Idea for gestalt progression as a character option?

[Crake]

So I just had an idea for a gestalt progression option for non-gestalt games, or at least games where gestalt isnt the standard.

The general idea would work as such: players can, if they so choose, gestalt levels in place of gaining levels, with each gestalt level costing half the xp needed for that level +1. So for example, if you wanted to get your first gestalt level, it would cost 500 xp, the second would cost 1000, third would cost 1500 etc, obviously only up to your character level. Obviously players opting to level up their gestalt side would end up a little behind, but since their ECL does not increase with gestalt levels, they would remain a steady portion of xp behind, not falling too far back.

Does this sound balanced as a potential character building option if everyone had the same option? Or would one option be clearly better? The idea is that you can choose whether or not to level up your gestalt side, so you could be a level 10 character with only your first level gestalted if you wish. Or you could be a full gestalt level 8//8 character for roughly the same amount of xp.

I want to get it to the point where either option is a decent choice, and not one or the other being an overwhelmingly better option. This would also work for LA, as you could "buy" your LA using the gestalt side, rather than your normal character level side. Thinking now, I suppose it kinda resembles multiclassing from previous dnd generations? What does the playground think?

[Immabozo]

One question. Why? What does this add to the character? You will either have people abusing this idea to gain bonus EXP by remaining a level or two behind, while gaining a lot of power, or people will ignore it as an unnecessary complication.

[Troacctid]

I'm not sure I like having it be something you decide on a level-by-level basis. It's way too much math figuring out whether it's better to gestalt your level or just gain a full level. The complexity would be a big turn-off for me. As a player, I'd be much happier with something simpler like "You can be a gestalt character in exchange for +2 LA" or "Here, have this homebrew omni-theurge prestige class that requires 3 levels each in any two base classes A and B and progresses them both using the gestalt rules."

[Crake]

One question. Why? What does this add to the character? You will either have people abusing this idea to gain bonus EXP by remaining a level or two behind, while gaining a lot of power, or people will ignore it as an unnecessary complication.

I dunno, I just kinda like gestalt I guess, and would like to give people a somewhat balanced option for gestalt advancement beyond "everyone or no-one is gestalt"


I'm not sure I like having it be something you decide on a level-by-level basis. It's way too much math figuring out whether it's better to gestalt your level or just gain a full level. The complexity would be a big turn-off for me. As a player, I'd be much happier with something simpler like "You can be a gestalt character in exchange for +2 LA" or "Here, have this homebrew omni-theurge prestige class that requires 3 levels each in any two base classes A and B and progresses them both using the gestalt rules."

Well, I think if the choice is hard enough that you need to go and do a bunch of calculations to determine which is more optimal, then it must be decently balanced, no? And I like to give flexibility to characters. I feel like it's a bit of a buff to melee characters, and makes gishing a bit easier, but otherwise isn't much of a buff to full casters, since they will simply want the highest level spells available. Obviously standard gestalt rules apply, such as "no double casting advancement" (so having wizard on one side, and then a prc that advances wizard casting on the other to get double wizard casting levels) and whatnot

And I think, for players who have an idea in mind, it would be pretty easy to decide which route they want to take, not to mention it'd make qualifying for stuff a decent bit easier, opening up options around the place, as, for example, if you need some more martial feats, just gestalt 2 levels of fighter for 2 fighter bonus feats, (obviously requiring that you be capable of qualifying for them at the levels that you are gestalting, possibly using retraining to shift feats around if necessary)

I dunno, I guess I just like giving players more options? I'm more looking at the balance side of things, is 50% of level +1 as an additional gestalt xp requirement a decent number? Too high? Too low? I think the complexity is something optimizing players would appreciate, and non-optimizing players could just ignore and decide based on character concept

[aleucard]

The first question you NEED to ask yourself is how strong a Gestalt character is compared to a non-Gestalt. Even better, break it up into subtypes if you feel you have the capacity for it (SA/SA, SA/Caster, SA/BSF, SA/Ranged, etc.) and compare them to where your PCs are at. Remember, the goal is to make the players feel like they each have enough ability to keep up. While a lot of these roles and abilities are either not comparable by standard means or foregone conclusions on the face of them (SA and BSF, then Casting and Anything Else respectively), keeping a running tally of how strong each of the players feel in comparison to each other (ASK them!!!) should help you decide how much that group at least would value them. After that, try and adjust the costs (read: ECL and EXP penalties) accordingly, though feel free to relax restrictions on a character if they are falling behind too much (I remember hearing about someone starting an Epic campaign and the players come to the table with 3 Casters and a Monk). Player perception is going to be a big issue until you have the entire thing codified and set in stone, though, so be ready to adjust massively on a dime.