|
Just out of curiosity, what is the equivalency between a gestalt character and a single level character? For example is a 2/2 gestalt roughly equal to a 3rd level character? 4th level? 5th?
It might be a matter of opinion, but there might also be some math behind it. I'd like to know what people think.
Two characters next to each other add CR +2.
Gestalt is less powerful than that, and adds +1.
I just, like, wouldn't.
It's a sliding scale. At level 1, the difference between single class and gestalt is not that big. A level 2 character has a pretty big jump on a level 1 character, even a gestalt one. On the other hand, at max, I'd much rather be an 16/16 double full caster than a level 20 anything else (except maybe diviner, that capstone's absurd).
There's no real math behind it, with the huge amount of classes and class combinations available, over every possible level, I think just about every observation made is going to be a qualitative one.
Edit: The right gestalts improve action economy. Summoner is a super easy example. Obviously a second character will be better than a gestalted addition, but the thread's really about quantifying how much better than a single classed character gestalts are.
Complementary gestalts can make a major difference... such as caster/monk, druid/barbarian, or druid/ranger, fighter/magus.
Things like gestalt and templates only work if all the party uses them. Trying to have a mixture of those type of options is going to be incredibly difficult to balance. While gestalt does add a varying amount of power to a character what it really does is add an incredible amount of versatility and endurance to the character. A sorcerer/oracle can’t cast more spells per round than a single class caster, but he has access to a lot more spell.
Complementary gestalts can make a major difference... such as caster/monk, druid/barbarian, or druid/ranger, fighter/magus.Not just any caster/monk. Wizard/Monk isn't as happy as Cleric (Ecclesiastheurge)/UMonk or Druid/UMonk. Also, Fighter/Magus probably loses out to Swashbuckler/Magus.
Monk gives good saves, innate AC, evasion, better BAB better saves. a dimensional door to escape grapple, and other goodies, as well as viable melee.
Monk gives good saves, innate AC, evasion, better BAB better saves. a dimensional door to escape grapple, and other goodies, as well as viable melee.Complementary gestalts can make a major difference... such as caster/monk, druid/barbarian, or druid/ranger, fighter/magus.Not just any caster/monk. Wizard/Monk isn't as happy as Cleric (Ecclesiastheurge)/UMonk or Druid/UMonk. Also, Fighter/Magus probably loses out to Swashbuckler/Magus.Yeah, but what about a Magus (Kensai) for INT-based casters, or a Paladin (Iroran Paladin) for CHA-based casters? Arcane casters often get Dimension Door or other escape spells on their list. Divine casters benefit more from Dimension Door and WIS-based AC.
What kinda bothers me is how little synergy Ranger has with Wizard in gestalt. It has the perfect chassis (d10 HD to wizard d6, full BAB to wizard half, 6+INT skills to wizard 2+INT, strong Fortitude and Reflex to wizard strong Will, all martial weapons and decent armor, Evasion somewhere down the line), but has no other complimentary class features (Ranger abilities are surprisingly stat-agnostic).
A lot of the things that the Ranger brings are either meh...(favored enemy bonsues) or wore than useless (armor proficiency) to a wizard. their spells depend on a stat that wizards don't invest in.
So, in your opinion, if you were to offer players in your game the choice between being gestalt or single-progression, what would your experience modification be? Would gestalt characters earn half exp? Less? More?
If you look at the character advancement table, it takes about twice as many experience points to gain two levels (e.g., going from zero to 5th takes about as many experience points as going from 5th to 7th. Similarly, zero to 10 takes about as many as 10 to 12.
So each level represents about sqrt(2) of the total of the prior level. Taking the +1 CR for gestalt far more seriously than it merits, I'd suggest cutting xp down by a third for a gestalt character relative to a single-progression character.
That said, this is silly for several reasons. The first is that, as has been pointed out, not all gestalts are created equal. A Wiz//Sor is actually a pretty pathetic character -- she gets few if any bonuses over a straight wizard except that she's less likely to run out of spells, and most wizards already have more spells than they can cast in an adventure by level 5 or so. On the other hand, a Sor//Pal is a walking pile of destruction. (I think my favorite overpowered combination is Drd//Mnk, with Sor//CSum coming close.)
The second is that it's going to be unnecessarily hard to balance things between the two groups. As was (also) pointed out upthread, gestalt gives versatility, while levels give power. The main advantage a Sor//Wiz has over a vanilla wizard is not in the number of spells, but in the variety of spells available, since the Sor can use the key "always spells" while the Wiz can prepare the "sometimes spells." But none of them will be any more powerful than the Wiz can usually prepare, and he'll always be behind the "real" wizard in the party.
