[3.5 or PF] Leadership vs Gestalt, Your Choice

[AvatarVecna]

You're offered a choice between two feats: Leadership (which does what it normally does), and Gestalt (a feat that makes you a gestalt character as per the rules in Unearthed Arcana). These two feats are mutually exclusive: taking one forbids you from taking the other, or anything similar (no taking Undead Leadership or Thrallherd if you took Gestalt, for example).

Which do you choose, and why?

EDIT: For a bit of additional clarity, assume that any class you take as part of the gestalt character that would include a Leadership-equivalent ability doesn't possess that ability, if you really want to have that class (such as Dread Pirate or if for whatever reason you wanted to play a Thrallherd without the Thrallherd ability).

[JNAProductions]

Gestalt. Not sure if it'd be more powerful, but it'd be one HECK of a lot easier to manage.

[Buddy76]

Barring some very specific character concepts that require followers as a matter of flavor (gang leader, noble, pirate captain, etc), I'd choose Gestalt almost every time. It doesn't get you the same action economy advantage as having two characters, but it does open up a lot of cool character concepts and streamlines the game a little bit.

[Wartex1]

Well, there are ways to get both, sort of.

Gestalt into Psion/Thrallherd, and boom, instant Leadership+

[Nifft]

Gestalt means better defenses (i.e. lower paranoia), and also fewer resources to manage.

To me, those both represent a probable increase in fun.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, there are ways to get both, sort of.

Gestalt into Psion/Thrallherd, and boom, instant Leadership+

The first post addresses this. Twice. By name, even.

[Wartex1]

The first post addresses this. Twice. By name, even.

Curse my impatience and selective attention.

What about stacking Leadership? (Your cohort also has the leadership feat, and so does their cohort, and so on)

[ryu]

Low level or high level? Low level the leadership action economy advantage matters more and at very low level even the mook squad of hundreds is a relevant combat advantage. At high level I don't need a leadership ability to have an army. Oh unless you mean minion mancing spells are also forbidden if gestalt is taken?

[AvatarVecna]

Curse my impatience and selective attention.

What about stacking Leadership? (Your cohort also has the leadership feat, and so does their cohort, and so on)

Leadership-stacking works how it does normally (which, IME, is "however far you can push it before the DM throws things at you"). However, since it didn't occur to me at the time, I'll add that cohorts/followers/etc can't take the Gestalt feat either; taking Leadership or its equivalents puts it off-limits.

[AvatarVecna]

Low level or high level? Low level the leadership action economy advantage matters more and at very low level even the mook squad of hundreds is a relevant combat advantage. At high level I don't need a leadership ability to have an army. Oh unless you mean minion mancing spells are also forbidden if gestalt is taken?

Minionmancy in general is allowed, but Leadership and its equivalents would be off the table. I'm mainly curious on how a feat like the Gestalt feat proposed would fare in comparison to Leadership, optimally speaking. My very basic thoughts were that Gestalt made your main a lot better and allowed for combos that are usually difficult to pull off on one character, while Leadership gave more per-day resources (including action economy benefits).

[Wartex1]

Low level or high level? Low level the leadership action economy advantage matters more and at very low level even the mook squad of hundreds is a relevant combat advantage. At high level I don't need a leadership ability to have an army. Oh unless you mean minion mancing spells are also forbidden if gestalt is taken?

Leadership can net an even bigger army. What's better? A level 20 Wizard//Cleric summoning monsters, or a level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20 Thrallherd summoning monsters? (Which can go on to 7th-20th level Thrallherd if you're really dedicated, plus a huge number of lower-level followers who may also have class levels).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Depends on your definition of "you," really. If it's "you" as in, "you are given this IRL," the answer would be different than if it's "you choose for your character in a game."

Does it include familiars, animal companions, psicrystals, and similar, too?

In part, it also depends partially on the amount of cheese I can get away with, as well as the starting level.

