you 1 initiator level, and Commoner gives you 1/2 of an initiator level. You would pick the better value, which is 1, and you do not gain the lesser value on top of that.

If the player were later to do something like this: Warblade 3 || Commoner 2 / Swordsage 1, Then I would say the 2 Commoner levels can count as half-levels towards the Swordsage's IL; but that's an extrapolation of gestalt rules, and not strictly RAW.

Devoted Tracker works because it's a feat, not a class ability, and the gestalt rules were never expanded to cover scaling feat benefits. But, Initiator Level is a class feature, so it is beholden to the normal rules given for gestalt.

A352 addendum
Properly speaking, Initiator Level should stack just like caster level, it's just that all non-Initiating classes (and PrCs outside of the Bo9S, unless otherwise specified) count for half an Initiator level, whereas all classes either do or don't add a whole caster level. So just like how being a 20th level gestalt Bard/Sorcerer doesn't give you CL 40, being a Warblade 3|Commoner 2/Swordsage 1 doesn't give you an Initiator level of 4, 5, or any number other than 3 (each level, you got +1 IL because that's greater than +0.5, or +1 because it's equal to +1.) Only special rules, akin to the Sublime Chord's unique way of calculating CL, or the Abjurant Champion which *sets* your CL to your BAB (if that's higher than your normal CL), could cause you to have a higher IL than (# of levels where taking at least one Initiator class)+0.5×(#of levels where no class taken is an Initiator).

A352 Dispute

Here is the relevant RAW:

UA 73: "Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.
• Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class."

RAW, gaining .5 IL is not a class feature of any class.

Flappeercraft, do you want to start a discussion thread?

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2018-11-11, 02:06 PM

I think a very, very big part of the confusion is that there's no 'side' in gestalt, you simply combine two classes at each character level. There's absolutely no difference between a Warblade 3// Commoner 2/ Swordsage 1, and a Warblade 2/ Swordsage 1// Commoner 2/ Warblade 1, or a Warblade 1/ Commoner 1/ Swordsage 1// Commoner 1/ Warblade 2. It's just written as though there are 'sides' for ease of understanding and keeping track of your class levels.

With that said, let's get into the RAW:

ToB p5, right side of the page under Initiator Level: "Initiator level is functionally equivalent to caster level or manifester level -- it's simply the relevant class level of the partial adept who initiates the power."

ToB p39, under Multiclass Characters: "If you are a multiclass martial adept, and you learn a new maneuver by attaining a new level in a martial adept class, determine your initiator level by adding together your level in that class + 1/2 your levels in all other classes." ... "This process applies to all of a character's levels, whether they are in martial adept classes or other classes."

The important part of this is twofold:

1. Initiator level works like caster level or manifester level, in which it's universally accepted that you don't get to double-up on levels with a gestalt character. There's a strong precedent in place for not doubling up.

2. The part about determining initiator level for multiclass characters clarifies that it counts character levels and whether they've got a level of the relevant initiator class or not at a given character level. This means a Warblade//Commoner (or Commoner//Warblade) character level counts as 1 for your Warblade initiator level, and 1/2 for your non-Warblade initiator level.

Troacctid

2018-11-11, 02:06 PM

fallensavior

2018-11-11, 04:36 PM

ToB p5, right side of the page under Initiator Level: "Initiator level is functionally equivalent to caster level or manifester level -- it's simply the relevant class level of the partial adept who initiates the power."

I think the specific definition of IL on p39 trumps the general explanation of how to conceptualize it in the intro/primer chapter.

1. Initiator level works like caster level or manifester level, in which it's universally accepted that you don't get to double-up on levels with a gestalt character. There's a strong precedent in place for not doubling up.

Precedent is Rules As Interpreted. Granted, not "doubling up" is how it should be run in any reasonable game. Gestalt in general was surely designed to rely heavily on RAI rulings. However, Flappeercraft and I are participating in a "RAW to a fault" type game though, so I want to look at it in the strictest RAW sense possible.

2. The part about determining initiator level for multiclass characters clarifies that it counts character levels and whether they've got a level of the relevant initiator class or not at a given character level. This means a Warblade//Commoner (or Commoner//Warblade) character level counts as 1 for your Warblade initiator level, and 1/2 for your non-Warblade initiator level.

No. "Character levels" =/= "character's levels"

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2018-11-11, 04:43 PM

No. "Character levels" =/= "character's levels"

Yes. "This process applies to all of a character's levels, whether they are in martial adept classes or other classes."

RAW for each individual level the character has taken, you determine whether each one is in the relevant martial adept class (+1 IL) or if it doesn't contain the relevant martial adept class (+1/2 IL).

Blue Jay

2018-11-11, 06:33 PM

Only non-initiator class levels count towards the +1/2 IL. Initiator class levels are +1 instead. A level of Warblade // Commoner is a level in an initiator class. It provides +1 IL as normal for initiator classes.

This is the best answer, I think.

A level of Warblade || Commoner doesn't count as 1 level of Warblade and 1 level of Commoner: it counts as 1 level of "Warbladecommoner." You've effectively created a new class, and this new "Warbladecommoner" class is an initiator class. You can't say that it's also a non-initiator class. You no longer track the two "sides" of a gestalt level separately.

From the gestalt rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm): "If the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect."

Counting a level of Warblade || Commoner as both an initiator level and a non-initiator level is not taking the better aspect: it's claiming both aspects, which is exactly what the gestalt rules say you can't do.

fallensavior

2018-11-11, 07:10 PM

A level of Warblade || Commoner doesn't count as 1 level of Warblade and 1 level of Commoner: it counts as 1 level of "Warbladecommoner."

This answer goes too far, I think.

If this were true, then you wouldn't qualify for anything that lists a level prerequisite in a base class. Fighter 4||Commoner 4 couldn't take Weapon Specialization because they are not a Fighter. Warblade 1||Commoner 1 could take Adaptive Style because they are not a Warblade, etc.

No, it would be unacceptable to not count as having all of your class levels. And that's all that multiclass IL cares about, your class levels, since it is not a class feature of either class.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2018-11-11, 08:00 PM

Blue Jay

2018-11-12, 12:23 AM

This answer goes too far, I think.

If this were true, then you wouldn't qualify for anything that lists a level prerequisite in a base class. Fighter 4||Commoner 4 couldn't take Weapon Specialization because they are not a Fighter. Warblade 1||Commoner 1 could take Adaptive Style because they are not a Warblade, etc.

No, it would be unacceptable to not count as having all of your class levels. And that's all that multiclass IL cares about, your class levels, since it is not a class feature of either class.

The gestalt rules again:

The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap.

Qualifying for Fighter-only feats is a benefit of the Fighter class. You do not lose any aspects of either class when you gestalt, so a "Fightercommoner" would still qualify for feats as a Fighter.

The point is that you can't track the two "sides" of the gestalt separately for any purpose. I mashed the names together like that to signify that they're inseparable. You never get to count "Fighter" and "Commoner" independently anymore: you get only the better value of the two.

In my opinion, this has knock-on effects for those multiclass feats like Swift Hunter. That feat lets Ranger and Scout levels stack, and one of the results is what I would call a new "effective Scout level" for Skirmish. If you were allowed to stack Ranger and Scout levels across the gestalt (i.e. allow a 3rd-level Ranger||Scout to Skirmish as a 6th-level Scout), then that would be giving you two effective Scout levels at each level. But, by gestalt rules, you should only get the better aspect of the two classes, which means a level of "Rangerscout" should only grant 1 effective Scout level. To me, this means a gestalt character doesn't gain any benefit from Swift Hunter unless you multiclass away from Scout or Ranger at some point.

Raxxius

2018-11-12, 06:30 AM

The gestalt rules again:

The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap.

Qualifying for Fighter-only feats is a benefit of the Fighter class. You do not lose any aspects of either class when you gestalt, so a "Fightercommoner" would still qualify for feats as a Fighter.

