Gestalt char in non Gestalt Campaign? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Gestalt char in non Gestalt Campaign? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kaalan
07-10-04, 05:13 PM In an upcoming campaign we are playing with mostly +LA characters. The thing is...I'd be interested in doing a human gestalt character. Would it concievably work to give a gestalt character a level adjustment due to to gestaltness?
Veton
07-10-04, 07:43 PM No.

Gestalt characters aren't meant to be mixed in with regular characters. Besides, different Gestalt combinations have different effects. A Barbarian/Wizard is going to be quite different then a Sorcerer/Wizard.

However, if your DM allows it, then you can go ahead if you want to.
B Rob
07-10-04, 08:14 PM Depends on what kind of headaches your DM enjoys. Assuming that s/he enjoys none, I"m going to say no.
Kaalan
07-10-04, 10:27 PM Originally posted by Veton
No.

Gestalt characters aren't meant to be mixed in with regular characters. Besides, different Gestalt combinations have different effects. A Barbarian/Wizard is going to be quite different then a Sorcerer/Wizard.

However, if your DM allows it, then you can go ahead if you want to.

I was thinking Druid/Rogue then Shifter/Rogue. Get all shiftalicious and back it up with social skills and sneak attack :)
Deekin
07-10-04, 11:00 PM It's A +2 LA
Zilred
07-11-04, 02:00 AM I've done some thinking on the subject of mixing gestalt and standard characters. I've found that if it is treated as a special form of multiclassing, then it can work, assuming that the gestalt requires twice the normal ammount of EXP to level, and that if starting at low level the gestalt is level one, while the others are already at level 2. (This is not LA, it is just giving the others 1000 starting EXP so that the gestalt will not overshadow them from the beginning)

The tradeoffs for gestalting in this system is that the gestalt will (usually) have less HD and HP, worse saves, (sometimes) a lower BAB, less feats, less skill points, and fewer ability score increases than the normal characters. However, it promises a lot of diversity in class features, and can give great power despite the weakness.

Example: Sorcerer21 versus Ranger15/Sorcerer15 (They will reach these levels at about the same time)

The Sorcerer21 has:
-21 HD (20d4+4+CONx21) [assuming CON 12, HP = 75]
-5 ability score increases
-8 feats (one of which can be Epic)
-(base) FORT: 6, REF: 6, WILL: 12
-BAB +11/+6 (includes Epic BAB)
-Spells: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6 Sorc/Wiz (base)
-Skills: (2+INT)x24 as Sorcerer (max ranks = 24/12)
-Has a familiar appropriate to a 21st level sorcerer/wizard

The Ranger15/Sorcerer15 gestalt has:
-15 HD (14d8+8+CONx15) [assuming CON 12, HP = 85]
-3 ability score increases
-6 feats
-(base) FORT: 9, REF: 9, WILL: 9
-BAB +15/+10/+5
-Spells: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/3 Sorc/Wiz (base) (has only learned up to 7th);
Also: 2/1/1/1 Ranger (base)
-Skills: (6+INT)x18 as Sorcerer and Ranger (max ranks = 18/9)
-Has a familiar appropriate to a 15th level sorcerer/wizard
-Has an animial companion appropriate to a 15th level ranger (or 7th level druid)
-Has 4th Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and Camoflage as class features
-Has Track and Endurance as bonus feats
-Has Combat Style Mastery (either TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF or Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot) as virtual feats acessable in light or no armor.

While it may appear that the gestalt has more HP through a greater HD, if both of their CON scores were higher, then the sorcerer would then have more HP as the CON mod is multiplied more. Keep that in mind, as a Barbarian normal with a respectable CON will have more health than a Barbarian/Fighter gestalt with the same scores (and that will hurt as the party tank, even if you can prove deadly in combat).

If you think this is worth a shot, go for it. With all of those LA+ races, you should be able to prove that the "weak human" is much more versatile; and powerful because of it.
Nick Soapdish
07-11-04, 02:13 AM Theoretically ... yes, it's possible.

It's not recommended since they're intended for use only with an all gestalt party, usually when it's a small party.

I'm not sure where Deekin gets the +2 LA from. The description of what a gestalt party can handle suggests that they can usually handle an encounter equal to their average level +1, but if it's something that forces save or dies, it's their average level +2 (presumably because the gestalt characters are probably going to have all good saves). But neither of those exactly transfer into level adjustments.

I don't think there is an exact LA for a gestalt character. It'll have to depend on the character's classes and maybe even level. The usual level adjustment gives flat benefits, such as a better strength, natural armor, or the ability to fly. A gestalt character's benefits keep getting better as he levels up.

As a DM, I wouldn't want the headache of dealing with it. However, based on the closest thing to gestalts in 3.5 - the arcane trickster, eldritch knight, and mystic theurge - I'd have to assume that a gestalt character is worth a LA of at least +3. After all, in each of those characters, the character is missing out on about 3 levels of class abilities, plus even then they don't get the benefit of all their class abilities, such as better saves, HD, etc. Getting the crummy abilities of those same 3 levels (such as a d4, poor BAB, etc.) partially offsets it, but unless you've got a stupendous Constitution, that'll rapidly be offset against the better HD).

Just compare those versus their gestalt equivalent, but 3 levels lower. They'll be stronger at 4th level (gestalt level 1), but I think they'll catch up and pass them pretty quick.
Willie the Duck
07-11-04, 02:42 AM Giving it a single LA and expecting that power balance to hold true at every level there after missing the differences between LA races and gestalt classes. a LA monster is (at least suposedly) x% better than a standard race at all levels. A gestalt character is 1-10, times the cubed-root of your hate size, plus how many out of 52 playing cards thrown land face up% better than standard classes. You simply cannot expect to give the gestalt class a specific LA adjustment and expect it to be balanced at every level.

now if that isn't a problem for you, the DM or other players, feel free...
Tenzhi
07-11-04, 03:11 AM Just use the level-independent XP award variant and make Gestalt characters require twice as much XP to advance (which, ironically, works out to a +2 LA in the (non-epic) end).
Nick Soapdish
07-11-04, 06:28 PM Originally posted by Tenzhi
Just use the level-independent XP award variant and make Gestalt characters require twice as much XP to advance (which, ironically, works out to a +2 LA in the (non-epic) end).

Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character? (I was going to ask how the numbers were supposed to work out, but then I finally found the level independent variant.) To me, that definitely falls into the category of too many headaches. It's also too generous in my opinion unless you think the mystic theurge is horribly underpowered.

Here's a rough comparison of a 20th level MT and an 18th level gestalt cleric/wizard.

CLASS MT Gestalt
BAB +8 +15
HP 17d4+3d8 18d8
Casting 17Wiz/13Clr 18ea
Turning 3 18
Skill Pts 46 44
Fortitude 8 12
Reflex 5 6
Will 14 12

As you can see, assuming equal abilities, the MT has only two advantages, a better Will save and more skill points (but the skill point advantage is likely to be much higher since the wizard is certain to have a high skill point bonus). It's also possible for the MT to have more hit points, but with average hit points, he's at a 25 HP disadvantage at 20th level and only has two level of Con bonuses to make it up in so it would require a Constitution of 36.

The gestalt owns the MT in everything else (although turning isn't likely to be a huge factor by that level). He's got a much better BAB and much better casting. Even dropping him another level won't do much to rectify that. It'll only change if the MT is able to cast better in one of its classes (which would kill the gestalt's 9th level spells).
Aetherine
07-12-04, 03:13 AM You're using a PrC (the MT no less!) to justify why Gestalt is better?

I can use the MT to justify why pigs can fly. It's not a sound way of doing things, because it's generally no-good.

It's been discussed on multiple parts of the Boards that, eventually, a Gestal Character will come out to be a +2 LA (+1 if the two classes are very similar and have multiple overlapping abilities and numbers). In a party of LA and ECL characters, a +2 LA Gestalt Human would do just fine.
It wouldn't show-up the others. But it wouldn't fall behind.
Zilred
07-13-04, 01:32 AM Originally posted by Nick Soapdish
Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character?

It's not. For those of us suggesting an EXP adjustment, it's only 2xEXP. It isn't that hard to double numbers.

2000 = lv2
6000 = lv3
12000 = lv4
20000 = lv5
(and this is without looking at the book)

That and I don't think +2 LA is all that effective. At low levels the gestalt is gimped, and at high levels, they're overpowering.

Psychic Warrior3 > Fighter/Psion1, but Fighter/Psion18 > Psychic Warrior20
Zilred
07-13-04, 01:54 AM On the Mystic Theurge issue, if you are going to allow gestalting, then don't allow classes like that. It won't really make sense for one person to go mystic theurge when they could (should?) go gestalt arcane/divine.

Multiclassing as normal is still viable though. Given that some classes tend to be "front-loaded", a regular multiclass character can fare about as well as (pehaps better than) a gestalt, depending on how the player works their class choices.
Tenzhi
07-13-04, 12:45 PM Originally posted by Nick Soapdish
Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character?

