PDA

View Full Version : Balanced gestalt?



Ellington
2009-11-24, 05:37 AM
This might have been done before, but I haven't seen it so far. I've always thought the gestalt rules were really interesting and seemed a lot smoother than multi-classing, but of course they're a lot more powerful than regular characters. I was thinking about a way to make them playable in a regular environment without being overpowering, so I came up with a few solutions but I'm not sure whether or not what I've done is enough or not.

Calculating Hit Die

Add the hit dice of the classes together and divide by two. If it's an odd number, round down.

Example:
Fighter/Rogue gestalt : d10+d6/2 = d8
Fighter/Wizard gestalt : d10+d4/2 = d6

Base Attack

Use the better of the two, unless it's good base attack and poor base attack in which case it becomes medium.

Good Base Attack and Medium Base Attack -> Good Base Attack
Medium Base Attack and Poor Base Attack -> Medium Base Attack
Good Base Attack and Poor Base Attack -> Medium Base Attack

Skill Points

Add the total skill points gained per level of each class, then divide by two.

Example:
Fighter/Rogue gestalt: 2/per level + 8/ per level = 5 per level

Skills can be chosen from either class's skill list.

Saving Throws

You take gain the saving throws from both classes, unless you have good saving throw progress to each saving throw in which case you must choose one to progress slower. You can never gain good progress in each saving throw unless you are a gestalt monk.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Class Features

A class feature is made weaker for every class or simply removed.

Examples

Fighter
A gestalt fighter gains bonus feats at first level and every three levels after that.

Rogue
A gestalt rogue sneak attack improves every three levels instead of every two.
A gestalt rogue does not gain special abilities.

Sorcerer
A gestalt sorcerer knows one less spell per spell level.
A gestalt sorcerer can cast one less spell per day.

Cleric
A gestalt cleric does not gain domains nor domain spells.
A gestalt cleric does cannot turn or rebuke undead.

__________________________________________________ _____________

The class features are just rough ideas and nowhere near balanced, but give a pretty good example of what I'm aiming for. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how I can balance a gestalt between two full spellcasting classes, if anyone could give me some pointers/tips?

BooNL
2009-11-24, 05:58 AM
To be honest, I see where you're going, but I don't like it.

Gestalt should not be balanced to a regular environment. They are more powerful, no question about it.

The way to balance gestalt is to make sure your players aren't multiclassing like crazy. To be honest, I prefer playing a Sorcerer//Paladin, to a Paladin 2/Sorcerer x/Abjurant Champion x/whatever x.
I play Gestalt so the build becomes simpler and easier to understand. Also, more options doesn't automatically mean overpowered.

Also, going by your rules. A fighter//sorcerer, is essentially the same as a bard, only without special abilities or skills...

Ellington
2009-11-24, 06:04 AM
Well, the thing is, I really don't like people taking one or two level dips in this or that class and much prefer it if they just have one class or one gestalt which they progress in throughout the game. I just thought this allowed for some customization.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 06:22 AM
That is a pretty nice approach to making "hybrid characters" which combine different classes to allow more flexibility.

I wouldn't call it gestalt though, gestalt is supposed to be more powerful, it is for a special brand of power play.

But that doesn't mean there is no room for balanced hybrid characters. I like where you are going with it, keep it up.

BooNL
2009-11-24, 06:22 AM
If that's the case, you can simply play gestalt and restrict them to 3 or 4 classes total. That's what I do and it works like a charm.

The players are still able to enter a prestige class if they want, but with only 3 classes to go around (2 already used in the base classes) they can only enter a prestige on one side of the gestalt.

The only thing you have to look out with is class synergy. A Warblade//Wizard is infinately more powerful than a Fighter//Rogue.

Justyn
2009-11-24, 06:43 AM
If that's the case, you can simply play gestalt and restrict them to 3 or 4 classes total. That's what I do and it works like a charm.

The players are still able to enter a prestige class if they want, but with only 3 classes to go around (2 already used in the base classes) they can only enter a prestige on one side of the gestalt.

