Graduated Gestalt homerule help

[Catarang]

In the next few weeks I am going to put together a short campaign (about 3-4 sessions) with 3 players. Historically, when I have played with these three people, we have run into problems with caster supremacy and martial ineptitude. We’re all good friends and have talked about it at length before, but when we come to a solution for each problem we usually end up asking the caster to tone it down, or have to homebrew a quick fix for the martials in the group which leads to a lot of little rules that we’ve had to keep track of.

Since we’re only going to have three people for this campaign, I thought using the Gestalt rules to fix some of our grievances would help. Below I will give my ideas for a “Graduated Gestalt” tweak to the original Gestalt rules, aimed at giving martials more flexibility while letting casters stay about the same as they were. What I’m looking for are any obvious problems with it, unintended consequences, and if it will do what I intend it to do. Thank you for any and all responses :smallsmile:


1: I understand that this in no way fixes all of 3.X’s caster issues, and that it is nowhere near a complete fix to LFQW. I just want to know if this will help make martials more flexible/versatile in a way that isn’t somehow not useful or annoying/broken.

2: The campaign will use material from pathfinder and 3.5, everything is open but anything outside of core must be cleared with me. Only core PF races allowed.

3: No prepared casters capable of 9ths (a setting choice). Spontaneous Casters are ok, no psionics or T1 casters. No Gestalting with ToB or Path of War.

4:Unchained versions of classes are encouraged, and everything in this ("http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) article will be used.



Pick left side of Gestalt level progression.
Then:
If left side has 9th level spell progression, do not pick a right side.

If left side has 6ths, you may gestalt to any class that doesn’t have spellcasting progression, or to a class that has spell casting progression but you give up the ability to cast from your right side class.

If left side has 4ths, you may gestalt to any class that has no spellcasting progression or also has 4ths, or you may gestalt to any class that has 6ths but you lose your 4ths from your left side.

If left side has no casting progression, you may gestalt to any class that has 4ths or 6ths

You may only multiclass/dip/take multiple PrC’s if you have not gestalted. If you have gestalted, you may only take a single PrC. Not per side of progression, a single PrC ever. Anything that grants 9ths are banned for gestalted characters. This bit is here so that the Gestalt character sheets are easier to read/understand for me. My players are all capable of low-to-mid tier optimization and I want to fully understand what their characters are capable of before giving the ok.

Gestalting is always optional. Martial characters that haven’t gestalted can take any amount of PrCs, multiclass as they like, and can access 9ths as they want.



1: Is how I handled classes with 6ths/4ths ok? Does the banning of a character having two 6ths Progressions or a 6th and a 4th Progression matter or should that be allowed?

2: is there any clearly superior/inferior option?

3: What are any tweaks that you would make personally?

4: What character would you make with this system and why?


Sorry for any grammar/spelling errors and the gratuitous use of the word “progression”, I’m on my phone. I’ll edit it later to make it easier to read. Thanks!

[Mike Miller]

What problems do you have with the regular gestalt rules? Why no ToB and PoW? These help martials significantly even though casters are still "supreme."

[Sam K]

Agreed, why no initiators? If you don't allow prepared full casters (which essentially means no T1), and you allow ToB/PoW, you can have a game that range from T2-4, which is fairly stable.

Balance-wise, your idea seems to work. You seem to have the right idea and if you have a mature group, you can probably work out any kinks. But you're essentially making martial classes better by allowing them to be partial casters. On a character balance thing, being a fighter/bard is probably a decent enough thing if you have the stats for it - you won't have the world-breaking power of a sorcerer but you can probably contribute equally to many encounters. But it still leaves the fighter side pretty dull: the martial still isn't very good, he's just allowed to cover for it by also being a caster. Gestalted mundanes (like fighter-rogue) still have all the problems of poor action economy and bad mechanics, even with your change. Still, running this will probably get you closer to the situation you're looking for, so I would say go for it :)

Regarding your questions, I think you could allow 6th and 4th casters to gestalt unless your players are VERY high optimised (A-game paladin/bard could be scary, I suppose).

Dual mundane gestalts are still bad because you "fix" mundane by letting them be casters. Obviously things like barb/fighter will be weak since they have such similar chassi.

What I would make would depend on how the stats are generated. Bard/beatstick could be very flexible if I had the stats to pull it off. Otherwise, probably warlock/beatstick assuming that's allowed - warlock can be built for no stat dependency if required.

