1) NPC Classes are rated against other classes in the tier system.

2) At the same time, they are separate from those other classes.

3) Their prescence is a refernce.  No one is an NPC class first, and a PC class second.

4) Remember that when gestalting, the primary class still counts a the main class, unless RP dictates.  In this group:  Barya is a Fighter fight, Sev a monk, Tilick a Rogue, Halvar a scout, Marcus a Baba.

5) If you look at the system, the NPC classes are used to define gestalts for the majority of the power scale.  Expert is held out at first, due to the pick 10 skills ability.  Adept is the last hold out due to casting.  However, these classes are not made to stand up to PC classes.  Their tiers are for conveince and reference only.

Ona final note, being able to powerbuild a class combo to be as good or  better than a same tier or higher tier doesnt mean as much as folks think.  Tiers are based on moderate build knowledge, not corner cases.

The gestalt system, if I am correct in my assessment, is made to bring balance to the classes so that weaker ones can be buffed up and become more competent in battle. With this in mind, the origin of the class (book, who it's meant for, etc.) should not come into play. Yes, there are classes meant for NPCs, but the gestalt system shouldn't be looking at that. It should ONLY be looking at the power that class brings to the table. With the power that the Adept brings, it lands in T4. Regardless of high, mid, or low in that teir, it is still there, and with that in mind it should not be allowed to gestalt the way we have been allowing it to.

I don't think we should roll back and force anyone who already has gestalted this way from playing their character (or to change what they have) but we should not allow future gestalts to follow this path.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The NPC classes were placed across three tiers, though not one of them holds a candle to the other classes on that tier.  Look closely at the system again.

Commoner, Aristocrat, Warrior are T6.  Expert is T5.  Adept is T4.

I beleve that these classes were placed where they are to differentiate them from the other nPC classes.  Source DOES matter.  Adept is NOT a powerful class.  It does give a cool gestalt ability for some classes.  It's spells per day are limited (1/2 what duskblade gets), it's HP is laughable (d4), it's BAB and saves are horendous.

So with all that, why make it a T4?  To give it spearation from the other NPC classes, which it is clearly better than.  The tier system is intended to bringht general party up to T2 to T3....that is....make those mid and lower tiers better by adding flexibility and power when needed.  What you really object to, I think, is the flex that adept gives fighter.  But look at this another way...

Warrior gives rogues HUGE benefits in combat (power) and plays to their strengths.  Adept gives a fighter OPTIONS in combat and outside of combat.  Both the thug, and the sage warrior are equal contibuters to the party.  As you've said, your rogue can be a secondary tank, and is more than capable of dealing impressive damage.  The adept simply gives the Fighter a few cool tricks which compensate for the class's total lack of applied flexibility.

The points you have brought up to justify why Adept should be a special case T4 class are the reasons why it is T4 and not T1, T2, or T3. It is not a higher tier because it is weaker than other classes with similar abilities, and it is not a lower tier because it is more powerful than those classes below it. Factors like spell list, BAB, HP, and Saves are all factored in there. It does get a strong save (will), so it's saves are no more horrendous than any other single save class.

Expert is placed in T5 because the ability to put any 10 skills in class is downright amazing. Not to mention 6+int skill points. It's not powerful enough to be T4, but it also has a clear advantage over the T6 classes.

No T4 class, regardless of being high, mid, or low in that tier should be above the rules for the rest of the tier. If we want T4 and T5 classes able to gestalt with each other, then we should allow them all to do so. I don't think this is a good plan, and I think that we should amend what we have been doing to no longer allow -any- T4 class to gestalt with a T5 class.

I don't think I'm being clear:

The NPC classes were given a Tier designation as a courtesy. They are the basis of the partial gestalt system.  NPC classes are weaker than any other base class.  That is why they are NPC classes.  If It helps, we can remove them from the tier system, and rate them outside of it.

