![]() Look at it this way, if a class gets only 7/10 casting progression, WOTC must have felt that it deserved it. I don't like it when those same rules are used for dubious intent. ![]() ![]() It's just that I find gestalt to be a beautiful system that can flawlessly incorperate two seperate classes into a single powerful character. It's not that I don't like optimizers, heck I optimize as well. If you don't like how powerful a character is, then deal with that character, don't try to squelsh the rule.I guess this pretty much sums up my frustration. >_> Really, you seem upset because people can then use it to optimize to a greater extent than you'd prefer. If you don't like powerful characters, you probably shouldn't be playing gestalt anyway - it's very good from an optimization standpoint in and of itself regardless of what limitations are put on it unless you do one of the neat 'Gestalt with npc class only' options. If you don't like how powerful a character is, then deal with that character, don't try to squelsh the rule. If you changed the class to be full casting, in fact, then you could go Wizard 5 / MotUH1 // Warblade 6, so it'd be stronger than this suggestion. So your 6th level is 'Master of the Unseen Hand // Wizard, resulting in you gaining just casting and familiar stuff. So if you're, uh, Wizard 5 / MotUH1 // Warblade 5 / Wizard 1. In this case, you're losing out on warblade levels on that side. I feel mix and matching your classes across both gestalts to gain full advantage of everything you could possibly get isn't what the original intent was. I wouldn't do that to be honest, but it's an option. In the example of this thread, you could easily postpone your Warblade levels and take Elemental Savant on that side to gain full progression if you wanted. take the PrC *fully* on the other side of the gestalt. If a class is really cool but it obviously suffers from 5/10 casting, confer with your DM to up that progression.Ģ. Now, you can also utilize this as an optimizer, but whether or not that's good or bad is a matter for another poster, probably involving ninjaing me.Well, there's two ways to solve that:ġ. So with that rule in place, you can see people playing heirophants and masters of the unseen hand and other lousy classes that are really cool in theme, without feeling like you're shooting yourself. With the ability to pick a spellcasting class on the other side, you're actually still hurting yourself in most cases - it means you're taking the previous class with +1 spellcasting for both sides of your gestalt. I can simply pick up 2 cool classes and fuse them together.Ī lot of spellcasting prestige classes are cool, but vary from horribly nerfing to utterly useless. For me, gestalt is a way to have a powerful character without all the cheesy implementations. Note: I'm not insulting you or your playstyle, I'm just a little annoyed that a lot of people tend to view gestalt as a way to optimize and cheese the heck out of their characters. Where does it say, *anywhere* in the gestalt rules that you're allowed to do this? I find this "tactic" so unbelievable stupid and broken. IMO, this is the most balanced way to go, both sides are seperated from each other class-wise and you're not allowed to take the same class on the other side of the gestalt. ![]() In my mind, making a gestalt character is like making two different characters and sticking them together with superglue. For AC, since Wu Jen is a prepared caster, you can prepare Greater Luminous Armor from Book of Exalted Deeds (if you're Good), which is top of the line as far as AC-boosting spells go.I have never understood people making suggestions like these. I would definitely second the Warblade suggestion. You should take Wu Jen on the other side of the gestalt on levels where Elemental Savant loses casting, so you won't lose any caster levels. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |