25 Point buy Gestalt, any thoughts? [Archive] - Wizards Community

25 Point buy Gestalt, any thoughts? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
00_Whupass
04-27-06, 01:49 PM I'm getting ready to run my iteration of World's Largest Dungeon, and am concerned about getting all the requisite roles filled in a 2-4 man party, which is what I will likely have. This has prompted me to consider the gestalt option, however I typically prefer lower power games, which gestalt is decidedly not. I'm hoping to mitigate this power increase by limiting the characters to a 25 point buy for ability scores which, since gestalt are decidedly MAD, should bring them down on the power curve. Add to this the other gestalt balancing measures (CR reduction, and adventure pacing) and I think we're back at the power curve I prefer to DM for.

Has anyone done anything like this before? Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept in general?
Anthor Del Niera
04-27-06, 02:15 PM I absolutely love gestalt, and so do my players. It's really remarkable how with a good group, playing gestalt will discourage powergaming; in archetypical D&D each character has a role to fill within the party. Players naturally want their character to excel in that role, so they tend to min-max a bit. Conversely, within the gestalt system characters function more as independent entities, so they don't really need to be sure the fighter is the best at fighting, the rogue or bard is the best at skills, or what have you.

That said, definitely definitely use the fractional base attack variant rule from UA. Even hard core roleplayers can slip with a gestalt character and accidentally make a 20 base attack character. (Oh I start as a sorc/ fighter and then become a sorc/ mage oh hell and damn the way it's staggered means I gots a 20 base attack.)

I wouldn't drop the point buy number, but if you're more comfortable with that level of power, then it might be best. What I did for my game was similarly increase the monsters in power (generally by coming up with a simple formula for advancement, rather than actually advancing the hit dice. Increasing the hit dice of all the monsters meant I'd spend thirty hours preparing for each session, and leaving them as is with the CR penalty means the party is quickly outstripping lower level opponents and getting smashed when they come against a beholder at level 6.)
OrganicAngelAlexiel
04-27-06, 02:23 PM I have tried gestalt in City of the Spider Queen, and it works well if you char are not power gamers. You best bet it to limit the number of classes (base and prestige) to about 4, so they are not taking two levels of every class to max out their saves, increase their base attack quite well, and gaining many different class abillities. And if you allow them to use variants, don't let them use ones that drop an ability that another class will compensate for, like cloister cleric and fighter.
00_Whupass
04-27-06, 02:58 PM That said, definitely definitely use the fractional base attack variant rule from UA. Even hard core roleplayers can slip with a gestalt character and accidentally make a 20 base attack character. (Oh I start as a sorc/ fighter and then become a sorc/ mage oh hell and damn the way it's staggered means I gots a 20 base attack.)

I fail to see how fractional BAB could result in anything but a higher BAB, than a non fractional BAB game. Take your example, in a typical system a Fighter10/Wizard10//Sorcerer20 would have BAB 15, regardless of which method is used, therefore that is not a good example of the merits or failings of the fractional system. Instead lets examine a more complicated example Cleric8/Sorcerer12//Rogue13/Fighter7, which has BAB 16 using the traditional method, and BAB 16 using fractional BAB. Same for a Fighter5/cleric12/wizard3//socrerer7/swashbuckler5/favored soul6 15 using traditional BAB method, 15 using fractional method. The only time fractional BAB has an effect is when taking a few levels in many poor or middling BAB classes like Bard1/Cleric1/Ninja1/Wizard17//Sorcerer1/Scout1/Rogue18 Which has BAB 13 using the traditional method, and 14 using the Fractional system.

