What classes work as gestalt classes, but not on their own?

[vasilidor]

This can be from third party sources, first party, 3.0, 3.5 or pathfinder and is exactly what it says on the tin.
For me, an obvious one is Dragon Spawn from the book 'Dragon' by Alderic Entertainment group. I wanted to play this when it first came out and no one let me, later I understood how bad it was (but this was not the reason no one let me, no one was really sure about prestige classes). It was a magic class that only gave a handful of magical abilities and attribute boosts while having no, and I mean no, base attack bonus or class skills and none of the magic abilities stacked with other classes (a frequent flaw in prestige classes that are meant to pretend to give martials nice things). But in a gestalt build? it goes well with a fighter or a sorcerer or a fighter/sorcerer, or almost anything really, giving them some thematic abilities that strengthen a potentially lackluster build.
Another is the monk class from the core book, though it works with cleric well enough. But then almost everything works with cleric.

[AvatarVecna]

Fighter//Monk is greater than the sum of its parts by a good deal I think.

[Inevitability]

Battle Dancer: full BAB, monklike AC and unarmed strike bonuses, good Reflex which is rare on charisma-based classes, bonus speed, lots of abilities that are either passive or don't compete for standard actions. With charisma and unarmed strike synergy, I could see it work as the martial component of a gish build - I don't think I'd ever use it on its own.

[SangoProduction]

So the tasks is:
Something with a great chassis. Particularly the numerical part.
But isn't good on its own - typically having bad abilities.

Basically describes the Monk, if you ignore the BAB.
Paladin as well. Despite being iconic, they have remarkably poor abilities and spell casting, even in Pathfinder. Still probably not even a good chassis past level 2 though. Which is rather sad.

Fighter: Full BAB, and a bunch of bonus feats. As a chassis, it makes any martial-leaning character better. As its own thing... Well, it's a fighter. It's not like it's worthless... but it is certainly not good. Especially before pathfinder.
Hexblade: Assuming you use the semi-official update which lets you actually use the curse reasonably... it is still relatively bad. But swift action curse, plus the dark familiar alternative feature for even further reduced saves does make it quite competent as a self-support chassis, particularly for charisma casters. It's definitely a product of its time.

And because I'm me, I also have to give Spheres a time in this inglorious spotlight.
Elementalist: Absolutely sucks on its own. Way too narrow of a class for the Spheres deal. But... as a support chassis that grants a few extra talents, and some niche abilities (my favorite would be the Admixture Savant archetype)... it works. There are sadly better picks for what Elementalist does, even within the context of a Destruction-focused caster. So it would be difficult to justify its inclusion even as Gestalt, but it would work.

There's also the Symbiat. The Spheres' own version of the monk (before the Sage). And yes, it.... worked out as well as you expect. But as a Monk+ (great praise, I know), it is similarly usable as a nice chassis. Especially if you use the archetypes available. Pretty much all of them were just barely on the edge of being not-worth-it, while being intriguing with their unique scaling.

[pabelfly]

So the tasks is:
Something with a great chassis. Particularly the numerical part.
But isn't good on its own - typically having bad abilities.

Basically describes the Monk, if you ignore the BAB.
Paladin as well. Despite being iconic, they have remarkably poor abilities and spell casting, even in Pathfinder. Still probably not even a good chassis past level 2 though. Which is rather sad.

I feel like feat Paladin would be good to combo with Cleric.

Holy Warrior ACF lets you trade spellcasting for four feats, all of which can be Extra Turning. Your Cleric side could have Rebuke Dragon, Paladin can have Turn Undead, and you'd build up your Turning pool twice as quick with each Extra Turning feat you take. If you wanted to trade away Divine Grace (and a few other features you'd never use) you can also pick up five free Fighter feats if you wanted to gish it up.

[Inevitability]

I think Dragon Shaman also deserves mention. D10 HD, two good saves, a skill list that can include quite a number of things but is held back by low skill points, and utterly passive class features. Slap something like bard on there and you've got a d10 full bab all good saves 6+int skills chassis, making for a solid all-round buffer. You augment the bard skill list with some pretty commonly useful picks in Intimidate, Survival, Search... You can even grab Beguiling Influence at level 5 and really cement your face role.

[Chronos]

There are mostly two things that make a class good for gestalt.

