A gestalt campaign setting?

[Westhart]

So, recently I was thinking (and possibly about to start) about writing up a campaign setting and was thinking... Why not have gestalt as the default? I mean all the settings I've seen don't so why not do something new? Would a setting like this work? I mean, things would be more powerful, but it would be interesting... Right?

[Cosi]

So, recently I was thinking (and possibly about to start) about writing up a campaign setting and was thinking... Why not have gestalt as the default? I mean all the settings I've seen don't so why not do something new? Would a setting like this work? I mean, things would be more powerful, but it would be interesting... Right?

Gestalt doesn't have that much of an impact at the campaign setting level. There's just not all that much difference between someone being a Monk and someone being a Monk/Fighter, from the perspective of their impact on society. They're still just one person who is fairly good at killing people with their hands. The big effect would be that magic is marginally more common (because you pick two classes, and are therefore more like to have at least one be a caster).

[Mike Miller]

There is nothing inherently wrong if that is what you and your players want. Keep in mind it is the DM (in this case you) who will have the extra work. All your NPCs will need to be gestalt. This lends to lots more prep time and potentially more complicated combat. There is the possibility of more interesting characters, too.

[Westhart]

Gestalt doesn't have that much of an impact at the campaign setting level. There's just not all that much difference between someone being a Monk and someone being a Monk/Fighter, from the perspective of their impact on society. They're still just one person who is fairly good at killing people with their hands. The big effect would be that magic is marginally more common (because you pick two classes, and are therefore more like to have at least one be a caster).
Yeah, I didn't think that gestalt would make a huge change, but wanted to see what everyone ere thought.

There is nothing inherently wrong if that is what you and your players want. Keep in mind it is the DM (in this case you) who will have the extra work. All your NPCs will need to be gestalt. This lends to lots more prep time and potentially more complicated combat. There is the possibility of more interesting characters, too.

Yes, gestalt can be more work (going to run a part of 7-8 gestalt through a module made for 4 level 7th (non-gestalt) characters, so I am used to that somewhat.

[Mike Miller]

Yes, gestalt can be more work (going to run a part of 7-8 gestalt through a module made for 4 level 7th (non-gestalt) characters, so I am used to that somewhat.

A party of 7 or 8 gestalt characters or a party of level 7-8 characters? I wouldn't want to DM a party of 8 characters let alone 8 gestalt characters.

As long as you are used to the power difference prep time is easy. You will get used to it if you aren't yet. If you have fewer characters than the module intends, just keep action economy in mind. Two gestalt characters a level above the module's recommended level may have a similar set of abilities as a lower level party of 3 or 4 characters, but they will be outnumbered in combat.

[Westhart]

A party of 7 or 8 gestalt characters or a party of level 7-8 characters? I wouldn't want to DM a party of 8 characters let alone 8 gestalt characters.

7-8 level 7 gestalts :smallbiggrin:

[martixy]

So, recently I was thinking (and possibly about to start) about writing up a campaign setting and was thinking... Why not have gestalt as the default? I mean all the settings I've seen don't so why not do something new? Would a setting like this work? I mean, things would be more powerful, but it would be interesting... Right?

Well I run a campaign like that.

Only difference is I can reasonably justify more things. Which I have to, cuz - you know - gestalt PCs.


7-8 level 7 gestalts :smallbiggrin:

Wouldn't want to participate in this horror though. My party is 3 people.

[PhantasyPen]

Traditionally I take the stance that gestalt should only be done if you have 4 players or less, generally just due to there maybe not being enough people to fill every "role" you or the players want to hit.

That being said, I did run a gestalt game once, and I ran it under the excuse "Everyone has to be a spellcaster." It was part of the setting lore I was using that everyone who qualified as a PC had to be able to use magic, so in order to keep from boxing my players into a small subset of classes and that is the only thing they could do, I let them play gestalt characters, and mandated that one side was a caster, and the other had to be a non-caster. In my mind this is the easiest way to justify gestalt on the campaign setting level: something is just so much a part of the world that your character has to incorporate it.

[Westhart]

Traditionally I take the stance that gestalt should only be done if you have 4 players or less, generally just due to there maybe not being enough people to fill every "role" you or the players want to hit.

