Handling "Gestalt" rules in Pathfinder.

[Florian]

Ok, folks, as "Gestalt" is a topic that comes up and up again, being the near-mythical equivalent to a Zombie coupled with the holy grail, let´s discuss how those old wonky rules actually interact with PF as it is.

The basics should be known by now, you take the regular advancement table and do it with two classes at the same time, yadda-yadda, while keeping the regular feat and attribute advancement progression.

Now, going deeper into the changes between 3E and PF, a lot of things about directly porting over the "Gestalt" rules will look pretty dubious.

Archetypes: A lot of archetypes already feature cross-over features and represent a mix of two classes.

Unique Class Features: Those are more codified and spread over a lot of classes and archetypes.

Variant Multiclassing: Your way to gain some class features.

Overstacking: As a lot of class features are spread around and still stack, we experience the case when the 20th level class level able actually ends and we potential have to "speculate" on further progression.

Show whole thing is more a martial vs. caster thing, but still it bears taking a closer look because how PF classes interact. One a base level, it´s simply the issue to deal with Monk (Monk of the Mantis)//Rogue and having double the amount of Sneak Attack available, on a more complex issue it´s Magus//Wizard having to "spent" only one Magus Arcana to mesh styles and magic.

So, beyond knee-jerk reactions, tell me your thoughts on that.

[Krazzman]

Ok, folks, as "Gestalt" is a topic that comes up and up again, being the near-mythical equivalent to a Zombie coupled with the holy grail, let´s discuss how those old wonky rules actually interact with PF as it is.

The basics should be known by now, you take the regular advancement table and do it with two classes at the same time, yadda-yadda, while keeping the regular feat and attribute advancement progression.

Now, going deeper into the changes between 3E and PF, a lot of things about directly porting over the "Gestalt" rules will look pretty dubious.
Since we actively use them in our campaigns due to being only 3 players of next to no optimization/building experience... it is exactly the boost we need.

Archetypes: A lot of archetypes already feature cross-over features and represent a mix of two classes.
To directly quote the Unearthed Arcana (the source where these rules come from for those that didn't already know that...):
"Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class."- Unearthed Arcana p. 72
This is what we have to keep in mind.

Unique Class Features: Those are more codified and spread over a lot of classes and archetypes.
I don't quite know what you mean with this, can you reiterate (with an example)?

Variant Multiclassing: Your way to gain some class features.
Obviously thanks to the rule (guideline) quoted above this solves itself. Since you can't be a Fighter//Fighter you should not be able to be a Rogue Variant Fighter//Fighter etc.

Overstacking: As a lot of class features are spread around and still stack, we experience the case when the 20th level class level able actually ends and we potential have to "speculate" on further progression.
I think play above level 20 is not considered to be a good idea in pathfinder. (Never had the chance to play anything close to highlevel in pathfinder and only one time in 3.5 [level 20 with no further advancement.) The dev's seem to just think level 20 is the ending point. As such there aren't that many monsters above CR20... at least this would make sense for me...

Show whole thing is more a martial vs. caster thing, but still it bears taking a closer look because how PF classes interact. One a base level, it´s simply the issue to deal with Monk (Monk of the Mantis)//Rogue and having double the amount of Sneak Attack available, on a more complex issue it´s Magus//Wizard having to "spent" only one Magus Arcana to mesh styles and magic.
Monk of the Mantis//Rogue is no problem if you consider the one quoted above. Which one accrues SA faster? Both at the same speed? Yeah then they get it at either speed of rogue or monk.

About some options being better than others because they have to give up less resources (feats) in order to function properly... isn't that considered game mastery?
I mean a Monk//Druid or Monk//Cleric would probably be quite good option for both a Cleric or Druid in a seafaring campaign where lot's of water is in play. (Also finally giving some skillpoints to clerics...) while a Ranger//Rogue is not that much better than a straight up Slayer.
There will always be good and bad combinations. Especially considering if the class actually has feat-taxes that can't be compensated by the other class or both just want to hog all the actions they can get.

So, beyond knee-jerk reactions, tell me your thoughts on that.

I believe that for our group, gestalt is the only way to really progress in a good manner since you can more easily save all bases you need for adventuring. We are currently running a custom campaign by me (that I can hopefully finish around November) so we can try it on the paizo AP's. (Kingmaker or Skull's and Shackle's, if we get the Kingmaker books we are still missing though...).

[Florian]

@Krazzman:

There´s a lot of "very similar, but not identical" class features around, especially considering the ACG classes, where mesh-ups are quite common. For example, the Slayers Studied Target functions and scales similar to a Fighters Weapon Training, an Investigators Studied Combat is similar to a Rogues Sneak Attack, but they´re not the same, so the rules you mentioned doesn´t come into it unless you house-rule it.

The same holds true for class features like Weapon Training and Gun Training, which stack by regular rules but otherwise don´t interact. This´ll get more pronounced once archetypes come in and alter/rename existing class features, like the Pistolero swapping Gun Training for Pistol Training.

Amongst other things, this is why I brought go the MotM example, as the archetype doesn´t outright gain Sneak Attack, but rather a class feature called "Pressure Strikes", that amongst other things works like SA under certain conditions. A MotM//Rogue could possible trigger SA but not PS because of different conditions. Here, you already came to a conclusion, handling them as they were the same thing, but that´s a judgment call and for me, the actually interesting part is how that came to be.