What kinda bothers me is how little synergy Ranger has with Wizard in gestalt. It has the perfect chassis (d10 HD to wizard d6, full BAB to wizard half, 6+INT skills to wizard 2+INT, strong Fortitude and Reflex to wizard strong Will, all martial weapons and decent armor, Evasion somewhere down the line), but has no other complimentary class features (Ranger abilities are surprisingly stat-agnostic).
Actually, I consider that to be a benefit of the Wiz//Rgr combination; you get a perfect chassis (from level 1), rather than waiting for abilities to come on line, especially abilities that will eat into your action economy.
That's one of the reasons the Sorcadin is so powerful; most of the Paladin's abilities (like Cha to saves) don't take actions, and many of the ones that do can be done as swift actions. By contrast, Cleric//Monk has to decide each turn whether to do a monk-action or a cleric-action, and a lot of the benefits of the monk (fast movement, AC bonus, flurry of blows, evasion) aren't compatible with the heavy armor clerics usually wear.
I ran the emerald spire module for 2 players and decided to give them a gestalt to make up the difference, which is a superdungeon that went from levels 1-14. In that experience for me the gestalted characters were seriously gimped at lower levels (1-4) but curb-stomped nearly everything level 10 and up to the point where I was doubling the encounters per dungeon just to make it challenging. Granted those 2 players chose powerful combinations and as others have said the gestalt combination is really what makes or breaks the power level. For the first few levels (1-3) I wouldn't adjust much if anything, levels 4-8 I'd add +1, levels 9-15 I'd add +2 and if your players chose powerful combinations I'd add +3 for anything 15+. Depending on your group that might not even be enough. The right answer is just to do what seems to strike a balance between challenge and fun (and throw in a few curb-stomp encounters for good measure, your players will thank you).
|
|
I'd suggest cutting xp down by a third for a gestalt character relative to a single-progression character.
So for every 3 exp a regular character gets, the gestalt character gets 2? That sounds about right. If I were to actually run a mixed standard/gestalt game, I'd probably start standard characters at 2nd level, too.
That said, this is silly for several reasons. The first is that, as has been pointed out, not all gestalts are created equal.
Well, yeah, but how much of that is because not all the classes themselves are designed to be equal. And remember, when I say "equal," I'm talking about a player's ability to contribute to the game and have fun, not just kill monsters. As I've said in a previous thread, I actually don't think the latter kind of balance matters in a non-competitive game without PvP. Nobody cared that Frodo was a 1st level rogue in the same party with Gandalf, a 20th level wizard (or 5th level, if you buy into this) because the two characters never fight each other.
|
|
So, here's the inevitable follow-up question: In a game where you were allowed to play a standard or gestalt character, where experience was given in a 3:2 ratio and standard characters started at 2nd level, which would you play?
Assume experience is awarded PFS style, 1 experience point per game session with characters leveling up every 3 experience points.
So, here's the inevitable follow-up question: In a game where you were allowed to play a standard or gestalt character, where experience was given in a 3:2 ratio and standard characters started at 2nd level, which would you play?.
Assume experience is awarded PFS style, 1 experience point per game session with characters leveling up every 3 experience points.
You're, um, overpenalizing the gestalts here. If the gestalts start a level below and gain levels at the same rate as standard characters, then they will stay a level behind.
If you start them a level behind and slow their progression, they'll end up being woefully underpowered. After 24 sessions, the normals will have gained 8 levels and so be level 10. The gestalts will have gained 6 and be level 7//7. (Actually, that doesn't quite work out, because it will take 4 1/3 sessions for the gestalt to get each level, so they'll be even further behind.)
Just out of curiosity, what is the equivalency between a gestalt character and a single level character? For example is a 2/2 gestalt roughly equal to a 3rd level character? 4th level? 5th?
It might be a matter of opinion, but there might also be some math behind it. I'd like to know what people think.
Note that the Gestalt Rules already discuss this: "Gestalt characters can obviously handle more opposition than standard characters. The simplest way to compensate for this is to use adventures with tougher monsters. In general, a party of four gestalt characters can handle multiple encounters with a single monster of a Challenge Rating equal to their average level + 1. If the monster poses a challenge because it forces the characters to succeed on life-threatening saving throws (such as with a medusa or a wyvern), it’s even weaker against gestalt characters, who have few or no weak saves. Characters can handle multiple encounters with such monsters at a Challenge Rating equal to their average level + 2."
Treat the APL as one or two higher.