The only thing you have to look out with is class synergy. A Warblade//Wizard is infinately more powerful than a Fighter//Rogue.

The only synergy I can see with Warblade//Wizard is that they both rely on Intelligence, otherwise, the two classes get in each others' way more often than they synergize. Figher//Swordsage or Fighter//Warblade has far more synergy than Warblade//Wizard.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 06:45 AM
The only synergy I can see with Warblade//Wizard is that they both rely on Intelligence, otherwise, the two classes get in each others' way more often than they synergize. Figher//Swordsage or Fighter//Warblade has far more synergy than Warblade//Wizard.

It actually works well for an int based Gish.

D12 HD, solid Fort and Will, Full casting, Full BAB, Full initiator, and various int related smatterings.

Granted, I'd prefer Swordsage/Wizard, for more compatible maneuvers, but still.

Zincorium
2009-11-24, 06:48 AM
You seem to be essentially recreating the 2nd edition multiclassing rules from scratch. And you want people to stay the same class or classes the entire game, which is how it was done last edition.


Have you considered playing a hybrid of 3.5 and 2nd ed?

Grumman
2009-11-24, 06:51 AM
It actually works well for an int based Gish.

D12 HD, solid Fort and Will, Full casting, Full BAB, Full initiator, and various int related smatterings.
Solid Reflex save too, with Warblade's Battle Clarity adding your casting stat to Reflex.

Ellington
2009-11-24, 06:56 AM
You seem to be essentially recreating the 2nd edition multiclassing rules from scratch. And you want people to stay the same class or classes the entire game, which is how it was done last edition.


Have you considered playing a hybrid of 3.5 and 2nd ed?

The difference between this and 2nd edition multiclassing is that while you gain features from both classes, it doesn't take you a lot longer to get them. For example, it took a multiclassed spellcaster a really long time to reach the highest spell levels because he was being held back by another class.

I want a system where you get the higher level benefits, just not as strong as the ones you would have gotten if you had gone with one class.

Justyn
2009-11-24, 07:38 AM
The difference between this and 2nd edition multiclassing is that while you gain features from both classes, it doesn't take you a lot longer to get them. For example, it took a multiclassed spellcaster a really long time to reach the highest spell levels because he was being held back by another class.

I want a system where you get the higher level benefits, just not as strong as the ones you would have gotten if you had gone with one class.

Which flies in the face of the point of Gestalt characters. Gestalt characters are supposed to be more powerful than normal characters. If you want to balance them give them level adjustments that can't be Gestated. +1LA for every for every 4 or 5 Gestalted levels is about right.

Ellington
2009-11-24, 08:03 AM
Which flies in the face of the point of Gestalt characters. Gestalt characters are supposed to be more powerful than normal characters. If you want to balance them give them level adjustments that can't be Gestated. +1LA for every for every 4 or 5 Gestalted levels is about right.

Okay, then let's scrap the title of 'gestalt' and call it something else. Hybrid classes? Whatever. I just really do like the idea behind combining two classes like the gestalt system does and I'm trying to find a way to do it without having them become overpowered. I dislike players dipping into other classes as I find it ridiculously cheap and I thought this might be a good way to allow them to customize.

Gnaeus
2009-11-24, 08:45 AM
This might not be what you are looking for, but balancing gestalt by tiers also works well. Tier 1s only with Tier 6s, 2s with 5s or 6s, 3s with 4s and below. To make them a bit weaker, you can even drop that one more notch. Tier 2s with 6s, 3s with 5s or 6s, 4s with 4-6s, and Tier 1s have to suffer through life without gestalt.

If you think fighter/Rogue gestalt is overpowered, this will not work for you, but it eliminates power combos like Wizard+Factotum or Warblade.

Riffington
2009-11-24, 09:36 AM
I think it's a common mistake here that the point of gestalt is extra power. The point of gestalt is less power. Wizard 5//Druid 5 is just plain weaker than Wizard 5/Druid 5. A gestalt game lets your players have a lot more options while remaining a low-level game.

