Popularity Of Gestalt variant (and other questions)

[AkodoKoji]

I've been wondering this for a while. How many people like/use the gestalt variant? Do any of you any variants or houserules on it. Does anyone plan on using something resembling gestalt in 4th Edition?

[Ryshan Ynrith]

My group likes the gestalt rules fairly well-it's a bit more complicated to balance, but as we suffer from a chronic shortage of players, the ability to fill multiple roles is invaluable. Also, it allows certain character concepts to work easily and well, without the contortions of a half-dozen classes and PrCs.

I would probably not go for it if your group has an abundance of people, unless you are quite good at balancing things, but it's a fun variant.

As for 4th? I'll wait and see.

[ghost_warlock]

I've played gestalt characters, and had fun doing it when there's not many players around. A while ago my cousin DMed a game for just myself and my brother where I played a CN hexblade/shadowmage (see below) and my brother played a TN rogue/beguiler - not really much plot to speak of, just us breakig into, and running amok in, a wizard school. Maybe a bit juvenile, but it was a lot fun for a one-shot. :smallbiggrin:

However, I had another DM a while back who thought it was just fine to allow gestalt characters into a campaign predominated by normal characters. You can probably guess how that turned out - just a lot of bickering at the gaming table about fairness. My advice would be to keep the players on an even plaing field; go all gestalt or not at all. You'd think that'd be obvious... :smallsigh:

I usually don't allow gestalt characters into the games I DM. I typically start characters at 3rd-4th level, use a 40pt buy method for attributes, allow character traits and flaws from Unearthed Arcana, as well as allow a few templates and utilize the Reducing Level Adjustments variant (also from UA). Since I don't really restrict players much in the way of class/PrC choices, my games tend to be high-powered enough without the added power boost from gestalts. I doubt very much that I'll start using them more in 4e.

[Satyr]

In one group where I regularly play with non-magical gestalt characters and spellcasters as classical characters; in this form I like it. If the spellcasters would also be gestalt characters, I wouldn't like it though.
The way we use it, it eliminates most of the blancing problems and the characters are more interesting, because they are not as stereotypic.

[StickMan]

I've been wondering this for a while. How many people like/use the gestalt variant? Do any of you any variants or houserules on it. Does anyone plan on using something resembling gestalt in 4th Edition?

I'm running a gestalt game right now on the board and am about to start a second in real life. I've always liked the variant but the setting I'm running right now has, almost, no magic items so gestalt helps make up for that power gap. I'd rather players "extra" power come from gestalt class combos that items myself as I've never read a book were the heroes start have a dozen magic items.

I suggest using many of the variants in Unearthed arcana at first they can be confusing but over time I think make for a better game ones I use are, Reserve points, Armor as damage reduction, Defense bonus, action points (I give 1+1/2 character level per day) I'm thinking about using Hex grids for my real life game and bell curve rolling as well. Notably I run more than 4 encounters per day to tone down the casters power and force players to have one passive class to help them out. Reserve points help the characters go all day even when there is a lack of healing magic items.

As for fourth edition if I end up liking it enough to buy it I may very well still play it as gestalt.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never played it, nor allowed it in my games. I believe its main point is if the group is too small, but we don't have a shortage of players here.

[Kizara]

I use gestalt for my 1on1 gaming with my friend, as with a solo campaign the ability to be more versitile is priceless.

I don't for my larger group (5 players), as it would be simply too much to keep track of and balance effectively.

[Chronicled]

I like gestalt; I find it a lot of fun to create a gestalt character, and you can really make an "iconic" hero with one.

One houserule that I've seen is allowing spellcasting on one side of the build only. That eliminates the really broken combos like Wizard//Archivist and Cleric//Druid.

[Serenity]

Haven't tried it yet, but I'd really like to do so at one point.

[KIDS]

I've never used it and while I do think that its power often encourages great cheese instead of great filling of holes in the party, I'd like to try it someday. It sure has its uses and as someone pointed out, it makes the DM sleep better when he games with 1 or 2 or such players.

