PDA

View Full Version : Gestalt considered normal?



Hzurr
2008-04-01, 09:36 AM
Since I really started reading the boards heavily again a few months ago, I've noticed a significant difference compared to when I used to read a year or so ago.

Since when did gestalt become so commonplace?

Seriously, I had always considered gestalt to be one of those rules that was available, but rarely, rarely used, since it can lead to such insane characters. However, in more and more threads, it seems that people are considering gestalt characters to be commonplace. In almost any character builder thread, you hardly get more than half a dozen posts before someone says "What about a gestalt build of ...."

Do I just have a weird group in that we never do gestalt? Is it really prevalent everywhere else, and I'm just behind on the times? I mean, I consider gestalt one of those things you'll see in 1:1000 games, not something to be regularly suggested or considered.

Person_Man
2008-04-01, 09:45 AM
Speaking as someone who has played since 1st ed, I can say that normal games become boring after a while. So crazy optimization, gestalt, alternate rules, other RPGs or tabletop games are rotated in and out, depending on who the DM is.

I'd also say that casters can sometimes (though certainly not always) steal the spotlight from non-casters, especially in high level play. So a simple solution is to play gestalt, with everyone playing a Caster X//Non-Caster X. Although its counter-intuitive, you'd be surprised how many balance problems it fixes. It puts all of the players on a roughly equal and powerful playing field, which makes encounter balance an easier job for the DM.

Zincorium
2008-04-01, 09:45 AM
Honestly, there was one group I was in that didn't run any non-gestalt games the entire time I was playing with them. Good times were had by all.

It's one of those things that seems really weird at first, but after you get a feel for it and realize all the cool concepts you can make, that would otherwise require 10 different prestige classes and a bucketful of rule zero, it gets pretty addictive.

Additionally, gestalt is one of the few really satisfying ways to run a group with only one or two PCs.


I don't think it's really common, even now when the rules for it are available for free online and have become well known, but it requires a lot more advice and thought to do well than a normal character, so of course people are going to ask about it quite a bit on the board.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-01, 09:45 AM
I really only see gestalt mentioned here and other forums... It's a bit rarer in practice, methinks.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-01, 10:04 AM
I don't think it's common at all; I don't know anybody who plays gestalt, ever, and while it's visible on this forum it's still a small minority of threads that mention it.

There is, however, a series of recent threads with a build challenge for gestalt characters; that may be what you're seeing.

Jimp
2008-04-01, 10:46 AM
In all my irl gmes I have never played a single gestalt session.
Online I have played in two.
I wouldn't consider it common at all, but when I did play with the rule it was highly enjoyable. I played Ranger/Cleric (core only), using my cleric spells to buff myself for combat dual wielding my God's favoured weapon. A concept that would otherwise require a bucket of feats and levels to even get close to correct.

Indon
2008-04-01, 10:56 AM
I've played in one Gestalt game, and have discussed the possibility of others.

Ultimately, Gestalt is a really nice variant - it makes the game more interesting without needing to completely remake the game, and almost incidentally makes a number of facets of the game more viable, such as higher-level adjustment and racial hit die races.

Ascension
2008-04-01, 10:57 AM
I've never seen or heard of (from offline sources) an actual gestalt game. I figure most people have never even heard of the concept, and those who have are probably intimidated by the challenge of encounter balance.

I think it'd be fun to play, a horror to DM, and I never expect to see one in real life.

brant167
2008-04-01, 12:07 PM
To answer your question around my area Gestaulted games are somewhat common place with veteran players. While non-gestaulted games are much more common place with newbies. I think most of the people on the boards you are refering to are mostly veterans who would fit into the later catagory.

I am dm'ing a non-gestaulted game and a gestaulted game. The one that is not is actually harder on me to balance encounters. Because I have to make sure the Scout and Spelltheif will be able to do as much in combat as the Crusader and Psion. Which having a few newbies in the party is fairly hard to do...
However with the gestaulted game I am free to actually use strategy with the enemies without pulling punches because the PC's are able to handle it and have abilities to counter very intelligent/cunning/powerful enemies.
For me it is much easier to run a gestaulted game I find it much more balanced and the PC's usually are much more confident with their characters abilities. But with my gestaulted group I am greatful to have PC's that know how to rape the rules but abstain from doing so b/c it would hurt the story and cheapen the challenge of combat. I think for these reasons and the hunger of something more powerful lures a lot of veteran players to trying out rules like gestault.

Townopolis
2008-04-01, 12:11 PM
The thing with grestalt is that it allows for a lot of things with what is actually relative ease. Level adjusted races, multiclassing without losing BAB or spellcaster levels, patching holes in class features with another class without losing levels in the class you want... lots of stuff.