That being said, I did run a gestalt game once, and I ran it under the excuse "Everyone has to be a spellcaster." It was part of the setting lore I was using that everyone who qualified as a PC had to be able to use magic, so in order to keep from boxing my players into a small subset of classes and that is the only thing they could do, I let them play gestalt characters, and mandated that one side was a caster, and the other had to be a non-caster. In my mind this is the easiest way to justify gestalt on the campaign setting level: something is just so much a part of the world that your character has to incorporate it.

Hmm, I guess that is one way to do it, although I am not a big fan of shoeing people into being something, I guess if they didn't mind it wouldn't be so bad.

[Nifft]

It's quite doable, and I've done it for a party of 3 PCs.

What I did was say that all important NPCs were Gestalt, but not all NPCs.

In my case, I had always added class levels and/or templates to "named meat" monsters, so Gestalt "named meat" monsters weren't that much extra work relative to normal.

For you, with 7 PCs... uh... you are taking on more work than I would have done, and I wish you success. But it seems like you might be able to run a non-Gestalt game and still have a very viable party.

Please let us know how it goes!

[PhantasyPen]

Hmm, I guess that is one way to do it, although I am not a big fan of shoeing people into being something, I guess if they didn't mind it wouldn't be so bad.

Eh, to be fair, the setting itself was based off a game that I really like, and the core of the game is that everyone you meet and play as is a magic-user (They used the term "sorcerer" which made the porting to 3.5 tricky however). And I can understand not wanting to force someone into something, which was the reason I made it a gestalt game in the first place, I didn't want to force my players into all being mages, but it was such a core part of the lore that not being able to use magic wouldn't work.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Quite possibly, the setting impact is minimal. NPC power tends to be somewhat oblique, and it's not like gestalt will lead to new TYPES of characters-- 3.5 already has plenty of options for mixing different subsystems. A Wizard//Warblade might work out differently than a Jade Phoenix Mage build, but they'll still LOOK like a gish.

The only way I think it would penetrate the campaign world is if you ever a bit more towards the "classes as in-game entities" bit and make duality a major cultural element. Mars in the old Martian Manhunter solo series was kind of like that-- everyone chose two roles and two professions to focus on.

[Blue Jay]

This is pretty much my standard operating procedure as DM. I've never DM-ed for non-gestalt PC's before, and I'm just too in love with the flexibility and customization of gestalt to regularly build anything that's not gestalt. So, probably 75% of the NPC's I send against my players are gestalt, and use the same (or similar) build rules that the PC's have.

Of course, my monsters and NPC's also tend to be cupcakes, because I'm kind of a lousy spellcaster, I don't like mid-combat bookkeeping, so I ignore a lot of potent options I could be using. Also, I have a hard time doing "mean" things to the PC's and I don't enjoy playing relentless, badass evil types, so my PC's usually find themselves in a world full of redeemable villains who threaten to do a lot of bad stuff to them but rarely actually do.

I think it works fine. For gestalt PC's vs gestalt NPC's, I usually set the challenge rating at character level +1. But recently, I've just been assigning arbitrary CR's that "seem close enough" to me.

But often, people who want to play gestalt really just like the high power level, so they kind of expect to be able to dominate every encounter. And if you do it my way, with gestalt NPC's and monsters, you might end up just frustrating those players. I guess, just make sure you know your players before you make the decision.

[Westhart]

It's quite doable, and I've done it for a party of 3 PCs.

What I did was say that all important NPCs were Gestalt, but not all NPCs.

Hmm, I may/may not have just went and rebuilt everything :smallbiggrin:


In my case, I had always added class levels and/or templates to "named meat" monsters, so Gestalt "named meat" monsters weren't that much extra work relative to normal.

Yeah, I usually do the same... and if the party is particularly strong and mowing through everything I replace RHD with class level, or give them a caster level in something that is similar equal to RHD


For you, with 7 PCs... uh... you are taking on more work than I would have done, and I wish you success. But it seems like you might be able to run a non-Gestalt game and still have a very viable party.

Please let us know how it goes!
I will supposed to start Monday (the module I adapted, not the campaign I'm designing :smallwink:)

Eh, to be fair, the setting itself was based off a game that I really like, and the core of the game is that everyone you meet and play as is a magic-user (They used the term "sorcerer" which made the porting to 3.5 tricky however). And I can understand not wanting to force someone into something, which was the reason I made it a gestalt game in the first place, I didn't want to force my players into all being mages, but it was such a core part of the lore that not being able to use magic wouldn't work.
Fair enough then.

