[3.5] Fixing Game Imbalance with Gestalt + Other Rules?

[Hunter Killer]

I've actually been thinking about ways to fix the 3.5's power levels without too radically rewriting the rules and I was thinking that gestalt is way to go, along with some other rules to tone down our friends the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

What I was thinking was:

1. Non-casters and partial casters could choose a gestalt combination to give them more abilities and generally increase saves, skills, and hit dice across the board. A small caveat: If you meld two partial casters together, you would pick which side gets spells and would not gain the progression from the other side.

2. Rangers would gain the Animal Companion progression of a Druid.

3. Druids would be forced to take the Shapeshift alternate class feature from Player's Handbook II. They would still get their Companion, but progression of the Ranger instead of the normal progression.

4. Clerics would be as the Cloistered Cleric variant from Unearthed Arcana minus the Lore, Knowledge Domain, and any Skill List/Points changes. They also get a Spells Known as a Sorcerer of their level +1.

5. If a player would like to regain 3/4 Base Attack, the d8 Hit Die, and Medium + Heavy Armor Proficiency for their Cleric, they would have the option of taking spellcasting penalties equal to the Battle Sorcerer variant feature... I guess it'd be Battle Cleric?

6. Wizards would have to choose a school to specialize in. They would not again the bonus spells, but they would get to keep the +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks. Also, the borked Celerity line of spells and Time Stop would be banned.

Any thoughts?

[gkathellar]

Wouldn't stop Tier 1 and 2 from being Tier 1 and 2. Wouldn't stop gestalt with better classes from being better than gestalt with worse classes. Only the druid takes a hit.

So, it would barely help at all.

[Raimun]

I'd rather increase the capabilities of non-casters and 4th spell level partial casters.

Perhaps other partial casters too but not that as much.

That is, I don't think gestalt solves the problem.

[Xtomjames]

Simple answer, don't allow gestalting between two spell caster levels, but do allow double prestige classes (one prestige class for each side, presuming it is either a martial/marital or martial/spellcaster combination).

Otherwise what you've said really doesn't balance anything out at all.

[Kurald Galain]

6. Wizards would have to choose a school to specialize in.
Specialist wizards are better than non-specialized wizards. Heck, focused specialists (who have to drop three schools) are probably better than specialist wizards, too.

[Boci]

Specialist wizards are better than non-specialized wizards. Heck, focused specialists (who have to drop three schools) are probably better than specialist wizards, too.

Read on, they do not gain the advantages of specializing.

Looking over this:
Druid and cleric are hit hard, so now the wizard is the best class in the game as the only core tier 1 class.

[Jack_Simth]

As listed? No, not going to function. To actually do it?

Step 1: All spontaneous casters. AKA, remove tier-1's from the game.
Step 2: Gestalt; Tier-2's Gestalt with Tier-6; Tier-3 Gestalts with Tier-5; Tier-4 gestalts with Tier-4.

You'll still have imbalance, but it'll be a bit more workable.

Link to Tier System (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)

[Hunter Killer]

Simple answer, don't allow gestalting between two spell caster levels, but do allow double prestige classes (one prestige class for each side, presuming it is either a martial/marital or martial/spellcaster combination).
Did you miss the part where I said I'd only allow non-casters or partial casters to gestalt? How about the little caveat I threw in saying that if a player was to gestalt two partial casting classes then they'd have to dump one of the spell progressions from one of the classes?

This gives the combat classes something they lack: More options. It doesn't fix the borked action economy tricks that full casters are prone to, but are you seriously telling me that a Cleric with my suggested nerfs is going to want to stare down that Monk//Ranger at most points in his career?

With the right feats and a winning initiative roll, Mr. Monk is going to move his whole speed to close the gap with Mr. Cleric, then he's going to pound Mr. Cleric's face with 10+ attacks with bonuses on To Hit and Damage.


Otherwise what you've said really doesn't balance anything out at all.
Explain to me how trading Wildshape out for Shapeshifter is not a huge step towards a more balanced Druid. Shapeshifter doesn't suck, but it's not as good as Wildshape. If you haven't, go read it. Then tell me I'm wrong.

I was considering dumping the Companion entirely, as per the actual rules of Shapeshifter, but then I decided it was a defining feature of the class and that it should stick around (albeit with a reduced progression).

Look, I'm opened to suggestions... I especially don't think I'm being hard enough on the Wizard (and maybe Druid). But you can't outright say what I posed in the top post doesn't do anything to help balance.

Wildshape gone is huge. The Cleric having to spend feats on armor as well as keep a Spells Known list is severely limiting. The Wizard being forced to give up schools without being compensated with bonus spells is also a pretty significant hit to that class.


