How much more powerful than gestalt is tristalt?

[HaikenEdge]

I've had experience playing and GM both regular and gestalt games in 3.5, and a GM I know is saying he wants to run a tristalt game. I, however, and concerned about power balance, and I'm curious how much more powerful tristalt is compared to gestalt.

[Nifft]

Vanilla gestalt (no LA, no RHD) generally goes one of two ways:
a - The two classes directly enhance each other; or
b - One class is "active", while the other's features are "passive".

(a) seems to happen when the enhancements are non-spellcasting. For example, a Fighter // Barbarian would probably have bonus Fighter feats that directly enhance Barbarian melee combat.

(a) is not a problem because non-spellcasting kinda sucks.

(b) usually means one class is spellcasting ("active") and the other is non-spellcasting defenses ("passive").

(b) is not a problem because spellcasting is as good as spellcasting was before the gestalt, and the defenses are nice but not particularly broken.

== == ==

Some people play non-vanilla gestalt, and allow stuff like:
- LA "on one side" of the gestalt
- RHD "on one side" of the gestalt

This is a combination of (a) and (b) in that you can easily find a template or race which directly enhances spellcasting, and now you're doing better than baseline spellcasting could have done. This tends to be more broken.

== == ==

Tristalt can be even more broken if you allow double LA on "two sides", or it can be no big deal if you ban LA and RHD.

[Buufreak]

It really depends on what you pick. Obviously, between Fighter//Ranger//Barbarian and Wizard//Cleric//Psion, one is more powerful than the other. I'd compare it as equally broken as standard play: it is fully reliant on the player and what choices they make in character development.

[Celestia]

Gestalting more than once yields diminishing returns with each class added. Sure, your wizard//fighter gained d10s, full BAB, and high fortitude saves, but now your wizard//fighter//rogue also has high reflex saves and 8 skill points! And the wizard//fighter//rogue//monk gets an unarmored bonus!

Trisalt is certainly stronger than gestalt, but the difference between them is largely minimal. One thing that I really like about gestalt is that it greatly limits the usefulness of the best classes. Sure, a cleric//druid//sorcerer has an absurd number of spells, but he still only has one standard action each turn. It's really no more broken than a single class caster.

I agree with Nifft about the races/templates thing, though. That can potentially make things get crazy. Most things, however, are just fine. The majority of monsters are just beatsticks, anyways.

[Sam K]

Not very. And gestalt is only powerful if you're using things that are powerful in vanilla D&D: gestalted druid/unarmed swordsage with natural spell is powerful, gestalted fighter/rogue isn't.

A player who hasn't broken the game with a Warblade/wizard isn't going to break it with a warblade/wizard/psion either. And a player interested in breaking the game could break it just as badly with just a wizard.

Tristalt will, however, make an attrition strategy much harder. You have so many full caster lists in an average party that it will be hard to run them out of utility spells. And smart players can def throw off some DM plans with all the preparations they can make, but those same players would likely do that in a regular game as well. Action economy is always the limit for the clever players.

[Andreaz]

It's not much more powerful, and the power/complexity ratio goes waaaay up.

You just run into so much overlap, so much excess of mutually exclusive actions, and so so much bookkeeping.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Engines and Gestalting: An Analogy

You have electric cars and petrol cars, and you have multiclass hybrid cars, which have advantages of both, but also weigh more (or have less electric/petrol than respective specialist cars).

In gestalt, you're essentially getting the second power source for free, which is really nice if you pick electric and petrol, or turboprop and electric, and not so interesting if you pick petrol and diesel, or even diesel and diesel.

In tristalt, you're getting an electric//petrol car that also has a turboprop drive (or a diesel engine). It's... better? I guess? But there aren't that many electric//petrol concepts that really need a turboprop drive, even if turboprops are quite useful by themselves, and pretty much no electric//petrol concept needs a diesel, barring fuel shortage or triple redundancy.

In short, tristalt is definitely stronger than gestalt, just because you get a certain minimum of free stuff, but it's not in a different ballpark. Differences between tristalt builds will be much bigger than differences between tristalt and the equivalent gestalt build.

[RoboEmperor]

Super mega ultra godly more powerful.

