level adjustment on Gestalt

[MichielHagen]

I was thinking about maybe suggesting gestalt characters for our next campaign.
To make things not too complicated i would also suggest to just pick two base classes (from any book, i don't know if base classes is the correct name, but this includes Factotum and Warblade and such) and stick with those for the rest of the game.
What would be the "level adjustment" of such a character.

Would a 5//5 equal a 7?

[Satyr]

It is generally a good idea to not mix gestalt and usual characters in the same game, with one exception: Single class wizards, druids and clerics and the like in combination with gestalt 'mundane' characters works quite well and is actually a lot better balanced as single class casters and brawlers next to each other. The wizard will still be more powerful, though, but it makes the gap a little bit more narrow.
It is also not that a good idea to use one general modifier for all gestalt combos, as they can easily vary in their power a lot more than single class characters.

[Krazddndfreek]

I was thinking about maybe suggesting gestalt characters for our next campaign.
To make things not too complicated i would also suggest to just pick two base classes (from any book, i don't know if base classes is the correct name, but this includes Factotum and Warblade and such) and stick with those for the rest of the game.
What would be the "level adjustment" of such a character.

Would a 5//5 equal a 7?

I think you meant Effective Character Level (ECL) there at the end. The problem is, its difficult to really know what to treat them with respect to NPCs. On the one hand it gives them a bunch of extra options right? But those are only options, and can still only be used once per round unless cheese is used specifically targeting the action economy. You should probably not treat your PCs as having a higher ECL as it might make things too challenging for them, because at best Gestalt might raise a character's CR by 1 but in most cases, its not more than a quarter CR.

Instead you probably should Gestalt any NPCs above first level to keep them balanced. First level is unnecessary because its... well first level. Monsters without class levels should fare fine. As long as you keep the abilities interesting and varied, they should still provide a challenge to the PCs.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Assuming you mean everyone's playing gestalt, you might just want to go by UA's recommendations for gestalt characters instead of imposing an LA adjustment. The main difference between LA and CR adjustment/gestalt NPCs is the latter has faster XP gain, less paperwork, and more flexibility.

Edit: (1) Beware Factotum//Spellcaster in gestalt.
(2) What if a player wants to go into a prestige class? Would you allow Class 1//Class 2/PrC ?

[Pluto]

Based on the relative balance of the Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Disciple, etc. I'm going to say LA +3 is about right. A character will have lower numbers, greater vulnerabilities and one less feat, but will advance class abilities a bit further.

Of course, balance will still have to be evaluated and adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

edit:
Wait, what are you asking? I'm not certain I answered your question.
Is this from a DM's perspective, looking at the CRs to use?
(It's going to vary like crazy. Both by monster abilities and by character optimization. Bard//Fighter is playing a very different game than Wizard//Factotum)
Or are you asking about playing gestalt characters alongside non-gestalt?
(That's what I tried to address.)
Or something else?

[MichielHagen]

I was asking about the appropriate CR of the monsters.

LA+3 seems too high for me, considering a Mystic Theurge is weaker than a Wizard or Cleric. A Wiz 6//Cleric 6 is weaker than a Wiz3/Clr3/Theurge3, since it has less HP, lower saves, no ability to raise CL to 9....
That is how i came at the +2.

[BobVosh]

I was asking about the appropriate CR of the monsters.

LA+3 seems too high for me, considering a Mystic Theurge is weaker than a Wizard or Cleric. A Wiz 6//Cleric 6 is weaker than a Wiz3/Clr3/Theurge3, since it has less HP, lower saves, no ability to raise CL to 9....
That is how i came at the +2.

Not necessary that is has less HP, depends entirely on the con modifier. Saves are the same if you use fractional saves. Well, slightly lower. However dual progression of casting in gestalt is considered subpar due to action economy. Wiz 6//Factotem 6 > Wiz3/Clr3/Theurge3.

Or Druid 6//Wiz 6 as natural spell does allow casting as a wizard.

Anyway I usually gestalt monsters of an appropriate CR and it works well enough. And leads to some interesting critters.

[Duke of URL]

I was asking about the appropriate CR of the monsters.

LA+3 seems too high for me, considering a Mystic Theurge is weaker than a Wizard or Cleric. A Wiz 6//Cleric 6 is weaker than a Wiz3/Clr3/Theurge3, since it has less HP, lower saves, no ability to raise CL to 9....
That is how i came at the +2.

The actual rules/guidelines for gestalt characters speaks to this:


Challenge Ratings

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. A shambling mound (CR 6) or a medusa (CR 7) would be appropriate average encounters for four 5th-level gestalt characters. If you take this approach, realize that characters gain levels faster than in a typical campaign, because they’re gaining experience points as if those encounters were harder than they actually are. You’re obviously comfortable with a high-powered game, so faster advancement may be an additional benefit, not a problem. if you rely on published adventures, this is the easiest option.

If you want to keep level advancement at the standard average of thirteen encounters per level, reduce the Challenge Ratings of all the monsters and NPCs in your campaign by 1 (or by 2 if they rely on failed PC saving throws to pose a challenge). The shambling mound and the medusa would both become CR 5 monsters, and the gestalt characters gain levels at the usual rate. Monsters with a Challenge Rating of 1 become CR 1/2, and other monsters with fractional Challenge Ratings have their CRs cut in half (kobolds become CR 1/6, in other words). Many staple low-CR monsters don’t work well against a party of gestalt characters, even 1st-level gestalts.

[katans]

Yup. Thing is, a level X Gestalt character is less powerful than two separate level X characters, because he only has half the actions. So making him LA +2 is too much. LA+1 would seem appropriate.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, I don't think there's any reasonable way to combine gestalt with regular characters without significantly houseruling stuff. Yknow, like melee classes only for gestalt.

[Gnaeus]

Lots of ways to do it.

I dont level adjust them, I say that each one is worth 1.5 characters. So 4 Gestalt characters are equal to a party of 6.

Scaling level adjustments also work well. Something like 1-5=+1, 6-10=+2, etc. A flat adjustment is usually either too low or too high.

Best, if you need to know their ECLs, is to eyeball the characters and make your own judgment. Fighter//Barbarian and Warblade//Factotum are in completely different universes of play.