Specialist wizards are better than non-specialized wizards. Heck, focused specialists (who have to drop three schools) are probably better than specialist wizards, too.
Again, the point would be that they would be forced to drop the schools and would not gain the bonus spells. Did you read the whole post or just skim it, because I thought I typed that out pretty clearly?

It's about cutting down options. Yes, the Wizard will still be a powerful class. I understand that. But with a lot more limited set of spells to choose from, we're making him a whole lot less versatile. He probably still needs a bigger nerf, but how isn't this stepping in the right direction.

Further Specialization and Focused Specialist would be allowed, but the number of schools you'd have to ban would stack with the schools you're forced to ban when taking your first level or Wizard. That means your Focused Specialist Evoker has to ban a total of 5 schools (Remember: There's only 8, and you can't ban Divination).

[Retech]

I personally think it would just encourage the caster classes to prove their supremacy by smacking on more broken tricks.

I only play Pathfinder, but I assume that a cleric would stare down a monk//ranger any day. (DMM comes to mind)

---

I mean, nerfing would make blasters even less playable (with everyone having a good reflex save, that traditional fireball will never do anything much), but not have a big impact on any of the no-save battlecontrol spells and various other broken combos that the casters are known for.

[Fitz10019]

You could reign in the Tier 1 casters by requiring them to multiclass. Wizards must multiclass as Sorcerers, maybe 3:1, so they'll advance slowly but have lots of low-level spell options. Clerics could be required to multiclass with the Divine Bard class (Perform:Preach to dodge the music theme) for the same effect.

Or 5:1, if 3:1's too harsh.

[Xtomjames]

Did you miss the part where I said I'd only allow non-casters or partial casters to gestalt? How about the little caveat I threw in saying that if a player was to gestalt two partial casting classes then they'd have to dump one of the spell progressions from one of the classes?

This gives the combat classes something they lack: More options. It doesn't fix the borked action economy tricks that full casters are prone to, but are you seriously telling me that a Cleric with my suggested nerfs is going to want to stare down that Monk//Ranger at most points in his career?

With the right feats and a winning initiative roll, Mr. Monk is going to move his whole speed to close the gap with Mr. Cleric, then he's going to pound Mr. Cleric's face with 10+ attacks with bonuses on To Hit and Damage.


Explain to me how trading Wildshape out for Shapeshifter is not a huge step towards a more balanced Druid. Shapeshifter doesn't suck, but it's not as good as Wildshape. If you haven't, go read it. Then tell me I'm wrong.

I was considering dumping the Companion entirely, as per the actual rules of Shapeshifter, but then I decided it was a defining feature of the class and that it should stick around (albeit with a reduced progression).

Look, I'm opened to suggestions... I especially don't think I'm being hard enough on the Wizard (and maybe Druid). But you can't outright say what I posed in the top post doesn't do anything to help balance.

Wildshape gone is huge. The Cleric having to spend feats on armor as well as keep a Spells Known list is severely limiting. The Wizard being forced to give up schools without being compensated with bonus spells is also a pretty significant hit to that class.


Again, the point would be that they would be forced to drop the schools and would not gain the bonus spells. Did you read the whole post or just skim it, because I thought I typed that out pretty clearly?

It's about cutting down options. Yes, the Wizard will still be a powerful class. I understand that. But with a lot more limited set of spells to choose from, we're making him a whole lot less versatile. He probably still needs a bigger nerf, but how isn't this stepping in the right direction.

Further Specialization and Focused Specialist would be allowed, but the number of schools you'd have to ban would stack with the schools you're forced to ban when taking your first level or Wizard. That means your Focused Specialist Evoker has to ban a total of 5 schools (Remember: There's only 8, and you can't ban Divination).

No I didn't miss it, I gave a simple answer to the balance problem. Your suggestions limit character choices for one, two by forcing a choice between spell caster spell progressions you limit spell availability and that defeats the purpose of gestalt and unbalances gestalt in the first place.

Cutting down class choices shouldn't be done centered on gestalt in this sense. It unbalances the game because you're introducing new rules that don't work with the general rules of the game and debilitate the available spell caster classes when combined. In other words for all the work you're doing in establishing the new rules to "balance the game" you're really de-balancing the game and complicating it in the first place. Rather, if you want to balance the game suggest a gestalt build system where it is a combination of a martial and spell caster class. That way you gain the strengths of both classes (as gestalt is intended to work) and you don't have any character that is purely either or. You then don't have to worry about limiting classes extensively, and you still gain the game balance you're looking for.

[Gavinfoxx]

My favorite way of creating balance in the system is just to only allow these base classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628