1-spellcasting class
2-passive class
3-super mega ultra godly high LA+ race

[NomGarret]

I would imagine the difference at most tables from gestalt and tristalt is that weaknesses are shored up more than strengths boosted. It's a few more skill points to spread around, a few more good saves, but most importantly it's a lot more spell slots to prep situational spells. High LA races get better when you have two other classes covering the HD gaps on the other side than just one, so that's a potential source of trouble. Interstingly, this means typically poor race types like elemental get a bigger boost than good ones like dragon or outsider.

[Red Fel]

Yeah, I'm with those who say "diminishing returns." Unless you basically allow a player to slap up to 20 levels of pure LA/RHD on one side, the difference between gestalt and tristalt is the difference between "more" and "even more."

What gestalting gets you is versatility. A Fighter chassis with Cleric spells. A Wizard's casting with a Rogue's skills. A Monk's saves with a Psion's powers. If it isn't adding to stuff you can do, it's a waste. And the fact is, a classic gestalt strategy - assuming everything is on the table - is just to slap a Tier 1 class on one side, and whatever you want on the other. Add a third side, and what can you add that's more versatile than a Tier 1 class? Do you know what happens when you have two Tier 1 classes in your gestalt/tristalt build? You have the equivalent of a Tier 1 class. You don't get more versatile than that.

Try to imagine the most versatile, powerful, gamebreaking gestalt combination you can. Now try to imagine the most versatile, powerful, gamebreaking tristalt combination. Is there that substantial a difference between what they can do? Yes, both are completely broken and can crack the world like an egg. Does one crack it more than the other? Only barely.

And most builds aren't going to be that one. They'll be tamer. There'll be the bookkeeping from leveling three times per level, but most people probably aren't even going to use everything at their disposal.

So, yeah. Diminishing returns.

[martixy]

Strongly diminishing returns in fact.

Gestalt offers you the unique ability to combine certain things that you wouldn't be able to in a normal game. Full CL on PrCs that skip progression. Earlier entry into many PrCs. The ability to viably play high-LA races/creatures. Synergizing class features you have no way to do otherwise.

Those are qualitative improvements over the base game.

Tristalt... well, it does barely anything. None of it is qualitative. Just quantitative improvements to numbers that are already likely to be high.

It actually flips the table on a certain other power dynamic D&D is known for.
Usually class features trump ability scores.

Not anymore with tristalt... tristalt with an average point-buy is less powerful/fun/versatile than gestalt with high point buy.
Because high point buy offers the qualitative improvement of being able to create effective MAD builds, while even tristalt that's forced to be SAD significantly limits your effective build choices.

[Hurnn]

Depends on the classes chosen but in the end the top end is pretty much the same. Fighter-Rogue is way better than just Fighter, and Fighter-Rogue-Druid is clearly better than either by a lot but most of the gain is just from Druid. Is Wizard-Psion-Cleric Really that much better than just Wizard-Cleric? I don't think so, you get more staying power but that's really about it.

[Aegis013]

As someone who has run a few gestalt games in real life and has a still ongoing tristalt PbP game going strong on these forums (now for over 3 years and across a span of 8 level ups!) I happily toss my hat in the ring with the majority opinion in this thread. It's not that much different. Challenges that are tough for gestalt characters aren't much easier for tristalt characters of the same level/optimization.

If your DM is comfortable challenging gestalt characters of your group's normal optimization level, tristalt will just feel like an opportunity to grab some stuff you might not have considered before to test out without any real risk of your character becoming less competent compared to your group.

The other issue you may run into is feat starvation, depending on if other things are adjusted. Tristalt characters often want substantially more feats than normal characters, even if they're not strictly necessary.

[Nifft]

As someone who has run a few gestalt games in real life and has a still ongoing tristalt PbP game going strong on these forums (now for over 3 years and across a span of 8 level ups!) I happily toss my hat in the ring with the majority opinion in this thread. It's not that much different. Challenges that are tough for gestalt characters aren't much easier for tristalt characters of the same level/optimization.

If your DM is comfortable challenging gestalt characters of your group's normal optimization level, tristalt will just feel like an opportunity to grab some stuff you might not have considered before to test out without any real risk of your character becoming less competent compared to your group.

The other issue you may run into is feat starvation, depending on if other things are adjusted. Tristalt characters often want substantially more feats than normal characters, even if they're not strictly necessary.

Do you use vanilla Gestalt (no LA / no RHD), or bonkers gonzo Gestalt (unlimited LA on "one side"), or something in the middle?

