Are Gestalt rules really necessary?

[asorel]

As the arrival of the DMG loomed, I saw lots of speculation on whether or not it would include alternate rules for gestalt characters--taking two class levels per level up--and some 'disappointment' threads when it was revealed that no such rules existed. Although I only learned upon the existence of this variant upon reading these speculation threads, I don't see why one would need a discrete rule set for this playstyle; you just take the features of both classes upon leveling up. Being OP isn't exactly a factor, as the plan is to be running a campaign where such power is needed to survive. Unless there's something especially OP about doubling up full casters (that isn't offset by doubling up martial characters), it seems to me that asking for a rule set is redundant. Feel free to correct me if I am in fact completely wrong about this.

[Shadow]

I'm glad that gestalt rules aren't included. I don't have the DMG yet, but if what you're saying is true then I'm happy.
Simply granting features from both sides, and only getting a single set of spell slots (two sets of slots would be ridiculous, which is part of what I hated about gestalt in 3e), would be viable except for Pact Magic.
Pact Magic would break gestalt by breaking balance. More options would be fine, but a bunch of extra slots recharged on a short rest, in addition to a full compliment of regular slots.... would break stuff.
Every single gestalt build would have warlock on one side.

[silveralen]

Gestalt is by far one of the easier homebrews out there. When I ran a PF game in the exalted setting I home brewed some, though at the time i had never even heard of gestalt and was just making more powerful characters, and they worked perfectly fine despite differing from the official rules.

[Oscredwin]

Gestalt would be good because it would replicate the feel of 2nd Ed multiclassing. I hope that some rules are developed that allow gestalt characters to play with regular characters so I can have my old Elven Fighter/Mage (which is different than an EK). Right now, one of the best ways to play that archetype is with a mountain dwarf, which is weird.

[MaxWilson]

Every single gestalt build would have warlock on one side.

Mine wouldn't. My main DM has rules for dual-classing which are similar to what I gather "gestalt" was, and I find Eldritch Knight/Necromancer far more attractive than Warlock/Necromancer. It makes you less MAD because Eldritch Strike increases effective spell DC (need less Int), gives you a bunch of at-will damage far superior to the warlock's, gives you heavy armor, and most importantly is more subjective fun for me: it's the kind of PC I want to eventually become. Warlock 2 is a nice dip for multiclassing in that it gives you some nice at-will options with relatively little investment, but if I'm going to be levelling up all the way in my alternate class, it's fighter all the way.

(Warlock/Druid would be attractive if only the Archdruid cast-while-wildshaped worked on Warlock spells, but it doesn't.)

[Yes, I know that it's kind of weird that my DM renamed 2nd-style multiclassing "dual-classing", but the name "multi-classing" was already taken for something resembling 2nd edition dual-classing. Thus, names swap.]

[asorel]

If such a system were in place, I would have liked to try a Sorcerer/Wizard setup. Most likely not ideal in terms of optimization, but the concept itself appeals to me. It's a build that would represent a character searching for the ultimate arcane power that a being could wield unassisted; intrinsic and that gleaned from intensive study.

[mephnick]

It didn't need to be including because it's something barely a percentage of a percentage of their user base has ever done.

[pwykersotz]

I Gestalt monsters with other monsters sometimes. Those have been some epic murder-machines.

[asorel]

It didn't need to be including because it's something barely a percentage of a percentage of their user base has ever done.

I'm not questioning that. My point is that, even if a significant number of people wanted Gestalt rules, there doesn't appear to be a reason to include written rules for the variant, because it amounts to nothing more than 'take two classes and add their features together.'

[Fwiffo86]

As the arrival of the DMG loomed, I saw lots of speculation on whether or not it would include alternate rules for gestalt characters--taking two class levels per level up--and some 'disappointment' threads when it was revealed that no such rules existed. Although I only learned upon the existence of this variant upon reading these speculation threads, I don't see why one would need a discrete rule set for this playstyle; you just take the features of both classes upon leveling up. Being OP isn't exactly a factor, as the plan is to be running a campaign where such power is needed to survive. Unless there's something especially OP about doubling up full casters (that isn't offset by doubling up martial characters), it seems to me that asking for a rule set is redundant. Feel free to correct me if I am in fact completely wrong about this.

