I'm starting this thread to track any issues with the notion of balancing the party via partial gestalt.  I'd like to note that a really well built (and well played) lower tier character can be fun to RP with.  However, if one trick ponies tend to become a bit of a challenge when faced with problems outside of their realm of control.

Also, our group tends to want to play characters from vastly different tiers (mechanically speaking).  This system should help a little bit to alieviate some of the frustration of having one or two OP characters in a group of 5 or 6.  As the tier page says, balance across the party is the only balance metric that matters.

This link is to the part of our website where the gestalt balance system is explained:

http://severantos.webs.com/classtiersandgestalt.htm

These links are from Zal's post in a previous thread which also describe the system:

Tier System for Base Classes:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0

Tier System for PrC's (Not yet implemented)

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0

Why classes are in their tiers

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0

On PrC's:  My opinion is to exlcude them from gestalt for balance.  There are 50+ base classes.  There are many hundreds of PrC's.  Trying to balance the PrC's is tough job.  Also...If I'm a fighter(G: Expert)/Bard(G: Warrior)/RDD...do I need a gestalt for RDD?  And if so, Am I teir 5 (like fighter) or tier 3 (like bard)?  Or do I drop to tier 4 (since RDD is defined as a -1)?  If there is a good system for this, I'm all ears.

My though is to simply nix gestalt from PRC's. The idea of a prc is that it suppliments what you are doing with your class well already: you wouldnt take it if it wasnt. As such, the PRC should be good enough that you can take it without gestalt being there aswell. For instance: lets say I am a gestalt fighter/monk. I take a couple levels of weapon master: good enough to not need gestalt. THen I start taking fighter again, and the monk gestalt kicks in again for those levels.

That, and it will save us the trouble of finding out what tier each PRC is >.<

I've been reviewing the system, and PRC's are rated from a +2 to -2 system based on how much power/flexibility they add to logical base class entries.  For example, Champion of Gwynharwyf is a +2 PrC.  It gives the Baba full rage abilities, plus paladin casting, smite, same DR, and energy resist as well.  Now, a baba with this class is no tier 3...but for gestalt, those PrC levels would be treated as tier three.  That is one notion.

Leaving PrC's out of gestalt is another notion.  It's valid for all the reasons you mentioned.  The down side is that if your PrC is a net +0, or even a -1 PrC, then you lose a LOT for taking it and losing gestalt, which could hurt in late game.

As for Early Game issues:  Yes, a lower tier gestalt will be amazing ina low level campaign.  But by level 8 or 9, that coolness will start to fall away, and the class will be left behind by the higher tiers.  However, even at high level, this makes most folks happy.  Your monk with +16 AB on his first attack no has a +21, and seems a bit more viable with all those new and shiney feats.  The fighter gets to add a sidecar class to pump up his damag or roll in non-combat situations.  The Paladin......is still not jewish...but guess who is? [/adam sandler].

I've added a section for non 3.5 classes, so they can be considered.

Derpserved for later. (catching up on my forums today/tonight, so will post after i have more time to look into the PRC thread again. need to refresh the RAM

-Z

Here are links to those class discussions that have already been started:

Dragon Shaman:

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5393948-tier-discussion-dragon-shaman

Shugenja:

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5401603-tier-discussion-shugenja

Ardent:

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5407435-tier-discussion-ardent

Lurk

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5407505-tier-discussion-lurk

Spirit Shaman

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5400241-tier-discussion-spirit-shaman

Divine Mind

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5407465-tier-discussion-divine-mind

Wilder

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5427936-tier-discussion-wilder

Wu Jen

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5395114-tier-discussion-wu-jen

I dont have a whole lot of time right now but im going to have to take paladin's word on what is what tier as i dont have a bunch of the more exotic books with me here. That, and im on a mac, and i hate macs.

So eerything you have said looks alright by my book.

And @ Paladin: Please record for my homebrew stuff that the templar is T4 and the Maji is T2. The reason that I bumped Maji to T2 is because it does have some game altering things, such as balefire (kill something in the past), gateway (teleport), wards (complete block to everything), and severing, the removing of the ability to cast: perminantly.

