Hey all. So I love gestalt games. I think they allow characters a whole level of customization that normally wouldn't be possible. However in my most recent rise in a game. I am finding the action economy for gestalt characters to be a little shallow...
So I am looking for an opinion. What would you the masses think about gestalting actions as well between the classes.
Now every character still gets the different types of actions: full round, standard, move, swift/immediate. But in the case of mixing to classes together at the same time, you could have 2 class features that use up a swift action that you want to take advantage of. For example you are a Inquisitor/Warpriest, and you want to activate your judgement and your sacred weapon ability. Normally that would take 2 rounds of swift actions which for some big fights you wouldn't have time to do in a major fight. So instead you could activate both abilities in the same swift action.
Would that be too powerful or would that just simplify everything?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think giving everyone more actions would be foolish. Allowing multiple actioms to hapoen at once is just as bad.
The art of building a successful gestalt combination is picking classes that do not compete for actions. And learning to prioritize your features to best utilize the actions you do have available.
Don't pick two classes to eat a lot of swift actions, for example. If you do, you better have a clearly defined priority of how you will spend your swift actions, and in which order.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who cannot manage to build a playable gestalt character. None.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^---- Seconded. If you build a Gestalt character without thinking about successfully/efficiently managing one of the most important resources in the game (Action Economy), then I don't know what to say. Like, if you pick Warpriest/Slayer and then cry because you don't have enough Swift actions to Study Targets and use Fervor/Blessings, or if you pick Barbarian/Witch and then cry because Cackle is taking up all your Move Actions , then that's just really poor planning on the player's part and I don't sympathize with you at all (unless you're new).
If you're a newer player being thrown into a Gestalt, then that changes everything, and I do sympathize, because Gestalt is extremely complicated. But as the GM, I would have a certain responsibility to help that new PC create their character with Action Economy in mind.
How are you getting all those actions Lelomenia?
How are you getting all those actions Lelomenia?
I was wondering the same thing.
I know about the Sensei-Monk of the Four Winds thing where you hand out a bunch of extra standard actions... I think there is a shirt or something that can give you extra move actions... boots of speed are probably helpful, too... maybe SpellCombat/Spellstrike and Bladed Dash...
But all of those actions listed seems unlikely... unless Time Stop or similar abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see allowing gestalted actions working… if you make them require feats… gestalt adds a lot of power to any given character as is, allowing them to bend action economy to perform multiple actions simultaneously is a massive boost to any characters power, and should cost them something in exchange.
Like Blooded Arcane Strike activating Arcane Strike with the same action as entering Bloodrage... a Human Arcane Duelist Bard gestalt with Urban Bloodrager (Arcane Bloodline) can take Blooded Arcane Strike and Mad Magic at level one... since we are talking about gestalt, I might as well throw out one of my absolute favorite combinations.
I think giving everyone moreactionsclassee would be foolish. Allowing multipleactiomsclass levels to hapoen at once is just as bad.
I think since we're talking Gestalt here we can throw the usual assumptions out the window. The OP wants to improve action economy for Gestalt, so let's try.
First up, swift actions. I like the idea of de-coupling Swift and Immediate actions. What if you get 1 Swift action AND 1 Immediate action per round. You still can't do the double-swift like the OP wants, but it opens up a new line of compatible abilities, and gets rid of a little book-keeping.
Next, let's add an extra move action into the mix. You either get 2 move akd 1 standard, or 1 move and a full-round action per round. This move action can only be used to move. No move action powers, no Strike-true style powers giving you a bonus to hit, no Grenadier Alchemist shenanigans. Mostly what this does is makes combats more mobile.
Now, with those new options, what would people play?
Mini-pounce for everyone is hard to say no to. Lol.
Gestalt is already kinda over the top, or can be, so screw it... why not?
Having mostly played martials, of course I want extra move actions... especially ones I can take before a full attack. I love being mobile on the battlefield. And with mini-pounce available at level 1, I might even try TWF... something I am dubious of, even in gestalt.
It's not that it wouldn't work, I just think part of glory of gestalt is seeing what you can come up with leaving the otherwise original chassis and game parameters intact. Part of finding a good combination is finding things that work well together within the standard action economy.
If you find a combination that would work, except for multiple class features relying on the same action... that combination does not work, because you, in fact, do NOT have enough actions to best utilize both classes. You can prioritize, pick and choose each round... but that is hardly a good combination. You want the classes to naturally synergize, using actions the other would allow to be wasted.
If you have to invent new action economy to make it work, then it doesn't work. Find a new combination... in my opinion, at least.
Gestalt is already kinda over the top, or can be, so screw it... why not?
