Would you play a gestalt or a standard character?

[dmhelp]

Scenario A:
You are making a character for a no feats campaign where Warlocks do not exist (no Warlocks). You are allowed to play a gestalt multiclassed character with no stacking spell slots. However gestalts are limited to PHB races/subclasses (a half-elf moon druid/open hand monk would be ok, but if you wanted to play a Yuan-ti, Rune Knight, or Bladesinger you would need to be a standard character). Gestalts start at level 1, where as standard characters start at level 2. Milestone advancement would be by gestalt level, so sometimes a standard character would gain more than one level at a time (or you could say you were advancing by xp). So level 9 gestalts (level 9 arcane trickster/wizard would have 4 3 3 3 1) would be partied with level 12 standard characters (level 12 wizard would have 4 3 3 3 2 1), and level 11 gestalts with level 15 standard characters.

Roll 4d6s (until >= 75 total). So you can potentially play MAD characters, depending on your stats.

AD&D ("gestalt") multiclassing allowed (PHB races & subclasses only) at 1st level with two fixed classes that gain xp at half rate, no ability score minimums, avg HP rounded down, armor/weapons/tools stack, saving throws/starting equipment from one class only, gain the higher number of skills (choosen from between both classes), use the most favorable class for Spellcasting spell slot progression (i.e. spell slots do not stack), ASIs gained on the same level don't stack, and Extra Attacks don't stack

E.g. a level 9 Arcane Trickster Rogue/Evocation Wizard would have received 96,000 xp (instead of 48,000, so single classed characters in the group would be level 11 if using xp, or level 12 if using milestone advancement), have the class features of a level 9 Rogue and a level 9 Wizard, have a +4 proficiency bonus, gain 4 hp/level (d6), start with 6 skills, choose either dex/int or int/wis saving throws, have light armor/Rogue weapons, and have spell slots of a level 9 caster (4 3 3 3 1).

What percent of the time would you choose to play a gestalt character (i.e. does the slower advancement and less choices balance gestalt vs standard)?
Of the times when you chose to play a standard character for faster advancement/more choices, what percent of the time would you choose to play a full caster?

Scenario B:
The same scenario, but now non-gestalt full casters gain double 1st-3rd level spell slots (level 12 wizard would have 8 6 6 3 2 1). Also non-gestalt Extra Attack classes (Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Paladin/Ranger, not subclasses) gain an additional extra attack at level 11 (so fighters gain 4th attack at 11 and 5th attack at 20).

What percent of the time would you choose to play a gestalt character?
Of the times when you chose to play a standard character, what percent of the time would you choose to play a full caster?

[Amnestic]

I'm assuming that in the context, the player party will have a mix of not-gestalt and gestalt characters, rather than the party being all one or all the other?

Putting an exact % on it is hard but my gut response is that non-stacking spell slots/extra attack isn't an issue for me, but the leveling progression difference could be, depending on the level differences and expected level 'cap' on the campaign.

A G character at 13 with NG characters at 20 is different to a G character at 7 and NG characters at 9, for instance. As a general rule my preference would be to lean towards NG characters but it depends a lot on level differences and cap for me.

[CheddarChampion]

Is this a poll?

I assume you mean that I have this choice in every game I play in from here on. If it was just one game I'd do a gestalt character only because I haven't before.

Scenario A: 50/50.
Scenario B: 75% gestalt.
10%-25% of my single class characters would not be full casters.

It's hard for a character that swings a sword to compete with a character that swings a sword almost as well and has a large selection of spells to cast. Especially when feats are off the table.

[nickl_2000]

A: I like options and without feats I would probably play the Gestalt classed character. It's inherently better than multiclassing and could end up being a killer character. I would probably play a dex based High Elf Battlemaster Fighter/Arcane Trickster Rogue. Between the sneak attack, the extra attacks you are dealing a lot of damage. Your spellcasting gives you out of combat versatility. You need Dex/Con/Int to be effective so your ASIs aren't going to waste.

Besides, I like multiclassing character. So, this option is far superior to multiclassing.

Probably 75% Gestalt/25% Non

B: I would not play a Gtesalt in this case. That extra attack is absolutely amazing on the right classes. In this case I would play a full caster that gets multiple attacks. Either a High-Elf Bladesinger or a Yuan-ti Swords Bard.

0% Gestalt/100% Non.

[quindraco]

5E doesn't have any gestalt rules that I know of, so you'd have to make them up. I found some homebrew rules on the dndwiki, but they explicitly say not to mix gestalts with non-gestalts, and I'm not following your rubric for advancement - the wiki entry doesn't list gestalts as having higher experience costs. I'm deeply confused.

