PDA

View Full Version : How balanced is gestalt with noncaster/caster progression?



Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 02:12 PM
Once I heard that gestalt was actualy one of the more balanced ways of playing D&D, as long as one side of the progression is a caster and the other is a noncaster.

Thinking about it more carefuly, it may be true. Fantasy heros nowadays seem to be all gishes with magic/special powers to back up their martial/rogue skills, or the other way around. Gestalt is the easiest way to acomplish this.

Also, if everybody is paying a fullcaster, everybody is extra versatile. And then the noncaster side allows you to further flesh up your character.

Even if you plan to play martial dude, you can always pick up cleric/psion and focus on self buffs, and refluff them as your uber martial skillz.

Gestalt also makes playing monsters much easier, with RHD and LA on one side and a full class on the other.

Toughts? Good idea? Madness?

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 02:17 PM
I agree, if you scale the gestalt by tiers, (tier 1+6, 2+5 or below, 3+4 or below).

Unrestricted gestalt is very unbalanced to anyone who isn't playing a Tier 1+Factotum.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 02:34 PM
I agree, if you scale the gestalt by tiers, (tier 1+6, 2+5 or below, 3+4 or below).

Unrestricted gestalt is very unbalanced to anyone who isn't playing a Tier 1+Factotum.

Good point, but still, calling the factotum a noncaster is a bit of a stretch. He gets 7th level spells! And can change them everyday.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 02:42 PM
Well, wizard + warblade is pretty horrible also, as is factotum + warblade. I guess if you call tome of battle and factotum casters it works ok.

Really it isn't about casters/noncasters, it is about relative abilities of classes. Tier 1+Adept or Healer isn't very scary.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 02:52 PM
Well, wizard + warblade is pretty horrible also, as is factotum + warblade. I guess if you call tome of battle and factotum casters it works ok.


But even if I don't call them so, there'll be a much smaller gap between a wizard/warblade and a fighter/healer than between a wizard and a fighter.

This is, a fighter riding an unicorn with freedom of movement/deathward/protection from evil and wich can instantly patch up his companions shouldn't be trifled with.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-02-20, 02:56 PM
If I understand you, that forces everyone to be casters.

And since casters are always so balanced...

Starbuck_II
2010-02-20, 03:00 PM
If everyone is overpowered: logic dictates no one is.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 03:07 PM
If everyone is overpowered: logic dictates no one is.

That would be true if "Overpowered" is a single condition. In fact it is a sliding scale, in which things are only "Overpowered" compared with other things. A warblade//factotum or Druid//swordsage is overpowered compared with a fighter//healer, a fighter//adept, or a fighter//warmage. Mostly due to the ease with which he breaks the action economy, but also for general utility. Gestalt optimization is, if anything, trickier than single class optimization, because you are looking for classes that complement each others strengths and cover each others weaknesses, do not present MAD problems, and let you do multiple actions per round.

Edit: Do the monster classes go on the caster or non-caster side? There are some really good monster classes, and some really bad ones, and throwing them into the mix doesn't make it any more balanced.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 03:20 PM
That would be true if "Overpowered" is a single condition. In fact it is a sliding scale, in which things are only "Overpowered" compared with other things. A warblade//factotum or Druid//swordsage is overpowered compared with a fighter//healer, a fighter//adept, or a fighter//warmage. Mostly due to the ease with which he breaks the action economy.

Healer gets an unicorn companion. And gate. It's harder to get better than that. Dunno why it's tier 5-6 really.

Warmage looks weak at first glance, but get him into rainbow servant prc to brutaly expand his spell list, and he quickly rises to sorceror level, if not cleric.

Fighter is then used to get extra actions trough Aoo madness. You think wrong that only wizards and clerics and warblades can get extra actions.



Gestalt optimization is, if anything, trickier than single class optimization, because you are looking for classes that complement each others strengths and cover each others weaknesses, do not present MAD problems, and let you do multiple actions per round.

Actualy, it's much easier than it sounds. Paladin is based in Cha. Sorceror is based in Cha. Combine. Profit.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 03:39 PM
Healer gets an unicorn companion. And gate. It's harder to get better than that. Dunno why it's tier 5-6 really.

Because it gets it at like level 17. Same reason people dump on the truenamer. Most play happens from 1-16.

