Would this be too much?

[torrasque666]

I am going to start DMing a campaign with a group of three relatively new people. Would Gestalt be too much for them, in your opinions?

[eggynack]

Probably, yeah. The game is really complicated to start with, and adding gestalt makes it, y'know, a lot more complicated.

[Red Fel]

I am going to start DMing a campaign with a group of three relatively new people. Would Gestalt be too much for them, in your opinions?

Yes.

If you want a more detailed answer: It depends, but probably yes.

... Still here? Okay. It depends on how new they are. Gestalt is exceedingly powerful, which means an overwhelming quantity of information and labor for both the players and the DM. (You haven't mentioned how experienced a DM you are. Yes, this is a factor as well.)

As a general rule, gestalt creates higher ceilings on PC power, but also lower floors; that is, since the power level of enemies should increase commensurate with the PCs' power, a badly-designed gestalt will hurt even more than a badly-designed PC generally.

To put it differently: Gestalt means that a Fighter can now be substantially more potent, by gestalting with a capable spellcasting class. However, it also means that a Monk can be even weaker, by gestalting with a weak or redundant class. Assuming the players are relatively new, they're just as likely to gestalt two classes because it seems cool or powerful, as they are to gestalt two classes because it actually is more powerful. But you, as the DM, will be ramping up the difficulty - a misstep on the players' part will cost them more.

My advice, if you want to gestalt, is as follows: At least one side of the gestalt should be a straight class. No PrCs. Keeps bookkeeping simpler. And bookkeeping is one of the harder aspects of gestalt. No more than one side should involve a spellcasting class. Keeping track of multiple spellcasting classes can be hard; keeping track of them in gestalt can be extraordinarily overwhelming. If the players want to play a completely non-spellcasting class, it's up to them, but if they want to use a casting class, limit them to one side.
This should provide the players with a reasonable introduction to gestalt. It can be very overwhelming, both for players and for DMs, so limiting options at the outset provides a gentle way to practice before diving into more complex matters.

But that said? Gestalt probably isn't the best until they're fairly old hat at their preferred classes and mechanics.

[torrasque666]

OK, so I probably shouldn't try gestalt yet then. I'm still kind of a new DM as well.

[Red Fel]

OK, so I probably shouldn't try gestalt yet then. I'm still kind of a new DM as well.

Yeah, if you're a new DM, you definitely don't want to dive into gestalt. Finding the right balance of challenging and not-a-slaughter in an encounter is difficult enough for a new DM; any semblance of balance goes completely out the window once gestalt is involved.

If you really want to give the PCs a boost in power, consider offering a free LA or bonus feats or something. Both DM and players need some experience before they start a campaign as book-keeping-intensive as gestalt.

[facelessminion]

Yeah, if you're a new GM yourself, I'd definitely recommend holding off on gestalt for a while. It takes the CR system, already strained at best, and outright murders it.

One potential way to help your new players? Start out at level three or, alternatively, give them some bonus HP so they don't get instagibbed and you can more properly get a handle on things. An extra 10 to 20 HP won't matter in a few levels anyway, and could seriously help you out.

[torrasque666]

We are going to be starting at level 3, mostly because level 1 is so.... fragile.

Would it be uncouth to include a DMPC to fill whatever role is missing? I would probably build something a few tiers lower than them.

Obviously I'm not going for gestalt anymore.

[AMFV]

I don't know, I've never really been all that fond of Gestalt, I probably wouldn't recommend it at all. But it's definitely adding a lot of complexity to the system.

[Red Fel]

Would it be uncouth to include a DMPC to fill whatever role is missing? I would probably build something a few tiers lower than them.

DMPCs are often frowned upon on this board. And while I don't think they're inherently evil, I do find that they're more trouble than they're worth.

First, no player can know (without peering at the DM's notes) what the party has in store. But you do. And as much as you might try not to metagame - and you might even be able to compartmentalize - that knowledge exists there. Suppose nobody is playing a prepared spellcaster, so you decide to do so. If you happen to have prepared the one spell that makes the encounter a breeze, your players may assume (true or not) that you gave yourself that edge. Conversely, if you didn't prepare that spell, your players may assume you were deliberately making things harder. There's really no winning on that side.

Second, the notion of "necessary slots" is an unfortunate concept that has more place in myth than in practice. A truly great DM learns what the players want and how the party is composed, and crafts an adventure correspondingly. If none of the PCs possess social skills, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need a party face - maybe they just don't want to engage in a lot of social scenes. Why force a Cha-based character on them? If none of them possess ranks in Disable Device, it doesn't mean you need to go completely without traps - nobody said you had to take things easy on them - but it means that perhaps you might be a bit gentle with the first few until they come up with a way to compensate. Same with a party lacking in casters - either they'll learn, they'll die, or they'll develop a play style they like. You don't need to introduce a character to "pick up the slack." Let the players learn to do so for themselves.

Third, the DMPC is a crutch, for both players and DMs alike, and it's a bad habit to start with, particularly early in a career. The DMPC makes it easy for a DM to introduce new plot devices or characters, to bypass difficult obstacles or move events along at a brisk pace. The DMPC gives the players confidence that might not be justified; he's prepared for the encounters and dungeons and what-not, so they can be assured of success. Neither you nor the players need that kind of crutch. This is doubly so when starting out; let the players (and the DM) learn to walk on their own before relying on a DMPC.

Short version: Is it wrong to have a DMPC? Not inherently. But it's a bad habit, prone to abuse, which can cultivate a certain air of laziness or dissatisfaction at the table. It's best to avoid using one if you can.

[Psyren]

What Red Fel said. It's possible, but inordinately difficult, to make DMPCs feel like anything other than a crutch or a waste of space and/or stealing the spotlight to boot; far better to spend that time and effort helping the players themselves to shine instead.

If you do feel you'll want to help them, give them a healing item or something similar that they have to use. Keep the agency on them.

[draken50]

I would say that while level 1 may seem fragile, if you're careful with your encounters it's not too bad.

Ultimately, with new players, it tends to be best to start at lower levels, not only is there less complexity, assuming they start with core races and classes the difference between optimized and unoptimized isn't as big.

Also as a new DM, it's not always a bad idea to scale back and work at providing interesting encounters with lower powered enemies. Especially if you have a lot of experience as a player. I've seen newbie players decimated by newbie DM's that had a very good grasp of the rules and different abilities, and that difference in knowledge and experience really counts for a lot especially as you get higher in levels. Ultimately, PCs are very good at throwing themselves into dangerous situations, so it's often better to ease the challenge up as they get comfortable. Oh and avoid the "run or die" scenarios, many new players don't really catch on too quick to that kind of thing.

If keeping them alive seems troublesome, you can always go over there WBL with some extra healing items and the like. Having some quick ways to stabilize a fallen PC can help keep things from turning sour.

I'd say no to DMPC. Especially when considered in that manner. Many experience DM's still have hard times properly using them, and I have only been able to really work NPCs within my players parties by ensuring they remain cleanly in NPC territory.

TLDR; For New players, use less complexity. Don't make your work harder as the DM.