If you are using the wiki's gestalt rules, no thank you. It willy-nilly combines the saving throw proficiencies of both core classes, which is broken af. Saving throw proficiencies are supposed to be very hard to get. I'd be more comfortable with just fixing saving throw proficiences on the core classes so e.g. multiclass charisma casters aren't always going to choose sorcerer for their competently chosen saves.

[Mastikator]

Depends on the number of players at the table and the DM's style.

More combat would make me prefer non-gestalt.

More players would make me prefer non-gestalt.

I can't give you a percentage.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are allowed to play a gestalt multiclassed character with no stacking spell slots. I played a one shot, level 4 Gestalt monk/cleric a couple of years ago. Everyone was a gestalt level 4 PC. It was fun.
HP were "pick which class, go with that HP" and as you indicate, no stacking of spell slots.

At level 4 we got 1 ASI, not one for each class.

Saving throw proficiencies were "pick two of the four you could have."
Other proficencies were 'pick from one of two classes' and we could have any background but they had to be out of the PHB. (Dm was trying to not add more complexity).

There were very few other rules that I can recall. It worked out pretty well.

Mixing Gestalt and non Gestalt strikes me as a poor idea. Suggest against doing that.

[heavyfuel]

More levels = More and higher spell slots = more power

Without stacking spell slots AND slower level advancement, a single classed caster is always better than a gestalt one.

[dmhelp]

5E doesn't have any gestalt rules that I know of, so you'd have to make them up. I found some homebrew rules on the dndwiki, but they explicitly say not to mix gestalts with non-gestalts, and I'm not following your rubric for advancement - the wiki entry doesn't list gestalts as having higher experience costs. I'm deeply confused.

These would be the gestalt rules used:

AD&D ("gestalt") multiclassing allowed (PHB races & subclasses only) at 1st level with two fixed classes that gain xp at half rate, no ability score minimums, avg HP rounded down, armor/weapons/tools stack, saving throws/starting equipment from one class only, gain the higher number of skills (choosen from between both classes), use the most favorable class for Spellcasting spell slot progression (i.e. spell slots do not stack), ASIs gained on the same level don't stack, and Extra Attacks don't stack

E.g. a level 9 Arcane Trickster Rogue/Evocation Wizard would have received 96,000 xp (instead of 48,000, so single classed characters in the group would be level 11 if using xp, or level 12 if using milestone advancement), have the class features of a level 9 Rogue and a level 9 Wizard, have a +4 proficiency bonus, gain 4 hp/level (d6), start with 6 skills, choose either dex/int or int/wis saving throws, have light armor/Rogue weapons, and have spell slots of a level 9 caster (4 3 3 3 1).

I also forgot to include roll 4d6s (until >= 75 total). So you can potentially play MAD characters, depending on your stats.


A G character at 13 with NG characters at 20 is different to a G character at 7 and NG characters at 9, for instance. As a general rule my preference would be to lean towards NG characters but it depends a lot on level differences and cap for me.

So this would be milestone conversion (just based on closest equivalent xp with gestalts requiring double):
1 G -> 2 NG (non starts at level 2)
5 G -> 6 NG (still 1 level difference)
6 G -> 8 NG (non gains a double level at milestone)
8 G -> 10 NG (still 2 level difference)
9 G -> 12 NG (non gains a double level at milestone)
10 G -> 14 NG (non gains a double level at milestone)
13 G -> 17 NG (still 4 level difference)
14 G -> 19 NG (non gains a double level at milestone)
15 G -> 20 NG
16 G -> 20 NG (the non gestalt has capped out)
17 G -> 20 NG (etc)


Mixing Gestalt and non Gestalt strikes me as a poor idea. Suggest against doing that.

I just ran Tomb of Horrors gestalt and it worked well. I'd like to mix them to be able to give an AD&D feel (standard characters along with the elven Fighter/Magic-User, halfling Fighter/Thief, but broadened up for the 5e non human monks/paladins).

It seems like based on feedback some people would go for gestalt for opening up some fun options (depending on how far along the campaign was going to advance). Other people would go for the faster advancement and more race/subclass options.

It sounds like we can eliminate scenario B as unnecessary.

[MrStabby]

Probably go Gestalt, just for the change.

So normally I avoid martial characters due to lack of options, but gestalt could fix that. Rogue/Paladin would be top of my list. Plenty of diverse things to do, even at a modest level.

Fighter/lore bard could also be fun for a tanky/spirit guardians build. Cutting words, defense fighting style, con save proficiency, heavy armour/shield will make for keeping concentration easily.

[timesparrow]

I'm going to +1 not mixing gestalt with non-gestalt. I played a game like that, albeit in pathfinder not 5e, and it was the most frustrating thing. I would say that if you want to play with gestalt characters, have everyone play with gestalt characters, and not spend time trying to balance gestalt and non-gestalt, through differing advancement speeds or other means.

Personally though, I would play a gestalt(at first anyway), whatever the rules are, just because I can play a standard character in pretty much any game.