"Overstacking" is not about playing above level 20, but handling class features that expressly stack up from different sources, which will lead to the effect of handling them as being well over level 20.
For example, sticking to PF RAW, this will happen when combining two classes with the Bloodline class feature. By RAW, bloodlines must be absolutely identical and their total levels stack up. So Sorcerer4/Bloodrager4 will have a level 8 bloodline when it comes to powers, uses, and so forth.
That is an issue that needs to be addressed. If you stick to the "must be absolutely identical" part, then a Gestalt using bloodlines will actually be hampered by it due to having fewer options and resources than other combinations with only one side having the bloodline. We´ll run into similar issues with other class features, like a Cavaliers Order. That will also affect the number of uses per day and how this should be tracked.

[Genth]

For example, sticking to PF RAW, this will happen when combining two classes with the Bloodline class feature. By RAW, bloodlines must be absolutely identical and their total levels stack up. So Sorcerer4/Bloodrager4 will have a level 8 bloodline when it comes to powers, uses, and so forth.
That is an issue that needs to be addressed. If you stick to the "must be absolutely identical" part, then a Gestalt using bloodlines will actually be hampered by it due to having fewer options and resources than other combinations with only one side having the bloodline. We´ll run into similar issues with other class features, like a Cavaliers Order. That will also affect the number of uses per day and how this should be tracked.

Where does it say that first part? In both the Sorcerer and Bloodrager sections on bloodlines, it just says multiple bloodline classes must be the same, not that they stack. And yes, taking bloodrager/sorcerer is subpar... because bloodrager already is designed as a hybrid class with sorcerer. Gestalt combinations are not omni-balanced, some are far stronger than others, so why is that a problem?

As for your pressure strikes example, I would use them differently (if at all, I dislike the vanilla monk class and would always encourage using the unchained version), but you can get both.. just like you could get a sneak attack with a flaming weapon and have another d6 worth of damage. There IS a problem when you have slayer/rogue for example, or any classes that have the exact same class feature. But as Krazzman points out, that's actually solved by the 'progresses by the faster class' mechanic.

...no, the studied target does not function the same as a fighter's weapon training. They're different abilities which apply in different situations, and since the bonus is untyped, they stack. How is this different from stacking, say weapon specialization and power attack?

[Florian]

@Genth:

Studied Target is derived from Favored Enemy but scales at the exact same pace as Weapon Training, just starting 4 levels earlier. That´s simply one example for class features that 3,5E mostly had not, therefore there was no need to think about it with Gestalt.

Don´t get me wrong, that´s not a case of "I hate martials" or something, but here the effect shows most strongly, followed suit by classes that can greatly enhance the economy of actions.

Take a look at the Eidolon. It comes with some inherent limits that you can´t readily break, like having the number of attacks scale with level, not only evolution points.

For example, Splittermond, a german language RPG I quite enjoy, handles the matter by placing boundaries on how many similar class features can stack up and would allow raising that limit by taking a feat to do so.

[Genth]

@Genth:

Studied Target is derived from Favored Enemy but scales at the exact same pace as Weapon Training, just starting 4 levels earlier. That´s simply one example for class features that 3,5E mostly had not, therefore there was no need to think about it with Gestalt.


Sorry, but your argument here makes no sense whatsoever to me. It's the same because it scales at the same pace? Lots of things in Pathfinder scale every 5 levels?

I don't think I even get what your point is, your OP was seeming to suggest (and please correct me and apologies if I'm wrong) that Gestalt is completely wrong and unworkable within PF. But your arguments are about small unbalancing elements which are no worse than what happens in 3.5 gestalt, and in fact represent quite well the power difference between pathfinder and 3.5.

[Florian]

Sorry, but your argument here makes no sense whatsoever to me. It's the same because it scales at the same pace? Lots of things in Pathfinder scale every 5 levels?

I don't think I even get what your point is, your OP was seeming to suggest (and please correct me and apologies if I'm wrong) that Gestalt is completely wrong and unworkable within PF. But your arguments are about small unbalancing elements which are no worse than what happens in 3.5 gestalt, and in fact represent quite well the power difference between pathfinder and 3.5.

My line of thought is actually about the fact that the scaling elements of PF classes don´t mesh well with the original Gestalt rules because those classes have a higher inherent synergy potential than their old 3E counterparts.

The low tier//low tier combination talk is just there to showcase how straight numbers can sum up to the point when it would have a very negative affect on APL/CR calculation, leading to the usual Rocket Tag situation Low tier//high tier is actually quite unproblematic, but mid tier, where Paizo focused the most classes, will run out of bounds.

I´m also looking at how MC is done with 5E and wonder about how the Gestalt rules could be redone to incorporate the changes with PF classes.

Edit to clarify this: I think we all agree on what the Gestalt rules should provide, namely covering all bases in a game with fewer participating players to fill all roles necessary. I also think that PF has managed to do this without the need for Gestalt rules at all. There is no need for Gestalt when classes/archetypes exist that cover exactly that need. What I try to find out is how Gestalt can be made to work in PF without dramatically changing the other rules involved, like APL/CR.

[Necromancy]

For example, Splittermond, a german language RPG I quite enjoy, handles the matter by placing boundaries on how many similar class features can stack up and would allow raising that limit by taking a feat to do so.

Pathfinder needs less feats, not more


My line of thought is actually about the fact that the scaling elements of PF classes don´t mesh well with the original Gestalt rules because those classes have a higher inherent synergy potential than their old 3E counterparts.