Question:

How will you handle warlocks, dragonfire adepts, binders and incarna users? They are all magic users that aren't casters. I would personally have them work as 6th level casters in this system.

Where does factotum fit in?

How will you handle sublime chord, ur-priest and other PRCs that give full casting?

[Catarang]

What problems do you have with the regular gestalt rules?

I don't like the fact that full casters also get to gestalt along side more martial-aligned classes. I feel that even if limited action economy kind of curbs the full power of casters more than martials (who have been struggling with it anyways in regular 3.x) in gestalt, casters don't need the boost and thus with my tweak don't get to gestalt. Though I see what Sam K was saying, that I'm going to see a lot of gishing with 6th's from this, which is along the same vein.


Why no ToB and PoW?

Agreed, why no initiators?
Sorry I was going quick and didn't realize my mistake. I meant no gestalting with ToB and PoW, I will edit the OP because it is wrong. I want martials to fit solidly into T3, which ToB/PoW non-gestalt does just fine. I felt like gestalted ToB/PoW would become too obviously the best martial choice. I feel like gestalted martial or ToB/PoW is a more even set of options.


How will you handle sublime chord, ur-priest and other PRCs that give full casting?

If it is capable of granting 9th's, it's banned from being used in a gestalt combo but is otherwise fair play.


Where does factotum fit in?

Good question. It gives higher than 6th's (specifically 7th's) so I would go for the cautious approach and ban it from gestalting. However I would understand if someone believed it should be treated more as a caster class with 6ths and treat is as such.


How will you handle warlocks, dragonfire adepts, binders and incarna users? They are all magic users that aren't casters. I would personally have them work as 6th level casters in this system.

I think I would also allow warlocks/DFA's to act like a 6th's level caster to gestalt. For binders and incarna users I don't really know too much about either of them, and no one in my group has ever expressed more than a passing interest in them, so I will burn that bridge if it comes up.

[Gnaeus]

I think it’s workable. I think your strongest options will be 6 casters coupled with slayer, brawler, or in rare occasions fighter or unchained monk. So magus//Slayer or alchemist//Slayer.

I think your biggest problem will be the level curve. At 5 I think alchemist//Slayer will embarrass Sorcerer or oracle. At 18 the 9 caster still dominates.

[Catarang]

I think it’s workable. I think your strongest options will be 6 casters coupled with slayer, brawler, or in rare occasions fighter or unchained monk. So magus//Slayer or alchemist//Slayer.

I think your biggest problem will be the level curve. At 5 I think alchemist//Slayer will embarrass Sorcerer or oracle. At 18 the 9 caster still dominates.

This makes sense, as casters are still quadratic. However, since this starts at 5 and if they level up more than once I will be surprised, we should only worry about the lower levels. Perhaps, depending on their builds, I will allow any 9th casters to start at lvl 6 so they can start with 3rds.

[tedcahill2]

I have a similar graduated gestalt house rule for a current game I run.

I called is tiered gestalt. To sort of adapt it to you're rules, where tier 1 classes are not allowed, it might look like this.

A T2 class can gestalt with one T5; aT3 with a T4 or T5, a T4 with two T5's, or three T5's.

The weaker the base class, tier wise, the more versatility they'd have.

[exelsisxax]

I have a similar graduated gestalt house rule for a current game I run.

I called is tiered gestalt. To sort of adapt it to you're rules, where tier 1 classes are not allowed, it might look like this.

A T2 class can gestalt with one T5; aT3 with a T4 or T5, a T4 with two T5's, or three T5's.

The weaker the base class, tier wise, the more versatility they'd have.

"so you've got weak class features on those T5s, right?"

"no. I have all the weak class features"

I guess quantity has a quality of its own.

[Gnaeus]

"so you've got weak class features on those T5s, right?"

"no. I have all the weak class features"

I guess quantity has a quality of its own.

Not unreasonable. Almost any 2 T5s make a T4. Any 3 T5s with reasonable synergy are probably a low T3. Still weaker than a T3//T4, but not unplayable.

[Sam K]

Sorry I was going quick and didn't realize my mistake. I meant no gestalting with ToB and PoW, I will edit the OP because it is wrong. I want martials to fit solidly into T3, which ToB/PoW non-gestalt does just fine. I felt like gestalted ToB/PoW would become too obviously the best martial choice. I feel like gestalted martial or ToB/PoW is a more even set of options.


