Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rico_Huerta 12-11-05, 02:04 PM	What is a gestalt game?
Athanatos 12-11-05, 02:08 PM	Look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm).
High Octane 12-11-05, 05:27 PM	If it involves 2 players, its a way to help make up for the lack of versatility of a party by allowiung a better more powerful form of multiclassing. If it involves more than 2 players, its a max-minning, munchkinned, utterly overpowered way for players to get themselves off by having way too powerful characters.
Kintara 12-11-05, 05:40 PM	If it involves 2 players, its a way to help make up for the lack of versatility of a party by allowiung a better more powerful form of multiclassing. If it involves more than 2 players, its a max-minning, munchkinned, utterly overpowered way for players to get themselves off by having way too powerful characters.Or not. There are plenty of ways to make gestalt work. It can help create a cool theme game if you assign one side for everyone to take, like Monk or Fighter or Sorcerer. The DM is supposed to make important NPC gestalt too, and even if he doesn't, gestalt rules advise you to lower the CRs of creatures. That means gestalt characters are fighting tougher monsters (or receiving less XP). Balance is relative. That said, I've played one too many gestalt games at this point, and I'm kind of sick of it. Gestalt games are high-powered, and that can get old after a while. Also, sometimes I don't want to play an amalgamation. They can be fun for a change of pace, though.
TalonofTiamat 12-11-05, 06:00 PM	I've never played in a gestalt game before. I really want to, especially since I got MoI. You can get some really cool characters that way. It's true that gestalt characters are stronger (duh) but the DM is supposed to make the encounters more challenging to accomodate this. I think the next game I have is going to be a gestalt game where everyone has to be a Cleric and something else.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-11-05, 06:21 PM	If you like anime and high-powered games, then gestalt is for you. It essentially gives all the characters a large amount of power in a controlled manner. If you don't min/max, it allows you to fill two roles at the same time (healer and trapspringer, for example). If you do min/max, it enables you to make some really dangerous, nearly indestructible PCs. It's fun. Everyone should try it just once. And all 1st level. Everyone should play at least one 10th+ level gestalt game, and one 1st-level all commoner melee. It's great.
Anguirus23 12-11-05, 09:41 PM	If it involves more than 2 players, its a max-minning, munchkinned, utterly overpowered way for players to get themselves off by having way too powerful characters. And those characters are faced with more powerful challenges, naturally. My old group is playing a large-group high-level gestalt game for special occasions (i.e. when we get back together) and we have great fun. It's really more for people who want to make a complex character than for someone who wants to have Phenomenal Cosmic Power. We're not talking epic, here. You have the same number of actions a round and you're faced with more powerful challenges. Really, you just get more versatility, better saves, and more staying power. See, I just don't understand how four-six players who are all gestalt, fighting monsters 1 or 2 over their CR and gestalt NPCs, are "munchkins" because you personally don't approve of them for unexplained reasons.
Rico_Huerta 12-11-05, 10:52 PM	so it's almost like leveling 2 levels for every 1 normal level?
Anguirus23 12-12-05, 08:30 AM	^ Sort of. You get the class features and class skills of two classes. Of the two of them, you get the better saves, base attack, and number of skill points. I would stress that they are NOT twice as powerful as standard characters. But, you can get some pretty wicked combos together. For instance, just go fighter/rogue for full base attack, full sneak attack progression, bonus feats, and great skills. In my group now, we have a fighter/ranger (feats, feats, feats!), a monk/cleric (able to get to us to heal no matter what, plus deliver touch spells with unarmed attacks), a warlock/hexblade (full base attack for eldritch blast, plus everything's based on Charisma), and my character, a transmuter/kineticist (as weedy as a regular mage, but versatile, with a great Intelligence, many feats, and ability to craft tons of items).