For example, say you wanted to play a Bard, but also wanted to kick butt in melee? Rather than agonizing over feat selection and how many levels you want to dip into 'real' fighting classes, or if you want to just try and buff your inspire courage so that it fills in for the missing 5 points of BAB (actually, pretty easy, but I digress) you can just go Bard 20//Warblade 20, take Battlecaster so you can fight in mithril full plate, use all your spells for pre-battle buffage or non-combat, and you're golden. Start up the inspire courage and whip out the maneuvers while singing.

Heck, you're a full melee with mirror image and some nice sources of miss chance, not to mention full BAB and a basically limitless supply of +4-6 to AB.

Or if you want to dual-wield really well? you can use both ToB maneuver tricks with your swordsage or warblade to milk the heck out of tiger claw, but you can ALSO take levels of scout (+1 ranger) on the other side to use the swift hunter feat combo mentioned in another thread some time ago. At level 10 you deal +3d6 damage on any attack so long as you move 10 feat. Dip 1 level of spirit lion totem barbarian on your ToB side, and just charge, or, if you don't want to use Complete Cheese, be a warblade, use lots of pouncing charge and sudden leap, and take the press the advantage stance and get 2 5' steps a round. Use group tactics or terrain to keep your enemies close enough to you, and you're golden.

But for some people, the best part is being able to play a Hound Archon Knight without dying from LA.

Lasada1984
2008-04-01, 12:26 PM
I currently GM a Gestalt game, in my own homebrew world. On the other hand, I allowed only basics races (with some homebrew varients) and core classes.

I can say after about 7 monthes of solid play, gestalt can work out nicely. I started them at 6th level, and while their consistenly about 2 levels above "CR" (or 3 for monsters that depend on saves) it means that everyone usually has something to do, both in and out of combat (I also gave a few more skill points then normal).

4 out of PC's are at least part caster, and other one is machine gun archer (ranger/rogue) and all are happy with their choices. Gestalt allows for interesting mixes of classes and abilities (like monk/druid) or just powerful ones (fighter/cleric, wizard/rogue), but because its core only, the powergaming options are a bit more limited. For monsters, it really not that hard: +2 general cr, or +3 if its a saved based monster I find works pretty well. Some things are easier (beholders), others are harder (golems), but thats normal for any party, I find.

Just my opinion, though

Duke of URL
2008-04-01, 12:31 PM
I'll plead guilty on the charge of the gestalt build contests, if only I ever get around to opening voting on the last couple (not that many actually bother to vote...)

I think gestalt appeals highly to character builders, who enjoy the theoretical aspect of the game as a separate game in itself. Gestalt opens up a wide avenue of new possibilities once you've pretty much derived the canonical builds in "regular" play. I've built dozens of gestalt characters, but have played only a couple of them.

valadil
2008-04-01, 12:31 PM
I've never played it and have only heard of one other player trying it at all. I think it's interesting as a thought exercise, but gimmicky and weird for an actual game. I'd be curious to try it, but I don't see it lasting for a long term campaign.

Lord Tataraus
2008-04-01, 12:37 PM
I think whats common is that people have played it...once or twice. My group did once and we hated it, but we tried it out as something different. Groups are always looking for something different and gestalt is an official variant that is very different. So, I think that it is common to have played it once or at least looked into it, but when compared to "normal" games, it is not.

Chronos
2008-04-01, 12:51 PM
I think gestalt appeals highly to character builders, who enjoy the theoretical aspect of the game as a separate game in itself.This is much what I was going to say. I find it very interesting to build gestalt characters, since it opens up so many possibilities, but I would not be particularly interested in actually playing it, since I don't think it matches particularly well with the sorts of fantasy tropes I like. Sure, there are characters in fantasy who can both swing a sword and cast spells, but they're generally not as good at either as a specialist. A standard Eldritch Knight or whatever does fine for modelling them.

KIDS
2008-04-01, 01:10 PM
I read about gestalt all the time but have never actually played one. I think it's more of a theorycrafting thing than an actual game aspect, with exception of 1-2 man parties who benefit from it significantly.

Aquillion
2008-04-01, 01:17 PM
Seriously, I had always considered gestalt to be one of those rules that was available, but rarely, rarely used, since it can lead to such insane characters.The thing is, while yes, Gestalt can be used to create insane characters, it neatly addresses the main reason people have a problem with insane characters and imbalance in general: It's much harder for a gestalt character to be overshadowed, or left with no useful role at all. Even if one person makes an absurdly overpowered gestalt, the little brother who goes straight Barbarian//Sorcerer or Fighter//Rogue is probably still going to have plenty to contribute, just because they have so many options available.

Gestalt makes it very easy to make an effective character, no matter what power level everyone else is playing at.