Rules for such are not needed.

[asorel]

Rules for such are not needed.

I thought as much. But, as I had had no previous experiences with gestalt, the amount of threads I noticed asking for it made me wonder if it was in fact more complicated than implied.

[FaerieGodfather]

Gestalt would be good because it would replicate the feel of 2nd Ed multiclassing. I hope that some rules are developed that allow gestalt characters to play with regular characters so I can have my old Elven Fighter/Mage (which is different than an EK). Right now, one of the best ways to play that archetype is with a mountain dwarf, which is weird.

In my current game, I'm running all multiclassing using the Gestalt rules. 2-class characters multiply the XP requirements per level by 1.5 and 3-class characters multiply them by 2. We're still low level, but there's only one 2-class PC, and nobody's complained about balance.

[MaxWilson]

In my current game, I'm running all multiclassing using the Gestalt rules. 2-class characters multiply the XP requirements per level by 1.5 and 3-class characters multiply them by 2. We're still low level, but there's only one 2-class PC, and nobody's complained about balance.

Oh, wow. Given the shape of the XP table I'd be all over that. My main DM charges double XP for two classes and I still think it's obviously better. At 1.5, why wouldn't you double up?

[Leliel]

@OP: No.

Next question.



More seriously, I never understood the concept of multiclassing to begin with, so Gestalt rules, to me, would generally waste space.

[asorel]

@OP: No.

Next question.



More seriously, I never understood the concept of multiclassing to begin with, so Gestalt rules, to me, would generally waste space.

That's what I was getting at in the OP. Such an adjustment seemed too simplistic as to require a set of written rules; I just wanted a clarification that this was so, as the numerous threads I have seen requesting 'gestalt rules' seemed to imply otherwise.

[mephnick]

That's what I was getting at in the OP. Such an adjustment seemed too simplistic as to require a set of written rules; I just wanted a clarification that this was so, as the numerous threads I have seen requesting 'gestalt rules' seemed to imply otherwise.

People wanted gestalt rules in the book so they could run up to their hobby store DM and say "See..see! It's in the rule book, you have to let us do this! If you don't you're a tyrant!" *pout*

[Xetheral]

I've never run a Gestalt campaign in 3.5, but I've occasionally used Gestalt rules for NPCs that have divine heritage or otherwise come from exceptional backgrounds.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any reason one can't just use the multiclassing rules regarding class feature stacking and apply them straight off to a gestalt setup. But the designers know the system better than I do, and it would have been nice if they'd taken a few hours to think through the potential pitfalls and written a couple paragraphs either providing suggested rulings for any such pitfalls or outright stating that it should work just fine.

Gestalt is a handy way to increase the number of available features and options for people who desire more complexity, without needing to run a higher-level campaign. The popularity it enjoyed on PbP forums would seemed to have justified the handful of column-inches required for its inclusion.

[asorel]

People wanted gestalt rules in the book so they could run up to their hobby store DM and say "See..see! It's in the rule book, you have to let us do this! If you don't you're a tyrant!" *pout*

Rules for horror and insanity are also in the DMG, as well as those for long-lasting illnesses. A gestalt character may find themselves suddenly claustrophobic, hallucinating, and blind in one eye.

[FaerieGodfather]

Oh, wow. Given the shape of the XP table I'd be all over that. My main DM charges double XP for two classes and I still think it's obviously better. At 1.5, why wouldn't you double up?

I considered that, but I thought it was too steep a penalty. 2x XP means you're 14th when everyone else hits 20th level.

[Gwendol]

Rules for horror and insanity are also in the DMG, as well as those for long-lasting illnesses. A gestalt character may find themselves suddenly claustrophobic, hallucinating, and blind in one eye.

LOL! That made my day!

[Eslin]

People wanted gestalt rules in the book so they could run up to their hobby store DM and say "See..see! It's in the rule book, you have to let us do this! If you don't you're a tyrant!" *pout*

Nobody ever did that back when gestalt rules were a thing.