Commoner, Aristocrat, Warrior are all T6.  No other T6 but those are allowed to gestalt with T3 & T4.  By your own reasoning, the Thug build (T6 with a T4) is out.  Expert is a T5.  So it can now no longer gestalt with a T4 (per your interpretation of the system).

So now the gestalt system is:

T1 - T4 no gestalt option

T5-T6 Gestalt with All NPC classes but Adept.  Gestalt with other T5-T6 classes.

That is -NOT- the system that I laid out.  if you would like to propose an alternative to this system, I am willing to work with you on it.

Each of the NPC classes (minus commoner) has one large advantage that it can add to gestalt.

Warrior:  Strong Fort/Strong BAB/Heavy Armor and Shields.

Expet: Strong Will, any 10 skills are in class.

Adept: Strong Will, intermediate spell casting.

Declaring the Basher/Adept as broken in the system makes me also wonder if the Skillz/Warrior is broken. (for example).

In reality, I think both classes approach a certain level of parity.  Think of if this way: 

The warrior/rogue has two classes that harmoniously synergize.  By going Str over Dex, you get a single class with stong BAB, two strong saves, high AC/damage, awsome secondary damage (str), precision damage, and the best possible skill progression.

The Fighter Adept gets two good saves, high AC/damage, low skill points, super high feat content (good for +4ab, +6 dmg), minor buffing (worse than duskblade), minor healing (on par with paladin), minor damage/disruption casting (worse than duskblade/bard).  Of those three final powers, the class has to pick in advance which they are going to use.  So there is some decrease in applied flexibility, vs. the Warrior Rogue which has every available ability ready at all times.

Now, this comparison is sort of incomplete, so lets look at another heavy basher..the Crusader with an Aristocrat gestalt:

Strong BAB, 2 strong saves, Level 9 initiator abilities.  Major healing, major DR (think tank).  Decent skills, High AC, moderate damage output.

As you can see, these three builds all have strengths, but no one of them is better or worse than any other.  Compared to one of my super clerics, they line up as about equal, or a little behind.  The point being, none of these classes is mega-powered.

Step away from rigidly attaching Tiers to the NPC classes, and look at the whole picture.  If you are still convinced that Adept/Fighter is so unbelievably game breaking, then I would say that we need to go one by one through class combos and cross out those that can by the same token, be game breaking....including single T1-T2 classes.

Per a phone conversation, NPC classes will be re-tiered as N1 (Adept), N2 (Expert), and N3 (Aristocrat, Commoner, Warrior).  In terms of the T scale, these corrospond as follows:

T4:N1
T5:N2
T6:N3

Mechanically, nothing is changing, however this SHOULD allow for better communication of the Tier notions.

^ I think this is a good change.  It's very confusing to have one of the Tier 4 classes be "not really Tier 4."  There's no point in creating a tier system (to compare classes) if that system puts incomparable classes into the same tier.  In that situation, we should change the notation--as Dave has done.

Out of curosity, is there any difference between making Adept a T5? T5's can gestalt with other T5's (adept with fighter), and we dont have any of the other confusion or other issues with having NPC classes having their own tier system. While it makes sense, its just more to keep track of instead of just envolving them in with the rest of the classes in the tiers.

If I am missing something, let me know.

TLDR: What is different between a T5 gestalting and the way we want Adept to gestalt? Why not just simplify and call Adept a T5?

Probably no difference...but I'm trying to make a point that NPC classes are not the same as PC classes.  Also, Adept as T5 is not really representative of what it can do.  DM's should know what the class is capable of.  Honestly...if you are REALLY all that worreid about the gestalt of T5 with an Adept...I refer you to the above builds in my second to the last post.

I apologize for joining into the debate late, but I have some things I would like to point out:

My understanding of the gestalt system is a system in which to rate classes upon combat prowess and versatility. The lower tiers are allowed to gestalt together so that they are not completely outshone by classes with far greater power or versatility.

If this is not the case, than I have had a misconception about the gestalt system since the begining.