1: Gestalt characters still only have the same number of actions as anyone else, and so abilities that you don't need to spend actions on are good. Classes with a lot of passive abilities are often lackluster on their own, because they don't have anything to actually do. But combine a passive class with a good active class, and you get the benefits of both. Monk and Dragon Shaman, already mentioned, are both good examples of this, as is Marshal.

2: Classes that do some fairly standard thing, but in a nonstandard way that stacks with the standard way. For instance, War Hulk is a melee class, but it gets no BAB progression at all. Instead, it gains the same amount of attack bonus that a Fighter would (plus extra damage), by gaining +2 Str every level. Combine that with any normal (i.e., full BAB) class, and you effectively get double progression on attack bonus. For a less extreme example, a rogue//ninja will get twice the precision dice of either separately, because Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike are two different abilities.

There are also some classes that fall into both of these categories, like incarnum users. Incarnates give passive bonuses of an unusual type to a lot of things, and so can stack well with a lot of things. And totemist works well with anything that gives bonuses to every attack, because you get a lot of them.

What you especially want to avoid is pairing together two classes that are too similar. A fighter//barbarian, for instance, is going to be more effective than either separately, but not much more effective. You'll still have the same attack bonus, the same good and bad saves, mostly the same skills, etc. Even a combination of two full-casters isn't much more effective than one: You'll have a greater variety of spells to choose from, and it'll be even harder for you to run out of spells per day, but you'll still be limited by your actions per turn.

[Olive_Sophia]

Paladin as well. Despite being iconic, they have remarkably poor abilities and spell casting, even in Pathfinder. Still probably not even a good chassis past level 2 though. Which is rather sad.

I’m a bit of an apologist for the Paladin. I think it’s a class with more value than is appreciated. Over the years it’s become one of my favorites.

Paladin has good defensive abilities. There are several immunities which are worthwhile. All standard martial proficiencies, a good hit die, and BaB. Divine Grace is fantastic value as a save booster. At high enough levels it’s almost always worth taking some Paladin for that. Turn attempts are also good to have. If you stick with Paladin, Lay on Hands actually becomes a really significant heal as well.

Smite is usually weak but there are alternative options to trade it in or buff it in various ways.

Perhaps the real draw is the Special Mount. This thing is an intelligent and powerful companion. It gets size increases, it can take feats and items, it can share your spells and saves, it can fight, it can transport you. It’s really good, and ripe for optimization too. Especially in gestalt.

Battle Blessing is a Paladin specific bonus. If you take that and then work on expanding Paladin’s list, it can actually contribute a lot to a caster build.

If you don’t want to bother with that, you could just take aforementioned Holy Warrior ACF and make Paladin into a divine feat monkey. Actually, because it was one of the original classes, there are quite a lot of ACFs to mess around with when you’re customizing your Paladin.

Sorry - bit of a tangent. Paladin is great in Gestalt, but I also think it’s decent enough in regular play.

[wilphe]

Marshall. Its not terrible alone, sitting I think at T4, but it gestalts well:


Its abilities are almost entirely passive

The chassis synergises well with either a caster (proficiencies, bigger hit die, medium BAB, more skill points, strong fort) or with a martial (strong will, skills, fluff)


I don't know whether Knight gestalts well with martials, I suspect a bigger hit die and strong will would have to do a lot of heavy lifting

[Biggus]

One class that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Swashbuckler. Terrible on its own but combines well with Bard, Rogue, Duskblade or Wizard.

Fighter combines very well with Druid if the Druid is planning to do a lot of fighting in Wild Shape.

There are mostly two things that make a class good for gestalt.

1: Gestalt characters still only have the same number of actions as anyone else, and so abilities that you don't need to spend actions on are good. Classes with a lot of passive abilities are often lackluster on their own, because they don't have anything to actually do. But combine a passive class with a good active class, and you get the benefits of both. Monk and Dragon Shaman, already mentioned, are both good examples of this, as is Marshal.

2: Classes that do some fairly standard thing, but in a nonstandard way that stacks with the standard way. For instance, War Hulk is a melee class, but it gets no BAB progression at all. Instead, it gains the same amount of attack bonus that a Fighter would (plus extra damage), by gaining +2 Str every level. Combine that with any normal (i.e., full BAB) class, and you effectively get double progression on attack bonus. For a less extreme example, a rogue//ninja will get twice the precision dice of either separately, because Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike are two different abilities.