@OP - yes, you're correct, Gestalt isn't complicated enough to need a write-up.

Strong combination wise - warlock/paladin would be fun as hell and if multiattacks count as part of the attack action druids would be absolute hell when combined with fighters, at level 20 you'd be multiattacking 4 times an action. Death cleric/paladin would also be amazingly fun, as would bard/paladin.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

How does one use gestalt and spell slots? Do they get full spell slots for each class or would you follow the multi-class table? And if you follow the table, what happens when you have more than 20 equivalent levels of caster, say by mixing two full casters and reaching level 11+?

[Theodoxus]

I wouldn't use the multiclass table to gestalt. Each class would have it's separate and unique casting table - each side would have it's own slots and can't intermix them. If you want to play a Mystic Theurge type caster, multiclass (which I now call Dual Classing).

On the subject of gestalt, my take on it is simple - much like those posted above, recreating the 2nd Ed feel of multiclassing and dual classing.

If you multiclass (go gestalt), you're picking up two classes. You can't dual class (multiclass in the current nomenclature) off them - no Warlock dip on one side with a power grab of fighter 2 and bard x//Wizard 20.

Gestalt bring more options - but with the way proficiency works and no more BAB - grabbing a strong melee class and coupling it with a strong casting class is no longer the most optimal way to empower a character. It's still limited by the action economy and I feel the DC/MC/SC trichotomy, as long as there is an xp cost (why else would any ever single class?) works quite well.

My next campaign will use multiclassing as written, but it's just the Mines of Phandelver. I suspect the group will remain relatively the same when we finish, and roll up new characters for the Dragoncult campaign. For that, I'll initiate the single class/dual class/multi class system.

Should be a hoot.

[MaxWilson]

I considered that, but I thought it was too steep a penalty. 2x XP means you're 14th when everyone else hits 20th level.

Actually you're 15th level, halfway to 16th. You've also got 6 ASIs (or 8 if one of your classes is fighter) while everyone else only has 5. Your proficiency bonus is +5 as opposed to +6--again, not a big deal--and you've either got a terrific martial attack and full casting up to 7th level, or you have double casting if you went double caster. (Or you could go fighter/paladin I guess, which has its own attractions, but I haven't though deeply about the synergies there aside from the obvious "3 attacks with extra radiant damage on each," which is probably comparable to the fighter 20's 4 attacks.) Due to the shape of the spell curve and the minimal spell slot gain at caster levels over 11, you're not even missing out on many spells, just one of each 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slots--and you're right on the cusp of getting that 8th level spell slot. With 2x XP penalty it's not a no-brainer, but it is very tempting if you're not the kind of guy who values consistent utility over a single 9th level spell slot.

With only a 1.5x you'll be at 17th level when everyone else is at 20th, which means that if compared to a wizard who dipped Fighter 1 for armor proficiency, you'll have about the same amount of spells, but unlike him you'll have twice as many saving throw proficiencies, more ASIs, more HP, Indomitable, and you never have to blow your spells on medium-sized threats because you can just shoot them.

Of course a lot depends on the specific details of your gestalt rules. If you reduce the number of ASIs, that changes the math. If you restrict saving throw proficiencies, that changes the math some more. If you rule that double slots from wizard/sorc don't stack with each other, that changes the math some more. Etc., etc.

[Xetheral]

Of course a lot depends on the specific details of your gestalt rules. If you reduce the number of ASIs, that changes the math. If you restrict saving throw proficiencies, that changes the math some more. If you rule that double slots from wizard/sorc don't stack with each other, that changes the math some more. Etc., etc.

That's a good list of the sorts of reasons it would have been nice to have default rules in the DMG to modify, rather than having every table start from scratch.

[silveralen]

That's a good list of the sorts of reasons it would have been nice to have default rules in the DMG to modify, rather than having every table start from scratch.

It just depends on what you want for your campaign though.

Are you using gestalt for all players to increase power levels and add more options?

Is it meant to be used alongside existing classes and MCing? (Honestly I think even the designers would struggle to balance this alongside normal MCing, XP penalties just result in weird valleys and peaks of imbalance).

Is it meant to address balance issues within the game?

