Multi Classing vs. Gestalt

[Talakeal]

In my mind the gestalt rules in 3.X are more or less a direct update of the multi classing rules in AD&D, however most people look upon them with scorn. I don't know how many times I have seen someone dismiss a gestalt character (or indeed the player / campaign that allows them) as if it was the height of munchkinery, while multi classing in AD&D is just seen as a normal part of the game.

Why the difference?

Aside from slightly more HP and a different XP curve at high levels they seem to be more or less identical. Is it just because Multi Class is included in the PHB and Gestalt is presented as an optional rule in Unearthed Arcana or am I missing something?

[BootStrapTommy]

3.X tends to suffer from a level of optimization and munchkinry which excedes it's predecessor. Making the function of multiclassing in AD&D notably more powerful in 3.X.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm running from memory), but if you gesalted sorc with kobold paragon, the result theoretically can cast 3rd level spells at third level.

[ExLibrisMortis]

When you get a gestalt level, you sort of get two levels at once. I believe D&D 2.0 multiclassing rules still require you to get (pay for with xp) all the levels individually, although exponential xp scaling makes that easier. Half the xp buys you more than half the levels, because lower levels are cheaper, so you get more levels total (but your HD isn't higher - I think? Never played 2nd edition).

Anyway, I love gestalt, and since it's basically a high-power variant by design, I don't see why it should be objectionable because of 'munchkinnery'. Sure, maybe it's a variant that attracts munchkins, I can believe that - but if it is, then that's also pretty much the point, so a job well done.

[Thrudd]

AD&D multiclassing was restricted to Demi humans only, and the allowed combinations were very restricted based on what classes were allowed to each race and their level limits ( non humans had fewer class choices and could not advance beyond certain levels). So, you are essentially giving up access to the upper levels in return for more versatility in the early game.

As a Demi human, multiclassing was almost always the best option, because you would not be allowed to advance past mid levels anyway, except as a thief. Unless the DM waived level limits, because they didn't agree with this balancing factor.

There was actually a reason to pick half elves in this system, because they had access to more multiclass combos than any other race (Like cleric/magic user, fighter/cleric, ranger/cleric).

In 3.x, gestalt can cherry pick pretty much any combo of classes they want, and advance to level 20 or above in both/all of them. Very much more powerful (as is basically everything in that edition).

[johnbragg]

In my mind the gestalt rules in 3.X are more or less a direct update of the multi classing rules in AD&D, however most people look upon them with scorn. I don't know how many times I have seen someone dismiss a gestalt character (or indeed the player / campaign that allows them) as if it was the height of munchkinery, while multi classing in AD&D is just seen as a normal part of the game.

Why the difference?

Aside from slightly more HP and a different XP curve at high levels they seem to be more or less identical. Is it just because Multi Class is included in the PHB and Gestalt is presented as an optional rule in Unearthed Arcana or am I missing something?

I think part of it is that Gestalt feels like "cheating", because you're getting something for nothing. A 4th level Fighter//Rogue is between a Fighter 2-Rogue 2 and a Fighter 4-Rogue 4. You're getting an extra level or so of power. In 2E, multiclassing meant you divided your XP progression in half, I think. I know that a Fighter-Thief or Mage-Thief was always a level or two behind a single-classed character. (Frex, a Fighter 2-Thief 2 would be adventuring with a Wizard 3 or 4, with 2nd level hit points)

Gestalt campaigns that use the Tier system as justification get a somewhat better reception--Rogue//Warriors and Fighter//Experts and Ranger//Adepts and Barbarian//Scouts alongside Druids and Bards and Sorcerers aren't so power-gamey.

[Vitruviansquid]

I thought gestalt was explicitly invented so that multi-classing could be more powerful.

[Talakeal]

Do keep in mind the gestalt increases a characters ECL by two, which means that, in effect, the receive ~ half* the normal XP.

As for the racial limits thing, 3E got rid of all race class restrictions. You could make the same argument about allowing demihumans to dual class or play paladins. I played as and with single class demi humans all the time in 2E and never felt the characters as being gimped as a result.

*Actually, looking at the chart it seems to be closer to 2/3 XP most of the time, so I guess that is a bit of an up.

[BootStrapTommy]

If you're playing a gesalt campaign, generally its gunna be a high power campaign. If you do it, you do it to be campy.

[Thrudd]

Do keep in mind the gestalt increases a characters ECL by two, which means that, in effect, the receive ~ half* the normal XP.

As for the racial limits thing, 3E got rid of all race class restrictions. You could make the same argument about allowing demihumans to dual class or play paladins. I played as and with single class demi humans all the time in 2E and never felt the characters as being gimped as a result.

*Actually, looking at the chart it seems to be closer to 2/3 XP most of the time, so I guess that is a bit of an up.

2e had significantly higher level limits and fewer class restrictions as compared to 1e, which I always default to when talking about AD&D.

Of course, up until you hit the level limit, the single class Demi human character is no different from human, maybe even a little more powerful because of racial abilities and ability score adjustment. But if you wanted to "optimize" in AD&D, a multiclass is the way to go. You are never really more than a level behind the single classes, and have a lot of benefit.

