Views on using Gestalt for big bosses? [3.P]

[SilverLeaf167]

I think I've seen relatively little discussion on this subject, but still some opposing views.

How do you feel about the possibility of a DM using Gestalt builds for specific important NPCs in an otherwise non-Gestalt game, particularly ones the PCs may/will face as "bosses"? Not every single elite mook, mind you, more like memorable long-time characters.

As someone who's usually-but-not-always the DM, I think it's an acceptable way to make important characters more versatile and challenging. It's possible to retort that the DM should "play by the same rules", and it's a good principle for many things, but personally I don't like to treat the game as an arms race anyway; if the DM actually wanted to just crush the players, there'd be no competition. Their job is to make encounters interesting, and I think tricks like this are a good way to do that by adding variety rather than just amping up the numbers, while still using set principles instead of simply fudging things.

Still, I can see why someone might disagree, especially in a more optimization-minded group (?).

As a side note, what other mechanical tweaks (not just interesting scenarios) do you think can improve a boss battle?

NOTE: I'm assuming that the DM will use restraint and character-appropriate builds rather than just make everyone a Factotum.

[Muggins]

My bosses are always gestalt whenever I DM, even in a non-gestalt game. A good combination of classes can do wonders for versatility, potency, and depth.

Then again, I also tend to give them multiple actions per round - I had a Doc Ock villain once who had a penchant for bombs, so he'd throw one every round in addition to his regular actions. It helps balance out the action economy and demonstrates why the BBEG is the BBEG:

Because they get to cheat. Nyeh-nyeh. :smallyuk:

[ExLibrisMortis]

Ultimately, gestalt is a constraint on character building. Since custom big bosses have very loose build constraints already, there's no particular need to use gestalt rules. They are still fun, and they can serve as a sort of limit to how much you can pile on, but ultimately it's the resulting challenge that matters, not the build rules.

For example, if you're building something like a knight/crusader/cleric/paladin/ordained champion/monk/argent fist/sacred fist big bad, you've probably gone overboard (even if it fits in gestalt), and should have cherry-picked some class features from the relevant classes (in this case, heavy armour + monk abilities, divine casting + channeling, reach + trip).

I suppose it could be annoying if a player eats your big bad's brain, trying to steal borrow a class feature they expected but you didn't pick. That should be a relatively niche problem that's easily solved, though.

[DMVerdandi]

Ultimately, gestalt is a constraint on character building. Since custom big bosses have very loose build constraints already, there's no particular need to use gestalt rules. They are still fun, and they can serve as a sort of limit to how much you can pile on, but ultimately it's the resulting challenge that matters, not the build rules.

For example, if you're building something like a knight/crusader/cleric/paladin/ordained champion/monk/argent fist/sacred fist big bad, you've probably gone overboard (even if it fits in gestalt), and should have cherry-picked some class features from the relevant classes (in this case, heavy armour + monk abilities, divine casting + channeling, reach + trip).

I suppose it could be annoying if a player eats your big bad's brain, trying to steal borrow a class feature they expected but you didn't pick. That should be a relatively niche problem that's easily solved, though.

So you are essentially, saying gestalt makes it so that you cannot fudge as a DM?
I disagree. Having builds that are not accessable to players is one thing, but just piling on a bunch of mess and home brewing your way into challenging them is kind of shenanigans.

The constraints are good, because they provide you with focus. BBEG's already have blank checks in so far as resources, having each be classless and without limits is IMO, far too liberal.
Rule 0ing everything is like a fun killer to me, at least, since I am being constrained, and unfortunately If I am metagaming, (Who isn't), and I hear something I know the DM pulled out of his butt, It would grate me a little.

There are more than enough rules to make a competent challenge, and if there aren't. home brewing a class isn't that bad, but If we want to see the rules afterwards, I want consistency. That's just me though.





At OP, Go for it, champ.

[Lord of Monies]

There are more than enough rules to make a competent challenge, and if there aren't. home brewing a class isn't that bad, but If we want to see the rules afterwards, I want consistency. That's just me though.

There are a lot of rules though and I'm sure players will appreciate that, so when they come across something decidedly custom-crafted then I'm sure they might even appreciate the novelty of the encounter provided it's not wildly unbalanced without some kind of reason behind it.

[SilverLeaf167]

My bosses are always gestalt whenever I DM, even in a non-gestalt game. A good combination of classes can do wonders for versatility, potency, and depth.

Then again, I also tend to give them multiple actions per round - I had a Doc Ock villain once who had a penchant for bombs, so he'd throw one every round in addition to his regular actions. It helps balance out the action economy and demonstrates why the BBEG is the BBEG:

Because they get to cheat. Nyeh-nyeh. :smallyuk:

Yeah, extra actions are a well-proven classic. They are a bit on-the-nose about the fact that the DM is fudging things, but when everyone's fine with that, who cares? (I suppose that applies to basically everything...)


Ultimately, gestalt is a constraint on character building. Since custom big bosses have very loose build constraints already, there's no particular need to use gestalt rules. They are still fun, and they can serve as a sort of limit to how much you can pile on, but ultimately it's the resulting challenge that matters, not the build rules.

For example, if you're building something like a knight/crusader/cleric/paladin/ordained champion/monk/argent fist/sacred fist big bad, you've probably gone overboard (even if it fits in gestalt), and should have cherry-picked some class features from the relevant classes (in this case, heavy armour + monk abilities, divine casting + channeling, reach + trip).