Squash Monster
2008-04-01, 01:32 PM
I noticed the number of gestalt campaigns start to soar around when 4E was announced. I think everyone has always wanted to give gestalt a try, and lots of groups decided to make a big crazy gestalt campaign to say goodbye to 3.5.

Sinfire Titan
2008-04-01, 06:29 PM
Those who have never allowed the variant are just now opening up their minds to it in light of 4E. They felt it was overpoweringly broken to allow into a serious game.

But those who have had experience with the variant will say that the Gestalt Variant actually does a grand job of balancing things out. There are those who say ToB was an attempt to bring melee up to the level of spellcasters. I disagree. Gestalt brings the classes much closer in terms of power to each other. Even the all mighty Druid is cut down a few notches when you use Gestalt, as everything he does can now be mimicked by other classes.

I do not, however, recomend using the Fractional BAB variant in conjunction with Gestalt. It just complicates things further than they all ready are, and that variant was meant for normal multiclassing anyway.

Zincorium
2008-04-01, 06:39 PM
I do not, however, recomend using the Fractional BAB variant in conjunction with Gestalt. It just complicates things further than they all ready are, and that variant was meant for normal multiclassing anyway.

Fractional BAB should be used to prevent people from stating their Fighter1/sorcerer19/wizard20 has +20 BAB, because it 'goes up by one each level one of the sides'. Before you tell me that doesn't happen, someone in the Gestalt Builds contests actually thought that was how it's supposed to be.

Also, it doesn't really complicate things much more than already. Take the number of levels with Good BAB x 1 + levels with medium BAB (but not full BAB) x .75 + number of levels with poor BAB (but not full or medium) x .5.

Prometheus
2008-04-01, 07:08 PM
I had always considered Gestalt one of those variant rules for those who like to have too much power. Where the level starts at 15 and goes into epic, where artifacts drop left and right, where power-gaming is the point of the game.

It really does have a practical use for very small parties or unconventional game styles, but I just can't get over it.

At the end of the day, I think it's presence on the boards is disproportional.

Sinfire Titan
2008-04-01, 07:13 PM
Fractional BAB should be used to prevent people from stating their Fighter1/sorcerer19/wizard20 has +20 BAB, because it 'goes up by one each level one of the sides'. Before you tell me that doesn't happen, someone in the Gestalt Builds contests actually thought that was how it's supposed to be.

Also, it doesn't really complicate things much more than already. Take the number of levels with Good BAB x 1 + levels with medium BAB (but not full BAB) x .75 + number of levels with poor BAB (but not full or medium) x .5.

I know, but sane DMs will rule against that, and keep it how it was intended to work.

Rule #1 of talking to me: My mathematical skills go no further than 2+3=Chair.

Zincorium
2008-04-01, 07:21 PM
I had always considered Gestalt one of those variant rules for those who like to have too much power. Where the level starts at 15 and goes into epic, where artifacts drop left and right, where power-gaming is the point of the game.

Have you actually talked to people who play gestalt prior to forming this particular opinion? Can you mentally separate 'versatile characters' from 'monty haul'?

Would people who like ultra-high-powered games like gestalt? Probably. It's still a logical fallacy to state that because one group likes something, everyone who likes that same something is in the group. I like beer- but that doesn't make me German.


@Sinfire Titan:

I only commented because you were advising other people not to use it, and there didn't seem to be a good reason for them to not do so.

Sinfire Titan
2008-04-01, 07:31 PM
@Sinfire Titan:

I only commented because you were advising other people not to use it, and there didn't seem to be a good reason for them to not do so.

I know. It is a system that wasn't meant for Gestalt if they are played right. Fractional BAB even states it is meant to improve upon Multiclassing, not Gestalt as a whole.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-01, 07:55 PM
I think whats common is that people have played it...once or twice. My group did once and we hated it, but we tried it out as something different. Groups are always looking for something different and gestalt is an official variant that is very different. So, I think that it is common to have played it once or at least looked into it, but when compared to "normal" games, it is not.

I tried it once, but I enjoyed it.
It was a new gaming group: it didn't work out. There were two DMs and one may have houserules, but the other is a novel DM. You get no save paralysis.
I'm like what!
No save, no attack roll. No spell. I mean, what did have Power Word stun as a at will power?

Anyhoo, my Character was a Ranger/Dread Necro my Prestiege class was Beastmaster/Dread Necro (since you always choose 2 classes, it was this or Sand Shaper).
Basically, this let my Animal Companion be decent. I had 2 undead minions:
a Babau Skeleton and a Dragon Zombie (from Dragonomicon type).
It was a lot of fun playing my character/making him.