There are also some classes that fall into both of these categories, like incarnum users. Incarnates give passive bonuses of an unusual type to a lot of things, and so can stack well with a lot of things. And totemist works well with anything that gives bonuses to every attack, because you get a lot of them.

What you especially want to avoid is pairing together two classes that are too similar. A fighter//barbarian, for instance, is going to be more effective than either separately, but not much more effective. You'll still have the same attack bonus, the same good and bad saves, mostly the same skills, etc. Even a combination of two full-casters isn't much more effective than one: You'll have a greater variety of spells to choose from, and it'll be even harder for you to run out of spells per day, but you'll still be limited by your actions per turn.

There's at least one other consideration when combining classes: how MAD the combo is. There are several otherwise great gestalts which require five or even six ability scores to work well.

Marshall. Its not terrible alone, sitting I think at T4, but it gestalts well:


Its abilities are almost entirely passive

The chassis synergises well with either a caster (proficiencies, bigger hit die, medium BAB, more skill points, strong fort) or with a martial (strong will, skills, fluff)


I don't know whether Knight gestalts well with martials, I suspect a bigger hit die and strong will would have to do a lot of heavy lifting

I thought of these two. Funnily enough they combine well with each other (they both want the exact same three ability scores, and you come out with a very good chassis: d12, 4 skill points, full BAB and Fort and Will as good saves). The main downside is that they're both highly passive.

[Inevitability]

I could see savant being a good more-of-the-same option for something that's already pretty well-rounded by itself (martial initiators, duskblades, rangers to a lesser extent). Universal skill access, unrestricted bonus feats, some trapfinding, some sneak attack, some utility-focused arcane and divine casting... a class whose main chassis flaw is low skill points and/or bad Will and whose actions are already spoken for should find a lot to like here!

[thethird]

People have brought some good arguments for base classes that make good gestalt. To not repeat those I'll go on a tangent.

Monster (progression) classes. The LA in 3.5 gimps any concept you could have, and adding another class on top through gestalt gives you many options while still having a strong flavor.

Prestige classes, that lose spell levels. In the same manner than monster classes, flavor tends to be great, but the optimization loss of not taking more spell levels sometimes it's atrocious.

[Biggus]

People have brought some good arguments for base classes that make good gestalt. To not repeat those I'll go on a tangent.

Monster (progression) classes. The LA in 3.5 gimps any concept you could have, and adding another class on top through gestalt gives you many options while still having a strong flavor.

Prestige classes, that lose spell levels. In the same manner than monster classes, flavor tends to be great, but the optimization loss of not taking more spell levels sometimes it's atrocious.

This brings up another semi-relevant point: the gestalt rules don't specify whether level adjustment counts on only one class or both. If the DM decides that it only counts for one a lot of races with LA higher than one suddenly become MUCH more playable.

[ExLibrisMortis]

+1 for monster classes.

Prestige classes that lose spellcasting work well in gestalt, of course. Full casting Master Transmogrifist? Swiftblade? Yes please. They work very nicely with monster classes that grant casting, too. Prestige paladin/ordained champion//trumpet archon, for example, is cool.

Theurges work well in gestalt*, too, at least, if they actually create synergies between the classes in question. Classes like Ultimate Magus are very nice, whereas classes like Mystic Theurge are mostly just about getting triple 9ths or base class features next to double casting. Not useless, but pretty boring (just like in non-gestalt builds).

Classes like battle dancer and marshal remain one-level dips in gestalt, so I wouldn't say they work especially well. At most, marshal 3 becomes a dip option (to have a second minor aura), but that's it.


*UA says that "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", but that is clearly grade-A bull****, so I don't use that rule.

[Biggus]

*UA says that "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", but that is clearly grade-A bull****, so I don't use that rule.

How is that bull****?

[Inevitability]

How is that bull****?

What's the difference between Arcane Trickster and Spelldancer? Both increase a wizard's power level over straight base class levels, both have awkward requirements that involve making sacrifices a normal wizard needn't make. A gestalt wizard//rogue can get into arcane trickster with zero lost caster levels, just like how a gestalt wizard//fighter can get into spelldancer with zero lost caster levels. Why would one of those be forbidden but the other not?