[....]

use a 40pt buy method for attributes.


:smalleek: !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kizara]

:smalleek: !!!!!!!!!!!!

I give people 90-95 points and say "arrange how you like", often resulting in 3 18s. DnD is about playing heros, not slightly-better-than-average people that survive through luck and DM Fiat (IMO, and yes I'm exagerating).

[Swooper]

I think the next campaign my group starts may end up being gestalt - I have brought the idea up to the other players (both of them, that is) and they were all for trying it, just need to convince the DM when I meet him. I think it could be really fun.

Addendum: We might even have a cleric in the group, for once.

[Ferreon]

I played a gestalt crusader//swordsage. that was fun

[Balkash]

I have created a number of Gestalt characters, and I find that they are extremely easy to over power, as well as extremely well built for creating unique characters. In general I keep my players with non-gestalt, because they are still a little too inexperienced to play gestalt, alone build one. So for inexperienced players, or as said, an abundance, I wouldn't gestalt. If I was playing a high powered campaign with only a couple veteran players, then I'd consider gestalt, but it still is a lot of work for the DM to make everything else gestalt.

[Miles Invictus]

In my own campaign setting, characters can earn gestalt levels by being awesome, but they don't get them by default.

I like the idea of gestalt, but I'm not married to the concept; I can take it or leave it.

[Thyatira3902]

In my group we've been playing gestalt pretty much since we started. we like it a lot better because there are many different choices, flavors and combinations you can make with it. It puts a strain on the DM because our players tear through encounters 4-7 lvls higher than what they should be. Pretty often, once your group knows what their doing, their going to be innovative enough and have the ability to get through anything and everything you throw at them without a problem.

the best ways to reign them in... limit ability scores, limit books, limit races. When you create encounters, get it so some of them are at a disadvantage (though that goes for any DM setting up stuff. That's basic gaming.) and don't let them run you.

PC's will have abilities coming out their ears.

oh, and I agree, don't let players have two spellcasting classes gestalted. cleric//wizard, wizard//wujen, stuff like that is nuts. pally//caster or druid//caster isn't as bad... although it's still going to hurt. anything your players make is going to hurt.

[Uncle Festy]

...but it still is a lot of work for the DM to make everything else gestalt.

:smalleek: Yes, yes it is.
I'm starting up a wacky races Gestalt game, where everyone needs a bunch of HD and LA on one side. It's a cool idea, because it lets the players have crazy races while still having some decent class-based utility. It also lets people play stuff like Raakshas and Death Slaads without going into Epic.
...but boy is it a hedache to figure out. I'm really winging power level, giving most monsters class levels, and anything in between. In retrospect, I probably needed more DMing experience before starting something like this.
Oh well. It should be fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Pyroconstruct]

Festy, me and my friends ran an alternating GM gestalt game from 11th-13th level, so I can give you some general advice for making challenging encounters. I'm gonna put it here instead of Spookables since other people thinking about running Gestalt games might benefit.

1. Don't feel obligated to make all adversaries, or even many of them, gestalts. First, as noted, it's more work. Second, it makes gestalt characters feel more special. It is a good idea to have major antagonists be gestalts, but I found that making a mook/badass seperation by whether or not someone is a gestalt worked well.

The adventure I ran had the players pulling off a complicated prison break and assassination on an island chain, and I had the prisoner they were springing and the head wardens of each division of the prison gestalts, and all the other adversaries normal. It worked pretty well, and made the "boss fights" feel significant and more dangerous than the others.

2. Things to avoid:
Fights with single adversaries that have one glaring weakness. For example, a single really tough opponent with high overall abilities, but a low will save, is going to get owned very fast, since it's likely that several of the gestalt characters will be able to exploit that weakness. The exception, of course, is if the weakness isn't obvious. My favorite was my advanced corrupted lernean pyrohydra that got one-rounded by a single character, due to still having a crappy AC (it got sneak attacked into oblivion by a rogue/monk).