A fighter//healer is not playing the same game as a crusader//cleric. The cleric is better than the healer at everything, including healing, and crusader adds more to the class than fighter does.


Warmage looks weak at first glance, but get him into rainbow servant prc to brutaly expand his spell list, and he quickly rises to sorceror level, if not cleric.

Yeah, but the guy who is playing a rainbow warsnake didn't need gestalt to be effective. The guy who thinks warmage is a blasting class is not comparable to his party members.


Fighter is then used to get extra actions trough Aoo madness. You think wrong that only wizards and clerics and warblades can get extra actions.

Aoo madness isn't limited to fighters. It is much weaker as an overall strategy than (for example) being able to cast a spell, then become invisible as a swift, then escape. It is vastly weaker than a Factotum/Warblade who can get half a dozen standard actions in a round, use all of his maneuvers on an opponent, then spend a full round action getting them all back (or different ones) in the same round.


Actualy, it's much easier than it sounds. Paladin is based in Cha. Sorceror is based in Cha. Combine. Profit.

Isn't Paladin a caster? Why don't you define caster for the purpose of this discussion and we can give you better input on how broken it is. How about Ranger? MoMF? Tier 1//Ranger 5 MoMF10 is kinda sick too.

Sorcadin is easy. Sorcadin is a gish build in non-gestalt. Gishes are tricky anyway, since you have to balance issues like armor use. Yes, you and I can get around ACF no problem, but it magnifies the differences between people who are good with rules and people who don't optimize.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE gestalt. A lot. But basic gestalt isn't a balance fix. Caster/Non-caster gestalt isn't a balance fix. Allowing high tiers to gestalt with low tiers is a better balance fix, provided that you have players on the same optimization level and a DM who knows what traps to watch for.

And are monsters casters? How many spell likes before they become a caster?

sofawall
2010-02-20, 04:39 PM
Warmage looks weak at first glance, but get him into rainbow servant prc to brutaly expand his spell list, and he quickly rises to sorceror level, if not cleric.

And the most powerful Monk is Monk 1(or 2)/Druid 19 (or 18). PrCing to make a class strong does not mean the class is good. It means the PrC is, for the most part.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 04:40 PM
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE gestalt. A lot. But basic gestalt isn't a balance fix. Caster/Non-caster gestalt isn't a balance fix. Allowing high tiers to gestalt with low tiers is a better balance fix, provided that you have players on the same optimization level and a DM who knows what traps to watch for.


Correction, if all players are on the same optimization level and the DM is keeping them in check, then there's no need for a fix of any kind.

Using the tier system would work if the tier system itself worked. Since it doesn't, as it's based on completely arbitary variables, demands the players to have a deep grasp of the rules and then contradicts itself over it, then it doesn't solve anything really.

(note:if you try to turn this into a tier discussion, then I will simply ignore that part. I've heard plenty of arguments and none of them persuaded me. This is a discussion about how balanced is gestalt with casters/noncaster progression.)

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 04:45 PM
Correction, if all players are on the same optimization level and the DM is keeping them in check, then there's no need for a fix of any kind.

If those things aren't true, adding gestalt is just as likely to make balance worse as better.


Using the tier system would work if the tier system itself worked. Since it doesn't, as it's based on completely arbitary variables, demands the players to have a deep grasp of the rules and then contradicts itself over it, then it doesn't solve anything really.

Fair enough. Then a version of the tier system modified to reflect the actual play of your game/campaign. Or just a juryrigged strong class/weak class chart made up for this limited purpose. It doesn't matter whose chart you use, as long as it is accurate to your game.

As far as it goes, I agree that the tier chart isn't great for gestalt. Passive classes like Monk and to some extent fighter are much stronger in gestalt than they are alone. But there are still stronger and weaker classes, and stronger and weaker combinations of classes.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 04:54 PM
If those things aren't true, adding gestalt is just as likely to make balance worse as better.

Ok, now that's more like my main point. I believe that if you have people with diferent optimization abilities, gestalt with caster/noncaster will actualy diminish the gap. Not completely eliminate it (that's probably impossible), but make it smaller.

