First time running gestalt

[Biggus]

I will soon be DMing a gestalt game for the first time. As I've never played it before (even as a player) I wanted to ask if there is anything I should watch out for. Are there things which aren't broken which become so in gestalt? Do encounters need to be crafted differently? Any rules interactions which are unclear that I'll need to rule on?

In case it matters, there will be 3 players starting at approximately level 5. While it's not core-only, none of the major variant systems (psionics, ToB, ToM, MoI) will be in play, at least at first.

[Rebel7284]

1. I suggest using fractional BAB to avoid that weird glitch of Wizard 20 // Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 having full BAB
2. Characters tend to have more options, but since they still have one set of actions, they aren't necessarily much more powerful. More flexible and often more endurance? Sure.

[Eldonauran]

Pretty much what was already said. The action economy dictates how effective the players actually are, so you just need to prepare for characters that are simply more hardy and have a bit more endurance than non-gestalt characters. Unless they hyper specialize, characters tend to grow outwards in abilities, letting them be more versatile and covering more of the basic niches in play.

So long as you prevent blatant abuses of the gestalt system from players who would take advantage of (purposeful) misunderstandings on how it actually works, you should be just fine. Enforce the fractional BAB/Saving throw without exception. You are the arbiter of the rules. Do not allow them to see a grey area and try to argue that it should work in their favor. Grey areas are your area to make rulings on.

[Fizban]

Are there things which aren't broken which become so in gestalt?
I mean, I would argue that the whole point of "gestalt" is to be broken, same as "flaws" and "LA buyoff" and so on.

(And yes, I have played and run some gestalt. It was broken).

Do encounters need to be crafted differently?
Absolutely. You've dramatically increased the base power of the characters, you should expect to require a dramatic change in encounter/adventure design. A four person party most likely has four spellcasters instead of the game's expected two, no one will build themselves with less than a d8 hit die, and they'll have as much armor and BAB as they want.

Only having three players means you only have three casters instead of two, but if you usually DM for three players then this will still be a significant gap. All of them will have "just numbers" such as hit points, AC, BAB, saves, etc, which are higher than they would have been on a normal character, and just because those aren't their "primary" focus doesn't mean those numbers don't matter (that's the whole reason they wanted two classes in the first place, obviously). I would also expect that you're giving much more ability score than the Elite Array, to support those double classes, so they won't actually be lacking for ability scores on their non-primary functions. Having higher numbers means stock monsters are worse, plain and simple. Having more ammo means more buffs and/or more nova and/or just general ammo to spam, again making stock monsters worse. If you actually follow a "four encounter day" with stock monsters and expected levels, the party should now be laughably overpowered.

On the other hand, if you're planning on having them fight mostly gestalt PC-classed NPCs (and if classed NPCs are your usual fare), then you've already thrown all encounter design expectations completely out the window. At which point I would actually expect fewer changes from the norm, since you're already accustomed to making up your own balance.


While it's not core-only, none of the major variant systems (psionics, ToB, ToM, MoI) will be in play, at least at first.
That does reduce some of the more obviously synergistic combos, but the basic number problems that are the whole point of the idea are all right there in core. You might not have Psion/Clerics for full arcane+divine+heavy armor+divine power or Warblade counters on everyone or obscure binder/incarnate additions. But you've still got a baseline of any class+Cleric, with Fighter/Barb dips practically free to taste.

[zlefin]

In general gestalt tends to increase the effective party level by 1-2; depending on what level they're at and how well the gestalt halves synergize. Which means you need to increase the cr of encounters by 1-2. At level 5 and up, it should tend to be the +2 to effective party level. Of course with 3 players instead of 4, that's a -1 compared to a 4man party in terms of effective party level and thus appropriate CR of foes.

Aside from the already covered advice; and the notes it says in the books themselves about using gestalt, you should be fine. It doesn't tkae much advice to know all you need to know for handling gestalt.

[Gnaeus]

It can heighten previously existing disparities in optimization skill. Our top optimizer hit a point, about level 10, where any fight that threatened him would roll any other PC. He had no exploitable weaknesses that wouldn't be fatal for anyone else. He was a pretty straightforward gestalt, Wizard//Monk, using the passive monk chassis on an optimized wizard base. No individual piece of his puzzle was broken, and he would have had a stronger character than the others anyway. But High Optimization is about finding synergies that exceed component parts, and more pieces mean more opportunities for synergy. He had the party's best AC, Saves, Melee attacks, Save or loses, with rerolls. And Best was typically by a wide margin. Not that this isn't a thing wizards can ultimately do ANYWAY. But it really kicked the pre-existing disparity into high gear and papered over the normal wizard weaknesses.

[RandomPeasant]

Pretty much what was already said. The action economy dictates how effective the players actually are, so you just need to prepare for characters that are simply more hardy and have a bit more endurance than non-gestalt characters.

There are a number of ways to get better action economy from Gestalt. Not allowing ToB removes one of the simplest (gestalting for white raven tactics), but people can take Factotum, or just get extra spell slots to use with celerity, or otherwise combine action economy tricks.


1. I suggest using fractional BAB to avoid that weird glitch of Wizard 20 // Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 having full BAB

That's not a "weird glitch" that's "not how the rules work". Gestalt gives you the better progression from between your two sides, so as a Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 you would get the better of +10 (from Wizard levels) and +10 (+1 from a Fighter level, +9 from 19 Sorcerer levels), which works out to +10 either way. You would get a BAB of +10 at 19th level, but the idea that you can get double progression by staggering your levels is just not remotely supported.


It can heighten previously existing disparities in optimization skill.

It also creates a much larger impact from committing to a character concept. Gestalt encourages combining things that are different rather than things that are the same, so the guy who sticks Ranger and Fighter together to make the ultimate archer gains much less than the guy who combines Ranger and Wizard because that happens to get him full casting and a strong overall chassis.

[Eldonauran]

There are a number of ways to get better action economy from Gestalt. Not allowing ToB removes one of the simplest (gestalting for white raven tactics), but people can take Factotum, or just get extra spell slots to use with celerity, or otherwise combine action economy tricks.Of course there are, but they are all easy to see coming and adjust for. Someone using core only merely has to resort to summoning spells in order to murder the action economy. Until you get to a decently high enough level, summoning spells and companion creatures are more than enough to carry you and the party. I merely did not think it was worth bringing up.


That's not a "weird glitch" that's "not how the rules work". Gestalt gives you the better progression from between your two sides, so as a Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 you would get the better of +10 (from Wizard levels) and +10 (+1 from a Fighter level, +9 from 19 Sorcerer levels), which works out to +10 either way. You would get a BAB of +10 at 19th level, but the idea that you can get double progression by staggering your levels is just not remotely supported.Rules or not, I have seen many (MANY) people attempt to abuse such an interpretation, to the point that I no longer consider it unintentional misunderstanding but blatant abuse. These players are pretty much part of the group that wants the rules to read one way when it benefits them and entirely another when it doesn't. Warning the potential GM is well advised.

All in all, Gestalt is a blast and I use it to run one of my weekly games.

[Fiery Diamond]

I love gestalt. Pretty much all of what I would have said has already been said, though. When I ran a gestalt game, I used +2 to CR/EL as my standard for encounters. People that combine different things (martial + caster, for example) will generally be more stronger... uh... gain a larger increase in power... than those who combine similar things (Fighter + Barbarian, for example).

Also, gestalt is so far out from standard that I'd really recommend allowing house rules or homebrew to level the playing field between those who optimized well and those who didn't. Somebody makes a Sor//Bbn and makes a blaster caster/great sword wielder (non-uber charger)? Somebody else has Wiz//Clr and does the curbstomp victory dance? Maybe bend a few things to help out the first guy, like letting him not discharge spells for touching his weapon and allowing him to remove and put his off hand back on his sword as many times in a round as he likes. But that's just my personal preference.

