I have considered cleric side with deathbound domain as well, to maximize the 'minion' pool even further.

So far leaning to Wizard 1/Dread Necromancer 8/Ultimate Magus 9 to one side (not access to 9th level spells as arcane sucks a bit but ensures big minion pool and some arcane flexibillity). So having devoted cleric side would help nicely. But if go tier idea, both wizard and cleric are tier 1 so cannot worked together in the build (unless taking ultimate magus one side negates tier 1 status).

Perhaps otherr side has cleric with deathbound and death domains and sorcerer and enter true necromancer prestige class (with 18th level cap at 11th level as true necromancer albeit that side likely I place +2 LA being lich and be 9th level true necromancer). Just further cement in the fact Hathra is completely devoted necromancer and master of undead (and really overall diverse caster overall).

Edit; realized the undead mastery feature from dread necromancer is based on their class levels than CL. So now leaning to one side being dread necromancer entirely (and if possible, 20th level PC's would allow me be lich without +2 LA needed to be taken).

Other side could be wizard/cleric/true necromancer. Also after checking what god/goddess would fit for cleric; Wee Jas makes most sense (if fellow PC's and GM allows that Wee Jas has access to deathbound domain which makes sense to her).
This message was last edited by the player at 08:26, Fri 07 Oct 2022.

I'm in agreement with these two points, Maynitra.

We do need to sort out our individual and collective motivations.  If our town is capital-E evil with a significantly non-zero chance of being eaten by the hungry dead, who will come here of their own accord and who will remain?  That heavily shapes the character of the town and can dramatically affect the sorts of divine assistance and interference we could expect.  It has a fairly significant impact on the sorts of PCs that would fit into the party, as well.  How will this mesh should another player choose to put forward a PC in direct opposition to the undead and how would you envision that playing out in terms of city government?

As for leadership as a "free" feat, it would be helpful.  Are we thinking to use the Landlord feat, as well, to have a variety of fortresses within the city, a number of power bases held by individual party members in support of personal and collective goals?

Haakon is Chaotic either Good or Neutral

If Gestalt at level 18, I'm thinking on one side Bard 9 Legendary Captain and on the other Swashbuckler 12 Horizon Walker 6.
Rogue 6
If non-gestalt at level 18, I'm thinking Aquatic Ranger 6, Legendary Captain 6

Well, Hathra would try to keep the undead population under control and any undead who have 'need' for feed need to do it civil manner (basically instead of gold/coin they can trade services in return for getting a taste of blood, flesh or life energy depending on feeding method). Any undead who causes problems is exiled/eliminated as needed.

Landlord can be used to build places in the city in which PC's have directly contributed/funded or if desired combined resources to build their 'base of operation' which can be a castle/fortress in the city but I was also thinking DMG II rules how to establish business and running business being covered by landlord gp than PC personal gp.

For example some PC may want to upgrade city walls to be made from steel example and landlord can cover that expense. Haakon may spend landlord gold for building the docks (as building slots in the stronghold builder guide has actual quick rules on how to build docks even but he could buy it multiple times to expand to make it bigger or better than a normal dock).

Hathra's end likely covers the necropolis area in the city, temples, catacombs, housing etc.

I realize that we're not running a kingdom, but Pathfinder 1E does have rules that we could use to think through some of our organization ideas.

For example, they have a list of suggested leadership roles and areas of competence, which I'll generalize and simplify a bit for our purposes:

• Communications/Edicts (internal communications and orders)
• Diplomacy/Trade (external communications and supply chains)
• Guilds/Economy/Banks (internal markets -- legitimate/legal)
• Crime/Black-Market (internal markets -- illegitimate/illegal)
• Information Gathering/Spying (espionage and counter-espionage)
• Religion, Festivals, and Calendar (dealing with deities and their representatives, plus temples)
• Research, Education, and Magical Arcana (dealing with other arcane issues)
• Combat Forces/Military
  • Guards/Police (internal peace-keeping)
  • Scouts/Rangers/Army (external/regional peace-keeping)
  • Invasion/Counter-Invasion Forces (can be done by Guards, Scouts, and Conscripts, too)

This message was last edited by the player at 21:04, Fri 07 Oct 2022.

Indeed, pathfinder 1E has rules for kingdom ruling but we can simplify it and get an idea of potential roles that each party member (and cohort) covers in the city.

Huh.  I see the rules you're mentioning out in the PF SRD.  I wonder whether those're lifted from the Kingmaker AP.

