Gestalt Multiclassing Stacking Spell Slots vs Non Stacking Spell Slots

[dmhelp]

I was wondering what people though about martial/martial vs martial/caster vs caster/caster balance in this rule proposal to try and thread the needle between non stacking spell slots and stacking spell slots in a gestalt multiclassing game. I would just like to ignore the existance of Warlocks at this point....

Basically if you are a full caster/full caster combination you look at what level you would have had the xp for and gain the spell slots of a single classed character (just spells per long rest, not spells known/prepared).

Non Stacking Slots at level 11 gestalt (about the same xp as a level standard 15 character):
Fighter/Arcante Trickster Rogue 4 3
Paladin/Full Caster 4 3 3 3 2 1
Full Caster/Full Caster 4 3 3 3 2 1

Non Stacking Slots with Full Caster/Full Caster combinations getting the same number of spell slots as a single classed character:
Fighter/Arcante Trickster Rogue 4 3
Paladin/Full Caster 4 3 3 3 2 1
Full Caster/Full Caster 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 (so the full caster/full caster combo gains a 7th and 8th level spell slot even though they only know 6th level spells in their 2 classes)

Stacking Slots at level 11:
Fighter/Arcante Trickster Rogue 4 3
Paladin/Full Caster 8 6 6 3 2 1
Full Caster/Full Caster 8 6 6 6 4 2

In general I think stacking slots encourages everyone to play caster combinations or paladin/caster combinations since you have double the long rest resources but only normal hp. I think non stacking slots encourages martial/martial & martial/caster play. Which is why I was going to just slightly speed up the caster/caster spell slot progression.

Thoughts?

[heavyfuel]

A big issue with non-stacking is Warlocks. Why should Bard/Warlock get twice the casting power, but not Bard/Sorcerer? I know you want to ignore Warlocks for now, but it's something to keep in mind.

Still, stacking slots is probably not that huge of a deal because the caster will still be limited to 1 concentration spell and 1 action per round. I think a Bard/Sorcerer would - proportionally - benefit less from gestalt than something like a Rogue/Paladin, even with stacking slots.

Plus, with non stacking slots, nobody would play a caster/caster gestalt because there'd be so little to gain from it. But even with stacking slots, some would still prefer the simplicity of two non-caster classes.

[TyGuy]

1) Why are you worried about things being OP when you're playing gestalt? It's supposed to be OP.
2) Stacking is still limited by action economy in most builds. Sure some builds like paladin and or sorcerer can nova with stacking, but see #1.
3) Stack the spell slots.

[heavyfuel]

It's supposed to be OP.

Not really. I've always seen it as a way to make up party composition when you lack party members. As you mentioned, action economy is still a huge issue, so Gestalt characters aren't that much stronger than regular characters

[TyGuy]

Not really. I've always seen it as a way to make up party composition when you lack party members.
Why not just use followers or multiple PCs per player at that point?

[Greywander]

My gestalt rules let caster levels stack, but it caps out at 20. I have an optional rule where your caster level caps at your current level, so a cleric 10/wizard 10 is only a 10th level caster, but will still progress to a 20th level caster even if they only take martial classes with the rest of their levels.

I've also written up a homebrew version of the sorcerer that uses a modified spell point system, as well as an artificer that replaces spellcasting entirely with an expanded spell-storing item system. As with the warlock, either of these would fully stack with another full caster. Then there's the wild magic system I wrote up a while back that can be applied to any caster, which would also stack with regular spell slots.

As to whether caster/caster, martial/caster, or martial/martial is better, this is kind of something I've looked at before. Specifically, I looked into a character who would eventually raise every class to 20, and which subclass choices would be the best for them (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622793-Best-subclass-choices-if-you-can-raise-every-class-to-20-on-one-character). In the original context, you're leveling up each class one at a time, but the same question can be applied to an extreme gestalt that levels all classes simultaneously. Now, this greatly exaggerates some of the "issues" with a gestalt (limited action economy, for example), so for a two-class gestalt those issues should be much tamer.

The general consensus was that even with every class at 20, your spellcasting would only be slightly better than that of a character with only one class; you get full caster slots, pact magic slots, Mystic Arcanum, and metamagic, and maybe something from your subclasses, but that's about it. On the other hand, there's actually quite a few things on the martial side that will stack together, making you an absolutely beast of a warrior. You have access to tons of spells, but your magic is only slightly better than a regular wizard or sorcerer, whereas your martial ability is far beyond what any single class character could ever hope to achieve.

Again, though, this will be much tamer for a two-class gestalt. Stacking fighter with anything that gives extra damage per attack, such as barbarian (Rage), paladin (Improved Divine Smite), or bladelock (Lifedrinker) is a potent combo. Bladesinger will let you be a full wizard while also letting you sub in a cantrip for one of your attacks, pairing nicely with a martial class. Oathbreaker+Necromancer is a fun combo, too. A half-orc Champion fighter/bear Totem barbarian would be super tough and hit like a truck. The best way to exploit a gestalt is to look for class features you can't normally get on the same character (e.g. both are 11th level or later) that synergize together.

