|
First off: I don't know if this idea has been thought of yet, so I wanted to throw it out there for some feedback.
After reading in a couple of different threads (mainly multiclassing, and how older editions of D&D handled it), a thought occurred to me to allow a new form of multiclassing rules with the ability to slowly gestalt (not sure what to call it - dual classing?).
The way I imagine it working would be any level after 1st, you can chose to slowly gestalt. As soon as you reach a new character level, you decide to start splitting your XP evenly between each class you currently have, along with whatever class you wanted to (dual class?) with.
For example, if you were a 1st level Fighter, and you reached character level 2 (using the medium XP progression: 2000), you decide to (dual class?). You split your XP evenly between both classes, so you would have 1000 XP as a character, but you could now gestalt your 1 level of Fighter with another class, say Wizard.
From then on, whenever you gain XP, you split them evenly. In the above example, you would be gaining 1/2 XP to determine when you level next, and you would need another 2000 XP (1000 XP + 1/2 of 2000 XP) to reach Fighter 2 / Wizard 2.
Splitting XP between 2 classes should put you 1 level behind most other classes, and about 2 levels lower at higher levels (maybe 3 levels lower on slow XP advancement), but you would then be a gestalt character.
I haven't worked out all the kinks on such an idea yet; for instance, you could tri-stalt, or quad-stalt, although probably not a good idea in general. Also there could be issues with suddenly going from, say, a level 10 Fighter into level 9 Fighter / 9 Wizard gestalt; in such a case, perhaps you only gestalt the first X levels of a class together, so you'd be a gestalted 9 Fighter / 9 Wizard, with an extra level of non-gestalted Fighter thrown in? Of course, you go from not being able to cast spells to suddenly being able to cast 5th level spells. :/
Hopefully this idea makes some sense.
Anyways, would like to hear people's thoughts on this. Especially if someone else has thought of this and can throw me a link for me to read up on. :)
This is basically 2E's multiclassing in a nutshell... and to be honest, it worked pretty well.
It had a few pitfalls. I mean, a Gestalt character still has less AB and HP than a character who single-classes. Multiclass characters in AD&D also didn't have so many crazy options available to them as in Pathfinder; that is, while there were some crazy things you could do, Pathfinder and 3.5 are what I refer to as "splatbook games" where there's just so much extra content to pick out the best possible options from.
The reason it worked with AD&D, I feel, is the classes were a lot simpler and gave a lot less.
It might work with Pathfinder, but you'll need some guinea pigs to test it out on.
P.S.: My favorite character I ever played in an AD&D game (though it was a video game) was a gnome fighter/illusionist. Gnomish +1 INT + an additional spell per level thanks to being an illusionist = pretty fun.
|
|
Thanks Inlaa for your feedback.
I agree - 3.5 & Pathfinder have a lot of options, and from what I know of pre-3rd Edition (which isn't a lot, as I started at 3.5), did indeed seem to have simpler classes. But interesting to find out that is how 2E did multiclassing :)
Another idea is to allow splitting XP at any level, but splitting only the amount of XP difference from your minimum level to what your XP is. For example, a Fighter 2 who levels to 3rd, decides to use this multiclass idea. He has 5000 XP. So instead, he drops down to 2000 XP (the minimum needed for Fighter level 2), and splits the difference - so he now has 3500 XP (2000 XP + 1/2 of [5000-2000]) for his Fighter side, and 1500 XP in his Wizard side. As a result, he would be gestalted Fighter 1 / Wizard 1, with all that entails, and then calculate the differences of his extra level of Fighter.
When such a character gets 1000 XP (500 XP when split evenly among his classes), he would have 4000 XP on his Fighter side, and 2000 XP on his Wizard side, so he would be a Fighter 2 / Wizard 2 gestalt.
I may have to see if I can try this out one day. If anyone wants to give it a try and report back what they have observed, I'd certainly be interested.
