Gestalt (What are your opinions/rules on it?)

[Logic]

So, back when I was first introduced to the gestalt concept, I knew I was going to dislike it.

Minor rant on initial dislike of gestalt spoilered:
I knew I was going to dislike it as a DM because I was positive that some players were going to ask to retool their characters up as Gestalt versions, especially when we were already well into epic level, and not everyone was going to gestalt.

A few players even tried the "but it's in the RULES, you have to let us play gestalt if we want!"

So eventually, I decided to allow my players to play gestalt characters, with the following rules:

1: Everyone is gestalt, or no one is. So any one player has veto power if they didn't want the extra complications. (One player was notorious for playing ONLY psychic character classes, and was usually not inclined to branch out.)
2: No prestige class gestalt: This was intentional, as I didn't want a Mystic Theurge/Archmage messing up everything I had planned (which, other combinations broke it just as easily)
3: Once you leave gestalt, you cannot return. This was my last attempt to reign in shenanigans by those opting for early access to prestige classes. It worked for most of the group. Though some players don't build characters, but instead stat blocks, so they had their build planned out for the next 19 levels anyway.
4: Different base classes every level is not allowed. This was my ruling because I interpreted that gestalt was intended to be two base classes until you got to a prestige class, not double up every level until you have a character that is virtually everyone at once.

So, I know gestalt is fairly popular with the population of Giantitp, but what, if any, rules do you use to "balance" the gestalt mechanics?

[ArcturusV]

I haven't used it. Honestly I'm kinda squeemish about it. As a DM I'd probably only allow it for a couple of characters in very specific circumstances to make concepts that are usually a pain in the ass to acquire a bit easier. And limit them to mundane classes only.

For example, the Bayushi Deceiver. It's a pain in the ass to get into due to requiring both decent BAB and sneak attack. The class itself isn't even that powerful if it was entered at level 6.

But I'd be loathe to allow any sort of spellcaster or high power class gestalting. I'd consider it more a bonus to help out otherwise weak characters. "Oh, you want to be a monk? How about I let you be a Monk//Fighter?".

[hymer]

I think I've DM'ed for two or three gestalt characters in my games. Basically, I require them to pick two base classes and stick with them all the way - no prestige classes, no multiclassing. The idea being that they already have enough novelty just in being gestalt. Obviously this needs to be understood in advance.
In addition, gestalt characters have an added LA, so they can work alongside more usual PCs without overshadowing them.
Generally, the gestalt characters have been more versatile than outright powerful, much like multiclass characters of 2nd Ed. I don't have a lot of power gamers at my table, which helps. People make gestalts for the fun of trying something new, or to get closer to a vision that can't be fulfilled otherwise (there was a favoured soul/duskblade, for example).

[Fyermind]

Gestalt is a variant and should only be used if everyone is. I like it because I work with small groups a lot. Characters are much more interesting the more options they have available to them. Combat is more interesting and I can put the players in more situations. Particularly at low levels where I tend to play, single classed characters tend to get caught up only being good at one or two things. Gestalt characters nearly double that. They don't need to level up or acquire loot as quickly because they are more dynamic. That said, it is an entirely different game and different games are not for everyone.

[Baroncognito]

I run a Gestalt game as a back-up when we can't get enough players to do the GM's regular game. The reasoning being that I'm a fairly new GM and don't feel confident making up reasonable challenges yet, but all the modules are written for around 4 players.

I'm hoping that the Gestalt makes the characters powerful enough to make up for the shortage.

[Krazzman]

I like gestalt in theory.

Never played it though. Had some good ideas but never had a DM that allowed them.

And DMing Pathfinder I forgot to introduce it. In the current campaigns I'm in if Gestalt was in place I would instead of a Warblade/Fighter be a Warblade/Fighter//Dragonshaman or Factotum or Warlock.

Another go would be to make my Cleric2/Warlock1/Cleric2/Eldritch Disciple into a Cleric/[Cleric Prestige Class]//Warlock/Eldritch Disciple(with scratching the advancing Cleric stuff).

Since this is all theory I can't tell you which rules I would use, depends on the DM or what I have in mind for my Campaign to go.

[Pilo]

I don't really like gestalt as a player and I hate it as a DM.

Player point of view:
First I think gestalt should be reserved to experienced players. Some gestalt associations give you a lot of abilities, newbies and even players with a little experience can get lost.

You have to pick two classes with synergies to avoiding getting MAD and independants but not mutualy exclusive abilities. A barbarian/wizard get full bab, lots of HPs and spells, but raging prevents you to cast so it is a bad choice. Furthermore that character needs high Str, Dex, Con and Int. That is hard to get.