[heavyfuel]

Why not just use followers or multiple PCs per player at that point?

Respectively, because DMPCs can get bent and because the idea of talking to yourself if you ever decide to have an in character conversation between your two PCs is both challenging and silly.

[TyGuy]

Respectively, because DMPCs can get bent and because the idea of talking to yourself if you ever decide to have an in character conversation between your two PCs is both challenging and silly.
Why not have players run followers and the DM RP them when they're not just existing in the background?

[dmhelp]

A big issue with non-stacking is Warlocks. Why should Bard/Warlock get twice the casting power, but not Bard/Sorcerer? I know you want to ignore Warlocks for now, but it's something to keep in mind.

Still, stacking slots is probably not that huge of a deal because the caster will still be limited to 1 concentration spell and 1 action per round. I think a Bard/Sorcerer would - proportionally - benefit less from gestalt than something like a Rogue/Paladin, even with stacking slots.

Plus, with non stacking slots, nobody would play a caster/caster gestalt because there'd be so little to gain from it. But even with stacking slots, some would still prefer the simplicity of two non-caster classes.

What if the second full caster were to add the equivalent of pact slots? Short rest based regaining of 2 5th level spells (or highest slot level if less than 5th level spells). So a sorcerer wizard at 10 would have 4 3 3 3 2 plus 2 short rest based 5th level slots. You would also say Warlocks do not gain mystic arcanum when combined with a full caster.

My concern about double slots is at high level you already have a spell for everything with 2 full caster classes. Now with double slots you have to really try and have 16 encounters per long rest to avoid the 5 min adven day.....

So I am looking for things other than double slots to help caster/caster. Like maybe only full caster full caster combos keep cantrips (by the way rangers and paladins didn’t get cantrips... why did eldritch knight? I know arcane trickster needed mage hand but you could have just had mage hand a class feature and had only full casters get cantrips...).

[Cybren]

A big issue with non-stacking is Warlocks. Why should Bard/Warlock get twice the casting power, but not Bard/Sorcerer? I know you want to ignore Warlocks for now, but it's something to keep in mind.

Still, stacking slots is probably not that huge of a deal because the caster will still be limited to 1 concentration spell and 1 action per round. I think a Bard/Sorcerer would - proportionally - benefit less from gestalt than something like a Rogue/Paladin, even with stacking slots.

Plus, with non stacking slots, nobody would play a caster/caster gestalt because there'd be so little to gain from it. But even with stacking slots, some would still prefer the simplicity of two non-caster classes.
SO do you believe that fighter 5//paladin 5 should get two extra attacks? I don't really see why stacking the slots is at all necessary. Yes, warlock will have powerful synergy with other casters. And? Part of the joy of gestalt games is figuring out powerful synergies you couldn't otherwise get.

[heavyfuel]

What if the second full caster were to add the equivalent of pact slots? Short rest based regaining of 2 5th level spells (or highest slot level if less than 5th level spells). So a sorcerer wizard at 10 would have 4 3 3 3 2 plus 2 short rest based 5th level slots. You would also say Warlocks do not gain mystic arcanum when combined with a full caster.

My concern about double slots is at high level you already have a spell for everything with 2 full caster classes. Now with double slots you have to really try and have 16 encounters per long rest to avoid the 5 min adven day.....

So I am looking for things other than double slots to help caster/caster. Like maybe only full caster full caster combos keep cantrips (by the way rangers and paladins didn’t get cantrips... why did eldritch knight? I know arcane trickster needed mage hand but you could have just had mage hand a class feature and had only full casters get cantrips...).


I think that's a fine compromise, if a bit too strong.

Spellcasters that can already do everything at high levels is definitely a problem, but maybe stack slots up till 5th, and not higher? This would include Warlocks not getting Mystic Arcanum


SO do you believe that fighter 5//paladin 5 should get two extra attacks? I don't really see why stacking the slots is at all necessary. Yes, warlock will have powerful synergy with other casters. And? Part of the joy of gestalt games is figuring out powerful synergies you couldn't otherwise get.

That's quite a leap from my original post. Stacking slots are still limited to both action economy and concentration. A third attack is not limited in either way.

However, I do think that giving some bonus in place of the "lost" attack is a nice way to encourage something like Fighter//Paladin. What exactly, I don't know. Maybe a half-feat without the ASI?

Even then, while a third attack would be crazy strong at level 5, I can see it being granted at level 11 for all gestalt with the Extra Attack feature (like Monk//Barbarian) and giving a fourth attack for Fighter//X, where X is a class that also gains Extra Attack

As for the Warlock part, I'm not saying that Warlock//Full-caster shouldn't exist, just that Full-caster//Full-caster shouldbe equally as good.

[Cybren]

As for the Warlock part, I'm not saying that Warlock//Full-caster shouldn't exist, just that Full-caster//Full-caster shouldbe equally as good.
Right but the thing I am disputing is this. Why?