[Fouredged Sword]

I would roughly consider Gestalt to be roughly 1.3 times the value of a standard class. This means a party of 3 gestalt characters is worth about the same as a party of 4 regular characters. A gestalt party of 3 has the resources to face the same challenges as a 4 man party of standard classes for roughly the same amount of encounters per day. If the parties are build to work together they will be about as flexible.

This is what gestalt is designed to do, allow smaller groups to function without suffering the loss of some vital assumed ability that 3.5 just thinks every group will have. Each encounter will likely cost the gestalt group more, as they have less actions, but they also tend to have more reserve than a standard party, due to everyone having spell slots or equivalent.

Tristalt characters are worth about 1.4. They are mechanically worth almost the same as a gestalt character. Put three of them together and they will do better than the gestalt group, but this will mostly take the form of having the resources for an extra encounter or so each day. This makes sense as they tally to a total of 4.3. They are not such a gain that a two man party can compete vs a four many standard party assuming the same optimization level. (On an adventure to adventure basis, not arenas as they don't actually show usefulness very well.)

[Aegis013]

Do you use vanilla Gestalt (no LA / no RHD), or bonkers gonzo Gestalt (unlimited LA on "one side"), or something in the middle?

Somewhere in the middle on my tristalt game. The characters started at level 6, so inherited templates and RHD had to be held within the first 6 levels. Though if a player wants something and it doesn't appear imbalancing or set precedent I want to avoid I'm usually open to finding a way to allow it.

I've dealt with the anthropomorphic baleen whale in a gestalt game for example, but I didn't personally find it more difficult to provide adequate and interesting challenges for than non gestalt parties.

[Nifft]

Somewhere in the middle on my tristalt game. The characters started at level 6, so inherited templates and RHD had to be held within the first 6 levels. Though if a player wants something and it doesn't appear imbalancing or set precedent I want to avoid I'm usually open to finding a way to allow it.

Makes sense.

It sounds like if you're reasonably careful to avoid balance-breaking stacking and such, then Tristalt isn't much different than Gestalt.

[Snowbluff]

I will concur that there is a diminishing return. Outside of strong optimization, there are only so many types of bonuses that stack and only so many actions you can take in a turn.

[Morphic tide]

I'm in agreement with the thread that it's not much stronger, with some catches. The extra levels give room for depth of class function. I can make a tri-theurge of Incarnum, Initiating and Psionics as an unarmed powerhouse functional, but the extra 20 levels means there's room for more detailed shenanigans, or just making the existing stuff stronger. Adding Psion 20 to a setup that already has Warblade 20 is a big boost with just one feat that renders Psion mostly passive. The feat lets you refresh a Manoeuvre by spending PP equal to the Manoeuvre level.

To kinda go over a MAD-as-hell setup I came up with for Gestalt that is a crude method of doing the above tri-theurge-gish, have a quote of the post I came up with it in"


Well, if you are really only going to be low-level, Truenamer actually only becomes non-useful above level 6. Mix with Artificer to be making the items you'll need later on, particularly skill boosters.

More realistically, the typical advice for Gestalt applies in full force. Have just one active build, with the rest being passive bonuses to support it. Personally, in shenanigans-land, given your book access, I'd go with Totemist 2/Incarnate 15/Crusader 3//PsyWar 8/Wilder 7/Warblade 5

The reason for each pick is as follows:

Totemist 2: Totem Bind Girrallon Arms for four Claw attacks with Enhancement bonus without PP investment, Totemist meld list access

Incarnate 15: +2 Soulmeld investement cap, bringing it up to 6 Essentia maximum. 7 for Totem Chakra, so you can have +7 to attack and damage on four Natural Attacks. Also list access.

PsyWar 8: 8 PsyWar powers, two of 3rd level. This includes Psionic healing for 2PP less that Wilder, as well as Vampiric Claws. Also Lion's Charge access and four bonus feats.

Wilder 7: Better PP progression than PsyWar and +3 Wild Surge, which isn't class restricted. +3 ML for PsyWar powers that have augments for hours/ML duration is a nice thing.

Crusader 3: +1 to attack and damage whenever you've taken any damage in the last round. And Devoted Spirit and a bit of manoeuvre progression. And the full-BAB HD.