The low tier//low tier combination talk is just there to showcase how straight numbers can sum up to the point when it would have a very negative affect on APL/CR calculation, leading to the usual Rocket Tag situation Low tier//high tier is actually quite unproblematic, but mid tier, where Paizo focused the most classes, will run out of bounds.

I´m also looking at how MC is done with 5E and wonder about how the Gestalt rules could be redone to incorporate the changes with PF classes.

Edit to clarify this: I think we all agree on what the Gestalt rules should provide, namely covering all bases in a game with fewer participating players to fill all roles necessary. I also think that PF has managed to do this without the need for Gestalt rules at all. There is no need for Gestalt when classes/archetypes exist that cover exactly that need. What I try to find out is how Gestalt can be made to work in PF without dramatically changing the other rules involved, like APL/CR.

No we don't all agree. Never will. You're confusing gestalt rules with gestalt forum advice.

Gestalt has one single purpose. To toughen up members of a party so they can campaign with fewer players. Pathfinder doesn't change this in any way. There's nothing in there about how much synergy you need or that bases need covering. Levels of optimization are up to the players. This is a non issue and doesn't need "fixing"

No, archetypes don't cover more bases, they just cover them differently.

[Florian]

@necromancy:

Notice that I said something about knee-jerk reactions?

[Necromancy]

@necromancy:

Notice that I said something about knee-jerk reactions?

I'm sorry? Which part of my response was emotional and unthinking? If you're trying to insult me, you'll need to use the correct vocabulary.

Let's review Pathfinders' gestalt rules... Oh wait, they don't exist. You're referring to a houserule from 3.5 that came out 12 years ago. People have been using the rule anyway through various homebrewed methods for years now and suddenly you pop in and tell everyone they're homebrewed game is wrong? You don't see that as a bit pretentious?

[shawshank]

Gestalt, as used in the game I play in, is used to balance lower tier classes with higher tiered ones or to at least get them to tier 3 equivalence so they are not completely overshadowed by a Wizard, Druid, Cleric Etc.

The issue with Gestalt has been and probably always will be that it is not balanced well for low levels. For example, a straight PF Fighter with no Archetypes is perfectly viable for 8-10 levels. Only then does he fall off from awesome to okay and then to almost worthless at 15+. With, gestalt, say you did a Lorewarden Weapon Master Fighter and Gestalted it with a Hidden Blade Rogue(Path of War 2 rogue archetype). Now, it completely dominated early game, is strong mid game and then falls off to okay at 15+. So, if you are playing a level 1-12 game with a Wizard, Cleric, Druid and this Gestalt, the Gestalt is going to dominate 90% of the game. So, the tier 1's feel like the tier 4-5's most of the game. By the time they catch up the game is ending.

My DM and I have been discussing ways to alleviate this and we think we have come up with a few ideas. Some of these we are not even in full agreement on. Maybe this will help you with your own Gestalt issues.

Instead of Gestalt add options to lower tiered classes as a way to catch up. Tier 3+ stay as is.

Tier 6's can select ONLY one of the following choices to add to their class for free: (If choosing one of these NO archetype may be taken to stack)
1 - Spheres of Power MID casting given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing. (Plus add good Will Save)(Plus add 2 Skill Points/lvl)
1 - Path of War Maneuvers (HIGH progression 9th) given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing. (Plus add good Reflex or Fort Save)(Plus add 2 Skill Points/lvl)

Tier 5's can select ONLY one of the following choices to add to their class for free: (If choosing one of these NO archetype may be taken to stack)
1 - Spheres of Power LOW casting given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing. (Plus add good Will Save)(Plus add 2 Skill Points/lvl)
1 - Path of War Maneuvers (MID progression 6th) given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing. (Plus add good Reflex or Fort Save)(Plus add 2 Skill Points/lvl)
Tier 4's can select ONLY one of the following choices to add to their class for free: (If choosing one of these NO archetype may be taken to stack)
1 - Spheres of Power LOW casting given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing.
1 - Path of War Maneuvers (MID progression 6th) given for free based on the mental stat of their choosing.

If NOT using Spheres of Power add equivalent low casting(Paladin, Ranger etc)(Also consider Psionics)
If NOT using Path of War consider using optimal archetypes as base classes. For example a Lore Warden Weapon Master Fighter is about as good as fighter can be. I would put him firmly in tier 4 and very strong to dominant early game.

[Florian]

@necromancy:

The point is not "toughen" but making a build handle multiple roles. For 3E, those roles were pretty much predefined and that was what Gestalt is all about. Your knee-jerk reaction here was confusing what is intended and what can be done, a huge difference there.

@shawshank:

You´re touching on what I´m thinking about this. Thank you.

[Krazzman]

Ah, could only grab my copy of UA this morning.

About MotM and Rogue stacking... in this case. Yes, they would stack. As they would stack for Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike (Rogue//Ninja) in 3.5.

Archetypes and VMC or Prestige classes that grant the same bonus are able to have them both. In some cases (Bloodline X//Bloodline Y, Pistol Training//Weapon Training) we have to add a little guideline similar to the faster progression usage.
As bloodlines are stated to be stackable between two or more classes the logical assumption is that they are the same class feature.
In your case the Bloodrager4//Sorcerer 4 would have Bloodline 4 and Bloodline 4. Since both are the same and accrue at the same rate (unless I am mistaken) we take the Sorcerer's Bloodline ability instead of the Bloodragers. Since the Bloodrager no longer has this Class Feature due to it being overwritten by the Sorcerer you have a Bloodline at level 4.