[Biggus]

I already use fractional BAB and saves as default, and none of my players are hardcore optimizers, so a lot of potential problems disappear. I've read through the gestalt rules several times so I know about increasing the CR of monsters and so on.


depending on what level they're at and how well the gestalt halves synergize.


it really kicked the pre-existing disparity into high gear and papered over the normal wizard weaknesses.

This is a good point, I'd been dimly aware of this but hadn't really thought through how much it could increase the difference between a weak character and a strong one, even in a low-mid op game.



I would also expect that you're giving much more ability score than the Elite Array, to support those double classes, so they won't actually be lacking for ability scores on their non-primary functions.


I normally use 32 points if we're doing point-buy as it helps out the weaker MAD classes more than the stronger SAD ones. Is that enough for gestalt? What point buy/generation method do people usually use in gestalt games?



All in all, Gestalt is a blast

:smallsmile: Glad to hear it, I've been wanting to try it for a while.

[lylsyly]

Our table routinely runs gestalt.

3 Players? CR+1 is probably enough at least until later (when they are routinely busting CR+1 consider upping it to CR+2).

New to gestalt? Consider allowing only one side of a build to be a full casting class (plus PRCs). Half casting like bard pally ranger cool on other side.

Ideally you want full bab, all good saves, 9ths, as many skill points as possible, and casting in armor with martial weapons, but in reality it is kinda hard to pull off. (Cleric///Ranger does fit the role).

Outside of core consider a Duskblade///Archivist.

Just my 2 coppers

[Eldonauran]

Oddly enough, Cleric//Ranger is my all time favorite AD&D 2e multiclass option and something I'd play in 3.5 Gestalt without hesitation. I usually dislike playing Clerics in general because I find them mechanically boring. That combo is an exception.

I run a Pathfinder game with tweaks from the Unchained book (fractional bab/saves, unchained action economy) and a few blatant ripoffs from 5e and PF2 that I like, but I also use a good bit of 3.5 material that I like. If you do run Gestalt, I highly recommend using the SLOW advancement progression for characters for experience from Pathfinder. It keeps their rapid leaps to higher level more manageable.

[Fiery Diamond]

I already use fractional BAB and saves as default, and none of my players are hardcore optimizers, so a lot of potential problems disappear. I've read through the gestalt rules several times so I know about increasing the CR of monsters and so on.





This is a good point, I'd been dimly aware of this but hadn't really thought through how much it could increase the difference between a weak character and a strong one, even in a low-mid op game.



I normally use 32 points if we're doing point-buy as it helps out the weaker MAD classes more than the stronger SAD ones. Is that enough for gestalt? What point buy/generation method do people usually use in gestalt games?



:smallsmile: Glad to hear it, I've been wanting to try it for a while.

Ah, point buy. I honestly don't know what the point of running gestalt is if you consider 32 points powerful. I'd say 38 minimum, as that allows for 18 16 14 12 10 8, at least if the random website I looked at is right on the point costs. Or if you want to be more balanced, 16 16 14 14 12 10, which is probably a better array for gestalt. In my opinion, if you're going to do gestalt, go full power fantasy with the character's level of competency. I suck at optimization, so I generally need the higher stats to make things work. I'm currently doing a sporadic pathfinder first edition 1 player-1 DM game (it's hard to find players around here) that I'm playing in as a Barbarian//Sorcerer with a homebrewed bloodline to make the powers play well together. I'm using the array 18 16 15 14 13 11, playing a human (which in pathfinder gets a starting +2 to any ability score, bringing my 16 to an 18). In point buy that would be what, 42? After that +2, that character is Str 18 Dex 15 Con 13 Int 14 Wis 11 Cha 18. I needed the Int for skill points.

[Biggus]

Ah, point buy. I honestly don't know what the point of running gestalt is if you consider 32 points powerful. I'd say 38 minimum, as that allows for 18 16 14 12 10 8, at least if the random website I looked at is right on the point costs.

You know 25PB is the default in 3.5, right?

32 has worked fine in the normal game, you can make pretty much any build work with that. I don't know what's considered powerful in gestalt, that's why I asked.

What are other peoples' experience with this?

[RandomPeasant]

I would generally be opposed to adding more points because you are doing gestalt, since the whole point of gestalt is that you don't get extra stats or gold or feats or even PrC levels, you just get another set of class features. It gets elevator pitched as "combine two characters", but it's really not that. It's a way to add a wider range of abilities to a single character, which doesn't necessarily necessitate extra stats. That said, if that's what you want it to be, giving out more points for point buy is a useful step for achieving it. On the gripping hand, increased point buy tends to help MAD characters because you can't buy over 18, so if you do it, you're giving the largest advantage to the characters that tend to need the most help.


Also, gestalt is so far out from standard that I'd really recommend allowing house rules or homebrew to level the playing field between those who optimized well and those who didn't.

Honestly, you should be doing this in general. Part of DMing is finding ways to smooth power between characters without making it obvious that you're doing that.


New to gestalt? Consider allowing only one side of a build to be a full casting class (plus PRCs). Half casting like bard pally ranger cool on other side.

I would suggest this as a general rule even if you aren't new to Gestalt. The fact that "SAD Caster//Caster" is the best Gestalt build means that optimized Gestalt characters tend to feel a lot like regular characters, just with more of their existing resources, rather than feeling like you have added depth to a character.


Ideally you want full bab, all good saves, 9ths, as many skill points as possible, and casting in armor with martial weapons, but in reality it is kinda hard to pull off. (Cleric///Ranger does fit the role).

Getting all of that is rough, but getting close is pretty easy. Druid//Rogue misses on BAB, but with Wild Shape and Druid buffs you're going to be hitting reliably anyway, so you can pick something with a bunch of natural attacks and pump out sneak attack damage.


If you do run Gestalt, I highly recommend using the SLOW advancement progression for characters for experience from Pathfinder. It keeps their rapid leaps to higher level more manageable.

I again would consider "limit advancement to the pace that is appropriate for your game" to be something you should do in all games, not just Gestalt. Certainly if you find yourself (or your players) unable to keep up with the complexity of Gestalt at normal advancement, slowing things down can be appropriate. But Gestalt often serves as a way to increase the power fantasy, so slowing progression can rubber-band that in a way that's unsatisfying.

[Biggus]

I would generally be opposed to adding more points because you are doing gestalt, since the whole point of gestalt is that you don't get extra stats or gold or feats or even PrC levels, you just get another set of class features. It gets elevator pitched as "combine two characters", but it's really not that. It's a way to add a wider range of abilities to a single character, which doesn't necessarily necessitate extra stats. That said, if that's what you want it to be, giving out more points for point buy is a useful step for achieving it. On the gripping hand, increased point buy tends to help MAD characters because you can't buy over 18, so if you do it, you're giving the largest advantage to the characters that tend to need the most help.


From the numbers I've run so far, gestalt characters seem to be a bit more MAD than normal ones but not actually all that much; on average they seem to need one more decent stat to function well. Based on that I was thinking of increasing PB a bit, maybe to 36 or so. I'm not intending to give sky-high PB anyway.



Honestly, you should be doing this in general. Part of DMing is finding ways to smooth power between characters without making it obvious that you're doing that.


Heh, I'm not that subtle, I have a list of house rules the size of a small book.

[Rynjin]

I think the biggest mistake GMs new to Gestalt make is thinking that double the classes = double the power. However, this is simply untrue.

Action economy is the biggest determiner of character power. Gestalt characters are more FLEXIBLE in build, and marginally more powerful, but are NOWHERE NEAR twice as strong as a normal character.

Keep in mind that the party will be roughly APL +1-2 when determining challenge and you should be fine.

[Doctor Awkward]

The general optimization rules for building a Gestalt character is that you have an "active" side and a "passive" side.
The active side is where most of your offensive ability comes from. It's the side of the build that will be using your standard action most often in a given combat round.
The passive side compliments the active side in some way, by enhancing strengths, covering weaknesses, or giving enhanced functionality to your existing setup.