It's too bad rPol doesn't have a polling tool so we could move past discussion straight onto voting for various options where we don't seem to be making marked progress.  The options have been laid out pretty well, but I'm not sure we're any closer than when we started.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:19, Sat 08 Oct 2022.

Might want to look at Power of Faerun too - not sure how much it might add to the discussion, but that was somewhat what that book was talking about.

So, are we going to go Gestalt? If we do, then are we following the suggestion that we ban what are dual class PrCs - they use the examples of Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, and Eldritch Knight? Since that was created a lot more of those type of classes have been created obviously.

We could have a thread for Votes. List out what we are currently voting on and then have everyone post with vote and then once everyone has done so tally the vote and then use it again on our next vote.

Also there are online poll systems which someone can provide link and anyone with link access can vote once for given options.

Myself I would favor more not ban the dual class PrC's, allow use them but only if you qualify to them with one side of gestalt.

Example;

Allowed Gestalt Build:
Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10
Fighter 10/Weaponmaster 10

Not allowed gestalt build:
Wizard (specialist) 5/Mystic Theurge 10
Cleric 5/Master Specialist 10
This message was last edited by the player at 15:45, Sat 08 Oct 2022.

If we're going gestalt, I have problem with that restriction because both of the PrCs I have in mind require a certain number of ranks in Knowledge (Geography).

Well, the restriction qualitification for a PrC is only for dual casting progression PrC's not regular ones. If you get BAB or skill or feature requirements filled thanks to having the other side being skill monkey build and the main build being then focusing on other qualifications, then can enter the PrC (or maybe even sooner than what normally is possible).

For example, Magelord which asks for evasion could have qualifications like this;

Wizard 9/Magelord 10
Rogue 10/Assassin 9

In reply to Hathra Bonecrown (msg # 38):

My votes:

1. I would personally favor doing gestalt, and I would be ok with Hathra's suggested limitation on dual casting progression.
   
   
2. For level, I'd be ok with anything in the 18-21 range, with the restriction no epic spellcasting (at least to start).
   
   
3. Spell-points: I think we've had a proposal on those, but I'm not entirely sure what we're looking at there...

My votes:

1) I accept Gestalt and given Hathra's clarification, I accept the restriction
2) For level if it's gestalt, I don't care.  If it's not gestalt, then I'd say 18
3) I have no thoughts on spellpoints but I'm not really in favour of something that makes magic users even more powerful compared with the rest of us.

My votes:

1) Favoring gestalt, with my suggested limits on dual-caster progression.
2) Level wise 18-21 like Maynitra, whether gestalt or not
3) Fine with using spellpoint/spell recharge rules, for Haakon's info those gestalt/char builds that have no casting abilities whatsoever (in return getting spellpoint system), get 'third' gestalt path which further diverse yourself or able to get templates (or play monster if prefer, assuming non-spellcasting monsters).

I'm going to be putting up a single post poll soon. Also I'll poke the players added that haven't posted.

So I could be, for example...

Scout 9/Horizon Walker 9 PLUS Rogue 9/Legendary Captain 9 AND Swashbuckler 9/Invisible Blade 9? For a triple threaded gestalt with legendary non-magical abilities?

I am fine with Gestalt - If we are using the dual casting limited to one side would like it to be said you can only have such a class on one side to avoid this kind of silliness - Druid/Beguiler/Arcane Heirophant // Warmage/Wizard/Ultimate Magus

Level 18 sounds good. High enough we might hit epic, but with enough time to discuss what it would be like.

Don't know enough about the proposed spellpoints to comment.

Think it would be more like the first two and then you could pick up a low powered class and have those abilities added.
I personally would think of it like this (probably not the way most people do) - if you gestalt as two non spellcasting Tier 4s or Tier 5s you can pick a Tier 4 or 5 and gain that classes class features without gaining anything else like favorable saving throws, BAB, skills, etc.
Scout 9/Horizon Walker 9 PLUS Rogue 9/Legendary Captain 9 AND have the class features of a Swashbuckler 18? Maybe?

Also as a rule - for gestalt you can pick up multiclassing feats but they apply only to one side of a Gestalt. I am looking at you, Daring Outlaw, Master Spellthief, Ascetic Stalker, etc.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:48, Sat 08 Oct 2022.

I fully support this limitation as well. And we're ok with prestige classes on both sides simultaneously?



Quite frankly, both spell points and this "extra stuff" addition feels excessively complicated to me. We're already pushing the bar with high-level gestalt and community leadership; do we really need more? I'm fine to roll with it, but like I said -- feels excessive and complicated.



Agreed on this point as well.

