D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 2.0 Multiclassing in D&D 3.5, via Gestalt rules

[Matrixryu]

Hmm, that title is a mouthful.

I'm about to experiment with something similar D&D 2.0 multiclassing in my 3.5/pathfinder game. Simply put, this is a way of allowing a gestalt character (with some restrictions) into a normal party, and holding back his level just enough that I believe that it would be balanced. I'm going to start testing it with some npcs, and I just wanted to share the rules with you guys to see if you have any thoughts on it.

Why am I doing this? I basically don't like how the only way to make hybrid characters in this game is to use the boring hybrid classes like eldritch knight. Sure, those are good if you only want to be able to stab things and cast spells, but if someone in your group wants to be a bard/duelist without having to spend 10 levels away from being a bard, this is a way of doing it. This also fixes the problem of 'why is it so much harder for a dragon to take his first sorceror level than a human'. Instead of stacking the sorceror levels on top of the dragon levels, you count them as a separate experience progression. (Incase you're wondering, for simplicity I would take away the automatic spellcasting that dragons get and count them all as having a few gestalt sorceror levels in my system.)

Here's how it works. The class combination uses standard gestalt rules, except for one thing: the two class sets must be unrelated. The idea is that your second class is something completely different from your first class, and that's why it is easier to learn those abilities. That means the abilities won't 'stack'. So, you can't be a fighter/monk and gain a ton of feats since they stack. You can start as a fighter/rogue, but you can't change it into a rogue/assassin later on to gain double sneak attack. You also can't use combination classes like Eldritch Knight in one progression if it is in any way related to the classes in your other progression (I would consider banning it outright for simplicity).

The other rule is that you have to pay full experience points for both class progressions. That means if a normal character has to have 21,000 exp to reach level 7, you have to have 42,000 divided between your two progressions. That means a Fighter/Rogue wouldn't reach level 7 until the other players were more than half way through level 9 using the standard D&D experience system. When the Fighter/Rogue is level 15, the other characters would be level 20.

Also, a multiclass player character, for simplicity sake, has to pay equal points into both of his experience progressions. Things get crazy if you let a level 10 rogue suddenly decided to spend what would have been the exp on level 11 to gain his first 5 fighter levels (4 bonus feats).

Here's an example of how this would balance out. Let's compare the lvl 7 Fighter/Rogue to a normal Rogue at level 10 (technicaly speaking, they would spend a fight or two at lvl 7 and 9, but more time would be spent at 7 and 10). The Fighter/Rogue would have the same BAB, 7d10 hit points vs the rogue's 10d6, and have 1d6 less sneak attack, two fewer rogue abilities, 1 fewer leveling bonus feat, and 1 ability score boost. In trade, he got 4 fighter bonus feats. Also, a Fighter/Rogue would have saves of +5,+5,+2, as opposed to a normal rogue's +3,+7,+3, and would have the skills of a level 7 rogue.

Honestly, I think this works out rather well. The only problem that comes up for the multiclass character is that he might have trouble with high level skill or caster checks unless he has a few feats or abilities to boost them. The multiclasser might fall too far behind in epic levels...but I don't think many people would run into that problem. Also, this might not work for groups which are using non-standard experience progressions.

Of course, I'm sure that there must be some way to abuse the system. That's why I'm posting this here, I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this. I haven't let any of my players use it yet, but I'm going to try making an npc or two using the rules soon for testing purposes.

 

[Hawken]

the two class sets must be unrelated.

Why? What's to really stop someone from doing that aside from DM's say-so? What logic is behind this decision? You say its 'easier' to learn something unrelated, but that is patently false. If something is 'familiar', its much easier to learn than something completely unrelated specifically because of that familiarity. A Fighter WILL have a much easier time learning Monk because they are both fighting classes despite the BAB difference, than one would learning to become a Wizard because that has absolutely NOTHING to do with his current profession.

You can start as a fighter/rogue, but you can't change it into a rogue/assassin later on to gain double sneak attack.

Of course not, because it would take a Fighter much longer to meet Assassin requirements, so that character would end up as a Fighter/Assassin. However, an easy solution to that dilemma is to just rule that one can gain Sneak Attack from only one level at a time.