All three are uses for gestalt rules, and the latter two variations also imply an inherent problem with the rules as they exist, making it questionable as to why you want the same designers with new rules a couple months after the PHB came out.

[Theodoxus]

That's a good list of the sorts of reasons it would have been nice to have default rules in the DMG to modify, rather than having every table start from scratch.

Yeah, except for the problem that it would create an optional rule with subtables of options to incorporate. Do you want a grittier game? Gestalt only adds special abilities, not saves, spell slots, proficiencies, etc. You pick your primary class and that's the chassis - your second class then just adds whatever special abilities you gain at that level.

Do you want a more epic game? Gestalt grants every bonus of both classes - saves, proficiencies, spells, etc. If both classes provide proficiency in the same save or skill, you gain expertise in that save or skill.

There's certainly a gradient scale available to tweak each variable - until you get the gestalt that feels right for the game you want to run.

One variable is also the amount of xp (if any) it takes to gain access to the next level. If everyone's gestalt, no problem - xp can stay the same. But as soon as one player goes gestalt and another stays single track, you'll run into a power curve (especially if the gestalt gets all the bennies of both classes!) if there isn't an incentive given to the single track guy. Faster leveling for the single guy is probably the most fair and easiest way to implement. Even the die-hard power gamer will think twice about getting 'all the spells' if it means his physics bending divine-arcanist will take two or three times longer to power up than his arch rival.

[MaxWilson]

That's a good list of the sorts of reasons it would have been nice to have default rules in the DMG to modify, rather than having every table start from scratch.

I understand your point, but to me it's a bit like observing that you need to come up with your own point-buy values for letting players buy stats over 18 at chargen time. How many points should you give? Should cost increase arithmetically or exponentially? Do they have to be linked to your prime requisite? Can you buy stats down to 3, and if so how many points does that give you? Down to 1? It all depends on the results you want, and gestalt characters are the same thing. In 5E RAW they don't exist.

As much as I liked AD&D multiclassing, I personally think you're better off not introducing AD&D multiclassing or "gestalt" rules or anything like unto it. The game isn't built to handle it.

[Xetheral]

Perhaps I'm simply overestimating the popularity of the variant. Although I've never played with it (other than an occasional npc with an unusual background as I mentioned earlier), it was by-far the most common variant I heard discussed at my table over the years (even moreso than ToB, oddly enough) and it seemed to pop up a lot on play-by-post forums. If my observations weren't representative and it's actually a very niche case, then it may well not have been worth inclusion in the DMG. An online article on the wizards site would ameliorate my mild disappointment well enough.

[FaerieGodfather]

How does one use gestalt and spell slots? Do they get full spell slots for each class or would you follow the multi-class table? And if you follow the table, what happens when you have more than 20 equivalent levels of caster, say by mixing two full casters and reaching level 11+?

In my game, you get one spells per day progression, using the multiclass spellcaster table as the class with the most spellcasting.


Actually you're 15th level, halfway to 16th. You've also got 6 ASIs (or 8 if one of your classes is fighter) while everyone else only has 5.

Honestly, despite the fact that ASIs are technically class features in 5e, it never even occurred to me that I could let them stack in this fashion. I've considered allowing multiclass characters to have an additional +1 per ASI... but ultimately decided against it as being too much of an advantage. All of your "specific details" are areas where I naturally and immediately came to the most restrictive conclusion as the most balanced possibility, given the strength of class features in 3e/5e. So yeah, factor that into the XP rules I'm using; I think 1.5x for two classes and 2x for three is pretty fair, and none of my single-classed players have complained so far.

[SliceandDiceKid]

"I never used gestalt, so no one else ever has."

Have you looked at the 3.5 forums EVER? Stop being so egocentric. Gestalt was common in the 3.5 community. Maybe it wasn't the only way people played, but in small parties, it greatly assisted survivability.

One of my favorite campaigns was gestalt. We added a few restrictions to make sure it didn't get too wild, but when you only have 2-3 party members, it takes a real load off.

"Gestalt? I hated that variant... Let me go shut down this thread!"