The biggest difficulty in mixing gestalt/singleclass in my opinion is that levels are a huge deal. Making the singleclass characters a bit higher level is the obvious solution, but it can be rough. So I do like your solution. And it really does need to be case-by-case (balanced for your campaign's power level) - you make up rules and some of us can figure out how to break them horribly.
Another option if you don't want to go through that much effort: Gestalt D&D vs single-class Pathfinder characters. Simple and relatively balanced.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-24, 02:07 PM
Trying to do this will only result in a greater imbalance between optimizers and non-optimizers.

The non-optimizer takes barbarian/rogue and various prestige classes of the same. He ends up being somewhere between the two, and balanced roughly as a single classed character.

I take my quad-casting gestalt build with epic feats available from level 1. I get level 9 casting at level 14. Oooh, each casting class has one less spell per level per day. Don't care, I still can cast what, 16-18 level 9 spells per day?

I actually lose less in terms of power than he does. Far less.

Gpope
2009-11-24, 02:22 PM
I think it's a common mistake here that the point of gestalt is extra power.

Yeah, this mistake is so common the guys who created the gestalt rules make it too!


In this high-powered campaign variant, characters essentially take two classes at every level, choosing the best aspects of each. The process is similar to multiclassing, except that characters gain the full benefits of each class at each level. if the two classes you choose have aspects that overlap (such as Hit Dice, attack progression, saves, and class features common to more than one class), you choose the better aspect. The gestalt character retains all aspects that don’t overlap.

The gestalt character variant is particularly effective if you have three or fewer players in your group, or if your players enjoy multiclassing and want characters with truly prodigious powers. This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer players with an abundance of options.

Ellington
2009-11-24, 02:56 PM
I take my quad-casting gestalt build with epic feats available from level 1. I get level 9 casting at level 14. Oooh, each casting class has one less spell per level per day. Don't care, I still can cast what, 16-18 level 9 spells per day?

I'm not really up to speed with the optimizing trends, but what's this quad casting gestalt build with epic feats available from level 1? How could you get level 9 casting at level 14? If it's some sort of cheese spellcasters can do with the system I'm working on, that's something I'd like to fix and need help to do like I said in my original post.

Gnaeus
2009-11-24, 03:03 PM
Another option if you don't want to go through that much effort: Gestalt D&D vs single-class Pathfinder characters. Simple and relatively balanced.

Woah. Slow down. I can't think of any pathfinder class that benefited as much as a gestalt combo. Some classes were actually nerfed, or had only minor benefits. Compare PF Druid or PF monk with a 3.5 Druid//Monk. No contest.

Prime32
2009-11-24, 04:05 PM
If that's the case, you can simply play gestalt and restrict them to 3 or 4 classes total. That's what I do and it works like a charm.Hmm.... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) :smallconfused:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-24, 04:34 PM
I'm not really up to speed with the optimizing trends, but what's this quad casting gestalt build with epic feats available from level 1? How could you get level 9 casting at level 14? If it's some sort of cheese spellcasters can do with the system I'm working on, that's something I'd like to fix and need help to do like I said in my original post.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132452&page=2

Post #37. It's fully gestalt legal, can run off a 28pt buy. Can cast anything on wizard, sorc, bard, or divine spell lists. Has 12th lvl Sublime Chord, 12th lvl Ur-Priest, 11th Lvl Sorc, 7th or 8th lvl wiz(depending on preference), and 1st lvl bard spell slots. Note, spell slots, not caster levels. I was off by one...you dont get 9th lvl slots until level 15, but after that, it comes in a torrent.

Incidentally, you could swap out wizard for pison if you wanted, just on principle of casting damn near everything.

I suspect there's no way of "fixing" this issue without gutting gestalt of anything more than single, non-accelerated casting classes of all times.

Gpope
2009-11-24, 04:40 PM
I suspect there's no way of "fixing" this issue without gutting gestalt of anything more than single, non-accelerated casting classes of all times.

Considering that the gestalt rules explicitly warn you that dual casting classes should be prohibited to begin with, it's not a very big fix to make.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-24, 04:44 PM
It warns against them on the basis that the builds may be complicated. Not because they are too powerful. Also, warnings are not bans.