The other rule is that you have to pay full experience points for both class progressions.

Again, why? You're not getting the "full" benefit of both classes, so why pay "full" xp? You only get 1 BAB modifier, not both, only 1 modifier for each save, only 1 amount of skill points, only 1 hit dice per level; not two, so why pay for something you're not getting?

Off the top of my head, paying maybe 50% extra XP per level doesn't seem unreasonable for gestalting two classes but there's no reason at all to pay 'full' price when you're getting far less than 'full' value.

But you've also got to consider the downside as well. Even by your reasoning, there is no significant downside to playing a gestalt, so why wouldn't everyone in your game world do it? What's to stop them? So, they advance a little slower, big deal. That's made up for having the best saves, BAB, skill points, class skills, and likely HD, plus ALL the class abilities of two separate classes, or four when it comes time to multiclass or take prestige classes. A dwarven Barbarian/Sorcerer that multiclasses into Dragon Disciple and Bear Warrior or Reaping Mauler would be able to eat Storm Giants for breakfast! Or an elf that was a Monk/Rogue and then became a Shadow Dancer/Assassin would not just be untouchable but brutally dangerous. There's just no way that would be "fair" to those that don't gestalt.

A possible solution to this would be to allow the player to choose favorable features or special abilities. So, a Fighter/Wizard would have 1 of 2 options:

1) He gets the best basic features of both classes (HD, BAB, Saves, Skills, Class Skills) OR
2) He gets the special abilities of the 2nd class.

So a Fighter/Wizard chooses at 1st level, to either have HD (Fighter), BAB (Fighter), Good Fort/Will saves, and class skills of both classes or he gets the 1st level abilities and spellcasting of a 1st level Wizard in addition to his Fighter Bonus Feat.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Matrixryu]

Why? What's to really stop someone from doing that aside from DM's say-so? What logic is behind this decision? You say its 'easier' to learn something unrelated, but that is patently false. If something is 'familiar', its much easier to learn than something completely unrelated specifically because of that familiarity. A Fighter WILL have a much easier time learning Monk because they are both fighting classes despite the BAB difference, than one would learning to become a Wizard because that has absolutely NOTHING to do with his current profession.

In real life, maybe. But in D&D, things seem to get harder to learn as you gain experience in them. Your first level costs 1000 exp, and your tenth level costs 10,000. The reason why I came up with this system is because I thought it was silly that an orge or something, would have to pay 10,000 exp to gain its first wizard level. I also would not want that same character to only have to pay 1000 exp to gain his first fighter, monk, or any other martial class because they give a much greater benefit than a wizard level would.

Then again, maybe I'm overreacting because it is true that with multiclassing you aren't getting the full benefit of both classes. I just don't want something like a fighter/monk to be able to gain significantly more feats than a normal character of one of those two classes with the same amount of exp, unless having a lower bab seems to balance the cost enough.

Edit: Alright, here we go, I think I've thought of a way that I could allow any class combination. I believe a good and simple rule of thumb would be that a multiclasser could not get more of something than a base class of his level (that's right, level, not exp). So, no (10 rogue)/(5 fighter/ 5 assassin)s. It would be very easy to change a fighter class to an assassin class by level 6 in pathfinder, that's why I'm making the distinction. Any abilities which exceed the limit simply cease to exist until the character hits a level where he's no longer breaking the rule.

Do you think that works? This would also stop a level 1 fighter/monk from having twice the feats that a normal level 1 character would, and since the fighter class has the highest feat progression, he would have to eventually change that to another class in order to gain the tons of bonus combat feats that he was getting between the two classes.

----
Er, I didn't quote it, but about the thing you said about exp costs. The amount of exp the characters have to pay per level doesn't matter, all that matters is that you scale the cost so that they stay appropriately far behind a 'normal' character. I think that paying full exp with the standard dnd system seems appropriate because exp costs scale with level. I don't think that making the extra class only cost 50% is good, because when normal charcters are at level 10, the multiclassers would be at level 8. At that point, a fighter/rogue would have a higher bab and more abilities than a level 10 rogue.

