Yeah, sounds like a terrible/wonderful idea, depending on who you are.
I'm running a couple of friends through Age of Worms combined with Carrion Crown, and since they are only two characters, we've worked up a system to make them gestalt (with three classes instead of two) and organize the experience points in a logical fashion.
Basically, the players begin as a normal gestalt, with two classes. As they gain experience, they can spend it in either track--one of the two classes levels on the Fast experience track, the other uses the Medium track. This way, the massive amount of experience they gain by being a two-man team is both useful and doesn't push them so far ahead that the game becomes more-or-less trivial. The third gestalt class comes along on the slow track (and I'm considering making the first level cost 1,200xp to buy into (3000/2.5).
It has worked out pretty well so far--the players have been more focused on pushing up a single class for the moment so they they have ample hit points. I'm thinking of encouraging a soft limit--the classes can't be more than two levels ahead of the next slower xp track.
Just figured I'd put that out there and get some opinions on it. It can make for some really oddball characters (though they are putting classes together that make sense for the characters). In the end, failed saves and action economy will likely be their downfall, but with all three of their saves being high, it might not be as fast or common as I'm expecting.
So, just my old instinct: are you running this more or less similar to 2e triple-classing, just with the players distributing EXP as they will (and, of course, not dividing HP as you would in 2e) ?
Just running off that as my impression, it seems like an interesting idea. What are their classes, by the way?
|
My gaming group played Way of the Wicked with 3 players using 'Tristalts.' We had a hell of a lot of fun playing it.
I played Tiefling Inquisitor of the Burning Pentagram/Hellfire Cleric/Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer. Our brute melee character was a 4 armed custom race Wrestler/Talented Monk/Talented Fighter. The last character was a Drow Bard(Arcane Duelist)/Shadow Assassin/Soulknife. I think the Bard even used the Gestalt feat(which let him add part of another class onto his Tristalt) out of one of the Horrifically Overpowered Feats books.
We didn't use experience points. We just leveled up when the GM told us to level up. I don't think you should have a problem with 2 characters doing the same with all 3 classes.
I would suggest letting your players take some of the Horrifically Overpowered Feats, or give them Mythic Tiers, to make up for lack of action economy. Giving them both the Leadership feat for free could also help with that.
@Sandslice - Yeah, it's a lot like 2e multiclassing. The hp is run with the gestalt rules--if you level wizard up to 3rd first, you get 6+Con hp, and when your fighter level catches up to third, you get 4 hp to match the d10. Same way with skill points, except that all three sets of class skills are available no matter what class levels up first.
One player is running a Gunslinger (Bolt Ace)/Inquisitor (Sin Eater)/Shaman, and the other is running a Ninja/Magus (Bladebound)/Arcanist.
@DragoDorn - Those sound like some pretty kick-ass characters (and some pretty awesome bad guys for a future game, too). I haven't checked out any of the Horrifically Overpowered feats--I'm not sure if they will need them, as they are experienced and pretty cautious, but of course, action economy is definitely their main enemy.
We've had some interesting encounters with the Leadership feat--I prefer to have the players choose a cohort from NPCs they have encountered to make them more interesting and integral to the story (and not just some random expendable animal companion). How do you personally work the Leadership feat into the story?
The one thing I'd warn you about is that rulesets like this tend to produce eggshells-with-hammers; very flexible and powerful characters who can punch far above their weight, but who die just as quickly from a greataxe.
Well, that's kind of true for all encounters--every PC is vulnerable to a massive Power Attack heavy pick critical, no matter the class. Same for color spray, phantasmal killer, grease, flesh to stone, etc.
I understand your warning, though. Everything that can hurt a single player in normal play will be felt much more in a game with only two PCs. One of them dropped to a sleep spell and thus cut their action economy down to a single PC.
I think the best way to run this is to keep the game challenging but not hit both players with a save-or-die scenario at the same time. If one character is going to go down, always try to give them a way out without making it look like there is never any penalty for failure...
|
I will say - neither of your players picked classes that combo SUPER well to abuse the system. Though solid combos. And I do agree - gesalts tend to be kinda squishy for their offense.
That's why I'd make sure to have one of the two primary classes be a monk - they generally have the opposite problem - a well built monk has the best defense in the game (until super high levels when a druid with Wild armor/shield can match him) - but his offense tends to be weak.
A dwarf monk/sorceror (with the bloodline to cast off wisdom) seems like just the thing. Perhaps with Weapon Master fighter as the 3rd. (Feats - and if you get to 3rd level you get Weapon Training to get Gloves of Dueling with.)
In general though - they need to focus more on defense than most characters. With 2-3 class's worth of abilities - their offense will be solid without hardly trying.
Well, that's kind of true for all encounters--every PC is vulnerable to a massive Power Attack heavy pick critical, no matter the class. Same for color spray, phantasmal killer, grease, flesh to stone, etc.
Yes, but this is more subtle than that. Gestalt characters tend to have more capacity than they have resistance, which means that the same amount of damage will remove much more of the party's full-strength capacity.
This is formalized in wargames as the "Fuzzy-Wuzzy Fallacy," and in actual military theory as "Lanchester's Law." If you give a single soldier twice the firepower he had before, he's not twice as effective, because a fatal hit still kills him just as dead. If instead I doubled the number of soldiers, I've doubled their firepower and survivability.
So giving a fighter the ability to cast spells as a sorcerer will not make him as powerful as a fighter standing in the same square as a sorcerer, because he only has one set of hit points, he only gets one saving throw, he can't use the aid another action to improve his abilities, et cetera.
The effect is that a monster balanced against 'a fighter and a sorcerer' will crush 'a fighter/sorcerer gestalt.' (And this would still be true even if the gestalt got two actions -- a fighter action and a sorcerer action -- per round.)
@galahad2112 - I agree, they do need something to help them that they feel isn't just DM fiat. They should have some choice in who they choose and have more control over them (but not complete control, as their PCs should be the heroes). I may make a few NPCs with various class levels around town and make sure they have chances to interact with the PCs.
I would note that, while a party of kobolds can potentially be a challenge at any level (especially at beginning levels), these guys killed six goblins, one goblin adept, two badgers and 5 dire rats without going into negatives on hp. Luck is what it is--some days, you walk through an army, invincible, and other days you step on a lego and break your leg. :-P
@Charon's Little Helper - That's why I like playing with these guys--they don't try to min-max, but they do try to do some optimization here and there and catch all of the things that make a party 'complete,' all while making a backstory that connects them to the characters. Also, the Gunslinger/Inquisitor/Shaman is middle-aged. :-)
As for monk, well, all of the PCs' saves are high with their current combinations (thank goodness), and both get good BAB, but I definitely agree on AC being statistically against them. They are also getting max hp to soften the blows a bit, but any critical hit or failed save can crush that. With two players, the dice don't favor the underdog--they always favor the DM and his multitudes of creatures.
Monk has some solid defensive abilities, but neither player have a very lawful backstory. Actual, neither one is lawful (Neutral and Chaotic Good actually--diametrically opposed but still making it work through meaningful discussion and weighing of options). They likely wouldn't want to play a monk just because it doesn't 'fit' the character, and I love that. Plus there are reason in Age of Worms why unarmed strike would be... subpar. ;-)
We like using war tactics in the games, too--a fight you diffuse is a fight you won before it started. Sun Tzu, and all that. They're great at using cover, finding options, making the terrain work for them, leading monsters into favorable terrain/conditions, etc. As a happy GM, I will make sure this tactical thinking gives them a little extra boost. :-)
@Orfamy Quest - I completely agree, action economy and superior numbers are usually paramount in any war game. However, with an intelligent combatant, those sorcerer levels can mean the fighter now enters the fight with stoneskin, haste, greater invisibility, etc. Now those critical hits and failed saves *might* not be as devastating. Add in some divination before each dungeon and that *could* mean they are prepared for that fighter-sorcerer killing monster.
Truly, with a group this small, it requires the same kind of good GMing any group needs, but with more focus on minutia. It's up to me to not punish them for good tactics and try my best to challenge them without killing them with a single die roll.
|
|
This is formalized in wargames as the "Fuzzy-Wuzzy Fallacy," and in actual military theory as "Lanchester's Law." If you give a single soldier twice the firepower he had before, he's not twice as effective, because a fatal hit still kills him just as dead. If instead I doubled the number of soldiers, I've doubled their firepower and survivability.
Exactly - hence my suggestion of defense. If that same soldier is given double the firepower & armor which makes him twice as survivable - he becomes equal to two soldiers at the base firepower. (In a wargame - he becomes better as few wargames would have his capabilities lowered when he gets to 1/2 hp.)
I'm playing in a Wrath of the Righteous game where we had the option to drop our point by 5 points to gestalt and an extra 5 points to double gestalt. I went wizard/monk/fighter. Basically I use wizard as a self buff and play the party tank. Not the strongest combo, or use of the wizard stuff, but it is a lot of fun to punch demons in the face.
In the group we also have a gestalt ranger/fighter, a paladin, a nongestalt paladin/bard, and a blaster style sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compare Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler vs Sorcerer/Oracle/Monk or Cleric/Wizard/Druid or Oracle/Paladin/Rogue or Investigator/Slayer/Alchemist or Bard/Ninja/Swashbuckler
You could get some very vast differences between players.
|
|
@Charon's Little Helper - That's why I like playing with these guys--they don't try to min-max, but they do try to do some optimization here and there and catch all of the things that make a party 'complete,' all while making a backstory that connects them to the characters. Also, the Gunslinger/Inquisitor/Shaman is middle-aged. :-)
Ah the classic - "Optimization is what we do - min/max is what those jerks over there do." :P
The difference only becomes an issue if the group varies in character building skill overmuch. If both characters actually built really good characters, it'd be fine. And frankly - with only two of them in an AP - that'd probably be for the best.
Exactly - hence my suggestion of defense. If that same soldier is given double the firepower & armor which makes him twice as survivable - he becomes equal to two soldiers at the base firepower. (In a wargame - he becomes better as few wargames would have his capabilities lowered when he gets to 1/2 hp.)
I think adding Synthesist would add much more survivability at this level than Monk. An entire hit dice worth of hp on top of already max hp and being counted as an outsider are pretty fantastic benefits, not to mention adding up to +4 natural armor to AC, +8 to Stealth, and potentially better physical ability scores. That would add some pretty substantial statistical advantage. The players don't care for it, though.
Ah the classic - "Optimization is what we do - min/max is what those jerks over there do." :P
The difference only becomes an issue if the group varies in character building skill overmuch. If both characters actually built really good characters, it'd be fine. And frankly - with only two of them in an AP - that'd probably be for the best.
Nihil sub sole novum. Yup, that's pretty much what those jerks do--you hit it right on the head. {/sarcasm}
They make their characters together, so they do a pretty fantastic job of building them. I've arrived at games where half of the players already made characters before I even told them what was going on (they only knew the character level), so I just had to roll my eyes and deal with it since I valued their friendship more than the argument that might have followed.
I'm playing in a Wrath of the Righteous game where we had the option to drop our point by 5 points to gestalt and an extra 5 points to double gestalt. I went wizard/monk/fighter. Basically I use wizard as a self buff and play the party tank. Not the strongest combo, or use of the wizard stuff, but it is a lot of fun to punch demons in the face.
In the group we also have a gestalt ranger/fighter, a paladin, a nongestalt paladin/bard, and a blaster style sorcerer.
Wow, what was your point buy to begin with? That's a pretty fantastic option. If you were playing 15 point buy, I would still totally do triple gestalt. That's a fun combo, too. Did you take an archetype with the fighter that gave up most of the armor proficiency, or just go with fighter just like it is? Would be fun to go Arcanist/Brawler/Fighter, too.
Just curious, why didn't everyone decide to take the gestalt option(s)?
Compare Fighter/Rogue/Swashbuckler vs Sorcerer/Oracle/Monk or Cleric/Wizard/Druid or Oracle/Paladin/Rogue or Investigator/Slayer/Alchemist or Bard/Ninja/Swashbuckler
You could get some very vast differences between players.
Oh yeah, there are a lot of really fantastic combos. We sometimes sit around and make up goofy (yet effective) ideas for characters. Druid/Cavalier/Barbarian (Mad Dog) for three different animal companions (if your GM doesn't rule that it is redundant)... then Skill Focus, Eldritch Heritage, Boon Companion, and Leadership for two more animal companions for a total of 5. How about a Fighter (Roughrider)/Cavalier/Summoner (Synthesist) for a ridiculous character that might potentially get a pounce attack atop a horse when it charges... silly stuff. It might not work that way, but it's a funny thought.
If you're running an AP with just two players, you and they are far better off if they run two characters each than going gestalt.
Two big reasons.
1. Action economy.
2. Survivability. One character of a four character party is put out of action, you lose a quarter of your group and one set of abilities. A gestalt goes down, that's half your party and abilities knocked out at once.
I agree completely, action economy is king. I played in a large group (GM and 7 players) and I played a freakin' conjurer... there were often 12-18 friendly characters on the playing field at any one time, and we wrecked anything that didn't cast dispel magic, then wrecked them anyway as they wasted their turns dispelling the summoned monsters.
I know that Pathfinder is almost completely combat-focused and generally-speaking, characters only die in combat or (rarely) to a trap. But I also like to focus on the story and how the players are changing the world around them, so it's up to me to keep the game engaging and not deadly. I don't have to run the game 'as-is' and put them up against monsters that will destroy them, but they are also smart enough to lure monsters away from their advantageous areas and run when necessary. They are pretty tough that way, so I hope it will be fun enough and we won't have to worry about the ever-present shadow of death, should either one of them fall to a poor save.
I Think i Will be stealing some of the ideas that show up here.
We had a really... goofy idea, but it kind of makes sense. This is way beyond something I would normally do, but in the case of two PCs, it's... interesting.
One player casually threw out the idea of having 'save points.' Basically if they get completely destroyed, they can move back to a set point in time and try again.
Usually I would just chuckle and politely decline, but this would let me run the monsters as-is without as much changing. They would be metagaming, for sure, but at least the show will go on. And that's the important part, right? Keeping the game going and having fun.
Weird idea... but I'm kind of thinking of doing it.
One idea for solving action deficiency (and overall squishiness of low number gestalt PCs) of is increasing the number of hero points.
Not a bad idea--we would have to start using hero points, but not a bad idea. :-) Or maybe make the hero points more powerful--allow re-rolls of save-or-die spells. Yeah, there is some good survivability there.
Weird idea... but I'm kind of thinking of doing it.
Two main issues with this that I can see:
1) It reduces your ability to surprise them. If the first time they walk through the door, they're, like, OMFG gobsmacked that there would be one of those around,... well, the impact will be considerably lessened the second time through. And, of course, this also means that they'll know "well, we should just cast protection from dairy products before we walk into the room with the Elder Gorgonzola Elemental in it." You're essentially giving everyone license to be Schroedinger's Wizard by letting them prep the perfect spells, equipment, and tactics for take two of every fight.
2) It makes combat an even more primary focus of the game than it already is. I've played some video games where a specific combat was both a choke-point (you needed to defeat this boss to move on to the next stage) and boring-as-anything, because you simply had to defeat this boss and all fifty thousand of his henchmen. (It's often worse on platformer games, because there's this one jump that you just can't make, but if you don't make it, you can't get to the next level, so you sit and jump eleventy-one times in a row trying to stick the landing on the head of a needle.)
Basically, if the fight wasn't fun the first time, will it become fun a second time? And if the fight was fun the first time, will it (still) be fun a second time?
It does limit the ability to surprise them the second time, unless I decide to make some minor penalty for death (such as time passing or enemies moving around). It also likely make the run-through a little faster, and they could plan in particular places to try something new.
I'm not sure about making combat necessarily any *more* of a focus. It's pretty much 90% of the game as it is. :-) The players might decide to seek help for a dungeon and hire other adventurers, thus giving me a new plot hook to use and a new event.
You're completely right about Schroedinger's Wizard (HA). It does encourage metagaming. It encourages the players to use weaknesses to their advantage that they would never have known about. I know that really breaks the usual flow of the game pretty bad and pretty much goes against my normal ideas of dnd and pathfinder.
True, it does cheapen the *second* run-through. But I think the better question is, "Would it be more fun if the game completely stopped here?" My players really enjoy making characters, but we get nothing done while they are making new ones. With triple gestalt, it will take much, much longer to make new characters. In that case, I'm the one who isn't having any fun. :-P And if you're not having fun, why did you even show up, right?
I know it would create some very peculiar game sessions, but I feel it would create more fun than it would take away.
maybe use the hero point system and allow them to blow the whole lot to reverse time for rounds equal to half their level. You could fluff it as some sort of boon from the god of time or something.
All Gestalt!
All classes. One character. Only limit is stats and actions. GO!
Wow, what was your point buy to begin with? That's a pretty fantastic option. If you were playing 15 point buy, I would still totally do triple gestalt. That's a fun combo, too. Did you take an archetype with the fighter that gave up most of the armor proficiency, or just go with fighter just like it is? Would be fun to go Arcanist/Brawler/Fighter, too.
Just curious, why didn't everyone decide to take the gestalt option(s)?
I forget exactly, it was very high but we had to buy our race as well.
I had str 14, dex 12, con 12, int 14 (bumped to 16 with human) and 7 wis and 7 cha. with a background of having been captured and tortured by demons (explaining the 7 wis and cha). It is a homebrewed monk class of the DM's so wisdom is not central to the class.
I took lorewarden as my fighter archetype and at midlevels I'm having a good time tripping and disarming lots of people despite the constant combat expertise penalties.
The paladin bard wanted a high charisma and high dex for his magical archer concept and the sorcerer wanted a straightforward focused character with high stats.
It seems to me like this might be overly complicated and not as beneficial as it could be... At lower levels you'll pretty much always be better off focusing all your xp on a single class (more Hp/survivability and get to iterative attacks and/or new spell levels faster), and if you enforce some cap on their main class at higher levels you may actually hold back their progression...
You'd be better off just picking 'standard' gestalt (or tristalt) and running with it. (And leveling them arbitrarily if your worried about being to fragile in the beginning or leveling too fast at mid/high levels)
Honestly, you'd be best off having both players make a noble... Give them some extra gold (for potions/scrolls/wands to increase survivability and problem solving), and a loyal retainer... each player get 2 PCs to control (the noble and the retainer) so they can cover more roles and have better action economy. You could even replace "noble" with 'fated hero' and have their main guys be interesting gestalt combos and the secondary guys be some kind of guide/protector devoted to helping them realize their destiny/true potential.
It seems to me like this might be overly complicated and not as beneficial as it could be... At lower levels you'll pretty much always be better off focusing all your xp on a single class (more Hp/survivability and get to iterative attacks and/or new spell levels faster), and if you enforce some cap on their main class at higher levels you may actually hold back their progression...
I noticed that in our gestalt games, too. The pure martial and sometimes even 3/4 casters often benefited from gestalting early to get increased versatility and some feature synergy, or extra feats that the other class brought along. The 9 level casters were almost always better off staying single classed just to get the geometric power increase a new level of spells can bring.
If you've got a trick you want to bring online that requires a prereq of skill ranks or BAB you'll probably want to stick with straight class progression and then start bringing up your gestalt class. Depending on your level, it will take a while to bring the new class into relevance. The gestalt cavalier//wizard I made really didn't start to get noticeable benefits (better HP and fortitude save, of course, and his familiar benefited from those, too) until 3 or 4 levels of cavalier were under his belt, as the animal companion was weaker than a normal war horse for the first few levels. After that he was a highly mobile artillery platform with a brutish, bodyguard horse and shared lookout feats between him, the horse, and his valet familiar.
