Worst gestalt you've played / seen?

[Quertus]

What's the worst gestalt you've seen? Not just the bad statistically, but no fun, didn't work as expected, even didn't match the campaign - whatever made the experience bad.

[AvatarVecna]

Ranger//Scout feels like a very thematic and mechanically-powerful combination, but it's secretly rather bad. In a normal game, a Swift Hunter build essentially gives you full Favored Enemy and Skirmish progression for your whole career, which this build also gives. This is essentially "Swift Hunter+"...and that's kinda the problem. Swift Hunter is a fine build in standard play, but the extra high-level features from one class or the other isn't really doing enough to give you a proper edge over a standard swift hunter. You'd be better off doing something like Ranger 1/Scout 19//Fighter 20 who takes the Swift Hunter feat than Ranger 20//Scout 20 who doesn't bother. Even worse, the feat is actually a really important part of the build because it lets your skirmish bypass type-based immunities to precision damage if they're your favored enemy.

"So why not take the feat on Ranger 20//Scout 20?" You are correct that a Ranger X//Scout X who has FE of a Ranger 2X and Skirmish of a Scout 2X would most definitely be a worthy gestalt combo without necessarily ever being OP. But IME trying exactly that in about a dozen gestalt games of varying levels, I can safely tell you that even though it's two T4 classes getting upgraded, even in games that potentially have epic and/or homebrew nonsense in play, getting a DM to approve what is essentially "theurge class, but in a feat" is basically impossible.

[liquidformat]

Ranger//Scout feels like a very thematic and mechanically-powerful combination, but it's secretly rather bad. In a normal game, a Swift Hunter build essentially gives you full Favored Enemy and Skirmish progression for your whole career, which this build also gives. This is essentially "Swift Hunter+"...and that's kinda the problem. Swift Hunter is a fine build in standard play, but the extra high-level features from one class or the other isn't really doing enough to give you a proper edge over a standard swift hunter. You'd be better off doing something like Ranger 1/Scout 19//Fighter 20 who takes the Swift Hunter feat than Ranger 20//Scout 20 who doesn't bother. Even worse, the feat is actually a really important part of the build because it lets your skirmish bypass type-based immunities to precision damage if they're your favored enemy.

"So why not take the feat on Ranger 20//Scout 20?" You are correct that a Ranger X//Scout X who has FE of a Ranger 2X and Skirmish of a Scout 2X would most definitely be a worthy gestalt combo without necessarily ever being OP. But IME trying exactly that in about a dozen gestalt games of varying levels, I can safely tell you that even though it's two T4 classes getting upgraded, even in games that potentially have epic and/or homebrew nonsense in play, getting a DM to approve what is essentially "theurge class, but in a feat" is basically impossible.

Yeah I haven't found a dm willing to even allow your first example Ranger 1/Scout 19//Fighter 20 who takes the Swift Hunter feat. In the same vein Swashbuckler/rogue is also horrible however, I have done swashbuckler 3/rogue15/swordsage 2/duskblade 20 and that wasn't bad.

[Troacctid]

I once tried a half-minotaur Cleric/Ordained Champion // Paladin/Fighter/Monk/Shiba Protector build with Knockdown, Knockback, and sky-high Wis and Str. The character was extremely beefy (hardy har har) as a melee character, but there were like nine conditional modifiers on every attack and damage roll between Power Attack, Knowledge devotion, and all the various temporary buffs, and then each attack would proc trips and bull rushes, which all had to be resolved, and then they'd trigger more damage and more attacks, all with their own conditional modifiers, and then in a full attack there'd be even more, plus the natural attacks, and whatever swift action quickened spell or magic item...so, the turns would be a giant hassle to resolve. And while in theory, cleric offers a diverse suite of spells that ought to give lots of options in combat, in practice, with that kind of DPR, none of those spells is better use of an action than Power Attacking for a million damage, so they were all reserved for healing and conditional effects.

Ultimately, it was a failed experiment because it was just boring and annoying to play. You might even say it was a load of bull.

[gijoemike]

I once tried a half-minotaur Cleric/Ordained Champion // Paladin/Fighter/Monk/Shiba Protector build with Knockdown, Knockback, and sky-high Wis and Str. The character was extremely beefy (hardy har har) as a melee character, but there were like nine conditional modifiers on every attack and damage roll between Power Attack, Knowledge devotion, and all the various temporary buffs, and then each attack would proc trips and bull rushes, which all had to be resolved, and then they'd trigger more damage and more attacks, all with their own conditional modifiers, and then in a full attack there'd be even more, plus the natural attacks, and whatever swift action quickened spell or magic item...so, the turns would be a giant hassle to resolve. And while in theory, cleric offers a diverse suite of spells that ought to give lots of options in combat, in practice, with that kind of DPR, none of those spells is better use of an action than Power Attacking for a million damage, so they were all reserved for healing and conditional effects.

Ultimately, it was a failed experiment because it was just boring and annoying to play. You might even say it was a load of bull.

Troacctid, why would you do that to a GM, even if you hated them? Also +Like the pun.



I once tried to make a easy mode gish. I was a fighter/ranger // bard. It didn't work well because it was just too light on the arcane caster side but not heavy enough melee for a gestalt game. It would have worked out much better with ranger/wizard and getting special armor to lower the spell failure.

[Troacctid]

Troacctid, why would you do that to a GM, even if you hated them? Also +Like the pun.
It was only a one-shot, and we were encouraged to bring gimmicky builds, so I figured they wouldn't have a cow over it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It was only a one-shot, and we were encouraged to bring gimmicky builds, so I figured they wouldn't have a cow over it.

That is a good way to start a beef with someone, though.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It was only a one-shot, and we were encouraged to bring gimmicky builds, so I figured they wouldn't have a cow over it.I hope you milked it for all it was worth.

[vasilidor]

My fighter/ua warrior. mind I think that was because I did not have a good grasp as to what feats are actually useful at the time.