I suppose it could be annoying if a player eats your big bad's brain, trying to steal borrow a class feature they expected but you didn't pick. That should be a relatively niche problem that's easily solved, though.

Glad to know we share a general design philosophy ("Fun over Fair", to put it very bluntly), but I view the use of gestalt more as a... practical framework, especially when I can't list off the top of my head everything I want for the character. To follow up on your example, if I basically want to make an NPC a hybrid of two classes, I think it's easier (for both balance and the creative project) to make them a gestalt build first and then remove stuff you don't want than to take a normal character and add stuff on, let alone build from the ground up, if you catch my drift. Pretty much the same reason you'd look through the splatbooks for suitable monsters before homebrewing some. On the other hand, if I were to somehow end up requiring a build as complicated as your example, then I'd definitely start fudging the minor details.


So you are essentially, saying gestalt makes it so that you cannot fudge as a DM?
I disagree. Having builds that are not accessable to players is one thing, but just piling on a bunch of mess and home brewing your way into challenging them is kind of shenanigans.

The constraints are good, because they provide you with focus. BBEG's already have blank checks in so far as resources, having each be classless and without limits is IMO, far too liberal.
Rule 0ing everything is like a fun killer to me, at least, since I am being constrained, and unfortunately If I am metagaming, (Who isn't), and I hear something I know the DM pulled out of his butt, It would grate me a little.

There are more than enough rules to make a competent challenge, and if there aren't. home brewing a class isn't that bad, but If we want to see the rules afterwards, I want consistency. That's just me though.

At OP, Go for it, champ.
I definitely agree with the basic premise of trying to stick to the books and only deviating when "necessary" (whatever that means for any particular case), if only for consistency. One of the biggest rules I've set for myself as a DM (to avoid a slippery slope, pretty much) is to try and only make blatant fudges in the planning phase, where I have time to consider them more carefully. I feel that if I were to make such rulings in the middle of the game, the players would (rightfully?) feel like I'm just trying to stop them from doing cool stuff. That's just a personal principle, though, because I feel like I need one.

And to be fair, they didn't say you can't fudge if you use gestalt, only that gestalt is somewhat unnecessary if you're willing to fudge enough.

[Val666]

Big Bosses in my games are usually gestalt with a bit of homebrew which is: They can take 2 rounds worth of actions per round. (Thanks Demogorgon). I remember one time having a Final Boss with 6 rounds worth of actions per round <_< She was amazing, the players died (It was intended for the upcoming campaign though...)

[ExLibrisMortis]

So you are essentially, saying gestalt makes it so that you cannot fudge as a DM?
No, not at all. Choosing to follow gestalt rules is imposing a predefined limit on your fudging, but it still involves fudging (in a non-gestalt game).

However, I did want to point out that if you are fudging to the point that you build a gestalt boss to throw at non-gestalt players, then your choice to use gestalt, instead of, say, adding 2d6 random class abilities to a monster of choice, is pretty arbitrary. That doesn't mean gestalt is bad - I think it's probably one of the best ways to structure the way you add abilities to boss monsters (certainly better than 2d6 random abilities!) - but there are other strategies imaginable.

In short: Gestalt rules are a great tool, but to a DM, they are just guidelines.

[Lord of Monies]

In short: Gestalt rules are a great tool, but to a DM, they are just guidelines.

This is a fair bottom line - and I'm thinking of my own game world when I say this - but I would think very rare exceptional NPC characters could be straight up gestalt instead of as a base guideline in order to make them decidedly powerful. As an example in my game, whether they become a combat encounter or not, demi-gods are gestalt because of the innate divine power they have.

The other 99% of the time gestalt would just be a template, but for that elite 1% I would let them have their cake and eat it.


Big Bosses in my games are usually gestalt with a bit of homebrew which is: They can take 2 rounds worth of actions per round.

I was thinking of achieving this but by having the big bad have multiple initiative counts. It still has the effect of it doing a lot of things at once, but it's split up a bit more this way allowing for more tactical movement and disruption of party strategy.

[DarkSoul]

I don't feel like making gestalt enemies in a non-gestalt game is necessary, nor particularly effective, because it doesn't address the core issue of the battle: the boss only has one set of actions every round to work with, compared to the characters' 3-4+. Giving them more options for their single set of actions doesn't really accomplish anything other than giving the DM more to think about. If there's a second set of abilities that I'd like to have in a boss battle, I'll give the boss an underling that has those abilities, which also gives another set of actions per round to actually use them and another pool of hit points for the characters to contend with.

[John Longarrow]

Going Gestalt isn't a bad option though it often isn't as much of a game changer as adding extra BBEGs.

One BBEG who can cast arcane spells in heavy armor while fighting in melee like a fighter is nasty.
TWO BBEGs, one who is a melee tank and the other is an arcane powerhouse who sits out of range is terrifying. Not only is is based on action economy, its because you set up tactical limits on what the players can do. If they loose actions by going after the caster they effectively give the bag guys one or more rounds to pound on them. If they go after the tank, the caster has a free hand. If they split the difference you have all of the problems associated with splitting the party.

One fun way to up the encounter is to have a second (or third) BBEG that arrives after the fight has started. Nothing throws a party off more than having something big and nasty come in from behind.