[MaxWilson]

Scenario A:
You are making a character for a no feats campaign where Warlocks do not exist (no Warlocks). You are allowed to play a gestalt multiclassed character with no stacking spell slots. However gestalts are limited to PHB races/subclasses (a half-elf moon druid/open hand monk would be ok, but if you wanted to play a Yuan-ti, Rune Knight, or Bladesinger you would need to be a standard character). Gestalts start at level 1, where as standard characters start at level 2. Milestone advancement would be by gestalt level, so sometimes a standard character would gain more than one level at a time (or you could say you were advancing by xp). So level 9 gestalts (level 9 arcane trickster/wizard would have 4 3 3 3 1) would be partied with level 12 standard characters (level 12 wizard would have 4 3 3 3 2 1), and level 11 gestalts with level 15 standard characters.

Scenario A:

I'm not really following those advancement rules, especially the meaning of "milestone advancement would be by gestalt level, so sometimes a standard character would gain more than one level at a time", but using the level 12/9 and level 15/11 examples you gave for reference, I'd say...

I'd say I like it. Wouldn't play a gestalt 100% of the time, because sometimes I'd want access to Shepherd Druid or Goblin race or something, but fundamentally I enjoy (1) having a higher theoretically long-term power (I'm a long-term thinker by nature), (2) extra versatility, especially for fighter/mages (Battlemaster/Diviner and Eldritch Knight/Moon Druid are both attractive options, and Elemental Monk/Moon Druid could be hilariously awesome).

It's too bad that I'd never wind up playing a Samurai or a Cavalier or a Purple Dragon Knight, whereas if gestalts outside the PHB were allowed I would probably wind up doing that at some point.

For mage types I'd sometimes do gestalt (when I wanted to emphasize the fighter/mage thing), sometimes not (if I want to use PHB-style multiclassing like Necromancer X/Life Cleric 1). If PHB-style multiclassing is not available (and I think it shouldn't be) I'd basically always pick the gestalt, not because a 11/11 gestalt is more powerful than level 15 but just because I personally get more enjoyment out of planning for the future. I wouldn't want to feel like I'd permanently sacrificed my potential future potential just to have a stronger present. In actual play a level 17 Diviner is obviously far more powerful than a level 13ish Battlemaster/Diviner, but one of them eventually could become a Battlemaster 20/Diviner 20 and the other cannot, so picking the Diviner 17 would feel unpleasantly short-sighted and I wouldn't like it. But Jorasco Life Cleric 1/Diviner 19 is as powerful in its own way as Battlemaster 20/Diviner 20, just different, so that's not unpleasant if it's available.

But I think it shouldn't be available because the playstyle you get from only allowing gestalt multiclassing, not PHB-style multiclassing, lets people focus more on archetypes and actual play, and worry less about "builds." It's a healthier metagame.

Scenario B (extra goodies):

Hmmm. In this case I would probably play some of each (gestalt vs. extra goodies), call it 50/50 for the sake of argument. They're both tempting in their own ways. Since 50% of the time I'd be playing a fighter/mage, for the non-gestalt characters I'd probably lean a little bit more than usual towards playing warriors as the non-gestalt characters, especially Kensei (a Kensei X/Fighter 1 Sharpshooter with 4ish attacks at level 11 due to Ki-fueled Strike and/or Crossbow Expert floats my boat), Arcane Archers, and other classes that I can't play gestalt. So, instead of a 30/70 split in favor of full casters, I might wind up 50/50 casters and warriors, for a grand total of:

50% of the time, gestalt character (typically warrior/mage, but maybe Moon Druid/Wizard for extra fun and EVEN MORE SPELLS)
25% non-gestalt full caster with extra goodies
25% non-gestalt warrior-type with extra goodies

Would I still get the extra goodies if I did PHB-style multiclassing? (From a game design standpoint I hope the answer is "PHB-style multiclassing is disallowed," but if it's part of the game, my powergamer instincts still want to exploit it.)


Mixing Gestalt and non Gestalt strikes me as a poor idea. Suggest against doing that.


I'm going to +1 not mixing gestalt with non-gestalt. I played a game like that, albeit in pathfinder not 5e, and it was the most frustrating thing. I would say that if you want to play with gestalt characters, have everyone play with gestalt characters, and not spend time trying to balance gestalt and non-gestalt, through differing advancement speeds or other means.

Personally though, I would play a gestalt(at first anyway), whatever the rules are, just because I can play a standard character in pretty much any game.


I'm in the other camp: as someone who's very fond of AD&D and would totally play a Battlemaster/Enchanter 11 or Moon Druid/Diviner 11 in a party where heavyfuel is playing the Wizard 15, I think it could work quite well! Seems like we'd both pull our respective weight and would both have fun with our choice.