That's not the only reason to switch - it's also a better XP system in general.

As for the MT - I wouldn't be the first person to have pointed out that it is a fairly weak attempt at creating something that should be workable through simple multi-classing. Given that a simple change to Gestalts (averaging the HD, rather than using the highest) makes it a d20 version of the multi-classing days of yore, it's no surprise that it performs the amalgamation better than either normal d20 multi-classing or the PrC(s) that was created to fix the problem(s) with normal d20 multi-classing.
Nick Soapdish
07-13-04, 05:06 PM Originally posted by Zilred
It's not. For those of us suggesting an EXP adjustment, it's only 2xEXP. It isn't that hard to double numbers.

2000 = lv2
6000 = lv3
12000 = lv4
20000 = lv5
(and this is without looking at the book)

That and I don't think +2 LA is all that effective. At low levels the gestalt is gimped, and at high levels, they're overpowering.

Psychic Warrior3 > Fighter/Psion1, but Fighter/Psion18 > Psychic Warrior20

I'm referring to the using the alternate experience point system from UA rather than just doubling the normal chart. I don't really see it as an improvement (or a setback for that matter, it's just different). So I don't see the need to switch systems if I don't get anything out of it.

And I wasn't trying to argue that you use the MT in conjunction with a gestalt character or a gestalt campaign which strictly forbids those sorts of prestige classes. I was just using it to compare a core book equivalent which is supposed to be balanced with a character of the same level to an alternate rule which is not considered to be balanced with a "standard" character of any level.

The gestalt characters may be more like the multi-classing characters of 2e, but those were pretty broken IMO (with the possible exception of some fighter multi-classes). A character was usually able to get the powers of two classes by only losing a level (until the levels evened out). So I don't see going back to that as a major selling point. PrCs like the MT, EK, and AT are just a patch on the multi-classing rules, but they're a much more consistent one than trying to add a gestalt character at LA or using a different experience point table doubled. Using Table 6-13, the gestalt character is between 1 and 2 levels behind at most. For almost all class combinations, that is completely absurd IMO.
lantzer
07-14-04, 10:18 AM On an entirely different tack, I think it would be a bad idea to try to play a gestalt in a normal party.

For social/group dynamics reasons. It looks like favoritism.