As such, all playable classes should be rated together so that they can be determined where they fall power/versatility wise. Each and every class should be rated in our tier system, NPC or Base (and, IMO, prestiege, but I am content with our system for that). We have done this already, and I am fairly content where everything falls.

NPC classes may not be designed to give the power that a player deserves, but they should still be ranked by the same system that we rank everything else, and, if there power/versatility is lesser than a base class, than that should simply mean that it should be lower on the Tier system.

When we segregate NPC classes into its own bracket, we make things more complicated than they should be. We should have one unanumous(sp?) tier system, which all our classes fall under. That is my first point.

My second is thus: Power isnt the only component of gestalting. I take warrior for power. I take rogue for some power, but lots of versatility. I take Fighter for lots of power but only some versatility. I take adept for power and versatility. I can continue though many more classes, but we have already done that: that is our tier system.

Adept should not be reduced in tier because it is a NPC class. If it is a NPC class (which it is, derp), then it should be looked at to see if it's power is lesser than that of base classes of a similar tier, and also its versatility in said bracket. As a NPC class, it probably wont be as good as similar PC classes, but lets look. We shall start with T4 classes.

*Note* when i mention scaled casting, I look at things that increase based off of class level, such as fireball or dispel magic. They are good spells even if you get them later, because of their scaling with just level

Rogue: Shit tons of skill points, 3/4 BAB, cool abilities, sneak attack (because sneak is more than just a cool ability)

Ragner: Good skill points, full bab, decent abilites, minor spellcasting (ranger spell list is lacking, greatly, and they dont get many/day, and get them late)

Warlock: decent skill points, 3/4 BAB, cool abilities, weird spellcasting (nothing scales greatly with CL except eldritch blast)(but some good spells)

Hexblade: shit skill points, full bab, decent abilities, spellcasting (low spells/day, get them late, nothing amazing in spell list except dispel magic)

In comparison to T4:

Adept: shit skill points, half bab (less than most T4), no noteworthy abilities, spellcasting (more than any other T4).

Because spellcasting is so versatile, lets take a deeper look into adept's spells:

0 - nothing noteworthy, detectmagic and cure.

1 - bless (normally role of cleric), cure (cleric), protections (cleric/wiz), other misc (gain at level 1)

2 - Aid (cleric), stat buffs (cleric/wiz), cure (cleric), other misc (gain at level 4, 1 level later than hardcore casters)

3 - Cure, Ligntning bolt, (gained at level 8, now 3 levels behind hardcore casters)

4 - Cure, Polymorph, restoration (agined at level 12, significantly behind hardcore casters now, even with most T4 casters)

5 - Heal, commune, raise dead, baleful polymorph (gained at level 16, so far behind hardcore casters that its not worth mentioning. But most other T4 casters dont even get this far)

Adepts get good spells. While not as versatile, and not getting as many as fast, adepts are mini clerics: 2 adpets in a party render a cleric subsidized. We as a group play clerics as heal bots and buffers, with the occasional offensive spell. Adepts cover all the heals and all of the buffs (for the most part)

I intend to post again tomorrow after work, but I worked a closing shift tonight and open tomorrow, so I have to get some sleep.

The point I am getting at though is thus: I think adept should be a T4. I would take it over most T4's because it does offer power and some decent versatility. In the next post, I intend to compare it with T5 classes, to see how it rates in comparison to them. As i see it currently though, It seems to be a solid T4, even as a NPC class. While, true, I would never play it solo, gestalted with a T6 like warrior makes it viable.

More to come

The cause of concern seems to be the adept speel list.  A couple of points you made were in error i beleive.

First, the Tier System is a way to rank classes.  Nothing fancy about it, just a handy tool.

The Partial Gestalt System is a means to impove bad classes such that the party level disparity is lessened.;  Over all, the hope is that the T4-T6 classes become averaged to high T3 classes.

PrC's Cannot be tiered b/c (for example), Fist of Raziel with Cleric Entry is T1, while Fist f Raziel with Paladin Entry is (at best) T4.