And yes, the build does have complexity. I wouldn't reccomend gestalt for inexperienced players to begin with, myself, or for those looking for a low-moderate powered game.

However, the fact that they examined dual casting classes within the context of the ruleset, and didn't much worry about the power of said builds is a pretty good sign that they expected gestalt to be more powerful. Which, frankly, is sort of an obvious outcome.

Kylarra
2009-11-24, 04:50 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132452&page=2

Post #37. It's fully gestalt legal, can run off a 28pt buy. Can cast anything on wizard, sorc, bard, or divine spell lists. Has 12th lvl Sublime Chord, 12th lvl Ur-Priest, 11th Lvl Sorc, 7th or 8th lvl wiz(depending on preference), and 1st lvl bard spell slots. Note, spell slots, not caster levels. I was off by one...you dont get 9th lvl slots until level 15, but after that, it comes in a torrent.

Incidentally, you could swap out wizard for pison if you wanted, just on principle of casting damn near everything.

I suspect there's no way of "fixing" this issue without gutting gestalt of anything more than single, non-accelerated casting classes of all times.
You can click the number link in the corner to get a link to the exact post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7362090&postcount=37).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-24, 04:53 PM
Lovely. I knew there was a way to do that, but couldn't remember how!

Another_Poet
2009-11-24, 04:55 PM
I agree with BoonL. I see the system you're making but I wouldn't use it.

I'm currently DMing a gestalt campaign, and have played in another one. Balance isn't an issue.

Use normal gestalt rules, and start off with APL+1 as the baseline EL for your encounters (i.e. throw CR 4 monsters or EL 4 encounters at a 3rd level party). If it seems to easy, try APL+2. You'll find your stride quickly and have few balance issues.

Just remember, the key to good balance in Gestalt is not necessarily to make the encounters more difficult, but to have more than 4 per day - if the party still has to manage resources, the encounters will seem challenging even if, by the numbers, they aren't.

ap

Gpope
2009-11-24, 05:03 PM
However, the fact that they examined dual casting classes within the context of the ruleset, and didn't much worry about the power of said builds is a pretty good sign that they expected gestalt to be more powerful. Which, frankly, is sort of an obvious outcome.

What do you mean, they didn't worry about the power of said builds?! They come right out and say dual progression classes are not balanced against other gestalt options and should be banned, even if they do deliberately leave it up to GM discretion (most likely because the definition of what constitutes a "dual progression" class is a little murky.) They don't just say "it's too complicated", they say "it's too complicated to try to balance for PrCs that are so overpowered in the context of gestalt."

erikun
2009-11-24, 05:18 PM
Well, the "problem" with gestalt isn't raw power, it's the versatility the system offers. It isn't the Wizards running around with d12 HD. It's the Wizard//Sorcerers running round, throwing out battlefield with their wizard spellslots and laser eyebeams with their sorcerer spells. It's the Cleric//Druid with enough buff, healing, and summoning spells to choke a Balor. It's the Fighter//Monk which doesn't suck (mostly).

The simplest way to restrict gestalt is to just limit what can be gestalted. Rules like "only spellcasters on one side" or "Tier 1-2 in one half, Tier 3-6 in the other" or "no dual gestalt psionics." Spellcasters are already the worst gamebreakers as it is, and something like a Barbarian//Druid that much overpowering compared to a standard Druid. Especially at higher levels.

If you insist on trying to make a Wizard//Cleric equal to a standard Wizard or Cleric, then Justyn's suggestion of advancing CL might just be the most practical solution. +1 CL every 4 levels, so a Wizard 3//Cleric 3 (ECL 3) advances to a Wizard 4//Cleric 4 (ECL 5). While they won't have their highest level spells at higher character levels, they still have a ton of spellcasting to fall back on. I don't think it's a particularly good solution - just making everyone gestalt would be better - but it's about the best I can see for now.