I fail to see how using the fractional BAB system would prevent a "too many ways to gat a 20 BAB" since in every example I've tried it has either had no effect, or has increased the overall BAB of the character. Can you provide me with an example of how using a fractional BAB would prevent a character from getting a BAB 20 that they would have had using the traditional system?
Nurgan_the_drunked
04-27-06, 03:47 PM I fail to see how fractional BAB could result in anything but a higher BAB, than a non fractional BAB game. Take your example, in a typical system a Fighter10/Wizard10//Sorcerer20 would have BAB 15, regardless of which method is used, therefore that is not a good example of the merits or failings of the fractional system. Instead lets examine a more complicated example Cleric8/Sorcerer12//Rogue13/Fighter7, which has BAB 16 using the traditional method, and BAB 16 using fractional BAB. Same for a Fighter5/cleric12/wizard3//socrerer7/swashbuckler5/favored soul6 15 using traditional BAB method, 15 using fractional method. The only time fractional BAB has an effect is when taking a few levels in many poor or middling BAB classes like Bard1/Cleric1/Ninja1/Wizard17//Sorcerer1/Scout1/Rogue18 Which has BAB 13 using the traditional method, and 14 using the Fractional system.

I fail to see how using the fractional BAB system would prevent a "too many ways to gat a 20 BAB" since in every example I've tried it has either had no effect, or has increased the overall BAB of the character. Can you provide me with an example of how using a fractional BAB would prevent a character from getting a BAB 20 that they would have had using the traditional system?

It depends on how you work out BAB increasing, but if it gets run so that whenever either class gets a BAB increase (which is where the problem comes from), then the silliness comes from things like this:

1st level: Fighter// wizard: +1 BAB from Fighter level
2nd level: Sorceror//wizard: 2nd level Wizard, so BAB increases by 1
3rd level: Sorceror// wizard: 2nd level Sorceror so BAB increases by 1
4th level: Sorceror//wizard: 4th level Wizard so BAB increases by 1
5th level: Sorceror// wizard: 4th level Sorceror so BAB increases by 1
....

So a character with 2 poor BAB classes gets full BAB.

It's hard to tell from your examples what you're reffering to as the "traditional" method, unles you're working out each side seperately, which can still work, it just matters that you have a method to stop the problem of the style above.
Anthor Del Niera
04-27-06, 03:49 PM The example I stated in my first post. Fighter1/ Sorcerer1, then Wizard1/ Sorcerer2, etc. Taking a full base attack first level along with a half base attack means that every even character level you'll gain a point of base attack from sorc, and every odd character level you'll gain a point of base attack from wizard.

In this example, using a fractional base attack progression would result in a base attack of 1 for the first level, +1/2 the remaining levels, leaving one with a 10 base attack.

Edit: Beaten, and with authority. Thanks!
00_Whupass
04-27-06, 04:05 PM I've always read gestalt as you get the BAB of whichever "side" of the character would have a higher BAB, I guess I've interpereted things differently than the majority.

Your example of Fighter1/Sorceror19//Wizard20 would have BAB 10 using what I consider the traditional method, since each side would have a BAB bonus of 10, the better result is 10. Using the fractional method the left "side" of the character adds up to 10.5, and the right to 10, taking the higher they get a BAB of 10.5 which rounds down to 10.

I think this illustrates how I was confused, it never even occured to me that it might work the way you've both described.
Anthor Del Niera
04-27-06, 04:16 PM That method works, then, but the gestalt system doesn't generally track things over levels. To be more clear, gestalt doesn't seem to factor "oh this is his sixth level in fighter so he has a 6 base attack" as much as "oh this is a level in fighter so base attack increases by one." Hence the fractional base attacks.

I think your method works fairly well, but loses a little bit of the flavor of gestalt.
00_Whupass
04-27-06, 04:26 PM Well, the whole reason I'm thinking about using gestalt is I need to give my players a way to fill all of thier needs in what will likely be a two or three player game (I may get a fourth but, his attendance would be iffy), so I want to give them access to more class features, while at the same time trying to keep them on the same, or at least a similar power curve of a non-gestalt character. Between a 25 point buy and the way I would detirmine BAB I feel I have suceeded in mitigating the power increase inherent in gestalt.