Tyler Do'Urden 12-12-05, 01:13 PM	As an example to add to the above two, a 1st-level bard/fighter would have a +1 BAB, +2 Fort, +2 Ref, +2 Will, 10+Con hit points, (6+Int) x 4 skill points, a 1st-level fighter's bonus feat, and a 1st-level bard's cantrips and music abilities. A gestalt 1st-level fighter/bard will undoubtedly lose a fight with a nongestalt 1st-level fighter and a nongestalt 1st-level bard. Why? Because he's outnumbered. The gestalt character still only has hit points and AC appropriate for his level and still only acts once per round. This is why gestalt characters are not twice as powerful as nongestalt characters.
Lincoln Hills 12-12-05, 01:18 PM	'Gestalt' is originally German, meaning roughly "many that are one". The optional rules set for gestalt characters appears in Unearthed Arcana and is supported nowhere else (in other words, the DM has to retool any NPCs he means to be more than speed-bumps.) In honesty I must say that I oppose the notion, both on the grounds of character balance (gestalts are practically superheroes, and the potential for abuse is greater than with the ordinary multiclassing system) and in the area of role-playing (gestalt characters usually have to have ludicrous backgrounds, and their special abilities tend to drown out their personalities unless they're in the hands of a particularly skilled player.) And, before any gestalt-fans start in on me, I call your attention to my use of the phrases potential for, tend to, and usually.
simon_tage 12-12-05, 01:45 PM	I always wonder about the "it allows for more complex characters" comment. It allows for no more complex characters than multiclassing does. It does allow the ability to meet PRC requirements more efficiently (and sometimes earlier) than multiclassing does. I just see it as the cake and eat it too method of character buidling.
High Octane 12-12-05, 04:15 PM	I always wonder about the "it allows for more complex characters" comment. It allows for no more complex characters than multiclassing does. It does allow the ability to meet PRC requirements more efficiently (and sometimes earlier) than multiclassing does. I just see it as the cake and eat it too method of character buidling. Exactly. Which is why I dont like it. I love the idea of multiclassing because tghere is always the oppurtunity cost involved. In any case of multiclassing or prestige classing, you are always giving something up or paying a price. Gestalt gives you abilities for free. It works for a campaign of 2 characters since otherwise you would have to seriously dumb down the encounters, but otherwise I dont see a use for it other than player fanservice.
Kintara 12-12-05, 04:27 PM	Exactly. Which is why I dont like it. I love the idea of multiclassing because tghere is always the oppurtunity cost involved. In any case of multiclassing or prestige classing, you are always giving something up or paying a price. Gestalt gives you abilities for free. It works for a campaign of 2 characters since otherwise you would have to seriously dumb down the encounters, but otherwise I dont see a use for it other than player fanservice.The power line in standard D&D is as arbitrary as the one in gestalt. I don't see how this "sacrifice" in regular multiclassing has any particular virtue. It's just a matter of taste.
Anguirus23 12-12-05, 04:42 PM	It works for a campaign of 2 characters since otherwise you would have to seriously dumb down the encounters, but otherwise I dont see a use for it other than player fanservice. Did it even occur to you that the game exists for the players, and not the other way around? I always wonder about the "it allows for more complex characters" comment. It allows for no more complex characters than multiclassing does. Gestalt + multiclassing can get pretty crazy. Even without multiclassing, you must keep track of two classes' abilities. Gestalt isn't for those new to D&D, which is what is meant by complex.
High Octane 12-12-05, 05:18 PM	The power line in standard D&D is as arbitrary as the one in gestalt. I don't see how this "sacrifice" in regular multiclassing has any particular virtue. It's just a matter of taste. Put another way, if everyone was allowed gestalt, including NPCs and all players, then it would be fine in my book. But I find that too often players just want their uber builds. Its what I call the "Red Mage" mentality. As for the virtue of sacrifice, its the concept that you are willing to give up overall power in favor of character concept, which is why I like 3.0 and 3.5 multiclassing. And there is a difference between fanservice and giving the players options. Giving the players options is if a player says "I want to be captain of a pirate ship!" you say "Okay, a ship would cost X amount of goild, you would need to hire a crew, etc etc. this is how you can become it." Fanservice is "I want to be a pirate captain!" "Okay! A pirate ship falls out of the sky with a full crew! Its yours!"