Two adepts do not get rid of the 'need' for a cleric.  An adept can switch their spells every day, and they do have a good speel list.  There is nothing game breaking in it, however.  A cleric can get rid of status ailments that an adept can't even touch (think blind, curse, etc.).  For the record...two druids (single class), can reduce the healbot need for a cleric as well.

But lets examine the Gestalt:  We are making two arguments here:  Adept is not good enough on its own merits to be t4 in solo class play -and- adept is too good to gestalt with t5.

So here it is for the last time:  THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NPC AND PC CLASSES.  I apologize for the caps...but this is the big point I've been trying to make.  I don't think there is a thing wrong with how adept gestalts -or- where it is onteh T scale.  But for shits and giggles...

An adept/fighter gets fighter feats (+4ab/+6 damage/keen/threeish style feats, 2 ac, dr3, and ~3 spells of any given level per day.  Why only 3 spells?  because they don't have the stat flex to pull a higher WIS.

A fighter/monk gets everything the fighterside gets, plus 1 more stong save, flurry of blows (read as 2 extra attacks at top BAB per round), SR, fast move, slow fall, self heal.

A swordsage/warrior gets much of what the fighter monk gets, just in a different way.

A warrior/rogue gets full bab, full sneak (+10d6 per hit), str drain per hit, top skills versatility, and can tumble in full plate (so same AC as fighter), take no damage from AoE spells, and all of their ailities synergize (Str. Rogue).

I've given a few examples of classes that are not tier 2 in power, or tier 1 in power/versatility, but are solid T3.  Adept and lightning bolt seemed to be the big issue....so 3-4 times per day, the adept can drop a 10d6 lightning.....33 average damage.  I hesitate to point out....but at level 8 with two attacks, a fighter can do the same....and the rogue/warrior can nearly double that.

The entire point here is not "this class combination is too powerful" it is "this class is T4, and it should follow the same rules as all others at that tier". I really don't see any argument for why Adept should be able to gestalt with T5, and the only one you have provided is that it's an NPC class and needs special treatment. This argument is soundly defeated by the references in our gestalt area, the same sources we used to form the gestalt system that we use. The NPC class status of Adept is not a consideration, only the power of the class matters as this is the case with every other class on the list.

I agree with Ontrix. This is one of the points I ment to make.

I dont think that NPC makes a difference. If it does, then that should be reflected in that classes power/versatility and that will determine which tier it belongs in to begin with.

Then T4 gets no gestalt at all, by that logic.  T3 is also out of the gestalt equation.

See....No other T6 gets to gestalt with T 3 save for warrior, commoner and aristocrat.  We can't have that can we?  So T3 cannot gestalt at all (to be fair).  Looking at Tier 4, the same rule still applies....So T4 cannot gestalt.  Sorry Rogue, you don't get warrior as a gestalt anymore...guess you will have to be content with 3/4 bab.

So the new system is...

T1 No gestalt

T2 No gestalt

T3 No gestalt

T4 No gestalt

T5 Gestalt with T5/T6

T6 Gestalt with T5/T6

Just to be clear, is this the system you are advocating?  Or are you only trying to change one thing?  As a note...if you are trying to change one thing, then you leave the same problem in place.

Here is the original gestalt system, as proposed by the author of it:

T1: No gestalt

T2: No Gestalt

T3: Any NPC Class

T4: Any NPC Class

T5: Any NPC Class, Any T5/T6

T6: Any NPC Class, Any T5/T6

You will note that even the author of the original system put NPC classes appart?  Why would he do something so stupid and lame, and not change the numbers of the tiers?  Because NPC classes are not PC classes.  Accept this point, or piss off.  You soundly defeated that aguement as well as the Saints defense soundly tackled Lynch in last years wild card game.

I was very deliberate and careful with how I ranked the gestalt ability of the PC classes.  Warrior and Aristocrat add good powers, but not game breaking to T3 classes (I left out commoner b/c..meh.)Adept with T4 starts to edge towards what I'm trying to avoid, but Expert and T4 is reasonable.