Also, in the homebrew section, please add the Alchemist and the Shinigami. Both are classes that I have been working on in passing with Zalon and Keyes, and intend to present to the group upon my return. Tentitively list the Alchemist at T1-T2 and the Shinigami as T4-T3.

Added per request.  Also added Will User as a Tier 2 (tentative, I have a feeling that could go up or down depending on how it compares to simialr classes (Wilder, Favored Soul, Druid, Factotum, Dragon Shaman, etc.)

Divine Mind, Ardent, and Lurk are still outstanding.  Also, I'm beginning the discussions for incarnum classes:  Incarante, Soulborn, and Totemist.

Totem Shaman:

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5624583-tier-discussion-totem-shaman

Soulborn

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5624538-tier-discussion-soulborn

Incarnate:

http://severantos.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/5624518-tier-discussion-incarnate

Another thing I'd just like to remind people of with the tier system: The tier system is about the classes themselves, not a player's ability to optimize. It's entirely feasible to move up or down a tier (or even two in many cases) depending on how many splatbooks you pull from and how much time you spend optimizing.  ^_^

-Z 

*scampers off to check out Pal's posts on the other threads*

Totally agree with Zal here.  Tier system is designed to start people on similar footing (maybe not equal, but trying to be close).  How you tweak that build is up to you (and what the DM will allow).  I will say that in the interest of fairness, if you are using something from a splatbook, you should let the Dm know the source, since a lot of that stuff may not apply to any given campaign.  This is especially true when using 3.0 and non-D&D materials.

As far as I'm concerned, any non-core sources should be checked with DM's for exactly that reason: every campaign is different, and xyz PrC might not fit the world or campaign or may not even exist in the realm. If we are even considering non-dnd materials (which i hadn't even thought was an option) then there's several things i'd like to look into! 

Basically the tiers is a base benchmark, and depending on how much time, effort, and reading you're willing to put into a character, and what you're looking to get out of it will determine how far up or down the scale you want to go. EG: you can optimize the everloving hell out of a fighter and move it up a tier (i'd say even 2 if you really work at it) and can come up with some great roleplay concepts with the build... on the other hand, you can play a bumbling idiot of a wizard that often misfires spells and/or casts the wrong thing because it's a great RP character, which could take one of the most powerful classes and make it a tier 3 or 4 class. there is a nearly infinite potential variation, but that is all to be decided between the DM and player(s). The tiers just give us a good starting point for those discussions, and depending on the campaign, if we implement the partial gestalt rules, balance things out a bit more!

The thing that excites me the most about this system is that this means i can optimize the everloving hell out of a character or two and then talk to the DM to decide what tier we want to set my final build at. if it's 1 or 2, great, if it's 3 or 4, i can rework it to do the partial gestalt or what not, but all in all it works out giving me my kicks for getting to optimize, but doesn't make me unreasonably better than anyone else in the party.

-Z

Something you said onthe partial gestalt made me curious.  I had viewed the gestault combos as a base correction to balance potential power.  Are you looking to use them more as an addition after you decide on a build?

For example:  I figured that you would get a second T5 class as gestault if you took a Fighter  level.  However, if you then took a wizard level, since wizard has more potential, you don't get a gestault with those levels.

Did you have something else in mind?

You are correct on how it works, but we all know that I am an optimizer, so If i am going to come up with a build that can throw small neutron stars as missile weapons (as has been created on various optimization forums), even though the class(es) involved aren't great... probably tier 3-5 which would normally allow for a partial or full gestalt.... but considering the nature of the character, It would end up being a tier 1-2 from sheer force of ability to reshape the world. 

as has been said before, the Tier system is a fantastic starting point, but it is far from a hard and fast line in my mind. as i mentioned before, if someone wants to play a bumbling fumbling wizard that miscasts half their spells, I'd have no problem putting that at tier 3 depending on the arrangements of the nature of the fumbles... likewise a completely optimized throwing build that has over 3400 strength is NOT going to remain a tier 4 or 5 just because that's what the base class is. 

