So I have a two man party that was really looking to try out a couple APs but there are only two of them so I was thinking of having them play gestalt and then maybe supplementing that with a very low key cohort, maybe just healing and some buffing to try to pad them out a bit.
But would it even work in Pathfinder? Is Gestalt just a disaster waiting to happen? So looking for any advice someone could offer on stuff like this.
I'm pretty sure there's plenty of Gestalt games in the online forums. I can't think of any right now, but if you look there is at least a couple.
So yes, people do Gestalt in Pathfinder.
They would be better off running two characters each, even though Gestalt is far more powerful in Pathfinder than it was in 3.X.
They would be better off running two characters each, even though Gestalt is far more powerful in Pathfinder than it was in 3.X.
Got agree here. The additional actions possible from more characters is what really makes the difference.
They would be better off running two characters each, even though Gestalt is far more powerful in Pathfinder than it was in 3.X.
Right, if the intention is to increase the players' power then gestalt is still limited by action economy. Though I think Gestalt characters were more powerful in 3.X just because there were so many ways to break the game over your knee without Gestalt.
|
I have one group that I DM that exclusively plays Gestalt games. It works, but gestalt is one of those weird rules that either make characters ridiculously overpowered or just more versatile.
It all depends on classes chosen. If you're considering it (and you should: it's a lot of fun), consider placing mild restrictions, like no double stacking martial classes, casters with the same primary attribute, etc.
I don't say that to ruin roleplaying opportunities, but to say that you don't want to deal with modifying encounters so heavily to get around incredible ability stacking, ESPECIALLY in a premade adventure path. I'm pretty sure that, with the right gestalt, I could solo most APs without any difficulty.
Honestly, rather than use Gestalt, I would go Mythic. A whole party of Mythic characters will steamroll pretty much any of the APs, including Wrath of the Righteous, which was tailor-made with Mythic in mind; but with just two characters it actually balances quite well, especially since each Mythic path adds tools to ease action economy strain.
I agree with Davor - Gestalt works fine in Pathfinder, but it's very important to demand that people build for versatility, not specialization. That is, they should never be allowed to take any combination of abilities that would make them more powerful than a character could normally be at any given level. If necessary, say that certain powers can't be used together.
If you do that, you can curb a lot of the excesses that this style of game can cause. If people aim for building flavorful, NON-min-maxed characters, I think it's actually a great way to play. XD
How will Gestalt possibly not make them more powerful than a character could normally be at any given level? Even if you gestalt a Fighter with an Expert, or whatever, he's still (ever so slightly) more powerful than a Fighter alone.
And how are synergistic combos like Wizard//Magus, Paladin//Oracle, or Monk//Inquisitor not flavorful? It seems to me that both the mechanics and the fluff line up perfectly.
By a careful understanding of what I mean by power. XD Let's say that Fighter McFighty can do an average of X damage at any given level. Okay, that's fine. But what if he was ALSO a Rogue finding a way to get full sneak attack damage on top of his normal Fighter bonuses? That would be more power than a character really should have.
By that logic you couldn't gestalt a Fighter with any martial, because they'd give additional boosts to damage beyond what a Fighter could have (Rage, Favored Enemy, etc). You couldn't gestalt with pretty much any spellcaster, as they would gain access to powerful self-only buffs (Monstrous Physique, Divine Favor, etc). That leaves you with... what?
Also, how does a Fighter//Rogue "have more power than a character really should have?" Because they do a lot of damage in combat and have a lot of skill points? I've even seen "gestalt the Fighter and Rogue together" as a quick and dirty 'fix' for those classes.
That, and you can be synergistic without min-maxing.
And you can make a flavorful character independent of any min-maxing.
Edit: Do people have this idea that "min-maxing" still means making a Half-Giant Half-Mind Flayer Half-Beholder with five wildly different prestige classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Rednal's argument is just that certain gestalt combinations provide more vertical power boosts than they do horizontal. Combine two combat centric martials together and you get potentially problematic buckets of damage without actually doing much to address the inherent issues with an undersized party or a lack of in class utility. It makes some sense, even if I don't necessarily agree with the specific example.
I have my players create Gestalt characters.
It can lead to more power but normally it is not more powerful than two characters. What it does is keep people from having to play two personalitys at the same time when role playing.
Edit: beware of mythic tho, it can greatly screw with things, although mythic can do that to single class characters too
I do know that gestalt can present problems for DMs who have to tailor their encounters to a different power level.
I like the idea of Gestalt. But I have signed up for two Gestalt PBP games where the GM disappeared before the first encounter. Once we got a replacement GM, who also disappeared nearly immediately. I think the issue there is that the GMs had not realized how much work was involved before they joined.
My advice would be to use the resources here and elsewhere to try and find two more players that can join your game.
|
I'd go gestalt building for versatility, because it simplifies RP. If one of them has a pet and you include the cohort then they end up with 4 bodies in action which is basically a full party.
Fighter//Bard and Wizard//Druid would be a good pair, for example, especially if you throw in a cleric cohort to help with healing (esp. condition removal). Wizard//Druid gets a wide variety of spells and good Int-based skills, Fighter//Bard is the primary combatant with extra buffs and more skills including the Face role, and the Wizard//Druid's animal companion helps in melee.
For the Wizard//Druid, being MAD caps raw power pretty well, and because bards (barring a few archetypes) mostly provide party buffs rather than potent personal buffs like the cleric or inquisitor, the Fighter//Bard isn't doing much more damage than a fighter who has been buffed by a bard party member. He does get Arcane Strike - but has to spend his own actions buffing.