Some quick "Active//Passive" examples. Note that these combinations are not in the same league of power:

Sorcerer//Paladin: Core-friendly and pretty straightforward. Your sorcerer spellcasting is your main source of offense, and your paladin side gets full BAB, better hit dice, and some class features that make use of your very high charisma.

Swordsage//Psychic Warrior- Great WIS-focused synergy. Share Pain/Vigor and Psicrystal gives great survivability, and passive buff powers from PW (like Eldritch Claws) synergize very well with Tiger Claw maneuvers.

Totemist//Ranger/Scout- This build utilizes the Manticore Belt and the Swift Hunter feat to pile on ranged skirmish damage.

Psion(or Erudite)//Warblade- Single-attribute focus with Intelligence. Psion for your main offensive powers, combined with d12 hit dice, full BAB, the superior recovery mechanic, and the Warblade counters for defense.

Wizard//Factotum- By far one of the most powerful combinations you can play. The Factotum is the ultimate passive class to combine with any INT-based character, such as Psion, Archivist, or Artificer. Excellent bonuses for your intelligence to skill checks and saves, all skills as class skills, incredible action economy abuse with Cunning Surge to cast additional spells per round. And if you are a specialist wizard, you can place spells from your barred schools in the Factotum spell slots, and you get to pick additional class features each day at level 15.

Artificer//Binder/Chameleon- Binder is another very common passive class with any charisma-focused build. It's not nearly as powerful as the factotum, but it can give some very useful bonuses. Ordinarily the artificer would need to pick an area of specialization, such as wands, golems, party buffing, and so on. Now, just pick the vestige and crafting feat with Chameleon each morning that you need for your next crafting project.


Essentially, be mindful of any combination involving a Tier 1 class, as it will likely win much harder than it otherwise would.
The recommendations made by the book are largely terrible for optimization purposes, so if party balance is an issue for you make sure to offer that guidance to your group.
A wizard//factotum is going to absolutely run the table in a group with a rogue//scout, a warblade//cleric, and a barbarian//bard.

[RandomPeasant]

From the numbers I've run so far, gestalt characters seem to be a bit more MAD than normal ones but not actually all that much; on average they seem to need one more decent stat to function well. Based on that I was thinking of increasing PB a bit, maybe to 36 or so. I'm not intending to give sky-high PB anyway.

It really depends on what people are building, and also which side you consider the baseline. Wizard//Archivist needs exactly as many stats as Wizard or Archivist individually (which is to say: INT, investing the rest in CON/DEX/WIS for survivability of various sorts). Druid//Rogue needs less stats than a non-Gestalt Rogue because it's going to spend all its time turned into some form of animal and therefore doesn't care about physical stats at all. Even something like Wizard//Warblade that seems like it would want different stats might not if you're simply treating the Warblade as a chassis buff and a collection of swift or immediate action abilities.


Keep in mind that the party will be roughly APL +1-2 when determining challenge and you should be fine.

Point of order: that is twice as strong. Power scaling in D&D is exponential, so if Gestalt allows you to bat at level + 2 instead of level, their power has been doubled.


The general optimization rules for building a Gestalt character is that you have an "active" side and a "passive" side.

The active/passive thing gets thrown around a lot, but it's really an over-simplification. You don't want an active side and a passive side, you want two sides that use different resources and provide different capabilities, because Gestalt overlaps rather than stacks. Except that isn't even really true, because what you actually want is to play a SAD Caster//Caster, but let's ignore that for a second.

Consider a combination like Shadowcraft Gnome//DMM Cleric. You have your "active" shadow illusions and your "passive" divine buffs. Great combo, right? Well, no, because both of those want a whole bunch of feats to work and there's basically no overlap between what feats they want, so you can't get both builds running until way too late in the campaign. Conversely, something like Wizard//Warlock is quite reasonable in many campaigns, despite both being active, because having something better than "crossbow" to fall back on dramatically increases your character's overall output, because you can use your invocations to reduce the frequency with which you need to cast spells.

"Active" and "passive" are also pretty hard to nail down, definition-wise. Is Rogue active or passive? Well, if you're combining it with a Wizard who wants to cast a BFC spell every round, it's pretty active, because the Sneak Attack plan is completely orthogonal to that. But if you're combing it with a Cleric Archer who spends most rounds launching a volley of arrows at their enemies, you can add double or triple digit amounts of damage to your attack routine with a slight change in buffs and different positioning. Duskblade is a similar example, as you can either use it "actively" (by using Arcane Channeling instead of whatever your other side gives you), or "passively" (by using Arcane Channeling with spells you get from your other side).

Don't focus on a specific resource (combat actions) even if that resource is very important. Think about your character's resources in general, and find something that enhances the character's capabilities without further taxing those resources. A Warmage/Mage of the Arcane Order build that is spending a bunch of feats on various ways to gain new spells pairs well with Druid because the latter doesn't need feats (beyond Natural Spell) or PrCs to be effective, even if "summon a bear" and "blast people with fire" are both active abilities.


Wizard//Factotum- By far one of the most powerful combinations you can play.

People wildly overrate Wizard//Factotum and Caster//Factotum in general. Yes, you can Cunning Surge multiple times and cast a bunch of spells round one. Guess what? You don't have meaningfully more spells per day than a straight Wizard, so unless you are playing in a campaign that consistently has one-encounter workdays, your character is blowing his wad on fight one. Not to mention that you don't get Cunning Surge at all until 8th level, and you can't get more than one action per fight out of it until 11th level without investing feats. And that's without even getting into Factotum's mechanical problems.

Both sides of the equation are better off gestalting with Warblade. Wizard//Warblade gets your extra action at 5th level with white raven tactics, and you can share it with other people so that your character isn't spending all their spells in the first two fights. Then, instead of casting you do not care about, you get the save replacement counters to provide defenses that even magic can't easily replicate. Warblade//Factotum lets you reliably use all the extra actions Cunning Surge can generate, and the spellcasting and skills are a lot more impressive when your best utility option is "Diplomacy, maybe".

I would absolutely rather have a Cleric//Warblade than a Wizard//Factotum because the former can nova as hard as (or even harder than at some levels) the latter, and has massively better sustain. With a couple of Persistent buffs and a couple of good offensive maneuvers, the Cleric//Warblade can chew through a bunch of encounters without spending any additional resources, which is a much more valuable tool than killing one encounter per day really hard in most campaigns.


The recommendations made by the book are largely terrible for optimization purposes, so if party balance is an issue for you make sure to offer that guidance to your group.

In fairness, pretty much all balance or optimization in any book is terrible. It's not like the Gestalt balance advice is meaningfully below par.

[Rynjin]

Point of order: that is twice as strong. Power scaling in D&D is exponential, so if Gestalt allows you to bat at level + 2 instead of level, their power has been doubled.

...No, not at level 5 it doesn't (the starting level proposed by the OP). At level 1 and 2, yes. By level 3 it is a 33% to 66% increase. At 4 it's a 25% to 50% increase. At level 5 it's a 20% to 40% increase.

Though even that's not really accurate since the difference in power between 2 and 3 is smaller than between 1 and 2, 3 to 4 isn't as big of a leap as 2 to 3, etc.

The characters will powerspike at the usual breakpoints (6 or 7, 11, etc.), bringing them up higher in a similar curve.

Powerscaling isn't REALLY exponential, it's linear with some weird jumps at certain points. A fight with a level 5 enemy is pretty much insurmountable to a party of level 1 dudes, but a party of level 5s vs a level 9 character is a MUCH easier fight.

At level 1 and 2 the Gestalt effectively adds almost NO power, because the party is just as fragile as before. While the Wizard might have a d10 from a Fighter gestalt, making him more durable than a straight Wizard, he still dies just as easily to getting mauled by an Orc with a Falchion.

[Gnaeus]

From the numbers I've run so far, gestalt characters seem to be a bit more MAD than normal ones but not actually all that much; on average they seem to need one more decent stat to function well. Based on that I was thinking of increasing PB a bit, maybe to 36 or so. I'm not intending to give sky-high PB anyway.
.