Finally, Adept and all of T5 become open.  I'm going to get into a discussion regarding t6....it's not really playable

Where your whole arguement that source doesn't matter dies is on 107 of the DMG:

"The Player’s Handbook extensively describes adventurers. But what

about the rest of the world? Surely not everyone’s a fighter, rogue,

or wizard. Presented in this section are five classes specifically

designed for NPCs. None of them, with the possible exceptions of

the expert and the aristocrat, stands up as a playable class for PCs.

Instead, they represent the rest of the people in the world around

the PCs who don’t train to go on adventures and explore dungeons."

Even the DMG just proved my point.  When you are ready to not discount out of hand the points you don't like, post again.  Otherwise, this convo is done from my end due to an inability to have facts that I offer be counted by the oppsing sides.

This is what I want, I guess.

I think that NPC classes should be ranked by their overall capabilities, and put in the same brackets. There is a reason that there are no T1 NPC classes: because they are not good enough. The NPC classes should have their power baised on the same scale that all other options for gestalt are. If a npc class is really bad, it goes low. If it is good, it goes higher.

The DMG partially proves my point as well: it claims that the expert and aristocrat can possibly stand up to playable classes. Therefore, shouldnt they be based on the same scale? And what about T6? There is nothing in T6 except for NPC classes (unless I am missing something). 

Once judged and placed in the proper tier, they should follow the same rules that all other classes follow. They have been placed accordingly, and therefore should not get any special treatment.

I guess this is what I imagined:

T1 - No gestalt

T2 - No gestalt

T3 - Gestalt with T6

T4 - Gestalt with T6

T5 - Gestalt with T5 and T6

T6 - Gestalt with T3, T4, T5, and T6

NPC Classes are as follows:

Adept - T4

Aristocrat - T6, possibly T5

Commoner - T6

Expert - T5

Warrior - T6

I am attempting to not discount out of hand the points I dont like, but it impossible to not discount them when I feel they are wrong. Make a list of the things that you think I am discounting out of hand, and I will break them down one by one.

"NPC classes are not the same, fundamentally, as PC classes"  That point was immediatly discounted.

I built the gestalt system based on GerronK's notion of "partial gestalt", and I tweaked it to my liking.  The single fundamental point is that, again NPC classes are NOT PC classes.

This single point seems to be a sticking issue, and hearing that "it's soundly defeated b.c I say so" really pisses me off.  The mnost important part of P107 of the DMG is that NPC classes are NOT intended to be PC classes.  Personally, I think this whole thing circles back to "Mike and Nick think fighter/adept is too good."

If Adept gestalting across T5 is too good, then demonstrate that.

Regarding the system I built:  This whoile arguement comes down to "I don't like the numbers where they are.  It's too confusing and/or complex and/or it violates my sense of what's proper."

So here goes:  If you change the system away from how I'd set it up, the following will result:

1) T4 gets shafted for characters with a first class Full BAB (b/c everyone else on that tier takes Warrior).  They loose expert which means goodbye to flexibiliity.

2) T5 gets shafted for characters who want minor spell casting.  No longer can bashers pick up a gish class.  This wrecks havok with the tier by denying a character spellcasting flexibility.  You will note that T4 and T3 both have major caster types like warlock, warmage, and beguiler.  Any one of these with warrior is on par with Fighter/Adept, Monk/Adept, Paladin/Adept (the three most logical class combos).

So the end result?  Swordsage, Marshal, Bard, Factotum, Rogue, Warlock and a few others get good gestalt, but Fighter (easiest class to pick up) gets the shaft.

The goal of the gestalt system is not to make perfect numeric sense from the tiers.  It's to provide a mneasure of party balance which enhances fun for most players.

To be blunt:  Get over tier placement of the NPC classes and look at the system as a whole.  If you guys still don't like it, I'll take the page down, and we don't have to use it/have it available.