Elsewise we could add the guideline (to counter this bloat) of the caps as seen by Magical Knack of not being able to raise the effective Level for this Class feature above your HD with the caveat that feats that override this are still functioning properly.

One thing I still see in a sort of "grey" area is channeling due to Channel Variants. For example a Tristalt Oracle of Life//Cleric//Paladin would have 3 different Channels if taking the Variant Channels so they not overlap. (Similar to Pistol Training and Weapon Training).

EDIT:
The Gestalt Character rules listing on Page 72 states as follows: "The gestalt character variant is particularly effective if you have three or fewe players in your D&D group, or if your players enjoy multiclassing and want characters with truly prodigious powers. This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer D&D players with an abundance of options."
Further down in the section "Balancing Gestalt Characters" the rules: "Gestalt character who try to fulfill two party roles (melee fighter and spellcaster, for example) find they must split their feat choices, ability score improvements, and gear selection between their two functions. [...] and gestalt characters have versatility that standard characters can't achieve without multiclassing."

From my perspective, the descriptions they use (high powered variant and more durable and more versatile characters) is that it is indeed a variant to toughen up smaller groups of players or to really enhance the play.

[Aegis013]

@necromancy:

The point is not "toughen" but making a build handle multiple roles. For 3E, those roles were pretty much predefined and that was what Gestalt is all about. Your knee-jerk reaction here was confusing what is intended and what can be done, a huge difference there.

I don't think this is always, unequivocally, the case. Personally, I use gestalt rules to toughen up PCs because I want to make my encounters with more enemies with more abilities going down simultaneously. I want fights not feel like well planned tactical executions of plans thought out for a week, I want them to feel like hectic chaotic events where the PCs lives are on the line and I want them to have both the scale and scope of abilities and power to come out on top.

I, personally, use gestalt even with parties of 4-5 people. My game running on the forums is tri-stalt for this very reason.

I doubt I'm the only one that does this. But it's just to say that the purpose that gestalt rules serve varies from table to table. It doesn't necessarily have a definite absolute goal in mind. It just does whatever the table in question is using it to do.

[Necromancy]

@necromancy:

The point is not "toughen" but making a build handle multiple roles. For 3E, those roles were pretty much predefined and that was what Gestalt is all about. Your knee-jerk reaction here was confusing what is intended and what can be done, a huge difference there.

@shawshank:

You´re touching on what I´m thinking about this. Thank you.

Stop using "the authors intent" as an argument. It's neither provable nor relevant.

Stop using vocabulary and colloquial terms that you don't know in an effort to sound intelligent. You just sound pompous and incoherent.

[JKTrickster]

My line of thought is actually about the fact that the scaling elements of PF classes don´t mesh well with the original Gestalt rules because those classes have a higher inherent synergy potential than their old 3E counterparts.

The low tier//low tier combination talk is just there to showcase how straight numbers can sum up to the point when it would have a very negative affect on APL/CR calculation, leading to the usual Rocket Tag situation Low tier//high tier is actually quite unproblematic, but mid tier, where Paizo focused the most classes, will run out of bounds.

I´m also looking at how MC is done with 5E and wonder about how the Gestalt rules could be redone to incorporate the changes with PF classes.

Edit to clarify this: I think we all agree on what the Gestalt rules should provide, namely covering all bases in a game with fewer participating players to fill all roles necessary. I also think that PF has managed to do this without the need for Gestalt rules at all. There is no need for Gestalt when classes/archetypes exist that cover exactly that need. What I try to find out is how Gestalt can be made to work in PF without dramatically changing the other rules involved, like APL/CR.

I believe I understand the crux of the issue here. I quoted your whole post but I'm bolding the parts that I am replying to.

Namely, you can't have Gestalt without changing APL/CR rules. That's not actually possible OR intended by the system. I don't have my copy of Unearthed Arcana so I had to look up the Gestalt rules on DnD SRD online (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm).

If you scroll to the bottom, it explicitly states:


Challenge Ratings

Gestalt characters can obviously handle more opposition than standard characters. The simplest way to compensate for this is to use adventures with tougher monsters. In general, a party of four gestalt characters can handle multiple encounters with a single monster of a Challenge Rating equal to their average level + 1. If the monster poses a challenge because it forces the characters to succeed on life-threatening saving throws (such as with a medusa or a wyvern), it’s even weaker against gestalt characters, who have few or no weak saves. Characters can handle multiple encounters with such monsters at a Challenge Rating equal to their average level + 2. A shambling mound (CR 6) or a medusa (CR 7) would be appropriate average encounters for four 5th-level gestalt characters. If you take this approach, realize that characters gain levels faster than in a typical campaign, because they’re gaining experience points as if those encounters were harder than they actually are. You’re obviously comfortable with a high-powered game, so faster advancement may be an additional benefit, not a problem. if you rely on published adventures, this is the easiest option.

You want to incorporate Gestalt into Pathfinder without messing with APL/CR....but in DnD 3.5 where Gestalt originates from, it literally suggests you to mess with APL/CR. At the end of the day, it allows a smaller party to cover more roles, but it nonetheless will give those party members more resources, more options, and stronger numbers. This is recognized and intended - and the book seems to suggest messing with CR to maintain a credible challenge against the party.