After all, one of the main problems people have with noncasters is that they end up being one trick ponies. Well, if you're half cleric/beguiler/druid/wizard/bard, you've got a big chunk of versatility. And yes, versatility is power, not just extra actions. Having the right answer to the right problem is many times more effective than throwing several wrong answers.

Sure, a wizard/warblade is a great combo, but a wizard alone is a great combo by itself, so making him a warblade as well can't really make things much worse.

On the other hand, that newbie's fighter can shoot fly or patch allies or efectively attack at range, his power is greatly increased, and that helps lessen the gap.

Also, I consider "caster" in this situation anyone who can get 6th level spells before level 20. So paladin and ranger would be noncasters.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 05:13 PM
After all, one of the main problems people have with noncasters is that they end up being one trick ponies. Well, if you're half cleric/beguiler/druid/wizard/bard, you've got a big chunk of versatility. And yes, versatility is power, not just extra actions. Having the right answer to the right problem is many times more effective than throwing several wrong answers.

But a MoMF or Duskblade or Warblade give a lot more to a wizard in terms of both versatility and power than, say, Knight. They are less MAD. They are better in or out of combat. They are simply likely to be better at almost everything. ESPECIALLY if the difference in optimization levels carries over to things like spell choices.

Based on your definition of caster and stated inclusion of monster classes, it becomes even worse. You get wierd brokenness like Sorcerer//Pixie/Paladin, for a full caster with great saves and great stats who flies and is invisible all day long, and can even heal himself. Fighter//bard /= Sorcerer//Pixie/rogue.

Roc Ness
2010-02-20, 05:46 PM
Swift Hunter//Swiftblade

At level 15 you get to move 20 ft, fire six (or double with splitting) Greater Manyshot Skirmish arrows at a time thanks to haste and perpetual options. Skirmish is complemented with a swiftblade ability that stacks with skirmish. Now get improved skirmish and arcane strike. Sacrifice a highest level spell slot (6th).

You now get something like a +15+(Enhancement)+6+(Dex)-(manyshot)+(haste)+(favored enemy) to hit with each arrow.

Each arrow now does 1d8+(Strength)+(Enhancement)+6d6(Improved Skirmish)+2d6(Swiftblade ability)+6d4(arcane strike)+(favored enemy).

You are going to have Splitting, which will average to 564 damage (Str and Enhancement and FE not counted). Even if the opponent has DR, you still do 500+damage

Eldariel
2010-02-20, 06:01 PM
Swift Hunter//Swiftblade

At level 15 you get to move 20 ft, fire six (or double with splitting) Greater Manyshot Skirmish arrows at a time thanks to haste and perpetual options. Skirmish is complemented with a swiftblade ability that stacks with skirmish. Now get improved skirmish and arcane strike. Sacrifice a highest level spell slot (6th).

You now get something like a +15+(Enhancement)+6+(Dex)-(manyshot)+(haste)+(favored enemy) to hit with each arrow.

Each arrow now does 1d8+(Strength)+(Enhancement)+6d6(Improved Skirmish)+2d6(Swiftblade ability)+6d4(arcane strike)+(favored enemy).

You are going to have Splitting, which will average to 564 damage (Str and Enhancement and FE not counted). Even if the opponent has DR, you still do 500+damage

That's hardly impressive considering you gotta be within 30' of the target, have rather poor attack bonus, and have excess damage (you can't Arcane Strike on a ranged attack). Oh, and you're with 6th level spells on level 15. A non-Gestalt Frenzied Berserker can outdamage you.

The idea itself isn't bad, but meh; you need Wizard-levels on the other side to compensate for lost CLs, you'll eventually want Abjurant Champion-levels in there to get a bow-usable Arcane Strike (though much worse as it costs an action), and you probably Heroics/Feat Press the Advantage-stance and get +45 Tumble. That enables you to eventually take 20' step each turn giving you Full Attack (Rapid Shot & al.) + Greater Manyshot for great justice. And Mystic Ranger on the other side.


This still won't be a damage king without some heavy buff magic, but it'll get you full casting, decent strategic options and yeah, Maximized Quickened Extraordinary Time Stops at level 9 slots. Oh, and level 5 Mystic Ranger-casting to boot. Only problem is, Skirmish is indeed heavily limited on range; 60' is best you can do and there's no "Sniper's Shot" printed for Skirmish (though I suppose a DM could allow Sniper's Shot itself to count for both).