If it were for a game, I'd probably go with Leadership; if it's IRL, definitely gestalt, especially if I'm still allowed to have familiars etc. Though the answers to the above considerations might sway that decision a bit.

[ryu]

Leadership can net an even bigger army. What's better? A level 20 Wizard//Cleric summoning monsters, or a level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20 Thrallherd summoning monsters? (Which can go on to 7th-20th level Thrallherd if you're really dedicated, plus a huge number of lower-level followers who may also have class levels).

At level 20 your mathematics are entirely moot because you can have literally as many gestalted level 20 wizard clerics as you please thanks to the minionmancy that is ice assassin. This I why I asked that question by the way. As you pointed out in response the benefits of gestalt INCREASE with higher levels while leadership actually becomes less relevantly different to a normal character who wants to make an army and succeeds. Specific point where I'd rather have leadership probably ends at some murky point between 6-12 depending on just how much minion mancing I'm already doing and with what spells.

[Nifft]

I wouldn't allow a follower or cohort to become a leader -- not while remaining a follower / cohort.

I'd flavor lawyer the hell out of any such attempt.

[Westhart]

If I was aiming to squeeze as much power as possible then I would probabaly go leadership. If I was going to actually play it? Gestalt for sure.

[AvatarVecna]

Depends on your definition of "you," really. If it's "you" as in, "you are given this IRL," the answer would be different than if it's "you choose for your character in a game."

Does it include familiars, animal companions, psicrystals, and similar, too?

In part, it also depends partially on the amount of cheese I can get away with, as well as the starting level.

If it were for a game, I'd probably go with Leadership; if it's IRL, definitely gestalt, especially if I'm still allowed to have familiars etc. Though the answers to the above considerations might sway that decision a bit.

Standard summoning/calling Minionmancy (as well as the lesser forms like animal companions, familiars, and whatnot) are fine, but Leadership or things that are pretty directly equivalent (Undead Leadership, Dragon Cohort, Thrallherd, Dread Pirate...heck, the Variant Enchanter's "Cohort") are

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Standard summoning/calling Minionmancy (as well as the lesser forms like animal companions, familiars, and whatnot) are fine, but Leadership or things that are pretty directly equivalent (Undead Leadership, Dragon Cohort, Thrallherd, Dread Pirate...heck, the Variant Enchanter's "Cohort") areAre...what?

Also, there are ways to pseudo-gestalt yourself even outside of regular gestalting, whether it be through a theurging class, via a race that grants spellcasting ability based on HD, the class- and racial-ability to pull class features from other characters, or through clever use of magic.

Likewise, as you mentioned, there are lots of ways to gain minions even without Leadership.

So really, it only matters if you start at very low levels or aren't building towards one option or the other.

[ryu]

The clincher is that no matter what you're building you'll have access to lots of minions at 20 pretty much regardless of what you do so long as you're a full caster. The same cannot be said for gestalt equivalents.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The clincher is that no matter what you're building you'll have access to lots of minions at 20 pretty much regardless of what you do so long as you're a full caster. The same cannot be said for gestalt equivalents.Well, illithid savant can pull entire class progressions off of other characters (spellcasting from a wizard, for example), and fusion + a temporal reiteration trap can gestalt you as well -- and it can go you one better, even, as it will gestalt your classes and your races, and it grants you a bunch of extra hp, as well.

[AvatarVecna]

Are...what?

Sorry, "are off limits".


Also, there are ways to pseudo-gestalt yourself even outside of regular gestalting, whether it be through a theurging class, via a race that grants spellcasting ability based on HD, the class- and racial-ability to pull class features from other characters, or through clever use of magic.

They're not gestalt, so they're allowed.


Likewise, as you mentioned, there are lots of ways to gain minions even without Leadership.

Indeed, and they're allowed. Leadership and its equivalents are not. It's usually easy to tell what counts as equivalent, since they're either exactly alike, extremely mechanically similar, mention Leadership by name, or some combination of the three.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Alright. So, probably gestalt, though it depends again on whether this is "for a game" or "IRL," as well as what level I'd be starting at and how much op-fu and cheese I could get away with.