Why do you need your character to be better than everybody else's, anyway? That _is_ the only reason to want to do this, after all. A character concept can be handled through simple multiclassing.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kaalan 07-10-04, 05:13 PM	In an upcoming campaign we are playing with mostly +LA characters. The thing is...I'd be interested in doing a human gestalt character. Would it concievably work to give a gestalt character a level adjustment due to to gestaltness?
Veton 07-10-04, 07:43 PM	No. Gestalt characters aren't meant to be mixed in with regular characters. Besides, different Gestalt combinations have different effects. A Barbarian/Wizard is going to be quite different then a Sorcerer/Wizard. However, if your DM allows it, then you can go ahead if you want to.
B Rob 07-10-04, 08:14 PM	Depends on what kind of headaches your DM enjoys. Assuming that s/he enjoys none, I"m going to say no.
Kaalan 07-10-04, 10:27 PM	Originally posted by Veton No. Gestalt characters aren't meant to be mixed in with regular characters. Besides, different Gestalt combinations have different effects. A Barbarian/Wizard is going to be quite different then a Sorcerer/Wizard. However, if your DM allows it, then you can go ahead if you want to. I was thinking Druid/Rogue then Shifter/Rogue. Get all shiftalicious and back it up with social skills and sneak attack :)
Deekin 07-10-04, 11:00 PM	It's A +2 LA
Zilred 07-11-04, 02:00 AM	I've done some thinking on the subject of mixing gestalt and standard characters. I've found that if it is treated as a special form of multiclassing, then it can work, assuming that the gestalt requires twice the normal ammount of EXP to level, and that if starting at low level the gestalt is level one, while the others are already at level 2. (This is not LA, it is just giving the others 1000 starting EXP so that the gestalt will not overshadow them from the beginning) The tradeoffs for gestalting in this system is that the gestalt will (usually) have less HD and HP, worse saves, (sometimes) a lower BAB, less feats, less skill points, and fewer ability score increases than the normal characters. However, it promises a lot of diversity in class features, and can give great power despite the weakness. Example: Sorcerer21 versus Ranger15/Sorcerer15 (They will reach these levels at about the same time) The Sorcerer21 has: -21 HD (20d4+4+CONx21) [assuming CON 12, HP = 75] -5 ability score increases -8 feats (one of which can be Epic) -(base) FORT: 6, REF: 6, WILL: 12 -BAB +11/+6 (includes Epic BAB) -Spells: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6 Sorc/Wiz (base) -Skills: (2+INT)x24 as Sorcerer (max ranks = 24/12) -Has a familiar appropriate to a 21st level sorcerer/wizard The Ranger15/Sorcerer15 gestalt has: -15 HD (14d8+8+CONx15) [assuming CON 12, HP = 85] -3 ability score increases -6 feats -(base) FORT: 9, REF: 9, WILL: 9 -BAB +15/+10/+5 -Spells: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/3 Sorc/Wiz (base) (has only learned up to 7th); Also: 2/1/1/1 Ranger (base) -Skills: (6+INT)x18 as Sorcerer and Ranger (max ranks = 18/9) -Has a familiar appropriate to a 15th level sorcerer/wizard -Has an animial companion appropriate to a 15th level ranger (or 7th level druid) -Has 4th Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and Camoflage as class features -Has Track and Endurance as bonus feats -Has Combat Style Mastery (either TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF or Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot) as virtual feats acessable in light or no armor. While it may appear that the gestalt has more HP through a greater HD, if both of their CON scores were higher, then the sorcerer would then have more HP as the CON mod is multiplied more. Keep that in mind, as a Barbarian normal with a respectable CON will have more health than a Barbarian/Fighter gestalt with the same scores (and that will hurt as the party tank, even if you can prove deadly in combat). If you think this is worth a shot, go for it. With all of those LA+ races, you should be able to prove that the "weak human" is much more versatile; and powerful because of it.
Nick Soapdish 07-11-04, 02:13 AM	Theoretically ... yes, it's possible. It's not recommended since they're intended for use only with an all gestalt party, usually when it's a small party. I'm not sure where Deekin gets the +2 LA from. The description of what a gestalt party can handle suggests that they can usually handle an encounter equal to their average level +1, but if it's something that forces save or dies, it's their average level +2 (presumably because the gestalt characters are probably going to have all good saves). But neither of those exactly transfer into level adjustments. I don't think there is an exact LA for a gestalt character. It'll have to depend on the character's classes and maybe even level. The usual level adjustment gives flat benefits, such as a better strength, natural armor, or the ability to fly. A gestalt character's benefits keep getting better as he levels up. As a DM, I wouldn't want the headache of dealing with it. However, based on the closest thing to gestalts in 3.5 - the arcane trickster, eldritch knight, and mystic theurge - I'd have to assume that a gestalt character is worth a LA of at least +3. After all, in each of those characters, the character is missing out on about 3 levels of class abilities, plus even then they don't get the benefit of all their class abilities, such as better saves, HD, etc. Getting the crummy abilities of those same 3 levels (such as a d4, poor BAB, etc.) partially offsets it, but unless you've got a stupendous Constitution, that'll rapidly be offset against the better HD). Just compare those versus their gestalt equivalent, but 3 levels lower. They'll be stronger at 4th level (gestalt level 1), but I think they'll catch up and pass them pretty quick.
Willie the Duck 07-11-04, 02:42 AM	Giving it a single LA and expecting that power balance to hold true at every level there after missing the differences between LA races and gestalt classes. a LA monster is (at least suposedly) x% better than a standard race at all levels. A gestalt character is 1-10, times the cubed-root of your hate size, plus how many out of 52 playing cards thrown land face up% better than standard classes. You simply cannot expect to give the gestalt class a specific LA adjustment and expect it to be balanced at every level. now if that isn't a problem for you, the DM or other players, feel free...