[dmhelp]

If you are going to allow Warlocks to gestalt, then you would like a Cleric/Wizard to be at least a near as viable option as a Sorcerer/Warlock. The easier option would be to not allow Sorcerers & Warlocks (AD&D classes only) to gestalt. You could still play one as a standard character and advance faster. If you do that you are still left with balancing Martial/Caster vs Caster/Caster unless all PCs are assumed to have at least one Martial class. So I am kind of interested in benefits that can help Caster/Caster without giving them infinite nova potential.

I could see giving a slight benefit to stacking Extra Attack (like +2 weapon damage) to make things more competitive with Rogue Sneak Attack. Stacking Extra Attack (even waiting until level 11) would be kind of insane since you are stacking other abilities on top of the additional attack as well (level 11 Fighter/Paladin with 4 base attacks and Improved Divine Smite, or 5 attacks with PAM; plus the option for Action Surge and Divine Smite).

I just started a Tomb of Horrors 4d6 stats (min 75 total), no feats, non stacking spell slots gestalt (no Sorcerer/Warlock) vs standard character (assuming everyone will pick gestalt). Ended up with Monk/Rogue, Cleric/Ranger, & Druid/Ranger gestalts.

[Mastikator]

Why not just use followers or multiple PCs per player at that point?

Or better yet scale down the encounters.

[Cybren]

If you are going to allow Warlocks to gestalt, then you would like a Cleric/Wizard to be at least a near as viable option as a Sorcerer/Warlock. The easier option would be to not allow Sorcerers & Warlocks (AD&D classes only) to gestalt. You could still play one as a standard character and advance faster. If you do that you are still left with balancing Martial/Caster vs Caster/Caster unless all PCs are assumed to have at least one Martial class. So I am kind of interested in benefits that can help Caster/Caster without giving them infinite nova potential.

I could see giving a slight benefit to stacking Extra Attack (like +2 weapon damage) to make things more competitive with Rogue Sneak Attack. Stacking Extra Attack (even waiting until level 11) would be kind of insane since you are stacking other abilities on top of the additional attack as well (level 11 Fighter/Paladin with 4 base attacks and Improved Divine Smite, or 5 attacks with PAM; plus the option for Action Surge and Divine Smite).

I just started a Tomb of Horrors 4d6 stats (min 75 total), no feats, non stacking spell slots gestalt (no Sorcerer/Warlock) vs standard character (assuming everyone will pick gestalt). Ended up with Monk/Rogue, Cleric/Ranger, & Druid/Ranger gestalts.

See this is my disconnect. Why? Why does any particular combo need to be as good as any other particular combo?
Warlock//caster is extra powerful if the slots don't stack, yes, but it is also still generally worse than slots stacking. Mystic Arcanum casts spells of 6th+ level, but only the spell you picked with it. Short rest slots are nice, but still not as many total slots as just having double on a normal full caster. Other caster combos still get extra spell slots through means like arcane recovery and flexible casting.

[TyGuy]

Or better yet scale down the encounters.

Exactly. And/or add magic items that help fill the gaps. The point is, gestalt is far from the easiest or most straight forward way to cover bases of a small party.
Edit: that is, gestalt with an attempt to "balance" it and keep it from being "OP"

[dmhelp]

See this is my disconnect. Why? Why does any particular combo need to be as good as any other particular combo?
Warlock//caster is extra powerful if the slots don't stack, yes, but it is also still generally worse than slots stacking. Mystic Arcanum casts spells of 6th+ level, but only the spell you picked with it. Short rest slots are nice, but still not as many total slots as just having double on a normal full caster. Other caster combos still get extra spell slots through means like arcane recovery and flexible casting.

Why not just give single classed Warlocks the Extra Attack from Bladesinger with sorcery points equal to their level and Quickened Spell?

I play with a small group and want more of an AD&D/1e feel. That is why I would like a somewhat balanced gestalt option.

Just because you are giving the players a key to a car when they normally ride a bike doesn't mean that you have to let them choose any car.

[heavyfuel]

Right but the thing I am disputing is this. Why?

I can give you an answer, but I feel like you're just going to as "why" to my answer as well. So I'll just say that - from a perpesctive of what I consider fair - if Warlocks have their casting power untouched on gestalt, other classes should also have their casting power untouched.


Or better yet scale down the encounters.


Exactly. And/or add magic items that help fill the gaps. The point is, gestalt is far from the easiest or most straight forward way to cover bases of a small party.
Edit: that is, gestalt with an attempt to "balance" it and keep it from being "OP"

Scaling down encounters work for Combat encounters, but not other kinds. Gestalt allows for characters to perform better in Social and Exploration encounters because of thier more varied bonuses. A """regular""" Fighter and Wizard duo are very poor at dealing with Social encounters since neither class is dependant on Cha nor have access to Cha skills. They are also not great at some Exploration encouters like a locked and trapped door.

However, a Fighter//Bard and a Wizard//Rogue are now much better equipped to deal with these encounters.

You could say that "scaling down" encounters means "no locks or traps" but that's not scaling down as much as it is "perfectly tailoring the world so that it revolves around what these two people are capable of doing".