[AvatarVecna]

Alright. So, probably gestalt, though it depends again on whether this is "for a game" or "IRL," as well as what level I'd be starting at and how much op-fu and cheese I could get away with.

In-game, and anywhere 6th lvl and up. Whatever op level fits your table/threads.

[ryu]

In-game, and anywhere 6th lvl and up. Whatever op level fits your table/threads.

So basically I'm picking gestalt unless I expect little to no advancement beyond 6th.

[Fizban]

Leadership. Making two characters that may or may not synergize but are still independent entities is far more interesting. You can put as little or as much effort into the cohort itself, as well as into how you use it, all the way from perfect buffer+crafter down to something with a pile of LA you just leave to mind the camp. You can make it an elaborate roleplay opportunity, or a deliberately subservient mute butler.

But then, I do hate just about everything about gestalt.
It completely undermines every aspect of character creation except stat generation (which let's be honest, is usually absurdly high in games that allow gestalt), number of feats (of which many char-op builds need few), and total skill points. This creates an even wider gap in possible builds, such as the obvious cleric/druid dual progression to attempts to "fix" weaker classes by gestalting them with some caster- which still leaves them weaker than a dual caster, to builds that are just a non-caster with a few extra features. It heavily encourages parties with effectively *more* than four casters, while the only builds that face real difficulty are those that include no casting at all- trying to cram multiple feat lines or literally every skill.

And yes, I have both played and run gestalt games for a time, though thankfully at a low enough level there was still some amount of game to it. My incarnum boosted cleric was essentially invincible and only challenged by killing NPCs offscreen where he couldn't help, while the archivist/wizard suffered from lack of hit points and the need to actually acquire spells, and the lycanthrope scout was actually displeased with being able to one-round anything. Then when running I had to deal with "just" a blasting psion/cleric who could put down anything without effort, a trapmonkey/warlock who felt inferior despite bending over backwards for all the skills and having eldritch claws, half-dragon fighter/cleric that basically just had more hp, and a barbarian/something who did so little with the something I can't even remember what it is.

It's almost like taking the most variable part of the game and squaring it is a recipe for even worse game balance, if there's any difference in desires between players.
Of course the real question is: what's the rest of the party doing?

[unseenmage]

Leadership. Making two characters that may or may not synergize but are still independent entities is far more interesting. You can put as little or as much effort into the cohort itself, as well as into how you use it, all the way from perfect buffer+crafter down to something with a pile of LA you just leave to mind the camp. You can make it an elaborate roleplay opportunity, or a deliberately subservient mute butler.

But then, I do hate just about everything about gestalt.
It completely undermines every aspect of character creation except stat generation (which let's be honest, is usually absurdly high in games that allow gestalt), number of feats (of which many char-op builds need few), and total skill points. This creates an even wider gap in possible builds, such as the obvious cleric/druid dual progression to attempts to "fix" weaker classes by gestalting them with some caster- which still leaves them weaker than a dual caster, to builds that are just a non-caster with a few extra features. It heavily encourages parties with effectively *more* than four casters, while the only builds that face real difficulty are those that include no casting at all- trying to cram multiple feat lines or literally every skill.

And yes, I have both played and run gestalt games for a time, though thankfully at a low enough level there was still some amount of game to it. My incarnum boosted cleric was essentially invincible and only challenged by killing NPCs offscreen where he couldn't help, while the archivist/wizard suffered from lack of hit points and the need to actually acquire spells, and the lycanthrope scout was actually displeased with being able to one-round anything. Then when running I had to deal with "just" a blasting psion/cleric who could put down anything without effort, a trapmonkey/warlock who felt inferior despite bending over backwards for all the skills and having eldritch claws, half-dragon fighter/cleric that basically just had more hp, and a barbarian/something who did so little with the something I can't even remember what it is.

