Tome of Battle Gestalt Quandary

[WhiteKnight777]

I was pondering the Tome of Battle, and I had a rather odd thought: What happens when you gestalt together two tome of battle classes. I presume, as per the spellcasting rules for Gestalt characters, that you would keep track of each classes maneuvers seperately. But what bout maneuver recovery abilities? would a Warblade/Swordsage be able to use the Warblade's superior recovery ability for all of its maneuvers?

This is a thread for anyone's questions regarding Tome of Battle gestalt issues, so if anyone else has anything they'd like to know, pile 'em on and let's see if we can get some answers.

[NEO|Phyte]

This is covered on page 40 of Tome of Battle, they are tracked and recovered seperately.

[Jack Mann]

I assume that it would work just like a multi-classed swordsage/warblade. You'd recover them seperately, using each class's recovery method.

Though I suspect that, with so many maneuvers readied, you wouldn't have much trouble lasting an entire fight without needing to recover.

[WhiteKnight777]

Ah, all right. I knew the multiclass rule, but I was hazy on the application in the Gestalt system, because a gestalt character is effectively using one class with the abilities of both.

[Caduceus]

In such a gestalt/multiclass character, would it ever be beneficial to choose the same maneuver twice, once for each class, so that you could ready it twice at the same time? Or would it be a better use of your Maneuvers Known to choose two different maneuvers?

[Townopolis]

In some cases, yes. Moment of Perfect Clarity and its buddies spring to mind. Being able to slough off two will saves a combat without having to refresh is nothing to sneeze at. There are others where rapid reapplication would be very nice. Otherwise, it would probably be more advantageous for an adventurer to diversify.

[Riffington]

I thought you couldn't select the same maneuver twice, even if it is provided by two different classes.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Ah, all right. I knew the multiclass rule, but I was hazy on the application in the Gestalt system, because a gestalt character is effectively using one class with the abilities of both.

I believe you are correct when applying the Gestalt rules for Warblade manuever recovery for both classes since both classes have manuever recovery as a class aspect***. This seems pretty clear when you apply the RAW per UA Gestalt Characters on page 72:

In this high-powered campaign variant,characters take two classes at every level, choosing the BEST ASPECTS OF EACH.

The process is similar to multiclassing, EXCEPT that the 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.

[Yuki Akuma]

I believe you are correct when applying the Gestalt rules for recovery. This seems pretty clear when you apply the RAW per UA Gestalt Characters on page 72:

In this high-powered campaign variant,characters take two classes at every level, choosing the BEST ASPECTS OF EACH.

The process is similar to multiclassing, EXCEPT that the 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. (Like the Warblade's manuever recovery since both classes have manuever recovery)

The gestalt character retains all aspects that don't overlap.

Warblade and Swordsage maneuvers are different abilities. Just like Wizard and Sorcerer spellcasting are different abilities. You'd get both and track both seperately.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Warblade and Swordsage maneuvers are different abilities. Just like Wizard and Sorcerer spellcasting are different abilities. You'd get both and track both seperately.

No I disagree under GESTALT RAW page 72 of UA regarding taking the Best of Class Aspects that Overlap.

You would be correct under standard ToB multiclassing RAW but UA RAW may trump that in this particular situation playing a Gestalt character depending on PC choices in game.

Recovering manuevers is an ASPECT of the Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage classes which they normally perform at different rates.

A Gestalt Warblade -20/Swordsage-20 would have:

D12, +20 BAB and all good saves.

There should be no disagreement that he would know 38 (25 +13) manuevers or that he would know 10 (6 + 4) stances.

The only issue in a Gestalt game is the maximum manuevers a PC would choose to have readied since that would determine how his manuevers are treated in regard to his recovery rate for the PC:

If the PC limits himself to only having 12 Manuevers readied (the best aspect of both classes from the Swordsage class side) he can recover them all in a single swift action (as per the Warblade class side recovery rate). In game this would be similar to the way psionics treats power point total as a pool.

If the PC chooses to have 19 Manuevers readied (12 + 7) treating the classes like they were a multi classs I agree with you that there would be a separate recovery rates as per ToB RAW. Similar to your analogy of sorcerer and wizard spellcasting be separate abilities.

[Captain van der Decken]

No I disagree under GESTALT RAW page 72 of UA regarding taking the Best of Class Aspects that Overlap.


They don't overlap though, because they're different.


Wizards and sorcerers both get arcane casting, but you can't have a gestalt wizard/sorcerer cast all his spells spontaneously. They're similar, yes, but not the same.

[CASTLEMIKE]

They don't overlap though, because they're different.


Wizards and sorcerers both get arcane casting, but you can't have a gestalt wizard/sorcerer cast all his spells spontaneously. They're similar, yes, but not the same.

The first point depends on PC choices and RAW interpretation as per UA or ToB.

In a Gestalt game Gestalt RAW will trump ToB RAW when there is a contradiction to the standard rules just like it does to the Core RAW.

For example under normal Core RAW a standard core wizard cannot cast spells wearing light armor without ASF without building for it via PRCs or Feats.

Edit: In Gestalt RAW a (Battle Sorcerer or Beguiler)/Wizard will not suffer ASF wearing light armor because of his (Battle Sorcerer or Beguiler) class side and he will not have to build for it via PRCs or Feats.

I see that Gestalt Sorcerer/Wizard spellcasting analogy used a lot. A Gestalt psion Erudite/Wilder does just the opposite. He would pool his Power Points and be able to access them from either class since he is still limited by his actions.

Gestalt Swordsage/Warblade Manuever Recovery depends on the PC choice and how he treats Manuevers Readied:

Does the PC choose to treat Manuevers Readied as the same kind of ability limiting himself to 12 Manuevers Readied at level 20 from the Swordsages class side with Swift Recovery from the Warblade class side as per UA RAW regarding overlapping class aspects?

or

Does the PC choose to treat Manuevers Readied differently allowing himself to have 19 Manuevers Readied but under ToB multiclassing Manuever Recovery RAW?

Either works in game as long as things are consistent.

[Holocron Coder]

For example under normal Core RAW a standard core wizard cannot cast spells wearing heavy armor without ASF without building for it via PRCs or Feats.

In Gestalt RAW a standard Gestalt Cleric/Wizard will not suffer ASF wearing heavy armor because of his Cleric class side and he will not have to build for it via PRCs or Feats.

Can you link this explanation on the SRD? As far as I've understood it, the spell casting failure due to armor is tied to ARCANE spells. Thus, a wizard/cleric would suffer spell failure for his ARCANE (wizard) spells, but none for his DIVINE (cleric) spells.

Being able to cast divine spells without fail should not affect arcane spells.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Can you link this explanation on the SRD? As far as I've understood it, the spell casting failure due to armor is tied to ARCANE spells. Thus, a wizard/cleric would suffer spell failure for his ARCANE (wizard) spells, but none for his DIVINE (cleric) spells.

Being able to cast divine spells without fail should not affect arcane spells.

Thanks for the catch. I have edited the post. Typed Cleric while thinking Battle Sorcerer.

[Yuki Akuma]

Only identical class features overlap. Sneak Attack, for example. Evasion. Wisdom to AC bonus (Monk//Swordsage, in this case).

Spellcasting, manifesting, meldshaping and martial maneuvers are different for each class that has that ability. A Wizard//Cleric can cast his Cleric spells in armour without incurring Arcane Spell Failure because they're divine spells. He cannot cast his Wizard spells in armour without incurring Arcane Spell Failure because they're (shock!!) arcane spells.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you're intentionally misreading the rules. Why?

Even a Battle Sorcerer//Wizard can't cast Wizard spells in armour, because the Battle Sorcerer ability only works with Battle Sorcerer spells.


Spellcasting

A battle sorcerer can cast sorcerer spells derived from her class levels of battle sorcerer while in light armor without the normal arcane spell failure chance.

They're different abilities that just happen to have the same name.

Yes. An Erudite//Wilder would pool her power points. This is because this is how power points work! It says so in the multiclassing section of the Expanded Psionics Handbook!

Do you know what it says in the multiclassing section of the Tome of Battle? That's right! You track maneuvers from seperate classes seperately.

[Mr. Friendly]

This brings an ancillary question to my mind, Initiator Level.

This isn't actually a Class Feature per se. As I understand it, your initiator level is based on the total of initiating classes (Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader) and 1/2 remaining levels. So would the Gestalt Swordsage/Warblade get to "double-dip" for his initiator level? My gut instinct says no, that's broken; however that doesn't mean it isn't legal by the RAW.

[Jayabalard]

Thanks for the catch. I have edited the post. Typed Cleric while thinking Battle Sorcerer.even that one doesn't work.

[Valairn]

When a ToB class multi-classes they are in fact able to double dip for initiator level, as well as use manuevers known/stances known from the other class to qualify for manuevers known in the current class, its actually a pretty powerful thing. BUT, as far as that is concerned for Gestalt, I don't think it works like that, I think the intent(personal interpretation time) of gestalt is to combine two classes into one by combining all the best attributes of the two, but for instance a 1 warblade//1 swordsage in gestalt is still a level 1 character, so their initiator level would be 1, not 2.

[Mr. Friendly]

When a ToB class multi-classes they are in fact able to double dip for initiator level, as well as use manuevers known/stances known from the other class to qualify for manuevers known in the current class, its actually a pretty powerful thing. BUT, as far as that is concerned for Gestalt, I don't think it works like that, I think the intent(personal interpretation time) of gestalt is to combine two classes into one by combining all the best attributes of the two, but for instance a 1 warblade//1 swordsage in gestalt is still a level 1 character, so their initiator level would be 1, not 2.

And I would agree that they may very be the RAI, but it is it RAW?

[Valairn]

Well arguably I think you could double-dip according to RAW, since there is nothing that says you can't, at least from my memory.

[Mr. Friendly]

By my reckoning that's some good cheese...

So, let's take this experiment a little further, if you have a Warblade10//Swordsage10 then you would have all the powers known of both, with an effective initiator level of 20 at level 10.

Is it game breaking and if so, just how broken can we break it? :smallbiggrin:

As far as I can remember, all initiator level does for you is what level powers you can get, so you could get much higher level abilities than you should... on the other hand it is already Gestalt and the powers in ToB are nice, but not horribly broken.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Actually, your initiator level would be 15. You only get half the other class levels added to initiator levels.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Only identical class features overlap. Sneak Attack, for example. Evasion. Wisdom to AC bonus (Monk//Swordsage, in this case).

Spellcasting, manifesting, meldshaping and martial maneuvers are different for each class that has that ability. A Wizard//Cleric can cast his Cleric spells in armour without incurring Arcane Spell Failure because they're divine spells. He cannot cast his Wizard spells in armour without incurring Arcane Spell Failure because they're (shock!!) arcane spells.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you're intentionally misreading the rules. Why?

Even a Battle Sorcerer//Wizard can't cast Wizard spells in armour, because the Battle Sorcerer ability only works with Battle Sorcerer spells.



They're different abilities that just happen to have the same name.

Regarding the first point per UA Gestalt RAW PAGE 72 characters choose the best aspects of each class.

The process is similar to multiclassing except the characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. If two classes have ASPECTS that OVERLAP you CHOOSE THE BETTER ASPECT.

Aspects not Identical as you post.

From the SRD:

Class Features
A gestalt character gains the class features of both classes. A 1st-level gestalt rogue/cleric, for example, gets sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding, 1st-level cleric spells, and the ability to turn or rebuke undead. Class- and ability-based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid’s prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

***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. A few caveats apply, however.

***Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.
Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.

------------------------------------------------

From ToB page 37 and 38: Many of the manuevers of the various martial disciplines aren't magic at all---they are simply demonstrations of near-super-human skill and training. Although many of the manuevers and methods taught by the Sublime Way are mundane in execution and effect, their results can sometimes rival spells.

Martial powers fall into two broad categories: stances and manuevuers (which include boosts, counters and stirkes). A martial maneuver is a discrete EXTRAORDINARY or SUPERNATURAL effect that is temporarily expended after use.

***Each time you use a maneuver you temporarily expend it---you lose a little of your mental focus, you exhaust some small portion of of your personal ki or energy, or you simply finish the move out of position and can't imediate launch the same attack again without assuming the proper posture and mental state first. In other words you can't use an expended maneuver again until you rest for a brief time or perform a specific action in combat that allows you to recover one or more expended maneuvers. The type of action depends on what kind of adept you are; see Chapter 1 for each classes MANUEVER RECOVERY MECHANISM.