Ugh. Asking for guidelines for a game variant (that was quite popular) is perfectly reasonable. And judging by the many rules and inquiries in this thread, your "no, it doesn't need rules" is just WRONG.

[mr_odd]

I Gestalt monsters with other monsters sometimes. Those have been some epic murder-machines.

I need to try this.

[asorel]

"I never used gestalt, so no one else ever has."

Have you looked at the 3.5 forums EVER? Stop being so egocentric. Gestalt was common in the 3.5 community. Maybe it wasn't the only way people played, but in small parties, it greatly assisted survivability.

One of my favorite campaigns was gestalt. We added a few restrictions to make sure it didn't get too wild, but when you only have 2-3 party members, it takes a real load off.

"Gestalt? I hated that variant... Let me go shut down this thread!"

Ugh. Asking for guidelines for a game variant (that was quite popular) is perfectly reasonable. And judging by the many rules and inquiries in this thread, your "no, it doesn't need rules" is just WRONG.

The thread was meant to be an inquiry, not provocative. My understanding of the gestalt variant had led me to suspect that a discrete ruleset was not necessary. This thread was started to either confirm or dissuade these suspicions, not to illicit a response from those holding a certain opinion.

Edit: Apparently I'm a Halfling now. Wonderful.

[Sartharina]

I'm glad that gestalt rules aren't included. I don't have the DMG yet, but if what you're saying is true then I'm happy.
Simply granting features from both sides, and only getting a single set of spell slots (two sets of slots would be ridiculous, which is part of what I hated about gestalt in 3e), would be viable except for Pact Magic.
Pact Magic would break gestalt by breaking balance. More options would be fine, but a bunch of extra slots recharged on a short rest, in addition to a full compliment of regular slots.... would break stuff.
Every single gestalt build would have warlock on one side.Your fears are completely unfounded.

[SliceandDiceKid]

The thread was meant to be an inquiry, not provocative. My understanding of the gestalt variant had led me to suspect that a discrete ruleset was not necessary. This thread was started to either confirm or dissuade these suspicions, not to illicit a response from those holding a certain opinion.

My post was not actually referring to your response. I appreciate your OP.

[asorel]

My post was not actually referring to your response. I appreciate your OP.

Ah, I thought as much. There wasn't any quote referencing at whom your comments were directed, so I responded just to be safe.

[silveralen]

Ugh. Asking for guidelines for a game variant (that was quite popular) is perfectly reasonable. And judging by the many rules and inquiries in this thread, your "no, it doesn't need rules" is just WRONG.

Part of the reason it was so popular was that, as people settled into 3.5, it was either gestalt or tier locking to keep the game flowing smoothly. Ideally, this version shouldn't need that. So that is part of why I doubt it was considered a priority.

The second reason gestalt isn't included is it violates a few design principles, namely simplicity and transparency. Do not expect level adjustments to make a reappearance in this edition, nor gestalt using modified level tables.

The third is they attempted to already allow of gestalt to a degree. Between subclasses and feats, very few concepts cannot be realized in 2-3 ways already, and most of the ones I can think of aren't going to be handled any better by gestalt.

Given all that, I don't see gestalt as something the developers are likely to show interest in supporting, any more than prestige classes. The things which made both popular have (ideally) been absorbed into the base game.

This leads to gestalt as an alternate for a table of characters, in which case a lot of the choices are more DM preference.

So no, it being popular in 3.5 is not a good reason to have it here, a lot of the chaff has been removed and gestalt was part of it. This isn't me saying I don't like gestalt, I actually enjoy the concept so no one should enjoy it, but rather than 5e is set up so that gestalt is not going to work well alongside the base rules.

[Xetheral]

I find it quite fascinating that the responses to the OP's question have ranged from (paraphrasing) "5e makes gestalt simple and intuitively obvious, so rules weren't necessary" through "there's lots of fiddly bits to be decided, so rules would have been helpful" all the way back to "5e is mechanically incompatible with gestalt, so rules weren't necessary."

[silveralen]

I find it quite fascinating that the responses to the OP's question have ranged from (paraphrasing) "5e makes gestalt simple and intuitively obvious, so rules weren't necessary" through "there's lots of fiddly bits to be decided, so rules would have been helpful" all the way back to "5e is mechanically incompatible with gestalt, so rules weren't necessary."