jpat93 12-12-05, 11:05 PM	Gestalt can be rather fun. I'm in such a game right now, playing a psion/rogue, and one does feel the power bump. We've talked about it in our group and feel like the characters are maybe one-and-a-half times more powerful than normal--as has been mentioned already, they don't get more actions than normal, but each character is likely to have two, maybe even three good saves. While it's true that there are guidelines for how DMs deal with all of this, our DM, who's quite experienced in D&D and 3.5 in particular, still has some difficulty on an encounter-to-encounter basis trying to judge what's an appropriate challenge. Sometimes he's over; a fair number of times he's under. I don't necessarily prefer this to nongestalt games, but it was sort of a nice break for everyone, I think, after my brief return as a DM and the PC killfest that "inspired."
The Human Target 12-13-05, 01:23 AM	It's fun. You get to build more complicated characters, and get away from the "everyone in the party does one thing thats helpful" style that standard group based RPGs have. Which I enjoy. It also serves as a quick fix for a lot of problems I have with the game. First and foremost multiclassing, which is in general terrible. The people who scream "power gamer" and the like are...... simple.
High Octane 12-13-05, 02:14 AM	It's fun. You get to build more complicated characters, and get away from the "everyone in the party does one thing thats helpful" style that standard group based RPGs have. Which I enjoy. It also serves as a quick fix for a lot of problems I have with the game. First and foremost multiclassing, which is in general terrible. The people who scream "power gamer" and the like are...... simple. As opposed to everyone does everything? Simple? Explain that. Why are multiclassed characters terrible? They can be as powerful as single classed characters. Of course there is the fact that if you cant have full spell progression, all good saves, full BAB, d12 hit points and 8+int skill points a level that you are obviously being overly restricted. Not being able to do things are sure signs of a poorly made character. I mean, background and personality dont matter at all. I mean, 11 base classes, 7 base races, a myriad of feats and dozens of skills to choose from just arent enough. I want to combine classes.... but of course multiclassing is not an option, since that means my character wouldnt get all the benefits of both classes without all the weaknesses. A character sucks if he isnt invincible.
taski 12-13-05, 07:37 AM	I use gestalt in my game, because I only have one player. It actually makes it easier on both of us. Nearly all of D&D is designed to be played with four PCs. Allowing my one player to have a character that almost counts as 1.5 characters in terms of power helps me get a little closer to sending him challenges appropriate for his level. Gestalt also allows me to send a greater variety of challenges, keeping the game interesting for the two of us. There's only so much a lone sorceror can do, but when he's gestalted with rogue, I suddenly have more options when designing an adventure. Locked doors, hidden clues, zombies, rumor-mongers, invisible enemies, illusions, liars, obscure magical texts, and more... A riper field for interesting plots than a rogue or sorceror could handle alone. And I don't want to play NPC allies all the time. So, for my tiny group, gestalt translates into more fun for both of us and fewer headaches for me. Oh, and Edit: Gestalt is not as powerful as High Octane indicates. It's not possible to get good everything with gestalt. Also, gestalt definately does not make one invincible. Second Edit: I don't think Human Target meant that multiclassed characters are terrible, but that the multiclass mechanic itself could use some refining.
simon_tage 12-13-05, 07:55 AM	I use gestalt in my game, because I only have one player. It actually makes it easier on both of us. Nearly all of D&D is designed to be played with four PCs. Allowing my one player to have a character that almost counts as 1.5 characters in terms of power helps me get a little closer to sending him challenges appropriate for his level. This is a great example of how gestalting should be used. You get to build more complicated characters Here again is the idea I have issue with. It in no way lets you build more complicated characters. It allows you to build more powerful characters more easily or the same power level characters really quickly. I have yet to see how characters that have been gestalted are more "complicated" than multiclassed ones.