The "tons o' hp, spell defenses, and saves, but no offense to speak of" monster - it's tempting to try this in response to monsters getting rocked really quickly, but I found it tends to result in annoying monsters that die in a slow and boring fashion. Actually, I guess this is general GMing advice, but "more HP!" is an easy trap to fall into in gestalt games.

"One Trick Pony" encounters - again, this one is in a gestalt game just not as interesting as in a regular game, since it's very likely someone has a counter. For example, a monster that can't really do anything besides dish out lots of fire damage is a pretty big threat to most normal parties (unless they knew in advance and come loaded with anti-fire gear), but in a gestalt party it's pretty likely that 1-2 people have elemental protection or immunity abilities on-hand.

Things to do:
Combine widely varying opponents that outnumber the party: This one I found to work quite well. For example, put a significant number of non-gestalt characters of about the PCs level, but of different classes, into play. This creates a tactically interesting situation as the PCs try to find a way to figure out who each of them targets. With this, it's fine if individual enemies have major weaknesses or are one-trick ponies. For example, in a party of 8 enemies, having one of them rely entirely on melee isn't a bad encounter design - after all, even if the players can avoid letting them melee entirely, it's only 1 of 8 enemies, and they have to devote time to doing it.

Outsiders and Dragons: both of these types have a pretty wide variety of abilities, decent SR, and overall good saves, making them good adversaries that don't take too long to custom-make. You probably do want to use the "advancing monsters" rules, though, for extra HD, in some cases. Or tack on a template or three. The main thing is familiarizing yourself with how their abilities work (and learning to take the "tactics" sections of the Monster Manual entries with a grain of salt). A lot of them, for example, Balors, are plenty dangerous to a gestalt party "out of the box," although you have to adjust their tactics.

On BBEG's: It is VERY hard for a single character to fight a party of 4 or more gestalt characters, because of the ease with which they can counter his offenses. The exceptions tend to be offensive blitzing BBEGs, which are often not that fun to fight anyways. That said, some ideas:

High defense, low offense, and plenty of mid-powered minions. For example, a bunch of mid-range outsiders. High defense in a gestalt game, of course, means defenses in every category - decent SR, hp, AC, all saves, and options for dealing with major strategies that can normally lock down single opponents (grappling, [for magic based BBEGs] the olde Antimagic Field + lockdown, "turn exchange" type spell tactics such as Maze, Otto's, etc). And, of course, make sure that the minions are fighting intelligently and making sure to stop any coordinated assaults on their master.

Multi-threat BBEGs: This one should be obvious, a BBEG that's flexible enough that the party can't beat him by turning it into a fight that focuses on his weakspot (the old AMF a caster and beat him up, or kite a melee-based BBEG, etc). A smart dragon with some class levels gestalted in who makes proper use of gear can do this, for example.

"Enforced Teamwork" - this one requires a lot of DMing experience, but essentially, if you know your players well enough, you can make BBEGs so that they have to work together to take him down. This tends to require tailoring in Gestalt games, since roles aren't as singly-defined.



To provide some concrete examples: The Tarrasque is a big threat to a non-optimized party of 17th level non-gestalt characters (although as with any encounter, some 17th level parties can easily massacre the tarrasque, simply because they have the right tools for the job on hand). Most gestalt parties of around 15th level, on the other hand, are completely unthreatened by the Tarrasque and (other than lack of Wish) can probably kill it without too much trouble. Why? Flexibility.

First, there's twice as much chance that someone will have the right ability set to hammer the Tarrasque - for example, if the party can have everyone flying, the Tarrasque can't touch them, and again, more than likely every party member has a way to damage the Tarrasque, or at least the majority of them do. What makes the Tarrasque dangerous is that it's hard to hurt, and has absolutely brutal melee capability. But gestalt characters are likely to be flexible enough that they can MAKE the fight be about something the Tarrasque sucks at - for example, ranged combat.