I see these tiers as a fantastic set of guidelines and a great starting point, but the lines are far from etched in stone in my mind. there are exceptions to damn near every rule in D&D, I don't think this should be without them as well ^_^

-Z

PS. i just remembered as i was typing this... the tier page actually mentions several times how classes can go up or down depending on how they're optimized. so i vote if someone is planning out a build, they should sit down with the DM and talk about the build's intention and capabilities and decide what tiers should go to what level if it's something that potentially goes above and beyond the "normal" capabilities of a given class. Likewise, if a character built on the fly begins to pull too far ahead of the rest of the group in power because the player thought up something awesome on the spot but it ends up potentially harming the party dynamic and functionality,  the players and DM can work together to decide whether the character should be scaled back, the rest of the party should be boosted, or what the best solution to keep everyone at least on the same page. 

As i've talked about many many times before "power" of characters has never been equal, nor was it intended to. The most important part of D&D (as stated in the DMG many times) is getting together with friends to tell a unique fantastic story. Sometimes characters end up being less than optimal... other times they end up surprising you with their capabilities... But at the end of the day, the important part is that people have fun and contribute to the epic tale we'll all remember for the rest of our lives. 

-Z

I think I'm viewing the Tiers based more on what the potential of a class is.  It's a kickoff point to allow all players, regardless of op-fu black belt status the opportunity to have a character that realistly matters to game play.  Story is king, of course, but power and flexibility determine in many ways how much a person is going to contribute.

For example:  In the Exile story, a large portion of what is going on has to be channeled through Sev's character, owing to Sev having the only character with that kind of knowledge.  At the same time, since Kreia is rather terse, there is a lot that Sev knows ICly that isn't shared.  The tier system would allow Kalva, Kane, El'rien, and Eigen more skill options, and might allow for more of a share of the story, for example.

In the above story, nothing should be taken as a personal attack in any way.   It's for example purposes, and the freshest in my mind.

When you say, "the important part is that people have fun and contribute", I fully agree.  Tiers help with that, by leveling the playing field.  Classes may not be equal, but characters in a party should be.  This is an important point.  If we say that characters should be inherantly unbalanced, then any balance system fails upon inception due to the system ethos.  While op-fu can make a certain class more powerful, and intentional under optimization can make a class less powerful, I don't think that should be factored into the tier/gestalt system.  What JaronK started is a good notion, but it's a spring board to what we are doing with it.

i think you're arguing against a point that i wasn't trying to make... my point was simply that because optimization can cause classes to move up and down among the tiers, there will inevitibly be some ad-hoc DM player discussions on a character by character basis in order to keep the characters in a given party on closer to an even playing field. It has nothing to do with the tier system itself... it has to do with the balance we are trying to achieve in our party and to what end we use that tier system for. 

rewording what i was trying to say before: "fighters" are tier 5... but that doesn't mean that a build involving all fighter levels will necessarily be tier 5. if we're trying to balance x/y/z group to an average of tier 3/4, and someone finds some neat super effective trick with a fighter that puts the straight fighter on the even playingfield we're hoping for, that doesn't mean that they should still get the partial gestalt, because then that springboards them ahead of the intended power level. 

the tier system is a good base (or springboard as you put it) but the base is not anchored in immovable stone. to quote what you said... classes may not be equal but characters in a party should be... this is the point i'm trying to get at.

-Z

OK, I see what you are saying.  I can see this on a case by case basis.  However, if a Fighter finds a neat trick that actually manages to achieve T4 or T3, Id' still give them the same gestalt.   I'd be hard pressed to see that at level 1, and by level 5 or so, you'v ealready got a good ammount of gestalt and RP behind it (we hope).  Are you saying that you would force that fighter to choose classes at this point?  That seems a lot like changing the playing field, and we've already had one angry arguement in the group over changing expectations.

In most cases, gestalt adds flexibility, not power.  I can make some classes hit more, but it doesn't generally change how hard they hit, so the overall combat impact is lessened.  The excpetion is truely underpowered classes, that do gain some semblance of potency from this system.  I'd ahve to see a situation as an example before I was convinced.