[Biggus]

What's the difference between Arcane Trickster and Spelldancer? Both increase a wizard's power level over straight base class levels, both have awkward requirements that involve making sacrifices a normal wizard needn't make. A gestalt wizard//rogue can get into arcane trickster with zero lost caster levels, just like how a gestalt wizard//fighter can get into spelldancer with zero lost caster levels. Why would one of those be forbidden but the other not?

Because one of them allows you to become effectively triple-class and the other doesn't?

[Inevitability]

Because one of them allows you to become effectively triple-class and the other doesn't?

Well, do you think there's anything wrong with Arcane Trickster allowing a character to be 'effectively double-class' outside of gestalt? That's a proportionally larger gap, if anything!


And more to the point: what does 'effectively double-class' even mean? Isn't a spelldancer double-class with wizard advancement and spelldancer features the exact same way an arcane trickster is double-class with wizard and rogue advancement? It's not like spelldancer is the weaker option of the two, so clearly our concern here isn't power.

[Gnaeus]

Honestly virtually all of T5 matches this description. Pretty much all of them offer good stuff in gestalt. The only question is what they are gestalting with. As a solid rule of thumb, any T5 can gestalt with a synergistic other T5 to get T4, or 2 other synergistic T5s or a synergistic T4 to get to T3.

Hexblade-familiar, BAB, essentially half sorc casting, mettle and magic resistance. Good with anything with decent cha.
Monk-wis to AC, 3 good saves, lots of passives. Anything wis related benefits
Divine mind- cha to saves and passive attack bonuses +great summons through an ACF
Adept-familiar, delayed but excellent casting
Soulknife-gets a better than WBL appropriate weapon. Good with any full BAB class
Battle dancer-cha to AC yes. But also pounce, full BAB and unarmed strike progression
Mountebank- only a handful of spell likes, but they are solid. Alter self same time as sorcerer, teleport, DDoor.
Swashbuckler to make any int class more SAD.
Dragon shaman gets nice passive auras, immunities, hp, heals
Magewright has little direct combat benefit but a great utility and control list
Gleaner gets a pet and low level druid tricks
Truenamer a wide range of buffs, debuffs, control and support, sadly just weaker than what high tier counterparts do. Potentially strongest T5 if it can boost checks enough.

Honestly any of them offers things, the work is finding classes that need what they're giving.

[Biggus]

Well, do you think there's anything wrong with Arcane Trickster allowing a character to be 'effectively double-class' outside of gestalt? That's a proportionally larger gap, if anything!


And more to the point: what does 'effectively double-class' even mean? Isn't a spelldancer double-class with wizard advancement and spelldancer features the exact same way an arcane trickster is double-class with wizard and rogue advancement? It's not like spelldancer is the weaker option of the two, so clearly our concern here isn't power.

I think sticking to this one specific example is misleading. Allowing you to advance three classes at once makes gestalt more abusable in general. Sure, there are other ways to abuse it, just like there are lots of ways to abuse the standard game, but IMO that isn't a good argument for allowing this, it's a good argument for banning those other abuses as well.

Honestly virtually all of T5 matches this description.

I'd just reached this conclusion myself, you beat me to it.

[JNAProductions]

I think sticking to this one specific example is misleading. Allowing you to advance three classes at once makes gestalt more abusable in general. Sure, there are other ways to abuse it, just like there are lots of ways to abuse the standard game, but IMO that isn't a good argument for allowing this, it's a good argument for banning those other abuses as well.

I don't think you should ban stuff that's out of line for whatever game you're running. I think you should instead focus on getting your group to work together to match PCs.

Why? Because if you try to ban every interaction that's too strong (or too weak), you could spend a week straight working on it and still not have found them all. And some things can be powerful when abused, but are perfectly fine when used properly. Basically, 3.5's balance is too wonky to make trying to streamline it worthwhile, so it's better to get a group that can work together and self-regulate.

[wilphe]

Well, do you think there's anything wrong with Arcane Trickster allowing a character to be 'effectively double-class' outside of gestalt? That's a proportionally larger gap, if anything!