I agree on both pointers as well, also indeed support the idea you can have prestige class on both sides progressing same time. So long they do not hold any conflict with each other or are affected overly much by another side (looking at Ur-Priest class which caster level is PrC + 1/2 of other spellcasting classes, can get past 20 levels easily if have warlock 10/Ur-Priest 10|Wizard 5/Sorcerer 5/Ultimate Magus 10). Not saying ban Ur-priest but only allow gain additional caster levels from their side of gestalt than both sides (as it would go act against other rules which do not allow untyped bonuses stacking infinitely/too much).

In spellpoints I do agree it can add complexity where it may not desire, I am okay learn them but if people don't want to use them I am fine with it as well. Just merely more open-minded about using spellpoint system but not bound to it.

If the juice isn't worth the squeeze, then it's a no go. I'll poll about spellpoints, but remove the triple class idea. I've done it with friends of friends, and that's about it. So for the introduction of online users, that may have nothing but D&D in common, this was a bad idea.

In reply to Narrator V (msg # 49):

Not a bad idea to bring it up, but some folks can prefer simpler casting systems over learning how the new one works. Overly simplified the spellpoint system works like psionics with power points and many folks do not like psionics because how they work differently.

For what it is worth, I think a starting level of 18-21 would be best, so we are closer to actually getting to try out the Immortals Handbook material. I am unfamiliar with spell points, so I have no particular opinion on those, other than that it will require learning a slightly different subsystem. And I think we should be okay to use prestige classes on both sides of the build, though I am not so keen on using dual advancing classes such as Mystic Theurges etc.

I'm not overly a fan of dual advancing classes when using gestalt classes, either.  It's one of the few things that gets called as recommended for a GM to prohibit.  That and advancing more than one PrC at a time.

We're already talking about starting at epic, dual advancing PrCs, and triple gestalts.  I imagine we're going to start hearing about LA buyoff and having racial HD applying to only one side of the gestalt pretty soon.

Should it come up (as it almost inevitably does in this sort of game), I'm pretty much a "no" on racial HD converting automatically to class levels on one side of the gestalt unless one is taking the racial class from SS as their class on one side of the gestalt and that all the way through before switching to another class.  On rolling level adjustment into one side so we can all have a circus of templates, I'm a hard "no", though buying off is far more agreeable if they're added after all your racial HD and class levels, going staight to the ECL bottom line.  I know that may put a dent in some of the PC concepts being discussed, but template stacking gets ridiculous.

As for casting systems, stock Vancian, Recharge, or Points all work fine by me, they all get a "yes".  They all work more or less well.  Psionics can be fun too, though it can be damn fiddly when puzzling out your augments.

Edit:
In the end, I'd rather hear us talking about starting ECL, rather than level, because not all contributors to ECL are equal.  It lets folks who love their monster races bring in SS to have them, as well as those who love +X LA templates to have them, too, but in the way the rules are written.  It also makes space for saying "LA +< X" + so many levels for all.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:11, Sun 09 Oct 2022.

In my end I think racial HD and LA aren't superior to class levels so the extent that they should drop your overall class levels. For example vampire is +8 LA and if we start at 21 level/ECL and +8 LA is taken off both sides of gestalt, the said vampire never sees epic play or gets use the immortal handbook entire career of the game. More so other players would outperform the vampire in every way as possible. Also, LA buy off would not fix much either as it by 21th ECL he cannot buy any of his LA off (not until much higher epic levels anyway).

If you want limit 'template insanity' just rule you cannot have more than one inherited and one acquired template (like half-dragon vampire is possible but not half-dragon phrenic werewolf ghost). The monsters and racial HD+LA associated with them should be able to put one side of gestalt as well.

Of course, some races are stronger than others, like raksasha vs ogre magi, but they do so with the extent of having fewer class levels on another side of the gestalt and most likely stick to more monster PrC's. Same goes for LA (at least ones where buy off is not possible).

But considering everyone's sheets will be able viewed and know the exact build someone goes for, then we can police for any 'broken' combos or silly stuff which we feel does not fit the game or breaks the game too much besides the rules listed.

They may or may not be more powerful.  Savage Species provides rules exactly for the purpose of having a monster class.  It fits right in with gestalt.  LA in no way does.

Right out of the SRD, "To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels.

Use ECL instead of character level to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character."

I may get outvoted on this topic, but rolling it into one side of the gestalt gets a "no vote" from me, though in that case buy off is a fair alternative for those wishing to have templates.  If the vote is to roll it into one side of the gestalt, then I'm a staunch "no" on buyoff.  Again, the possible, eventual vote may go that way.  Honestly, have we even settled the question of gestalt or no?