The Balor, on the other hand, is an opponent that loses only some of its punch in a gestalt game, for the same reason - flexibility. The Balor is an all-around dangerous opponent, rather than a specialist, like the Tarrasque. The party doesn't have the option of turning it into a fight where the Balor's effectiveness is negated. Drop an AMF and fight in that? No problem - the Balor is a very effective melee fighter, even without magical weapons. Stay at range? The Balor has plenty of ranged offense spells. Etc. Of course, the Balor is less of a threat to a gestalt party than a regular party, but that's natural.

The main thing that changes is that a gestalt party is less likely to have members that the Balor can attack the weaknesses of. For example, in a normal party of 4 unoptimized 20th level characters, it's almost certain that one of them has a will save low enough that the Balor stands a good chance of Dominating them off the bat, turning a 4v1 into a 3v2. Likewise, an uppity wizard is very vulnerable to a Balor's Implosion SLA unless he's properly prepared. Against Gestalt characters, the Balor's tactics are going to have to change - it can't assume that the guy in robes will necessarily wilt under his Implosion, and the like.

Wow, that turned out super long and rambly. Hopefully it contains some useful insights.

[Magnor Criol]

We played a game a year ago that involved a light gestalt.

The game started with no magic - in the world, magic had been sealed away by whatever powers that be many ages ago, so we were all humans who'd never dealt with magic. Naturally, over the course of the first few missions, we started stumbling blindly down the path of unlocking it. Eventually, unlock it we did, and as a result of being so close to the now-opened "doorway" through which all of the magical energies that had been sealed away escaped, all of our characters were turned into half-sorc gestalts. (By which I mean, every other level, we levelled in sorcerer as well.)

It added some nice flavor to the game, since we had magical power but it wasn't strong, since we didn't get our first level in sorcerer until we were level 3 or 4, and it wasn't anything we - or anyone else - were used to. Plus, since we only got another sorcerer level every other level, there wasn't a chance for overpowering. (To the contrary, we found our sorcerer powers to be extremely limited in usefulness, though simply having even a smidge of magic in a world where no other human possessed any was a good edge.)

[Tallis]

I've never DMed a gestalt game, but I have been playing in one recently. From a players perspective it's pretty easy to do and a lot of fun. I'm playing a wizard/druid. He would have sucked in a traditional game because he'd have to give up all his high level spells until epic levels, but in a gestalt game he works. He is more versatile than a single class caster would be, but he still only casts one spell per round without metamagic, so he's not overpowering. It's nice to be able to create the character I want without gimping myself power-wise.

As I said I haven't DMed gestalt, but Pyro's advice pretty much matches what I would think about running it. I have nothing to add to it.

[Chronicled]

:smalleek: Yes, yes it is.
I'm starting up a wacky races Gestalt game, where everyone needs a bunch of HD and LA on one side. It's a cool idea, because it lets the players have crazy races while still having some decent class-based utility. It also lets people play stuff like Raakshas and Death Slaads without going into Epic.
...but boy is it a hedache to figure out. I'm really winging power level, giving most monsters class levels, and anything in between. In retrospect, I probably needed more DMing experience before starting something like this.
Oh well. It should be fun. :smallbiggrin:

I've seen this before, and if done right, it seems to work rather well. If one side can be composed of LA/HD only, you get a whole bunch of stat boosts and fun special abilities that you normally wouldn't (if optimizing), as they aren't worth exchanging for class levels. It takes some careful management to make sure it's done appropriately, though. As someone else mentioned, limiting the books available is a good idea; getting a were-creature template is fine and balanced, but a player loading up on templates like Feral or Mineral Warrior (or Paragon, perhaps) will probably prove problematic.

[Irreverent Fool]

I give people 90-95 points and say "arrange how you like", often resulting in 3 18s. DnD is about playing heros, not slightly-better-than-average people that survive through luck and DM Fiat (IMO, and yes I'm exagerating).

Regarding this, I believe the average 'having at least a +1 modifier from each stat' already puts heroes above the the average people. Additionally, not everyone can hope into a PC class and develop amazing powers.

High-powered games can be fun, but I like there to be more variety between the characters. I don't want them ALL to be able to bust down the gigantic iron door to the chambers of the mummy lord. But it's just a matter of preference.

