One player, two gestalt characters

[Bagpuss]

So, I have a single player wanting to play some Pathfinder. Rather than having them control a whole party, I thought I'd give them two gestalt characters, start at level 2 (to play a 1st level adventure) and maybe use the fast experience progression. Was going to have a Human Fighter-Ranger and a Gnomish Cleric-Sorcerer.

Anyhow, has anyone played gestalt characters in Pathfinder, particularly if they've done it with one player? Any Paizo adventures lend themselves well to it?

[GeraintElberion]

Bagpuss wrote:

So, I have a single player wanting to play some Pathfinder. Rather than having them control a whole party, I thought I'd give them two gestalt characters, start at level 2 (to play a 1st level adventure) and maybe use the fast experience progression. Was going to have a Human Fighter-Ranger and a Gnomish Cleric-Sorcerer.

Anyhow, has anyone played gestalt characters in Pathfinder, particularly if they've done it with one player? Any Paizo adventures lend themselves well to it?

I'm playing two gestalt characters in CotCT and GMing two gestlat characters played by a single player through the Darkmoon Vale modules.

It's fun but as levels increase the impact of action economy can become quite painful (two actions per combat round, rather than four).

I would encourage a few things:
1. minions (animal companions, the pseudodragon who has joined our party, temporary allies...)
2. Good stats, helps to take up the slack.
3. Full treasure for a four-person party. It's there in the AP anyway and they'll need the boost.
4. Be aware that saves are a problem. One character disabled has much more of an effect in such a team. Glitterdust is more likely to kill this party.
5. Spell-casting for everyone! What's the point of a fighter/ranger? Ranger/bard or maybe fighter/druid. I'd actually pair your awesome magic gnome with a ranger/cleric (ranger over fighter for the Animal Companion).
6. Action/Hero Points - Your gestalt PCs need them more.
7. Templates! When my PCs hit level 7 and do the awesome thing they will (hopefully) achieve they're going to get the half-celestial template as a divine reward.
8. More clues and hints, 4 players sat round a table will be much better at solving puzzles and coming up with clever solutions than just one player, obviously.
9. XP seems a bit odd so I just said: "Woo-Hoo, you're level X!" at the appropriate time in the adventure.
10. It's a chance for deep-immersion and lots of roleplaying which can make characters more survivable, as well as more fun, but you as a GM have to be prepared for that: I invent more characters on the fly in this game than any other I have GMed and I end up taking more notes.

So, yeah, lots of little power boosts all over: this will mean that some easy combats become super-easy but that's the price you pay for giving them a chance against the BBEG.

[MordredofFairy]

Bagpuss wrote:

So, I have a single player wanting to play some Pathfinder. Rather than having them control a whole party, I thought I'd give them two gestalt characters, start at level 2 (to play a 1st level adventure) and maybe use the fast experience progression. Was going to have a Human Fighter-Ranger and a Gnomish Cleric-Sorcerer.

Anyhow, has anyone played gestalt characters in Pathfinder, particularly if they've done it with one player? Any Paizo adventures lend themselves well to it?

2 things:

careful with the setups.

Cleric/Sorcerer e.g. needs Charisma and Wisdom for casting.
A Oracle/Sorcerer woudl only need Charisma.

The Fighter/Ranger will be Feat-Loaded...even for a switch-hitter.

Really, much depends on how powerful you want them to be and how long you want it to run.

Good combos(powerful and fun...if you don't want power you don't do gestalt) i played so far included:

Monk/Rogue(good saves, good movement, best skills, good stealth...flurry and full sneak are DEADLY...but BaB and HP are not maxed. Glass Cannon Type)

Sorcerer/Paladin(great saves, awful skills, all the paladin goodies and spells to boost self. Try Giant Form II to turn into a huge Giant with a holy avenger and smite evil...a late bloomer, but still strong on the way)

Wizard/Rogue(Arcane Trickster on steroids. Full sneak, full casting, full skills...be stealthy...and ideal scout, but again: bab and hp are lacking)

Barbarian/Bard(A perverse combo, it would seem, but: Full HP, full BaB, good saves all around, good skills, no spell failure in light armor, casting stat sufficient at 16...if you allow the use of bardic performance in rage(usually not allowed since it's charisma-based...but i can see a battle-skald or ritual chanting during a rage as well...) then rage and bardic song stack nicely.

I am really looking forward to an Sorcerer/Oracle i am creating as NPC though...mayhaps i'll keep that one for the next gestalt game i'll play in -_-

[doctor_wu]

This does sound like a good idea. I am shy and have troulbe with groups of people may try this in a game with my brother.

[GeraintElberion]

doctor_wu wrote:

This does sound like a good idea. I am shy and have trouble with groups of people may try this in a game with my brother.

Awesome forum name, Dr Wu.

If you want to try a bigger group you can always join an online game as well. I'm really enjoying my pbp (play-by-post) on the forums here, even if it is pretty sslllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.

[Anguish]

We've tried similar things over the years. In the end the combination that works best for a one DM, one player scenario is this: the player runs three PCs and the DM runs one DMPC.

What this does is keeps economy of action in line with where it needs to be. It also gives the player someone to bounce ideas off of. It gives the DM a voice in-character, allowing slight guidance of the player.

Obviously it requires the player to be able to handle three PCs, but really that shouldn't be huge at a small intimate gaming table. There's no rush and there's no distraction, so it's a lot more practical than it sounds. Especially if at least one are simple classes like fighters or rogues.

[Hobbun]

MordredofFairy wrote:

2 things:
careful with the setups.

Cleric/Sorcerer e.g. needs Charisma and Wisdom for casting.
A Oracle/Sorcerer woudl only need Charisma.

But that's part of the fun it, in picking two that share the same primary stat!

:)

[Bagpuss]

MordredofFairy wrote:

2 things:
careful with the setups.

Cleric/Sorcerer e.g. needs Charisma and Wisdom for casting.
A Oracle/Sorcerer woudl only need Charisma.

The Fighter/Ranger will be Feat-Loaded...even for a switch-hitter.

Really, much depends on how powerful you want them to be and how long you want it to run.

I (and the player) like them thematically. The Ranger-fighter as featmonster I rather like and I like the sorcerer-cleric, too (innate magic plus worshipping a God and getting power that way). Stats came via rolling 4d6 drop one seven times and dropping the lowest; one came out as about a 30-point character (the fighter, to make him more puissant) and the other about 23 points.

I'll have to arrange things to suit their more limited actions, of course, but there's something pretty cool about a really pretty good outdoorsy fighter-type and a divine/arcane spellslinger. I'm actually more excited about it, from the perspective of how it feels, than about the conventional four-character game.