That depends a lot on build. You will note that most of the commonly described gestalts tend to focus on a single primary stat (like combos of wizard, warblade and factotum), or to use an x to y stat trick to become SAD (like wizard//monk with carmendine or kung fu genius). If your wizard//fighter or wizard//ranger is mostly wizard, you can in fact be MORE SAD than a single class wizard, because you have less need for con (with 3 extra hp/level and good fort saves). This doesn't even necessarily mean he is abandoning fighter or ranger. He could run with a low str/dex for 6 levels and then enjoy polymorph + full bab. Or he could be a mailman type, planning on using touch attacks or ranged touch attacks, but use weapon finesse to get away with a low str, or full bab and Point blank and precise shot to allow him to hit better with lower dex.



Powerscaling isn't REALLY exponential, it's linear with some weird jumps at certain points. A fight with a level 5 enemy is pretty much insurmountable to a party of level 1 dudes, but a party of level 5s vs a level 9 character is a MUCH easier fight.

At level 1 and 2 the Gestalt effectively adds almost NO power, because the party is just as fragile as before. While the Wizard might have a d10 from a Fighter gestalt, making him more durable than a straight Wizard, he still dies just as easily to getting mauled by an Orc with a Falchion.

Not really. Falchion orc does an average 9hp damage, enough to drop a wizard with 18 con but not enough to drop a fighter//wizard with 10. He carries javelins, which can also one shot the wiz but not the fighter.

Now the falchion CRIT still kills any level 1 character. But a level 1 wizard//monk with carmendine or KFG probably is walking around the dungeon with an AC of 18-21, with possibility of kicking it up with shield or pro evil, which makes that crit very unlikely at a +4 to hit. At level 2, a scroll of Alter Self would let him add +5 NA. And of course, there are lots of CR 1 threats that don't routinely kill PCs on crits.

[Biggus]

It really depends on what people are building, and also which side you consider the baseline. Wizard//Archivist needs exactly as many stats as Wizard or Archivist individually (which is to say: INT, investing the rest in CON/DEX/WIS for survivability of various sorts). Druid//Rogue needs less stats than a non-Gestalt Rogue because it's going to spend all its time turned into some form of animal and therefore doesn't care about physical stats at all. Even something like Wizard//Warblade that seems like it would want different stats might not if you're simply treating the Warblade as a chassis buff and a collection of swift or immediate action abilities.


That depends a lot on build. You will note that most of the commonly described gestalts tend to focus on a single primary stat (like combos of wizard, warblade and factotum), or to use an x to y stat trick to become SAD (like wizard//monk with carmendine or kung fu genius). If your wizard//fighter or wizard//ranger is mostly wizard, you can in fact be MORE SAD than a single class wizard, because you have less need for con (with 3 extra hp/level and good fort saves). This doesn't even necessarily mean he is abandoning fighter or ranger. He could run with a low str/dex for 6 levels and then enjoy polymorph + full bab. Or he could be a mailman type, planning on using touch attacks or ranged touch attacks, but use weapon finesse to get away with a low str, or full bab and Point blank and precise shot to allow him to hit better with lower dex.


I guess you missed the part where I said "on average"?

Some builds don't require any more stats than a single class, some require two (or in rare cases, three) more. I've surveyed over 100 combos so far and both the mean and median is going from needing three stats to function well to needing four.


"Active" and "passive" are also pretty hard to nail down, definition-wise. Is Rogue active or passive? Well, if you're combining it with a Wizard who wants to cast a BFC spell every round, it's pretty active, because the Sneak Attack plan is completely orthogonal to that. But if you're combing it with a Cleric Archer who spends most rounds launching a volley of arrows at their enemies, you can add double or triple digit amounts of damage to your attack routine with a slight change in buffs and different positioning. Duskblade is a similar example, as you can either use it "actively" (by using Arcane Channeling instead of whatever your other side gives you), or "passively" (by using Arcane Channeling with spells you get from your other side).


I've also surveyed this, and so far one-sixth of the classes I've checked are heavily passive, one-sixth heavily active, and the rest can be either adequately well, although some lean to one side or the other (more lean passive).


...No, not at level 5 it doesn't (the starting level proposed by the OP). At level 1 and 2, yes. By level 3 it is a 33% to 66% increase. At 4 it's a 25% to 50% increase. At level 5 it's a 20% to 40% increase.

Though even that's not really accurate since the difference in power between 2 and 3 is smaller than between 1 and 2, 3 to 4 isn't as big of a leap as 2 to 3, etc.

The characters will powerspike at the usual breakpoints (6 or 7, 11, etc.), bringing them up higher in a similar curve.

Powerscaling isn't REALLY exponential, it's linear with some weird jumps at certain points. A fight with a level 5 enemy is pretty much insurmountable to a party of level 1 dudes, but a party of level 5s vs a level 9 character is a MUCH easier fight.


This is an exaggeration. It's certainly true that scaling is not fully exponential and that the difference is greatest at low levels, but it's nowhere near linear either, and how linear or exponential it is varies by class. When I put my current high-level party up against creatures four CRs below their normal level they absolutely massacre them unless I carefully set up the encounter to play to the weaker creatures' strengths.

[Gnaeus]

I guess you missed the part where I said "on average"?

Some builds don't require any more stats than a single class, some require two (or in rare cases, three) more. I've surveyed over 100 combos so far and both the mean and median is going from needing three stats to function well to needing four.

I suppose that could be true if your characters planned to not have an active and passive side and if they were selecting classes at random. Thats essentially the throwing darts at the dartboard method of chargen, which will ABSOLUTELY give you huge power imbalances. Your average isn't going to be determined by the stat array of random combinations, but of the couple dozen that players are likely to pick. I would also be VERY cautious as to how you determine which stats are needed to function. Like Wizard//fighter or wizard//ranger commonly being MORE SAD than solo wizard, because wizard//fighter needs less str/con/dex than does a wizard alone. Wizard//ranger is less MAD than ranger alone, because he doesn't actually care about how many ranger 4 spells he can use when he is throwing 7th level wizard spells, he probably only cares about having a 13 or 14 wis for wand use.

[Biggus]

I suppose that could be true if your characters planned to not have an active and passive side and if they were selecting classes at random. Thats essentially the throwing darts at the dartboard method of chargen, which will ABSOLUTELY give you huge power imbalances. Your average isn't going to be determined by the stat array of random combinations, but of the couple dozen that players are likely to pick. I would also be VERY cautious as to how you determine which stats are needed to function. Like Wizard//fighter or wizard//ranger commonly being MORE SAD than solo wizard, because wizard//fighter needs less str/con/dex than does a wizard alone. Wizard//ranger is less MAD than ranger alone, because he doesn't actually care about how many ranger 4 spells he can use when he is throwing 7th level wizard spells, he probably only cares about having a 13 or 14 wis for wand use.

I'm sure that is true if your players are keen optimizers. As I mentioned above, mine aren't. They'll avoid combos that suck, but apart from that they're more interested in "is this cool and fun?" than "is this in the most powerful 10% of choices?". So far more than half of the combos I've looked at work reasonably well, they might choose any of those.

It is true though that some gestalts can be less MAD than an individual class; apart from anything else, a full caster who is using a melee class primarily for the chassis and defensive features while concentrating on casting as their active ability can dump Str.

[Rynjin]

This is an exaggeration. It's certainly true that scaling is not fully exponential and that the difference is greatest at low levels, but it's nowhere near linear either, and how linear or exponential it is varies by class. When I put my current high-level party up against creatures four CRs below their normal level they absolutely massacre them unless I carefully set up the encounter to play to the weaker creatures' strengths.

...Yes? I'm not sure how this disproves my point. In linear advancement, larger numbers are still larger.