Millennium 12-13-05, 08:19 AM	so it's almost like leveling 2 levels for every 1 normal level? Not really, and this is the biggest misconception about Gestalt. The thing to remember about the Gestalt variant is that nothing stacks. At every level you get the better hit die, the better BAB, the better for each save bonus, and so on, depending on what two classes you're taking levels in. This makes a fair amount of sense, but it has a more subtle repercussion: if you get the same ability from both of your classes at a given level (for example, Sneak Attack +1d6) you don't get it twice, even though you would benefit from both if you got them at different levels. You can only get the benefits from two spellcasting classes if you don't advance in the same spellcasting class: a wizard/cleric gets both levels since you track their spellcasting separately, but a wizard/loremaster only gets one since they'd both advance her wizard level. One special note here is that wizard and sorcerer are considered separate progressions, so a wizard/sorcerer gets both levels. The end result of this is that no, it's not really like leveling twice for every one "normal" level. It's more like the Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, or similar classes on steroids.
High Octane 12-13-05, 08:56 AM	I was being sarcastic about the stats I gave, I know gestalt isnt that powerful. The comment wasnt aimed at gestalt, it was aimed at the person who feels that gestalt is the only way to make a complex character, when in fact he was only concerned with having a powerful character.
jpat93 12-13-05, 10:35 AM	The comment wasnt aimed at gestalt, it was aimed at the person who feels that gestalt is the only way to make a complex character, when in fact he was only concerned with having a powerful character. I don't know whether only is the right word, but it's my (limited) experience that gestalt lets you have a mechancially complicated character with minimal sacrifices as well as less "mess" than multiclassing. Whether the character is complex in other ways (background, personality, etc.) is, of course, entirely up to the player(s) and DM.
Anguirus23 12-13-05, 02:39 PM	Put another way, if everyone was allowed gestalt, including NPCs and all players, then it would be fine in my book. That's the way you're supposed to use it.
simon_tage 12-13-05, 03:12 PM	with minimal sacrifices Here is the crux of the anti-gestalt camp's argument. This is the want a cake and eat it too aspect of gestalt. It is the want something for nothing-ness of gestalting. If you want to play a higher power game, go ahead and gestalt. Please though (and this is not aimed at anyone) don't tell me that your character is more complex/complicated than a multiclassed one. It is simply more powerful. Period.
taski 12-13-05, 07:11 PM	I agree with simon on this one. Mechanics wise, I think both gestalt and multiclassing are roughly equally complex. There's the XP penalty for multiclassing which is potentially a pain in the butt, and the difference in character power level for gestalt which is potentially a pain in the butt. Just in the ammount of extra calculations. RP wise, I don't think using gestalt nessisarily makes a character more interesting. A change of philosophy/goals/methods as represented by multiclassing can be pretty interesting, like in a case of a regular fighter one day feeling the call to paladinhood. There can be multiclassed characters who are more complex than certain gestalt characters, and there can be gestalt characters who are more complex than certain muliclass characters. Either kind can be played with minimal character development, and even a single-classed fighter can be RPed as a complicated and compelling person. Mechanics and RP are independant variables -- "goodness" in one does not imply anything about the other. Gestalt can provide a little help in creating a character's background concept. You know you have to choose a secondary class, and now have to come up with which one and why. Still, a multiclass-only game could do the same thing. However, neither would help if the group in question doesn't require much in the way of backgrounds.
nihility 12-13-05, 07:26 PM	There are plenty of ways to make gestalt work. It can help create a cool theme game if you assign one side for everyone to take, like Monk or Fighter or Sorcerer. This is one of the ways that my group has used it, and it was a blast. The theme was "wacky 70s kung-fu movies." You know, the ones where every single person in the world knows some bizarre style of kung-fu. The baker? Master of the Hand of Yeast style. The blacksmith? Disciple of the Iron Body style. That 12-year-old kid in the street? He can break rocks with his toes. So, everyone was a gestalt character, even commoners, and one side was always straight monk. Obviously, this was not a game that anyone took very seriously, but it was a great "beer and pizza" sort of game.