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 06:33 PM
But a MoMF or Duskblade or Warblade give a lot more to a wizard in terms of both versatility and power than, say, Knight. They are less MAD. They are better in or out of combat. They are simply likely to be better at almost everything. ESPECIALLY if the difference in optimization levels carries over to things like spell choices.

But the wizard could already become a melee machine with spells alone, and do pretty much anything. Warblade/duskblade just makes it slightly easier. MoMF? Shapechance/polymorph had already broken the game before that.



Based on your definition of caster and stated inclusion of monster classes, it becomes even worse. You get wierd brokenness like Sorcerer//Pixie/Paladin, for a full caster with great saves and great stats who flies and is invisible all day long, and can even heal himself.

But the sorceror already could fly and be invisible and buff himself most of the day if he wanted to! He doesn't even need cheese to pull it off, I've seen it happen.



Fighter//bard /= Sorcerer//Pixie/rogue.

But I say it's better than comparing a fighter to a sorceror. At least now the sorceror can't just fly and laugh at the fighter when there's a wall on the way.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 06:44 PM
But the sorceror already could fly and be invisible and buff himself most of the day if he wanted to! He doesn't even need cheese to pull it off, I've seen it happen.

At ECL 4? Before most enemies can counter it? Without even taking up 2 of his spells known? I highly doubt it. Superior invis is a level 4 spell. Persisting it takes high level and a lot of work. Maybe with some kind of loophole combined with Kobold cheese.


But I say it's better than comparing a fighter to a sorceror.

Say what you like Oslecamo. In some games it may even be true, depending on how lucky the non-optimizers are with their gestalt picks. It is clearly not balanced. I don't see any way to prove or disprove A>B by more or less than C>D. We have pointed out the flaws with it. The fact that it isn't balanced doesn't mean it might not be fun, so go for it.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 07:04 PM
At ECL 4? Before most enemies can counter it? Without even taking up 2 of his spells known? I highly doubt it. Superior invis is a level 4 spell. Persisting it takes high level and a lot of work. Maybe with some kind of loophole combined with Kobold cheese.

Actualy, pixie demands ECL 5(1HD+LA4), and then, well, wizards get fly. Inv is actualy easier to counter between see invisibility, scent, good listen checks, blindsense, blindsight, etc, etc.



Say what you like Oslecamo. In some games it may even be true, depending on how lucky the non-optimizers are with their gestalt picks. It is clearly not balanced. I don't see any way to prove or disprove A>B by more or less than C>D. We have pointed out the flaws with it. The fact that it isn't balanced doesn't mean it might not be fun, so go for it.

...I never said it was perfectly balanced. You can already pull out pretty crazy stuff whitout gestalt if you want to, so, by making newbies pick up a caster togheter with their CW samurai, they're much less likely to cripple themselves.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 07:14 PM
Actualy, pixie demands ECL 5(1HD+LA4), and then, well, wizards get fly. Inv is actualy easier to counter between see invisibility, scent, good listen checks, blindsense, blindsight, etc, etc.

In other words, you can't do it.

A pixie doesn't have to take RHD. in gestalt, at ecl 4, he alreasy has 4 character levels.

Fly by spell /= permanent winged flight. Unless every single enemy that you fight has ways to kill flying invisible attackers, it is broken.



...I never said it was perfectly balanced. You can already pull out pretty crazy stuff whitout gestalt if you want to, so, by making newbies pick up a caster togheter with their CW samurai, they're much less likely to cripple themselves.

Maybe, or maybe they won't know which spells to take and how to deal with armor, and they will wind up farther behind the superior invis sneak attack sorcerer. A lot of players who play mostly non casters do it because they don't play casters well....

Godskook
2010-02-20, 07:18 PM
Say what you like Oslecamo. In some games it may even be true, depending on how lucky the non-optimizers are with their gestalt picks. It is clearly not balanced. I don't see any way to prove or disprove A>B by more or less than C>D. We have pointed out the flaws with it. The fact that it isn't balanced doesn't mean it might not be fun, so go for it.

Except the question being asked is:

A - B ?= C - D

The statements "A>B" and "C>D" are both given by the OP(I'm assuming "A = optimized gestalt", "B = non-optimized gestalt", "C = Optimized non-gestalt(Caster, normally)" and "D = non-optimized non-gestalt")

Given all that, I'd argue that "A ~= C", since adding gestalt doesn't make Pun-Pun anymore powerful. That reduces the original statement to:

B ?= D

And since the difference between B and D is the addition of gestalt, we know that B > D. So, strictly speaking:

A - B <= C - D

Or, the power-gap in gestalt is no worse, and quite probably better, than in non-gestalt play.

QED

'Course, that's assuming that blind logic can be applied to the situation, and that obscenely-broken is part of the consideration the poster wants. In actual play, you're dealing more with statistics than logic, and in statistics, given the starting point that each choice represents a variable increase in power, the more choices you allow, the greater the maximum degree of variance, and thus, the more ease in which you can find yourself with vastly disparate samples to deal with. You can hope that by adding choices, you force people towards the middle of the bell-curve, but as with every other *(&*) thing in statistics, there's no guarentee you'll succeed.

Oslecamo
2010-02-20, 07:44 PM
A pixie doesn't have to take RHD. in gestalt, at ecl 4, he alreasy has 4 character levels.

The pixie can replace the RHD, but it can't ditch it all togheter. So she still needs one level of something before taking the LA.



Fly by spell /= permanent winged flight. Unless every single enemy that you fight has ways to kill flying invisible attackers, it is broken.

If the enemies cannot deal with a flying/invisible enemy, then a pixie by itself is already broken, whitout needing the sorceror side! Just pick a bow and go to town.



Maybe, or maybe they won't know which spells to take and how to deal with armor, and they will wind up farther behind the superior invis sneak attack sorcerer. A lot of players who play mostly non casters do it because they don't play casters well....
And they'll have an hard time learning if they don't play a caster indeed. Experience is an excellent teacher, and so if one of their sides is a caster they're more likely to call for help and end up improving their optimization skills than if they had a noncaster with fixed abilities.

Godskook:Ah, thank you very much for that excellent exposition! Indeed, this system isn't fail-proof, but the chances of something going horribly wrong are drasticaly reduced, as you would need to take two very weak classes and optimize them badly to cripple yourself.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 07:59 PM
Except the question being asked is:

A - B ?= C - D

The statements "A>B" and "C>D" are both given by the OP(I'm assuming "A = optimized gestalt", "B = non-optimized gestalt", "C = Optimized non-gestalt(Caster, normally)" and "D = non-optimized non-gestalt")

Given all that, I'd argue that "A ~= C", since adding gestalt doesn't make Pun-Pun anymore powerful. That reduces the original statement to:

False. Optimization =/ Pun Pun. An optimized gestalt is significantly stronger than an optimized non gestalt in most games. Your argument, based on this false premise, fails.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-20, 08:05 PM
In other words, you can't do it.LA 0 fey + alter self + Assume Supernatural Ability says you can.

[edit] And Precocious Apprentice says you can do it at level 1.

Gnaeus
2010-02-20, 08:16 PM
LA 0 fey + alter self + Assume Supernatural Ability says you can.

[edit] And Precocious Apprentice says you can do it at level 1.

And how do you make it last all day?

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-20, 08:17 PM
And how do you make it last all day?A level of cleric and DMM.

Godskook
2010-02-20, 08:30 PM
False. Optimization =/ Pun Pun. An optimized gestalt is significantly stronger than an optimized non gestalt in most games. Your argument, based on this false premise, fails.

Could you establish what your baseline of optimization is? Without any other one, I'm left with the baseline of RAW, which is dominated by something akin to Pun-Pun, save-game psions, the killer gnome, chain-gating wizards, or similar obscene builds that reach NI in some way or other. All of these builds have passed the point where adding gestalt to them would change their power level signifcantly enough to matter.

Also, my argument does not hinge on that assumption, and doesn't 'fail' if my assumption(I admitted to the assumption in my post, btw) is wrong. It only fails if you can prove that optimized gestalt is significantly more powerful than optimized non-gestalt, using the baseline the OP sets for optimization(because it is his question we're discussing).

OP, what's your baseline for 'maximum optimization'?