There is not, has never, and likely will never be anything actually exponential about character growth in D&D. A level 1 character might have a +5 to attack. A level 10 character might have a +20. If they were exponentially advancing we'd be looking at attack rolls numbering in the millions.

Not only is it not fully exponential, it is NOWHERE NEAR exponential. People take the "linear warriors quadratic wizards" phrasing a bit too seriously. Wizards simply have larger jumps in power at their specific breakpoints (5, 9, etc.).

But even looking at just a simple melee brawl, yes linear advancement is more than enough for a character to outstrip the competition. When the main method of conflict resolution is rolling to see who gets a high number, the character who can both roll higher and force the opponent to roll higher has a clear and insurmountable advantage.

A group of level 10 characters (AC 25, attack roll +20) is, yes, going to have a marked advantage over a gaggle of level 6 characters (AC 20, attack roll +12). Nothing about this is exponential. It's simply that 20 is a bigger number than 12.

If you want an example of exponential character advancement, go look at Diablo 3, where a level 1 character does start with dealing single to low double digits worth of damage and ends up dealing TRILLIONS in a swing.

[RandomPeasant]

...No, not at level 5 it doesn't (the starting level proposed by the OP). At level 1 and 2, yes. By level 3 it is a 33% to 66% increase. At 4 it's a 25% to 50% increase. At level 5 it's a 20% to 40% increase.

Yes, it does. A CR 5 monster is a EL 5 encounter. Two of them are an EL 7 encounter. So, yes, +2 levels means you defeat encounters that are twice as dangerous, and are therefore twice as powerful. That's just how the encounter system works.

I mean, yeah, your numbers aren't twice as big, but that doesn't really mean anything either. +10 v DC 28 succeeds on three numbers. A marginal +3 is a 33% increase in the bonus, but it causes you to succeed on six numbers, which doubles your chance of success.


But a level 1 wizard//monk with carmendine or KFG probably is walking around the dungeon with an AC of 18-21

Uh, no, the floor for a Wizard is not double 18s. Plenty of Wizards, even reasonably optimized Wizards, are going to end up with 18 INT and 14 DEX or whatever. Especially if they are going to eventually be relying on alter self or polymorph.


I guess you missed the part where I said "on average"?

I have to say that, even granting that your players don't optimize very much, a literal average doesn't seem like a super reliable metric. And it's hard to imagine a group of players where that's a reliable metric, but also they're doing a really good job of prioritizing ability scores.


I've also surveyed this, and so far one-sixth of the classes I've checked are heavily passive, one-sixth heavily active, and the rest can be either adequately well, although some lean to one side or the other (more lean passive).

I am quite skeptical that this is something you can meaningfully evaluate in a vacuum, let alone survey.

[Doctor Awkward]

"Active" and "passive" are also pretty hard to nail down, definition-wise. Is Rogue active or passive? Well, if you're combining it with a Wizard who wants to cast a BFC spell every round, it's pretty active, because the Sneak Attack plan is completely orthogonal to that. But if you're combing it with a Cleric Archer who spends most rounds launching a volley of arrows at their enemies, you can add double or triple digit amounts of damage to your attack routine with a slight change in buffs and different positioning. Duskblade is a similar example, as you can either use it "actively" (by using Arcane Channeling instead of whatever your other side gives you), or "passively" (by using Arcane Channeling with spells you get from your other side).

I mean, you literally explained how to quickly and easily identify your "active" and your "passive" class in like two sentences after claiming it was vague and super complicated, so I'm not really sure what your initial point was...
The active side is the one that has the stuff you are doing. The passive side is the one that makes that stuff better.



People wildly overrate Wizard//Factotum and Caster//Factotum in general. Yes, you can Cunning Surge multiple times and cast a bunch of spells round one. Guess what? You don't have meaningfully more spells per day than a straight Wizard, so unless you are playing in a campaign that consistently has one-encounter workdays, your character is blowing his wad on fight one. Not to mention that you don't get Cunning Surge at all until 8th level, and you can't get more than one action per fight out of it until 11th level without investing feats. And that's without even getting into Factotum's mechanical problems.

So first of all a Focused specialist wizard get exactly the same number of spell slots per day as a sorcerer, so if you have a DM that runs that many encounters then that's always a build option.

Then starting from level 1 Factotum on Wizard gives you:
-d8 hit points. That's a mathematical average of +4 bonus to CON over a straight wizard.
-A bump to BAB
-Good Reflex saves (to go with Good Will)
-triple the skill points and it removes cross-class skill penalties allowing you to fill any out of combat role.
-INT bonus to attack rolls which is universally useful as you level
-Trapfinding to fulfill that role as well if you feel like it.

Starting at level 3:
-You get your INT modifier to all STR and DEX checks, which includes all relevant skills, grapple checks, plus Initiative rolls.
-You get bonus sneak attack, which is whatever, but if you want to try and coup-de-grace assassinate something from hiding at range you have a shot.

At level 4:
-You can start filling out Arcane Dilettante spells from banned schools with win buttons that you can tailor as the situation requires. Right away that means Sleep if you banned enchantment, Silent Image if you banned Illusion, Ray of Enfeeblement if you banned necromancy, and Grease if you banned conjuration. You can also use these slots for silver bullets that you might not want to spend a normal Wizard slot on, such as Charm Person, Color Spray, and so on.

By level 5:
-You get some free healing. It's quickly obsoleted as you level but it's super handy for the next few levels. You can now also Turn Undead if you want.

Both sides of the equation are better off gestalting with Warblade. Wizard//Warblade gets your extra action at 5th level with white raven tactics, and you can share it with other people so that your character isn't spending all their spells in the first two fights. Then, instead of casting you do not care about, you get the save replacement counters to provide defenses that even magic can't easily replicate. Warblade//Factotum lets you reliably use all the extra actions Cunning Surge can generate, and the spellcasting and skills are a lot more impressive when your best utility option is "Diplomacy, maybe".

I would absolutely rather have a Cleric//Warblade than a Wizard//Factotum because the former can nova as hard as (or even harder than at some levels) the latter, and has massively better sustain. With a couple of Persistent buffs and a couple of good offensive maneuvers, the Cleric//Warblade can chew through a bunch of encounters without spending any additional resources, which is a much more valuable tool than killing one encounter per day really hard in most campaigns.

By level 11 you straight up ignore spell resistance on a target for one full round. Do you have any idea how many spells there are that are "balanced" solely by the fact that they allow for SR? And the target doesn't even get a workaround for it. The ability strictly says "The target automatically fails any spell resistance check that she attempts to avoid your spell."

Starting at level 13 you can straight up "No, thank you," to any one thing that might otherwise kill you if all your other defenses fail.

At every single level you get something that is a straight upgrade to perfectly compliment your wizard spellcasting.

For the life of me I will never understand the magnitude of Factotum hate that has materialized over the last six or seven years.
I am convinced at this point that a majority of these detractors simply haven't read the book or experimented with the class in builds. They've just taken someone else's word for it that the class is junk and have never given it a second thought.

I've played straight Factotums several times. It's not the best class, and it requires some finagling and cooperation from the DM to achieve some of its more obnoxious potential, but in a party with a Psion, a Warblade, a Spirit Shaman, and a Bard I never once felt like the weak link. I did literally everything out of combat.

[RandomPeasant]

The active side is the one that has the stuff you are doing. The passive side is the one that makes that stuff better.

The whole point is that "stuff you are doing" very rarely divides cleanly along class lines. A Druid//Rogue isn't really using active abilities from either class, it's just using an overall strategy both classes happen to enhance. Similarly, which side of a Caster//Caster gestalt is "active" or "passive" at any given time is almost entirely arbitrary. If you spend half your Cleric slots and half your Ardent power points on buffs and the balance of each in combat, your sides are each equally "active" and "passive", but you are way the hell better than someone who is fumbling around with Sorcerer//Paladin because someone told them to make passive use of their CHA score.


So first of all a Focused specialist wizard get exactly the same number of spell slots per day as a sorcerer, so if you have a DM that runs that many encounters then that's always a build option.

