Gestalt Multiclassing?

[Drakevarg]

An idea I've contemplated for a long time but repeatedly flipped-flopped on actually testing, I wanted to get some opinions on the idea of multiclassing by way of gestalting. Idea being that taking the beginner's lessons of several different disciplines is not going to put you on the same level as someone who spends that same time studying a single discipline. Fairly obvious in point-buy systems, but trickier to express in class-based games. Sure, a cross-classing character sacrifices some high-level class features, but they can still pretty much take a beating and swing a sword about as well as someone who spent that entire time exclusively studying the blade.

So as an alternative, I've chewed on the idea of gestalting to express broad skillsets. So a Fighter 5 will have better physical conditioning than a Fighter 3//Barbarian 2, who is technically the same level but only has 3 HD, because they opted to diversify their skills rather than push their limits.

Now, I'm already aware of the more obvious issues with this setup: single-class characters would see their stats balloon wildly out of proportion from their multi-classing peers, discouraging multiclassing even more by 'punishing' it with stagnant HD growth and all that it entails. For what it's worth, the idea originally came to mind for an E6 campaign, where the gulf of power never got that wide to begin with. But I wanted to see if anyone had a way of making the concept work for a normal 1-20 progression.

Two potential ways I can think of:
1) Don't make gestalting kick in until level 20, as an alternative epic level progression. At that point rather than numbers going up forever, the only way to get better is to master everything. Sort of how high-level Elder Scrolls characters tend to wind up, diversifying their skillset because it's the only way to keep growing.
2) Change to an HP system that remains relatively stable (something based directly on CON score, maybe) so that characters remain roughly in scale with one another regardless of level.

Any other thoughts on the matter? I have no immediate plans to implement something like this, I'm simply chewing on the idea.

[Particle_Man]

Not sure I get what you are planning but usually people would assume a wizard 20 is vastly more powerful than a fighter 10//wizard 10.

[Drakevarg]

Not sure I get what you are planning

Nothing in particular right now, just want to poke a thought I've had for a while with a stick.


but usually people would assume a wizard 20 is vastly more powerful than a fighter 10//wizard 10.

Wizards are a particularly bad example, given their exponential growth, but not one I would personally have to worry about if I implemented the idea since I only use 6-level casters. Not that it isn't the same phenomena on a more reasonable scale, but still.

[Biggus]

Idea being that taking the beginner's lessons of several different disciplines is not going to put you on the same level as someone who spends that same time studying a single discipline. Fairly obvious in point-buy systems, but trickier to express in class-based games.

This is true up to a point, but even a 1st-level PC-class character is well beyond beginner's classes. To get in enough practice with different types of weapons and armor that you're considered proficient with all simple and martial weapons is a pretty major investment of time for example.

Also, if you choose a selection of different skills which complement each other you may become better overall than someone who only knows one type: many famous real-world mystics and martial arts masters learned from multiple different schools.



1) Don't make gestalting kick in until level 20, as an alternative epic level progression. At that point rather than numbers going up forever, the only way to get better is to master everything. Sort of how high-level Elder Scrolls characters tend to wind up, diversifying their skillset because it's the only way to keep growing.


I think this is a very interesting idea, it allows you to keep getting useful new stuff far into epic levels while avoiding many of the problems that occur with the standard rules, I might give this a go sometime myself.

[Drakevarg]

This is true up to a point, but even a 1st-level PC-class character is well beyond beginner's classes. To get in enough practice with different types of weapons and armor that you're considered proficient with all simple and martial weapons is a pretty major investment of time for example.

True enough, I think it works best if you use the weapon group alternate rules, in which I think martials like Fighter start out proficient in four weapon groups, rather than just "all simple and martial weapons."


I think this is a very interesting idea, it allows you to keep getting useful new stuff far into epic levels while avoiding many of the problems that occur with the standard rules, I might give this a go sometime myself.

I do think it's the most promising implementation of the idea, yeah.

[Drelua]

I kinda disagree that low levels of fighter and barbarian shouldn't be equivalent to the same amount of levels in either one. A fighter/wizard is going to be weaker than just wizard, because they're putting levels into doing different things. A fighter/barbarian, though, is really practicing different methods of doing the same thing; beating people to death. As Biggus said, martial arts masters often study different disiplines.