I find that gestalt is particularly popular among those who are breaking into D&D and just beginning to understand how everything works within the game. It creates VERY powerful characters, especially if you've got people who are more interested in mechanically powerful characters than the other facets of the game. I'd never allow it for a group larger than 3 PCs unless you're prepared to throw things at the party that are likely to kill one member each session. The problem here becomes one of the PCs having far more offensive power than they have defensive capability, and HPs as well.

Edit:
I'm playing a wizard/druid...he still only casts one spell per round without metamagic, so he's not overpowering.

You're still playing a wizard, friend... add natural spell to this, and you'll be a beefy critter casting arcane and divine spells. (Natural spell just requires a WIS of 13 and wild shape, it makes no stipulation about where the spells you're casting come from.) The possibilities are... staggering.

[ghost_warlock]

:smalleek: !!!!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, I think nothing of throwing 3rd-level parties against CR 7-9 creatures because I know the characters are powerful. Sure, they may meet a quick and nasty end at the hands of something they might never face following standard encounter guidelines, but I do use the Eberron Action Point system to mitigate this somewhat. :smallbiggrin:

Encounters tend to be brutal, but also tend to give large rewards for success. Almost every session, at least one PC is "tested" in a 1v1 encounter against a creature with a CR = to the PC's ECL. Success reaps a healthy XP reward while failure...well, it's best not to think too hard about that! :smalltongue:

The end result is that players tend to start thinking about their PCs are heroes or champions rather than just another group of adventurers out to make a living by looting corpses. Or, at least, I hope it does! :smallwink:

[Tallis]

You're still playing a wizard, friend... add natural spell to this, and you'll be a beefy critter casting arcane and divine spells. (Natural spell just requires a WIS of 13 and wild shape, it makes no stipulation about where the spells you're casting come from.) The possibilities are... staggering.

I have natural spell. However MAD took up a lot of the pointsI would have used for con. I also decided to try out the Sidhe Scholar variant druid (from Dragon) so my hp aren't as high as I'd like. I can enter melee, but the 2 sword sages in my group are much better at it. I'm more inclined to wild shape into an eagle and stay out of the battle.

That illustrates the biggest weakness of gestalt from a player's perspective. You now have to worry about keeping up with MAD. I recommend looking at your classes as primary and secondary. Concentrate on supporting your primary class, then, if you have any resources left over, beef up your abilities for the secondary class.

[Irreverent Fool]

I have natural spell. However MAD took up a lot of the pointsI would have used for con. I also decided to try out the Sidhe Scholar variant druid (from Dragon) so my hp aren't as high as I'd like. I can enter melee, but the 2 sword sages in my group are much better at it. I'm more inclined to wild shape into an eagle and stay out of the battle.

That illustrates the biggest weakness of gestalt from a player's perspective. You now have to worry about keeping up with MAD. I recommend looking at your classes as primary and secondary. Concentrate on supporting your primary class, then, if you have any resources left over, beef up your abilities for the secondary class.

Doesn't your Con score change to the score of the animal you turn into when you wild shape?

[Armads]

Doesn't your Con score change to the score of the animal you turn into when you wild shape?

It does, but your hit points don't change when you wild shape.

[Pyroconstruct]

The problem here becomes one of the PCs having far more offensive power than they have defensive capability, and HPs as well.



Really? All my experience points to the exact opposite: gestalts typically have somewhat better offense and significantly better defense than single-class normal characters. The reason being, having lots of options for offense only improves your offense a bit - you can still only do so much a round. OTOH, lots of different areas of defense is a big boost.

For example, consider the wizard//druid gestalt mentioned (probably the strongest gestalt you can get from just comboing 2 core classes straight up, or if not one of the strongest). Offensively, he can pew pew like a straight wizard, or alternatively shapeshift into something that can dish it and use wizard buffs on himself. He certainly has better offense than a single-class druid, but it's arguable if his offense is actually better than a single-class wizard. OTOH, he has huge defensive power, with a wizard's mobility/misdirection/control combined with a druid's higher HP and ability to turn into a tank.