Zovc
2009-11-24, 05:32 PM
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you, erikun. Wizard//Sorcerors have a lot at their disposal, and alternate classes can tremendously increase versatility... But Versatility isn't where Gestalt's power comes from. Yes, versatility is strong, but synergy is more important. For example, your Wizard//Sorceror needs an intelligence and charisma of 19 to be able to cast his 9th-level spells from both sides, he can't just put all of his points in Intelligence OR Charisma. A Wizard//Psion or Wizard//Archivist at least uses one stat for all of his spellcasting, that's synergy to a certain extent.

Druid//Clerics don't get all that much for gestalting. I mean, yeah, Wild Shape is cool, and Turn Undead is, too, but there is a lot of overlap. Overlapping isn't particularly synergistic in Gestalt, seeing as you can't perform any more actions just because you have twice the spells you had before. This brings us to the common Wizard//Factotum. The Factotum is all about intelligence, has a medium base attack bonus, a d8 hit dice, and 6+Int skill points a level. You essentially are turning your wizard into an unarmored cleric, and at 8th level you get cunning surge. Cunning Surge lets you spend points you get at the beginning of each encounter in order to gain an extra standard action in a turn. Now your Wizard can cast True Sight and a touch-attack spell in the same turn without having to quicken a spell.

Essentially, the ability to use more resources in a turn than you could before is the most important thing in gestalt. After that, it's synergy, then comes versatility, which is almost automatic when you're combining two different classes.

elonin
2009-11-24, 05:51 PM
The only gestalt games I've seen advertised have all stipulated that CL can only total up to hit dice. They go even further by saying no dual casting (even on one side of the build), which is a shame incase I wanted to build a ultimate magus/rogue build.

And I tend to build gestalt characters by what synergies are present, like building (some warrior class)dervish/scoutx

Riffington
2009-11-24, 06:25 PM
Woah. Slow down. I can't think of any pathfinder class that benefited as much as a gestalt combo. Some classes were actually nerfed, or had only minor benefits. Compare PF Druid or PF monk with a 3.5 Druid//Monk. No contest.

Well, the PF Monk has better grapple/disarm/trip/etc. Better HP or skill points. Better chance to hit with Flurry. +2 to any attribute. More feats. But it doesn't cast spells, so it loses at high levels. The PF druid is an unfair question because they actually tried to nerf it. Let's compare the PF Cleric or Wizard to your 3.5 Druid//Monk. Those will do better.

Sliver
2009-11-25, 01:13 AM
I think it's a common mistake here that the point of gestalt is extra power. The point of gestalt is less power. Wizard 5//Druid 5 is just plain weaker than Wizard 5/Druid 5. A gestalt game lets your players have a lot more options while remaining a low-level game.

So a level 5 character is weaker then a level 10 character?

Riffington
2009-11-25, 08:18 AM
So a level 5 character is weaker then a level 10 character?

Yeah. Almost always. If you want characters to have a wide range of powers outside gestalt, you need them to be fairly high level. To give gestalt characters a comparable range of powers, you do not need to give them nearly so high a level. This allows players to have the toys they want without entering the "omg reality makes no sense" zone that often characterizes high-level play.

Partysan
2009-11-25, 08:51 AM
I see what you are trying to do, but I don't like it for the fact, that you essentially take out the specialised class features and reduce the classes to the generic features like feats, SA and spell levels. It takes out flavor without reducing power that much (since you are not reducing spell levels). And if you would reduce spell levels, then a gestalt character would be less powerful than a non-gestalt.
THe BAB, skill point and HD calculations would be ok that way, at least that's what I think, but you need better solutions for class features. Taking turning/rebuking out of the cleric would e.g. more or less remove it from the game. As would reducing spell levels remove full casters completely. Reducing spells per day or spells known however would result in at least caster classes still getting more powerful by gestalting.
If you would want to have your hybrid classes exist alongside single classed characters those problems don't come up, but a lot of hybrid combinations would be redundant since existing single classes would be more or less the same, and the hybrid classes would all be rather bland and flavorless.
I would advise you to look for a thread on these forums where someone calculated out a system for generic classes, giving each class feature a certain point value. This would be a possibility to generate more or less balanced hybrids, though it doesn't make it more flavorful.
About balancing gestalted full casters - if you do not try to balance out single classed full casters, then you don't need to balance out their gestalted versions, they cannot make it that much worse (yes, they can get it to silly levels even faster, but anyway...)