Yes, a Sorcerer will also run out of spells very quickly if your plan is to dump three or four of them into every encounter.


Then starting from level 1 Factotum on Wizard gives you:
-d8 hit points. That's a mathematical average of +4 bonus to CON over a straight wizard.
-A bump to BAB
-Good Reflex saves (to go with Good Will)
-triple the skill points and it removes cross-class skill penalties allowing you to fill any out of combat role.
-INT bonus to attack rolls which is universally useful as you level
-Trapfinding to fulfill that role as well if you feel like it.

Point of order: that "INT bonus to attack rolls" costs inspiration per roll, making it rather less useful than you'd like to imply. Especially if you want to be nova-ing with Cunning Surge. You do this a whole bunch, actually.

Ah, but how does it compare to the alternatives?

As a Wizard//Warblade, you get better versions of the first three things, and maneuvers that more than make up for the Factotum's skills, especially since Gestalt means that everyone has two classes worth of skills, dramatically reducing the value your Factotum gets from picking any skill.

As a Wizard//Beguiler you get the important skills, trapfinding, and a bunch of extra spells. And since you cast those spells spontaneously, you have the flexibility to decide if they're offensive spells, utility spells, pre-combat buffs, or general-purpose spells to cover for when whatever Wizard silver bullets you prepare aren't good (which goes to show that "active side"/"passive side" really isn't all that).

Venturing into the broader world of Gestalt builds, you could also be a Cleric//Warblade. In many ways it's better than Wizard//Warblade, as Clerics have a much easier time making use of maneuvers, and Warblade negates all the drawbacks of Cloistered Cleric, meaning you have as many base skill points as a Wizard//Factotum.


Starting at level 3:
-You get your INT modifier to all STR and DEX checks, which includes all relevant skills, grapple checks, plus Initiative rolls.
-You get bonus sneak attack, which is whatever, but if you want to try and coup-de-grace assassinate something from hiding at range you have a shot.

INT to initiative is genuinely useful. The Warblade will close the gap some by picking up Improved Initiative at 5th level (yes, you could stack them, but then you've effectively upgraded the Warblade's bonus feat to "any feat"), but it's a good deal. I find the prospect of "maybe you will need to assassinate something from hiding at range" rather less compelling than "you can opt out of Reflex saves for the rest of the game".


At level 4:
-You can start filling out Arcane Dilettante spells from banned schools with win buttons that you can tailor as the situation requires. Right away that means Sleep if you banned enchantment, Silent Image if you banned Illusion, Ray of Enfeeblement if you banned necromancy, and Grease if you banned conjuration. You can also use these slots for silver bullets that you might not want to spend a normal Wizard slot on, such as Charm Person, Color Spray, and so on.

Yes, sleep, a spell that is coming into its prime at 4th level. I could certainly see "you can access your banned schools" as an argument for Wizard//Beguiler, but the idea that your one 1st level spell at 4th level is a big deal is fairly laughable. That's not impressive, that's a Ranger.


By level 11 you straight up ignore spell resistance on a target for one full round. Do you have any idea how many spells there are that are "balanced" solely by the fact that they allow for SR? And the target doesn't even get a workaround for it. The ability strictly says "The target automatically fails any spell resistance check that she attempts to avoid your spell."

That's genuinely good. The Factotum definitely picks up at later levels. But at the same time, high levels are exactly when a Wizard is going to be stomping things anyway, and what the Warblade provides is still plenty good at this point. I would rather get my nova at 5th level and have it be "you or an ally cast two spells in a turn, maybe several times per combat" than wait until 11th level for it to be "you cast two no-SR spells on a single enemy". Hell, even the Beguiler//Wizard can do a semi-comparable nova by using their excess spell slots on celerity.


Starting at level 13 you can straight up "No, thank you," to any one thing that might otherwise kill you if all your other defenses fail.

You can do that to "damage that would reduce you to 0 or fewer hit points". A Warblade can do that to anything that requires a save, and can do it multiple times per combat, and can do it starting somewhere between 1st and 5th level. You lose a lot more characters to "all effects that require saves" than "just damage". Oh, and to add insult to injury, if you do this you have to refrain from doing the nova that is supposed to be the reason you're a Factotum to begin with. Whereas the Warblade can white raven tactics on his turn and still have moment of perfect mind up to no-sell whatever Will save you get asked to do later that round.


At every single level you get something that is a straight upgrade to perfectly compliment your wizard spellcasting.

Most of that stuff doesn't particularly compliment your Wizard spellcasting. It's just "other stuff you can do", with no particular synergy for being a Wizard. Getting turning isn't worthless or anything, but the idea that it compliments your Wizard spellcasting "perfectly" or even "at all" is rather bizarre. Granted, it's not like there's a whole lot of synergy for Warblade either, but the only things that dovetail with Wizard particular are the extra actions and the "ignore SR" power.

[Biggus]

...Yes? I'm not sure how this disproves my point. In linear advancement, larger numbers are still larger.

There is not, has never, and likely will never be anything actually exponential about character growth in D&D. A level 1 character might have a +5 to attack. A level 10 character might have a +20. If they were exponentially advancing we'd be looking at attack rolls numbering in the millions.

Not only is it not fully exponential, it is NOWHERE NEAR exponential. People take the "linear warriors quadratic wizards" phrasing a bit too seriously. Wizards simply have larger jumps in power at their specific breakpoints (5, 9, etc.).


I agreed it's not fully exponential. The point I was making is that it's nowhere near linear either. A martial character not only gets better at hitting and harder to hit, they do more damage, they take more hits to kill, and that's before we get on to feats and magic items. If each of those things gets (to pick a number out of the air) 5% better per level on average, the character as a whole gets over 21% stronger per level. A 20th-level character can often kill hundreds if not thousands of 5th-level characters. If this was truly linear advancement, they'd be able to kill four.



I am quite skeptical that this is something you can meaningfully evaluate in a vacuum, let alone survey.

OK, lets look at a couple of examples.

Marshal has absolutely no offensive special abilities. All of its special abilities require a swift action or no action at all to use, except its Grant Move Action ability which it can use a few times a day at high levels. It has a reasonable chassis including both good Fort and Will saves. It's an almost entirely passive class.

Warmage has no defensive abilities except the ability to cast while using armor and shields. It has a terrible chassis, second only to the Wizard and Sorcerer for how bad it is. If it takes the Eclectic Learning ACF, it can get a total of four defensive spells by level 20. It's almost entirely active.

Those are extreme examples but they illustrate the point. Most classes can be played either way as I said, but there are a minority which lean really heavily one way or the other.

[Rynjin]

I agreed it's not fully exponential. The point I was making is that it's nowhere near linear either. A martial character not only gets better at hitting and harder to hit, they do more damage, they take more hits to kill, and that's before we get on to feats and magic items. If each of those things gets (to pick a number out of the air) 5% better per level on average, the character as a whole gets over 21% stronger per level. A 20th-level character can often kill hundreds if not thousands of 5th-level characters. If this was truly linear advancement, they'd be able to kill four.

I think you're misunderstanding what the concept of linear advancement is.

Let's say you have a number: 1. This number increases by 4 every level. By level 20 this number is 77. At level 5, this number is only 17.

As you can see, at level 20 the number is bigger than 4*17 (which would be 68). This does not mean the progression is not linear.

This is exactly how character growth in D&D works, though in general the number changes at certain breakpoints. A wizard's number might increase by 8 at level 5 instead of 4, for example, and then keep increasing by 8 every level until 11, where it becomes 12, etc.

Even in your example (each character gets 21% stronger every level)...that is a linear progression. And again, in that example, characters do not get twice as strong each level which unless I'm misremembering was the original point that sparked this discussion.