The point is that you can't track the two "sides" of the gestalt separately for any purpose. I mashed the names together like that to signify that they're inseparable. You never get to count "Fighter" and "Commoner" independently anymore: you get only the better value of the two.

In my opinion, this has knock-on effects for those multiclass feats like Swift Hunter. That feat lets Ranger and Scout levels stack, and one of the results is what I would call a new "effective Scout level" for Skirmish. If you were allowed to stack Ranger and Scout levels across the gestalt (i.e. allow a 3rd-level Ranger||Scout to Skirmish as a 6th-level Scout), then that would be giving you two effective Scout levels at each level. But, by gestalt rules, you should only get the better aspect of the two classes, which means a level of "Rangerscout" should only grant 1 effective Scout level. To me, this means a gestalt character doesn't gain any benefit from Swift Hunter unless you multiclass away from Scout or Ranger at some point.

I think it's this as written.

Your initiator level determinant comes from one 'side' of your gestalt. You're double dipping and not taking the best side.

DarkSoul

2018-11-12, 11:41 AM

The gestalt rules again:

The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap.

Qualifying for Fighter-only feats is a benefit of the Fighter class. You do not lose any aspects of either class when you gestalt, so a "Fightercommoner" would still qualify for feats as a Fighter.

The point is that you can't track the two "sides" of the gestalt separately for any purpose. I mashed the names together like that to signify that they're inseparable. You never get to count "Fighter" and "Commoner" independently anymore: you get only the better value of the two.

In my opinion, this has knock-on effects for those multiclass feats like Swift Hunter. That feat lets Ranger and Scout levels stack, and one of the results is what I would call a new "effective Scout level" for Skirmish. If you were allowed to stack Ranger and Scout levels across the gestalt (i.e. allow a 3rd-level Ranger||Scout to Skirmish as a 6th-level Scout), then that would be giving you two effective Scout levels at each level. But, by gestalt rules, you should only get the better aspect of the two classes, which means a level of "Rangerscout" should only grant 1 effective Scout level. To me, this means a gestalt character doesn't gain any benefit from Swift Hunter unless you multiclass away from Scout or Ranger at some point.All of this. Any gestalt level grants a maximum of .5 IL if neither "side" is an initiator, or 1 IL maximum if one or both sides is an initiator class. The IL granted applies to any initiator classes chosen at that level. Crusader//Warblade is IL 1 for both classes. Warblade/Wizard is IL 1 Warblade. Warblade 1/Fighter 1//Wizard 2 is IL 1.5 Warblade.

liquidformat

2018-11-12, 12:12 PM

Honestly this is the type of argument that should be met by literally throwing a book if not a few books at the player. The rules are pretty clear and straightforward you either get +1 IL or +.5 IL not +1.5IL since they are the same ability.

flappeercraft

2018-11-12, 01:00 PM

Quertus

2018-11-12, 03:01 PM

1. Initiator level works like caster level or manifester level, in which it's universally accepted that you don't get to double-up on levels with a gestalt character. There's a strong precedent in place for not doubling up.

So, out of related curiosity, can someone take, say, Fighter 3 / Wizard 7 // Rogue 9 / Incantrix 1, and, if so, what would their caster level be?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2018-11-12, 04:26 PM

So, out of related curiosity, can someone take, say, Fighter 3 / Wizard 7 // Rogue 9 / Incantrix 1, and, if so, what would their caster level be?Going by that literal progression, on the 10th level you're combining a wizard level with an incantatrix level, meaning the wizard casting progression is redundant and you cast as a Wizard 7 (so, legal, but not recommended). If you shuffled it around and combined the incantatrix level with a fighter level, you'd instead cast as a wizard 8.

Blue Jay

2018-11-12, 04:31 PM

So, out of related curiosity, can someone take, say, Fighter 3 / Wizard 7 // Rogue 9 / Incantrix 1, and, if so, what would their caster level be?

Here's a visual of GBSD's answer.

If you build like this:

1. Fighter 1 || Rogue 1
2. Fighter 2 || Rogue 2
3. Fighter 3 || Rogue 3
4. Wizard 1 || Rogue 4 (+1 wizard CL)
5. Wizard 2 || Rogue 5 (+1 wizard CL)
6. Wizard 3 || Rogue 6 (+1 wizard CL)
7. Wizard 4 || Rogue 7 (+1 wizard CL)
8. Wizard 5 || Rogue 8 (+1 wizard CL)
9. Wizard 6 || Rogue 9 (+1 wizard CL)
10. Wizard 7 || Incantatrix 1 (+1 wizard CL)

...you get Wizard CL 7th, because the CL advances from Wizard and Incantatrix at 10th level are redundant.

But if you build like this:

1. Fighter 1 || Rogue 1
2. Fighter 2 || Rogue 2
3. Wizard 1 || Rogue 3 (+1 wizard CL)
4. Wizard 2 || Rogue 4 (+1 wizard CL)
5. Wizard 3 || Rogue 5 (+1 wizard CL)
6. Wizard 4 || Rogue 6 (+1 wizard CL)
7. Wizard 5 || Rogue 7 (+1 wizard CL)
8. Wizard 6 || Rogue 8 (+1 wizard CL)
9. Wizard 7 || Rogue 9 (+1 wizard CL)
10. Fighter 3 || Incantatrix 1 (+1 wizard CL)

...you would get Wizard CL 8th, because you didn't double up.

fallensavior

2018-11-14, 11:57 AM

Here's another visual.

If you build like this:

1. Fighter 1 || Rogue 1 (+0 IL)
2. Fighter 2 || Rogue 2 (+0 IL)
3. Fighter 3 || Rogue 3 (+0 IL)
4. Fighter 4 || Rogue 4 (+0 IL)
5. Fighter 5 || Rogue 5 (+0 IL)
6. Fighter 6 || Warblade 1 (+6 IL)

It doesn't work the same way as spellcasting. There is no multiclass caster level bonus.

razorback

2018-11-14, 12:05 PM

Here's another visual.

If you build like this:

1. Fighter 1 || Rogue 1 (+0 IL) (+.5 IL)
2. Fighter 2 || Rogue 2 (+0 IL)(+.5 IL)
3. Fighter 3 || Rogue 3 (+0 IL)(+.5 IL)
4. Fighter 4 || Rogue 4 (+0 IL)(+.5 IL)
5. Fighter 5 || Rogue 5 (+0 IL)(+.5 IL)
6. Fighter 6 || Warblade 1 (+6 IL)(+1 IL)

It doesn't work the same way as spellcasting. There is no multiclass caster level bonus.
This is how it would work. You'd have a Warblade initiator level of 3.5, or 3 when you round down. The way your trying to frame it, you would have BAB of 1.75 at every level except 6th which would give you 2, for a BAB of 10.75 at level 6. Neither way works in that fashion as you can't stack the 'halves' together in that way.

fallensavior

2018-11-15, 02:25 PM

This is how it would work. You'd have a Warblade initiator level of 3.5, or 3 when you round down. The way your trying to frame it, you would have BAB of 1.75 at every level except 6th which would give you 2, for a BAB of 10.75 at level 6. Neither way works in that fashion as you can't stack the 'halves' together in that way.

I think this is a terrible analogy.

BAB does not retroactively redefine itself from being fixed at 1/2 your character level, and then changing to be set at a tally of all your class levels midway through your build.

The closest analog is Abjurant Champion. Just as Abjurant Champion sets your CL at your BAB, the specific rules of how maneuvers work (no class features involved!) defines your IL as, depending on your class composition, either 1/2 character level, full character level, or martial adept level + 1/2 all other class levels. Full stop.

It seems insisting otherwise relies on a RAI definition of "class feature" of RAIing gestalt in general. But remember, our stated goal is to find the RAW-to-a-fault answer.