Most the session was fun, but than the Novel DM took over and I perfer to actually play not just be told what happens.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-01, 08:08 PM
I enjoy gestalt, simply because it makes a lot of character options possible. Of course, I prefer building characters to actually playing them, but it does give you a lot of choices that would be impossible in a normal game. It also balances a lot of the classes, and makes it harder for new players to screw themselves.

Rutee
2008-04-01, 08:21 PM
I enjoy gestalt, simply because it makes a lot of character options possible. Of course, I prefer building characters to actually playing them, but it does give you a lot of choices that would be impossible in a normal game. It also balances a lot of the classes, and makes it harder for new players to screw themselves.
This is my thought too. It also makes it so much easier, to me at least, to make something like a Gish, since I don't have many books to dive through.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-01, 08:56 PM
The big problem with the opinions expressed by naysayers of gestalt games come from the same school of thought that would like to see wizards beaten to death with the nerf stick. Sure, much like a wizard, gestalt games CAN be absurd. I'm not stupid enough to argue the point. However, the fact remains that overpowering yourself is but ONE, of many, possible approaches in either example. I've run several gestalt games, and the only thing I see the variant being used for is the expansion of one's options.

A good example of the mindset of my players lies with the mutliclass arcane/divine caster who went the war weaver/<I forget what else> route so that his entire spell list was buffs and heals that could be chained. No celerity, polymorph, <insert other broken garbage here> in sight. He could have been Batman and Codzilla's lovechild, but instead wanted to make it so that he could fill in the group's basic survival needs with less expenditure of spells. All that effort to NOT make himself a god so that role play could go on longer in between resting periods.

As a light hearted aside: were it not for gestalt games, monks would never see use. :smallamused:

Night10194
2008-04-02, 03:17 PM
To be fully honest, I am not primarily a D&D player, and the reasons for that are a matter of personal taste: It's too hard to kill PCs once they get past a certain level without throwing insane creatures or other PC-types at them. Now, this is fine for some games, but I've never personally liked it, especially as I lean towards horror gaming and DMing. So the reason I wouldn't enjoy or agree to run a Gestalt game is simply that it adds to the thing I don't like in D&D by allowing the players to be even more powerful.

That said, I've never played a campaign where most of the party didn't multiclass more than any other group I've heard of. I've played a campaign where the average number of classes per character was four, by level ten. So I can understand the appeal of gestalt; it cuts down on those numbers and lets you stretch your character's abilities without being weak as a kitten compared to more focused classes. As I said, it's all a matter of taste, and I can understand the appeal.

Ascension
2008-04-02, 03:34 PM
I wasn't really all that interested in Gestalt... until I started reading Duke of URL's threads. Specifically the villain and monster contests.

The gestalt PCs can get cheesy, but Gestalt villains are just plain fun. Gestalt opens up so many character concepts that would be impossible otherwise.

I would say that Gestalt works as long as you build your characters with, well... character in mind. Make them interesting, and they won't be overpowered. Or maybe the will be, but proportionally it'll be better because everyone in the party will be more powerful than usual.

The most beautiful thing about gestalt to me is the fact that it opens up so many races that have WAAAAAAAY too many racial hit dice and LAs to consider playing otherwise.

Rad
2008-04-02, 03:40 PM
I never heard of gestalt used until I got here actually... and IMG even the most munchkiny of the players never considered it an option...

Keld Denar
2008-04-02, 03:46 PM
I have a strong desire right now to play a straight paladin/bard. Ride around on my mount singing songs about battle and glory and honor and bla bla bla while invoking righteous smackdown from afar with my Whirling Bladed greatsword and getting PA, Smite, Divine Might, Bardsong, and numerous other bonuses on it. Lots of cool Cha synergy, and who doesn't like Cha? Not too overpowered compared to a single classed Batman wizard, but lots of style points and lots of party benefit as well.

weenie
2008-04-02, 04:09 PM
I never heard of gestalt used until I got here actually... and IMG even the most munchkiny of the players never considered it an option...

I know many people feel that way, but gestalt actually isn't an automatic "win" button. It allows you to make more versatile characters, that's pretty much it. Consider the Fighter//Rogue for instance. Wow, suddenly the Rogue has a d10 HD, full BaB and tons of feats! Will this make the Rogue stronger? Certainly. Will it make him so incredibly powerfull, that the party blaster sorcerer won't get to kill anything? Or that he will be able to laugh at the puny damage the Uber charger Lion Totem Barbarian does? Don't really think so. And that's why people estimate that gestalt characters are 1-2 levels above regular characters in terms of power. Not that much actually. If you put it next to Epic spellcasting gestalt actually looks like a strong template, but not much more.

Not to even start at what joy it brings to parties wit 3 or less players.