Theurges and the ilk are dual advancement true, but you pay for that by being slightly less good at either

A Mystic Theuge is designed to enter at Clr3/Wiz3 so will always be at least a spell level and 3 caster levels behind someone who single classed

An Arcane Trickster is designed to be Rge3/Wiz5

An Eldritch Knight loses 2 levels of casting

Yeah there are ways around that but I feel that the Playground is so used to early entry shenanigans that some of us forget that


Allowing them in gestalt removes that trade off, and allowing them in turn to gestalt compounds it

[Mlmiii]

I'd like to nominate the Brutal Slayer archetype for the Stalker class in Dreamscarred Press's Path of War. Normally, it's the Monk/Rogue of the group, but the Brutal Slayer gets the ability to add its STR to Dodge AC and Reflex saves instead of adding DEX. On its own, this is fighting against its 3/4ths BAB--but add in Barbarian levels, and suddenly you have Profane and Morale bonuses to Strength, which is now boosting accuracy and damage and AC and Reflex saves. It's particularly useful in campaigns with guns or technological weapons, as their tendency to hit Touch AC in Pathfinder means that enemies with them that aren't metagaming will tend to reflexively target the low-Dex opponent they can see lumbering into melee with them, only to find the Barbarian//Brutal Slayer has far higher Touch AC than expected.

[Inevitability]

Theurges and the ilk are dual advancement true, but you pay for that by being slightly less good at either

A Mystic Theuge is designed to enter at Clr3/Wiz3 so will always be at least a spell level and 3 caster levels behind someone who single classed

An Arcane Trickster is designed to be Rge3/Wiz5

An Eldritch Knight loses 2 levels of casting

Yeah there are ways around that but I feel that the Playground is so used to early entry shenanigans that some of us forget that


Allowing them in gestalt removes that trade off, and allowing them in turn to gestalt compounds it

A spelldancer grants great class features but you pay for that by requiring 4 feats, which usually takes a few levels of fighter and reduces your caster level... allowing it in gestalt removes that trade off.

A Nightmare Spinner grants class features in addition to your wizard casting, but you pay for that by getting slightly slowed wizard casting, a Nightmare Spinner loses 1 level of casting... Allowing it in gestalt removes that trade off.

An Ordained Champion grants fighter bonus feats in addition to cleric casting, but you pay for that by getting slightly slowed cleric casting, an ordained champion loses 2 levels of casting... Allowing it in gestalt removes that trade off.

A Dragon Samurai grants a breath weapon in addition to your fighting prowess, you pay for that by only getting 3/4ths BAB... Allowing it in gestalt removes that trade off.

Where's the difference? Yes, in gestalt a class can be easier to enter and less painful to take: it works like that for every class. 'Hybrid' classes (itself an arbitrary category; what makes Eldritch Knight 'dual progression' but not assassin?) are not innately more unbalanced in gestalt. Sure, they can become really good in gestalt, but lots of things become good in gestalt, that's a natural and expected consequence of the rule change.


Really, if you're cool with a duskblade/rogue having tons of skills, sneak attack, and spells, why wouldn't you be okay with an eldritch knight/rogue doing the exact same things? What logic is there to ban one of those as problematic, but not the other?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Enlightened Spirit, CM. On its own, it has a host of issues:

Eldritch Blast: It increases the damage, but nothing else. There's no increase to caster level, so you're not getting better at overcoming SR. It also doesn't increase its effective spell level, but that usually won't matter.

Invocations: Again, no caster level increase. It gets a fixed list of invocations, including flight but later than you would otherwise get it from Warlock, plus one blast shape invocation. With the exception of that shape invocation, it loses out on being able to pick what you want, and many of those invocations it gains are mediocre or limited in what they can affect.

The other features it gets (Aura of Courage/Menace, Spirit Armor, Tongues, Energy Resistance, Death Ward) are quite good, but it's too much of a nerf to EB to be viable without house rules to fix it.

On a gestalt character, however, you can go Warlock 20// Something 5/ Enlightened Spirit 10/ Something 5 and everything this class grants will stack with your Warlock levels. It doesn't advance your EB class feature, it just adds bonus dice to it. It doesn't progress your invocaitons, it gives specific invocations as separate features, even the shape invocation is a separate feature than anything Warlock gets. Everything it gives you is making you better at being a Warlock, and the other features it grants are absolute gravy. This is not even a contest, it's the best thing to take on a gestalt Warlock if you're making Warlock your primary shtick.