Lapak

2018-11-15, 02:59 PM

From the gestalt rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm): "If the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect."

Counting a level of Warblade || Commoner as both an initiator level and a non-initiator level is not taking the better aspect: it's claiming both aspects, which is exactly what the gestalt rules say you can't do.
This is the most relevant answer. 'When things overlap, you take the better but don't get both' is for exactly this kind of situation.

Any gestalt level with an initiator on at least one side counts as a +1 for that type of initiator level, any gestalt level without an initiator on one side counts as +0.5.

ezekielraiden

2018-11-15, 03:03 PM

exelsisxax

2018-11-15, 03:13 PM

PunBlake

2018-11-15, 03:27 PM

[...T]he specific rules of how maneuvers work (no class features involved!) defines your IL as, depending on your class composition, either 1/2 character level, full character level, or martial adept level + 1/2 all other class levels. Full stop.

You're arguing that each class portion of a gestalt character level provides +0.5 IL. Remove the word "class" from the final portion of the definition you provided, as gestalt combines multiple classes worth of features into each character level. Any gestalt level without Initiator class features as part of the package should grant +0.5 IL, while any gestalt level with Initiator class features as part of the package should grant +1.0 IL.

It seems insisting otherwise relies on a RAI definition of "class feature" of RAIing gestalt in general. But remember, our stated goal is to find the RAW-to-a-fault answer.

Gestalt makes RAW complicated, and ToB isn't written that well. I'm AFB or I'd be quoting relevant passages in UA's gestalt rules and ToB (~p39, where your definition comes from).

Rijan_Sai

2018-11-15, 03:30 PM

wizard 4, because wizard//wizard doesn't stack to +2 wizard, as per gestalt rules. MS2//wiz 5 is (assuming character level 5) just a wizard 5(with extra spells, maybe), so 3rd level spells.

Not even extra spells, as Master Specialist advances spellcasting "...as if you has also gained a level in he wizard class." That would be part of the overlap they've been talking about.

MS2//Wiz5 would gain the standard wizard bonus feat at that level (unless traded out for an ACF, of course.)

exelsisxax

2018-11-16, 08:54 AM

Not even extra spells, as Master Specialist advances spellcasting "...as if you has also gained a level in he wizard class." That would be part of the overlap they've been talking about.

MS2//Wiz5 would gain the standard wizard bonus feat at that level (unless traded out for an ACF, of course.)

MS has expanded spellbook, so you'd get your wizard spells from wizard side, plus one from that feature at MS 2.

Rijan_Sai

2018-11-16, 11:04 AM

MS has expanded spellbook, so you'd get your wizard spells from wizard side, plus one from that feature at MS 2.

Oh yes, I see! Somehow, I've always overlooked that! So in correction, the prior mentioned build would have exactly 1 extra wizard spell at MS 2//Wiz 5, would still have a CL of 5 and be able to cast L3 wizard spells.

Also, something that has ben bugging mw from the beginning:

The first post mentioned a sample build of Warblade 3 // Commoner 2 / Swordsage 1, with the question of the IL for the classes.

It would be an IL of 3 for Warblade, and 2 for Swordsage. (It's been bothering me since (from my perspective*) it seems like the rest of this thread has been treating "Initiator Level" as one single factor for all levels in Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader, while all three have their own IL for maneuvers (just like there is different CL for levels in Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric.) Gestalt does not change that part of the equation(s).)

*Again, just the way I've been reading it...

PunBlake

2018-11-16, 11:52 AM

It would be an IL of 3 for Warblade, and 2 for Swordsage. (It's been bothering me since (from my perspective*) it seems like the rest of this thread has been treating "Initiator Level" as one single factor for all levels in Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader, while all three have their own IL for maneuvers (just like there is different CL for levels in Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric.) Gestalt does not change that part of the equation(s).)

*Again, just the way I've been reading it...

This is, in my reading, true (and comes from the multiclass initiator rules, ToB p39), but I think our discussion-limiting here is likely because it is more important to focus on Initiator level for any class being limited by character level than it is to point this out. Major game-breaking problem vs correct but important minor distinction that can muddy the importance of the major argument.

fallensavior

2018-11-19, 11:24 AM

Then let's take a different tack. The Master Specialist PrC kicks in as early as character level 4 for a Wizard. Let us then consider the following build:

1. Fighter 1/Wizard 1
2. Fighter 2/Wizard 2
3. Fighter 3/Wizard 3
4. Master Specialist 1/Wizard 4

What is this character's Wizard caster level?
If she proceeds to take Master Specialist 2/Wizard 5, what is the highest level of spells she can cast?

That's not apples to apples. Arcane spellcasting is a class feature of both Wizard and Master Specialist; whereas initiating is only a class feature of Warblade in my example.

RAW gestalt ONLY changes HD, BAB, base saves, and class features. That's it.

You're arguing that each class portion of a gestalt character level provides +0.5 IL. Remove the word "class" from the final portion of the definition you provided, as gestalt combines multiple classes worth of features into each character level.

The gestalt rules say nothing about class level vs character level. Also, as far as RAI, we've already gone over above how it is unacceptable to count a gestalt character as not being their full class level in all of their classes.

Blue Jay

2018-11-19, 03:32 PM

That's not apples to apples. Arcane spellcasting is a class feature of both Wizard and Master Specialist; whereas initiating is only a class feature of Warblade in my example.

There is an argument for the idea that ToB retroactively assigns "half Initiator Level" as a class feature of all non-Initiating classes. Another argument could be made (and will be made by me below) that gestalt rules do not only apply to things that are specifically labeled as "class features," anyway.

But, as a general rule, you should be wary of interpreting the specific wording of things from Tome of Battle. It can get really messy.

For example, the rules actually present contradictory formulas for calculating initiator level:

If you are a single-class Initiator, your Initiator level equals your class level.
If you have no levels in an Initiating class, your Initiator level is equal to half your character level
If you multiclass, your Initiator level is equal to your initiating class levels + (other class levels) / 2

The contradiction only shows up when you consider characters with racial Hit Dice, because the formula for multiclass characters doesn't count RHD, but the formula for characters without martial adept levels does.

So, a centaur 4 / fighter 2 has IL 3
But a centaur 4 / fighter 2 / warblade 1 has IL 2

The centaur will lose an initiator level by multiclassing into a martial adept class, because doing so made him switch to a formula that doesn't count his RHD.

ToB should always be read from a RAI perspective, because strict RAW is problematic in many ways for that book.

RAW gestalt ONLY changes HD, BAB, base saves, and class features. That's it.

The gestalt rules use the generic term "aspect" in several key places:

... if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect...

...Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics.

Note the "such as" in the list of aspects: these are examples of aspects, not an exhaustive list of everything that counts as an aspect. So there's really no justification for the idea that something has to be specifically labeled as a "class feature" to be subject to these rules.

fallensavior

2018-11-20, 02:26 PM

ToB should always be read from a RAI perspective, because strict RAW is problematic in many ways for that book.

This is true; however, the scope of this thread is to determine not how it should be played, but rather what the strict RAW is, even if that is problematic.

exelsisxax

2018-11-20, 02:43 PM

This is true; however, the scope of this thread is to determine not how it should be played, but rather what the strict RAW is, even if that is problematic.

RAI and RAW are the same: there is no way to move your IL above your level. Gestalt doesn't change anything about how you arrive at the IL compared to normal situations. The only time it gets wierd is with RHD, because they are not class levels and do contribute to character level. With gestalt, the class/character distinction doesn't matter because gestalt doesn't give you 2 class levels, it gives you the features of 2 classes at once. The rules give the same answer for considering both class and character level.

fallensavior

2018-11-23, 09:43 AM

RAI and RAW are the same: there is no way to move your IL above your level.

Where is this rule written?

DarkSoul

2018-11-23, 11:29 AM

Where is this rule written?On the same page as the one saying you get 1.5 IL from Warblade//Commoner.