Therefore, your request does not seem likely - it wasn't possible in DnD 3.5 so I don't see why it should be possible with Pathfinder.


Also you state that Pathfinder classes lend better to Gestalt because they form better combinations but I remain unconvinced. For example, you list the hypothetical Gestalt of a Monk (Monk of the Mantis)//Rogue as being "problematic" because it gets "double the sneak attack dice".

First, although the ability is called "Pressuring Strikes" the ability clearly states that it gains the Sneak Attack ability. Therefore, as per the normal rules of Gestalt, this ability would not stack with any other Sneak Attack ability.

But even if a DM would rule that it would stack - this is not actually an issue.

DnD 3.5 had the Ninja class - a separate class that had a specific form of precision damage - Sudden Strike. In many ways it is similar to Sneak Attack, but it is explicitly a different ability. This is because it does not trigger during flanking, while Sneak Attack does; this is analogous to how Pressuring Strike is a Sneak Attack that only works during Flurries.

Therefore, a Ninja//Rogue gestalt would have both Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike - and it would be able to use both when the opponent was Flat Footed.

This was entirely possible and within the rules of DnD Gestalt. You mention that the rules were intended to broaden the scope of characters, but found it problematic if they made their numbers/abilities too strong.

But again in the Gestalt DnD SRD I linked above, they suggest a Wizard//Sorcerer as a powerful Gestalt option. They only way this broadens the scope of a character is to allow more spells to be chosen - but that character is still an arcane caster and nothing else.

I think it is presumptuous to say that Gestalt is "only" meant to broaden the scope of characters to allow them to handle multiple party roles. That is not what "it is all about" (quoting you again). In fact, the rules are very clear - it was intended to create both more powerful and more versatile characters.

EDIT:

After checking the books, the site I linked above is a copy of the section verbatim.

It is very clear that Gestalt was not only meant to broaden the scope of characters. It is literally referred to as a "high powered campaign variant" - I am reassured that messing with APL/CR is at least expected, if not mandated, by the Gestalt rules as they are written in the book. They were simply designed that way.

[grarrrg]

In some cases (Bloodline X//Bloodline Y, Pistol Training//Weapon Training) we have to add a little guideline similar to the faster progression usage.
As bloodlines are stated to be stackable between two or more classes the logical assumption is that they are the same class feature.
In your case the Bloodrager4//Sorcerer 4 would have Bloodline 4 and Bloodline 4. Since both are the same and accrue at the same rate (unless I am mistaken) we take the Sorcerer's Bloodline ability instead of the Bloodragers. Since the Bloodrager no longer has this Class Feature due to it being overwritten by the Sorcerer you have a Bloodline at level 4.

Bloodlines do not 'stack' that way to begin with.
The only thing the Sorcerer Bloodlines and Bloodrager Bloodlines have in common is the feature name.
Other than the name, they are mechanically completely different class features.

A normal Multiclass Sorcerer 6/Bloodrager 2 would have to choose the same Named Bloodline (e.g. Draconic) for both classes.
It would count as a 6th level Bloodline for Sorcerer stuff, and a 2nd level bloodline for Bloodrager stuff.
There is no stacking.

So a gestalt Sorcerer4//Bloodrager 4 would count as having a 4th level Sorcerer Bloodline, and a 4th level Bloodrager bloodline.

[Florian]

@necromancy:

You might get this impression because I´m writing this in a, for me, foreign language. Some things might sound a bit "off key" then.

As I tried to get across to you, I´m focusing on Gestalt as an option to shore up small or solo groups first, gaining raw power second. The later must compete against using the Mythic Adventures rules that already exist within PF and have the same intend.

The first part is interesting because there´re relatively few classes that actually help with the matter and don´t generate instant power creep which contrasts with high-synergy combinations.

@JKTrickster:

Messing with APL/CR is, by itself, not that big a deal. The mentioned high tier//high tier combination is no big deal by itself as their power comes from spells and these don´t change much using a Gestalt. More slots, longer adventuring day, that´s pretty much it.

As shawshank also pointed out, it´s rather the mid to low tier classes that will dominate the game for a while and actually balancing an encounter based to be challenging for those will right out kill most high tier classes outright. Take a look at the following three combinations to see what I mean: Paladin//Summoner, Hunter//Warpriest, Magus//Wizard.

(And for sanities sake, let´s disregard what a Dual Blooded Havoc Sorcerer//Eldritch Scion Magus can do)

[Necromancy]

As shawshank also pointed out, it´s rather the mid to low tier classes that will dominate the game for a while and actually balancing an encounter based to be challenging for those will right out kill most high tier classes outright. Take a look at the following three combinations to see what I mean: Paladin//Summoner, Hunter//Warpriest, Magus//Wizard.


If you have a point to make then make it here. I'm not interested in your homework assignment.



(And for sanities sake, let´s disregard what a Dual Blooded Havoc Sorcerer//Eldritch Scion Magus can do)


A what sorcerer?

[Florian]

A what sorcerer?

One of the few caster builds that can actually keep up with the martial classes on sheer DPR from the start. Key here are a 3x class level bonus damage mechanic coupled with moving spells over to be a crit weapon. This is an example of how to generate an absurdly high amount of damage that will outpace whatever is thrown against it.