To be fair, I responded with both the first and last referring to different styles of gestalt.

I do not think gestalt can be balanced by a XP penalty alongside normal classes. The class features of any two classes don't justify a gestalt lagging by a mere 1-3 levels. Multiclassing in this edition is actually balanced, and gestalt is almost always a better version of multiclassing that trades away a bit of HP and (in this edition) sometimes a +1 for having more features from both classes.

The gestalt campaign is much easier, it can be eyeballed pretty well to get the intended result.

So I consider that to not be a contradiction. Gestalt for a table/campaign is very easy. Gestalt balanced with normal characters isn't going to happen, thought it might not obviously unbalanced till later in the game.

[Xetheral]

To be fair, I responded with both the first and last referring to different styles of gestalt.

I do not think gestalt can be balanced by a XP penalty alongside normal classes. The class features of any two classes don't justify a gestalt lagging by a mere 1-3 levels. Multiclassing in this edition is actually balanced, and gestalt is almost always a better version of multiclassing that trades away a bit of HP and (in this edition) sometimes a +1 for having more features from both classes.

The gestalt campaign is much easier, it can be eyeballed pretty well to get the intended result.

Thanks for clarifying!

[Theodoxus]

I just don't see it that way - in fact, I think one would need to actually run a game or three to determine if gestalting along the lines of 1st ed multiclassing would actually break the game / be unfair to single or dual classed characters.

On paper, it looks like it could go either way, which means it probably works, or is horribly borked. But making a definitive statement either way without playtesting the results isn't overly productive.

I still plan on trying out a 1st ed style multiclass option. When I have data on the pros and cons of the system, I'll report back.

[mr_odd]

After taking an intro to Psychology course, I'm thinking about incorporating Gestalt. Lore-wise with my world I have a reason why characters are able to progress with two classes instead of one all of a sudden.

[asorel]

After taking an intro to Psychology course, I'm thinking about incorporating Gestalt. Lore-wise with my world I have a reason why characters are able to progress with two classes instead of one all of a sudden.

May I ask how psychology gave you inspiration for D&D mechanics?

[silveralen]

I just don't see it that way - in fact, I think one would need to actually run a game or three to determine if gestalting along the lines of 1st ed multiclassing would actually break the game / be unfair to single or dual classed characters.

On paper, it looks like it could go either way, which means it probably works, or is horribly borked. But making a definitive statement either way without playtesting the results isn't overly productive.

I still plan on trying out a 1st ed style multiclass option. When I have data on the pros and cons of the system, I'll report back.

The easy way is to just take an XP total, the compare a character trying to multiclass to one gestalt. Try to make the multiclass intelligent so it isn't too absurd.

Even when there was a full 2-3 level gap the gestalt looked flat out better. Heck, try comparing a gestalt wizard/fighter to an eldritch knight.

[Chambers]

May I ask how psychology gave you inspiration for D&D mechanics?

Probably this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology) :smallwink:

[mr_odd]

Probably this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology) :smallwink:

Yeah, never hearing the term Gestalt outside of the Playground, that lecture instantly became much more interesting.

[toapat]

Gestalt probably should just be a post on the main site. at least currently in 5th there are very few blatantly more powerful combos then there ever were in 3rd, with the only really god tier buff i can see being Paladin//Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer because of how smite scales this edition. otherwise basically every class benefits most by slapping a Champion Fighter into it for the extra actions, Heavy Armor proficiency, and numerous attribute increases.

[PinkysBrain]

Some token gestures to people who want to play a higher powered games will make those people feel more welcome.

[toapat]

Some token gestures to people who want to play a higher powered games will make those people feel more welcome.

as i said, something on the DnD website. Its just that so much of this edition is cleaned up enough that Gestalt adds a smidge of power but its not the raw power-explosion that you can create with 3.5 gestalt. The typical rule was passive//active but if you knew what you were careful you could make both sides of the gestalt do good work for you, like if you played a Paladin//Spellthief with natural Dynamic Priest on paladin.