Quite possibly, the setting impact is minimal. NPC power tends to be somewhat oblique, and it's not like gestalt will lead to new TYPES of characters-- 3.5 already has plenty of options for mixing different subsystems. A Wizard//Warblade might work out differently than a Jade Phoenix Mage build, but they'll still LOOK like a gish.

Good point.


The only way I think it would penetrate the campaign world is if you ever a bit more towards the "classes as in-game entities" bit and make duality a major cultural element. Mars in the old Martian Manhunter solo series was kind of like that-- everyone chose two roles and two professions to focus on.
Hmm, I was thinking that it wouldn't affect much, just was wondering what the general consensus was, which seems to agree.

Thanks all!

[Westhart]

This is pretty much my standard operating procedure as DM. I've never DM-ed for non-gestalt PC's before, and I'm just too in love with the flexibility and customization of gestalt to regularly build anything that's not gestalt. So, probably 75% of the NPC's I send against my players are gestalt, and use the same (or similar) build rules that the PC's have.

Never? o.0


Of course, my monsters and NPC's also tend to be cupcakes, because I'm kind of a lousy spellcaster, I don't like mid-combat bookkeeping, so I ignore a lot of potent options I could be using. Also, I have a hard time doing "mean" things to the PC's and I don't enjoy playing relentless, badass evil types, so my PC's usually find themselves in a world full of redeemable villains who threaten to do a lot of bad stuff to them but rarely actually do.

I think it works fine. For gestalt PC's vs gestalt NPC's, I usually set the challenge rating at character level +1. But recently, I've just been assigning arbitrary CR's that "seem close enough" to me.

But often, people who want to play gestalt really just like the high power level, so they kind of expect to be able to dominate every encounter. And if you do it my way, with gestalt NPC's and monsters, you might end up just frustrating those players. I guess, just make sure you know your players before you make the decision.
Yeah, you'd definitely talk to the players before hand for sure, otherwise you may get something... pretty powerful... Depends on the power level you are aiming for, nothing more annoying interesting to deal with a fighter//monk and a convoluted wizard build. Of course just send them a copy of the Playing God handbook (forgot who wrote that one :smallredface:), and it can still work out pretty well.

[Luccan]

I've played gestalt before and unless you're going for a wild combo, there's probably little that needs to be changed. That said, as someone pointed out earlier, as gestalt campaign where one half of the gestalt must be X is going to change things up. I've considered doing a four person Shugenja/X gestalt before, in a campaign where they're the only casters. Alternately, if you're aiming for a low-power campaign, gestalt can make the PCs more versatile with low-tier classes, without exponentially increasing their power.

[Westhart]

I've played gestalt before and unless you're going for a wild combo, there's probably little that needs to be changed. That said, as someone pointed out earlier, as gestalt campaign where one half of the gestalt must be X is going to change things up. I've considered doing a four person Shugenja/X gestalt before, in a campaign where they're the only casters.

not a big fan of the shugenja myself :smalltongue:


Alternately, if you're aiming for a low-power campaign, gestalt can make the PCs more versatile with low-tier classes, without exponentially increasing their power.
Yeah, I did a military campaign where everybody was a gestalt martial (not ToB) on one side, then whatever they wanted on the other. It worked out pretty well, but then we had 2 gishes, a rogue and a sword sage.

[Luccan]

not a big fan of the shugenja myself :smalltongue:
Not everyone's cup of tea. I think the limitations make it interesting. Haven't actually tried it yet.


Yeah, I did a military campaign where everybody was a gestalt martial (not ToB) on one side, then whatever they wanted on the other. It worked out pretty well, but then we had 2 gishes, a rogue and a sword sage.

Yeah, there's the constant danger of a fighter/wizard with a fighter/rogue or similar. One kinda overshadows the other. I'm thinking more a tier 4/5 game, though.

[Westhart]

Yeah, there's the constant danger of a fighter/wizard with a fighter/rogue or similar. One kinda overshadows the other. I'm thinking more a tier 4/5 game, though.

I'd honestly go warblade/wizard for the synergy (both are int based), or go... Wizard/Factotum (the class in dungeonscape, think that was the name) to break the action economy...

[Luccan]

I'd honestly go warblade/wizard for the synergy (both are int based), or go... Wizard/Factotum (the class in dungeonscape, think that was the name) to break the action economy...