ChimericalWolf 12-13-05, 08:20 PM	I'm setting up something with my crew. Call it "The Labyrinth." It's gonna be a Gestalt Hack 'n' Slash, passing off the DM every level, with over-the-top characters, in a disjointed magical demiplane where they are watched for entertainment, like a sort of fantasy "Reality TV" sorta thing. And for that, Gestalt serves it's purpose. We played Gestalt before, and it was just too much for me, as the DM, to handle. One of the problems with it is characters can reach a power level, where the only option you have that gives them a challenge is something that'll kill them in one hit. Anything less than that, and it gets boring, there's no danger. The way to counter this is to tell the players about it. Tell them that you'll throw anything against them to challenge them, and if they die, than they should scale the characters back a bit to make things more level.
EarthForce 12-13-05, 08:59 PM	What often is overlooked is that Gestalt is designed mostly(there are other possible reasons) for parties with less than four party members. Gestalts can be a little stronger to significantly stronger than a normal PC. Some examples: Since nothing stacks, a Sorc/Wiz1 isn't much better than a Wiz 1(Has to divide points between Int and Cha both at character creation and level ups). Similarly a Monk/Sorcerer might seem awesome at first (can fight with nothing but his spell component pouch for a loin cloth) until you realize it is the MAD (Multiple Ability Dependency) from hell. On the flip side something like a Rogue/Cleric3 can get some nice bonuses: all good saves, average BAB and Hitdie(d8), 8 skill points per level, and full casting. Could tumble up to an enemy, cast hold person, then Coup de Grace with sneak attack damage (and full two handed power attack if you have it since it's an auto hit, auto crit). Even with the stronger combinations though they still suffer from the two of the most valuable resources available to PCs. Available bodies for tactics and actions per round. Your wiz/barb and your rogue/ranger may be tough, but you oppenents get to gang up on the two of you instead of having to divide their attacks 4+ ways. It's harder for you to flank, easier to be flanked, and if you drop there are less people to stabalize/heal you. Also you only get two attack actions and two move actions (or double moves, or full-round actions) instead of four. So 1 gestalt PC has got to watch his back (d12 hitdie is still only 1 hitdie) since he has nobody to watch his back. 2 gestalts can put up a decent fight but will get the floor cleaned with them by 4 non-gestalts of equal levels and class. 3 gestalts are either slightly weaker(only slightly),about the same, or a little stronger than 4 non-gestalts depending on the class combos.
The Human Target 12-13-05, 09:34 PM	Here again is the idea I have issue with. It in no way lets you build more complicated characters. It allows you to build more powerful characters more easily or the same power level characters really quickly. I have yet to see how characters that have been gestalted are more "complicated" than multiclassed ones. I've seen a gestalt wizard/rogue/fighter/swashbuckler/bladesinger that was a bit more complicated than a non-gestalt one.
loaba 12-13-05, 09:50 PM	I just briefly scanned through the gestalt section in the UA and two things popped out. First, it's clearly stated that by using the Gestalt variant you are upping the power level of the game. Secondly it states that if one player uses gestalt, then everybody needs to do so as well. I think I agree with Tyler, in that we should all give it a go at least once. I am definately going to see if I can get my group of four to give it a shot. I think I'll start work on my Fighter/Cleric Half-elf right now.