Tenzhi 07-11-04, 03:11 AM	Just use the level-independent XP award variant and make Gestalt characters require twice as much XP to advance (which, ironically, works out to a +2 LA in the (non-epic) end).
Nick Soapdish 07-11-04, 06:28 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi Just use the level-independent XP award variant and make Gestalt characters require twice as much XP to advance (which, ironically, works out to a +2 LA in the (non-epic) end). Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character? (I was going to ask how the numbers were supposed to work out, but then I finally found the level independent variant.) To me, that definitely falls into the category of too many headaches. It's also too generous in my opinion unless you think the mystic theurge is horribly underpowered. Here's a rough comparison of a 20th level MT and an 18th level gestalt cleric/wizard. CLASS MT Gestalt BAB +8 +15 HP 17d4+3d8 18d8 Casting 17Wiz/13Clr 18ea Turning 3 18 Skill Pts 46 44 Fortitude 8 12 Reflex 5 6 Will 14 12 As you can see, assuming equal abilities, the MT has only two advantages, a better Will save and more skill points (but the skill point advantage is likely to be much higher since the wizard is certain to have a high skill point bonus). It's also possible for the MT to have more hit points, but with average hit points, he's at a 25 HP disadvantage at 20th level and only has two level of Con bonuses to make it up in so it would require a Constitution of 36. The gestalt owns the MT in everything else (although turning isn't likely to be a huge factor by that level). He's got a much better BAB and much better casting. Even dropping him another level won't do much to rectify that. It'll only change if the MT is able to cast better in one of its classes (which would kill the gestalt's 9th level spells).
Aetherine 07-12-04, 03:13 AM	You're using a PrC (the MT no less!) to justify why Gestalt is better? I can use the MT to justify why pigs can fly. It's not a sound way of doing things, because it's generally no-good. It's been discussed on multiple parts of the Boards that, eventually, a Gestal Character will come out to be a +2 LA (+1 if the two classes are very similar and have multiple overlapping abilities and numbers). In a party of LA and ECL characters, a +2 LA Gestalt Human would do just fine. It wouldn't show-up the others. But it wouldn't fall behind.
Zilred 07-13-04, 01:32 AM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character? It's not. For those of us suggesting an EXP adjustment, it's only 2xEXP. It isn't that hard to double numbers. 2000 = lv2 6000 = lv3 12000 = lv4 20000 = lv5 (and this is without looking at the book) That and I don't think +2 LA is all that effective. At low levels the gestalt is gimped, and at high levels, they're overpowering. Psychic Warrior3 > Fighter/Psion1, but Fighter/Psion18 > Psychic Warrior20
Zilred 07-13-04, 01:54 AM	On the Mystic Theurge issue, if you are going to allow gestalting, then don't allow classes like that. It won't really make sense for one person to go mystic theurge when they could (should?) go gestalt arcane/divine. Multiclassing as normal is still viable though. Given that some classes tend to be "front-loaded", a regular multiclass character can fare about as well as (pehaps better than) a gestalt, depending on how the player works their class choices.
Tenzhi 07-13-04, 12:45 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Why would you want to switch to a different experience point system just to accomodate a single character? That's not the only reason to switch - it's also a better XP system in general. As for the MT - I wouldn't be the first person to have pointed out that it is a fairly weak attempt at creating something that should be workable through simple multi-classing. Given that a simple change to Gestalts (averaging the HD, rather than using the highest) makes it a d20 version of the multi-classing days of yore, it's no surprise that it performs the amalgamation better than either normal d20 multi-classing or the PrC(s) that was created to fix the problem(s) with normal d20 multi-classing.
Nick Soapdish 07-13-04, 05:06 PM	Originally posted by Zilred It's not. For those of us suggesting an EXP adjustment, it's only 2xEXP. It isn't that hard to double numbers. 2000 = lv2 6000 = lv3 12000 = lv4 20000 = lv5 (and this is without looking at the book) That and I don't think +2 LA is all that effective. At low levels the gestalt is gimped, and at high levels, they're overpowering. Psychic Warrior3 > Fighter/Psion1, but Fighter/Psion18 > Psychic Warrior20 I'm referring to the using the alternate experience point system from UA rather than just doubling the normal chart. I don't really see it as an improvement (or a setback for that matter, it's just different). So I don't see the need to switch systems if I don't get anything out of it. And I wasn't trying to argue that you use the MT in conjunction with a gestalt character or a gestalt campaign which strictly forbids those sorts of prestige classes. I was just using it to compare a core book equivalent which is supposed to be balanced with a character of the same level to an alternate rule which is not considered to be balanced with a "standard" character of any level. The gestalt characters may be more like the multi-classing characters of 2e, but those were pretty broken IMO (with the possible exception of some fighter multi-classes). A character was usually able to get the powers of two classes by only losing a level (until the levels evened out). So I don't see going back to that as a major selling point. PrCs like the MT, EK, and AT are just a patch on the multi-classing rules, but they're a much more consistent one than trying to add a gestalt character at LA or using a different experience point table doubled. Using Table 6-13, the gestalt character is between 1 and 2 levels behind at most. For almost all class combinations, that is completely absurd IMO.
lantzer 07-14-04, 10:18 AM	On an entirely different tack, I think it would be a bad idea to try to play a gestalt in a normal party. For social/group dynamics reasons. It looks like favoritism. Why do you need your character to be better than everybody else's, anyway? That _is_ the only reason to want to do this, after all. A character concept can be handled through simple multiclassing.