By level 5 the raw power granted by gestalting will have leveled off considerably, and will not appreciably increase the rate of power growth. That's my main point here. Treating it as if it's a huge jump in power every level is where a lot of GMs go wrong in planning encounters for gestalt characters. In the grand scheme of things a gestalt character will be getting the bulk of its "overpoweredness" at very low levels as eg. a Wizard//Cleric 1 has double the spell slots of a Wizard 1, which means they have more staying power.

At higher levels, when the Wizard already has more than enough spell slots to last through a day's encounters anyway, this advantage is less prominent because they are still limited by casting one spell per turn. Planning an individual encounter as if the gestalt "Theurge" is twice as powerful as a straight Wizard or Cleric is likely to result in a very dead Theurge.

[Crake]

Even in your example (each character gets 21% stronger every level)...that is a linear progression.

It's actually not though. 21% of the previous level is literally 1.21^x which is actually exponential. If it was 21% of the FIRST level, then sure, but if it compounds each level, then it's exponential. Increasing by ANY % of your current value consistently is exponential. Increasing by a SET value is linear.

On that note, people need to understand that just because something is exponential, doesn't mean it needs to increase to the thousandsfold. If your exponent is 1%, then over 20 levels, you would barely increase in power by 20%, meanwhile if your exponent is 2 (ie, your power doubles every level), then your power increases by six orders of magnitude over 20 levels.

[Rynjin]

It's actually not though. 21% of the previous level is literally 1.21^x which is actually exponential. If it was 21% of the FIRST level, then sure, but if it compounds each level, then it's exponential. Increasing by ANY % of your current value consistently is exponential. Increasing by a SET value is linear.

On that note, people need to understand that just because something is exponential, doesn't mean it needs to increase to the thousandsfold. If your exponent is 1%, then over 20 levels, you would barely increase in power by 20%, meanwhile if your exponent is 2 (ie, your power doubles every level), then your power increases by six orders of magnitude over 20 levels.

I assumed it was based on first level stats, because characters definitely don't grow by 21% of their current level every level. But 21% of level 1 every level sounds KINDA right? You gain about 2/3 of your level 1 hp, 20 to 40% of your +5-ish starting attack roll, etc.

You're not hitting level 10 and gaining 50 hp and +10 to attack over level 9 or anything close to that.

[Gnaeus]

Uh, no, the floor for a Wizard is not double 18s. Plenty of Wizards, even reasonably optimized Wizards, are going to end up with 18 INT and 14 DEX or whatever. Especially if they are going to eventually be relying on alter self or polymorph.


{scrubbed}

[RandomPeasant]

Warmage has no defensive abilities except the ability to cast while using armor and shields. It has a terrible chassis, second only to the Wizard and Sorcerer for how bad it is. If it takes the Eclectic Learning ACF, it can get a total of four defensive spells by level 20. It's almost entirely active.

But is it? What if you combine it with Duskblade, then use Arcane Channeling to burn your spells passively during regular attack actions. Or what if we're talking about a Warmage build that uses feats or PrCs to learn spells that don't have to be cast in combat?


Those are extreme examples but they illustrate the point. Most classes can be played either way as I said, but there are a minority which lean really heavily one way or the other.

I would say that if "most classes can be played either way", that seems like it supports the conclusion that "active class" and "passive class" are not terribly helpful for guiding gestalt builds.


I think you're misunderstanding what the concept of linear advancement is.

I think you're misunderstanding what the concept of advancement is. It's not just "number get bigger", it's "can overcome more challenges". And since a fundamental aspect of how the game measures challenge is that doubling the size of an encounter increases its EL by 2 rather than by double, it is just flatly true that batting at "level + 2" rather than "level" makes you twice as powerful.


At higher levels, when the Wizard already has more than enough spell slots to last through a day's encounters anyway, this advantage is less prominent because they are still limited by casting one spell per turn.

But they're not limited in how many buff spells that can cast per day. Suppose a Wizard has an offensive lineup that takes up 75% of their spell slots, and that this lineup is so perfect that they have no desire to change it even if they become a Gestalt Wizard//Cleric. That leaves them with 25% of their spells to cast defensive buffs of various sorts. If Gestalt doubles their number of spell slots, they can have five times as many defensive buffs as before. Certainly it's possible that between the primacy of offense and diminishing returns that won't double their power overall, but such a conclusion cannot simply be handwaved.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed} that is a Wizard class feature, not a Monk one. If half of your argument is stuff Wizards can already do, maybe the problem isn't Gestalt, but that you're playing at a table where a Wizards can throw away a third of their offensive potential to make themselves slightly harder to hit.

[Rynjin]

I think you're misunderstanding what the concept of advancement is. It's not just "number get bigger", it's "can overcome more challenges". And since a fundamental aspect of how the game measures challenge is that doubling the size of an encounter increases its EL by 2 rather than by double, it is just flatly true that batting at "level + 2" rather than "level" makes you twice as powerful.

And if gestalt characters could always battle at ECL+2, then you'd be correct. But they really, really don't. Or, at least, not any more so than a well-optimized normal character. Gestalt makes it easier to get to that level of optimization, which is why I suggest adjusting encounters up by 1-2 stages, but it doesn't guarantee it.

Being level+2 is pretty much the absolute max a gestalt is going to affect a character build, and that's with better than average synergies. In many circumstances though, people do not hard optimize for gestalt, they go for **** like "Well if I take levels as Fighter I get more Feats and HP and full BaB on my Wizard, wow!" because it's just a fun random thing you do with your players once in a while.

Across the board maxing the challenge because the characters are gestalt never ends well. You'll find out one of two things: your players are not prepared for this unfounded increase in encounter challenge and fold, or they start ACTUALLY optimizing the gestalt and much like with regular optimization the CR system completely ceases to matter because it is not designed to function under such strain.

Are two goblins twice as strong as one goblin? Sure. Are 20 goblins really 20 times as strong as 1 goblin? Well...no, not really. Even by the CR system, that's only CR 5 (where you'd expect 15 goblins to be CR 5 if just straight multiplying/dividing).

And aside the CR system, as you say advancement includes more ways to solve an encounter. Fireball kills most of the goblins in the group, no save. Does that mean the challenge is actually equivalent to a true CR 5? No, not at all.

Likewise, you cannot expect a gestalt character to be consistently TWICE AS POWERFUL as a normal character. They're still locked to a certain number of hit dice. They still only get one action. Their available options are still all level appropriate.

The difference is their combination of BaB, saves, HD size, and general resources (eg. spellcasting) are more well-rounded. Worth bumping the challenge up sometimes, but claiming that having them be at APL+1-2 makes them be across the board twice as strong as a normal character does not in any way track with the reality of how the CR system really works in play, at least as I've seen it.

Because a level 6 character is not nearly twice as strong as a level 5 character. If we can't agree on this, I don't know what else to say. Perhaps our tables are extremely different in how people play, but I have never seen a character double in strength from 5 to 6. Or even 5 to 7. In either numbers or options, gestalt or no gestalt.

[Tohron]

To me, it seems that the biggest potential for exponential boost via gestalt is where class abilities or bonus feats can stack multiplicatively. For instance, since many metamagics, such as Twin Spell, Repeat Spell, Maximize Spell, and Echoing Spell serve to multiply the casting power of a single spell slot, getting bonus metamagic feats can multiply a character's capabilities.

[Biggus]

But is it? What if you combine it with Duskblade, then use Arcane Channeling to burn your spells passively during regular attack actions. Or what if we're talking about a Warmage build that uses feats or PrCs to learn spells that don't have to be cast in combat?


What do you mean by "burn your spells passively"?

[RandomPeasant]

What do you mean by "burn your spells passively"?

What I am getting at is this: if I'm a Gestalt Duskblade//Warmage and I make a full attack using Arcane Channeling with orb of fire, which side of my gestalt is "active" in that moment? Which side is "passive"? Why is that even a useful consideration when I am doing a thing that combines abilities I get from both sides of my build in a single action, that is itself a modification of the full attack action any character can take?