If you don´t know the other three examples by now, they all focus on upgrading the economy of actions to the point that one character can actually replace two and still be very effective at it.

[JKTrickster]

@necromancy:

You might get this impression because I´m writing this in a, for me, foreign language. Some things might sound a bit "off key" then.

As I tried to get across to you, I´m focusing on Gestalt as an option to shore up small or solo groups first, gaining raw power second. The later must compete against using the Mythic Adventures rules that already exist within PF and have the same intend.

The first part is interesting because there´re relatively few classes that actually help with the matter and don´t generate instant power creep which contrasts with high-synergy combinations.

@JKTrickster:

Messing with APL/CR is, by itself, not that big a deal. The mentioned high tier//high tier combination is no big deal by itself as their power comes from spells and these don´t change much using a Gestalt. More slots, longer adventuring day, that´s pretty much it.

As shawshank also pointed out, it´s rather the mid to low tier classes that will dominate the game for a while and actually balancing an encounter based to be challenging for those will right out kill most high tier classes outright. Take a look at the following three combinations to see what I mean: Paladin//Summoner, Hunter//Warpriest, Magus//Wizard.

(And for sanities sake, let´s disregard what a Dual Blooded Havoc Sorcerer//Eldritch Scion Magus can do)

Bolded your quote for emphasis to show what I am replying to.

The deal is that Gestalt does both.

Gestalt both gains power and adds versatility - and not just in a "more spells, longer adventuring day" kind of way. The Gestalt rules assume that you are gaining raw power as much as you are gaining versatility. They even recommend synergistic class combinations that supposedly produce "especially powerful" combinations. From beginning to end, Gestalt was never meant to shore up small groups without simultaneously adding power.

To be honest I'm not sure how that's even possible. I suppose particularly un-synergistic combinations would achieve something similar? For example the aforementioned Sorcerer//Wizard is unlikely to be really that much more powerful than a standard Wizard. But the wider spell selection would allow the selection of more niche spells, adding versatility.

How do you imagine a ruleset that allows fewer characters to accomplish more roles without increasing their power? Gestalt saw this and simply included power gain as one of their primary goals - they saw a "problem" and made it one of the primary features of the rulesets. With Gestalt, you cannot separate power from versatility - the system assumes both.

~~~

You're right that a standard "high tier//high tier" combination is no big deal. Getting more spells doesn't matter because of action economy limitations - if you only have a standard action, it doesn't matter if your spell list is twice as long, or three times as long, or whatever. As you rightfully point out, spells are spells and that doesn't change much.

The most powerful Gestalt combinations are a higher tier class + a lower tier class. Like Magus + Wizard? Much stronger than Wizard + Sorcerer. Paladin + Summoner? Much better than Sorcerer + Summoner.

I agree with you - and I think that's absolutely fine. DnD (and by extension Pathfinder) is a system that rewards system mastery. A High Tier//High Tier class is suboptimal. But this is a feature, a design goal, and something that was a relevant part of playing Gestalt. If you used to be on the boards when DnD 3.5 was really popular, there used to be Gestalt Optimization guides. People used to ask for their favorite Gestalt builds and the most optimal class combinations. There was definitely a hierarchy and High Tier//High Tier was usually never at the top.

For example? In DnD 3.5, one of the strongest Gestalt options is Monk - all good Base Saves, Wis to AC, and passive bonuses and immunities meant it was a really attractive option for Clerics and Druids. Factotum? Amazing synergy with Wizard or Warblade. Sorcerer and Paladin was completely fine and optimal and an absolute terror to fight. ((The builds were often more complicated than that due to the use of PrCs in DnD 3.5, but my general point is illuminated with simpler examples.))

Some Gestalt combinations are much stronger than others and that's totally fine. If you are afraid that they cannot be challenge without "killing" other high tier classes....those characters have to find better gestalt combinations. Think of it as different "Tiers" of combinations.

Let's say you have a party of Summoner, Druid, Wizard, and Monk. It would be really hard to challenge the Summoner without killing the monk, no? How is this "problem" with different Gestalt combinations any different? The DM always struggles to build coherent encounters if the party contains members with vastly different power levels - Gestalt just makes those differences more noticeable, but it's still the same issues that plague normal DnD play.

~~~~

I disagree that Gestalt and Mythic have to "compete" - they are different rulesets meant to accomplish different goals. Mythic is more comparable to Epic in DnD 3.5 - the ability to completely resist death, gain immortality, be completely immune to non-Mythic foes, the list goes on. Mythic rules even provides DR/Epic - something that in DnD 3.5 was reserved....well it was reserved for Epic (level 21+) gameplay :smalltongue:

At the very least thematically speaking, they are entirely different - even if the end result are more powerful PCs in both rulesets.

EDIT:

Also I noticed in your class combinations, you mention classes that can easily abuse action economy.

Yeah - those are strong in Gestalt. Obviously.

You want to abuse action economy? Compare Factotum - the ability to get an extra Standard Action every encounter. Even better, people would stack up on Font of Inspiration feats to abuse this. It wasn't unheard of for a Factotum//Wizard to blow half of their spells in one encounter, and then do it all over again because their Inspiration resource refreshes every encounter.


At the end of the day, this simply isn't "new" to Pathfinder. Pathfinder just has different combinations to abuse action economy, not more powerful ones.