Ormur
2010-02-21, 01:07 AM
Gestalt is a good way to make low tier classes or concepts you want to play effective and getting a good non-game-breaking synergy, possibly by adding spellcasting to a melee build. If the disparity of optimizations withing the group is too great it will still result in unbalanced groups since the game is easy enough to break with a single class.

Mandating noncaster/caster would eliminate the problems of a party with a monk//fighter and a wizard//psion or something but you could still end up with a barbarian//bard and a gamebreaking cheese feast just because one side can be a caster. As in normal games it's still important for the players to be on the same page when designing/optimizing characters, the examples I just gave are communication issues. A good optimizer should have no problems mildly optimizing an interesting combination that doesn't break the game. It could help the people without a good grasp of the mechanics not sucking but they usually have access to help anyway, if they're willing to accept it.

The biggest balance problem it might help solve, provided there are no communication issues, is if it's a long running campaign where full-casters inevitably gain ever bigger advantages over even effective non-caster builds.

Gnaeus
2010-02-21, 08:00 AM
A level of cleric and DMM.

DMM doesn't work on arcane spells. Only divine. Even if it did, you have picked a suboptimal race to be fay, lost a level of sorcerer to a dip, then spent 3-4 feats (extend spell (probably from a domain), persist spell, DMM persist, assume supernatural ability) for a weaker (dispellable) version of the same thing.

Gnaeus
2010-02-21, 08:12 AM
Also, my argument does not hinge on that assumption, and doesn't 'fail' if my assumption(I admitted to the assumption in my post, btw) is wrong. It only fails if you can prove that optimized gestalt is significantly more powerful than optimized non-gestalt, using the baseline the OP sets for optimization(because it is his question we're discussing).


Wrong again. Since my point was that you can't prove the difference in overpoweredness between 2 sets of different kinds of builds, you would have to prove that optimized gestalt isn't significantly more powerful than optimized non-gestalt. If your argument is that it can be proven, pretty clearly the burden is on you.

GoC
2010-02-21, 11:48 AM
Gestalt also makes playing monsters much easier, with RHD and LA on one side and a full class on the other.
I've often wondered about whether a Paragon Choker//Warblade 17 is legal...

Pluto
2010-02-21, 12:25 PM
I have to disagree.

A game where every character must be a caster/non-caster Gestalt doesn't mean characters will be balanced, by any means.

The same problems in Optimization remain unresolved. It's just that the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighter and the Blasting Sorcerer become the same character.

...

I don't think it would be a controversial statement to say that CO is about finding synergy.

If anything, this regulated gestalt allows that to become more of a problem.

The optimized Factotum//Wizard (or Duskblade/Arcane Archer//Wizard or Monk//Druid or Eternal Blade//Wizard or MoMF//Wizard or Hexblade/Paladin of -2/Binder//Wizard or...) is able to focus his specialization far more than in a typical game. He has the potential to become drastically more powerful than normal.

The discordant Barbarian//Warmage, on the other hand, is able to spread feats and class abilities around. A Fighter who sucked at fighting in a standard game now has to spread the feats he used to suck marginally less at fighting to support his unoptimized Bard spellcasting.

...

The premise itself seems problematic.

If the group is assigned to play a certain type of character in the gestalt game (caster//noncaster), why can't they be assigned to play casters in a standard game? Barring the Healer, that would solve as many problems, if not more. (Characters would at least be playing the same game, even if some were notably more powerful or versatile than others.)

...

And I'm not certain the problem deserves to be assumed.

The idea that players who don't optimize care about the comparative optimization levels within the group doesn't jibe with my own experiences and it seems intuitively unlikely.

I've played the Bucky to many Captain America-s, and I've played the Superman to more Jimmy Olsons than I can count. It's part of the game and it isn't offensive to me. Right now, I'm playing a Thief Acrobat alongside a Factotum, a Druid, a Conjurer and three of the latter's bound demons. Frankly, I'm thoroughly outgunned, but this isn't a game where any of us care.

And in situations where players are frustrated because they aren't good at playing strong characters in games where their friends are, I have a hard time believing the frustrated player wouldn't change -- wouldn't just ask his buddies for help.

...

...Long story short, I don't think this idea really helps with anything.

