how good is gestalt?

[darkelf]

so, gestalt. some of the players in my group have been trying to get a gestalt campaign going for years, but its never panned out. generally because the rest of the group doesn't want to deal with the complexity of it.

i'm going to be starting a new campaign sometime, and would like to offer the option of gestalt for the players who want it. but i need to find something equivalently good for those who don't. which raises the question... how good is gestalt?

which is difficult to answer, because it depends hugely on how clever the player is with her selection of classes. but would an additional feat per two levels reasonably compensate a non-gestalt PC in a gestalt campaign? an additional ability score raise every three levels?

anyone have any ideas, or better yet, actual experience in this? thanks!

[Saito Takuji]

generally it gives more options to a character to do, and can make them more durable overall, as it takes the better saves/hit die from the classes, there are some cheesy things you can do, but those things only really happen a bit faster, as they could be multiclassed otherwise in a regular game. gestalt was meant for smaller parties mainly, to help compensate for missing members to fill in various roles

[Talya]

so, gestalt. some of the players in my group have been trying to get a gestalt campaign going for years, but its never panned out. generally because the rest of the group doesn't want to deal with the complexity of it.

i'm going to be starting a new campaign sometime, and would like to offer the option of gestalt for the players who want it. but i need to find something equivalently good for those who don't. which raises the question... how good is gestalt?

which is difficult to answer, because it depends hugely on how clever the player is with her selection of classes. but would an additional feat per two levels reasonably compensate a non-gestalt PC in a gestalt campaign? an additional ability score raise every three levels?

anyone have any ideas, or better yet, actual experience in this? thanks!

You could add both those things and it would not come close.

Let's just put it into perspective:
Sorcerer
Oracle
Paladin
Summoner
Bard

Combine any of those two in Gestalt. I particularly like Oracle//Paladin, for an Oradin build without losing levels. You're a full caster and you kick/heal ass in ways nobody else can.

You don't think that's impressive enough?

How about...
Wizard
Witch
Magus
Alchemist

or...
Cleric
Druid
Ranger
Inquisitor


Synergistic class combos allow for some awesome things. You could give a non-gestalt an extra feat and ability score point every level and it wouldn't make up for the difference.

[NightbringerGGZ]

How good a Gestalt winds up being is ultimately up to the player and the classes he combos, but it can wind up being pretty amazing. About the only thing Pathfinder has that would be equivalent would be Mythic levels, and some of those mythic abilities could outshine Gestalt builds.

Really, I'd suggest you let players know that they probably should Gestalt, and if they don't they'll fall behind the other party members. If they need help or ideas, just send them here!

[Renen]

In gestalt you can:
Cast as a wizard of your level, while having all saves at max base values (for your level), having D12 HD, and full BAB.

Alternative: Let players who arent gestating to load up on templates

[kenjigoku]

I have in the past had some players want Gestalt and other not. I used the following to help curve the power curb.

Treat each Gestalt character as though they have a +2 Level Adjustment that cannot be bought off.

Each non-gestalt player gains a feat each level and +2 skill points per level (+8 at first level). When leveling up you are allowed to roll twice on your health and take the higher of the two. Allowed non-gestalt players access to "cheesier" feat options that were not available to Gestalt characters.

[Renen]

Too bad there's no LA in PF... And I like the system too :-(

[kenjigoku]

Too bad there's no LA in PF... And I like the system too :-(

I don't see why you couldn't add it back in for the fact that I think Gestalt is also a 3.5 carryover.

[aleucard]

For a quick and dirty guesstimate, assume that any competently put together gestalt is at least 1 Tier higher than the highest Tier component class. Combining classes that are not higher because of not having things that the other class DOES have is a good way to bump 2 tiers or more, though the vast majority of these are T4 and under. Wizard//Warblade and similar are obviously going to be absolutely monstrous (while both are active mostly, they do so in vastly different ways and applications), and some surprisingly effective combos can be had (Warlock//anything with a SA equivalent, for instance) with a little thought. Probably my favorite part of the class though is how it allows certain character concepts to be massively more viable than the normal method (gish, for instance, with Knight in Shining Armor being another).

As others have mentioned, the gestalt is probably equivalent to 2 levels in the normal advancement, though several combos are probably worth more. A decent equalizer would probably be to give the non-gestalt characters more WBL than the gestalts (probably by way of tailor-made equipment, so that there's minimal chance of the item going to a gestalt without metagaming). I'm not the best person to ask for specific percentages on this, though.

EDIT: You know, I have a thought. What classes would result in at least a 1 Tier jump from gestalting them with any NPC class, save the Adept which has to be at least a 2 Tier jump? I'm thinking that Fighter//Expert may be enough for that 1 level bump, but I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

[darkelf]

what if the choice were... a) a normal PC, or... b) a gestalt PC but without the ability to use any magic items (no magic armor, no magic weapons, not even so much as a potion)?

would you obviously choose one or the other?
i'll add that this is core pathfinder, so vow of poverty is not available.

[otakumick]

so a choice between a normal character and building vow of poverty gestalt character? There are some pretty good options for building a vop gestalt character.

[ryu]

what if the choice were... a) a normal PC, or... b) a gestalt PC but without the ability to use any magic items (no magic armor, no magic weapons, not even so much as a potion)?

would you obviously choose one or the other?

And suddenly Vow of Poverty becomes relevant. Assuming you're already getting all the necessary magic effects via the magic built into a tier 1 class you should still be pretty golden. Druid//Binder comes to mind pretty hard.

[ericgrau]

I think +1 EL is suggested. Which might be enough or it may be a little tame. I think 1-2 EL is about right. The only issue with this approach is that you run into theurge syndrome for gestalts that still want to be fully specialized in X.

Maybe everyone else could simply get double class features as if gestalted with themself and a class that is identical except for a different name. Double smite uses per day (but not twice cha or damage), double fighter bonus feats, double spells per day and spells known (but not double caster level), etc. Since you can only do one thing per round, like gestalt, it shouldn't get broken as long as you don't stack bonuses.

[ryu]

I think +1 EL is suggested. Which might be enough or it may be a little tame. I think 1-2 EL is about right. The only issue with this approach is that you run into theurge syndrome for gestalts that still want to be fully specialized in X.

Maybe everyone else could simply get double class features as if gestalted with themself and a class that is identical except for a different name. Double smite uses per day (but not twice cha or damage), double fighter bonus feats, double spells per day and spells known (but not double caster level), etc. Since you can only do one thing per round, like gestalt, it shouldn't get broken as long as you don't stack bonuses.

What do you mean? You can do far more than one thing per round especially with gestalt. As a matter of fact the smart gestalts pick one active class, usually a tier one spellcaster, and a passive class that synergizes well with ability scores while granting passive extra goodies. For example wizard factotum gets heavy int synergy and also tons of free actions. Same thing for wizard and warblade pairs.

[toapat]

You know, I have a thought. What classes would result in at least a 1 Tier jump from gestalting them with any NPC class, save the Adept which has to be at least a 2 Tier jump? I'm thinking that Fighter//Expert may be enough for that 1 level bump, but I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

Except for Monk, Paladin, soulknife, Ninja, and Samurai, gestalting with the npc classes would increase the power of the T5 classes.

Of course, this is if you ignore certain very, very stupid rules of the Tier system.

[grarrrg]

And suddenly Vow of Poverty becomes relevant. Assuming you're already getting all the necessary magic effects via the magic built into a tier 1 class you should still be pretty golden. Druid//Binder comes to mind pretty hard.

*cough* Pathfinder tagged *cough*

On a related note, while LA is gone, there are still these things called 'templates'. There are nowhere near as many, but they work.
Also, if you play with the "Monster as PC rules" there's pseudo-LA (you can 'buy off' up to half your CR, but the remainder stays). Could work that in somehow.


In gestalt you can:
Cast as a wizard of your level, while having all saves at max base values (for your level), having D12 HD, and full BAB.

Barbarians don't have good Ref Saves.
Trade Barb for Ranger, and you get all good saves and d10HD with Full Bab though.

Also Synthesist//ANYTHING is pretty solid.

[ryu]

*cough* Pathfinder tagged *cough*

On a related note, while LA is gone, there are still these things called 'templates'. There are nowhere near as many, but they work.
Also, if you play with the "Monster as PC rules" there's pseudo-LA (you can 'buy off' up to half your CR, but the remainder stays). Could work that in somehow.



Barbarians don't have good Ref Saves.
Trade Barb for Ranger, and you get all good saves and d10HD with Full Bab though.

Also Synthesist//ANYTHING is pretty solid.

And? Gestalt is 3.5 too.

[grarrrg]

And? Gestalt is 3.5 too.

Yes, but the OP tagged this as a PF thread, and 3.5 gestalt can be super-mega-crazy-overpowered compared to straight PF gestalt. If we had to balance gestalt/non-gestalt in 3.5 land, you'd have to heap on a ton of potential benefits, but PF-gestalt can get by with a fair bit less.

[ryu]

Yes, but the OP tagged this as a PF thread, and 3.5 gestalt can be super-mega-crazy-overpowered compared to straight PF gestalt. If we had to balance gestalt/non-gestalt in 3.5 land, you'd have to heap on a ton of potential benefits, but PF-gestalt can get by with a fair bit less.

Okay let's get something straight here. Power in either game is based on spellcasting versatility, actions, and meticulous planning which is usually going to speak in the language of the other two. You can acquire the vast majority of that power as a single classed tier one very quickly. To people who legitimately just want power and understand where power comes from gestalt is going to stop mattering almost immediately in 3.5. In pathfinder I give it til around level five.

[ericgrau]

What do you mean? You can do far more than one thing per round especially with gestalt. As a matter of fact the smart gestalts pick one active class, usually a tier one spellcaster, and a passive class that synergizes well with ability scores while granting passive extra goodies. For example wizard factotum gets heavy int synergy and also tons of free actions. Same thing for wizard and warblade pairs.

Usually you have a swift, move and standard however you slice it. Especially in PF and especially for whatever your main action is such as casting a spell.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, but the OP tagged this as a PF thread, and 3.5 gestalt can be super-mega-crazy-overpowered compared to straight PF gestalt. If we had to balance gestalt/non-gestalt in 3.5 land, you'd have to heap on a ton of potential benefits, but PF-gestalt can get by with a fair bit less.
Given that the two games are 95% the same, how is 3.5 gestalt better than PF?

[ryu]

Usually you have a swift, move and standard however you slice it. Especially in PF and especially for whatever your main action is such as casting a spell.

You kidding? Do you have any idea the sheer wealth of spells, class features, feats, items, and even in some cases races that grant extra action economy?

One relevant action per turn is the exception. It's far from the rule.

[toapat]

PF-gestalt can get by with a fair bit less.

Conjecture is not fact. PF is more balanced but not any less disparate in terms of power. A T1 in 3.5 would not be as powerful in PF but conversely, the T5s/T4s are not really any more powerful in terms of versatility. A PF paladin has a better smite and LoH. A 3.5 Paladin can exploit all of their class features in different ways though. A PF paladin will always be one of 3 things. a 3.5 paladin can be any of 20


Given that the two games are 95% the same, how is 3.5 gestalt better than PF?

Because 3.5 has more options and barring the monk, commoner, and aristocrat, some way to make every class relevant in first party material.

[Jestyen]

You could add both those things and it would not come close.

Let's just put it into perspective:
Sorcerer
Oracle
Paladin
Summoner
Bard

Combine any of those two in Gestalt. I particularly like Oracle//Paladin, for an Oradin build without losing levels. You're a full caster and you kick/heal ass in ways nobody else can.

You don't think that's impressive enough?

How about...
Wizard
Witch
Magus
Alchemist

or...
Cleric
Druid
Ranger
Inquisitor


Synergistic class combos allow for some awesome things. You could give a non-gestalt an extra feat and ability score point every level and it wouldn't make up for the difference.

What would you recommend for bard?

[SinsI]

Make gestalt available to Tier 3+ classes. Any level they decide to take in tier 1 or 2 is a solo level.

[Akisa]

What would you recommend for bard?

Paladin, gives you a strong sync with your Spell casting by bosting your saves, D10 HD, Full Bab, and all good saves.

Oracle gives you divine spell casting.

Summoner (but that's usually cheesy for Gestalt).

[darkelf]

Make gestalt available to Tier 3+ classes. Any level they decide to take in tier 1 or 2 is a solo level.

there is, presumably, a quick and easy guide to what a tier foo class is somewhere?
quickly robin, to DDG. this?
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

[torrasque666]

I always wonder how cheesy a DM would consider a summoner if all they could use was their eidolon. But then you have the ancient half-elves running around with resilient eidolons on.

[darkelf]

And? Gestalt is 3.5 too.

yes, but this isn't a purely hypothetical question, its a real question concerning a real game i'm planning which happens to be core pathfinder. you're welcome to wander where thou shalt, of course, but its of no help to me. :smallbiggrin:

[torrasque666]

I don't suppose I could some how convince you to run this on roll20, maybe as a one shot to iron out the kinks of your system?

However, I do agree with having a limit as to what classes CAN gestalt. Otherwise you'll wind up with a party full of Wizard//Other Class as usually the best class to play anything as is Wizard. Probably nothing over tier 3, maybe not even over tier 4.

[TheOOB]

In my experiance, a party of 3 gestalt characters are roughly as powerful as a party of 4 non gestalt characters, all other factors being equal. Gestalt characters have flexibility, but their max numbers (within reason), are not really all that much higher than normal characters, and you still only have one standard action a turn.

Yes you can be a sorcerer/favored soul, be able to cast almost any spell, and have a ton of spell slots, but you'll still only get an average of 3-6 spells out in a combat, and you'll never be able to use(or need) that many spell slots. Most gestalt combos I see pair a class with powerful abilities with a class with good numbers.

Gestalt, IMO, is best when your group is too small for the type of campaign you want to run.

[ryu]

I don't suppose I could some how convince you to run this on roll20, maybe as a one shot to iron out the kinks of your system?

However, I do agree with having a limit as to what classes CAN gestalt. Otherwise you'll wind up with a party full of Wizard//Other Class as usually the best class to play anything as is Wizard. Probably nothing over tier 3, maybe not even over tier 4.

Or druids, clerics, high-op psions, high-op sorcerers, archivists, artificers, arcanists, and non-wizard warsnakes.

[Jestyen]

Paladin, gives you a strong sync with your Spell casting by bosting your saves, D10 HD, Full Bab, and all good saves.

Oracle gives you divine spell casting.

Summoner (but that's usually cheesy for Gestalt). I've never heard of a summoner

[torrasque666]

You've never heard of a Summoner in PF? AKA one of the most minionmanciest classes out there? Summon Monster and eventually Gate as SLAs?

[Jestyen]

You've never heard of a Summoner in PF? AKA one of the most minionmanciest classes out there? Summon Monster and eventually Gate as SLAs? nope but my reading comprehension fails tonight. I was thinking this was 3.5 instead of pf until I actually read the thread. My bad.....

[Ravens_cry]

What I like about gestalt is the opening up of concepts that the game otherwise has little support for.
Pathfinder Ninja//Paladin would be pretty damn sweet. Monk//Cleric could be fun too.

[deuxhero]

I'm partial to the tier based gestalting suggestion. Gives nice things to worse classes.

Fair warning: Paladin//Healer walks away WAY better than the sum of its parts if you read carefully (Gestalt isn't too classes at once, it's combining two classes, so your healer spell progression is "Paladin" spellcasting, which opens Battle Blessing+Sword of the Arcane Order). That example is only a problem in 3.5, but PF likes opening up the "*class* spells" can of worms for abilities.

[SinsI]

there is, presumably, a quick and easy guide to what a tier foo class is somewhere?
quickly robin, to DDG. this?
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

Yep. There are some discrepancies between what to consider weak tier 3 or strong tier 4, but generally 1st and 2nd tiers are set in stone - those are full casters with non-fixed spell list or those able to easily emulate it (i.e. artificier).

[ryu]

Yep. There are some discrepancies between what to consider weak tier 3 or strong tier 4, but generally 1st and 2nd tiers are set in stone - those are full casters with non-fixed spell list or those able to easily emulate it (i.e. artificier).

And the scary thing about artificer is that he gets native, easy access to all craftable spells, powers, maneuvers and other such things from whatever class lists it's cheapest to get the desired effect with. He gets access to some scary shiz entire levels before most other tier ones do.

[toapat]

Paladin, gives you a strong sync with your Spell casting by bosting your saves, D10 HD, Full Bab, and all good saves.

that would be quite redundant for the paladin half then

[NotScaryBats]

How about you can be either Gestalt, or for those who don't want to deal with the complexity, give them d12 HD, all good saves, +1 BAB/lvl, 6 Skill points/lvl, and a feat every 2 levels.

That way, they get a boost in power, maybe not commensurate to a gestalt, but aren't really left in the dust completely.

[aleucard]

How about you can be either Gestalt, or for those who don't want to deal with the complexity, give them d12 HD, all good saves, +1 BAB/lvl, 6 Skill points/lvl, and a feat every 2 levels.

That way, they get a boost in power, maybe not commensurate to a gestalt, but aren't really left in the dust completely.

Really depends on the class. That'd work for T3 on down, though. May actually make the Monk work, assuming the user gets lucky with their stat rolls.

[upho]

I'd restrict gestalt to classes of T4 or worse (all PF classes with less than 3/4 casting) and NPC classes. Combining two of those definitely wouldn't push the results higher than T3 if using PF core only. Then I'd restrict/strongly suggest the non-gestalt players choose a T3 or better class (those with 3/4 or full casting). If the players usually optimize to a somewhat equal level, you'll probably have considerably less balance problems in the party than if using no gestalt at all, making your DM job easier, at the very least. Though I'd be wary of allowing the gestalts to merge fully from level 1, since martial classes tend to be very front loaded while lacking in higher levels. Instead, I'd have the player choose one "primary" class and let them add features from their "secondary" class a bit more slowly up until gaining all features of both classes somewhere between level 10 and 15.


Fair warning: Paladin//Healer walks away WAY better than the sum of its parts if you read carefully (Gestalt isn't too classes at once, it's combining two classes, so your healer spell progression is "Paladin" spellcasting, which opens Battle Blessing+Sword of the Arcane Order). That example is only a problem in 3.5, but PF likes opening up the "*class* spells" can of worms for abilities.


And the scary thing about artificer is that he gets native, easy access to all craftable spells, powers, maneuvers and other such things from whatever class lists it's cheapest to get the desired effect with. He gets access to some scary shiz entire levels before most other tier ones do.

EDIT: This is NOT 3.5, but it's OK to talk about ANYWAY! /EDIT :smallbiggrin:

[ryu]

I'd restrict gestalt to classes of T4 or worse (all PF classes with less than 3/4 casting) and NPC classes. Combining two of those definitely wouldn't push the results higher than T3 if using PF core only. Then I'd restrict/strongly suggest the non-gestalt players choose a T3 or better class (those with 3/4 or full casting). If the players usually optimize to a somewhat equal level, you'll probably have considerably less balance problems in the party than if using no gestalt at all, making your DM job easier, at the very least. Though I'd be wary of allowing the gestalts to merge fully from level 1, since martial classes tend to be very front loaded while lacking in higher levels. Instead, I'd have the player choose one "primary" class and let them add features from their "secondary" class a bit more slowly up until gaining all features of both classes somewhere between level 10 and 15.





Ehh... Seriously guys, respect the OP, please. This is NOT 3.5! It's PF, meaning there are no such things as healer or artificer classes.

The OP has stated he explicitly doesn't care about what tangents happen. I fully respect his apathy and the freedom it offers.

[toapat]

I'm partial to the tier based gestalting suggestion. Gives nice things to worse classes.

Fair warning: Paladin//Healer walks away WAY better than the sum of its parts if you read carefully (Gestalt isn't too classes at once, it's combining two classes, so your healer spell progression is "Paladin" spellcasting, which opens Battle Blessing+Sword of the Arcane Order). That example is only a problem in 3.5, but PF likes opening up the "*class* spells" can of worms for abilities.

Without Serenity, Paladin//Healer with Battleblessing and SotAO is basically going to not function without perfect 18s in the mental stats.

[upho]

The OP has stated he explicitly doesn't care about what tangents happen. I fully respect his apathy and the freedom it offers.Oops! :smallredface: Totally missed that, sorry!

EDIT: Fixed!

[magwaaf]

i havent really worked on a build yet but basically just run magus/cavalier

all the lance challenge/charge/spellstrike/spell combat goodness.... not too mention everything else you get fromt he 2 classes