If your party have got more than 3 players, there will probably is overlaping character roles, it is sometime good but shy players might do nothing and getting bored. It is like being a standard fighter in a party with a Conjurer, a summoner druid and a warblade. You are useless.

However it is easier to make a character matching the one you have in mind while starting the game. If you are not a good optimiser, you can make some INSANE combo that will blow your mind.

DM point of view:

Your players are too strong for the monsters or the regular BBEG you created before, chalenging them is hard and require a lots of work. Pre-written scenarii are no longer adapted to your party.

And upgrading regular monsters might get lethal really fast.

The game might get slower as your players have more options and will take more time to choose what to do.

[Drelua]

I like gestalt, but only for really small parties. We had a group of 5 or 6 once and we really just started getting in each other's way. I can't remember what we were doing exactly, but I was playing a Fighter//Rogue and my brother was a Ranger//Rogue, so when I said 'I'll do this', my brother basically said 'good idea, I do that'. I told him that it was my idea and I already said my character was doing it, and the DM told me to just let him do it. :smallmad:

So basically, it only works when it's either a really small group or everyone's careful not to step on anyone else's toes. Even if that hadn't happened, there'd still be a problem with us both wanting to do the same thing, and we just looked at whoever had the higher modifier, meaning the other guy had to sit back and watch someone else do his job because they're slightly better at it. If you can avoid conflicts like that, I find it makes for a more realistic character in that they have a wider skill set, like a fighter that can do something other than hit things with sharp things.

For the rules, we just didn't allow any theurge classes, but multiclassing and PrCs were otherwise completely unrestricted. It generally worked out pretty well because no one in my group is really interested in building complicated characters, but I guess it could be abused. If you want a low powered campaign, you should probably either avoid gestalt or restrict classes if you think your group would take advantage of it.

[Boci]

Racial hitdie is gestalt-able, LA is also gestalt-able, but must be applied evenly to both progressions. So if George wants to make a 10th level wizard//fighter and decides to go with a race that has 6 racial hitdie and 6 LA, with the fighter levels carrying as much of the weight as possibly, he would end up with:

Fighter 1 / Racial hitdie 6 / LA 3
Wizard 7 / LA 3

[Kasbark]

I've only tried Gestalt once, in a game i currently DM (running on session 21) for a recurring villain. Not the BBEG, but an enemy the players have encountered a few times now, but not all encounters have ended in combat.

He is a Monk//Sorceror, and i think it works fine for him.

If i ever where to allow it for my players, it would be with the following rules:

No multiclasing
No Prestige classes
+1 LA (it might just come in effect at level 3 or 4, and it would be without LA buyoff)

[Boci]

No multiclasing
No Prestige classes
+1 LA (it might just come in effect at level 3 or 4, and it would be without LA buyoff)

The fist 2 rules seem harsh to me, but its really just an alternative playstly.e The last one however seem pointless. By all means adjust the encounters to take into account the PCs new abilities, but don't actually make them right down 1LA on their character sheet, it acheives nothing and had the potential to annoy them. Yeah, player psyche is wierd.

[hymer]

it acheives nothing and had the potential to annoy them.

I think the intent is to achieve closer parity with non-gestalts.

[b300mussolini]

so i am going to toss my hat into this ring. First off i have only introduced to Rp in general about 5 months ago (unless you count WoW, which i don,t) and because it was a group of close friends of mine who decided to hey let have our own D&d campaign and they all hate DMing i ended up being the DM. so take my advice as you like, just note i probably have no right to give advice on a topic.

so i have been running a gestalt campaign for the last 2.5 months now and here is a few things that i have noticed and hope will help other DMs with gestalt stuff.

1) the CR of a monster a party of gestated chars. can handle compared to a party of normal chars. is CR+1 (+2 if the monster mainly depends on failed save to kill, ex stuff like mummies).

now what i did is i counted the monster as having CR-1 when it came to handing out rewards like EXP and loot. or i when ever i used a monster that was based on having class levels (like when the party fights an elf or human) i made the monster gestalted.

2) if your going to run a gestalt campaign do it in 3.5 rather then pathfinder or atleast use the 3.5 skill sheet and allow a lot of content. this helps prevent players from stepping on each others toes to much. the larger list of skills need when you use the 3.5 char sheet to do the same things on the pathfinder one meant that it ate up a lot more ranks so the players could still have there own fields of expertise that you can throw a bone at and give them time to shine.