The Venerable Mental Fighter
Kensai Magus || Enlightened Paladin 16/Inquisitor 2/Monk 1/Oracle 1 || Alchemist
Take the Noble Scion Feat at first level. Nature Whispers Revelation as well.
INT, WIS, CHA to AC & CMD
INT, WIS, CHA to Initiative
You also get INT to quite a few other things from the Kensai line, as well as CHA to saves. On top of that, you get 19 BAB, mostly d10 HD, and all perfect saves.
In all truth, you really shouldn't need more than 2 levels of Inquisitor, 1 level of Monk, and 1 level of Oracle, plus you really shouldn't need more than 16 levels of Enlightened Paladin (the same could be said for the Kensai, but the Kensai gets really good features at levels 17-20, culminating in Weapon Mastery, a ludicrously huge increase in DPR).
Alchemist helps fill in a few gaps, as with Grand Cognatogen, you can greatly increase all of your mental stats even further, plus he gives you access to cheap spells like Simulacrum that allow you to break the game (Snow Cone Wish Machine, anyone?).
Nethys Junior
Sorcerer || Oracle || Eldritch Scion Magus 6/Bloodrager 14
6 levels of Magus with Broad Study and 4 levels of Bloodrager with Mad Magic gets you Spell Combat and Bloodrage casting. You have a BAB of 18, but you get both capstones for the Sorcerer and Oracle, as well as max caster level. For greater martial ability, you can combine the Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer archetype with the Warsighted Oracle archetype for double Martial Mastery and have a ton of free feats on hand whenever necessary.
CHA to Saves, Dex AC/CMD, Shield AC, Armor AC, Initiative, even attack rolls (Arcane Accuracy) and if you really wanted, damage rolls (Lesser Spirit Totem).
If you didn't care about being evil, you could even get CHA to HP after level 6, with a 1 level dip into Agent of the Grave (lose 1 BAB though).
If you're a Samsaran, you can literally steal and use any spell in the game from level 1.
Ultimate Witch Rager
Scarred Witch Doctor || Hexcrafter Magus || Bloodrager
Focus entirely on CON and minimize INT and CHA to your leisure. Get Mad Magic and Broad Study. Abuse witch spells and spellstrike curses at your opponents with ludicrously high rage-boosted accuracy and DCs. With Blooded Arcane Strike and Arcane Deed: Precise Strike you also get tons of free damage every swing.
This also makes you a great mage killer with the Lingering Pain arcana to force nigh-impossible concentration checks on your opponent.
One Man Army
Skald || Master Summoner || Paladin
Summon a horde as a Standard action, cast buffs as a swift, and Inspire Rage/Quick Channel as a move. Rinse and Repeat. Every Turn. Until the opponent suffocates from being buried under mounds of enhanced creatures.
The fact that your Aura extends to your allies and you can Channel Energy makes you a great aid to your Summoned team.
Did I mention that with Full BAB and d10 HD with CHA to saves, you aren't as vulnerable to death as a regular Summoner would be? Paladins are the hardiest martials, afterall. And you're not useless in an antimagic field or after a Banishment/Dismissal.
Get the Eldritch Heritage feat chain for the Abyssal bloodline and you are absolutely set for anything.
Care to link the feat you're talking about? As well as any other information you have on Pathfinder Unchained for that matter?
Also, one more ideas came to mind
Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor || Sohei Monk || Barbarian (w/ Ferocious Mount Rage Power)
Max BAB, Full Saves (Enhanced further with Superstition), Full AC Mount Progression, abilitiy to buff Mount with Sohei's "Monastic Mount" ability, Evasion + Stalwart, and can use Teamwork feats like nobody's business (Outflank + Pack Flanker...OMG). Add on to that the ability to Rage, which you can share with your mount with Ferocious Mount, and even share Rage Powers with the Greater version. With Rage and all the other teamwork bonuses, your attack power is downright obscene.
Did I mention that use of Animal Focus means you don't have to wear a belt? In other words, a Cord of Stubborn Resolve is literally right up your alley.