Gnaeus
2010-02-21, 01:11 PM
A game where every character must be a caster/non-caster Gestalt doesn't mean characters will be balanced, by any means.

The same problems in Optimization remain unresolved. It's just that the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighter and the Blasting Sorcerer become the same character.

...

I don't think it would be a controversial statement to say that CO is about finding synergy.

If anything, this regulated gestalt allows that to become more of a problem.

The optimized Factotum//Wizard (or Duskblade/Arcane Archer//Wizard or Monk//Druid or Eternal Blade//Wizard or MoMF//Wizard or Hexblade/Paladin of -2/Binder//Wizard or...) is able to focus his specialization far more than in a typical game. He has the potential to become drastically more powerful than normal.

The discordant Barbarian//Warmage, on the other hand, is able to spread feats and class abilities around. A Fighter who sucked at fighting in a standard game now has to spread the feats he used to suck marginally less at fighting to support his unoptimized Bard spellcasting.

Thank you Pluto. You said that better than I did. I fully agree.

Xenogears
2010-02-21, 01:26 PM
I've often wondered about whether a Paragon Choker//Warblade 17 is legal...

Assuming you mean this paragon: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm

Then No. It has no listed LA only CR increase so it is apparently not suitable for players. Unfortunately.

strider24seven
2010-02-21, 03:16 PM
To me, gestalt is more about increasing character versatility- and as such tends to be suited more to low-level, small-party games. For example, a two or three person party is going to have a hard time fighting critters, disabling traps, AND solving problems the way only casters can. Caster/noncaster also alleviates the versatility crunch by letting everyone have spells to solve problems.

At high levels, though, gestalt lends itself to some serious shenanigans that aren't possible without gestalt. A Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage can press the WIN button at level 18, but a Factotum//Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage can press multiple WIN buttons at the same time- and be a fully-functioning skill-monkey at the same time.

As a sidenote, Caster/noncaster gestalt seems like a nice restriction/rule, simply because gestalt theurges can get kind of ridiculous (Wizard//Beguiler).

Also, RHD/LA ought to be taken on one side of the gestalt tree, IMO. Otherwise, there is still no point to using most of the ECL races. Black Ethergaunts ftw:smallcool:!

GoC
2010-02-21, 07:56 PM
Assuming you mean this paragon: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm

Then No. It has no listed LA only CR increase so it is apparently not suitable for players. Unfortunately.
Not players, monsters. Would it be fair of me as DM to pit a couple of Paragon Chokers//Warblades 17 against a level 17 party?:smallbiggrin:

Godskook
2010-02-21, 08:28 PM
Wrong again. Since my point was that you can't prove the difference in overpoweredness between 2 sets of different kinds of builds, you would have to prove that optimized gestalt isn't significantly more powerful than optimized non-gestalt. If your argument is that it can be proven, pretty clearly the burden is on you.

Ahem:


Could you establish what your baseline of optimization is?

What *IS* your optimization restrictions that you want me to prove this under? RAW, or something else? Cause I can't prove anything until I know what assumptions you want me to use.

Gnaeus
2010-02-22, 12:06 PM
Ahem:

What *IS* your optimization restrictions that you want me to prove this under? RAW, or something else? Cause I can't prove anything until I know what assumptions you want me to use.

Well, in the first place, that is part of the problem in proving that it narrows the gap between optimized and unoptimized characters. An optimized character is, to put it simply, the best character (in terms of whatever you are trying to optimize, usually survivability, flexibility and/or combat power) that you can get away with playing in a given game. An optimized character in your group is probably not optimized in mine, he is either unoptimized or banned, because my DM is unlikely to be running on exactly the same set of rules that yours is. Pun-Pun is Theoretical, not Practical optimization, because even if you got a DM to allow him the game then ends almost immediately.

But to allow you a chance, I'll give you a scenario and let you try to prove your point.

Lets assume 28 point buy. All Core allowed. No Dragon Magazine, but all 3.5 books. The 10 or so most broken PRCs are banned (Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Planar Shepherd, Incantrix, etc). No infinite loops, epic anything, or effects that completely destroy normal campaign assumptions (keep within about double WBL, no wightocalypse that kind of thing.

