I'm going to be starting a game in the next few months where our PC's are going to be gestalted so my buddy and I are starting work on our PC's now. However my friend and I have a difference of opinion as to how gestalting works and while I understand ultimately it's going to be our DM who makes the final call I'm curious as to what you all think is the correct way to do things.
My friend and I agree up to this point: When gestalting your PC gets the better of the two things you get from the class you are taking so you can get a full BAB as a fighter and all the spells as a caster.
Our disagreement is on this: I believe that if there is a staggering between a bonus you get from one class yet you get it from another you gain the bonus from the secondary class on top of what you already have Ex. If I take the wizard/fighter from before at 1st level I get a +2 to my Fort from my Fighter level, than at 2nd level I gt another +1 from my fighter level, At 3rd level I don't get a bonus form my fighter level but I do get a +1 from my wizard class at 3rd level so I would have a +4 to my Fort save at 3rd level +3 from fighter levels and then another +1 from my wizard levels.
My friend believes that: if you go fighter/wizard you just take the better chain route so that your Fort save would be equal to the fighter's Fort save progression because it's better than the Wizard's Fort save progression so that's what I get a +3 at 3rd level a +12 at 20th level whatever the fighter class says I get is what I get.
I'm curious as to what the rest of you have to say. My friend thinks that it's broken to do things that way but I view it as one of the perks of being gestalted in the first place you not only get a lot of really cool abilities but your saves can be monstrous too.
We wrote a version of gestalt rules in our Legendary Levels book.
According to the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana gestalt rules, you take the better of the two progressions. In your example, the fighter has the better Fort save progression while the Wizard has the better Will save progression. Your gestalted Fighter/Wizard would have strong Fort and Will save progressions while having a weak Reflex save progression.
Here's the rules from D&D 3.5 on gestalt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had been wondering that. It seems like every other thread around here talks about gestalt this, gestalt that, and I didn't think Paizo had gestalt rules yet. I was wondering if the proliferation of gestalt threads was based on some official playtest rules or something that I missed.
Each to their own, but I always felt that gestalt rules created more problems than they solved and were just a tool for letting power-gamers get their power fixes. With all the archetypes and feats and multiclass dips available to existing non-gestalt characters, it really seems like there is no need for gestalt at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you take the better of everything.
Like if you have a Fighter/Wizard you'd have good Will/Fort, bad Ref, full BaB, d10 HD, full casting, all class features of both.
Gestalt is SUPPOSED to be "overpowered", that's why the game is generally assumed to be of higher difficulty overall when Gestalt rules or used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gestalt are basically the power level of 1 1/2 characters (not 2 due to the action economy). I like playing as gestalt and running games where I allow them in my worlds. It's definitely something that takes some getting used to so that balance can be achieved. They will cut through normal epic encounters like a hot knife through butter (especially if you have smart players) so the CR's need to be adjusted accordingly.
I've taken the Gestalt rules located on d20srd.org and modified them slightly since my latest character is a mess of multiclassing goodness.
Basically, he multiclasses into 1/2, 3/4, and full BAB at different levels, as well as differing saving throws. So for each class, I split up BAB into partial progressions. You gain either +1, +3/4, or +1/2 BAB depending on which is better between your two classes for that level. For example, a Rogue/Wizard would gain +3/4 BAB, which by itself isn't a +1 until the next level. This helps maintain a semblance of accurate BAB progression.
For saving throws, his Reflex was easy. He gains nothing there from multiclassing. However, Fortitude gets bumped from 3 sources, Will from 2. So I broke it down by formula progression again. A good Save gains +2.5 at first level, or +1 from the first level of a prestige class, then .5 from then on, gaining +1 at every other level. A poor Save gains +1/3 per level. A second level character who has 3 classes in his repertoire, perhaps (Sorcerer 1, Fighter 1) at level 1, (Fighter 2, Bard 1) at level 2. His saves would look like this: Fort + 3, Reflex +3, Will +5. At 3rd character level, another level of Fighter, another level of Sorcerer nets Fort +3.5, Reflex +3.33, Will +5.5. Bard, Sorcerer next level gives Fort +3.83, Reflex +3.83, Will +6. This can be extrapolated as far as you want. You gain reasonable Saves without them looking horribly overpowered, and every level up contributes something, even if it's tiny, and if you multiclass you can expect to have at least one good Save, one middling Save, and one or no poor Save.
I believe when Gestalt was created they weren't thinking about how it might horribly affect a character made by a multiclassing mad player.
How do you do Gestalt?
Uhhh. When a paladin and a barbarian really love each other...
RAGE SMITE POUNCE!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you do Gestalt?
Uhhh. When a paladin and a barbarian really love each other...
RAGE SMITE POUNCE!
annnnnnd that's how AM barbarian was born.
Your friend is right. The way you want ends up with sillines such as having a monk on one side, rogue with 1 level dip of fighter on the other side and gaining a BAB 1 higher than a fighter.
Also in case of multiclass, ignore the fractional silliness that Calethos describes. Just separate your multiclassing by sides and get the best of each side. Like bard5/wizard4//fighter9, would get the BAB and fort of a fighter 9 the will of the bard5/wizard4 and whichever side has the better ref and the class features of both sides. Much less math.