-------------------------------------------------------

Maneuver Recovery is a class feature shared by the Swordsage and Warblade class. The Warblade class has the faster MANEUVER RECOVERY MECHANISM. As per Gestalt RAW you would use the better class feature.

The Swordsage and Warblade clasees have common overlapping Disciplines with Maneuvers: Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw.

A good point to remember is that the Manuevers in those Disciplines are not treated differently for recovery by their respective classes than any other Discipline Manuevers used by those classes for Maneuver Recovery except when Multiclassing under standard ToB RAW.

Regarding you second point I was mistaken and you are correct. The Wizard would have to acquire No ASF in light armor by some other method.

Regarding the last point I enjoy the game and reading everyone's interpretation and takes on some of the various rules.

At various points in time popular belief held that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

I have some free time and disagree with the general consensus regarding Maneuver Recovery in all circumstance having to be treated as if under multiclassing ToB RAW when Gestalt RAW could trump it depending on how permanent Maneuvers Readied is taken as a class feature for the PC.

Lastly Yes. Like most I come to the forums with different takes and interpretations regarding the rules. To date I haven't seen a post that would change my position regarding Maneuver Recovery always having to be treated as if under ToB multiclassing RAW under Gestalt RAW.

[CASTLEMIKE]

even that one doesn't work.

Noted. Thanks.

[Yuki Akuma]

At various points in time popular belief held that the world was flat

No. It. Didn't. This is a myth, and I really wish people would stop pretending they're so much smarter than ancient humans.

It's obvious that the world isn't flat, because you can't see all of it from the top of mountains. If you even consider what shape the world is, which most people don't even do now, so why would they have done it before mass communication when it wasn't at all important to your average person?

[Valairn]

Actually, your initiator level would be 15. You only get half the other class levels added to initiator levels.

I believe this is incorrect, you only get half initiator levels for non martial classes. But you may in fact be right, I don't have my book in front of me.

[CASTLEMIKE]

No. It. Didn't. This is a myth, and I really wish people would stop pretending they're so much smarter than ancient humans.

It's obvious that the world isn't flat, because you can't see all of it from the top of mountains. If you even consider what shape the world is, which most people don't even do now, so why would they have done it before mass communication when it wasn't at all important to your average person?

I disagree. That's what I was taught in History class not mythology class. Not pretending to be smarter. In general the people of the modern world are better educated with access to a larger base of compiled knowledge compared to their ancient human counterparts.

It isn't quite that obvious just using your eyeball alone IMO which isn't graduated and has a limited range. I did read a paper a few years back that on a very clear day from some mountains a small change in degree could be measured. One of the reasons today most people probably don't consider the topic is because it has become accepted common knowledge.

People proably got bored just like us and didn't have the internet so they would debate things like how big the world is or the afterlife. Then there were the scientists, the philosophers and other great thinkers.

Even in the present people there are people who don't believe it is round:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[Yakk]

Initiator level is an identical benefit. You'd take the best initiator level boost between your two classes you take at a given level.

...

Castle, if you where a L 1 SS/L 1 WB (note the single slash), you couldn't use your WB recovery on SS maneovers and vice versa. The "recovery" ability only works on the abilities from your class.

The same happens with SS//WB.

The same thing works with Battle Sorcerers.

Gesalting doesn't actually merge the two classes -- it is gaining two classes at once. Abilities that only apply to class abilities of one of the two classes do not apply to both.

...

Speaking of cheese, what happens if you take two PrCs, one of which says "+1 level in an existing arcane spellcasting class", and the other says "+1 level in an existing spellcasting class". ;)

[Azerian Kelimon]

You know, history class is where you're teached Colombus discovered America, which is a flat out lie, or that Edison didn't steal form Nikola Tesla.

[Valairn]

Actually Yakk the gestalt rules themselves say you aren't allowed to take dual progression prc's like the mystic theurge, though from your wink I think you knew that.

As far as identical benefits are concerned you are exactly correct and thanks for pointing it out. The real benefit of gestalting two martial classes is for qualification. You can swordsage//warblade to great effect because you can fill out prerequisites with left over swordsage maneuvers so you can get better maneuvers to recover quickly as a warblade and vica versa, initiator level cheese isn't even necessary to reap the benefit of having so many maneuvers known, the real strength comes when you pick up say JPM(Jade Phoenix Mage) with funnily enough doesn't fall under the "dual progression" classification since you gain maneuvers as a class feature rather than as a previous class. So you can go warblade//wizard then later switch to swordsage//JPM for a buzz load of manuevers plus full spellcaster progression and a full base attack bonus.

But I digress, gestalt is all sorts of broken with ToB.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Castle, if you where a L 1 SS/L 1 WB (note the single slash), you couldn't use your WB recovery on SS maneovers and vice versa. The "recovery" ability only works on the abilities from your class.

The same happens with SS//WB.

Gesalting doesn't actually merge the two classes -- it is gaining two classes at once. Abilities that only apply to class abilities of one of the two classes do not apply to both.



I disagree (Not totally) just depending on how your L1SS/L1WB chooses to treat Maneuvers Readied and have troubeld to cite and post the pertinent RAW.

You are correct if the PC chose to treat them by ToB multiclassing RAW to have 4 MR from L 1 SS and 3 MR from L1 WB so they could make the first round of attack using SS maneuvers which recover more slowly followed by thd second and third round attacks using WB maneuvers while SS were recovering under stand multiclassing recovery.


All ToB base classe has the common aspects of MK, MR and SK by level regardless of whether something new is gained at that level. Each class performs Maneuver Recovery in a slightly different fashion.

IMO the most often overlooked aspect of Gestalt in builds RAW UA page 72 is that it grants the PC the best of class aspects that overlap.

------------------------------
Gestalt by SRD:

Class Features
A gestalt character gains the class features of both classes. A 1st-level gestalt rogue/cleric, for example, gets sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding, 1st-level cleric spells, and the ability to turn or rebuke undead. Class- and ability-based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid’s prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

***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. A few caveats apply, however.

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

-------------------------------------------

My point is the PC should be taking advantage of Gestalt RAW which supercedes standard ToB standard multiclassing RAW. It would be much better to do something like this:

Barbarian-1,WarBlade-1/SwordSage-2 where you treat Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied and Stances Known as class features because under Gestalt RAW page 72 of UA and the SRD text above you choose the best aspect of the class features.

At first level the PC would pick up 6 MK, 4 MR and 1 SK from Swordsage - 1.

At second level the PC would retain his existing first level Swordsage abilities and improve on them by picking up +3 more MK from the Warblade side of the build, MR would remain at 4 from the first level of the Swordsage just as taking a level of Barbarian doesn't make a literate PC illiterate, the PC would gain another +1 SK and he would gain the improved Maneuver Recovery of a Warblade.

At level 2 PC would know 9 MK, be able to have 4 MR with 2 SK with an Initiator Level of 1. He would use the best manuever recovery rate from the Warblade class side of the build as a Swift action.

Under Gestalt RAW he isn't multiclassing this PC. He is simply choosing two classes, taking the best aspects of each, and applying them to his characteristics.

[Valairn]

The features are not identical though. Swordsage has access to a specific set of manuevers, while warblade has access to another set, 3 of which do not overlap. The progression is not similar or identical. It would be just like gestalting a wizard/beguiler the spell lists are different, therefore they are both considered the best for that particular type of arcane casting. You would compile seperate spell lists for each of the classes involved, and you would do the same here with the martial adepts. The manuever lists are not identical, they are not overlapping in the slightest, therefore you would get dual progression for two seperate classes.

[Anteros]

You know, history class is where you're teached Colombus discovered America, which is a flat out lie, or that Edison didn't steal form Nikola Tesla.

Columbus did discover the americas. And no, the general populace never thought the world as flat. That is a myth.

Spent years studying these things at the University of Tennessee. None of this is on topic though so w/e.

[CASTLEMIKE]

The features are not identical though. Swordsage has access to a specific set of manuevers, while warblade has access to another set, 3 of which do not overlap. The progression is not similar or identical. It would be just like gestalting a wizard/beguiler the spell lists are different, therefore they are both considered the best for that particular type of arcane casting. You would compile seperate spell lists for each of the classes involved, and you would do the same here with the martial adepts. The manuever lists are not identical, they are not overlapping in the slightest, therefore you would get dual progression for two seperate classes.

Both classes share Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw disciplines. Each class recovers their all their maneuvers the same way through maneuver recovery.

Under Gestalt RAW the class features do not need to be identical.

By Gestalt RAW not ToB RAW where does class progression have to be identical?

Under Gestalt Spellcasting is treated differently as per the SRD:

Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.

[Valairn]

To side-track for just a second. Discover is a pretty loose term. I think what is relevant here is that Columbus discovered America in such a way that there were recurring expeditions and eventual settlement of said location. That in my opinion is the more relevant use of the word discovery. If a tree falls in the forest....

[Anteros]

To side-track for just a second. Discover is a pretty loose term. I think what is relevant here is that Columbus discovered America in such a way that there were recurring expeditions and eventual settlement of said location. That in my opinion is the more relevant use of the word discovery. If a tree falls in the forest....

Was Columbus the first person to ever discover the Americas? No. However, that doesn't mean that he did not discover them. As far as Spain, France, Britain, etc are concerned, Columbus is the one who discovered the Americas.

(Pretty much just agreeing with you at this point.)

[Valairn]

Sorry for double post. Its what abilities do not share that makes them seperate abilities. Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, White Raven, and one other, are not shared. This is a very key difference. Warblade can only take from its list, while swordsage can only take from its list. The class features are different and can not be combined. You would have two seperate maneuver lists one for your swordsage and warblade. The fact that they overlap is not as important as the fact that they don't overlap completely.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Sorry for double post. Its what abilities do not share that makes them seperate abilities. Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, White Raven, and one other, are not shared. This is a very key difference. Warblade can only take from its list, while swordsage can only take from its list. The class features are different and can not be combined. You would have two seperate maneuver lists one for your swordsage and warblade. The fact that they overlap is not as important as the fact that they don't overlap completely.

I agree under that under normal ToB Multiclass RAW on page 40 for recovering expended manuevers. In a Gestalt build you would not be multiclassing taking two ToB classes simultaneously.

[NEO|Phyte]

Under Gestalt Spellcasting is treated differently as per the SRD:

Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.

Spellcasting gets a special rules blurb because spellcasting EXISTED when the rules were made. Does a Psion//Wilder only get the Psion's powers known? Why should the ever-broken spellcasting be the only such ability to get this kind of boost in Gestalt?

[CASTLEMIKE]

Spellcasting gets a special rules blurb because spellcasting EXISTED when the rules were made. Does a Psion//Wilder only get the Psion's powers known? Why should the ever-broken spellcasting be the only such ability to get this kind of boost in Gestalt?

No. ToB maneuvers are not spellcasting.

-----------------------
As per the SRD:

Class Features
A gestalt character gains the class features of both classes. A 1st-level gestalt rogue/cleric, for example, gets sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding, 1st-level cleric spells, and the ability to turn or rebuke undead. Class- and ability-based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid’s prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

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. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.
Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.
-------------------------------

I view the MK, MR, SK and Maneuver Recovery as aspects of the three ToB base classes. There is to much overlap in what they do. In any game but a Gestalt game this would not be possible or legal.

This can only be utilized in a Gestalt game where you would be leveling up simultaneously in two ToB classe under Gestalt RAW instead of separately under the normal ToB multiclassing RAW.

Isn't that one of the main points of playing gestalt? Small groups and playing more powerful PCs?

[NEO|Phyte]

No. ToB maneuvers are not spellcasting.

They are also not a shared feature between any classes. The warblade doesn't share its manouver progression with any other class, nor does the Swordsage or Crusader. They each have their own distinct progressions.

[Valairn]

I agree under that under normal ToB Multiclass RAW on page 40 for recovering expended manuevers. In a Gestalt build you would not be multiclassing taking two ToB classes simultaneously.

I think you misunderstood the point i was trying to make. Under the interpretation i was using, I agree, the two lists of manuevers would have to be recovered as the class that owned that manuever.

The only thing I mentioned as being powerful is that the manuevers known list can work together to build up prerequisites, which is an acceptable combination according to multi-classing rules. This is a normal part of gestalt, if you gain a general benefit it applies to both classes, for instance if you gain an unspecified reduction in ASF it applies to all your arcane caster classes. The maneuvers known falls under that same application. While the lists of said manuevers known are still kept as seperate lists.

EDIT: As an aside, gestalt is not a fully developed rule system anyway, so really most of this comes down to interpretation. I believe this is an important point to recognize, since this means multiple different answers are in fact correct, though for the sake of discussion I'm attempting to come to the "best" solution for the problem.

[Behold_the_Void]

Each class has it's own distinct maneuver progression and execution. They are not EXACTLY THE SAME. Features that overlap in Gestalt are those that are EXACTLY THE SAME. As a Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage all have different maneuver progressions, recovery methods and disciplines available, they aren't all EXACTLY THE SAME. And thus, they are both accessed in a gestalt build because they aren't EXACTLY THE SAME.

Christ I sound like GLADoS.

[Valairn]

You are in fact correct. For instance a gestalt ninja//rogue would have +1d6 sneak attack AND +1d6 sudden strike. Because they are not exactly the same.

[CASTLEMIKE]

They are also not a shared feature between any classes. The warblade doesn't share its manouver progression with any other class, nor does the Swordsage or Crusader. They each have their own distinct progressions.

Someone please post This Exactly the Same Rule.

Each ToB base class shares at least one Discipline and maneuvers with another ToB class.

Each ToB class recovers it's expended maneuvers via maneuver recovery.

By normal ToB RAW you cannot Gestalt ToB classes only multiclass them.

I agree that all classes have some kind of progression but in Gestalt RAW you get to take the best aspects of that progression.

[NEO|Phyte]

Each ToB base class shares at least one Discipline and maneuvers with another ToB class.

Each ToB class recovers it's expended maneuvers via maneuver recovery.

By normal ToB RAW you cannot Gestalt ToB classes only multiclass them.
I seem to be missing something, where does it say in the gestalt rules that ANY amount of overlap makes them have to be combined into something that is utterly not worth gestalting?

Lets use Psychic Warrior and Psion for a quick example.
They have seperate power lists, but some of the same powers can be found in both. Do they suddenly have to merge their class abilities into an orgy of suck should they be Gestalted?

[Valairn]

The final damage would be +10d6 sneak attack and +10d6 sudden strike.

Each class has a discipline available to ONLY that class. So even from a perspective of he who has more disciplines is best, it cannot work, since while they do share lists, much like a wizard and a sorceror shares a common pool of spells to choose from, the classes manuever progression are different.
Overlap does not imply equality, overlap implies overlap and that is all. For instance, if I had a Diamond mind manuever on my swordsage list, I could not prepare it as one of my warblade manuevers readied, I would have to learn it twice, one for my swordsage progression and one for my warblade progression.

The ONLY overlap in class features, has to do with the selection of new manuevers on a level up, where you can pull from your whole pool of manuevers known to qualify for the prerequisites of a new manuever. If you wanted to ready it on both lists, you would have to select it on both lists, and recover it according to each classes recovery method.

As a fight to maintain consistency in application of rules within the slim framework of the gestalt system, manuever lists should be treated as spell lists since the simlarities are very clearly seen. To treat them differently would be adding uneeded and unecessary complication to the ruleset, which is already designed around being more powerful.

[Thinker]

CASTLEMIKE:
You're wrong. You keep referring to "Gestalt RAW" when it is from a book made of house-rules. The initiators are different, just as precision damage from multiple sources is different, i.e. a Ninja//Rogue Gestalt would progress both Sudden Strike and Sneak Attack at the same time, even though they are very similar. Both the Warblade and the Swordsage get maneuvers, but they are not the same class-feature, just as a Cleric and Druid both get divine magic, but do not share a class-feature. Its hard not to realize that the difference between initiator classes is the same as that between casting classes. Just because it doesn't say its spellcasting, that doesn't make it true. I don't care that initiators share schools with other initiators: Casters share schools with other casters.

[Fax Celestis]

Someone please post This Exactly the Same Rule.

Each ToB base class shares at least one Discipline and maneuvers with another ToB class.

Each ToB class recovers it's expended maneuvers via maneuver recovery.

By normal ToB RAW you cannot Gestalt ToB classes only multiclass them.

I agree that all classes have some kind of progression but in Gestalt RAW you get to take the best aspects of that progression.

ToB, pg. 40:
...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.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Unless you use adaptive style. You'd recover ALL your maneuvers with it.

[Valairn]

Thanks Fax, I didn't have my book on me.

[Fax Celestis]

Unless you use adaptive style. You'd recover ALL your maneuvers with it.

That's a quirk of how Adaptive Style works, though, not of multiclassing.

[Valairn]

Just to clarify, I was correct in my assumption that manuevers from the two seperate lists could be used to qualify for manuevers on the other list at level up, right?

[Azerian Kelimon]

If they are shared in the list. You could get Tiger claw prereqs from both SS and WB, but not for Shadow Hand.

[Yuki Akuma]

Just to clarify, I was correct in my assumption that manuevers from the two seperate lists could be used to qualify for manuevers on the other list at level up, right?

Yes. You just have to know so many x-school maneuvers. Just like you can Fighter bonus feats to qualify for a Rogue bonus feat, or vice versa.

[Valairn]

I like it when people tell me I wasn't just blowing smoke.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Each class has it's own distinct maneuver progression and execution. They are not EXACTLY THE SAME. Features that overlap in Gestalt are those that are EXACTLY THE SAME. As a Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage all have different maneuver progressions, recovery methods and disciplines available, they aren't all EXACTLY THE SAME. And thus, they are both accessed in a gestalt build because they aren't EXACTLY THE SAME.

Christ I sound like GLADoS.

I agree that each class normally has it's own distinct maneuver progress and execution.

I don't see your point why.

Each class shares Disciplines and maneuvers with other classes that are EXACTLY THE SAME including others that are different. Each class recovers all their class manuevers via a form of Maneuver Recovery.

In a non Gestalt game you have to multiclass by ToB RAW there is no other option and this would be a non issue.

Again from the SRD:
Class Features

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.
----------------------------------------
In a Gestalt game and only in a Gestalt game a PC taking 2 ToB class levels simulataneously would have Two options in game:

Choosing to multiclassing as per ToB RAW with ToB MK, MR and Maneuver Recovery or taking the best aspects of each class at the level:

Using the later option a Gestalt Swordsage/Warblade - 20 would end up with MK - 25, MR - 12, Maneuver Recovery as a Warblade. Plenty of better builds for gestalt. Most of the benefit in Gestalt would come from a single or a few level dips to a build.

[StickMan]

Guys stop arguing with the guy your not going to change his mind at this point. The fact that no one has posted on his side has not deterred him so why would you think at this point. Gestalt is not a finished system its in a book of house rules he can do what ever he wants in his own games, but it should be clear to him by now that the large majority of people disagree with him.

Also on the whole the world is flat thing I would like to say that people thinking that was a myth. They teach you a lot of incorrect things in history classes in high school for a number of reasons. For instance the whole Washington cut down the cherry tree thing, load of bull yea I was shocked too .

[NEO|Phyte]

Each class shares Disciplines and maneuvers with other classes that are EXACTLY THE SAME including others that are different. Each class recovers all their class manuevers via a form of Maneuver Recovery.

SO WHAT if there are some shared disciplines? Shared disciplines does not a common class feature make. If access to each discipline was a separate class ability, THEN they would overlap by Gestalt rules. As it is, they are NOT the same or similar, and thus are kept apart.

[Yuki Akuma]

Clerics and Druids share spells on their spell lists. Does that mean a gestalt Cleric//Druid only gets one lot of spell slots?

Bards and Clerics share some spells on their spell lists. Does that mean Bard//Clerics only get one type of spellcasting?


Also on the whole the world is flat thing I would like to say that people thinking that was a myth. They teach you a lot of incorrect things in history classes in high school for a number of reasons. For instance the whole Washington cut down the cherry tree thing, load of bull yea I was shocked too .

"Lies To Children". The practise of telling kids outright lies in primary school, to get them ready for the more complicated lies in secondary school, to get them ready for the lies that are almost the truth in high school and college...

[Lapak]

I agree that each class normally has it's own distinct maneuver progress and execution.

I don't see your point why.

Each class shares Disciplines and maneuvers with other classes that are EXACTLY THE SAME including others that are different. Each class recovers all their class manuevers via a form of Maneuver Recovery. Aside from the fact that the general reading of the rules seems to be against you, CASTLEMIKE, I find it unacceptable fluff-wise as well, at least for the Crusader.

"I receive divine inspiration, chosen from on high, that allows me to triumph over the foes of my god!
...
except when I just wave my sword around a bit and he decides the 'divine guidance' bit is just silly and lets me pick what I want to do myself."

[Fax Celestis]

I agree that each class normally has it's own distinct maneuver progress and execution.

I don't see your point why.

Each class shares Disciplines and maneuvers with other classes that are EXACTLY THE SAME including others that are different. Each class recovers all their class manuevers via a form of Maneuver Recovery.

In a non Gestalt game you have to multiclass by ToB RAW there is no other option and this would be a non issue.

Again from the SRD:
Class Features

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.
----------------------------------------
In a Gestalt game and only in a Gestalt game a PC taking 2 ToB class levels simulataneously would have Two options in game:

Choosing to multiclassing as per ToB RAW with ToB MK, MR and Maneuver Recovery or taking the best aspects of each class at the level:

Using the later option a Gestalt Swordsage/Warblade - 20 would end up with MK - 25, MR - 12, Maneuver Recovery as a Warblade. Plenty of better builds for gestalt. Most of the benefit in Gestalt would come from a single or a few level dips to a build.

...did you totally miss the rule I quoted prior?

[Valairn]

CASTLEMIKE:
There is no better progression. Better implies that one is in fact better than the other, but they aren't better, they are different. You would have a solid argument if all classes had access to all of the same exact disciplines, but they don't, which makes the progression different. The reason its different is because of the exclusiveness of particular disciplines to particular classes.

The different manuever recovery is also important. The two classes progress as seperate and distinct entities within the framework of gestalt, and this makes perfect sense, and doesn't even NEED to be argued against.

As well as the fact that according to the RAW, they should be kept seperate.

[Alleine]

"Lies To Children". The practise of telling kids outright lies in primary school, to get them ready for the more complicated lies in secondary school, to get them ready for the lies that are almost the truth in high school and college...

Lies History is written by the winners.

[StickMan]

"Lies To Children". The practise of telling kids outright lies in primary school, to get them ready for the more complicated lies in secondary school, to get them ready for the lies that are almost the truth in high school and college...

Sad but true.

[Yuki Akuma]

Sad but true.

I think expecting a five-year-old to understand quantum mechanics is a bit much. So tell them big objects pull stuff towards them. Then tell them, well, actually, big objects kinda bend space...

Then tell them how gravity really works. Except then they find out ten years later that, actually, it works differently.

[Yakk]

Strange. I'm trying to think of a mathematics claim from elementary/high school that was both a lie and a good thing to teach (ie, I'm barring "the teacher was just dumb" from consideration).

I can't think of one.

Why again is it beneficial to lie to children in a school setting?

[Valairn]

You might be suprised at the ability of young kids to pick up on extremely difficult and abstract concepts. For instance explaining the process's of evolution to a child is much easier than explaining it to an adult, the adult keeps wanting to reference to things he already knows, while a kid will build his world conception from the ground up.

In fact its probably better to teach the crazy quirks of reality to a child, when the information is most relevant to their developing a world view.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I want to thank everyone for making the time to respond to my posts today. At this time I still haven't found a post that has changed my perspective on ToB gestalting as I am placing more emphasis on various aspect of Gestalt RAW and ToB text than the board. Thanks again. I'm going to take a break from this particularl thread for a day or two and let things stew in my head a bit.

[Yuki Akuma]

The assumption is that the half-truths are so close to the truth that people will accept the real truth as, well, the truth, once their brains get big enough to actually grasp it.

Or something. It's a pretty weird way to educate people.


I want to thank everyone for making the time to respond to my posts today. At this time I still haven't found a post that has changed my perspective on ToB gestalting as I am placing more emphasis on various aspect of Gestalt RAW and ToB text than the board. Thanks again. I'm going to take a break from this particularl thread for a day or two and let things stew in my head a bit.

...You've just been saying the same things over and over (and over) with the air of someone trying to fit a triangular peg through a square hole by twisting it around and bashing it against it.

Translation: So long, suckers! :smallwink:

[Valairn]

Generally I'm of the mindset that telling the full truth and letting them learn it a piece at a time is a more acceptable approach. Teaching should be clear, honest, and complete, learning does not have to be, it can be unclear and undirected. Which inlies the crux of the problem, people think teaching needs to be structured as people learn, which isn't true.

The whole concept of "need to know," as in kids don't need to know that....
Is in my mind a pretty crappy approach. Its like telling kids that Santa is real, then telling them later that, "oh everythign i said was a lie" is pretty much a way of saying, "hey i'm not trustworthy."

But this is all outside the bounds of this post, so I'm gonna curtail it now.

[Eldritch_Ent]

The most relevant "Maths Lie" I can think of pertains to order of operations. Namely, that first children are taught "Just do it left to right". 5 + 2 * 10 would come out as 70, not 25 as it should. Then they threw in parenthesis 5 + (2 * 10) then they taught me actual Order of operations. =/


As for Gestalt, there's two ways of going about it- either really trying to compress both classes into eachother, or more or less keeping the different aspects apart... However, given the different recovery methods, I'd have to disagree with castlemike here. I just don't think it's practical to smoosh these two classes together, even if the warblade's recovery is "better"... It's complicated. I should play Gestalt more. :smalltongue:

[Valairn]

Well the different recovery method is a moot point, when you compare the differences in available disciplines, exclusivity is what is the driving force for seperating the progressions.

[StickMan]

Started a new thread for the lies in school thing in Friendly banter to end that side topic in this thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3432089#post3432089

[Valairn]

Thank you! :-D

[Tokiko Mima]

The assumption is that the half-truths are so close to the truth that people will accept the real truth as, well, the truth, once their brains get big enough to actually grasp it.

Or something. It's a pretty weird way to educate people.

It's a very Orwellian way to teach children. Doublethink was the ability to believe strongly in two opposing truths at once, wasn't it? :smallbiggrin:

[brian c]

In some cases, yes. Moment of Perfect Clarity and its buddies spring to mind. Being able to slough off two will saves a combat without having to refresh is nothing to sneeze at. There are others where rapid reapplication would be very nice. Otherwise, it would probably be more advantageous for an adventurer to diversify.

I'd like to note here that it would be very difficult to get two copies of Moment of Perfect Clarity, since it's a Diamond Mind maneuver and the only class to get DM is Swordsage. However, gestalting TOB makes it a hell of a lot easier to get into Master of Nine, so you could get a second MoPC from your Mo9 maneuvers (though it would be a waste, since there are many higher level maneuvers to choose).

As for my take on the other debates going on in this thread: I don't want to get into any big arguments, but here's what I'm 100% or almost 100% sure of

1) Initiator levels for gestalt Martial Adept//Martial Adept would be equal to your level, don't add them together.

2) Maneuvers known and readied/granted would be kept track of separately for each class.

3) Gestalt rules DO NOT ban Mystic Theurge or any other dual-progression class. I don't even know how many times I've had to say this. They are not banned, it is suggested that DMs should be cautious in allowing them. Strictly by RAW though, you can take Mystic Theurge as one side of Gestalt. Taking PrCs on both sides of Gestalt progression is explicitly banned by RAW however.


With that having been said, if any DM is foolish enough to allow Initiator level to count double for ToB gestalting, I would go Warblade 20 // Swordsage 6 / Bloodclaw Master 5 / Mo9 5 / Swordsage 4. Rising Phoenix + Punishing Stance + Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip + Time Stands Still. That'll be two full attacks with perfect TWF, full BAB, plus 3d6 fire damage to everyone nearby, plus 1d6 on every hit, plus more to anyone you hit more than once. With 39 maneuvers and 10 stances known, you can pull off pretty much any combo there is; the only downside is the lack of dual-boost (Swordsage 20 ability).

Upon further inspection, the swordsage side should be in a different order, so as to maximize maneuvers learned (specifically, Mo9 last to get all the best maneuvers from any school), but you get the point.

[Behold_the_Void]

As a note, Warblade gets Diamond Mind too.

[Valairn]

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.
Emphasis added.

Straight from the SRD. Should be prohibited, is more or less, IS prohibited. Especially when you examine the said bolded area in context. After all these are house rules we are talking about here, so wizards played it safe and made everything sound like a suggestion, even though from any reasonable viewpoint the lines all point in the direction of dual advancement classes as being completely unbalanced in a gestalt environment. Also the point about dual advancement contributes nothing to the current conversation, so I will abandon my defense of my point forthwith.

[brian c]

Straight from the SRD. Should be prohibited, more or less, IS prohibited.

Emphasis added of my own. "More or less" is not the same as RAW. I know it's getting kind of nitpicky, but RAW still does not explicitly ban dual-progressions, though it surely seems to have been the intention of the author to do so. Maybe if there was Unearthed Arcana errata that would clear it up.


Also, my mistake about Diamond Mind. I had thought it was SS only, whoops.


To add to the previous build I mentioned: Wolf Pack Tactics as one of your stances (via the Warblade ability to simultaneously use two stances) lets you take a 5ft step after each successful attack (not dropping someone, just an attack). Against large groups, Great Cleave + Wolf Pack Tactics is pretty damn good (it's nice to have a boosted speed though, since WPT steps are still limited by your base land speed).

[Valairn]

I do agree there is room for nitpicking in there, but I generally try to keep things simple when it comes to UA rule sets, by applying the most strict interpretations, since it alleviates a lot of confusion.

On the note of powerful gestalt builds, pretty much anything that includes a martial adept class is pretty amazing. And I don't even want to mention the stuff they have come up with over on the Char Op boards at wizards, some of it is just horrible horrible cheese, or just really amazing use of mechanics. Either way gestalt can be a lot of fun, if you understand from the get go that its ridiculously overpowered with anyone who takes some time to build their char.

[Blue Paladin]

Let me take a crack at this...

This is for CASTLEMIKE in particular.


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.I'm fairly sure most people will agree that the Warblade recovery method is superior to the Swordsage one. Great. Now think about a Crusader//Warblade. What is "better"? Crusaders recover with no action at all. Does that make it better than the Warblade? Warblades get all of their maneuvers back instead of two random ones. Does that make it better than the Crusader?

Would you allow the "best aspects" of each, and get the horribly broken result of "recover all maneuvers with no action"? I certainly wouldn't. But if I were to keep the maneuvers (and their respective recovery methods) separate, then that ends up not too bad.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now for everyone in general. Mr.Friendly brought this up first, and most people seem to be missing the main thrust of the problem. Initiator Level is a derived result, not a class feature; it doesn't say a level in a class adds +1 IL or +1/2 IL. In fact, for a multiclass adept/adept, it adds both at the same time (eg Crusader 3/Warblade2, adding a level of Warblade adds +1/2 Crusader IL AND +1 Warblade IL). That's already "double-dipping" or even triple-dipping IL (e.g. all 3 martial adept classes; take a level of Mo9:+3 IL); and that's normal play, not even gestalt!

The formula for Initiator Level for a given martial adept class is:

levels in given martial adept class + {levels in full progression prestige classes} + one-half (the levels of everything else)

It's that last entry (one-half the levels of all other classes) that messes things up in gestalt because there is no explicit cap on IL. The way gestalt works (gain two classes when leveling up once) automatically breaks Initiator Level, by letting IL be > character level. RAW, a Warblade 4// Rogue 4 has an IL of 6.

Here's some numerical examples to illustrate:

Level 14 gestalt:
Crusader 14 // Warblade 10/Rogue4
Crusader IL 21 [14 + {0} + 1/2*(10+4)]
Warblade IL 19 [10 + {0} + 1/2*(4+14)]

Level 12 gestalt:
Warblade 7/Master of Nine 5 // Crusader 6/Rogue 1/Swordsage 3/Eternal Blade 2
Warblade IL 19 [7 + {5+2} + 1/2*(6+1+3)]
Crusader IL 18 [6 + {5+2} + 1/2*(7+1+3)]
Swordsage IL 17 [3 + {5+2} + 1/2*(7+6+1)]

Level 20 gestalt:
Swordsage 6/Bloodclaw Master 3/Master of Nine 4/Shadow Sun Ninja 7 // Warblade 20
Swordsage IL 30 [6 + {3+4+7} + 1/2*(20)]
Warblade IL 37 [20 + {3+4+7} + 1/2*(6)]

I agree with Mr.Friendly; everyone's gut should say it's broken. But that's how it is, by RAW.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Let me take a crack at this...

This is for CASTLEMIKE in particular.

I'm fairly sure most people will agree that the Warblade recovery method is superior to the Swordsage one. Great. Now think about a Crusader//Warblade. What is "better"? Crusaders recover with no action at all. Does that make it better than the Warblade? Warblades get all of their maneuvers back instead of two random ones. Does that make it better than the Crusader?

Would you allow the "best aspects" of each, and get the horribly broken result of "recover all maneuvers with no action"? I certainly wouldn't. But if I were to keep the maneuvers (and their respective recovery methods) separate, then that ends up not too bad.
------------------------------------------------------------

The formula for Initiator Level for a given martial adept class is:

levels in given martial adept class + {levels in full progression prestige classes} + one-half (the levels of everything else)

It's that last entry (one-half the levels of all other classes) that messes things up in gestalt because there is no explicit cap on IL. The way gestalt works (gain two classes when leveling up once) automatically breaks Initiator Level, by letting IL be > character level. RAW, a Warblade 4// Rogue 4 has an IL of 6.

Here's some numerical examples to illustrate:

Level 14 gestalt:
Crusader 14 // Warblade 10/Rogue4
Crusader IL 21 [14 + {0} + 1/2*(10+4)]
Warblade IL 19 [10 + {0} + 1/2*(4+14)]

Level 12 gestalt:
Warblade 7/Master of Nine 5 // Crusader 6/Rogue 1/Swordsage 3/Eternal Blade 2
Warblade IL 19 [7 + {5+2} + 1/2*(6+1+3)]
Crusader IL 18 [6 + {5+2} + 1/2*(7+1+3)]
Swordsage IL 17 [3 + {5+2} + 1/2*(7+6+1)]

Level 20 gestalt:
Swordsage 6/Bloodclaw Master 3/Master of Nine 4/Shadow Sun Ninja 7 // Warblade 20
Swordsage IL 30 [6 + {3+4+7} + 1/2*(20)]
Warblade IL 37 [20 + {3+4+7} + 1/2*(6)]

I agree with Mr.Friendly; everyone's gut should say it's broken. But that's how it is, by RAW.

Yes I would. I realize I hold a minority view on the subject but I view the ToB classes as Martial Adepts with common class features of disciplines, manuevers and maneuver recovery. Basically Martial Adept Variant classes not Different classes like Clerics, Druids, Psions, Sorcerers and Wizards. Each class has a different maneuver progression due to other class features balancing them out. Gestalt ignores that and takes the best aspects of each class. The source book is Tome of Battle The Book of Nine Swords.

My reading on the text in ToB describing what disciplines and maneuvers are is that they meet the criteria of taking the best aspects of a class and shared class features IMO under gestalt rules.

All three base ToB classes are martial adept classes which have different features based on how their martial adept disciplines, maneuvers and maneuver recovery to balance them out. Each class shares disciplines with other ToB classes which does not effect their maneuver recovery rate.

The SS class knows the most martial adept maneuvers and acquires them at the fastest progression rate partly because the class is balanced out with the worst HD at D8 with average BAB and the slowest recovery.

In contrast the WB class knows the least martial adept maneuvers and has slowest progression acquiring them but is balanced out with the best BAB, D12 HD and the easiest recovery method.

Some know more maneuvers, each has a slightly maneuver different Under gestalt rules and only gestalt rules .

Each class acquires martial adept maneuvers
--------------------------

SRD:

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. A few caveats apply, however.

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

---------------------

Under standard ToB RAW a PC can only multiclass by the rules because taking two levels simultaneously isn't factored into that.

It would only be an option in a gestalt game and if a player wanted to play a dual level multiclassed martial adept fine there are plenty of other strong builds he could have gone for in game.

It would be a powerful option in game but that is one of the reasons you would be playing gestalt normally. There are still opportunity costs in game. You only take the best of the two classes leveling. IMO most PCs would probably only take a single or a few level dips of a martial adept class on the other side of the build in game since that is where the most benefit is mechanically regarding maneuvers and maneuver recovery.

A PC can only obtain a higher than 20 initiator level in a gestalt game at level 20 when you continue to apply multiclassing rules. This would not be a problem using my interpretation of the gestalt RAW and taking the best features of two martial adept classes leveling.

If this interpretation is applied to gestalt. PCs wouldn't be allowed any double initiator level cheese at best you would get +1 initiator level each level leveling under gestalt rules by taking the the highest or one of the equal class initiator level increases leveling under gestalt rules of taking the best of both classes.

The broken initiator leveling shouldn't be an issue in a gestalt game. That it is perceived as a problems and broken in some games by RAW actually supports my interpretation that dual martial adept classes take the best features of the class when leveling in gestalt instead of applying multiclass rules.

[Roog]

Now for everyone in general. Mr.Friendly brought this up first, and most people seem to be missing the main thrust of the problem. Initiator Level is a derived result, not a class feature; it doesn't say a level in a class adds +1 IL or +1/2 IL. In fact, for a multiclass adept/adept, it adds both at the same time (eg Crusader 3/Warblade2, adding a level of Warblade adds +1/2 Crusader IL AND +1 Warblade IL). That's already "double-dipping" or even triple-dipping IL (e.g. all 3 martial adept classes; take a level of Mo9:+3 IL); and that's normal play, not even gestalt!

The formula for Initiator Level for a given martial adept class is:

levels in given martial adept class + {levels in full progression prestige classes} + one-half (the levels of everything else)

It's that last entry (one-half the levels of all other classes) that messes things up in gestalt because there is no explicit cap on IL. The way gestalt works (gain two classes when leveling up once) automatically breaks Initiator Level, by letting IL be > character level. RAW, a Warblade 4// Rogue 4 has an IL of 6.

This brings up an interesting question, neither Initiator Level or Character Level are mentioned in the Gestalt rules, so looking at the relevant sections (as far as I can see)...

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 all other classes.

Level: “Character level” is a character’s total number of levels. It is used to determine when feats and ability score boosts are gained, as noted on Table 3–2: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits (page 22).
If this means that Initiator Level is gained from both sides of a gestalt character, and a Warblade 10 / Crusader 10 // Swordsage 10 / Commoner 10 has Initiator Level of {Warblade IL 25, Crusader IL 25, Swordsage IL 25},
then shouldn't it also mean that that character has Character Level of 40?


On the other hand...

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.
Note that this is "aspects" not just class features. It would make sense that +1 Character Level is an aspect that overlaps (meaning that the example would have Character Level 20), and that IL would also be an overlapping aspect.
At level 1 a Warblade // Swordsage, Warblade 1 would have the "aspect" of +1 Warblade IL, +1/2 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL; while Swordsage 1 would have the "aspect" of +1/2 Warblade IL, +1 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL. Taking the best of these overlapping aspects would give +1 Warblade IL, +1 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL.

[Roog]

Yes I would. I realize I hold a minority view on the subject but I view the ToB classes as Martial Adepts with common class features of disciplines, manuevers and maneuver recovery. Basically Martial Adept Variant classes not Different classes like Clerics, Druids, Psions, Sorcerers and Wizards. Each class has a different maneuver progression due to other class features balancing them out. Gestalt ignores that and takes the best aspects of each class. The source book is Tome of Battle The Book of Nine Swords.

My reading on the text in ToB describing what disciplines and maneuvers are is that they meet the criteria of taking the best aspects of a class and shared class features IMO under gestalt rules.

All three base ToB classes are martial adept classes which have different features based on how their martial adept disciplines, maneuvers and maneuver recovery to balance them out. Each class shares disciplines with other ToB classes which does not effect their maneuver recovery rate.

The SS class knows the most martial adept maneuvers and acquires them at the fastest progression rate partly because the class is balanced out with the worst HD at D8 with average BAB and the slowest recovery.

In contrast the WB class knows the least martial adept maneuvers and has slowest progression acquiring them but is balanced out with the best BAB, D12 HD and the easiest recovery method.
easiest recovery method? really? The Warblade's recovery method is good, but so is the Crusader's. The Warblade may get more at once, but he has to spend actions to do this and can't use them the round he gains them; the Crusader gets one (or more) a round without having to do anything.


Some know more maneuvers, each has a slightly maneuver different Under gestalt rules and only gestalt rules .

Each class acquires martial adept maneuvers


Could you explain your position further?

Say I take

Level 1 - Warblade 1 // Crusader 1
Level 2 - Warblade 2 // Swordsage 1

What maneuver pool(s) do I have, how many maneuvers do I get, and how do I recover them?

[Valairn]

Using the logic in your post as a reference, I will now make a wizard//sorceror and be able to cast all spells known spontaneously and be able to scribe spells into my spellbook from scrolls and not have to prepare them in the morning in order to use them....

And with that, I'm done arguing with you on this. You can houserule whatever you want however you want, its no skin off my back.

[CASTLEMIKE]

easiest recovery method? really? The Warblade's recovery method is good, but so is the Crusader's. The Warblade may get more at once, but he has to spend actions to do this and can't use them the round he gains them; the Crusader gets one (or more) a round without having to do anything.




Could you explain your position further?

Say I take

Level 1 - Warblade 1 // Crusader 1
Level 2 - Warblade 2 // Swordsage 1

What maneuver pool(s) do I have, how many maneuvers do I get, and how do I recover them?

Easiest to track in game in game as a Warblade because you can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else.

With a Crusader normally you do not control access to your readied maneuvers. Before you take your first action in an encounter two of your readied maneuvers (randomly determined) are granted to you.

Gestalt:
Lvl 1 SS-1/Bar-1
Lvl 2 SS-2/F-1
Lvl 3 SS-3/WB-1
Lvl 4 SS-4/C-1

Instead of being a leve 4 SS - with an Initiator level of 4 with MK - 10, MR 5, SK -2 and multiclassed with two other martial adept classes treated separately as per standard ToB RAW multiclassing.

The PC is a level 4 Initiator 4 martial adept with MK - 15, MR -12(2) , SK - 4 who uses the best maneuver recovery aspects of each of the three ToB martial adept classes because he is a gestalt martial adept and not a multiclased martial adept.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Using the logic in your post as a reference, I will now make a wizard//sorceror and be able to cast all spells known spontaneously and be able to scribe spells into my spellbook from scrolls and not have to prepare them in the morning in order to use them....

And with that, I'm done arguing with you on this. You can houserule whatever you want however you want, its no skin off my back.

No under gestalt RAW you cannot do that because dual spellcasters receive this specific rule:

"Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately".

ToB clearly states Martial Adept class disciplines and maneuvers are extraordinary or supernatural abilities not spellcasting. The only time in game it is possible to treat a martial adept class as non multiclassed is in a gestalt game.

-----------

Regarding my logic, if spellcasting was treated in a similar fashion in gestalt which it clearly isn't because of the specific gestlat spellcasting rule, your example of a gestalt sorcerer-20/wizard-20 would really weaken the player by scaling down his daily arcane spellcasting power:

The PC would only be capable of casting 6/ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 spells a day based on his best attribute score without the gestalt rules if treated in a similar fashion which would be a huge opportunity cost since he would still be limited to the permanently known spells of a standard sorcerer 20 which he would be able to "augment" temporarily by studying from a spellbook up to his daily spellcasting limit at the cost of his daily wizard class spellcasting since it is less than a sorcerer's. You would normally only take a dip in the wizard side to learn how to augment your permanently known spells on a day to day basis from a spellbook. The minor benefit in spellcasting that could have been gained at odd levels leveling would have been at the opportunity cost of taking other classes.

--------------

[Mr. Friendly]

No under gestalt RAW you cannot do that because dual spellcasters receive this specific rule:

"Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately".

ToB clearly states Martial Adept class disciplines and maneuvers are extraordinary or supernatural abilities not spellcasting.

Right but I think the point that is being made is that UA came out before ToB and Martial Adepts use "Sword Magic'".

People with a ToB handy, do me a favor:

Look in the Feats section under the description of (feat name); the feat that gives you a (1) martial power of any discipline. What does it's description say about when that maneuver is recovered? If it specifies that if you already have martial maneuvers, then it recovers with your other maneuvers, then they all refresh simultainiously I would think. Also look under the description of maneuvers and refreshing them and see if there is any specificity. Does it say "all maneuvers" or anything similar?

[Valairn]

CASTLEMIKE: I think you misunderstood me, I was using sarcasm.

Yes just like you said and in fact I already knew spellcasters are kept track of seperately. But what you fail to notice is the similarities between spellcasters and martial adepts. Lets get serious here, manuevers are just spells for melee characters, plain and simple.

Lets take a look here. A wizard 3/sorceror 3 multi-classed has acess to second levels spells as both a wizard and a sorceror and keeps track of their spell lists seperately and prepares their spells seperately. So in other words their disciplines are different and they recover manuevers differently.

A gestalt wizard 3//sorceror 3 has access to second level spells as a wizard and a sorceror and has spell lists known seperate and distinct from the other class.

Just like Fax said, you keep track of manuevers seperately from multi-classed martial adepts and can only recover them using the recovery method from the class that gained that manuever, according to the RAW. Which means for gestalt you would also keep them seperate...

[brian c]

This brings up an interesting question, neither Initiator Level or Character Level are mentioned in the Gestalt rules, so looking at the relevant sections (as far as I can see)...


If this means that Initiator Level is gained from both sides of a gestalt character, and a Warblade 10 / Crusader 10 // Swordsage 10 / Commoner 10 has Initiator Level of {Warblade IL 25, Crusader IL 25, Swordsage IL 25},
then shouldn't it also mean that that character has Character Level of 40?


On the other hand...

Note that this is "aspects" not just class features. It would make sense that +1 Character Level is an aspect that overlaps (meaning that the example would have Character Level 20), and that IL would also be an overlapping aspect.
At level 1 a Warblade // Swordsage, Warblade 1 would have the "aspect" of +1 Warblade IL, +1/2 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL; while Swordsage 1 would have the "aspect" of +1/2 Warblade IL, +1 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL. Taking the best of these overlapping aspects would give +1 Warblade IL, +1 Swordsage IL, and +1/2 Crusader IL.


I think this is the major obstacle here. Everyone is assuming (ahem, CASTLEMIKE) that when you take a gestalt level you're actually getting a level in two separate classes. However, due to the "best features" part of gestalt, it's really more like getting one level of a mashup class; you aren't taking a level of Warblade and a level of Swordsage, you're taking one level of Warblade//Swordsage. Depending on the situation, you can count that level as either Warblade or Swordsage, whichever is more beneficial to you, but not both.

So let's say you're a Warblade 20//Swordsage 20 (just be simple for now)

Initiator level for Warblade: each level is most beneficially counted as Warblade, so IL = 20.

IL for Swordsage: again, best counted all as Swordsage, so IL = 20.


Stop making ToB and Gestalt look cheesier than they really are.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Right but I think the point that is being made is that UA came out before ToB and Martial Adepts use "Sword Magic'".

People with a ToB handy, do me a favor:

Look in the Feats section under the description of (feat name); the feat that gives you a (1) martial power of any discipline. What does it's description say about when that maneuver is recovered? If it specifies that if you already have martial maneuvers, then it recovers with your other maneuvers, then they all refresh simultainiously I would think. Also look under the description of maneuvers and refreshing them and see if there is any specificity. Does it say "all maneuvers" or anything similar?

This is the RAW board right? RAW not RAI. ToB clearly describes Martial Powers on page 37-38 martial powers which fall into two broad categories: stances and maneuvers (which include boosts, counters and strikes). A martial maneuver is a discrete or supernatural effect that is temporarily expedned after use. A stance is never expended and is always available to you.

ToB is clear it is not spellcasting which has a specific rule for it under gestalt. In fact to play a arcane spellcasting martial adept you need to play a variant martial adept as per ToB on page 20.

I am aware of the single sentence Multiclass Martial Adept rule in ToB on page 40. IMO Gestalt RAW trumps that rule because you are now gestalting a martial adept something not possible under normal rules because your PC cannot take two martial adept class levels at the same level.

[Yuki Akuma]

This is the RAW board right? RAW not RAI. ToB clearly describes Martial Powers on page 37-38 martial powers which fall into two broad categories: stances and maneuvers (which include boosts, counters and strikes). A martial maneuver is a discrete or supernatural effect that is temporarily expedned after use. A stance is never expended and is always available to you.

ToB is clear it is not spellcasting which has a specific rule for it under gestalt. In fact to play a arcane spellcasting martial adept you need to play a variant martial adept as per ToB on page 20.

I am aware of the single sentence Multiclass Martial Adept rule in ToB on page 40. IMO Gestalt RAW trumps that rule because you are now gestalting a martial adept something not possible under normal rules because your PC cannot take two martial adept class levels at the same level.