I just, like, wouldn't.
It's a sliding scale. At level 1, the difference between single class and gestalt is not that big. A level 2 character has a pretty big jump on a level 1 character, even a gestalt one. On the other hand, at max, I'd much rather be an 16/16 double full caster than a level 20 anything else (except maybe diviner, that capstone's absurd).
There's no real math behind it, with the huge amount of classes and class combinations available, over every possible level, I think just about every observation made is going to be a qualitative one.
Edit: The right gestalts improve action economy. Summoner is a super easy example. Obviously a second character will be better than a gestalted addition, but the thread's really about quantifying how much better than a single classed character gestalts are.
You could make the gestalt characters use the next lowest XP track. That will keep them sliding 1-2 levels behind but is easy to keep track of. Of course, this assumes you are using the medium or fast track to begin with.
So, here's the inevitable follow-up question: In a game where you were allowed to play a standard or gestalt character, where experience was given in a 3:2 ratio and standard characters started at 2nd level, which would you play?
Assume experience is awarded PFS style, 1 experience point per game session with characters leveling up every 3 experience points.
What Orfamay said.
But my question is, what are you trying to achieve here? If you want some slightly more flavorful characters, you could offer Variant Multi-classing from Unchained (and could even keep things fairly balanced by offering these without feat cost, if you preferred.) At 3rd level, these just begin to operate.
Alternatively, just have everyone play Gestalt. If anyone doesn't wish to, maybe give them the following:
- Each player chooses 4 bonuses for their character, and they choose between these three options as many times as they wish:
1. Advance Base Attack by 1 step (1/2 to 3/4 to 1)/level.
2. Gain 2 additional ranks/level.
3. Change one poor saving throw to a good saving throw.
- Next, give each such player up to two non-overlapping archetypes for their class. These two archetypes are then free, and the player gains there benefits without the cost. Limit them to a single animal companion, eidolin, phantom, mount, familiar or intelligent item.
I've not tested this idea, but I believe it should give you roughly the equivalent of a fairly focused Gestalt build for your players that don't want to mess with other classes.
Mostly though, I would not recommend trying to balance Gestalts with Regular characters.
|
|
Wow, you guys are absolutely terrified about this hypothetical hybrid standard/gestalt game I may or may not run. I appreciate all the concern, but geez, it's just a theorycraft question at this point. :)
So, let me ask again: In a game where you were allowed to play a standard or gestalt character, where experience was given in a 3:2 ratio and standard characters started at 2nd level, which would you play?
If you follow the xp tables, you'll see that if you multiply each level by 1.5, you have more than enough xp to hit the next level. In other words, 66% xp is less than playing 1 level down. I'd gestalt the crap out of your campaign.
Human Bloodrager/paladin gestalt
Bloodrager bloodline fated
Bloodrager archtype steelblooded
Paladin archtype oath of vengeance
Trait
Fates favored & Magical Knack(paladin)
Luck bonuses to ac and saves
Charisma to saves
Feats fey foundling & mad magic
And as high a charisma score as possible to start
Then pick up the extra mercy feat line to raise dead by 4th level.
So yeah gestalt all the way.
I've been playing Gestalt characters for the past twelve years (since Unearthed Arcana was released in 2004).
A few things you need keep in mind:
1) Gestalt characters played side by side with single-class characters? Bad idea. Horrible. Don't do it, EVER. Period. It's just gonna cause arguments about the power gap.
2) Only do this with small parties. Three people or less, allow Gestalt characters all day, BUT, and I cannot stress this enough, LIMIT YOUR RESOURCES. Put down firm ground rules on what classes will and won't be allowed. There are class/feat/feature/bloodline combinations that can, and will, shatter your game like an NBA backboard. You'll be left with monsters/encounters that are getting WALKED THROUGH because of some unknown factoid that you didn't factor in.
3) No matter what the module/adventure path says, Slow XP progression, all the way. If you're playing with two players, maybe, MAYBE go with the medium. But whatever you do, avoid the fast progression table like the plague. You'll be ending an adventure with your players being nearly twice the level they should be if you're running an adventure path.
All of this is taken from experience both as a player and a DM. Keep to these three pieces of advice and you should be fine.
Gestalt depends too heavily on the class combo to give a fair answer to your question OP.
As others noted, wizard/sorcerer is way behind, but sorcerer/paladin may way ahead. To say nothing of specialized combos between martial classes.
Very much a character by character basis, though in a tier 1 iconic optimization game, I might say -2 is fair as a baseline. The more optimized game becomes, the more concerned I'd be.