Jovknee 12-14-05, 01:26 AM	I am in a gestalt game at the moment, and yes it can be fun, characters are not indestructible. I am currently on my third character at the moment. My first a barbarian/fighter died an ugly death (due to a low AC), the second Paladin/Cleric/Radiant of Palor also died, due to a roll of a one against a epic level mage's desenigrate spell. My current character I recently made up, a fighter/kensai/monk human 1/2 black dragon. Now I have noticed a few things that were probably not looked at when the Gestalt vairiant rule was made up. If a person is playing a race with a LA, does the LA come off one class or both classes? My paladin was an assimar which as a LA of +1 and I took it off the paladin level. At first it seemed to work fine, however then came the working of my saving throws when I leveled up. Each time I went up a level, my fort. save went up a point, if it wasn't going up from one class the other class took it up one. This became unbalanced and the DM made me lower it, as my bonus to my fort save was slightly higher than my level. (please note the high fort save did nothing for me against the desenigrate spell!) Also my new character is a half dragon, which is a +3 LA. Now I was just going to take it off one class, then the DM and I got into a discussion about this. He was starting to think that I should take off 3 class levels off of EACH of the 2 classes. Now I didn't see this as fair, and we came to the conclusion that I take 2 off of each class. I feel its closer to the actual strength, but not exact. However atleast the saving throws are easy to do this time, just stick with the monks! :D As for the power of them, yes they CAN be made to be very powerful characters. However it is a very big help for any group that is not large. We have 3 players in our group, and this way atleast we have most of the ingredients to make an average group. One player is a Druid/Ranger/Beastmaster, the other is Sorceror/Rouge/Dragon Disiple. Without gestalt, we'd be missing parts that are extremely helpful in a group, and the DM doesn't need to play a character as well to help us along. It does mean that he has to put us against creatures up to 4 or 5 CR higher than normal. Sometimes things are to powerful, other times they are to weak. The system isn't designed for it, and if you don't have a DM that isn't ready to play with the numbers, then I don't advice it.
simon_tage 12-14-05, 12:42 PM	I've seen a gestalt wizard/rogue/fighter/swashbuckler/bladesinger that was a bit more complicated than a non-gestalt one. In what way?
nihility 12-14-05, 05:35 PM	In what way? Well, it takes up almost twice as many columns in a spreadsheet as a normal character, for one. That's a kind of complication.
WarColonel 12-15-05, 10:50 PM	Two ways I have tweaked the gestalt setting. One: The player has one class they gain all the stats from and only gains the special abilities and spells of the second class. They choose at each level which class they gain BAB, saves and hp. You basically have a primary class and a secondary class. They can decide each level how it goes up, but every time they change it, you start at level one. Example: ftr/wiz level 5, chose fighter 4x, wiz 1x, has stats of a lvl 4 ftr, lvl 1 wiz but feats and spells as a lvl 5 ftr, lvl 5 wiz. Two: Same idea as above, except the character must choose either from ftr/rog/cleric/sorc(/psion if you allow them), or from the Unearther Arcana "generic class". The generic way, you gain bonus feats, you choose your own save progression, but do not get three uber saves, primary spellcasters(which have been chosen the one time this was done) still have low hp, warriors have low sp, and skills are chosen, allowing for interesting combinations, such as mine, a CG expert/bard with smite evil. This progression means that you characters are more vercitile but not too overpowered. A fighter/cleric in our group chose exclusively fighter, was very healthy and combat oriented but still had that fairly weak will save. We have also toyed around with the rule of not allowing classes with different kinds of magic to be used. The druid/sorcerer is just too much power I think one person should have.
Always-Late 12-16-05, 02:13 AM	This is one of the ways that my group has used it, and it was a blast. The theme was "wacky 70s kung-fu movies." You know, the ones where every single person in the world knows some bizarre style of kung-fu. The baker? Master of the Hand of Yeast style. The blacksmith? Disciple of the Iron Body style. That 12-year-old kid in the street? He can break rocks with his toes. So, everyone was a gestalt character, even commoners, and one side was always straight monk. Obviously, this was not a game that anyone took very seriously, but it was a great "beer and pizza" sort of game.That has to be the greatest fun-campaign ever.