Every single person who has responded in this thread has said the same thing, and you don't want to accept the answer.

At this point you need to ask your DM how it's going to work instead of trying to beat him into submission with "but the internet says!"

The discussion should have been over when it was pointed out that the rules explicitly state that IL is functionally equivalent to caster level; treat them like caster levels, and therefore as a class feature, and take the best progression.

fallensavior

2018-11-23, 12:03 PM

On the same page as the one saying you get 1.5 IL from Warblade//Commoner.

Every single person who has responded in this thread has said the same thing, and you don't want to accept the answer.

At this point you need to ask your DM how it's going to work instead of trying to beat him into submission with "but the internet says!"

The discussion should have been over when it was pointed out that the rules explicitly state that IL is functionally equivalent to caster level; treat them like caster levels, and therefore as a class feature, and take the best progression.

It absolutely does not say "initiator level can never go over character level" on that page. Furthermore, caster level is explicitly not capped by character level. Having X levels of spellcaster progression and casting spells at caster level X+1 is very common.

Let's compare with Sword of the Arcane Order:

"If you also have levels in wizard, your wizard caster level is treated as the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels."

Suppose you have a gestalt Wizard 10|Ranger 10. Their caster level is 20, plain as day. That they have only progressed Wizard spellcasting 20 levels from one side of the gestalt is completely irrelevant. Multiclass Initiator Level works the same manner (but with a different equation) by default.

If you are a multiclass martial adept,...determine your initiator level by adding together your level in that class + 1/2 your levels in all other classes.

The discussion should have been over when it was pointed out that the RAW is broken.

DarkSoul

2018-11-23, 01:29 PM

Let's compare with Sword of the Arcane Order:

Suppose you have a gestalt Wizard 10|Ranger 10. Their caster level is 20, plain as day. That they have only progressed Wizard spellcasting 20 levels from one side of the gestalt is completely irrelevant. Multiclass Initiator Level works the same manner (but with a different equation) by default.If you honestly believe this, then you DEFINITELY need to just find out what your DM's ruling is rather than asking here.

Troacctid

2018-11-23, 01:44 PM

Let's compare with Sword of the Arcane Order:

Suppose you have a gestalt Wizard 10|Ranger 10. Their caster level is 20, plain as day.
Incorrect. Only 10 of their levels are wizard, ranger, or paladin levels. Their caster level is 10.

Raxxius

2018-11-23, 02:14 PM

Forum ate my reply :smallfrown:

Basically it's important to note that Gestalt characters are still essentially Single-classed and not multiclassed as per the definition of what multiclassing is, so giving them the multiclass progression is wrong.

Ergo a warblade/commoner is still a single-classed character and takes the initiator level of 1. He is not multiclassed here as the definition of multiclassing as written is:

A character may add new classes as he or she progresses in level, thus becoming a multiclass character. The class abilities from a character’s different classes combine to determine a multiclass character’s overall abilities. Multiclassing improves a character’s versatility at the expense of focus.

fallensavior

2018-11-24, 09:57 AM

If you honestly believe this, then you DEFINITELY need to just find out what your DM's ruling is rather than asking here.

Maybe you missed the RAW-to-a-fault premise of this discussion, but my DM is the one that started this thread.

Incorrect. Only 10 of their levels are wizard, ranger, or paladin levels. Their caster level is 10.

No. You always get your class levels. A class level in Ranger and a class level in Wizard are not aspects of the classes that overlap.

That being said, your ruling obviously matches RAI, and is definitely how everyone should do it in a normal game.

Forum ate my reply :smallfrown:

Basically it's important to note that Gestalt characters are still essentially Single-classed and not multiclassed as per the definition of what multiclassing is, so giving them the multiclass progression is wrong.

Ergo a warblade/commoner is still a single-classed character and takes the initiator level of 1. He is not multiclassed here as the definition of multiclassing as written is:

That is an interesting point, but even if granted, it would not apply to the Fighter 6|Rogue5/Warblade1 example, or any of the other martial adept examples with more than two classes listed.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2018-11-24, 10:35 AM

I don't think "RAW-to-a-fault" gets you where you want to be. Vague rules text with no room for interpretation or judgment does not produce the desired result; it produces no result at all, because the rules are incomplete. The Air Bud rule does not apply to RAW discussions. A lack of explicit rules text does not mean you take the most permissive possible ruling; it means interpretation/adjudication is required. In a certain sense, the rule is clear: It's forcing a judgment call to occur. See the "such as" line in the "overlapping" clause. The writer of the gestalt rules couldn't be bothered to include every instance of overlapping and so explicitly put adjudication work on the GM, who needs to "complete" the set of rules using her judgment. What that means is that if you don't allow for some reasonable interpretation of the text, no definitive answer is possible.

Thankfully, actual tables - and even normal rules threads - allow for a modicum of interpretation. We don't need a GM per se; we just need to think like one. This would allow for a discussion of precedent, related text, preponderance of evidence, and so on to determine what else might be included as overlapping aspects. But an entirely robotic, literal reading would not.

Aside: You'll find these sort of half-baked "eh, figure it out" rules far more common in certain other games, and in the rest of UA. I don't like it at all, especially while GMing. I'm supposed to be doing umpteen things and now I'm supposed to do the game designing that I paid for, on the fly. Even rules lite systems can avoid this problem with clear, all-encompassing rules; and if I think the rule is bad I can choose to break it. See my sig.

Raxxius

2018-11-24, 11:22 AM

That is an interesting point, but even if granted, it would not apply to the Fighter 6|Rogue5/Warblade1 example, or any of the other martial adept examples with more than two classes listed.

From a pure RAW there isn't really a debate.

The opening paragraph of Gestalt rules in UA 3.5 bolded for relevance.

In this high-powered campaign variant, characters essentially take two classes at every level, choosing the best aspects of each.
The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. If the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap

RAW Gestalt is defined as similar to multiclassing. Ergo it is defined as not multiclassing.

Moving onto fighter 6:rogue 5/warblade 1 there is still the RAW procedure.

Fighter:Rogue by definition is not multiclass, therefore it either falls into singleclass rules or has no rules regulating Initiator level. While the RAW clearly define Gestalt as not multiclass, it's never RAW indicated that the combinational class is not a single class in it's own right. If you a find a point in the rules, please do highlight the paragraph.

You're then left in the situation of having a few paths of rules to follow for defining initiator level. a fighter:rogue isn't multiclass, and therefore has to be a single class that doesn't gain initiator levels When gaining the next level and going warblade:rogue, the character has not multiclassed, so you're left with two readings.

One is that now because the Gestalt class is a single class providing initiation, it's class level is it's IL, giving you an IL of 6, in line with your Gestalt level, going by RAW this is certainly a potential reading of the rules, all be it super cheesy.

Another other is that you take the reading of

Your initiator level equals your level in the class provides access to martial maneuvers

and as you only have one IL level, you're IL is 1. Sucks to be you.

The third option (most commonly used here) is to add up your imitator levels and half your non-imitator levels like multiclassing. But strickly speaking I think this is RAI as the language is:

If you lack any martial adept levels your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character levels

so by RAW this actually doesn't work. Your IL level is 6 or 1 depending on the reading of the rules.

Bit more on Gestalting:

A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level,
he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics.

This is distinctly differentiated from multiclassing as defined in the players handbook. RAW Gestalt characters can't multiclass, they can only Gestalt, taking the best features from two classes and combining to a single class. Your IL will only ever be 1 for the times your Gestalt level picks an initiator class to take features and 1/2 for the time when you pick non-initiator classes.

How this works in terms of defining IL in Gestalts who dip into and out of taking initiator class features isn't actually written, so can only be interpreted. However Gestalt rules to define that you only have a single character level, this is constant throughout the Gestalt chapeter, refering to monk/sorcer at level 1, the rogue/cleric at 1st level.

