Talk:Gestalt Style Multiclassing (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	RiverOffers favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Simpleness that is what some of us want to a degree. Not that we want everything made easy or as no-brain-ers but that we want to focus more on that game and less on the maths.

DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.

I'm going to have to disagree with GW. Running the numbers on how it interacts with linear progressions, I see that it allows classes with linear progress to stack polynomially; every four levels, you add your level to your power again. I'm not going to do the heavy thinking to figure out what precise sort of function that is, but it sure as hell isn't linear anymore. Meanwhile, spellcasters are barely in a better position than they were before. With one secondary class, you get a one-caster-level advantage over a standard mystic theurge. With two secondary classes, you're two spell levels behind a single-class wizard, which is generally considered an unforgivable detriment. So this doesn't widen the gap. It narrows it. Now, it does encourage incredibly complicated builds. And it probably overcompensates in narrowing that gap. But you know what, the bottom line is that it's a variant rule (therefore not required to fit into a power category) and looks like a lot of fun to play, in the same silly-fun way as normal Gestalt.

	Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Although it probably becomes a mess when combined with homebrew classes that make their own assumptions about balance, it seems to do a nice job of making essentially SRD-like campaigns end up with more than just the 4 (or 6) good classes.

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Basically doubles your options (and thus potentially power) with very little drawback. You'll virtually never see someone going along a single path with this variant. Also, exacerbates problems between quadratic wizards and linear fighters.

It's probably more accurately described as exponential wizards and quadratic fighters. That said, this variant rule seems to be balanced specifically with Wizard-level style class designs, so it should probably be listed at that balance point. Also, why wouldn't you want to voltron together heaping handfuls of martial classes when playing a Tome martial character in this system? Those are still designed without enough exponential versatility progression, as far as I can tell. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)