Ok, I can see your reasoning there. Personally, I think I would allow ToB/PoW characters to gestalt as 6th casters. An initiator is def. more flexible than a fighter or barb, but they're lacking the options of a barb/fighter // warlock or barb/fighter // bard. Initiators are good at fighting, but their utility out of combat is limited (except for maybe the swordsage). I would probably rate the factotum as a 6th caster as well: it can go higher, but in a pretty limited way.

At a game that is unlikely to go above level 7, you could allow T2s to gestalt with non-casters without it breaking the game. I would actually worry that some T2 casters would feel underpowered compared to some of the gish builds you can make with this system. Sure, the T2s still have access to more potentially game breaking powers, but at these levels that will probably be compensated by a large extent by the gishes greater sustained ability in combat. Once you start casting 4th level spells, things tend to fall apart and with 5ths come caster tricks like "I don't want to be in this dungeon anymore so I'm not" and "I don't want you to be dead anymore so you aren't". But maybe letting the T2s (or anyone else who choses not to gestalt) start at level 6 would be a different way to balance them in a shorter campaign.

[ComaVision]

The reason that most T4s are in T4 is not a lack of power, it's a lack of versatility. They have a niche and perform poorly outside it.

I tried a Tier-focused gestalt rule before, in the hopes that it would allow people to round out their characters and elevate their tier. It didn't work out. Literally every person that used my gestalt option doubled down on their strengths. They would do better at their niche now, but they performed just as poorly as before outside it.

[Gnaeus]

The reason that most T4s are in T4 is not a lack of power, it's a lack of versatility. They have a niche and perform poorly outside it.

I tried a Tier-focused gestalt rule before, in the hopes that it would allow people to round out their characters and elevate their tier. It didn't work out. Literally every person that used my gestalt option doubled down on their strengths. They would do better at their niche now, but they performed just as poorly as before outside it.

That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If I choose to pigeonhole my character into a role but I’m really good at that thing, I’ve made a decision and the party is using my skills. “I have some situations in which I am unable to meaningfully contribute” is usually better than “that guy is better than me at everything not fighting, and also better at fighting.”

[ComaVision]

That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If I choose to pigeonhole my character into a role but I’m really good at that thing, I’ve made a decision and the party is using my skills. “I have some situations in which I am unable to meaningfully contribute” is usually better than “that guy is better than me at everything not fighting, and also better at fighting.”

It didn't work out how I had intended, and I had the same disparity problems that I would've had without any gestalt involved at all.

Not knocking it if it works for you, of course.

[Epic Legand]

Far as I can see
Any teir 2 as normal
Any teir 3, plus any teir 4 or less
Any teir 4, plus any teir 4 or less

Plus you pull out martials( Teir 3) and make them abide by the teir 2 rules?

Plus ban all teir 1, and all Psionics

My thoughts. This would probably work as part of a campaign, but will have major issues in a level 5-7 campaign. Gestating expands on choices outside of combat, but you always have the same issues of action economy, or you chose one side to buff, and the other to fight. I would never consider a 5th level Sorc in this game (Personally). At these levels, the martial side will not be left behind.
As to what I might play with these rules, Slayer 5//Ninja5 ? Magus(Spontainus)5//Fighter2-Slayer3 ? or Warlock5//Unchained Monk2-Unchained Rouge3 All sound fun

[Catarang]

Far as I can see
Any teir 2 as normal
Any teir 3, plus any teir 4 or less
Any teir 4, plus any teir 4 or less

Plus you pull out martials( Teir 3) and make them abide by the teir 2 rules?

Plus ban all teir 1, and all Psionics


With the exception of beguilers, dread necromancers, wild shape variant rangers, warmages and warlocks, yes. It also lets you gestalt to other partial casters but lose spell casting progressions, which opens up a few choices if you take archetypes that remove spell casting.



My thoughts. This would probably work as part of a campaign, but will have major issues in a level 5-7 campaign.

As part of a campaign? I’m confused, as a part of a type of campaign or later after levels 5-7?



Gestating expands on choices outside of combat, but you always have the same issues of action economy, or you chose one side to buff, and the other to fight. I would never consider a 5th level Sorc in this game (Personally). At these levels, the martial side will not be left behind.
As to what I might play with these rules, Slayer 5//Ninja5 ? Magus(Spontainus)5//Fighter2-Slayer3 ? or Warlock5//Unchained Monk2-Unchained Rouge3 All sound fun

Can’t multiclass if you’re gestalting, but still good suggestions.