Warblade 5: 6 known Manoeuvres, Uncanny Dodge, Weapon Aptitude, a bonus feat, full BAB, Int to Reflex saves and crit confirmation and the rather useful Manoeuvre list.

In terms of playstyle, Unarmed Swordsage might work better than Warblade. It depends on if the damage boost applies to Girallon Arms. It'd be less MAD, but you're not exactly needing to worry about that. Mostly, you're using Bestow Power loop to fuel PsyWar and Psycarnum Infusion to cap a Soulmeld in emergencies/whenever you can get away with it. Manoeuvres are a thing that is rather helpful for flexibility and making you last longer without Bestow Power looping. There's a feat that lets you spend PP to refresh a Manoeuvre, Psychic Renewal, which makes the ToB inclusion into a powerhouse by letting you just keep spamming strong Manoeuvres until you run out of PP. Which will never happen if you are paying attention.

Yes, this is a cheese pile, but it's a suboptimal one. It's only using one major trick and is focusing it on a sub-par use.

This particular build becomes far stronger in Tristalt because you have three different power sources to work with and only one is actually active, the initiating. The other two supplement the active through buffs and offer situational abilities. Being able to stick Incarnate 15/Totemist 5 in the build is a significant advantage because it gives the Least Chakras on Totemist, giving more melee relevant bonuses. Being able to have PsyWar 13/Wilder 7 means you get five more PsyWar powers with one of them being able to be a 5th level power, as well as another bonus feat.

And then you have a side that gets to go all in on Martial Initiating. Swordsage synergises with Psychic Warrior and Incarnate, while Totemist scales with Con score, so it's not actually hurting ability score dependencies because let's be honest, as a Meldshaper in melee, Con is a serious contender for top priority. Particularly given the whole +7 to attack and damage from having an Essentia cap of 7 on the Totem Chakra to blow on Girralion Arms.

Optimal? No, but it's a demonstration of how Tristalt can cause significant power increases. Tristalt gives some pretty significant boosts for moderate optimization because you have more fallback room for clunky decisions. For low op and TO, it doesn't change things much. In low op, people are still going to be flailing near-uselessly with stuff they don't understand how to use. With TO, there's very little more that can be done past Gestalt. Even with TO, there's a limit to how many useful abilities there are.

Of course, certain homebrew enables heavy shenanigans, as always. Remnant Casting is a subsystem that gives power that has only per turn limits. The use of said power is free actions. The wizard-equivalent of the subsystem has literally no class features to spend their actual actions on and can't buff themselves into a Gish, so the class is fundamentally perfect for slapping onto a 'stalt progression because it never takes up any actions. Literally no matter what. Interestingly, Remnant Casting is actually quite well balanced. It just has a bundle of mechanical weirdness stemming from free action casting.

[AOKost]

Due primarily to the limits of action economy, having a ton to select from doesn't change how many things can be done in a single round. I love the idea of every player bing able to sling the spells/abilities they want and when they run out, they still have viable skills to back themselves up with. No one character can overcome an army, but the right group should make kingdoms think twice before full on attacking a high level group.

I use a system based on Custom Characters: http://www.easydamus.com/CustomCharacters.html and heavily modified with the rest of D&D 3.X and Pathfinder, and it works great! Everyone can literally become the character they want and envision without many of the constraints of 'multiclassing' or even 'gestalting'. In many ways, Custom Characters is the Ultimate Gestalt system... And that's a way of looking at it that I hadn't ever really thought about before... Nice!

Then again, to me, Custom Characters is, character customization wise, the most diverse rout a character could possibly go. There isn't any class system I've ever come across that could ever possibly offer anything remotely close to the amount of RP character driven development that can begin to compare.

The ability to customize a character to the exact way I want them to turn out is what I look for in a great game/system. I love the vast majority of the rules of D&D/Pathfinder, but not the character creation rules/development system.

[Tohsaka Rin]

The thing gestalt and tristalt really add to the game, is the freedom to make dumb, silly, or functionally-useless builds work, without the fear of playing a dumb, silly, or functionally-useless character.

I say this as a person who liked to go Psion/Monk, and much later, Psion/Scout. That was without gestalt/tristalt. Of course, the DM loved to never give out loot most of the time, so it arguably leveled the playing field, but I digress.

No matter how crappy your chosen build is, slapping Cleric onto the side, for example, is a fantastic safety net. It's fairly hard to screw up a Cleric, even without any feats or skills.