3) back hand bitch slap down any thoughts of that theurge thing. and any classes that give the same ability but at different lvl intervals. my rouge/(forget the second part atm) found another class that give sneak attack dice but on the even/odd level interval so he was gaining a sneak attack dice every level. it would have gotten stupid fast cause i think the class could do something with a tumble check that would let it flank with itself.

4) don't allow players to sub out abilities from there classes. maybe this one is just me. but i had a player that i swear does not have a single original class ability left and she keeps asking to change stuff around and i just cant keep what she has/doesn't have straight :smallfrown: . i would love to look at her Char sheet but my players have told me DM's can't do that.

5) NOTES ARE IMPORTANT, i don't know how important notes are in a normal D&D game for a DM but i was kicking myself for not having notes on what my players could and could not do for the first few fights when they kept one shooting my boss/sub bosses. basically when it comes to monsters that you want to be hard for the party they have to be pretty well rounded.

anyway i hope this helps anyone

[nobodez]

I like gestalt, but only for really small parties. We had a group of 5 or 6 once and we really just started getting in each other's way. I can't remember what we were doing exactly, but I was playing a Fighter//Rogue and my brother was a Ranger//Rogue, so when I said 'I'll do this', my brother basically said 'good idea, I do that'. I told him that it was my idea and I already said my character was doing it, and the DM told me to just let him do it. :smallmad:

Wow, that's more of a OOC problem than a problem with Gestalt. Mind, I'd love the ability to have a "flanking conga line of death" with a pair of full SA rogues that also had full BAB.

I would have built me rogue to do something different from the other rogue (so if he's the trap finder, I'd be the acrobatic sneaky guy).

[prufock]

I've never actually played a gestalt game, however I like the idea in a couple circumstances.

1. Small party (1 or 2 players). Gestalt seems like a good idea so that all the primary party roles are filled. Not that it's impossible to do this without gestalt, but it seems like it would require less fidgeting with PrCs and stuff.

2. Party balance. One of JaronK's options for balancing an uneven party (by tier) is to allow partial gestalt for lower-tiered classes. On the surface it seems like this might work pretty well.

[nobodez]

About the only reason I'd run Gestalt is if I were melding genres.

By that, I mean that if I were to run another Dragonstar game, or perhaps if I were to run a Shadowrun ersatz, I'd use d20 Modern gestalted with D&D or Pathfinder.

If i were running a high magic campaign another option would be to have a full casting class required to be gestalted with a non-casting class (so wizard//rogue or druid//monk).

[Raineh Daze]

I think it's fun, if messy. My experience of it involves a huge amount of homebrewed stuff, though... and one of the characters in the party is a huge crab. There's also a necromancer brain in a jar. This is a party of monsters, which might explain why the ghostly god is the most human thing there. :smallbiggrin:

From memory, the races represented: brain in a jar, some sort of fiend, a genie, god/ghost, giant crab, marilith, blink dog (I think?), and a succubus/eldritch abomination that's the god's sister. Fun. :smallbiggrin:

[laeZ1]

I've never had to DM a gestalt game, and I've only been a player in such a game once. My DM warned us that it wasn't how people normally ran Gestalt (and as such, I do not know the way most people do) With three players, we were able to have a fully functioning party.

The way he ran gestalt was you had to take a base class and have it as your "backbone class". Every time you level, you gain the spells and special abilities of that class, but not the skill points, hit points, saves, or base attack bonus.

For instance, my character's backbone class was cleric (protection and water domains). And I put levels into bard, and eventually negotiator (PrC from dragonstar), and had all my abilities, BAB, saves, skill points, bardic music, bard spells, (etc.) but I was still a spellcaster as if I had put all of my levels into cleric, and could turn undead (or fire creatures) as a cleric of my character level.

Ultimately, it was a higher powerlevel of playing (even for someone like me who doesn't really care about character optimization). Something I would add to your list of rules is your backbone class has to be a different style class than the ones you take levels in. (No divine class with backbone of another divine class, or worse: no psionic class with backbone of psionic). When Gestalting, people generally have two choices: pick simular classes (thereby almost doubling their effectiveness), or picking different classes (expanding the options of the group).

^ my 2cp

[Boci]

I've never had to DM a gestalt game, and I've only been a player in such a game once. My DM warned us that it wasn't how people normally ran Gestalt (and as such, I do not know the way most people do) With three players, we were able to have a fully functioning party.