That 3e removed level limits is one thing that makes gestalt way more powerful than AD&D multiclassing. The unrestricted combinations of classes and races is the other factor. The pace of advancement in gestalt rules, I think, was designed to be similar to AD&D. Of course, 3e xp advancement is significantly different than AD&D anyway, removing xp for gold completely.

[Darth Ultron]

Why the difference?

Multi-classing is balanced and reasonable. You take one class, then another and combine the power of the classes. But each class you don't take surfers in power and ability and variety. The class fighter/mage is 6th level, but only a 3rd level fighter and 3 level mage. So they are not exactly the same level of power as a pure 6th level character in one class. But the multi class person will have a couple good combos.

Gestalt-is just crazy. It's really one step from ''just ignore the rules and free form''. You get the full class abilities of each class. There is no balance and it's insane. The 6th level character has the abilities of both 6th level classes and dominates the game.

[Kid Jake]

Multi-classing is balanced and reasonable. You take one class, then another and combine the power of the classes. But each class you don't take surfers in power and ability and variety. The class fighter/mage is 6th level, but only a 3rd level fighter and 3 level mage. So they are not exactly the same level of power as a pure 6th level character in one class. But the multi class person will have a couple good combos.

Gestalt-is just crazy. It's really one step from ''just ignore the rules and free form''. You get the full class abilities of each class. There is no balance and it's insane. The 6th level character has the abilities of both 6th level classes and dominates the game.

He's referring to AD&D's multiclassing, not 3.x's; there's a substantial difference.

Also Gestalt isn't as crazy as it sounds; the action economy prevents you from doing much more than a single classed character can do in any given round and if you're in a Gestalt game the enemies are most likely beefed up a tad to make up any difference that might present itself. Gestalt adds versatility, but certainly isn't game breaking by itself.

[aspekt]

I'm running my first gestalt campaign right now and I'm not really seeing the issue. It's not campy but it is high powered. I seriously restricted magic items and use higher encounter level creatures. This group consists of one munchkin and two wannabe munchkins.

Maybe we're doing it wrong, but it works.

[Darth Ultron]

He's referring to AD&D's multiclassing, not 3.x's; there's a substantial difference.

Been a little while sense I played 2E, but I don't remember much difference. Other then it was only for non humans and there were only a couple set class combos you could take.

Gestalt gets game breaking when you have a full caster with good BaB and good saves and lots of abilities. I've rarely see a gestalt character that was not game breaking, except for DM made ones like a commoner/bard or a cleric/diviner who was just a sage.

[Kid Jake]

A 3rd edition wizard with full BAB, good fortitude/reflex saves and the ability to wear fullplate while casting is no more game breaking than a normal wizard; especially when the enemies have access to the same combos. It doesn't matter how buff and awesome your mage is, if he spends a round acting like a fighter then he just wasted a round.

[BootStrapTommy]

The problem with gesalt is that it becomes an unexplored wonderland of optimization for munchkins. Wizard/Archivist 6, Mystic Theurge/(pick your poison) or any variation on that design, would be brutal. Mind you I just came up with that off the top of my head (can you gesalt prestige?). Running a battle sorc gesalting in kobold paragon and abusing Greater Draconic Rite of Passage should be a nice foundation for a secondary caster.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The problem with gesalt is that it becomes an unexplored wonderland of optimization for munchkins. Wizard/Archivist 6, Mystic Theurge/(pick your poison) or any variation on that design, would be brutal. Mind you I just came up with that off the top of my head (can you gesalt prestige?). Running a battle sorc gesalting in kobold paragon and abusing Greater Draconic Rite of Passage should be a nice foundation for a secondary caster.

Well, the suggested gestalt rules ban 'double-class' prestige classes, including mystic theurge, but also eldritch knight. And you can only take one prestige class at the time. Also, usually you can't increase the same caster level twice at a given level, so the kobold paragon won't work alongside a sorcerer.

The most potent combinations are wizard//factotum (double slashes denote gestalt), for example, and really any t1 caster//good passive buffs. Essentially you rely on your spells to get everything done, and your gestalted classes give you X to Y, extra actions and whatnot. Another way to benefit from gestalt is to get full casting out of a partial casting prestige class (e.g. swiftblade). You have to take wizard levels opposite to the no-casting swiftblade levels, but since you were taking base class levels anyway, that's not all that big of a sacrifice, because you didn't have that many good base class levels to choose from anyway (except factotum, obviously).

[BootStrapTommy]

Well, the suggested gestalt rules ban 'double-class' prestige classes, including mystic theurge, but also eldritch knight. And you can only take one prestige class at the time. Also, usually you can't increase the same caster level twice at a given level, so the kobold paragon won't work alongside a sorcerer.

Didn't know. Lost my computer, and UA with it.

The build I was contemplating for sorc and paragon was battle sorc//paragon 1, paragon//rogue, fighter, or fac 2, bsorc//rogue, fighter, or fac 3 into swiftblade, anyway.

With GDRoP, you enter swiftblade with 7 levels of spell casting profession in place. While having decent hit points.