More comments and input would certainly be appreciated.
Darth Sephiroth
04-30-06, 10:26 PM I'd go with a Sorcerer/Monk or Sorcerer/Fighter (or Paladin) and play it various ways

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
00_Whupass 04-27-06, 01:49 PM	I'm getting ready to run my iteration of World's Largest Dungeon, and am concerned about getting all the requisite roles filled in a 2-4 man party, which is what I will likely have. This has prompted me to consider the gestalt option, however I typically prefer lower power games, which gestalt is decidedly not. I'm hoping to mitigate this power increase by limiting the characters to a 25 point buy for ability scores which, since gestalt are decidedly MAD, should bring them down on the power curve. Add to this the other gestalt balancing measures (CR reduction, and adventure pacing) and I think we're back at the power curve I prefer to DM for. Has anyone done anything like this before? Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept in general?
Anthor Del Niera 04-27-06, 02:15 PM	I absolutely love gestalt, and so do my players. It's really remarkable how with a good group, playing gestalt will discourage powergaming; in archetypical D&D each character has a role to fill within the party. Players naturally want their character to excel in that role, so they tend to min-max a bit. Conversely, within the gestalt system characters function more as independent entities, so they don't really need to be sure the fighter is the best at fighting, the rogue or bard is the best at skills, or what have you. That said, definitely definitely use the fractional base attack variant rule from UA. Even hard core roleplayers can slip with a gestalt character and accidentally make a 20 base attack character. (Oh I start as a sorc/ fighter and then become a sorc/ mage oh hell and damn the way it's staggered means I gots a 20 base attack.) I wouldn't drop the point buy number, but if you're more comfortable with that level of power, then it might be best. What I did for my game was similarly increase the monsters in power (generally by coming up with a simple formula for advancement, rather than actually advancing the hit dice. Increasing the hit dice of all the monsters meant I'd spend thirty hours preparing for each session, and leaving them as is with the CR penalty means the party is quickly outstripping lower level opponents and getting smashed when they come against a beholder at level 6.)
OrganicAngelAlexiel 04-27-06, 02:23 PM	I have tried gestalt in City of the Spider Queen, and it works well if you char are not power gamers. You best bet it to limit the number of classes (base and prestige) to about 4, so they are not taking two levels of every class to max out their saves, increase their base attack quite well, and gaining many different class abillities. And if you allow them to use variants, don't let them use ones that drop an ability that another class will compensate for, like cloister cleric and fighter.
00_Whupass 04-27-06, 02:58 PM	That said, definitely definitely use the fractional base attack variant rule from UA. Even hard core roleplayers can slip with a gestalt character and accidentally make a 20 base attack character. (Oh I start as a sorc/ fighter and then become a sorc/ mage oh hell and damn the way it's staggered means I gots a 20 base attack.) I fail to see how fractional BAB could result in anything but a higher BAB, than a non fractional BAB game. Take your example, in a typical system a Fighter10/Wizard10//Sorcerer20 would have BAB 15, regardless of which method is used, therefore that is not a good example of the merits or failings of the fractional system. Instead lets examine a more complicated example Cleric8/Sorcerer12//Rogue13/Fighter7, which has BAB 16 using the traditional method, and BAB 16 using fractional BAB. Same for a Fighter5/cleric12/wizard3//socrerer7/swashbuckler5/favored soul6 15 using traditional BAB method, 15 using fractional method. The only time fractional BAB has an effect is when taking a few levels in many poor or middling BAB classes like Bard1/Cleric1/Ninja1/Wizard17//Sorcerer1/Scout1/Rogue18 Which has BAB 13 using the traditional method, and 14 using the Fractional system. I fail to see how using the fractional BAB system would prevent a "too many ways to gat a 20 BAB" since in every example I've tried it has either had no effect, or has increased the overall BAB of the character. Can you provide me with an example of how using a fractional BAB would prevent a character from getting a BAB 20 that they would have had using the traditional system?