The way he ran gestalt was you had to take a base class and have it as your "backbone class". Every time you level, you gain the spells and special abilities of that class, but not the skill points, hit points, saves, or base attack bonus.

For instance, my character's backbone class was cleric (protection and water domains). And I put levels into bard, and eventually negotiator (PrC from dragonstar), and had all my abilities, BAB, saves, skill points, bardic music, bard spells, (etc.) but I was still a spellcaster as if I had put all of my levels into cleric, and could turn undead (or fire creatures) as a cleric of my character level.

Ultimately, it was a higher powerlevel of playing (even for someone like me who doesn't really care about character optimization). Something I would add to your list of rules is your backbone class has to be a different style class than the ones you take levels in. (No divine class with backbone of another divine class, or worse: no psionic class with backbone of psionic). When Gestalting, people generally have two choices: pick simular classes (thereby almost doubling their effectiveness), or picking different classes (expanding the options of the group).

^ my 2cp

I'd be skeptical of that system, simply because sorceror and wizards become the perfect backbone class. Everything you lose is worse of its kind. Worse skill alottment, worse BAB, worse hitpoints. The only thing worth a tear are a few of the class skills.

Which brings me to another problem. Say I go Cleric / Fighter. Great, I do not have spellcraft or concentrate as a class skill.

Interesting compromise between regular play and gestalt, but I'm not convinced it works that well.

[Drelua]

Wow, that's more of a OOC problem than a problem with Gestalt. Mind, I'd love the ability to have a "flanking conga line of death" with a pair of full SA rogues that also had full BAB.

I would have built me rogue to do something different from the other rogue (so if he's the trap finder, I'd be the acrobatic sneaky guy).

That was pretty bad DMing, but I guess the alternative was ''I do this,'' ''oh yeah, I can do that!'' ''too bad, I'm doing it'' ''oh, okay...''

Still screws someone over. I guess it would have been better if we coordinated our characters, which we really should have since we all made them around the same table since most of my group needs help making a character. Of course, by the time my brother picked a couple classes we already pretty much had one of everything, which is why I think gestalt should be saved for groups of 2 or 3.

And yeah, we were pretty deadly. The group of us made quick work of that CR 20 Daemon thing that I'm too lazy to look up. Then again, we got pretty messed up by a horned devil. That's what we get for having next to no ranged attackers, I guess.

[Keneth]

I don't allow gestalt characters in my games, and I don't want to play in any games that do allow them. Simple as that.

The only time I would consider allowing someone to gestalt is if someone decided to play a T5 or lower in party of T1s. And even then I'd only allow them a single T3 or lower class from which they can choose their gestalt options at any given level.

D&D games are already ridiculous enough as it is, they don't need to get more so by letting characters ignore all their weaknesses.

[Amnestic]

My version of how you do saves/BAB seems to differ from the one that commonly gets provided. Some people say Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 gives you +20 BAB. I say "no". I say it gives you +10 BAB. Every level up, you work out which side individually has the greater BAB and use that side's total. Ditto for saves.

I'm not sure if that's a houserule or just a different interpretation, but that's how I run it.

Theurgic classes are outright banned in my gestalt. If you want to be a Theurge, you can go straight Wizard//Cleric or Wizard//Psion or whatever.

Level Adjustment/RHD are all taken on one side of the gestalt, and LA Buyoff is not allowed.

I think that's about it.

[dascarletm]

My version of how you do saves/BAB seems to differ from the one that commonly gets provided. Some people say Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 gives you +20 BAB. I say "no". I say it gives you +10 BAB. Every level up, you work out which side individually has the greater BAB and use that side's total. Ditto for saves.


I think the best method is just doing fractional BaB. Which is what it really is, but just rounded. So the above example would be 10.5 (rounded down as always) still 10.

That way you don't end up with a Wizard 10/sorcerer 10//archivist 10/cleric 5/druid 5 with a BaB of 5

[Logic]

About the only reason I'd run Gestalt is if I were melding genres.

By that, I mean that if I were to run another Dragonstar game, or perhaps if I were to run a Shadowrun ersatz, I'd use d20 Modern gestalted with D&D or Pathfinder.

If i were running a high magic campaign another option would be to have a full casting class required to be gestalted with a non-casting class (so wizard//rogue or druid//monk).

I'm actually preparing a D20 Future/Pathfinder hybrid where everyone will gestalt one class from each source every level. It fits the game I want to run the best.

[Black Jester]

I haven't run any non-Gestalt D&D games in four or five years. I wouldn't want to. I don't play in non-Gestalt D&D groups any more. The characters are too one-dimensional, stereotypical and dull fur my taste.

When it comes to the rules, gestalt rules are a fixed element of the houserules I usually use (and always heavily support, even when I do not run the game); the way I implement this is: there are too kinds of player characters: heroes and spellcasters. Heroes use usual gestalt rules (and gain a few other advantages) with a few limitations (no spellcasting beyond spell level four, each class can only be taken on one gestalt branch, multiclassing penalties apply and are calculated for each branch separately).
Spellcasters are also built on gestalt rules, but can only take NPC classes (which includes level adjustment and racial hitdice); the tier one classes are even more limited and are automatically gestalted with Commoner (there are also a few more nerfs for spellcasters in place, however).
There are also 'honorary Heroes' like Duskblades and Bards, who can take a 'real' class on each even character level (as long as that class has no spells of its own).
It works pretty well, is way better balanced than standard D&D (even though that was mostly unintentional) and shifts the focus of the game aways from wizards and the like to those characters who actually deserve it.

[ksbsnowowl]

Racial hit die is gestalt-able, LA is also gestalt-able, but must be applied evenly to both progressions. So if George wants to make a 10th level wizard//fighter and decides to go with a race that has 6 racial hitdie and 6 LA, with the fighter levels carrying as much of the weight as possibly, he would end up with:

Fighter 1 / Racial hitdie 6 / LA 3
Wizard 7 / LA 3
This.
You still take the full LA, but you don't get penalized by having to take it double, and it isn't completely mitigated as a balancing factor as if you were to allow it to be paired with class levels the whole way.

If you have an odd number, that one odd level adjustment can be paired with a class level (or RHD if you have that).


My version of how you do saves/BAB seems to differ from the one that commonly gets provided. Some people say Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 gives you +20 BAB. I say "no". I say it gives you +10 BAB. Every level up, you work out which side individually has the greater BAB and use that side's total. Ditto for saves. Each individual save, but yes, this is how I run it too.


That way you don't end up with a Wizard 10/sorcerer 10//archivist 10/cleric 5/druid 5 with a BaB of 5 That build wouldn't have a BAB of 5 in the system he's describing, it would have a BAB of +11 (Archivist has +5, Cleric adds +3, and Druid adds +3). Basically, total up the BAB for each "side," and use the better one (I know gestalt doesn't technically have "sides," but it is the best way to think about it and handle it if you allow multiclassing). Do the same for your Fort save, then your Ref save, and finally your Will save.

I've been running a Gestalt game for the last three years, and have advanced my party from 1st to 14th level. Some groups seem to completely disregard some of the limiting aspects of the Gestalt rules; to that I say, "don't."

Make the whole party gestalt, or no one is. Mixing isn't going to work out very well. My campaign world for this game was designed to be a gestalt world from the very start. Sure, there are non-gestalt NPC's in the world... lots of them. But the big movers and shakers are gestalt, just like the heroes.

Enforce the "no double progression of the same class feature" clause. Someone is a Rogue 20//Swashbuckler 1/Rokugan Ninja 19? He has 10d6 sneak attack, not 20d6. He can't advance sneak attack faster than normal.

Same thing goes for a Wizard 20//Fighter 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5. He wasted a whole bunch of his levels, because he sure as hell doesn't cast as a 35th level wizard.

No "theurge" classes on one side of the character. No, we won't be having a Cleric 3/Druid 17//Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 7/Arcane Hierophant 10 that has 20th level Wizard casting, 20th level Cleric casting, and 17th level Druid casting/wildshape. I still allow the Theurge PrC's, but they take up both "sides" of the character. So, if such a class has a really good ability that a player still wants, he can get it, but it "costs" both sides for the level they take it. I have a Druid//Sorcerer who did that with Arcane Hierophant. It basically put him down 1 BAB from what he would normally be, but he got a companion familiar out of it.

Don't allow the stacking features of the "gestalt feats" to function. Things like Swift Ambusher, etc. But do allow the unique properties of the feats to work. Swift hunter would still allow you to apply skirmish to crit-immune favored enemies, but would not stack Ranger and Scout levels to determine Favored Enemy and Skirmish values. Ascetic Mage would still base the Monk's AC bonus on Charisma, for another example. But the class feature stacking would get nuts. I had a new player come in that didn't pay attention to this guideline of mine, and wanted daring outlaw for his Swashbucker//Rogue... so he would basically have double the sneak attack his character level should have. Yeah... no.

I agree with what someone suggested above; treat all monsters as a CR one lower than their listed CR (or two, in the case of save-inducing foes). This keeps your XP advancement on par with a normal game pace. One MAJOR exception... do NOT treat a Wight as if it were a CR 2 creature; keep it as a CR 3. My first and only TPK so far...

Also, don't be afraid to gestalt a few exceptional monsters. Just last week my PC's were fighting a War Troll (Monstrous Humanoid 12//Scout 12). He was much more interesting and difficult than a straight-up War Troll, and that's not even an "optimal" example.

Another DM observation... More classes means it is more likely that several of your PC's pick up Uncanny Dodge and the improved version; this makes sneak attack a mostly useless tactic for your bad guys. (This may be overly influenced by the Viking theme of my game; Barbarians or Rogues comprise 3/4 of my players.)

That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something else tomorrow.

[Amnestic]

Each individual save, but yes, this is how I run it too.

I should've been clearer - yes, each individual save :smalltongue:

Edit: Wow, screwed up that post something afwul.

[Greenish]

When Gestalting, people generally have two choices: pick simular classes (thereby almost doubling their effectiveness), or picking different classes (expanding the options of the group).Picking similar classes doesn't increase your effectiveness much, picking complementary ones does.


Of course, by the time my brother picked a couple classes we already pretty much had one of everything, which is why I think gestalt should be saved for groups of 2 or 3.One of everything? That was a pretty huge group, then. :smalltongue:


Some people say Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 gives you +20 BAB.Does anyone actually play like that? I mean, the fractional BAB and saves rules are right there on the same page, obviously intended for use with gestalt.

[Amnestic]

Does anyone actually play like that? I mean, the fractional BAB and saves rules are right there on the same page, obviously intended for use with gestalt.

The amount of times I've seen it stated/"recommended" on the Playground indicates that some people do. At least, in theory?

[molten_dragon]

It definitely makes for really powerful characters, and I've always wanted to try it because of that.

However I can definitely see how it would make things complicated for a DM, and gestalt characters would be really complicated to build and play, so they wouldn't be great for people who aren't very familiar with the game or the rules.

[Drelua]

One of everything? That was a pretty huge group, then. :smalltongue:

Not really, we were playing pure pathfinder when we started, so that's only like 16 classes at the time. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, if I remember right, which I might not since it was well over a year ago, it was a Druid//Ranger, a Sorcerer//...Fighter(?), a Monk//Barbarian DMPC and my Fighter//Rogue. I think he was the last to pick a class, and we already had 2 casters, an archer, a skillmonkey and a couple melees, counting some more than once of course. My DM and I seem to be the only ones that realize a class doesn't tell you what role you have to fill, so... :smallannoyed:

That one terribly handled situation aside, it really wasn't anyone's fault we overlapped like that, especially since only one of us likes casters. Even the druid wasn't really played as a caster, although it would have been nice not to have a DMPC.

[ksbsnowowl]

I should've been clearer - yes, each individual save

I assumed that's what you meant; just wanted to be clear on my end.

I thought of one more caveat... It's really an expansion upon the "no more than one level's worth of advancement at a time" rule... A Warblade 20//Wizard 20 has an initiator level of 20, not 30.

Also, thought I would reiterate the advice given above, to make sure your classes are complimentary. This isn't a necessity by any means, merely good advice. Having one active set of abilities and one passive set will help you get the most out of a character.

Sometimes you can get two classes to compliment more than they would normally, due to feats and other abilities. I have a Druid//Sorcerer in my game. Two casting classes are generally both active, but they have complimentary buffing abilities that stack to great heights, and he took arcane strike to give his arcane spells a passive, free action outlet that enhances his wild shape attack forms (an arcane striking pouncing tiger is a horror to behold).

My Barbarian//Beguiler had a harder time of that, as he chose two classes that would help cover the faults of the other (disparate saves, skills, and HD), but he was initially forced to play as a Mage (his primary desire), or turn it off by Raging for his most optimal melee abilities. It took him a while, but he has found a good balance between the two, and he buffs up with mirror image and displacement, and now has Arcane Strike to find another way to passively use his spellcasting. He took 3 levels of Duskblade on his Barb side, so now he can also channel spells, though there aren't many options (touch of idiocy, I think is the only one). Edit: also inevitable defeat and overwhelm.

[Talothorn]

4) don't allow players to sub out abilities from there classes. maybe this one is just me. but i had a player that i swear does not have a single original class ability left and she keeps asking to change stuff around and i just cant keep what she has/doesn't have straight :smallfrown: . i would love to look at her Char sheet but my players have told me DM's can't do that

Wow. That.
Your players are incorrect. The DM not only CAN look at any characters character sheet, at any time, ever, it is really part of his job to look at those sheets and approve them and make sure that the player isn't making a mistake or changing things illegally. I always provide my DM with a copy of my character sheet, and when I DM, which I usually do, I make my players all provide me a copy of their sheet. that is how you provide a good selection of challenges, rewards, and encounters based on those characters.

If I tried what to tell my DM that he could not see my character sheet I would expect him to deny me any special requests I ever made, and make me roll a single class, phb only character with npc array for stats. And no spellcasters, either. Or, worse, very very strict with the spellcasters (i.e. "okay wizard, what spells are you studying today. Okay, cleric, what spells are you praying for. Roleplay that.")

Back on topic, I allow gestalt in my games with the following limits:
At least one side must be a base class.
No cleric//cleric shenanigans
No theurgey classes until epic levels
caster level can't be higher than character level (from multiple classes or prestige classes that build the same casting class)

I don't think gestalt characters unbalance a campaign, because even with more options you don't get more actions. The biggest difference is you have some higher saves, and sometimes more spells per day. This has never caused a problem in my games. the biggest problem I've ever seen is it takes people more time to decide on their actions, which I have been able to eliminate (or at least mitigate) with rules about how long you have for your turn, and enforcing that casters know the details about their spells when their turn comes around (have the book open to the page, at least).

Yes, I agree with counting CR as one lower for xp, though. Usually not for planning encounters, it is more useful (IMHO) to try to play the monsters harder/better instead of using higher CR and being forced to play them easier.

[Darius Kane]

I almost never not use gestalt in my games. I have a few houserules for it tho:
- levels in tier 1-2 classes take both sides of the gestalt;
- I allow taking prc's on both sides simultaneously;
- dual casting prc levels take both sides of the gestalt;
- some prc's aren't allowed/take both sides of the gestalt;

[AttilaTheGeek]

I let theurge classes go, but they have to have both requirements on the same side. For example, a 16th level gestalt build could be Wizard 3 / Cleric 3 / Mystic Theurge 10 / Wizard 4 // Fighter 20, and it would have 16th level Cleric casting, 17th level Wizard casting, and full BAB. Wizard 3 / MT 10 / Whatever 7 // Cleric 3 / Whatever 17 is not a valid build.

Personally, I really like gestalt. It makes classes like Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight irrelevant, and it means MT and EK builds can function before levels 7-10.

[ShadowFireLance]

I like Getstalt, a lot, Heck, I like Tristalt (Three, In place of 2) Classes, better, As a Dm, It's No Double Advancing, Unless it's both sides, and otherwise, You're free! :smallcool:

[killem2]

I plan on trying gestalts in a new campaign I'll be trying, where any class that says it gains its spells or it's abilities tell it to draw from a sorcerer/wizard/cleric/druid/psionic class list, doesn't have those abilities anymore.

Based on the thread where magic is lost from the world, I want these players to try and build something from that.

[Ravens_cry]

I like gestalt because it opens up new concepts the game doesn't offer much support for. Divine and stealth striker isn't well supported, but is simplicity itself in gestalt.

[ZamielVanWeber]

With gestalt prestige classing is fine, as long as you forbid ANY of the bridge prestige class. Sticking to main class only if perfectly fair though; it feels like a prestige class you enter at L1.

[Greenish]

With gestalt prestige classing is fine, as long as you forbid ANY of the bridge prestige class.What do you mean?

[ZamielVanWeber]

The various theurge classes, and the similar martial/magic ones. If you permit those you do get the awkard bit of Wiz3/Cleric3/Mystic Theurge 7/Wiz advancing PRC 7 for a 10th level character with 17th level Wizard casting. We always call them Bridging Classes in my group.

[Greenish]

The various theurge classes, and the similar martial/magic ones. If you permit those you do get the awkard bit of Wiz3/Cleric3/Mystic Theurge 7/Wiz advancing PRC 7 for a 10th level character with 17th level Wizard casting.What, no. That's not how it works, you can't get two levels of wizard casting from one level in gestalt (because you take the better advancement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm), instead of stacking them together).


We always call them Bridging Classes in my group.Which doesn't mean that everyone else is going to understand the term.

[ArcturusV]

That and what you linked to also says you can only have one PrC per level. Which is a rule that seems ignored when I look at a lot of Gestalt characters in recruitment sections and such.

So you couldn't go Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 7//Wizard 3/Wizard PrC here 7, because having one PrC negates your ability to take another on the same level.

Though the "better advancement" also applies, as it mentions if you have two classes that share a feature (They call out Uncanny Dodge, but ___ class spellcasting definitely could apply), you only advance at the best rate. So you'd never beat the base wizard's spellcasting of +1/level, every level. The trick would be to pick something like the Mystic Theurge, and on levels where you gain Divine magic, take Wizard, and when you'd gain Arcane Magic, take Cleric.

[ericp65]

My gut reaction is that gestalt scares the Baator out of me as being OP (first glance at Factotum gives me the same feeling), but I probably haven't considered ways to balance it in a campaign.

[ksbsnowowl]

My gut reaction is that gestalt scares the Baator out of me as being OP (first glance at Factotum gives me the same feeling), but I probably haven't considered ways to balance it in a campaign.

There are lots of good ways to balance it. However, the boards just ate my nice long response giving examples of such. I'll try to reply later and expound on them again.

[Deepbluediver]

A few players even tried the "but it's in the RULES, you have to let us play gestalt if we want!"

It's called out as a variable option for specific situations, along with pretty much everything else in UA. In general, I'm not a fan of rule 0 and I think the DM should look for ways to allow players to try out new things, or at least have a good reason for barring them. But they still have the final say on game parameters, since the world is basically theirs to create.


2: No prestige class gestalt:
I had this conversation recently in another thread- Mystic Theurge and other "double prestige classes", such as the Arcane Knight, are specifically called out as being un-gestalt-able. Of course, the power of PrCs varies every bit as much as the power of base-classes, so this blanket ruling is only about as effective as anything else in the RAW.


4: Different base classes every level is not allowed.
That seems fair, but not as much in conjunction with your Rule #1. If a player wants to optimize his build by taking half a dozen one or two level dips, a gestalted build of just 2 other classes can be a good way for a less experienced/skillful/dedicated player to get some parity in the game.


So, I know gestalt is fairly popular with the population of Giantitp, but what, if any, rules do you use to "balance" the gestalt mechanics?

The same rule that was always used for all our games (or at least anything intended to be longer than a one-shot): you need to submit your plan to the DM for approval ahead of time.

And then basically it was up to the DM to compare the potential Gestalt classes to whatever else was going and see if it would fit.

So a Wizard/Druid gestalt in a party full of monks and fighters would get shot down, but a Paladin/Bard going into Mystic Theurge would probably be acceptable.

[ksbsnowowl]

There are lots of good ways to balance it. However, the boards just ate my nice long response giving examples of such. I'll try to reply later and expound on them again.

These answers won't be near as complete as they were the first time; blame the internet troglodites.

Gestalt PC's will have higher saves, HP's, attack and damage, and likely a higher AC (due to more buff spells). There are ways to balance encounters with these things in mind.

Use higher CR monsters (i.e. - lower the effective CR of every monster by 1 or 2). You get to use scarier monsters sooner!

Use Gestalt NPC's. A Wizard//Cleric will have more HP's and AC than a straight-classed wizard, as well as a better Fortitude save, which will help with survivability, even if only for a few more rounds.

Use Gestalted monsters. This is easier if the monster in question has a CR that is pretty close to its number of Hit Dice; a 12 HD, CR 12 War Troll is easy to gestalt with 12 class levels. Other monsters, with disparate CR and HD numbers, can be more difficult to gestalt in a balanced way, but if the monster's HD exceeds its CR, you could always just gestalt a number of levels equal to its CR. A 20 HD, CR 12 dragon could easily have 12 levels of Wizard or Cleric gestalted on one side, and none of the creature's numbers would change, except for adding spellcasting, turn undead and/or bonus feats. A lot of Undead can benefit from this treatment as well, but in most cases you'd have to fiddle with their base numbers (increasing BAB and saves).

Use more monsters, but keep in mind that several monsters much below the party's level will often have a hard time hitting the PC's. You also need to try and counter mass damage Area of Effect spells that can hurt most of your little horde.
One really good monster that can fill this role are the Legion Devils from Fiendish Codex 2. Thirty Legion Devils is a Gestalt EL 12 or so, but their abilities mean each one gets +120 to hit, and they will be difficult to take down, despite each individual being weak.


Lastly, force your PC's to burn through some of their resources to overcome obstacles and puzzles. This can be difficult, as higher level gestalt PC's, just like any higher level party, can often set the terms of their adventuring day (the "15 minute adventuring day"), so forcing them to use some of their abilities to overcome things to even GET TO the BBEG can help mellow out their nova ability.