Edit: Also you can't gestalt a barbarian/paladin or barbarian monk, sice they have mutually exclusive alignment restrictions. Unless you have an archetype that allows unlawful pallies and monks or lawful barbarians. You can do it with the maend race form Dreamscarred Pisionics. Also barbarian/martial artist and barbarian/antipaladin are possible and preety boss.
How do you do Gestalt?
Uhhh. When a paladin and a barbarian really love each other...
RAGE SMITE POUNCE!
There's a very simple reason why this doesn't work.
There's a very simple reason why this doesn't work.How do you do Gestalt?
Uhhh. When a paladin and a barbarian really love each other...
RAGE SMITE POUNCE!
You are correct. In hindsight its probably somewhat irresponsible of me to post such a thing in reply to the question of someone who specifies they're not famiiar with gestalt rules... Then again... Its a good point to bring up... Now he knows it right out of the gate! ^_^
Thanks mercenario!
Drat looks like I'll have to concede to Rob on this one. Thanks for the help guy(s) and gal(s) it's much appreciated.
There's a very simple reason why this doesn't work.How do you do Gestalt?
Uhhh. When a paladin and a barbarian really love each other...
RAGE SMITE POUNCE!
They would never let a little thing like alignment restriction stop them, true love conquers all!
Each to their own, but I always felt that gestalt rules created more problems than they solved and were just a tool for letting power-gamers get their power fixes. With all the archetypes and feats and multiclass dips available to existing non-gestalt characters, it really seems like there is no need for gestalt at all.
Shrug. While I agree (duh) that gestalt characters are more powerful, I think they're actually a very good and controlled way to get a high-powered feel without breaking the game. Specifically, they provide flexibility without much additional focused power. As a rogue/wizard, one gets more skill points, but is still capped at a reasonable level, more damage in melee, but not enough to overshadow a traditional barbarian, and some magical support to make it more practical for the rogue to fly around invisibly or whatever.
Our rule of thumb is that a gestalt character is about one level equivalent more powerful. So it puts the game on granny mode, but not on God mode, which is the danger of a lot of the other house rule power enhancing system.
Most importantly from our point of view, it means that the party has double coverage for most roles, which means that we can continue to adventure even if Susan has to stay late at the office and I am on a business trip to West Dakota, because everyone has at least two roles they can fill well.
It might be interesting to develop a Semi-Gestalt, in which you pick one primary class, and every other, or every third level is a true 'gestalt' level up.
So normally a wizard who semi-gestalts as a fighter has his normal saves and HD progression, but every 3rd level he needs double the XP, but he gains a level in fighter as well, and for that level only uses the fighters HD, BAB, Fort progressions etc...
Sounds unnecessarily complex to me. What are you trying to achieve with this?
I suspect you'd be better off simply making multiclassing mandatory -- "Okay, everyone's now 4th level, but you have to take level 4 in a different class than you've been taking before." The effect would be largely the same, it would be easier to keep track of how the various bonuses interact, and you'd have a much easier time estimating average party level for purposes of balancing encounters.
Gestalt are basically the power level of 1 1/2 characters (not 2 due to the action economy). I like playing as gestalt and running games where I allow them in my worlds. It's definitely something that takes some getting used to so that balance can be achieved. They will cut through normal epic encounters like a hot knife through butter (especially if you have smart players) so the CR's need to be adjusted accordingly.
This really depends on what class you put together for Gestalt. Class that don't synergize leave you choosing you actions using either one or the other features of the classes you chose. If you have synergy the class feature can stack allow you limited action to be that much better.
Fighter/Wizard doesn't synergize well at all. Fighter/Rogue does.
It might be interesting to develop a Semi-Gestalt, in which you pick one primary class, and every other, or every third level is a true 'gestalt' level up.
So normally a wizard who semi-gestalts as a fighter has his normal saves and HD progression, but every 3rd level he needs double the XP, but he gains a level in fighter as well, and for that level only uses the fighters HD, BAB, Fort progressions etc...
Why not do it like 2E D&D. You gestalt you class then any experience you gain is split between both classes. To get to level 2 you twice the experience. Then if someone chose a single class would level up that much faster. So you'd be tougher but always a level behind.
Gestalt are basically the power level of 1 1/2 characters (not 2 due to the action economy). I like playing as gestalt and running games where I allow them in my worlds. It's definitely something that takes some getting used to so that balance can be achieved. They will cut through normal epic encounters like a hot knife through butter (especially if you have smart players) so the CR's need to be adjusted accordingly.
This really depends on what class you put together for Gestalt. Class that don't synergize leave you choosing you actions using either one or the other features of the classes you chose. If you have synergy the class feature can stack allow you limited action to be that much better.
Fighter/Wizard doesn't synergize well at all. Fighter/Rogue does.
I thought I said that pretty well. My caveat was that if you have SMART PLAYERS who know how to put together PCs with good gestalt synergy that is the case. I still maintain that they are roughly equivalent in power to 1 1/2 characters.