Exactly.
I kinda want to run Giantslayer but my whole group listens to the Glass Cannon Podcast, so I decided if I run it we're going Gestalt and Mythic . They'll all be metagaming anyway, so we might as well let them power-game it too right? But on the flipside I'm gonna double the number of enemies, give them all the advanced template and straight up try to murder the players. And probably add levels and mythic abilities to bosses. Go big or go home I say!
It's not that it wouldn't work, I just think part of glory of gestalt is seeing what you can come up with leaving the otherwise original chassis and game parameters intact. Part of finding a good combination is finding things that work well together within the standard action economy.
I get that. But as you said we're already changing the parameters by going Gestalt. Changing the Action Economy is just changing the parameters in another way, so there will be a new meta to explore.
What if everyone has 2 Swift Actions per round (and only one of these Swift Actions can be used as an Immediate Action per round), and once per Combat Encounter, you can trade one Swift Action for a Move Action.
I think that solves everything right there. Every class combination suddenly opens up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if everyone has 2 Swift Actions per round (and only one of these Swift Actions can be used as an Immediate Action per round), and once per Combat Encounter, you can trade one Swift Action for a Move Action.
I think that solves everything right there. Every class combination suddenly opens up.
Tbh, I still think this is unnecessary, I think you should play with the current rules in place. That being said, if you want 2 Swift Actions per round, and extra Move Actions, I think this is the best non-broken way to do it.
What if everyone has 2 Swift Actions per round (and only one of these Swift Actions can be used as an Immediate Action per round), and once per Combat Encounter, you can trade one Swift Action for a Move Action.
I think that solves everything right there. Every class combination suddenly opens up.
Could be fun =)
Tbh, I still think this is unnecessary, I think you should play with the current rules in place.
Sure, but if everyone did that we wouldn't have Gestaltz Mythic or Epic games at all.
Why not try new things occasionally?
Never mind inquisitor // warpriests, a plain inquisitor (or inq. // fighter) would love extra swift actions to kick off judgement, bane, maybe a litany spell. It's a straight power boost to them and less so to many non-inquisitor class combos.
Decoupling swift and immediate actions would have much less effect but also less variability between characters, it seems a better idea to me.
Decoupling swift and immediate actions would have much less effect but also less variability between characters, it seems a better idea to me.
My group does this already… it never made sense for immediate actions to eat up your swift action for the round… the restriction of 1 immediate action per round is restriction enough… and there are a few classes/archetypes out there that seem to have been built with the assumption that they weren’t linked in the first place due to creating a reliance on spending swift actions every turn and then throwing a bunch of immediate action abilities at you as your only real means of surviving being attacked…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to confess. Been playing Pathfinder for close to (maybe more than) a decade, and I didn't even know/remember that immediate actions were a thing. I remember them from 4E, but didn't recall them for this system. I know about readied actions, and AoO, but had no idea that taking a swift could somehow mess those up.
Just for completeness' sake:
Using a swift action during your turn does NOT stop you from taking an immediate action betweeen turns.
Using an immediate action between turns DOES stop you from using your swift action on your next turn.
Essentially immediate actions are swift actions that can be used early if the need arises .
That's Rules As Written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had already started running Kingmaker before I fully realized that an immediate action taken out of turn consumes the swift action available for the next turn... so, I also let sleeping dogs lie. Haven't regretted decoupling those two actions in the slightest. Honestly makes me wonder why they were ever associated with each other in the first place...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a fair decision. If your group is happy with the rules you play with there's no particular reason to bring this up.
I play this by the book at my table. My GM is already annoyed enough at my Dual-Cursed Oracle dip (MISFORTUNE REVELATION) that he stopped giving out "bottle-caps". If I were getting Swift Actions as well I think he'd flip the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our table decoupled Immediates and Swifts from the very start and it just made everything so much easier. Tbh, I don't know why they ever linked these. It doesn't break the game at all to decouple them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was my first time GM'ing Pathfinder, so a lot was missed. But when I found out that immediates ate swifts, I was like, nope! Not tracking that. Have enough on my plate already, and the rule itself doesn't make enough sense to force the correction now. Or ever.
I don't have any evidence on hand to back this up, but my feeling has always been that when PF was first conceived, swift actions made sense for the classes and abilities that existed, but as more and more content was released, the designers really leaned into swift actions as a once-per-round thing that doesn't affect move or standard actions. But as the inevitable splatbook bloat and power creep occurred, things got more complicated.
This is more anecdotal than "evidence," but I did a search on AoN for "swift action" where only the Class section was checked, and the results for classes or abilities that use that phrase easily overwhelms any core content.