The concept of two sides has been an unofficial book keeping aid and doesn't feature at all in RAW, where characters are always referenced with a single level.

By all means if you have a reference which refers to Gestalting as following the rules of, or being a variant of multiclassing, else as by RAW they are not. Everything else is RAI, which is outside the scope of the discussion.

Raxxius

2018-11-24, 11:56 AM

No. You always get your class levels. A class level in Ranger and a class level in Wizard are not aspects of the classes that overlap.

That being said, your ruling obviously matches RAI, and is definitely how everyone should do it in a normal game.

Sorry to double dip, but again as RAW you don't get two class levels. You get one class level with the features of two classes.

characters essentially take two classes at every level

Again by adding the word essentially, they're stating that you actually do not take two actual classes. A Gestalt Ranger/Wizard is neither a Ranger or a Wizard. So by strict RAW you wouldn't benefit from SoAO because you have no Ranger levels.

A lot of confusion from Gestalt is from people saying 'Oh it's 2nd Ed Multi-classing rules'. It's similar but its not 2nd ed rules, you don't get multiple levels to track, you're not a ranger 6/wizard 6, you're a ranger/wizard 6. This is how it's written in UA (actually it's written in the style of 6th level Ranger/Wizard).

Cosi

2018-11-24, 12:23 PM

Again by adding the word essentially, they're stating that you actually do not take two actual classes. A Gestalt Ranger/Wizard is neither a Ranger or a Wizard. So by strict RAW you wouldn't benefit from SoAO because you have no Ranger levels.

By strict RAW, you couldn't take Sword of the Arcane Order, because you don't have any Ranger levels and the feat requires you to be a 4th level Ranger. Since the prerequisites of the feat include "has a Ranger level", the fact that you have taken it at all implies you have Ranger level, and the fact that you can be said to have a Ranger level at least strongly suggests you also have a Wizard level. And if you have both a Wizard level and a Ranger level, Sword of the Arcane Order sets your Wizard caster level to the sum of those two levels. I don't think there's a consistent interpretation of the rules where you can take the feat, but it doesn't work.

All that said, I don't think this is super relevant to OP's issue. The notion that you could in fact phrase things so that the ability works in some particular way doesn't make it more likely that it works in that particular way, it just makes it all the clearer it doesn't (unless it actually is phrased to work in that way).

Florian

2018-11-24, 12:47 PM

Oh, man, i ain´t that hard to understand.

Grab a PHB, in the beginning of the "Class" section is a general advancement scheme of what you gain from 1-20 as part of the general advancement aside from what class(es) give you, so feats and ability improvement.

When using the rules for Gestalt, Tristalt, whatever, it is this particular section that gets replaced by the specifics of the subsystem you now use, but the rules still reference back to it, because "Level" is still based on the general advancement scheme, not the class table(s).

Whether using one class, Gestalt, Tristalt, the general advancement is still only from 1-20... ONCE.

@S**t like the Sword of the Arcane Order feat:

The basic Gestalt rules forbid dual-progression PrC, because they don't make any sense in the context of the replaced advancement scheme. The rules are very early edition and didn't know combined advancement feats yet (Swift Hunter, Daring Outlaw, you name it). Just because they were not explicitly named (because they didn't exist and were never updated), why should they differ in handling from how PrC are excepted from the rules?

Nifft

2018-11-24, 01:07 PM

Oh, man, i ain´t that hard to understand.

Grab a PHB, in the beginning of the "Class" section is a general advancement scheme of what you gain from 1-20 as part of the general advancement aside from what class(es) give you, so feats and ability improvement.

When using the rules for Gestalt, Tristalt, whatever, it is this particular section that gets replaced by the specifics of the subsystem you now use, but the rules still reference back to it, because "Level" is still based on the general advancement scheme, not the class table(s).

Whether using one class, Gestalt, Tristalt, the general advancement is still only from 1-20... ONCE.

Yes, this.

Additionally:

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

... so when two different classes give a thing, such as Warblade giving +1 IL and Commoner giving +0.5 IL, you get the max, not the sum.

Troacctid

2018-11-24, 02:39 PM

By strict RAW, you couldn't take Sword of the Arcane Order, because you don't have any Ranger levels and the feat requires you to be a 4th level Ranger. Since the prerequisites of the feat include "has a Ranger level", the fact that you have taken it at all implies you have Ranger level, and the fact that you can be said to have a Ranger level at least strongly suggests you also have a Wizard level. And if you have both a Wizard level and a Ranger level, Sword of the Arcane Order sets your Wizard caster level to the sum of those two levels. I don't think there's a consistent interpretation of the rules where you can take the feat, but it doesn't work.
A Ranger/Wizard level is a Ranger level.

Cosi

2018-11-24, 03:09 PM

A Ranger/Wizard level is a Ranger level.

No, it's not. It's a Ranger//Wizard level. That's like a Ranger level in many ways -- if you wanted to take a feat that required you to have Favored Enemy, or qualify for a PrC which had Hide in Plain Sight as a prerequisite it would allow you to do so -- but it's not a Ranger level. Or at least, there's a strong RAW argument that it's not a Ranger level. If it is a Ranger level, you 100% get double Wizard CL from Sword of the Arcane Order, because that feat sets your Wizard CL to "the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels". It doesn't care if some of those Ranger levels are hypothetically Wizard or Paladin levels, it just cares how many you have. And since the Ranger//Wizard has (at 10th level) 10 levels that are Wizard levels and 10 levels that are Ranger levels, he gets a Wizard CL of 20. Or he can't take Sword of the Arcane Order at all, because he doesn't have any Ranger levels. But there's no reading of the rules where he can take it, but doesn't double-count Gestalt levels.

Florian

2018-11-24, 03:10 PM

@Cosi:

Same as with Mythic Theurge, Sword doesn't work, same reasons.

Cosi

2018-11-24, 03:15 PM

@Cosi:

Same as with Mythic Theurge, Sword doesn't work, same reasons.

Sword doesn't work with Mystic Theurge (unless there's some "Mythic Theurge" thing you actually mean) because Mystic Theurge levels aren't Wizard levels or Ranger levels and it specifically asks about the sum of your Wizard and Ranger (and Paladin) levels. That cannot possibly be the reason it does not work with a Gestalt Wizard//Ranger, as for a Gestalt Wizard//Ranger to take Sword of the Arcane Order at all, we must believe in a rules interpretation under which such a character has a Ranger level.

Nifft

2018-11-24, 03:17 PM

@Cosi:

Same as with Mythic Theurge, Sword doesn't work, same reasons.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#classFeatures

A gestalt character can’t combine two prestige classes at any level, although it’s okay to combine a prestige class and a regular class. 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. Because it’s possible for gestalt characters to qualify for prestige classes earlier than normal, the game master is entirely justified in toughening the prerequisites of a prestige class so it’s available only after 5th level, even for gestalt characters.

Mystic Theurge doesn't work because the DM is advised to prohibit Mystic Theurge.

There is no such prohibition advice for Sword of the Arcane Order.

Troacctid

2018-11-24, 03:25 PM

No, it's not. It's a Ranger//Wizard level. That's like a Ranger level in many ways -- if you wanted to take a feat that required you to have Favored Enemy, or qualify for a PrC which had Hide in Plain Sight as a prerequisite it would allow you to do so -- but it's not a Ranger level. Or at least, there's a strong RAW argument that it's not a Ranger level. If it is a Ranger level, you 100% get double Wizard CL from Sword of the Arcane Order, because that feat sets your Wizard CL to "the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels". It doesn't care if some of those Ranger levels are hypothetically Wizard or Paladin levels, it just cares how many you have. And since the Ranger//Wizard has (at 10th level) 10 levels that are Wizard levels and 10 levels that are Ranger levels, he gets a Wizard CL of 20. Or he can't take Sword of the Arcane Order at all, because he doesn't have any Ranger levels. But there's no reading of the rules where he can take it, but doesn't double-count Gestalt levels.
A gestalt level is a level of both classes, so a gestalt ranger level is a ranger level, and when you add up all your levels that are wizard, ranger, or paladin levels, you get 10.

Cosi

2018-11-24, 03:33 PM

A gestalt level is a level of both classes, so a gestalt ranger level is a ranger level, and when you add up all your levels that are wizard, ranger, or paladin levels, you get 10.

It is true that if you add those things up, that is the number you get. However, that is not what the feat asks you to add up. The feat asks you for the number of your levels that are Wizard levels (10), the number of your levels that are Ranger levels (10), and the number of your levels that are Paladin levels (0), and sets the sum of those things (20) as your Wizard caster level. Read the feat. That explains what the feat does. Your version is close, but not what the feat does.

Nifft

2018-11-24, 03:37 PM

It is true that if you add those things up, that is the number you get. However, that is not what the feat asks you to add up. The feat asks you for the number of your levels that are Wizard levels (10), the number of your levels that are Ranger levels (10), and the number of your levels that are Paladin levels (0), and sets the sum of those things (20) as your Wizard caster level. Read the feat. That explains what the feat does. Your version is close, but not what the feat does.

I think under Gestalt the feat does exactly what Troacctid says.

If you want to play RAW hardball, then a Ranger//Wizard level isn't a Ranger level nor a Wizard level -- it's a Gestalt Ranger//Wizard level which uses Ranger and Wizard as input.

If you want to look at RAI in good faith, then Gestalt rules tell you not to double-count levels. Adapting the feat for Gestalt would get you 10 qualifying levels total.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-24, 04:28 PM

Unearthed Arcana, pg. 72, Gestalt Characters: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)

In this high-powered campaign variant, characters essentially
take two classes at every level, choosing the best aspects of each.
The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters
gain the full benefi ts of each class at each level. If the two classes
you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack
progression, saves, and class features common to more than one
class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains
all aspects that don’t overlap.

Unearth Arcana, pg. 73, Building a Gestalt Character (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#buildingAGestaltCharacter)

A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains
2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level,
he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies
them to his characteristics.

Tome of Battle, pg 39, Multiclass Characters:

Even when you gain levels in a class that does not grant
martial maneuvers, your understanding of the martial
disciplines still increases. A highly skilled fighter has the
basic combat training and experience needed to master
advanced maneuvers.

Tome of Battle, pg. 40, Recovering Expended Maneuvers

Multiclass Martial Adept: A character with two or more
martial adept classes keeps track of his readied maneuvers,
expended maneuvers, and recovery of expended maneuvers
separately for each class.

Under Gestalt rules, a character's initiator level qualifies as an overlapping class feature because it is granted by both martial adepts, and non-martial adepts.

Each time you gain a level, you choose the better of the two rates at which overlapping features accrue. Any level in which you take a martial adept and a non-martial adept, your initiator level goes up by 1. Any level in which you both of your classes is a non-martial adept, your initiator level goes up by 1/2.

Thus:
Warblade 5/Fighter 3//Ranger 4/Swordsage 4

1. Warblade 1//Ranger 1 = WB IL 1
2. Warblade 2//Ranger 2 = WB IL 2
3. Warblade 3//Ranger 3 = WB IL 3
4. Figher 1//Ranger 4 = WB IL 3
5. Warblade 4//Swordsage 1 = WB IL 4//SS IL 3
6. Fighter 1//Swordsage 2 = WB IL 5//SS IL 4
7. Warblade 5//Swordsage 3 = WB IL 6//SS IL 5
8. Figher 3//Swordsage 4 = WB IL 6//SS IL 6

Cosi

2018-11-24, 04:35 PM

If you want to play RAW hardball, then a Ranger//Wizard level isn't a Ranger level nor a Wizard level -- it's a Gestalt Ranger//Wizard level which uses Ranger and Wizard as input.

Well, yes, I've pointed that out several times. Troacctid claims that such a level is a Ranger level, and my argument follows from that premise.

If you want to look at RAI in good faith, then Gestalt rules tell you not to double-count levels. Adapting the feat for Gestalt would get you 10 qualifying levels total.

If you want to have a RAI/Houserule discussion about the spirit of Gestalt, then sure, I'd agree with you. But that's not the argument Troacctid is making. The argument Troacctid is making is that the RAW function of the feat is to count a level if it has any of the tags, rather than to count the number of levels with any tag, and that argument is wrong. If she just wanted to say that you should rule the feat to not work, that would be fine. My problem is with people making bad arguments in an attempt to argue that thinks that are broken by RAW are secretly not broken.

Nifft

2018-11-24, 04:50 PM

If you want to have a RAI/Houserule discussion about the spirit of Gestalt, then sure, I'd agree with you. But that's not the argument Troacctid is making.

Since using Gestalt at all requires importing a non-RAW houserule in the first place, I think it's not useful to try to segregate between RAW and houserules in the context of Gestalt.

I do agree with you that RAW and Gestalt are incompatible.

The argument Troacctid is making is that the RAW function of the feat is to count a level if it has any of the tags, rather than to count the number of levels with any tag A mild point of order -- you just said the same thing in two different ways.

For an RAW-compatible interpretation, I'd suggest viewing the feat's summation conditions as a filter:

If you also have levels in wizard, your wizard caster level is treated as the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels.

Sum up all character levels where the level is (Wizard or Paladin or Ranger).

Wizard//Ranger -> qualifies, increment caster level by +1

Cleric//Paladin -> qualifies, increment caster level by +1

Adept//Commoner -> does not qualify

Florian

2018-11-24, 08:36 PM

@Cosi:

Again: You replace the general advancement table from the PHB with the specific advancement table for Gestalt. What Troacctid is trying to say goes back to the same root: You still only have one level 1 to 20 progression, which each class level being a "gestalt" of two classes. What you don´t have are two parallel 1 to 20 progressions. To create this "gestalt" of two classes, you follow a set of rules, namely always closing the better value, discard doublet class features and such. In addition, it is suggested not to allow dual-progression PrC into a Gestalt, because you a) already use dual progression and b) run into the double problem much harder.

So, for the original IL question, it means that Swordsage10//Wizard10 is a Gestalt level 10, made up of equally "gestalted" Swordsage and Wizard levels. This makes it 10x CL0 + CL1 (we drop the CL0) and 10x IL 10 and 10x IL 0,5 (we drop the IL 0,5), for a grand total of IL10/CL10.

Now what you consider Sword to be doing, is forcing a double situation. Ranger 10 // Wizard 10 is a Gestalt level 10 character, with each level "gestalted" from Ranger and Wizard levels. Without the feat, you'll end with a Ranger CL of 6 and a Wizard CL of 10, no double problem. With Sword, you would force a double situation and had to resolve it by following the Gestalt rules. Once you start to treat your Ranger levels as "+1 Wizard level", then your gestalt would look like: +1 Ranger/+1 Wizard // +1 Wizard. Now that would no work, because you'd have to eliminate doubles, making it +1 Wizard only.

Cosi

2018-11-24, 08:53 PM

Florian, it doesn't say "eliminate all doubling", it says "eliminate doubling from class features". A feat is not a class feature. Your interpretation would suggest that, for example, that a Sorcerer//Wizard taking Extra Spell (nerveskitter) to add it to his list of Sorcerer spells known would remove it from his list of Wizard spells known because that's a "double situation". In this specific case, you're also wrong because the feat isn't causing Ranger levels to "count as" Wizard levels somehow, it's computing a quantity from sources including "Wizard level" and "Ranger level" and setting another quantity ("Wizard caster level") equal to the computed value. It's not increasing your Wizard-ing, it's replacing your Wizard-ing, and even then only partially.

Sum up all character levels where the level is (Wizard or Paladin or Ranger).

Again, yes, that math gives you the answer you want. But that is not the math the feat asks you to do. It asks you for three values: your number of Wizard class levels, your number of Ranger class levels, and your number of Paladin class levels.

Here, for reference, is the text:

If you also have levels in wizard, your wizard caster level is treated as the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels.

I don't see how people are reading that as an or. It's clearly an and. It doesn't say "the sum of your wizard, paladin, or ranger class levels", it says "the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels". The word "and" is in the text of the feat. Saying that it's an or by RAW is just absurd.

So the relevant question (from a strict RAW point of view, I agree that in practice you should probably rule otherwise, but that's a houserule) is how many of each of those kinds of levels does a 10th level Wizard//Ranger have?

There are two reasonable answers. One answer is 0, because he has 10 Wizard//Ranger levels and no levels in Ranger or Wizard. The other answer is 10, either because he has 10 Ranger levels or because his Wizard//Ranger levels "count as" Ranger levels in some sense (and ditto for Wizard).

Since the feat requires that you be a 4th level Ranger to take it, we can discard the first case as irrelevant for the purposes of our analysis -- you can't switch between "they're Ranger levels" when taking the feat and "they're Wizard//Ranger levels" when using the feat. That means the character has a Ranger class level of 10, and a Wizard class level of 10, and the sum of 10 and 10 is 20. Which means that, by RAW, his Wizard caster level is 20. Or, he just can't take the feat at all and it has no effect. But there's no reading of the text where RAW allows you to take the feat, but doesn't double your caster level.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-24, 09:07 PM

Florian, it doesn't say "eliminate all doubling", it says "eliminate doubling from class features". A feat is not a class feature. Your interpretation would suggest that, for example, that a Sorcerer//Wizard taking Extra Spell (nerveskitter) to add it to his list of Sorcerer spells known would remove it from his list of Wizard spells known because that's a "double situation". In this specific case, you're also wrong because the feat isn't causing Ranger levels to "count as" Wizard levels somehow, it's computing a quantity from sources including "Wizard level" and "Ranger level" and setting another quantity ("Wizard caster level") equal to the computed value. It's not increasing your Wizard-ing, it's replacing your Wizard-ing, and even then only partially.

Again, yes, that math gives you the answer you want. But that is not the math the feat asks you to do. It asks you for three values: your number of Wizard class levels, your number of Ranger class levels, and your number of Paladin class levels.

Here, for reference, is the text:

I don't see how people are reading that as an or. It's clearly an and. It doesn't say "the sum of your wizard, paladin, or ranger class levels", it says "the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels". The word "and" is in the text of the feat. Saying that it's an or by RAW is just absurd.

So the relevant question (from a strict RAW point of view, I agree that in practice you should probably rule otherwise, but that's a houserule) is how many of each of those kinds of levels does a 10th level Wizard//Ranger have?

There are two reasonable answers. One answer is 0, because he has 10 Wizard//Ranger levels and no levels in Ranger or Wizard. The other answer is 10, either because he has 10 Ranger levels or because his Wizard//Ranger levels "count as" Ranger levels in some sense (and ditto for Wizard).

Since the feat requires that you be a 4th level Ranger to take it, we can discard the first case as irrelevant for the purposes of our analysis -- you can't switch between "they're Ranger levels" when taking the feat and "they're Wizard//Ranger levels" when using the feat. That means the character has a Ranger class level of 10, and a Wizard class level of 10, and the sum of 10 and 10 is 20. Which means that, by RAW, his Wizard caster level is 20. Or, he just can't take the feat at all and it has no effect. But there's no reading of the text where RAW allows you to take the feat, but doesn't double your caster level.

Unearthed Arcana, pg. 72, Gestalt Characters: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)

In this high-powered campaign variant, characters essentially
take two classes at every level, choosing the best aspects of each.
The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters
gain the full benefi ts of each class at each level. If the two classes
you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack
progression, saves, and class features common to more than one
class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains
all aspects that don’t overlap.

Explain to me in what way Sword of the Arcane Order does NOT create an overlapping aspect between the wizard, ranger, and paladin classes?

Cosi

2018-11-24, 09:20 PM

Explain to me in what way Sword of the Arcane Order does NOT create an overlapping aspect between the wizard, ranger, and paladin classes?

Because:

a) That section is specific to "aspects of a class". Sword of the Arcane Order is a feat, to which that section does not apply.
b) There's no overlap. Multiple things being used to calculate the same end value is not an "overlap". War Hulk's STR bonuses don't "overlap" with a Fighter's BAB because they both increase your attack bonus. An overlap would be if, for example, the feat said "wizard and paladin or ranger levels". In that case, you would have a plausible argument that a Wizard 5/Ranger 5//Paladin 10 only got a CL of 15.

So, in sum, literally no part of the text you're emphasizing is related to what Sword of the Arcane Order is or does.

Florian

2018-11-24, 09:28 PM

There are two reasonable answers. One answer is 0, because he has 10 Wizard//Ranger levels and no levels in Ranger or Wizard. The other answer is 10, either because he has 10 Ranger levels or because his Wizard//Ranger levels "count as" Ranger levels in some sense (and ditto for Wizard).

Since the feat requires that you be a 4th level Ranger to take it, we can discard the first case as irrelevant for the purposes of our analysis -- you can't switch between "they're Ranger levels" when taking the feat and "they're Wizard//Ranger levels" when using the feat. That means the character has a Ranger class level of 10, and a Wizard class level of 10, and the sum of 10 and 10 is 20. Which means that, by RAW, his Wizard caster level is 20. Or, he just can't take the feat at all and it has no effect. But there's no reading of the text where RAW allows you to take the feat, but doesn't double your caster level.

To get it straight, the character has 10 Gestalt levels, with each Gestalt level being made up of two separate classes (Ranger, Wizard), which must follow the complete rules for Gestalt. That makes a total character level of 10 being made up of R10//W10.

What doesn't work, that is why the rules force you to drop each and any "aspect" that would force a double situation, is a seeing and treating the composite level parts as independent of character level. In this case, 10+10 = 10.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-24, 09:34 PM

Because:

a) That section is specific to "aspects of a class". Sword of the Arcane Order is a feat, to which that section does not apply.
Nothing suggest that list is exhaustive. In fact, the text suggests quite the opposite.

as·pect
noun
1.
a particular part or feature of something.
synonyms: feature, facet, side, characteristic, particular, detail

Caster level is an aspect of a class. Sword of the Arcane Order allows the levels of three classes to stack to determine your caster level.

b) There's no overlap. Multiple things being used to calculate the same end value is not an "overlap". War Hulk's STR bonuses don't "overlap" with a Fighter's BAB because they both increase your attack bonus. An overlap would be if, for example, the feat said "wizard and paladin or ranger levels". In that case, you would have a plausible argument that a Wizard 5/Ranger 5//Paladin 10 only got a CL of 15.
War Hulk's strength bonuses are a class feature entirely separate from Base Attack Bonus. Of course you would get both of those.

At each level of a build on both sides of the "//", you only gain one overlapping aspect.

If both sides of the build are advancing the caster level of the same class, then you only get it once.

You are parsing out a specific sentence of the Sword of the Arcane Order feat and giving that feat priority over how the gestalt rules change the level up and character building process.

So, in sum, literally no part of the text you're emphasizing is related to what Sword of the Arcane Order is or does.

The text is not only entirely relevant, it's the only thing that is relevant.

You are willfully misreading the RAW in order to support your pre-determined conclusion.

Crake

2018-11-24, 10:05 PM

The gestalt rules were a) written long before initiators existed, and b) do not cover every single edge case in their rulings (regarding sword of the arcane order).