Nurgan_the_drunked 04-27-06, 03:47 PM	I fail to see how fractional BAB could result in anything but a higher BAB, than a non fractional BAB game. Take your example, in a typical system a Fighter10/Wizard10//Sorcerer20 would have BAB 15, regardless of which method is used, therefore that is not a good example of the merits or failings of the fractional system. Instead lets examine a more complicated example Cleric8/Sorcerer12//Rogue13/Fighter7, which has BAB 16 using the traditional method, and BAB 16 using fractional BAB. Same for a Fighter5/cleric12/wizard3//socrerer7/swashbuckler5/favored soul6 15 using traditional BAB method, 15 using fractional method. The only time fractional BAB has an effect is when taking a few levels in many poor or middling BAB classes like Bard1/Cleric1/Ninja1/Wizard17//Sorcerer1/Scout1/Rogue18 Which has BAB 13 using the traditional method, and 14 using the Fractional system. I fail to see how using the fractional BAB system would prevent a "too many ways to gat a 20 BAB" since in every example I've tried it has either had no effect, or has increased the overall BAB of the character. Can you provide me with an example of how using a fractional BAB would prevent a character from getting a BAB 20 that they would have had using the traditional system? It depends on how you work out BAB increasing, but if it gets run so that whenever either class gets a BAB increase (which is where the problem comes from), then the silliness comes from things like this: 1st level: Fighter// wizard: +1 BAB from Fighter level 2nd level: Sorceror//wizard: 2nd level Wizard, so BAB increases by 1 3rd level: Sorceror// wizard: 2nd level Sorceror so BAB increases by 1 4th level: Sorceror//wizard: 4th level Wizard so BAB increases by 1 5th level: Sorceror// wizard: 4th level Sorceror so BAB increases by 1 .... So a character with 2 poor BAB classes gets full BAB. It's hard to tell from your examples what you're reffering to as the "traditional" method, unles you're working out each side seperately, which can still work, it just matters that you have a method to stop the problem of the style above.
Anthor Del Niera 04-27-06, 03:49 PM	The example I stated in my first post. Fighter1/ Sorcerer1, then Wizard1/ Sorcerer2, etc. Taking a full base attack first level along with a half base attack means that every even character level you'll gain a point of base attack from sorc, and every odd character level you'll gain a point of base attack from wizard. In this example, using a fractional base attack progression would result in a base attack of 1 for the first level, +1/2 the remaining levels, leaving one with a 10 base attack. Edit: Beaten, and with authority. Thanks!
00_Whupass 04-27-06, 04:05 PM	I've always read gestalt as you get the BAB of whichever "side" of the character would have a higher BAB, I guess I've interpereted things differently than the majority. Your example of Fighter1/Sorceror19//Wizard20 would have BAB 10 using what I consider the traditional method, since each side would have a BAB bonus of 10, the better result is 10. Using the fractional method the left "side" of the character adds up to 10.5, and the right to 10, taking the higher they get a BAB of 10.5 which rounds down to 10. I think this illustrates how I was confused, it never even occured to me that it might work the way you've both described.
Anthor Del Niera 04-27-06, 04:16 PM	That method works, then, but the gestalt system doesn't generally track things over levels. To be more clear, gestalt doesn't seem to factor "oh this is his sixth level in fighter so he has a 6 base attack" as much as "oh this is a level in fighter so base attack increases by one." Hence the fractional base attacks. I think your method works fairly well, but loses a little bit of the flavor of gestalt.
00_Whupass 04-27-06, 04:26 PM	Well, the whole reason I'm thinking about using gestalt is I need to give my players a way to fill all of thier needs in what will likely be a two or three player game (I may get a fourth but, his attendance would be iffy), so I want to give them access to more class features, while at the same time trying to keep them on the same, or at least a similar power curve of a non-gestalt character. Between a 25 point buy and the way I would detirmine BAB I feel I have suceeded in mitigating the power increase inherent in gestalt. More comments and input would certainly be appreciated.
Darth Sephiroth 04-30-06, 10:26 PM	I'd go with a Sorcerer/Monk or Sorcerer/Fighter (or Paladin) and play it various ways