It's almost like taking the most variable part of the game and squaring it is a recipe for even worse game balance, if there's any difference in desires between players.
Of course the real question is: what's the rest of the party doing?
I am in agreement with the above
Having run for and played some Gestalt myself and having optimized some Thrallherd and Leadership chaining.


My gestalt Artificer Cleric never even used the Cleric side but as an excuse to go into Techsmith of Gond and build Sacred Guardians from the Dragonlance book Bestiary of Krynn pg 94.

[Crake]

In the games we play, you find an interesting cohort, then take leadership, rather than taking leadership and designing your perfect cohort, so for me it would depend on if there's an interesting NPC about that I would like to have as my cohort or not. The fact that taking gestalt completely takes that off the board may or may not deter me from picking either, just in case I find an NPC I like later on and want to take leadership.

Of course, when I'm running the game, I use my optional gestalt rules, which lets anyone gestalt without taking a feat or anything, it just slowly puts them behind in levels as they advance. If anyone's interested, the link is in my signature.

[Boggartbae]

Gestalt. Not sure if it'd be more powerful, but it'd be one HECK of a lot easier to manage.

This. more characters means slower game.

[Telonius]

Leadership. Action economy matters in combat, greater flexibility for skill distribution (cohort can take charge of certain skills), and it's always nice to have a fan club.

[Westhart]

Leadership. Action economy matters in combat, greater flexibility for skill distribution (cohort can take charge of certain skills), and it's always nice to have a fan club.

Has anyone mentioned epic spellcasting, or circle magic yet? :smallamused:

That fan club may have a little more use now :smallbiggrin:... or if you have a crazy DM that (per Deities and demigods) ties worshippers to divine rank you can become a god [shrug]


Deities and Demigods talks about how gods of certain ranks (demigods, lesser etc) have X to X followers... Then a DM I played with decided that that is where they go their divinity... Yeaaah... :smallwink:

[ryu]

Has anyone mentioned epic spellcasting, or circle magic yet? :smallamused:

That fan club may have a little more use now :smallbiggrin:... or if you have a crazy DM that (per Deities and demigods) ties worshippers to divine rank you can become a god [shrug]


Deities and Demigods talks about how gods of certain ranks (demigods, lesser etc) have X to X followers... Then a DM I played with decided that that is where they go their divinity... Yeaaah... :smallwink:


I consider anything requiring multiple bodies to work with only relevant at lower levels because any level 20 character that actually wanted an army not only has one, but has one with as many members as desired limited only by just how much the character wants to manage.

[Nifft]

Has anyone mentioned epic spellcasting, or circle magic yet? :smallamused:

If we're talking about a TO exercise, or if the goal is to make the DM quit in disgust, then both are excellent answers.

If the goal is to have a game of D&D, then both are great reasons to disallow Leadership forever.

[Rebel7284]

You're offered a choice between two feats: Leadership (which does what it normally does), and Gestalt (a feat that makes you a gestalt character as per the rules in Unearthed Arcana). These two feats are mutually exclusive: taking one forbids you from taking the other, or anything similar (no taking Undead Leadership or Thrallherd if you took Gestalt, for example).

Which do you choose, and why?

EDIT: For a bit of additional clarity, assume that any class you take as part of the gestalt character that would include a Leadership-equivalent ability doesn't possess that ability, if you really want to have that class (such as Dread Pirate or if for whatever reason you wanted to play a Thrallherd without the Thrallherd ability).

One issue I see here is that it's pretty unclear about what the leadership feat does and what exactly gestalt allows.

- RAW, it seems more likely that the GM makes the Cohort with feedback from the player.
- Gestalt has some recommendations such as not allowing dual progression classes which are poorly defined.

Overall, I feel like the two options are in general similar in power level, but which one ends up being more powerful depends on how much the build focuses on action economy and how much synergy you can squeeze out. Wizard/Incantatrix // Factotum is probably better on average than two Wizard/Incantatrix, even if the latter have more endurance.