As an added note, offering to "break down my arguements one by one" to prove that I'm wrong about the system I built is also frustrating.  It means that youi don't give a crap about what I'm saying and you really just want to kill my ideas b/c you don't agree with them.

first thing:

I like the gestalt system. I like what we have here. I think ONE ASPECT needs to be fixed, not the whole system, and when I go about them, you say that i just pass them off off hand. I am trying to make letigamite arguments here, but you are saying I am just passing them off. I am not trying to bash you or your system, and I do give a crap, but I need something to agrue against. I have made my initial statements, but when you make counter arguements, I see nothing to argue against. Its not that your arguments are flawless and I cant find any problem with them, but how do I argue against the DMG or whatnot?

I am trying. 

Next:

I DONT THINK FIGHTER/ADEPT IS TOO GOOD (sorry caps)

I dont remember ever saying that in one of these posts. What I am looking at is the power of the class by itself, not its gestalting power. JaronK stated that things fall in each tier so that the DM can roughly know the power of the PCs in their group. If Adept is a T4, then it needs to gestalt as a T4.

Next:

Why are NPC classes seperate? I have tried different reasonings and you keep qoting the DMG and such. 'The DMG says so' is not a great argument IMO. Yes, it is the fundamental rulings for this system in which we play. But why cant we come up with our own reasonings? We have done this before, and we have changed core rulings before because we think they are wrong/innaccurate. I think where a NPC class falls in the scale of all classes should represent its status as a class.

Next:

One point I really want to make is T6

What is the point of this tier? When i look at it, the only classes that are in T6 is NPC classes.

I like that. T3/T4 now get a gestalt option with the 'sucky' classes. I am down with this. And it is ALMOST all NPC classes. There are some that I think are good enough on their own to not need to be gestalted across as heavily as T6 (such as Adept).

And on your previos post:

1) T4 gets shafted. In part, this is true. Commoner, Aristocrat, and warrior dont add much to a full bab class. But T4's could never gestalt with T5 even earlier, and expert i am ok with changing to T6 (cause it may or may not be a T5).

2) T5 gets shafted. No. Beguiler/Warrior is below Fighter/Adept. Warlock/Warrior is below Fighter/Adept. One of the biggest differences: Heavy Armor. Fighter doesnt get the shaft. Have it pick up healer (T5, rite?). If you want spellcasting that bad, then go with that? None of your T3/4 spellcasting classes (save few) get Heavy Armor, and none of them get anywhere near fighter bonus feats to augment their physical damage in combat.

You ask me to show you how adept/fighter is too good, but then earlier, you say that we arent looking for corner-cases, we are looking for the middle of the road. My middle of the road Fighter/Monk will get beaten by the buffed out, healable Fighter/Adept. Fighter/Adept can buff itself, so if we have any time before combat, he rolls in with +4 str, +4 dex, bless, etc. He sits in full plate mail, because none of his spells have Arcane spell failure. He gets full bab and full fighter feats because he is a fighter. That class is powerful.

Now, if we go to corner cases, yes, I can break the shit out of the monk/fighter. I can make a better monk/fighter than I can fighter/adept. But you tell me to not look at corner cases.

Is Adept T5? When it comes down to it? Maybe. But that is what i want talked about, not everthing else. The gestalt system was good the way it was, when NPC classes had TIers just like everything else. It was easy to understand. The thing that made it confusing for me was the NPC with everthhing part. Why? Some NPC classes are good enough that they shouldnt be able to tier across everthing.

Back in the day, Paladin would post base classes and we would rated them on where we thought they would fall. This is what I was aiming for, not a complete overhall of the tier system. There was one thing with the tier system that I wanted changed, but we didnt have to go to all of this for it.

The one thing that I want to stress is this: If we are making something able to be played, then it should be judged by the same standards.

You keep saying that NPC classes are different than PC classes. I say that they are the same, dispite what the DMG says, with just a lesser power scale. Do both make sense? I think that mine makes more sense, but both are accurate to some extent.

And yes, I am done arguing. I posted this as my last huzah, and am fine with whatever people decide.