Sliver
2009-11-25, 10:08 AM
Yeah. Almost always. If you want characters to have a wide range of powers outside gestalt, you need them to be fairly high level. To give gestalt characters a comparable range of powers, you do not need to give them nearly so high a level. This allows players to have the toys they want without entering the "omg reality makes no sense" zone that often characterizes high-level play.

I know what gestalt is, and that ClassX/ClassY is stronger then ClassX//ClassY, but that is the reason that ClassX/ClassY is double the level. Comparing 2 characters when one has double the levels isn't really doing anything to help your claim that gestalt isn't high powered. Compare it with a character of the same level and then tell me it isn't high powered variant.

Gnaeus
2009-11-25, 10:19 AM
Well, the PF Monk has better grapple/disarm/trip/etc.

Not even remotely. PF Monk has a full BAB for purpose of the checks, so, say a +3 bonus in the 9-12 range. The druid//monk if he wants to grapple spends his time as a brown bear or something similar, and either his better strength, or larger size more than exceeds the PF monks bonuses.

If he is lucky, he can grapple better than the druid's PET. After the buffs go up, my money is on the pet. Have you seen the grapple checks a bear running Bite of the Weretiger can generate?


Better HP or skill points.

Also no. The PF monk never lost his MAD problems. His stats will need to be balanced between Str, Dex, Con and Wis.

The druid will max wisdom, then con, so he has more hit points than PF monk, and his third stat will be int, so he is almost certainly packing more skill points as well. The only advantage PF monk gets is the PF skill consolidation for Acrobatics, Stealth and Perception.


Better chance to hit with Flurry.

The small PF monk bonus doesn't come close to the strength/size advantage from wildshape alone. Throw in spells like Bite of the WereX and PF monk is way outclassed. Also, the druid has a pet for +2 flanking bonus.


+2 to any attribute. More feats.

Yes. He needs them more.


But it doesn't cast spells, so it loses at high levels.

I think there is very little chance a level 1 PF monk could beat a level 1 Druid//monk and his riding dog. Certainly he won't win after level 5, when the druid flies overhead and pelts him with spells and summons while the monk grapples the pet.


The PF druid is an unfair question because they actually tried to nerf it. Let's compare the PF Cleric or Wizard to your 3.5 Druid//Monk. Those will do better.

Yes, Tier 1s will outperform a Tier 5. But not another Tier 1 in gestalt.

Curiously, I am currently in a bitter fight on another thread with a very experienced player who believes that the spell changes in PF far outweigh any benefits that the PF wizard gets, for a net nerf. I do think the wizard was strengthened, but not nearly as much as you seem to think he was.

Lets compare PF wizard to a 3.5 wizard gestalt. Say Wizard/Ranger (because if I did a top tier gestalt like Wizard/Warblade or Wizard/Factotum it would be unfair).

The Gestalt wizard has better saves. More HP. More Skill Points and a better skill list. More spells, including 2 lists. A pet. Better BaB. Evasion. Better weapon/armor proficiencies. Favored Enemies. More feats. AND his best spells aren't nerfed (Glitterdust, Alter self, Polymorph, etc.). Ability to use healing items between combats. He can drop his familiar for a special ability, like Abrupt Jaunt.

PF wizard has +2 on his INT (I'm not going to argue, as my opponent in the other thread did, that the 3.5 wizard is a grey elf and therefore also has a +2 int). That means his save DCs are 1 point better (although remember the gestalt wizard's saves are higher by a much bigger margin). He has some small class abilities based on his school, and he can use opposition schools. He can drop his familiar for a bonded item for 1 extra spell per day.

I will admit that this is a closer comparison, because wizards are wizards. Still, I can't see a level range where the PF wizard will come out better.