Those other ten class levels could be whatever you want, as long as it makes you better at doing your Warlock stuff. I'd recommend Wildshape Mystic Ranger, which gives you full BAB, all good saves, high base skill points, 2nd level spells before taking ES and 5th level spells by the end of the build. Use the Frostblood Half-Orc trick to get Sword of the Arcane Order as a bonus feat at 4th level and you'll even get access to the Wizard spell list with those slots.

[Nikorasuko]

Factotum and Savant both are base classes that seem rather lackluster for me. Both of them are able to do a lot of things with enough investment but they don't do anything more than mediocre. Factotum is honestly the better of the two but I can't see myself playing either or. Giving these even a NPC class would make them somewhat usable.

Another to note are classes that try to become to much of a nitch. For example Spelltheif. While I love the concept, unless it had spells of its own I don't care to play it. Which it has an ACF for it and I've been very tempted.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I don't understand how nobody mentioned the Soulmeld classes yet. Their chassis is pretty bad, but they have abilities that are tailor-made to help basically any build be better and have more options. The only thing they lack is pure power, which the other half can make up for.

[Maat Mons]

Barbarian: If you go straight Barbarian 19, you can pick up Cleaving Charge with the Streetfighter ACF. It’s a cool ability, but 19 straight levels of Barbarian would be pretty painful in a normal game. The class has an amazing first level and the second level can be great with the right ACF, but it’s mostly downhill from there. A gestalt build I want to try is a timid, bookish Faun who enters dissociative fits of extreme rage. Archivist 20 // Barbarian 20, using Streetfighter ACF and Fangshields sub level 3.

Paladin: We all know 2nd level is awesome, but 3rd level gets you immunity to Compulsions with Paladin of Freedom and 4th level gets you immunity to Death Effects with Aura of Sanctity. Even so, Paladin normally suffers from the terrible affliction of not being Cleric. In gestalt, you can be both.

Ranger: Moon-Warded Ranger gives Wisdom to AC in light armor at 2nd level and Mind-Affecting immunity at 11th level. These aren’t bad abilities, by themselves, and the class has a decent enough chassis. But Ranger has always come up short in my estimation.

Warforged Juggernaut: Some of the best immunities in the game, but normally not a viable alternative to Bone Knight and Pale Master.

[ExLibrisMortis]

How is that bull****?

In addition to what Inevitability has said—which is what I was going to say—there is this: gestalt allows a lot of awesome class combinations. You could say that gestalt is about class combinations. But if you ban your Ultimate Maguses and Totem Ragers, you lose out on all the PrC abilities that actually create the combinations. You get less interesting class combinations with gestalt than without it!

You should also consider that adding one class' spellcasting progression to a build that already has two classes worth of progression is often not that notable. Triple casting sounds pretty cool, but for the most part, classes like Mystic Theurge remain filler in gestalt, and usually suboptimal filler at that. It's often better to take e.g. cleric//casting prestige class than mystic theurge//some other base class dip.

It's also worth keeping in mind that you can still do "triple" and "quadruple" builds without PrCs, via feats like Swift Hunter, and I don't think anyone considers those broken. It's purely the possibility of triple casting that makes people jump, and when you get down to it, it's not actually a big deal.

[pabelfly]

Ranger: Moon-Warded Ranger gives Wisdom to AC in light armor at 2nd level and Mind-Affecting immunity at 11th level. These aren’t bad abilities, by themselves, and the class has a decent enough chassis. But Ranger has always come up short in my estimation.

Ranger is great if you want to play a character with a bunch of skill points and full BAB. You can trade casting for feats if you don't want to deal with spells and spellcasting and get nearly as many feats as Fighter does (albeit from a much tighter list). Combat Style lets you ignore the dex requirements of the two-weapon fighting feat tree, or you can get the Multiweapon Fighting feats as quick, or quicker than you otherwise would, and there's also the Archery Combat Style if you want to go ranged. Lastly, since it's a PHB class, it has a wide variety of alternate class features.

Whenever I want to make a mundane build for archery, TWF or MWF, I'm picking either Fighter or Ranger.