[Necromancy]

One of the few caster builds that can actually keep up with the martial classes on sheer DPR from the start. Key here are a 3x class level bonus damage mechanic coupled with moving spells over to be a crit weapon. This is an example of how to generate an absurdly high amount of damage that will outpace whatever is thrown against it.

If you don´t know the other three examples by now, they all focus on upgrading the economy of actions to the point that one character can actually replace two and still be very effective at it.
Dual blooded = crossblooded?

Wtf is a havoc sorcerer?
You mind linking it? Cause Google doesn't even know what you're talking about

[Florian]

Dual blooded = crossblooded?

Wtf is a havoc sorcerer?
You mind linking it? Cause Google doesn't even know what you're talking about

Ah, ok! No, I can´ link it, as it´s from Magic Tactics Toolbox and still in the grace period until it goes up to the regular online sources. It´s Bloodline Mutations and especially Blood Havoc/Blood Intensity I´m talking about here.

The gist of it is generating bonus damage dice equal to CHA/STR mod, whatever is higher and generating bonus damage per die and target. So your basic sorcerer without crossblooded (my error, it´s called dual blooded in my native language) can throw around massive amounts of damage even before Intensify Spell comes in. So even a very weak sorcerer build with CHA 20 at 8th will generate 5 additional damage die for a regular Fireball and add level/damage to each creature hit in the area. Now add in crossblooded and things like the orc bloodline and you know where this is heading.

Go one step further and notice that I wrote STR or CHA. Now you can imagine what it means when coupled with a class that can really push this hard, like Bloodrager or Eldritch Scion.

[Necromancy]

Yeah TL:DR

Lemme stop you there and say mythic utterly destroys whatever damage dice cheese you're talking about.

Back on topic.... Wait, have we agreed on what this post is even about anymore?

[Florian]

Back on topic.... Wait, have we agreed on what this post is even about anymore?

We have and it´s how to use the basic Gestalt rules in a game and how or what changes it.

[Krazzman]

I think we can agree on the fact that gestalt is about power and versatility. As well as that if one character uses it all others need to be doing that too.

Helping "bad" classes being viable is a nice goal but ultimately gestalt is an option with massive gm screening. Deciding what stacks or overwrites or excludes.

For example saying a cleric//Paladin having only one pool of channel due to getting the same ability and thus taking only the cleric one would be justified, as would be allowing them to coexist as 2 separate pools of channel.

What I did for my current campaign was sitting together with the guys and advise them on certain class combinations. One tried to fulfil a concept, one went along with my advice and one took a bit of it and made a ranger//oradin.
I had to change some things around with them due to unforeseen circumstances and it is quite hard to balance encounter for them since I am unexperienced.
The thing is as a DM you can forbid archetypes from being used in gestalt. Like your mentioned crossblooded problematic build. And I would recommend that for using gestalt. Since mythic just brings power, except for casters... inspired spells is just pretty awesome in our current optimisation level, I think gestalt is an easier way for smaller groups.

[Laurent]

Hello, after a lot of reading about gestalt, P6/P8, their advantages and their drawbacks, I tried to think about a system to make gestalt character in a P8 game, with interesting combinations, good versatibility, and not too much powerful because of combination of new classes and archetypes.
I got inspired by the variant multiclass from unchained.

Don't hesitate to criticize a lot, as long as we avoid critics about "gestalt" of "P8" :)
The could be mistakes and a few classes look too weak and need to be reworked (the ranger, for example)

Building A Variant Gestalt E8 Character
To make a 1st-level gestalt character, choose two classes, a primary class and a secondary class. (You can also choose any archetype for the primary class but you can’t combine two versions of the same class.) Build your character according to the following guidelines.

Hit Dice
Choose the larger Hit Die. A monk/sorcerer would use d8 as her Hit Die and have 8 hit points (plus Constitution modifier) at 1st level, for example.

Base Attack Bonus
Choose the better progression from the two classes.

Base Saving Throw Bonuses
For each save bonus, choose the better progression from the two classes. For example, a 1st-level variant gestalt fighter/wizard would have base saving throw bonuses of Fortitude +2, Reflex +0, Will +2—taking the good Fortitude save from the fighter class and the good Will save from the wizard class.

Class Skills
Take the number of skill points gained per level from whichever class grants more skill points, and consider any skill on either class list as a class skill for the variant gestalt character. For example, a variant gestalt barbarian/bard would gain skill points per level equal to 6 + Int modifier and can purchase skills from both the barbarian and bard lists as class skills.

Class Features
A variant gestalt character gains the class features of its primary class and a few features of its secondary class at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th levels.
Class- and ability-based restrictions (such as arcane spell failure chance and a druid’s prohibition on wearing metal armor) apply normally to a gestalt character, no matter what the other class is.

Occult, Psionics, Spheres of Power, Path of War classes must be primary classes and cannot be mixed.
These classes are too complex or too rich to be summarized into 4 abilities without loosing too much.

A variant gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses a primary class and a secondary class, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.
Variant Gestalt characters don't have the spellcasting ability of their secondary class.
Prestige classes are not allowed for now (they may be turned into secondary classes later).