I won't be able to try it out for a long time, myself, unless I was playing in a game rather than running one. I've got a huge campaign planned out already and my players have only scratched the surface of it. Changing the rules now wouldn't be good.
|
|
I'm curious, why would you use this over just playing gestalt?
Good question - the idea is to allow single classed characters along with something like this gestalt at the same time. Essentially, allowing this kind of idea along with normal classes, and whether it would be balanced or not. I haven't crunched any numbers as of yet.
I won't be able to try it out for a long time, myself, unless I was playing in a game rather than running one. I've got a huge campaign planned out already and my players have only scratched the surface of it. Changing the rules now wouldn't be good.
Ah, I see. Yes, changing rules in such an instance wouldn't be a good idea. Hopefully your players will have fun, that's all that matters. :)
My gut instinct is "Yes, but only if the gestalting players don't try to break the game." Which is a lot to ask.
I just had an idea. I'll bug a GM I play with about this and see if he's willing to give this a test.
|
|
My gut instinct is "Yes, but only if the gestalting players don't try to break the game." Which is a lot to ask.
I just had an idea. I'll bug a GM I play with about this and see if he's willing to give this a test.
True. It may be possible to seriously break a game. But then, there's some options that can break games from the Core Rulebook (Simulacrum and Invocation Candle shenanigans, for instance).
But, if it's allowed with the GM you play with, it'd be cool to see how it works out. :)
AD&D had pretty tight restrictions on what classes could be multi-classed together. Developing a list of acceptable combinations would help to limit the issues that gestalting tends to run into with overpowered characters.
|
|
AD&D had pretty tight restrictions on what classes could be multi-classed together. Developing a list of acceptable combinations would help to limit the issues that gestalting tends to run into with overpowered characters.
Hmm. Guess it boils down to how much more powerful would certain combinations be? I'd hate to put in restrictions, as things are pretty open for multiclassing normally. For instance, if 2 Classes gestalted like this are indeed more powerful than of one of those classes (even if the gestalt is 2 levels lower), then it may be worthwhile to put in a restriction. Still something to think about, thanks for the feedback.
I love multi-classing and Gestalt, but having played Gestalt I can't deny the vast balance issues some class combinations have. If you're not to concerned about game balance go ahead with whatever.
To be fair I have personally considered Gestalt as a Multi-class option, and I'm glade to see that you've found that the XP splits in a manner similar to AD&D. I might seriously consider this option next time I run a Pathfinder game, interesting characters are far more important to me than game balance.
You could always pull what AD&D did while you're at it and make certain classes gain XP at slower rates.
But then people will stone you. I mean, they'll throw actual stones at you. It's not a nice thing to have happen.
I still think differing XP rates was a great idea even if it was confusing for some.
|
The problem then becomes "What if my group doesn't use XP?"
In a group where the DM levels you up when he decides you need to be higher level, this just wouldn't work. The gestalt guy would either have too many or too few levels the majority of the time, and it just wouldn't work in that kind of game.
Additionally, gestalt is really just so you can play man-down groups (2-3 players, generally) and still cover all the roles a party needs. It's hardly necessary, or even advisable, for a full group of 4+.
I used to multiclass all the time in AD&D. We ignored the rules for what could and couldn't be multiclassed, and ignored level restrictions for races. My favorite combos were Pal/Clr, Rog/Clr, Wiz/Rog, Ftr/Clr.
Because I loved the old style of gestalt multiclassing, I wanted to adapt it into the Pathfinder mechanics. I found the archetypes mechanic worked really well for that. While not as potent as the old multiclassing was (sadly), Multiclass Archetypes work really well to find a good balance between any two classes, and result in a variety of different combinations, even between the same combinations.
If you haven't seen them yet, here's what the Multiclass Productions crew (which I am a part of) and those who joined us on our 9 creation threads have resulted in over the last 4 years or work.
Take a look. Love the m or hate them, they're free.
Alternatively, If one is homebrew playing, just gestalt like we did in 2E. It's your game. If everyone agrees, then there's no issues.
How about using the class templates from the monster codex?