Well, yeah those are better, but that just makes the disparity worse, really.

[Westhart]

Well, yeah those are better, but that just makes the disparity worse, really.

Well, yeah... Good point :smallredface:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, there's the constant danger of a fighter/wizard with a fighter/rogue or similar. One kinda overshadows the other. I'm thinking more a tier 4/5 game, though.
On the other hand, gestalt means that it's possible to play your Fighter or Dragon Shaman or what have you with something strong enough on the other side to keep contributing effectively.

[Nifft]

On the other hand, gestalt means that it's possible to play your Fighter or Dragon Shaman or what have you with something strong enough on the other side to keep contributing effectively.

I can see how Fighter might contribute to something (e.g. maximizing Feint on a Beguiler), but what would you pair with a Dragon Shaman?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I can see how Fighter might contribute to something (e.g. maximizing Feint on a Beguiler), but what would you pair with a Dragon Shaman?
Sorcerer? Any Charisma based caster ought to work, though. Dragon Shaman brings a pretty good chassis, a touch of healing, and some of the best auras are caster-focused (Power in Dragon Magic boosts CL checks, Energy boosts some of your DCs).

[Nifft]

Sorcerer? Any Charisma based caster ought to work, though. Dragon Shaman brings a pretty good chassis, a touch of healing, and some of the best auras are caster-focused (Power in Dragon Magic boosts CL checks, Energy boosts some of your DCs).

Yeah, I can see that. Plus the breath weapon can be used with Blinding Breath etc.

Makes for a reasonably thematic single-energy mailman.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, I can see that. Plus the breath weapon can be used with Blinding Breath etc.

Makes for a reasonably thematic single-energy mailman.
It's honestly not a bad passive side in a gestalt. Adds a bunch of flavor and useful passive stuff to anyone while not really caring too much about ability scores.

[Nifft]

It's honestly not a bad passive side in a gestalt. Adds a bunch of flavor and useful passive stuff to anyone while not really caring too much about ability scores.

That's true, but it would seem to contradict the intended use case (Sorcerer), since Sorcerer really does care about Charisma -- and that means Marshal might be better if you care about the auras.

On the other side, the Dragonfire Adept is so much better at breath-weapons, and has such better passive abilities & at-will Invocations.

It feels like a sub-optimal compromise to take Dragon Shaman when those are available.

Still, that compromise might be the right choice for a character.

But it's just so awful...

[unseenmage]

Joined a game once set in an all Gestalt gameworld. The group was insistent that EVERY creature and NPC was Gestalt.

So I asked what class(es) I got for free on my Golems. They were less than amused.

It apperantly hadnt occured to them the "every" included mindless and animal intelligence creatures, let alone summons, animated objects, skeletons, etc.

Turns out they were playing Conan the Barbarian power levels in a high magic Faerun world and had added Gestalt only to themselves, the already god-like epic NPCs, and whatever single opponent they were ganging up on that week.

My minionmancy optimization was not met with delight. Except by the GM, who to this day still uses Awakened Sand (Sa) Shapesand NPCs in that gameeorld.

[ksbsnowowl]

I ran a homebrew campaign setting for four or five years that was explicitly Gestalt.

It was a Norse/Viking-themed world that also drew heavily from the country of Rashemen from the Forgotten Realms. It allowed the Hathran to be full dual casters, as they were sort-of intended to be in the FRCS. It also allowed for three tiers of people: Heroes (gestalt), Average Folk (non-gestalt), and Common Folk (NPC classes; the Commoner NPC class was used for children). Heck, you could even do a fourth tier with a PC class gestalted with an NPC class.

It worked well, my players loved it, and I had great fun running in that world. It let me make Fire Giants and Frost Giants into the great magicians they are represented as being in the Sagas, since I could just tack on Wizard or Cleric as a gestalt side of the NPC foes, and I could start challenging them with trolls and such a level or so earlier than one normally would.

The one place that a gestalt setting/game is detrimental is trying to plan for high-level play. Trying to come up with encounters in the 16+ level range was a massive chore. I'd spend two hours prepping an encounter that my PC's would demolish in less than 10 minutes. THAT started to burn me out. But part of that had to do with insane levels of spell combos, and interpretations that, though RAW, made my life much harder. (The party was Mind Blanked and Superior Invisible... the bad guys literally couldn't even detect them, unless I were to start giving every foe Telepathy & Mindsight...)

In summary, Gestalt settings are fun, and are a great adventuring experience. Just know that high level play gets untenable if you allow too many spells and rules interpretations to stack up in the "right" ways, and the PC's will have the resources to to lots more spell combos than a "normal" party might.

[PhantasyPen]

I can see how Fighter might contribute to something (e.g. maximizing Feint on a Beguiler), but what would you pair with a Dragon Shaman?

In contrast to the fellow above me, I've found that the Dragon Shaman gestalts really well with the Duskblade. At least, it pairs well with the way I play Dragon Shamans, which is usually as a Front-Line unit.


That's true, but it would seem to contradict the intended use case (Sorcerer), since Sorcerer really does care about Charisma -- and that means Marshal might be better if you care about the auras.

On the other side, the Dragonfire Adept is so much better at breath-weapons, and has such better passive abilities & at-will Invocations.

It feels like a sub-optimal compromise to take Dragon Shaman when those are available.

Still, that compromise might be the right choice for a character.

But it's just so awful...

Now see, the reason to use a Dragon Shaman instead of Dragonfire Adept is the same reason people prefer the paladin over the cleric: they serve completely different roles on the battlefield and in the party. You keep harping about the poor quality of the Dragon Shaman, but I've personally found it to be a very flavorable and fun class (although I will admit I never used the core dragons, maybe that is where things really open up: when you use the different dragon types rather than the main ones)

[martixy]

I ran a homebrew campaign setting for four or five years that was explicitly Gestalt.

It was a Norse/Viking-themed world that also drew heavily from the country of Rashemen from the Forgotten Realms. It allowed the Hathran to be full dual casters, as they were sort-of intended to be in the FRCS. It also allowed for three tiers of people: Heroes (gestalt), Average Folk (non-gestalt), and Common Folk (NPC classes; the Commoner NPC class was used for children). Heck, you could even do a fourth tier with a PC class gestalted with an NPC class.

It worked well, my players loved it, and I had great fun running in that world. It let me make Fire Giants and Frost Giants into the great magicians they are represented as being in the Sagas, since I could just tack on Wizard or Cleric as a gestalt side of the NPC foes, and I could start challenging them with trolls and such a level or so earlier than one normally would.

The one place that a gestalt setting/game is detrimental is trying to plan for high-level play. Trying to come up with encounters in the 16+ level range was a massive chore. I'd spend two hours prepping an encounter that my PC's would demolish in less than 10 minutes. THAT started to burn me out. But part of that had to do with insane levels of spell combos, and interpretations that, though RAW, made my life much harder. (The party was Mind Blanked and Superior Invisible... the bad guys literally couldn't even detect them, unless I were to start giving every foe Telepathy & Mindsight...)

In summary, Gestalt settings are fun, and are a great adventuring experience. Just know that high level play gets untenable if you allow too many spells and rules interpretations to stack up in the "right" ways, and the PC's will have the resources to to lots more spell combos than a "normal" party might.

I can attest that a gestalt setting is pretty fun - the versatility and coolness factor is up to 11 - especially with my flavour of gestalt which ramps up game even more. It is also pretty fun for me to pit all the builds I won't get to play against my party.

Though I'm barely at L5 in my campaign, I really want to get to higher levels. But I can definitely see the imminent problems with that - precisely what you describe.

Even now they curbstomp encounters I thought would challenge them. I mean, the last guy didn't even get in a single swing. It's gonna get much worse at higher levels. Obviously I have yet to acquire first hand experience in high-level gestalt play(though I'm no stranger to regular high-level play), but I've already reached certain conclusions. Like don't focus on the party. Your mooks are doomed. Don't do single-actor encounters if you wanna accomplish anything. Don't break your back in balancing the game based on rules. You can't. Fix the most abusive stuff, balance based on setting and have your players agree they won't henderson your beloved world.

I've also noticed that high-power gestalts have a much greater ability to affect their environment, which is also pretty cool. Destroying objects, terrain features or devices that would otherwise be untouchable due to hardness or size makes things much more interesting. Dislodging that huge boulder with an absurd strength check or demolishing the supporting pillars of a structure gives the game an entirely new feel. Or old - ancient greek mythology old. The feel of a herculean epic. So yea - very fun, but complex to run.