SECONDARY CLASS ABILITIES

CORE CLASSES

BARBARIAN (UNCHAINED)
1 RAGE
3 UNCANNY DODGE
5 RAGE POWER
7 IMPROVED UNCANNY DODGE, RAGE POWER

BARD
1 BARDIC KNOWLEDGE
3 BARDIC PERFORMANCE (LVL-2)
5 VERSATILE PERFORMANCE
7 LORE MASTER

CLERIC
1 DOMAIN (1st power)
3 CHANNEL ENERGY 1d6
5 CHANNEL ENERGY 2d6
7 DOMAIN (2nd power)

DRUID
1 ANIMAL COMPANION or DOMAIN (1st power)
3 WILD EMPATHY
5 WILD SHAPE (2/day)
7 DOMAIN (2nd power) or ANIMAL COMPANION ADVANCEMENT

FIGHTER
1 BRAVERY +1, BONUS COMBAT FEAT
3 ARMOR TRAINING
5 WEAPON TRAINING
7 ADVANCED ARMOR TRAINING or ADVANCED WEAPON TRAINING

MONK (UNCHAINED)
1 UNARMED STRIKE
3 FLURRY OF BLOWS
5 KI POOL/KI STRIKE (MAGIC)
7 KI POWER

PALADIN
1 SMITE EVIL (1/day)
3 LAY ON HANDS
5 SMITE EVIL (2/day)
7 DIVINE BOND

RANGER
1 TRACK
3 FAVORED ENEMY
5 FAVORED TERRAIN
7 HUNTER'S BOND

ROGUE (UNCHAINED)
1 TRAPFINDING, WEAPON FINESSE
3 SNEAK ATTACK +1d6
5 ROGUE TALENT
7 SNEAK ATTACK +2d6

SORCERER
1 BLOODLINE POWER
3 BLOODLINE POWER
5 CANTRIP
7 BLOODLINE BONUS FEAT

WIZARD
1 ARCANE SCHOOL
3 ARCANE BOND
5 CANTRIP
7 BONUS FEAT (METAMAGIC, ITEM CREATION or SPELL MASTERY) or ARCANE DISCOVERY

BASE CLASSES

ALCHEMIST
1 ALCHEMY
3 BOMB 1d6
5 MUTAGEN
7 DISCOVERY, BOMB 2d6

CAVALIER
1 TACTICIAN
3 CHALLENGE 1/day
5 ORDER ABILITY
7 CHALLENGE 2/day

GUNSLINGER
1 GUNSMITH
3 GRIT, DEEDS (level 1)
5 GUN TRAINING 1
7 DEEDS (level 3)

INQUISITOR
1 INQUISITION
3 JUDGMENT 1/day
5 DISCERN LIES
7 JUDGMENT 2/day

MAGUS
1 ARCANE POOL
3 MAGUS ARCANA
5 BONUS FEAT (COMBAT, ITEM CREATION or METAMAGIC)
7 MAGUS ARCANA

ORACLE
1 MYSTERY, ORACLE'S CURSE
3 REVELATION
5 ORISON
7 REVELATION

SUMMONER (UNCHAINED)
1 EIDOLON
3 BOND SENSES
5 SHIELD ALLY
7 MAKER'S CALL

VIGILANTE
1 DUAL IDENTITY
3 SOCIAL TALENT
5 VIGILANTE TALENT
7 SOCIAL TALENT or VIGILANTE TALENT

WITCH
1 HEX
3 HEX
5 HEX
7 HEX

ALTERNATE CLASSES

ANTIPALADIN
1 SMITE GOOD (1/day)
3 TOUCH OF CORRUPTION
5 SMITE GOOD (2/day)
7 FIENDISH BOON

NINJA
1 NINJA TRICK
3 KI POOL
5 NINJA TRICK
7 LIGHT STEPS

SAMURAI
1 RESOLVE
3 CHALLENGE 1/day
5 ORDER ABILITY
7 CHALLENGE 2/day

HYBRID CLASSES

ARCANIST
1 ARCANE RESERVOIR, CANTRIP
3 ARCANIST EXPLOIT
5 ARCANIST EXPLOIT
7 ARCANIST EXPLOIT

BLOODRAGER
1 BLOODLINE POWER (1st level)
3 BLOODRAGE
5 BLOOD CASTING, ESCHEW MATERIALS
7 BLOODLINE POWER (4th level)

BRAWLER
1 UNARMED STRIKE
3 MARTIAL FLEXIBILITY
5 KNOCKOUT
7 MARTIAL FLEXIBILITY (SWIFT ACTION)

HUNTER
1 ANIMAL COMPANION
3 ANIMAL FOCUS
5 HUNTER TACTICS, TEAMWORK FEAT
7 TEAMWORK FEAT

INVESTIGATOR
1 INSPIRATION
3 INVESTIGATOR TALENT
5 STUDIED COMBAT, STUDIED STRIKE 1d6
7 INVESTIGATOR TALENT

SHAMAN
1 SPIRIT, SPIRIT ANIMAL
3 HEX
5 HEX, WANDERING SPIRIT
7 HEX, WANDERING HEX

SKALD
1 RAGING SONG
3 BARDIC KNOWLEDGE
5 RAGE POWER
7 LORE MASTER

SLAYER
1 STUDIED TARGET
3 SLAYER TALENT
5 SLAYER TALENT
7 STALKER

SWASHBUCKLER
1 SWASHBUCKLER FINESSE
3 PANACHE, DEEDS (level 1)
5 CHARMED LIFE 3/day
7 DEEDS (level 3)

WARPRIEST
1 BLESSINGS
3 FERVOR 1d6
5 SACRED WEAPON +1
7 SACRED ARMOR +1, FERVOR 2d6