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.

Sev, when you seriously play a pure NPC class gestalt, I will change my opinion of them not being like PC classes.  The same goes for Ontrix.

Ontrix likes to use the single greatest advantage of warrior to supplement his rogue builds.

I helped Ren set up a fighter build using the single greatest advantage of the adept class to help supplement the fighter concept.

Both builds have shone.  Both have had their weaknesses exploited by myself as DM.

So why are NPC classes used to define the gestalt levels?  Because they only offer one major benefit each.

Expert and Aristrocrat: Skills

Warrior: BAB

Adept: Spells

These are the three fundamentals of all medieval RP systems.  By adding one a base class, you can help overcome some of that classes weaknesses, or give supplemental flexibility.

To your point about a fighter/adept beating a warrior/warlock or similar due to heavy armor, I point out that for Light Armor, an AC bonus of 5 with a max dex of 5 is possible.  With good dex, the Warlock simply avoids and ranges out the fighter (even in a bow vs. blast duel).  All in all, it's a push...a tie....which means that both classes are good, and have flexibility.

See...I'm still scratching my head as to why there is an issue about this at all.  If Adept is fine to gestalt with T5, and Expert with T4, and T5/T6 with each other and all NPC classes....and it's balanced...then what the hell is the problem?  Is this just a case of "If I assume that NPC and PC classes are the same, then it violates my sense of fairness?"  Should that be the case....tough shit.  The system is balanced and is working (from a DM standpoint, I can tell you that this system is thus far, really good.  Everyone has good role/use in combat and out, and the only hard part is for me to create encounters that challenge the party and give good XP.)

If you want to re-tier a class, then discuss it...but not for the purposes of changing its gestalt should it be an NPC class.  Those are fixed as is for a reason....balance.

So going forward:  Re-Teir is fine...for the sake of clarity of tier.  Re-teir to change the basic mechanic of the gestalt system is a little harder to swallow.  I don't see a need to validate someone's sense of numerical OCD if it comes at the expense of careful and thoughtful balance.  I'm sorry, but that's just not feasable. 

Well "the reason why this was an issue" for me is that the gestalt system was sold as a method of ranking all the classes according to a common criteria.  Every time you say that "NPC classes are different from PC classes" you're undermining our perception that the gestalt system is fair.  There's no point in ranking anything in life if those objects are being judged according to different standards--because that's not a fair ranking.

So instead of saying that "NPC classes deserve to be ranked differently than PC classes" you should say that "Adept is in tier 4 by mistake and should be tier 4b or tier N1 instead" and promote and defend that.  Because a ranking system that judges its members differently will always be controversial. 

gestalt is not a ranking system.

the tier system is the ranking system.  I've posted that system and gerronk's criteria.

I built the gestalt system based on the assumption that (a) NPC classes are different thatn PC classes b/c it expicitly says so in the DMG , (b) PC's will take a primary PC class and gestalt it with an optional NPC class (save for T5 and T6, as outlined in the system), and (c) that the goal was that the resulting characters should be able to run in parties of T1/T2 players and not feel useless or underpowered.

Does this clear up the confusion?

as a side note, at this point I'

m almost willing to take down the tier system and just list every damned base class and what it can gestalt with.  YAY, 3600 combos, here I come! (sarcasm)

I have my own thoughts on this all, but I'm working on how to phrase things, I'll post sometime in the next day or so. <3