Now lets pretend that O(ptimized) wants to play a Druid, U(noptimized) wants to play a Barbarian. O is an Uldra (with level buy off) Druid 1-20. U is a half elf, because he likes the flavor. O stats are 6, 8, 18, 10, 20, 8. U is not completely unoptimized, we will give him reasonable barb stats 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10. U will not pick the best feats, but he will pick usable ones (No endurance or skill focus, but maybe dodge or weapon focus).

DM says Spellcaster/Non-Spellcaster Gestalt.

U is now a half-elf Barbarian 1-20//Warmage 1-20. He decides that he wants to be good at blasting and fighting. His new stats are 14, 10, 14, 14, 10, 14. He spends half of his feats on melee, half on casting.

On any given round, U is EITHER a barbarian with a bad stat allocation who spent half of his feats improving his will save, OR a Warmage with a bad stat allocation who spent half of his feats on a better BaB, hp and fort save. One of his best barbarian abilities (rage) actively interferes with casting, so if he thinks he might need to cast, he can't rage. On the + side, he has the option of picking the attack that is better against a particular enemy. On the – side, he does less damage blasting than a dedicated Warmage, and less damage swinging his sword than a single class Barbarian. As he goes up in level, he spends half his income on each side, which makes him do comparatively even less damage than a single class barbarian or warmage of his ecl.

O is now a druid 1-20//Lumi/Monk 2/Fighter 1/Swordsage 2/Fist of the Forest 1/Warshaper 4/ Beastmaster 1/Hierophant 5. His new stats are 10, 6, 20, 10, 22, 8. He spends three feats entering PRCs (Great Fortitude for Fist of the Forest, Skill Focus: Handle Animal for Beastmaster, Extend Spell for Hierophant). He gains the following from his non caster side:
Improved Initiative (Lumi)
Improved Grapple (Monk)
Deflect Arrows (Monk)
Power Attack (Fighter)
Persist Spell (Hierophant)
Quicken Spell (Hierophant)
+2 Caster Level (Hierophant)
Divine reach (can use touch spells at range of 30 feet) (Hierophant)
Con and Wis to his AC (so at least +11 AC, much more after level increases and stat+ items, correspondingly high touch and flat footed AC)
Animal Companion as a 23rd level druid (Beastmaster)
+.75 BAB (3 levels of +1 assuming partial BAB progression)
14 extra skill points (Lumi, Swordsage)
More HP (better con and classes with d10s)
Cure Light Wounds and Glitterdust 3x/day each (Lumi)
Better reflex save and evasion
Immunity to all death spells & effects, energy drain, negative energy (Lumi)
Immunity to blind and dazzle and any effects using light as an attack (Lumi)
Immunity to Stunning, Critical hits (and sneak attack) (Warshaper)
Better wildshape damage (warshaper)
+4 Str and Dex (untyped) while in wildshape (Warshaper)
+5 feet reach (warshaper)
Fast Healing 2 (Warshaper)
+1 initiative (swordsage)
Assassins Stance (+2d6 sneak attack) (Swordsage)
And the following maneuvers once per battle each (Swordsage)
Distracting Ember (Flanks an opponent within 30 as a swift)
Cloak of Deception (turn invisible until end of turn as a swift)
Moment of Perfect Mind (Replace will save with concentration check as an immediate)
Mind over Body (replace fort save with concentration check as an immediate)

On any given round, O is still a druid, only better. If he sends his pet to kill you, his pet is stronger. If he casts spells, his spells have higher DC (better casting stat) +2 caster level and some bonus metamagic feats from hierophant. If he turns into an animal to eat your face, his animal is stronger, faster, with more reach, a better grapple check etc. He acts earlier in the initiative. He has some handy swift actions to help him stomp the action economy in rounds when he doesn’t have a quickened spell prepared. He is more versatile, because his innate abilities give him more flexibility in choosing his spells as he has fewer weaknesses he might need to address. And regardless of what he does he has much better defenses while he is doing it.

If you can prove that Gestalt U is better than U by more than Gestalt O is better than O, you will have gone a long way to making your point. It still doesn’t prove your entire argument, however, as it is probably possible to make a less optimized gestalt than U, or a more optimized gestalt than O.

strider24seven
2010-02-22, 03:18 PM
Don't forget to make O into a Dragonborn of Bahamut... and venerable!:smalltongue: