Gestalt for +2 LA?

[Larkas]

So, I've been thinking. Gestalt characters are undeniably more powerful than non-gestalt ones, but not powerful enough as to be incompatible with a regular game with some tweaks. Seeing as multiclassing without PrCs is usually utter bull****, what do you think about allowing gestalt as a form of multiclassing between two base classes (only) at the cost of +2 LA? What about something like Class A 2/ Class B 2/ (Class A + Class B) 16?

[hymer]

I usually allow gestalt at +2 LA, and people still do both gestalt and non-gestalt characters. In one current campaign it's instead gestalt at +1 LA, but then you can't multiclass at all. You stick to your two classes from 1 to 20. It seems to be working fine too.

Edit: Do note that I don't have players trying to break the campaign in half. Something like a Druid//wizard +1 LA boggles the mind and would technically be legal.

[ryu]

I usually allow gestalt at +2 LA, and people still do both gestalt and non-gestalt characters. In one current campaign it's instead gestalt at +1 LA, but then you can't multiclass at all. You stick to your two classes from 1 to 20. It seems to be working fine too.

Edit: Do note that I don't have players trying to break the campaign in half. Something like a Druid//wizard +1 LA boggles the mind and would technically be legal.

Two casters is actually really inefficient. It's significantly more optimized to have one active side and one passive side. Wizard plus wizard PrCs on one side with factotum on the other is much more effective for instance.

[Vaz]

Wizard 20/Cloistered Cleric 20, picking up DMM Persist is hardly having two active sides.

[ryu]

Wizard 20/Cloistered Cleric 20, picking up DMM Persist is hardly having two active sides.

Why are you wasting a whole side for free persist you could just get from Incantatrix? I mean really that's a nice trick but not something to waste a side on.

[hymer]

@ ryu: Losing a caster level for a wizard would be well worth it just for a druid's wildshape, since Natural Spell doesn't specify druid casting. Add in some long-duration buffs, a free beatstick, the druid skill list and a couple of extra points, and the chassis shoring up the closest things a wizard has to weaknesses, and you've got a wizard with far more on-the-spot versatility. And you'll easily make your 9s while having fun all the way there.
As Vaz mentions, tier1s can be passive or active as you like. Druids are particularly good at being passive.

[ryu]

@ ryu: Losing a caster level for a wizard would be well worth it just for a druid's wildshape, since Natural Spell doesn't specify druid casting. Add in some long-duration buffs, a free beatstick, the druid skill list and a couple of extra points, and the chassis shoring up the closest things a wizard has to weaknesses, and you've got a wizard with far more on-the-spot versatility. And you'll easily make your 9s while having fun all the way there.
As Vaz mentions, tier1s can be passive or active as you like. Druids are particularly good at being passive.

More actions natively with no strings attached is significantly more of a power boost than wildshape. Well assuming we aren't also investing feats into exalted/aberration wildshape as well as natural spell in which case we're losing out on casting power from wizard feats that already feel tight enough as is.

[hymer]

More actions natively with no strings attached is significantly more of a power boost than wildshape.

You'd be getting these extra actions from...?

[Vaz]

Why are you wasting a whole side for free persist you could just get from Incantatrix? I mean really that's a nice trick but not something to waste a side on.

Incantatrix is Int mod +3/day - in other words, on a typical Human Wizard, 15 Persisted Spells only. Cloistered Cleric 20/Wizard 20 has 72 Spell slots minimum. Sure, you can persist only the good ones, but you can Persist EVERYTHING that way.

I mean, if I really wanted to Persist Everything, I'd just go for Wu Jen/Incantratrix/Archmage on one side, and whatever I felt like on the other, abusing SLA Body Outside Body, Wish and Miracle.

[ryu]

You'd be getting these extra actions from...?

Factotum? You are familiar with factotums right?

[Karnith]

You'd be getting these extra actions from..?
A class with better action economy than Druid - ryu mentioned Factotum, which is the obvious one, but gestalting with a psionic class is also a pretty good source of extra actions.

Granted, you can abuse the action economy with Druid (even aside from "I have a bunch of bears") if you invest enough in it, too.

[Razanir]

@ ryu: Losing a caster level for a wizard would be well worth it just for a druid's wildshape, since Natural Spell doesn't specify druid casting. Add in some long-duration buffs, a free beatstick, the druid skill list and a couple of extra points, and the chassis shoring up the closest things a wizard has to weaknesses, and you've got a wizard with far more on-the-spot versatility. And you'll easily make your 9s while having fun all the way there.
As Vaz mentions, tier1s can be passive or active as you like. Druids are particularly good at being passive.

:smallamused: Druid//Bard. World, meet the first magical singing bear.

[Vaz]

Dovahbear? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L3DMJB8yGM)

[Larkas]

I usually allow gestalt at +2 LA, and people still do both gestalt and non-gestalt characters. In one current campaign it's instead gestalt at +1 LA, but then you can't multiclass at all. You stick to your two classes from 1 to 20. It seems to be working fine too.

Edit: Do note that I don't have players trying to break the campaign in half. Something like a Druid//wizard +1 LA boggles the mind and would technically be legal.

We're of the same mind, then. My idea is to allow it only for characters that will stick to those two classes from 1-20 only. Want to take PrCs or dips? Feel free to build a non-gestalt character, then, there are plenty of extremely powerful regular builds possible. I'm also considering opening it up only to certain combinations, a la 2E multi/dual-classing (this doesn't mean there won't be lots of combinations, it just means the most silly ones will not be possible - or at least will be sufficiently nerfed).

Anyways, what do you think of the 2/2/(16+16) approach? It is slightly more beneficial than a straight +2 LA, in that you don't lose actual HD (and anything that comes with it), and it is playable at level 1, but does it pack too little of a drawback?

[hymer]

Factotum? You are familiar with factotums right?

Indeed I am. I thought you were referring to your earlier Incantatrix. But fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not dealing with players trying to break the campaign. So I don' have to nix a Wizard//Factotum, because my players would never try it. Just looking at the publication dates shows that the factotum was not in the writers' minds when they came up with gestalt, and it's an option that should be looked very hard at before it gets allowed, even more so in a mixed gestalt-nongestalt campaign. You can end up with campaigns where everyone feels obliged to play at least partial factotum.
My worry is with people who inadverdently break the campaign, something straight druids have been known to do even more than wizards. Adding in the same thing again for a very low cost means the risk of others in the campaign feeling superfluous just gets bigger still.


Anyways, what do you think of the 2/2/(16+16) approach? It is slightly more beneficial than a straight +2 LA, in that you don't lose actual HD (and anything that comes with it), and it is playable at level 1, but does it pack too little of a drawback?

Well, when do you start being gestalt? I guess you spend your first four levels as a normal character, and then add gestalt? It could feel more painful for that period of time, at least for casters. I might be thinking I'd let people do it if they play the character from first, but give the +2 LA if you make a higher level character, though that one would need more thinking over the implications.
It depends a lot on the players, too. Some might not be looking much further ahead than five levels (or less), and so find it annoying. Some might feel it's too complicated and avoid it, but so long as those are the ones who would feel like that about gestalt, there's no real loss.

[ryu]

Indeed I am. I thought you were referring to your earlier Incantatrix. But fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not dealing with players trying to break the campaign. So I don' have to nix a Wizard//Factotum, because my players would never try it. Just looking at the publication dates shows that the factotum was not in the writers' minds when they came up with gestalt, and it's an option that should be looked very hard at before it gets allowed, even more so in a mixed gestalt-nongestalt campaign. You can end up with campaigns where everyone feels obliged to play at least partial factotum.
My worry is with people who inadverdently break the campaign, something straight druids have been known to do even more than wizards. Adding in the same thing again for a very low cost means the risk of others in the campaign feeling superfluous just gets bigger still.



Well, when do you start being gestalt? I guess you spend your first four levels as a normal character, and then add gestalt? It could feel more painful for that period of time, at least for casters. I might be thinking I'd let people do it if they play the character from first, but give the +2 LA if you make a higher level character, though that one would need more thinking over the implications.
It depends a lot on the players, too. Some might not be looking much further ahead than five levels (or less), and so find it annoying. Some might feel it's too complicated and avoid it, but so long as those are the ones who would feel like that about gestalt, there's no real loss.

Why would I Incantatrix the side opposite wizard? That's a waste of perfectly good progression.

[hymer]

Why would I Incantatrix the side opposite wizard? That's a waste of perfectly good progression.

I don't know. I was asking for clarification.
Edit: To be clear, I thought you were talking about LA +1 druid//wizard vs. wizard/incantatrix, and then suddenly brought up action economy.

[ryu]

I don't know. I was asking for clarification.
Edit: To be clear, I thought you were talking about LA +1 druid//wizard vs. wizard/incantatrix, and then suddenly brought up action economy.

Nope the full build involves wizard/minbender1/incantatrix//factotum. Either that or just factotum 8 on the one side with some warblade for more int synergy and other assorted goodies, or just factotum 8/artificer 12 for all the actions plus a disgusting amount of spell versatility from crafting.

[Larkas]

Yeah, I don't care about multiclassing + gestalting. I don't mean to be rude, but would you please limit the discussion to the relevant points I posited?

[Sliver]

My question is... Would you allow LA buyoff? :smallamused:

[Larkas]

My question is... Would you allow LA buyoff? :smallamused:

Of course not :smallbiggrin: But that's one of the reasons I'm considering the alternative to pure gestalting from character level 1!

[sideswipe]

i recently played a game of normal d&d in a kingdom building campaign. it was level 10 and each PC owned a kingdom. we were all considered a cut above the rest in our abilities. essentially this meant that we were all gestalt in a non gestalt campaign. most of the fights were around CR 10- 15 and some were higher then that. we found (an we were not an optimised party except for me) that any fight of CR 12 or less was a bit easy. so +2 LA is about right in a game against other single characters. but make sure that no characters with single classes fall to the gestalt level.

if you do this. do not allow the usual homebrew rule of LA is only on one side.

[Larkas]

i recently played a game of normal d&d in a kingdom building campaign. it was level 10 and each PC owned a kingdom. we were all considered a cut above the rest in our abilities. essentially this meant that we were all gestalt in a non gestalt campaign. most of the fights were around CR 10- 15 and some were higher then that. we found (an we were not an optimised party except for me) that any fight of CR 12 or less was a bit easy. so +2 LA is about right in a game against other single characters. but make sure that no characters with single classes fall to the gestalt level.

if you do this. do not allow the usual homebrew rule of LA is only on one side.

I'm a "you level up now" kind of DM, so I don't think that's going to be an issue, but thanks for the advice! And indeed, I don't intend to allow that houserule. You're essentially a character of the class AB, not A+B.