You like using the term RAW.

It's also RAW in Unearthed Arcana that all other books trump all the text written in it. Because everything in UA is a house rule. Y'know, just, FYI.

[CASTLEMIKE]

You like using RAW.

It's also RAW in Unearthed Arcana that all other books trump all the text written in it. Because everything in UA is a house rule. Y'know, just, FYI.

Gestalt is also part of the SRD. So by applying that same logic you cannot play a gestalt martial adept in game unless you can cite what part of ToB does allow a PC to take 2 class levels simultaneously.

[kamikasei]

ToB is clear it is not spellcasting which has a specific rule for it under gestalt. In fact to play a arcane spellcasting martial adept you need to play a variant martial adept as per ToB on page 20.

Out of curiosity, if you regard spellcasting as having a special exception in gestalt, how would you treat psionics? What would a psion//psywar's powers known and so forth look like?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this distinction between RAW and RAI. There's not really a difference in this case because gestalt isn't really RAW. Sure, there are Rules and they're Written, but they're incomplete and non-exhaustive and serve only as guidelines or a starting point for DMs to fit to a campaign as necessary. Incorporating something released after UA into a gestalt game necessarily requires interpreting the intent of the rules to achieve some kind of balance. Psionicists and martial adepts should clearly act like spellcasters for gestalt, and arguing otherwise is honestly just perverse.

[Valairn]

We have already quoted the RAW(you keep on using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means), pointing out solidly that the class features are considered seperate and distinct from each other. Thank you Fax who so helpfully posted the reference.

I am no longer going to discuss this with you.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Out of curiosity, if you regard spellcasting as having a special exception in gestalt, how would you treat psionics? What would a psion//psywar's powers known and so forth look like?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this distinction between RAW and RAI. There's not really a difference in this case because gestalt isn't really RAW. Sure, there are Rules and they're Written, but they're incomplete and non-exhaustive and serve only as guidelines or a starting point for DMs to fit to a campaign as necessary. Incorporating something released after UA into a gestalt game necessarily requires interpreting the intent of the rules to achieve some kind of balance. Psionicists and martial adepts should clearly act like spellcasters for gestalt, and arguing otherwise is honestly just perverse.


Spellcasting does have a special exemption in Gestalt:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#buildingAGestaltCharacter

The specific gestalt rule regarding spellcasters:

Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.

ToB was release after UA and martial adepts are not spellcasters.

Psionics would depend on your game and how you interpret Transparency regarding Magic and Psionics. Using the general default premise that magic and psionics are not different in game via Transparency it would be treated as spellcasting.

[CASTLEMIKE]

We have already quoted the RAW(you keep on using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means), pointing out solidly that the class features are considered seperate and distinct from each other. Thank you Fax who so helpfully posted the reference.

I am no longer going to discuss this with you.

RAW Rules as Written.

When they are in conflict you make an interpretation which makes more sense for your game.

I'd posted the multi class martial adept rule on page 40 earlier in the thread (and you even quoted me on it) before Fax reposted it and why it should not apply in a gestalt game. Initiator levels, taking the best of common class features and progressions of classes in a gestalt game. It is only in a gestalt game where a PC taking 2 martial adept classes simultaneously that a PC would not be multiclassing per ToB rules he would be gestalting.

Where in ToB does it allow a PC to take 2 martial adept classes simultaneously? To my knowledge it doesn't only under gestalt rules is this an option.

[Yuki Akuma]

So you're actually saying yourself that UA doesn't have a special exception for martial adepts because US was released before the ToB? Which means it automatically has to use some insane mishmash of two seperate class features to fit with your insane interpretation of the gestalt rules?

Exactly where is the logic in this statement?

[Valairn]

(sanitized by myself)

I am not arguing about this anymore. Do whatever you like.

[Thinker]

So you're actually saying yourself that UA doesn't have a special exception for martial adepts because US was released before the ToB? Which means it automatically has to use some insane mishmash of two seperate class features to fit with your insane interpretation of the gestalt rules?

Exactly where is the logic in this statement?

Let me try to explain his stance:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

[Yakk]

So let's back up a second.

If you treat D&D like a computer program, it will crash. It won't run.

Maneuver recovery abilities only ever allow you to recover maneuvers that are from the same class as the recovery ability. This is a true statement in non-Gesalt D&D. I have yet to see any reason why this rule would change under Gesalt. You are acting as if you are merging the two classes into one -- but that isn't what is happening under Gesalt, it is that you are getting both class levels at once.

If, when gaining a levels, the two classes generate an identical benefit (possibly at different rates) -- you take the best feature from the two classes you have gesalted. If, when gaining levels, the two classes gain benefits that are distinct, you gain both benefits.

If a class has the ability "can use all of your class abilities from this class as a swift action 1/day", this does not mean that class abilities from the class you gesalt it with are usable as swift actions 1/day. Gesalt does not merge classes.

Similarly, gesalting two ToB classes does not grant you the ability to use the maneuver reset powers of one class on the other classes abilities. You get both maneuver reset powers, but each continues to apply (as pre-Gesalt) to only those powers it applied to -- the class maneuvers.

I mean, is there a rule under Gesalt that says "you cannot reset your group-mates maneuvers using your reset?" As that rule is not explicitly listed, clearly going Gesalt gives you that ability!

Gesalt follows the non-Gesalt rules except where the Gesalt rules change it. Under non-Gesalt rules, maneuver resets only reset the maneuvers gained from that class. Gesalt does not state that it changes how maneuver reset works, nor does it have an exception that states that maneuver reset applies to all abilities.

Now, you can play this way -- but you are not playing RAW, nor are you playing reasonably.

[Bauglir]

Psionics would depend on your game and how you interpret Transparency regarding Magic and Psionics. Using the general default premise that magic and psionics are not different in game via Transparency it would be treated as spellcasting.

I don't think you quite understand the Magic/Psionics Transparency. The transparency only applies to how spells and powers interact and how things that interact with one interact with the other. It has absolutely no effect on anything else, such as powers known or power points or whatever. Under your interpretation, I believe a Psion 19//X 19 who levels to Psion 20//X 19/Psychic Warrior 1 would be able to add a 9th level Psion power known as their Psychic Warior power known, because powers known is a shared class feature and the best aspect of each allows 9th level for the Psychic Warrior. We have a problem here. The only reason this isn't addressed under the Gestalt rules is that Psionics are not default components of the setting, and you'll note that the only UA rules that exist apply only to the default setting.

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't think you quite understand the Magic/Psionics Transparency. The transparency only applies to how spells and powers interact and how things that interact with one interact with the other. It has absolutely no effect on anything else, such as powers known or power points or whatever. Under your interpretation, I believe a Psion 19//X 19 who levels to Psion 20//X 19/Psychic Warrior 1 would be able to add a 9th level Psion power known as their Psychic Warior power known, because powers known is a shared class feature and the best aspect of each allows 9th level for the Psychic Warrior. We have a problem here. The only reason this isn't addressed under the Gestalt rules is that Psionics are not default components of the setting, and you'll note that the only UA rules that exist apply only to the default setting.

Of course, he wouldn't be able to manifest that power, as he can only spend 1 power point as a Psychic Warrior... :smallbiggrin:

[CASTLEMIKE]

So you're actually saying yourself that UA doesn't have a special exception for martial adepts because US was released before the ToB? Which means it automatically has to use some insane mishmash of two seperate class features to fit with your insane interpretation of the gestalt rules?

Exactly where is the logic in this statement?

That would be a double No to your first two questions? I'm saying the three ToB base classes are MARTIAL ADEPTS and not spellcasters as per ToB RAW and that continuing to base an arguement under that premise is incorrect in a RAW discussion regardless of how popular the support for it is.

ToB specifically says martial adepts which are not spellcasters under "Martial Powers" text in ToB which was released after the preexisting Gestalt rules variant appeared in UA and in the SRD.

In gestalt by RAW there are 3 Caveats under class features:

First spellcasters are treated differently than other classes in that spellcasting is tracked separately.

Second specific rules regarding how PRCs are taken in the build.

Third shared class features accrue at the faster level.
-----------------

ToB is clear maneuvers are not spells. For a base class martial adept to use spells instead of maneuvers he needs to use a ToB variant to play an arcane spellcasting martial adept who know spells instead of maneuvers of equivalent level. ToB "suggests" limiting them to the schools of abjuration, evocation and transmuation as being most appropiate, this variant also has a cost to the swordsage he loses D8 HD down to D6 and loses the light armor proficiency.

Hopefully this has clarified my logic regarding your last question.

[Indon]

I would say you could count double-dip independently for each side, excluding double-ToB progression levels.

So, for instance, a Warblade 5/Rogue 5//Factotum 5/Swordsage 5 or a Warblade 5/Swordsage 5//Rogue 10 would have a manifester level of Warblade 7 and Swordsage 7 (Not 12), a Warblade 10//Factotum 5/Swordsage 5 would have a manifester level of Warblade 10 and Swordsage 7.

And in regards to maneuver recovery:

You can not recover Swordsage abilities with the Warblade method because their maneuvering abilities are different class features; if you ruled that the Swordsage and Warblade abilities were the same class feature, you would not get a double progression, though you may get access to the schools of both for your single progression, and you could recover as a Warblade.

I imagine my players would prefer I rule them as different class features, so they don't get shortchanged on the number of maneuvers and stances they know and can use.

[Yuki Akuma]

Ugh, forget it. I'm sick of arguing with someone who keeps repeating the same points over and over.

[Bauglir]

Nah, he'd just manifest it out of his Psion power points, using the best aspect of his Psion levels (the ability to manifest 9th level powers with his manifester level gained thereby).

By the way, CASTLEMIKE: yes, if the Martial Adepts were variants of one another, you might have a point. But as you say, you "see" them as variant Martial Adepts, rather than distinct classes. You do not have a ruling in this regard, however. Martial Adepts is merely a catch-all phrase the includes all three classes as subgroups, not a class in and of itself. To say that they are variants is not RAW, as such a statement exists nowhere as far as I know, nor is there a base Martial Adept class. However, it IS quite clearly stated that they are base classes, so until you point out the variant thing, you have no RAW basis for your argument.

[Yakk]

Now for everyone in general. Mr.Friendly brought this up first, and most people seem to be missing the main thrust of the problem. Initiator Level is a derived result, not a class feature; it doesn't say a level in a class adds +1 IL or +1/2 IL. In fact, for a multiclass adept/adept, it adds both at the same time (eg Crusader 3/Warblade2, adding a level of Warblade adds +1/2 Crusader IL AND +1 Warblade IL). That's already "double-dipping" or even triple-dipping IL (e.g. all 3 martial adept classes; take a level of Mo9:+3 IL); and that's normal play, not even gestalt!

The formula for Initiator Level for a given martial adept class is:

levels in given martial adept class + {levels in full progression prestige classes} + one-half (the levels of everything else)

It's that last entry (one-half the levels of all other classes) that messes things up in gestalt because there is no explicit cap on IL. The way gestalt works (gain two classes when leveling up once) automatically breaks Initiator Level, by letting IL be > character level. RAW, a Warblade 4// Rogue 4 has an IL of 6.

Except, you don't have 4 rogue levels and 4 warblade levels. If you had both, you'd be L 8. ;) You have 4 levels in both Rogue//Warblade.

So I'd hold that each level can be treated as a Warblade level or a Rogue level in a given IL calculation. As each level of any class adds 1/2 to your IL level in Warblade, while each level of Warblade adds 1 to your Warblade IL level, this also follows the "use the best of the two classes you gesalt".

This also has the advantage of "not breaking D&D".

[CASTLEMIKE]

And in regards to maneuver recovery:

if you ruled that the Swordsage and Warblade abilities were the same class feature, you would not get a double progression, though you may get access to the schools of both for your single progression, and you could recover as a Warblade.


Yes it comes at a cost the PC would not get a double progression.

You would take the best Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied, and Stances Known at each level without multiclass double progession with a maximum +1 inititiator level gained at each level and forfeit the normal multiclassing martial adept benefits.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes it comes at a cost the PC would not get a double progression.

You would take the best Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied, and Stances Known at each level without multiclass double progession with a maximum +1 inititiator level gained at each level and forfeit the normal multiclassing martial adept benefits.

SO... why would anyone ever play a gestalt Warblade//Swordsage?!

[Mr. Friendly]

Except, you don't have 4 rogue levels and 4 warblade levels. If you had both, you'd be L 8. ;) You have 4 levels in both Rogue//Warblade.

So I'd hold that each level can be treated as a Warblade level or a Rogue level in a given IL calculation. As each level of any class adds 1/2 to your IL level in Warblade, while each level of Warblade adds 1 to your Warblade IL level, this also follows the "use the best of the two classes you gesalt".

This also has the advantage of "not breaking D&D".

I concede that this is clearly RAI (Rules as Intended; not saying it to you per se, just for anyone reading who doesn't know what we are talking about); what I am looking at though is RAW (Rules as Written).

Now, as I am reading the Gestalt rules, all features that are the same overlap. One of which is Hit Dice. Level is never expressly mentioned though. Level must remain seperate for each class, otherwise class features become impossible to navigate at higher levels.

If as you contend you would not be a Warblade4//Rogue4 and would instead be a Warblade//Rogue 4 what happens next level when you decide to take Psion//Fighter? Obviously you are not a Fighter/Warblade//Rogue/Psion 5. Instead you are a Fighter1/Warblade4//Rogue4/Psion1 - Character Level 5.

Which brings me back to Initiator Level. It is not the same as caster level and it is not mentioned as a class feature (I don't think so anyway, I am AFB right now, but I distinctly remember it being in a seperate area at the beginning of the disciplines). It specifically lists what and how it works out, now if you want to houserule it to be RAI, that's fine. I would even agree that it makes more sense that way. However, in a pure RAW context, I think the letter of the law supports my notion, that your IL can be "double dipped" via gestalting.

Let me introduce another paradox of ToB and Gestalt; the Weapon Aptitude class feature of the Warblade.


Weapon Aptitude (Ex): Your training with a wide range of weaponry and tactics gives you great skill with particular weapons. You qualify for feats that usually require a minimum number of fighter levels (such as Weapon Specialization) as if you had a fighter level equal to your warblade level -2. For example, as a 6th-level warblade, you could take Weapon Specialization, since you're treated as being a 4th-level fighter for this purpose. These effective fighter levels stack with any actual fighter levels you have. Thus, a fighter 2/warblade 4 would also qualify for Weapon Specialization.

Now, imagine a Gestalt Fighter3//Warblade3, I think he qualifies for Weapon Specialization at 3rd level (so long as he has Focus in the chosen weapon). Why? He really does have 3 Fighter levels. He also really has 3 Warblade levels. Which gives him a virtual fighter level of 4, because of this class feature. That's how I read it anyway.

[brian c]

I would say you could count double-dip independently for each side, excluding double-ToB progression levels.

So, for instance, a Warblade 5/Rogue 5//Factotum 5/Swordsage 5 or a Warblade 5/Swordsage 5//Rogue 10 would have a manifester level of Warblade 7 and Swordsage 7 (Not 12), a Warblade 10//Factotum 5/Swordsage 5 would have a manifester level of Warblade 10 and Swordsage 7.

And in regards to maneuver recovery:

You can not recover Swordsage abilities with the Warblade method because their maneuvering abilities are different class features; if you ruled that the Swordsage and Warblade abilities were the same class feature, you would not get a double progression, though you may get access to the schools of both for your single progression, and you could recover as a Warblade.

I imagine my players would prefer I rule them as different class features, so they don't get shortchanged on the number of maneuvers and stances they know and can use.

Psst... manifester levels are for psionics. Martial adepts use initiator level.

[Valairn]

CASTLEMIKE:

I had been engaging in this argument with a rather strong position and I seemed to have been derailed in part due to your use of the word RAW. I began to focus upon your appeal to authority and missed the real point and in so doing caused you to think I was arguing something that I was in fact NOT arguing.

There are a couple of interpretations according to the RAW as far as this issue is concerned, but I am going to address yours from more than just the "authority" on the issue.

Creating an amalgam of class features as you so describe, and developed using certain logical assumptions of how you think the rules should fall into place, and I don't discount the fact that you in fact do have a point and have it grounded in certain RAW facts, what I do discount is the fundamental approach you took.

DnD is broken, or at least can be broken very easily(eg Pun Pun). This being known, when making a ruling on certain parts of the game, the player and the DM must not rely on the RAW as the sole basis for decision making, but must also rely on good sense.

Martial manuevers are NOT spells, BUT for all intents and purposes on this issue they should be treated as spells. The similarities between the two allow me to make this conclusion, for instance, manuevers come in 9 levels, as do spells, a class is able to learn manuevers and add to his manuever list, much like a wizard or sorceror is able to add and learn new spells. Manuever recovery is a similar mechanic to spell recovery, you can only use spells/manuevers a certain number of times before you must recover them.

The other similarity between the two is the way you multi-class them. A wizard/sorceror has his own spell lists for each class, and a warblade/swordsage keeps track of his manuevers known seperately for each class, and must recover them according to the class that owns that manuever.

Now I will agree with two assertions you have made.

One, manuevers are not spells.
Two, the gestalt rules were written before ToB.

Now here is the kicker, since we know that ToB was written after UA, when using things in UA we must make ASSUMPTIONS about how the mechanics should work with its house rule/game options. The most logical assumption and in fact the one which simplifies game mechanics is to use the system that is most like the system you are incorporating. Which for manuevers is in fact spellcasting, and the authors of the ToB would not have had to point it out that "manuevers are not spells" if the similarities were not so easily drawn.

Therefore, ToB martial adepts should gestalt in the same manner as spellcasters, because it most closely resembles the already developed game mechanics even if it is not technically spellcasting. Also since spellcasters gestalt in the same way as they multi-class, so should martial adepts.

This argument for me was neither fun or enlightening to me. I only have come back to post this, because I believe it needs to be said. The RAW is not there to be stretched to its limits, saying that manuevers are not spells, is missing the whole point entirely. Manuevers are not spells, but they work almost exactly like spells, which means they share mechanics. Gestalt is used to combine the mechanics of two classes together, which means you should combine similar mechanics in the same way, unless combining them in that same way would break those mechanics. The way that many of us on this board have appealed to preserves the intended mechanic for each class, while yours does not.

And with that, I have laid the groundwork for my point, I'm not arguing against your conclusions based off the RAW. You have said Manuevers are not spells, and in that you are in fact correct, you then said that manuevers should not fall under the gestalt rules for spellcasters, in this you are wrong, but not because of strict definitions, but because of the reasons I previously stated.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Maneuver recovery abilities only ever allow you to recover maneuvers that are from the same class as the recovery ability. This is a true statement in non-Gesalt D&D. I have yet to see any reason why this rule would change under Gesalt. You are acting as if you are merging the two classes into one -- but that isn't what is happening under Gesalt, it is that you are getting both class levels at once.

If, when gaining a levels, the two classes generate an identical benefit (possibly at different rates) -- you take the best feature from the two classes you have gesalted. If, when gaining levels, the two classes gain benefits that are distinct, you gain both benefits.

If a class has the ability "can use all of your class abilities from this class as a swift action 1/day", this does not mean that class abilities from the class you gesalt it with are usable as swift actions 1/day. Gesalt does not merge classes.

Similarly, gesalting two ToB classes does not grant you the ability to use the maneuver reset powers of one class on the other classes abilities. You get both maneuver reset powers, but each continues to apply (as pre-Gesalt) to only those powers it applied to -- the class maneuvers.

I mean, is there a rule under Gesalt that says "you cannot reset your group-mates maneuvers using your reset?" As that rule is not explicitly listed, clearly going Gesalt gives you that ability!

Gesalt follows the non-Gesalt rules except where the Gesalt rules change it. Under non-Gesalt rules, maneuver resets only reset the maneuvers gained from that class. Gesalt does not state that it changes how maneuver reset works, nor does it have an exception that states that maneuver reset applies to all abilities.

Now, you can play this way -- but you are not playing RAW, nor are you playing reasonably.

I agree with your first statement in a non gestalt game. I also agree with it when martial adepts are treated like spellcasters and maneuvers are treated as class eqivalent specific spells in gestalt games, under that premise then Maneuver Recoverly clearly works as defined in the multiclassing rules gaining the benefits of double martial adept progression and all the MK, MR and SK gained by each class at each level.

IMO that premise is based on treating martial adepts like spellcasters because ToB was pulblished after UA and the SRD.

That is not the only way to interpret how a gestalt martial adept works in game mechanically in gestalt. ToB clearly states martial adepts are not spellcasters and maneuvers are not spells. Choosing to base a position that martial adepts are more similar to spellcasters than other martial adept classes in a gestalt game seems unreasonable to me since a player would need to play a ToB variant to cast arcane spells at a cost in HD and losing light armor proficiency with a suggested limit of 3 specific schools of spells.

If martial adepts are going to be treated as spellcaster then that should also apply to their initiator levels in a gestalt game treating them as CL in a gestalt game with none of this initiator cheese of having higher initiator levels than the gestalt class level.

Normally without a feat or PRC or other class special sorcerer and wizard spellcasting levels do not stack they are treated very differently in game mechanically.

Martial adept initiator levels do stack in game normally even if they only accrue at +1/2 a level. If you are going to treat them as spellcasting in a gestalt game then they should not.

I am clearly not treating them that way in a RAW discussion I am treating acquiring MK, MR and SK as class FEATURES (the Class Specials) using the "Shared" class features and the best ASPECTS for MK, MR and SK as being more reasonable than treating them as class spells and spellcasting.

Gestalt rules do not say IDENTICAL it clearly says ASPECTS:

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. A few caveats apply, however.

---------------------------------------------------------

My take is that gestalt grants martial adepts a unique opportunity in game to take the best aspects of the two martial adept classes by bridging the MK, MR, SK and Maneuver Recovery aspect of the classes as per the SRD:

From the SRD:

Gestalt Characters
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.

The gestalt character variant is particularly effective if you have three or fewer players in your group, or if your players enjoy multiclassing and want characters with truly prodigious powers. This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer players with an abundance of options.

Gestalt Combinations
Because the player of a gestalt character chooses two classes at every level, the possibilities for gestalt characters are almost limitless.

[Indon]

Yes it comes at a cost the PC would not get a double progression.

You would take the best Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied, and Stances Known at each level without multiclass double progession with a maximum +1 inititiator level gained at each level and forfeit the normal multiclassing martial adept benefits.

Yeah, the problem is that by interpreting it in this way, this build:

Warblade 10/Swordsage 10//Fighter 20

Is significantly better than

Warblade 20//Swordsage 20.

Yeah, you lose a couple initiator levels. You also gain almost double the number of stances and maneuvers known, and 11 extra feats.

Considering that Warblade and Swordsage were designed to be more powerful and versatile than the Fighter, you know that when you introduce the Fighter to make your character more powerful and versatile, you're doing it wrong.

Edit:


Psst... manifester levels are for psionics. Martial adepts use initiator level.

When I play a martial adept, I play it to the extreme!

[brian c]

CASTLEMIKE, unless I'm mistaken, you're arguing (among other things) that a Swordsage//Warblade would be able to use the Warblade recovery method to recover all his maneuvers, whether or not those maneuvers are from Warblade or Swordsage.

These are not a "better" and "worse" pair of progressions of the same ability. There are two separate abilities here

1) Warblade recovery: This method can be used to recover maneuver(s) given as part of the Warblade class.

2) Swordsage recovery: This method can be used to recover maneuver(s) given as part of the Swordsage class.

Note that even if you take Martial Study, you must designate the maneuver learned as either a Warblade or Swordsage maneuver, and you then use the recovery method from that class.

Also of note: I'm using the assumption that "Maneuvers gaines in the Warblade class" and "Maneuvers gained in the Swordsage class" are also separate abilities and kept track of separately. My reasoning for this is fairly simple. Consider these two abilities

1) Maneuvers gained in the Warblade class: these are maneuvers chosen from only a specific set of 5 disciplines (i think it's 5, not by my book at the moment); also included in this list are maneuvers gained by the Martial Study feat and designated as Warblade Maneuvers.

2)Maneuvers gained in the Swordsage class: these are maneuvers chosen from only a specific set of 6 disciplines; also included in this list are maneuvers gained by the Martial Study feat and designated as Swordsage Maneuvers.

I am intentionally using parallel language in these definitions, so that it is easier to see how they are different. If there were two martial adept classes with the exact same list of available disciplines, I believe that they should still be counted separately in a gestalt game.

[CASTLEMIKE]

There are a couple of interpretations according to the RAW as far as this issue is concerned, but I am going to address yours from more than just the "authority" on the issue.

And with that, I have laid the groundwork for my point, I'm not arguing against your conclusions based off the RAW. You have said Manuevers are not spells, and in that you are in fact correct, you then said that manuevers should not fall under the gestalt rules for spellcasters, in this you are wrong, but not because of strict definitions, but because of the reasons I previously stated.

Very nice post. I agree with most of your points which have been very well reasoned throughout the thread. My main point of contention has been there is plenty of gray in the rules and more than one way to interpret playing gestalt martial adepts by RAW because much of the general consensus is based on a house rule tied to spellcasting. Happy Halloween.

[Valairn]

I wanted to take a moment to address something else in your arguments Castlemike. You have stated time and time again that Maneuvers are not spells. This is in fact a statement in the ToB. Where you are wrong is, you have attempted to apply this to UA as a matter of course rather than opinion. That is a mistake. UA is a book of house rules, it exists as a book of ideas that DM's can implement, but the book itself is not related to the core rules of DnD.

ToB is a splat book, which means, it must comply to the CORE rules of DnD, but need not apply or even address the rules in UA. The statement about maneuvers is there not as a relation to UA, but as a relation to the core rules about anti-magic fields. Let me explain, extraordinary abilities work inside of AMF's, but supernatural abilities and spells do not.

The statement exists and says as much, that maneuvers are extraordinary abilities except when the maneuver itself says otherwise. This is the ToB response to whether maneuvers should work in AMF's, it does NOT address the UA ruling on spell casters in regards to gestalt and cannot be used as a basis for an argument in that regard.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Yeah, the problem is that by interpreting it in this way, this build:

Warblade 10/Swordsage 10//Fighter 20

Is significantly better than

Warblade 20//Swordsage 20.

Yeah, you lose a couple initiator levels. You also gain almost double the number of stances and maneuvers known, and 11 extra feats.

Considering that Warblade and Swordsage were designed to be more powerful and versatile than the Fighter, you know that when you introduce the Fighter to make your character more powerful and versatile, you're doing it wrong.

Edit:



When I play a martial adept, I play it to the extreme!

Not necessarily because of the lower initiator level the Warblade - 10, SS-10//F-20 would have limiting maneuver levels IMO this one wouldn't have any level 9 maneuvers and would only know a single level 8 maneuver.

For a straight melee type it would probably be better to go SS- 5, ToB PRC like BCM-5, SS-5, Mo9 -5// 15 levels to taste (for various dips to taste with at least one level dips in Crusader, Warblade, Barbarian (first level), Ranger, F) ToB PRC - 5. Those last 4 levels of Mo9 at 17th - 20th level would give your PC a lot of level 9 known maneuvers.

IMO one of the main reasons for using the gestlalt variant is to make a cheesy powerful PC compared to a standard PC.

Gestalt Characters
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.

Gestalt Combinations
Because the player of a gestalt character chooses two classes at every level, the possibilities for gestalt characters are almost limitless. The following combinations are particularly potent.

[Indon]

Not necessarily because of the lower initiator level the Warblade - 10, SS-10//F-20 would have limiting maneuver levels IMO this one wouldn't have any level 9 maneuvers and would only know a single level 8 maneuver.


I do believe it would be two level 8 maneuvers; one from each progression?

And 7 and under, it would know more maneuvers and stances for, and be able to use them longer.

[The Glyphstone]

IMO one of the main reasons for using the gestlalt variant is to make a cheesy powerful PC compared to a standard PC.
.

I'm pretty sure the main reason for using the gestalt variant isn't for 'cheese', but for games where, say, there's only 2 or 3 people - instead of making them each run 2 characters, they get 1 character than can fill 2+ roles.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I wanted to take a moment to address something else in your arguments Castlemike. You have stated time and time again that Maneuvers are not spells. This is in fact a statement in the ToB. Where you are wrong is, you have attempted to apply this to UA as a matter of course rather than opinion. That is a mistake. UA is a book of house rules, it exists as a book of ideas that DM's can implement, but the book itself is not related to the core rules of DnD.

ToB is a splat book, which means, it must comply to the CORE rules of DnD, but need not apply or even address the rules in UA. The statement about maneuvers is there not as a relation to UA, but as a relation to the core rules about anti-magic fields. Let me explain, extraordinary abilities work inside of AMF's, but supernatural abilities and spells do not.

The statement exists and says as much, that maneuvers are extraordinary abilities except when the maneuver itself says otherwise. This is the ToB response to whether maneuvers should work in AMF's, it does NOT address the UA ruling on spell casters in regards to gestalt and cannot be used as a basis for an argument in that regard.

Edit:

I agree supernatural abilities do not normally work in AMF.

I agree Gestalt was introduced in UA and is full of rules. Psionics were introduced in EPH. Both were incorporated into the SRD which includes the core rules.

Just reverse your arguement with ToB and UA with Gestalt and the core rules.

By core and ToB rules a PC can not level up in two classes at once particularly Martial Adept classes which do not exist in core since they require the gestalt variant rules to do it.

In many of my posts I have made a point of posting the D20SRD text to support my points and reasoning usually based around the "Class Features" text.

This thread is titled Tome of Battle Gestalt Quandary.

Gestalt is a variant. To my knowledge gestalt is the only way in game to level up in two classes simultaneously. There is some gray in the gestalt rules that is subject to interpretation based on the way the text is written and other rules in game.

To my knowledge there are only two official sources for gestalt rules in game that I am aware of UA and the D20/SRD. There may be something in the update with the Rules Compendium which could have easily clarified this issue which I don't have.

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

Regarding martial adepts from ToB depending on how class features is interpreted grants a PC more options in game for a gestalt martial adept. I am not saying this is the only way to play. I am not saying playing a martial adept as multiclassed in gestalt is wrong. I am simply saying by RAW depending on how certan rules are interpreted to function for martial adepts this could be an option.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I'm pretty sure the main reason for using the gestalt variant isn't for 'cheese', but for games where, say, there's only 2 or 3 people - instead of making them each run 2 characters, they get 1 character than can fill 2+ roles.

It is one of the reaons but not the only one and I have acknowledged that in previous posts previously and one of the reasons I have posted similar material thoroughout the thread.

Gestalt Characters
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.

The gestalt character variant is particularly effective if you have three or fewer players in your group, or if your players enjoy multiclassing and want characters with truly prodigious powers. This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer players with an abundance of options.

Gestalt Combinations
Because the player of a gestalt character chooses two classes at every level, the possibilities for gestalt characters are almost limitless. The following combinations are particularly potent.

Balancing Gestalt Characters
Obviously, this variant results in characters who are significantly more powerful than is standard. But how much more powerful? The simple answer-that gestalt characters are twice as powerful as standard characters—isn’t accurate. Gestalt characters don’t have an advantage in the most important game currency: available actions. Even a character who can fight like a barbarian and cast spells like a sorcerer can’t do both in the same round. A gestalt character can’t be in two places at once as two separate characters can be. Gestalt characters who try to fulfill two party roles (melee fighter and spellcaster, for example) find they must split their feat choices, ability score improvements, and gear selection between their two functions.

While a gestalt character isn’t as powerful as two characters of equal level, a gestalt character is more powerful than a standard character. Hit points will always be at least equal to those of a standard character, saving throws will almost certainly be better, and gestalt characters have versatility that standard characters can’t achieve without multiclassing. Furthermore, a party of gestalt characters has greater durability and many more spells per day, so they can often take on six or more consecutive encounters without stopping to rest and prepare more spells.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I do believe it would be two level 8 maneuvers; one from each progression?

And 7 and under, it would know more maneuvers and stances for, and be able to use them longer.


WB-10/SS-10//F-20 was the build.

Are you buying an extra manuever with the fighter bonus feat? I'm not saying it is a bad ideal just not necessarily a given by all players.

WB- 10 gives your PC a 10 for WB maneuvers but a 5 for SS. At level 20 with the 10th level of SS at level 20 your initiator level would be 5 + 10 = 15 granting your PC his first level 8 maneuver.

[Valairn]

I wanted to take a moment to address something else in your arguments Castlemike. You have stated time and time again that Maneuvers are not spells. This is in fact a statement in the ToB. emphasis added

My foundation was in fact that I was responding to you in how you were using the ToB quote.


I shouldn't need to retype Martial Powers text from ToB in every post. I am not the one posting that maneuvers are really more like spells and spell casting in my posts. I agree supernatural abilities do not normally work in AMF. emphasis added

But then you respond as if that wasn't what I was doing, and imply that I wasn't reading your posts. Which is just plain rude.

Like I said, in my previous post, ToB shares mechanics most similar to spell casting.

I used very particular words there. SIMILAR does not mean EQUALS.

Maneuvers are not spells, but martial adept classes should be treated as spell casters when being implemented into the gestalt variant rule set. You keep trying to make this argument about something that it is not. This is not a rules argument, this is a game design argument, I have agreed to every RAW requirement you have, what I have not done is come to the same conclusions as you. This should ring a gong in your head, that maybe I'm not arguing what you seem to think I am arguing.

I am not arguing about the RAW here, I'm arguing about the best approach.

[Arbitrarity]

Hmm...

It seems that there are two things being rather uselessly argued here, because they are agreed on.
Firstly: Castlemike argues that literally, according to gestalt rules, the "better" of two manuver progressions must be taken if one gestalts two martial classes, as the spellcasting special clause does literally not apply to manuvers.

Valairn argues that logically, one should count manuvers as spellcasting for the purpose of gestalt, because the two systems are similar in their having multiple systems with the same name. Furthermore, those different systems analogize well with various spellcasting systems (for example, as we know, gestalt wizard//sorceror doesn't cast any spells in spellbook spontaneously with 6+bonus spells/level). Also, the Tome of Battle was published after UA, and so one can modify the UA rules to account for this.

Also, mix-and matching aspects of the "manuvers" ability seems a bit strange to me. Since the question is very literal RAW, one can agree with castlemike's argument, but add a strong recommendation for ruling otherwise and providing the spellcasting exemption for ToB classes, in which case the classes are tracked seperately.

[Valairn]

That pretty much sums it up.

[CASTLEMIKE]

But then you respond as if that wasn't what I was doing, and imply that I wasn't reading your posts. Which is just plain rude.

Like I said, in my previous post, ToB shares mechanics most similar to spell casting.


I am not arguing about the RAW here, I'm arguing about the best approach.


My apologies no offense was intended. I have edited the remark from the post.

We have two major diverging points in how we each view the martial adept mechanics in game and how the gestalt rules affects them. I believe they are most similar to other martial adept maneuvers (class features and aspects) and you view them as closer to spellcasting mechanics.

On a fundamental differences like this it is hard for two parties to come to an agreement regarding the best approach. Both approaches could be fun in game. I have been arguing RAW.

Your approach is good just not the only interpretation in game under RAW which is what I have been arguing since that is usually where most rule arguements interpretation eventually default. Depending on the game either approach could be better. I think my approach would favor small 2 man parties or players who want more options in game building versatile martial adept spellcasters or skill monkeys.

[CASTLEMIKE]

That pretty much sums it up.

I agree that pretty much sums it up with the following exception: I would have no problem with someone wishing to use Valairn's approach and multclasing a martial adept in a gestalt game. I do not consider my approach a must use variant or the only way to play martial adepts in a gestalt game just another playing option under those special circumstances.

[Valairn]

I was never implying your approach was wrong. Also I was not implying that martial maneuvers were more similar to spell casting than other martial maneuvers, I was simply stating spell casting mechanics as being the best baseline to approach martial adept classes in regards to gestalt. Shrug, it really is not skin off my back whichever way you decide to go, I was simply attempting to present my point accurately and make sure there was no confusion, which there seemed to be. Of course that's why I hate arguments.

[Yakk]

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.

Except with the maneuver abilities of two ToB classes, one is not "better" than the other.

You start with multiclassing rule as the default, as noted with "the process is similar to multiclassing, except..." clause in the RAW.

The class features of two ToB classes are never common to another ToB class. One maneuver progression is never better than the other, because they refer to a different set of maneuvers that you are progressing over -- you cannot order them in a "better/worse ordering".

Each of the "recovery" abilities clearly, under the ToB RaW, applies only to maneuvers from the same class, and on top of that none are strictly "better" than any other in all cases. So you retain each, and each continues to follow the multiclassing rules (as the RAW states).

If you want to change the rules of D&D gesalt so that ToB characters break the game, you can. But claiming that your reading of the RAW is accurate is stretching things past the breaking point.