[Biggus]

What I am getting at is this: if I'm a Gestalt Duskblade//Warmage and I make a full attack using Arcane Channeling with orb of fire, which side of my gestalt is "active" in that moment? Which side is "passive"? Why is that even a useful consideration when I am doing a thing that combines abilities I get from both sides of my build in a single action, that is itself a modification of the full attack action any character can take?

Gotcha. According to my understanding of the terms, both classes are active in that specific instance, as both are involved in the combat action. When you get two classes with particularly good synergy they can both be active at the same time (again, if I've understood the concept correctly; there seems to be some variance in how the terms are used). Based on the classes I've examined so far, this is a rarity.

[Crake]

I assumed it was based on first level stats, because characters definitely don't grow by 21% of their current level every level. But 21% of level 1 every level sounds KINDA right? You gain about 2/3 of your level 1 hp, 20 to 40% of your +5-ish starting attack roll, etc.

You're not hitting level 10 and gaining 50 hp and +10 to attack over level 9 or anything close to that.

Right, but the thing is, as other people have noted, how much a +1 bonus improves your effectiveness is entirely dependant on your target number you need to roll. If you're only succeeding on a 19-20, then a +1 is not a 20% boost of your +5, it's a 50% boost on your 19-20. So it's not so straighgtforward as "+1 on +5 is a 20% boost".

[Rynjin]

Right, but the thing is, as other people have noted, how much a +1 bonus improves your effectiveness is entirely dependant on your target number you need to roll. If you're only succeeding on a 19-20, then a +1 is not a 20% boost of your +5, it's a 50% boost on your 19-20. So it's not so straighgtforward as "+1 on +5 is a 20% boost".

And by that same token, a +1 when you're hitting on a 2 already is a 0% increase in power. It goes both ways. In most cases it will be somewhere in the middle. Most characters are going to have roughly average attack bonuses for their level until their certain point. So they're hitting on somewhere between a 9 and a 13 on most threats.

Gestalt doesn't really change this much. I guess if you build your character VERY POORLY the native +1 attack boost of having +1 BaB will make you twice as strong...but since the character would still be below the curve at that point, why are you concerned over it?

[Crake]

And by that same token, a +1 when you're hitting on a 2 already is a 0% increase in power. It goes both ways. In most cases it will be somewhere in the middle. Most characters are going to have roughly average attack bonuses for their level until their certain point. So they're hitting on somewhere between a 9 and a 13 on most threats.

Gestalt doesn't really change this much. I guess if you build your character VERY POORLY the native +1 attack boost of having +1 BaB will make you twice as strong...but since the character would still be below the curve at that point, why are you concerned over it?

I'm not saying it doens't balance out, I'm saying that a bonus' value isn't quantified by it's fractional ratio to the total bonus. +1 isn't 20% of +5, just like +5 isn't 50% of +10. I'm not making any claims on what this means for either side of the argument, just that a +1 bonus every level doesn't necessarily equate to linear progression, due to that +1 not having a static value.

[RandomPeasant]

Gotcha. According to my understanding of the terms, both classes are active in that specific instance, as both are involved in the combat action. When you get two classes with particularly good synergy they can both be active at the same time (again, if I've understood the concept correctly; there seems to be some variance in how the terms are used). Based on the classes I've examined so far, this is a rarity.

But doesn't that undermine the whole concept? If classes having particularly good synergy means both are active at once, then the idea that you really want an "active class" and a "passive class" is simply inaccurate: you want two classes with good enough synergy to be active simultaneously. But then, what about something like a Cleric//Druid that uses Cleric buffs, Druid buffs, and Wild Shape to be absolutely dominating in melee? That's a pretty effective build, but it's double-passive.

I agree that it's somewhat rare to find synergy like that in absolute terms, but it's rare to find synergy at all in absolute terms. If you pick two random classes, chances are they are at best orthogonal to each other, and at worst they have some sort of active anti-synergy.

[Biggus]

But doesn't that undermine the whole concept? If classes having particularly good synergy means both are active at once, then the idea that you really want an "active class" and a "passive class" is simply inaccurate: you want two classes with good enough synergy to be active simultaneously. But then, what about something like a Cleric//Druid that uses Cleric buffs, Druid buffs, and Wild Shape to be absolutely dominating in melee? That's a pretty effective build, but it's double-passive.

I agree that it's somewhat rare to find synergy like that in absolute terms, but it's rare to find synergy at all in absolute terms. If you pick two random classes, chances are they are at best orthogonal to each other, and at worst they have some sort of active anti-synergy.

Active and passive is not an absolute, inviolable standard by which to judge all classes, it's a handy guideline which helps to decide whether two classes work well together or not. Personally, I've found it to be a useful way of thinking about gestalts, along which other concepts like how SAD or MAD they are when combined.

Of those I've looked at so far, only a handful of class combinations have major anti-synergy (the worst one I've found so far is Rogue and Knight; the Knight's code prevents you from using sneak attack at all) just as only a handful have the kind of strong synergy which allows them to both be active at the same time on a regular basis.

However, most combos I've looked at work ok. They add something valuable to each other and overall are significantly stronger than either would be separately but either don't synergize particularly well or have some downside that keeps them out of the "great" category. Any of these would be considered perfectly playable by someone for whom optimization is not a top priority.

Also, active and passive isn't static, except in extreme cases like the Marshal. In most cases, you choose which of your two classes is going to be your primarily active class and which is going to be primarily passive (I say "primarily" because most classes have at least one useful active feature and one useful passive feature).

[Elves]

You know 25PB is the default in 3.5, right?
The real default is 28 PB which is statistically equivalent to 4d6b3, the "official" method

[lylsyly]

The real default is 28 PB which is statistically equivalent to 4d6b3, the "official" method

The elite array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8:​ which is a 25 point buy.

[Fizban]

As I was the first person to bring up point buys here, I will point out that yes, the DMG standard is 25 point buy. It's literally called Standard Point Buy, with all higher values being clearly labeled, as obviously, higher power. Any claims that some other value is "statistically" closer to the rolling ignore how choosing your exact values is far better than rolling, where regardless of any "statistical average" the odds of not wasting any points on undesired scores are so minuscule they might as well not exist, and also the literal text in the DMG that has already declared what values are considered standard. All the playtest characters and NPCs use Elite array, which is just the most efficient arrangement of 25 points. It's literally what the game was built on, there is no argument.

I can't answer what amount of points would be considered normal for the "average" gestalt table, because as I said, I find the whole point of it is to be broken. Logically, that would go alongside some overpowered rolling method or giant pile of points. The fact that multiple people are weighing in on a gestalt thread with the expectation that you would have been using even higher point totals before considering gestalt, I think makes the point regarding what would be considered "normal."

[RandomPeasant]

While it's true that you can get more focused stats with point buy, you can also luck into better stats with random rolling (indeed, this was an expected part of play back in AD&D). The correct comparison is the one with the expected value, regardless of whether you personally feel that value is "overpowered" for whatever subjective reason you happen to have.

It is certainly true that higher point buy is more powerful, but because you can buy an 18 with even 25 points, it's mostly handing power to the MAD classes that are less powerful than the average. However, this is somewhat less true in Gestalt, as in that context you can be a MAD Cleric//Wizard, which is more powerful than SAD (or at least no more MAD than normal) builds like Barbarian//Warblade.

[Elves]

also the literal text in the DMG that has already declared what values are considered standard.

I mean, the literal text also says there’s such a thing as multiclassing penalties…that doesn’t make it true

[Eldonauran]

I mean, the literal text also says there’s such a thing as multiclassing penalties…that doesn’t make it true
Sure it does. Whether or not you follow those rules at your table simply shows whether you are making house rules or not.

I suppose whether or not you believe in objective truth informs your belief on whether something is true/right if a lot of people are doing it or if it is right/true even if no one is doing it.

[Endarire]

I found this gestalt handbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?239352-Darth-Stabber-s-handy-gestalt-handbook-under-construction). Google "D&D 3.5 Handbook Gestalt" for more help.