In a case like this, you need to read between the rules, and not be purposefully ignorant of what the intent of gestalting is supposed to provide. Hell, gestalt literally calls out dual progression classes as being redundant with the gestalt system, it goes to follow that feats that do similar things, like sword of the arcane order stacking caster levels, and swift tracker stacking favoured enemy and skirmish, none of these things should progress at double the rate than they should, they are simply already built into the gestalt mechanics. Gestalt isn't meant to make things progress faster, it's meant to give you more things.

Things like gestalt are written with the good faith that people wouldn't intentionally read it while squinting and at an odd angle to say "Look at me, I can get things expected by 17th level at level 12!" I refuse to believe anyone advocating for gestalt allowing 1.5x IL progression actually believes that to be the case, instead just looking for confirmation from others about ways to intentionally break the game for their own enjoyment/satisfaction.

DarkSoul

2018-11-24, 10:23 PM

Cosi

2018-11-25, 09:27 AM

Quertus

2018-11-25, 11:30 AM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2018-11-25, 12:03 PM

Similar to how Str & BAB add together for attack bonus, I'm still stuck on, say, how "Druid levels" and "+1 caster level" are different things (the latter doesn't affect Animal Companion or Wild Shape, for example).

My point being, if there is some very clear RAW language to define what counts as overlapping, we can apply that to the issue(s) at hand; otherwise, while there may very well be RAI, I think we'll have to agree that RAW is ambiguous, and it's up to reach individual table to interpret based on intent, balance, etc.The gestalt rules are incomplete, true, but that part is crystal clear. If you progress the same class feature on both sides, it overlaps and you take the better feature. Spellcasting advancement is a class feature. Advancing Druid spellcasting is one and the same class feature, regardless of source. Therefore, if on one side you take a Druid level and on the other side you take a PrC that advances Druid spellcasting by a level, you take the better of those features and add one level of Druid spellcasting. And yes, you also get whatever class features don't overlap, such as Animal Companion progression on the Druid's side, but that is an unrelated concern.

Nifft

2018-11-25, 12:29 PM

Again, yes, that math gives you the answer you want. But that is not the math the feat asks you to do. What the method gives us is a way to engage with the feat mechanically, and gives us a metric which can consistently apply to splatbook contents that weren't around when Gestalt was written.

Here, for reference, is the text:
If you also have levels in wizard, your wizard caster level is treated as the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels.

From a hardline RAW perspective, you can't get benefit from this text under Gestalt because you can't have any Wizard levels. You have only Wizard // Ranger levels, which are not Wizard levels, but rather a new class that gestalts the features of Wizard and Ranger.

From an even more myopic hardline RAW perspective, you can't get benefit from this text unless you have levels in Wizard // Paladin // Ranger -- in which case you also don't benefit because you already had a Wizard caster level equal to your Wizard // Paladin // Ranger level, but hey that's what the rule says.

RAW is a silly place. Don't go there.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-25, 12:52 PM

I've already said that I agree with the idea that you should rule it to work some other way. I'm just contesting the notion that it doesn't work that way by RAW, because "RAW totally isn't broken, I'll just redefine these twelve words and break these other four things" arguments are always bad.

Except that's not what I am doing. I am considering the Sword of the Arcane Order feat's explicit function within the context of changes that gestalt makes to the general rules.

What you are doing is an order of magnitude worse: taking a strictly literal interpretation and actively ignoring the necessary context. The rules explicitly tell you that context matters and that they are meant to be read with the knowledge of similar rules in mind and with common sense.

Exactly. And "number of Wizard levels" and "number of Ranger levels" are different elements,
Not with the Sword of the Arcane Order feat under gestalt.

Each level Wizard, Ranger, and Paladin levels now all grant a level of wizard spellcasting. This is exactly the type of overlapping aspect of the classes that the rules are alerting you to, and so on opposite sides of the gestalt build you take the superior of the two features.

Your interpretation is essentially identical to taking a level of wizard on one side and taking a level in archmage on the other side, using it to advance wizard spellcasting, and saying at each new level your caster level for wizard increases by two. The gestalt rules quite specifically do not function like that.

No, I'm not doing that. You don't get the CL boost from leveling up, you get it from having the feat, which takes your level as input. The feat isn't double counting anything, the Gestalt rules simply cause you to have more things.

The thing is, I'm not doing that. Originally I was going to post something like "yes, this doesn't work, but other things do, so focusing on the question of whether this works is dumb", but then I read the feat and it turns out that it totally does work. My conclusion is entirely a result of looking at the material, and evaluating the things that it says.

You aren't reading the Rules As Written. You are reading the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There.

The gestalt rules are an incredibly rare instance of explicitly telling you what you don't get.
Your interpretation requires you to ignore that rule in favor of doing something else.

Specifically, your interpretation requires you to laser-focus exclusively on the final sentence of Sword of the Arcane Order, "If you also have levels in wizard, your wizard caster level is treated as the sum of your wizard, paladin, and ranger class levels", and ignore everything else about how gestalt changes the rules on character building.

The context in which that was written, you are taking a single level in a single class each time you level up.

Under the gestalt rules, you are still taking a single level each time you level up, except now you are combining the features of two different classes at that level. You only get one additional hit dice (whichever one is higher), you only get one of the two classes number of new skill points (whichever gives more), you only get one of the two classes increase in Base Attack Bonus (whichever is higher) and you only get class features unique to each class. If the classes have features that overlap, you once again only get whichever of them is superior. Caster level is a class feature of spellcasters. If two classes on opposite sides of the build are advancing the caster level of the same class, then you get an increase in caster level once.

There is nothing special or unique about the function of Sword of the Arcane Order under gestalt rules. The problem is your interpretation of it. For the purposes of that feat, you are not gaining two distinct classes every time you level up in gestalt. You are gaining one level, which has the features and benefits of two classes combined.

Florian

2018-11-25, 02:43 PM

@Quertus:

See, the very simple, very complex thing about the Gestalt rules, is that they are not a guide on how to run two separate classes in parallel, but how you mash two separate classes into one new functional entity, so run them in tandem. Someone previously tried to explain it with Ranger1 // Wizard1 actually being RangerWizard 1, when you want to be very correct about it.

The process can be likened to a database table merger, just with rules given how to operate the merger manually on two class tables in a book and how to operate that row by row. The mode this works on is based on comparing identical objects in their respective columns and then reduction.

So we start from 2x level, 2x BAB, 2x Fort and so on in the two origin columns of the row, reducing that to a final 1x level, 1x BAB, 1x Fort in the corresponding columns of the row of the merged class(es).

Now the thing is, that in Gestalt rules, everything related to classes and class features is subsumed under the term "aspects" and every single aspect should be investigated individually for whether a doublet happens or not. "+1 Caster Level" will already need the presence, or "aspect", of some pre-existing spell-casting ability to trigger in the first place. So applying a regular Druid level on one side of the Gestalt and some PrC with "+1" on the other, targeting Druid spellcasting, targets fundamentally the same "aspect", as the Druid level itself carries an invisible "+1" with it. As such, one of both is negated as an "aspect".

This is why a Gestalt-merged Crusader/Commoner is not +1IL and +0,5IL, because that would suppose there're still two separate classes, which are not (CrusaderCommoner).

That´s more or less the same reason those virtual class feature advancement feats for multiclassing don't work. At one point, you will deal with having a doublet aspect of something that already has been triggered. A, say, Swift Hunter wouldn´t let you extend Fav. Enemy along the après-level-20-line, because, assuming you got it at Gestalt level one, you would trigger gaining the next Fav. Enemy advances always twice, as you will repeat the steps of +4, +6 and so on.

Edit: For Sword of the Arcana Order to actually function as intended, it would only kick in when we get rid of the doublet "aspect" to be removed. Ranger10//Wizard 10 has the doublet "aspect", so the gain is +0. Ranger10//Wizard5/Crusader5 doesn't have the doublet "aspect" for the 5 Ranger//Crusader levels and would kick in at +5 CL for the already existing 5 Ranger//Wizard levels.