Maybe something similar to the monster advancement rules on associated and non-associated class levels could work? Let PCs buy some gestalt levels in completely different classes, but just stack levels in similar classes normally. Like, if a Paladin dipped Fighter that would just mean they put more focus on the martial aspect of their training, not that they're training in entirely separate techniques. If they dip Sorcerer, though, they're learning to do something entirely separate so that could be gestalted.

I do like the idea of a class level HD cap of 20, or less if you're doing E6 or E-whatever else, and once you hit that start gestalting levels. If you don't want your players to wait until they hit the level cap to start gestalting, give them 2 XP tracks. Their main xp, and gestalt xp which could progress twice as fast, or whatever you think is fair. When they have enough to gestalt a level, they can either do that or save up for a regular level. Once you get to higher levels, a gestalt level could get pretty cheap if you don't have many of them.

[Maat Mons]

One idea I’ve seen floated around is to have players spend xp on each class separately. For example, being a Wizard 3 // Cleric 3 would cost 3,000 (Wiz3) + 3,000 (Clr3) = 6,000 xp. Which is actually a compelling value compared to spending those same 6,000 xp to be Wizard 4 or Cleric 4.

Unfortunately, the xp progression table would need to be completely reworked, which in turn means the xp from monsters would need to be completely reworked. Firstly, level 1 would need to have a non-zero xp cost, so people wouldn’t just take a single level in every class for free. Secondly, scaling would need to be exponential instead of quadratic.

Level: XP Needed
1: 250
2: 350
3: 500
4: 700
5: 1000
6: 1400
7: 2000
8: 2800
9: 4000
10: 5600
11: 8000
12: 11200
13: 16000
14: 22400
15: 32000
16: 44800
17: 64000
18: 89600
19: 128000
20: 179200

[Drakevarg]

I kinda disagree that low levels of fighter and barbarian shouldn't be equivalent to the same amount of levels in either one. A fighter/wizard is going to be weaker than just wizard, because they're putting levels into doing different things. A fighter/barbarian, though, is really practicing different methods of doing the same thing; beating people to death. As Biggus said, martial arts masters often study different disiplines.

Maybe something similar to the monster advancement rules on associated and non-associated class levels could work? Let PCs buy some gestalt levels in completely different classes, but just stack levels in similar classes normally. Like, if a Paladin dipped Fighter that would just mean they put more focus on the martial aspect of their training, not that they're training in entirely separate techniques. If they dip Sorcerer, though, they're learning to do something entirely separate so that could be gestalted.

That does assume that one level has the same value as another. From a literal mechanical standpoint it is; xp costs are the same regardless of if you're a warrior learning a new way to swing an axe or if you're that same warrior deciding to take up wizardry. The way I was picturing the gestalt though, was that when you gained a new gestalt level you were really only learning the stats that actually improved. A Fighter 5 has nothing to learn from the basic combat techniques of Barbarian 1, only the value of rage and perhaps some cardio (Fast Movement). That does certainly beg the question of why it costs exactly as much xp as cramming an entire doctorate into the same space to pick up Wizard 1, but figuring that out in a satisfyingly ludonarratively synchronistic way that isn't also wildly impractical is... difficult, to say the least.


I do like the idea of a class level HD cap of 20, or less if you're doing E6 or E-whatever else, and once you hit that start gestalting levels. If you don't want your players to wait until they hit the level cap to start gestalting, give them 2 XP tracks. Their main xp, and gestalt xp which could progress twice as fast, or whatever you think is fair. When they have enough to gestalt a level, they can either do that or save up for a regular level. Once you get to higher levels, a gestalt level could get pretty cheap if you don't have many of them.

And for campaigns that level up on story beats rather than xp? Best guess I can think of would be to say that each level gained can be spent on either one new level or two gestalt levels.

[Particle_Man]

Another thought: since you mentioned point buy there is a d20 document called Buy the Numbers that tries to turn 3.5 class abilities into things you buy with points.

There is also a super hero version of d20 point buy in mutants and masterminds (with a fantasy splat - warlocks and warriors I think it is called).

[Drelua]

That does assume that one level has the same value as another. From a literal mechanical standpoint it is; xp costs are the same regardless of if you're a warrior learning a new way to swing an axe or if you're that same warrior deciding to take up wizardry. The way I was picturing the gestalt though, was that when you gained a new gestalt level you were really only learning the stats that actually improved. A Fighter 5 has nothing to learn from the basic combat techniques of Barbarian 1, only the value of rage and perhaps some cardio (Fast Movement). That does certainly beg the question of why it costs exactly as much xp as cramming an entire doctorate into the same space to pick up Wizard 1, but figuring that out in a satisfyingly ludonarratively synchronistic way that isn't also wildly impractical is... difficult, to say the least.

I imagine it having more to do with practice and how much training than what techniques exactly you're training. It's more about experience, but as long as you're not putting the same amount of XP into a gestalt level this works too.


And for campaigns that level up on story beats rather than xp? Best guess I can think of would be to say that each level gained can be spent on either one new level or two gestalt levels.

You could just say they get enough XP to go from one level to the next. I was thinking once you get to mid to high levels, gestalting your lower levels would get very cheap to the point that it's a no-brainer. You could also just give a certain amount of xp per session, or just give them like 1/3 of a level more often. But if you don't want to track xp at all, you could just have them progress differently. Maybe use xp for regular levels, and use something like retraining in the PCs' downtime to gestalt their levels.

[Drakevarg]

I was thinking once you get to mid to high levels, gestalting your lower levels would get very cheap to the point that it's a no-brainer. You could also just give a certain amount of xp per session, or just give them like 1/3 of a level more often. But if you don't want to track xp at all, you could just have them progress differently. Maybe use xp for regular levels, and use something like retraining in the PCs' downtime to gestalt their levels.

Hm... perhaps make it so at certain checkpoints (5 HD, 10 HD, 15 HD), gestalting becomes cheaper and cheaper until you hit 20 HD and now gestalting is the only way to level? Like maybe from 1-5 HD gestalt levels are 1:1, from 6-10 HD each level is worth two gestalt levels, from 11-15 it's 3 gestalt levels for each new HD, and from 16-20 it's 4.

I kinda like it. It preserves the idea that mastery of a skill gets progressively harder as you have fewer limits left to push, while also making those advanced skills proportionally more valuable as you grow.

[Drelua]

Hm... perhaps make it so at certain checkpoints (5 HD, 10 HD, 15 HD), gestalting becomes cheaper and cheaper until you hit 20 HD and now gestalting is the only way to level? Like maybe from 1-5 HD gestalt levels are 1:1, from 6-10 HD each level is worth two gestalt levels, from 11-15 it's 3 gestalt levels for each new HD, and from 16-20 it's 4.

I kinda like it. It preserves the idea that mastery of a skill gets progressively harder as you have fewer limits left to push, while also making those advanced skills proportionally more valuable as you grow.

That could be fun, I'll likely do something similar if I ever end up running a long enough campaign. I like the idea of encouraging players to gestalt their levels gradually, feels like a reasonable way to represent a character diversifying their skills as they progress. I like gestalt in theory, but with an inexperienced group it can be more trouble than it's worth. This might make it easier.

I might even tweak gestalt rules a bit for this. Instead of worrying about exactly what classes they took at what level, maybe just count how many d12 HD they have, how many d10s, etc, until they get to their total HD. Then count how many levels they have with each good save, and do the same with skills/level. Would be a bit of an upgrade, but also maybe a bit simpler.

[Drakevarg]

I might even tweak gestalt rules a bit for this. Instead of worrying about exactly what classes they took at what level, maybe just count how many d12 HD they have, how many d10s, etc, until they get to their total HD. Then count how many levels they have with each good save, and do the same with skills/level. Would be a bit of an upgrade, but also maybe a bit simpler.

The way I was thinking of handling gestalt (stemmed from my original intent to try it out with E6) is to simply make all progression parallel. So the first level in each class is always gestalted over the first HD, the second over the second, etc. That way, yeah, you're basically just taking the best stats from several parallel progressions at different levels of development. That way the order in which each class was added doesn't really matter.