Flickerdart
2009-11-25, 10:19 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132452&page=2

You can sort of do that without Gestalt, combining Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord with Mystic Theurge, but you fall behind on amount of 9th level spells per day after 17th/18th level. You could also try it with Nar Demonbinder (are those the ones that have their own spell progression? Starting from 4th, I think).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-25, 12:23 PM
What do you mean, they didn't worry about the power of said builds?! They come right out and say dual progression classes are not balanced against other gestalt options and should be banned, even if they do deliberately leave it up to GM discretion (most likely because the definition of what constitutes a "dual progression" class is a little murky.) They don't just say "it's too complicated", they say "it's too complicated to try to balance for PrCs that are so overpowered in the context of gestalt."

Everyone ignores the accelerated progression casting classes in this. Between Ur-priest and Sublime Chord, even without dual caster progression classes, you can still pick up some heavy duty casting. At least two 9s, with a third casting class very close, and a fourth casting class for giggles. Amusingly enough, that build would still get it's level 9 spells at the same level. Yes, dual progression increases the overall power, but even without it, the multi-caster is insanely powerful compared to even many gestalt builds. It's not even in the same league as non-gestalted characters.

Sure, PF adds a few nice things. Another skill point/xp per level and +2 to any stat does not balance having another entire casting class.

Trying to balance gestalt against single classed characters is futile.

Gpope
2009-11-25, 01:30 PM
Everyone ignores the accelerated progression casting classes in this. Between Ur-priest and Sublime Chord, even without dual caster progression classes, you can still pick up some heavy duty casting. At least two 9s, with a third casting class very close, and a fourth casting class for giggles. Amusingly enough, that build would still get it's level 9 spells at the same level. Yes, dual progression increases the overall power, but even without it, the multi-caster is insanely powerful compared to even many gestalt builds. It's not even in the same league as non-gestalted characters.

Trying to balance gestalt against single classed characters is futile.

It's not a matter of balancing gestalt against single classed characters, it's a matter of balancing gestalt against other gestalt characters. The gestalt rules predate Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord, which are broken in gestalt because they're broken PrCs to begin with; the impact they have on gestalt is about the same as the impact they have in non-gestalt games.

By contrast, dual progression classes like Mystic Theurge offer tremendously powerful level-ups at a very high cost (sacrificing caster levels by multiclassing), which gestalt breaks outright. The fact that you can get in with 3 levels of gestalt is itself broken, which is probably why the gestalt rules also highly recommend barring PrC entry in the first five levels since they knew gestalt broke tons of prerequisites.

"It's already high power, so we might as well make it EVEN MORE HIGH POWER" is not any kind of argument at all.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-25, 01:53 PM
Even before the publishing of any accelerated casting class, casters weren't terribly balanced with non-casters at high levels.

Gestalt magnifies that. Look around for powerful gestalt builds that don't involve a primary casting class. It's not an easy task.

So, casters either eliminate their weaknesses by taking a class that synergizes nicely, or pick up another casting class, playing to their strengths, and getting even more power.

Pure melee builds end up being pretty weak...unless they succumb to the lure of adding a casting class.

Nope, no balance at any point.

Gpope
2009-11-25, 01:55 PM
Do you have a point yet? Yes, the balance is bad. That is not in itself a reason to make the balance worse.

EDIT: Unless you're writing Pathfinder. ZING!

Tyndmyr
2009-11-25, 02:32 PM
Precisely why these changes should be avoided.

Averaging differences between classes hurts mainly the melee or gish char. The sorc/wizard doesn't care that his hp and sp are now averaged. His class features are what, a familiar? Feh.

The rogue/barb DOES care that his hp and sp get averaged. He does have actual class features to lose. He does care that his BaB and complementary saves get screwed.

This sort of hybridization hurts the weakest types of characters most, and the strongest type of characters least. Thus, it should be killed with fire.

Zovc
2009-11-25, 02:40 PM
This sort of hybridization hurts the weakest types of characters most, and the strongest type of characters least. Thus, it should be killed with fire.

You know, that was my first thought when I read over the first post.