That being said, wizard//archivist would be nasty. The sheer spell versatility there would be amazing.

[Rowan Wolf]

A lot of what made the 2nd edition multiclass system, well really the whole leveling/class balance system tick was the differing experience chart which may have just been an attempt to "balance" the level of power differences between the classes (see lin. When 3rd edition launched they removed that system and arguably did not test the spell casting out nearly well enough (an article in a pre-3.5 dragon magazine note that there were just too many spell to playtest and that is how the full extra action haste spell made it in to the game)

I do remember dealing with a gestalt campaign that centered around monstrous characters (i.e mostly creature with level adjustment and often with racial HD) and there were some interesting characters that were just not really possible in a standard campaign. As with any part of these games your mileage will vary just as there are groups that have never experience the tier system issue that have been discuss for about ten years now.

[Forrestfire]

Personally, I've got a love-hate relationship with gestalt. On one hand, it's fun, because it creates many more possible options and fun builds and character concepts that can be supported. On the other hand, it's much more complicated, and it doesn't feel as satisfying to create some combination of abilities that gets me something neat if I need to use two tracks to do it. Because of this, when I play gestalt games, I generally end up just taking one build idea and welding it to something to make it more competent, or finding multiple things that fit together.

For example, here's the plan of a character in a game I'm in right now, currently level 3: Telepath Psion 20//Cloistered Cleric 1/Dragonfire Adept 1/Duskblade 3/Chameleon 2/Bloodstorm Blade 2/Chameleon +10/another 3 levels of whatever.

This build's goal is to use a hole in the rules caused by the wording of elvencraft shortbows and Thunderous Throw to pretend to be an arcane archer, basically. I'm going to use Spell Channeling with Thunderous Throw to shoot touch-range debuffs at people at range, while using the Telepath side and Schism to be able to use my powers to do stuff like put down energy walls or move around the battlefield with Skate.

Overall, the two builds would each work fine separately (Telepath would be a generic Psion, and the Bloodstorm Bow would be a generic knowledge devotion archer until level 9, when it became a knowledge devotion "arcane archer"), but because of combining them, I get a lot more options... Which, since overall, the character is more powerful, has freed me up to take a pile of Draconic Heritage feats, since I also wanted to be able to use those at some point.

The other players in the game ended up with similarly-powered builds; a few of them mixed T3s with something useful to give them more options, and one built a character that uses Bard and Druid together to be a party-buffer with a pet dog, ignoring wild shape and summoning entirely. I don't really think gestalt is "an unexplored wonderland of optimization for munchkins", so much as a great tool for making characters that otherwise could not viably exist in the game. Anyone can be a munchkin and break the game; all it takes is picking Wizard/Druid/Cleric/etc and the right options. Gestalt does not change that, nor does it make it any easier, since it's exactly the same choice. I've seen a lot more really cool builds than really broken builds (although they do intersect occasionally) in the many gestalt games I've played.


Also, it's the only format of the game where Monk 20 is viable. So that's a plus.


EDIT: Oh, how could I forget! Gestalt is awesome for playing nonstandard races or monster races, since it removes the hassle of LA being terrible. Stick a race's progression on one side and a class on the other, and you get the neat abilities and stats and fluff of the race, without gutting yourself, power-wise, compared to the other players.

Didn't know. Lost my computer, and UA with it.

The build I was contemplating for sorc and paragon was battle sorc//paragon 1, paragon//rogue, fighter, or fac 2, bsorc//rogue, fighter, or fac 3 into swiftblade, anyway.

With GDRoP, you enter swiftblade with 7 levels of spell casting profession in place. While having decent hit points.

That being said, wizard//archivist would be nasty. The sheer spell versatility there would be amazing.

The first build ends up being a fairly fun gish build, and nowhere near game-breaking, because you're likely spending your actions each round running around and attacking. When Perpetual Options eventually comes online, it breaks, but the game breaks near that point anyway, regardless of classes chosen.

The second build is, overall, weaker than a significant pile of combinations with wizard or archivist, if only because both wizard and archivist get a lot of the same tools, and you really shouldn't be running out of spell slots unless you're actively wasting them, so in the end, the build is probably in the same power band as a normal wizard or archivist.

[BootStrapTommy]

The first build ends up being a fairly fun gish build, and nowhere near game-breaking, because you're likely spending your actions each round running around and attacking. When Perpetual Options eventually comes online, it breaks, but the game breaks near that point anyway, regardless of classes chosen.

I've used a high level, non-gesalt version of this build as a brutal antimage in the past. Running around with an antimagic field and SnA Haste. Because if I wanted, I could gish. If there were spellcasters, I could get up in their personal space and never leave.

[Talakeal]

I ran a gestalt game once and no one really even tried breaking anything. I had a fighter / monk, a cleric / paladin, a rogue / warlock, and a wizard / ranger. Hardly the stuff of legends.

The biggest problem was actually the rogue / warlock, as their powers synergize really well. Sneak attack works with the blasts and the rogues hiding skills and evasion / slipper mind work really well with the warlocks ability to become invisible, intangible, or turn into a swarm.