But you've also got to consider the downside as well. Even by your reasoning, there is no significant downside to playing a gestalt, so why wouldn't everyone in your game world do it? What's to stop them? So, they advance a little slower, big deal. That's made up for having the best saves, BAB, skill points, class skills, and likely HD, plus ALL the class abilities of two separate classes, or four when it comes time to multiclass or take prestige classes. A dwarven Barbarian/Sorcerer that multiclasses into Dragon Disciple and Bear Warrior or Reaping Mauler would be able to eat Storm Giants for breakfast! Or an elf that was a Monk/Rogue and then became a Shadow Dancer/Assassin would not just be untouchable but brutally dangerous. There's just no way that would be "fair" to those that don't gestalt.

Actually, in gestalt rules you can have only one prestige class at a time in either progression, the other has to stay as a base class unless I'm mistaken. That prevents things from getting too crazy. I do see what you mean though.

And you're right, if there is no real downside, why wouldn't all of the characters want to do this? Well, the truth is, a pure fighter or barbarian will always have higher HP and BAB (if you hold the multiclasser's level back, like you should). The most one of these multiclassers could have is bab 15 when a level 20 fighter has bab 20. Spellcasters will have lower level spells and spellcaster checks. If you combine together special ability classes like monk and rogue (or the Shadow Dancer/Assassin example you brought up, even if that is illigal in gestalt rules), you might have trouble hitting anything because you would have bab 11 when everyone hit level 20.

At least, that's if you use the experience calculation that I'm using. I'm a little confused, first you say that I'm making the 2nd class cost too much, then you say the combinations are too powerful? I'm not trying to be mean by pointing this out, I'm just wondering which you think it is in this case. Do you think the normal characters would be better, or the multiclassers?

I'm aiming for a balance of sorts, and the balance here is that you're basically giving up bab and hit points to get more abilities. The fighter/rogue example had the same bab and hit points as a normal rogue, but had given abilities for a roughly equal number of feats. A player shouldn't be penalized for being either a pure class, or the fancy combination that he has drempt up.

A possible solution to this would be to allow the player to choose favorable features or special abilities. So, a Fighter/Wizard would have 1 of 2 options:

1) He gets the best basic features of both classes (HD, BAB, Saves, Skills, Class Skills) OR
2) He gets the special abilities of the 2nd class.

So a Fighter/Wizard chooses at 1st level, to either have HD (Fighter), BAB (Fighter), Good Fort/Will saves, and class skills of both classes or he gets the 1st level abilities and spellcasting of a 1st level Wizard in addition to his Fighter Bonus Feat.

I agree, something simple like that would work much better. I've messed around with it a bit, it is just hard to say how much each ability set is 'worth'. Honestly though, the reason why I'm looking into these fancy gestalt rules is because one of my players wants to be bard/duelist. To me, leveling 10 levels as bard and then switching to duelist seems like it would gimp his character to me, so I've been trying to find a way to combine the two. Unfortionately, it seems like (in pathfinder at least, where there are no 'dead levels') that those two classes are just so ability dense that i'm not sure how to combine them without totally removing key abilities of the classes.

That's why I came up with this, and was thinking of suggesting that he try it and start as a bard/fighter multiclasser, and then change to a bard/duelist. He loses some bab and hit points, but gains additional feats and bard abilities in the long run. If you can think of an easy way of combining those classes though, I probably would go with your idea instead though, lol. I just didn't want to have to deal with trying to figure out how many spellcasting levels and songs I would have to remove to give him duelist abilities.

Edit: Wait, I see what you're saying now. Hmmm, I think that would be hard to balance. Why be a fighter/wizard with a lot of feats and spells, if you have the bab of a wizard?

Anyway, thanks for taking a look I would have replied directly to you too El Mahdi, but I think I also answered your question XD

 

[Hawken]

In real life, maybe. But in D&D, things seem to get harder to learn as you gain experience in them. Your first level costs 1000 exp, and your tenth level costs 10,000.

That's a bit incorrect. As one gains levels and the XP required increases, so too do the XP awards. Going strictly by the books, at each level, characters earn roughly enough XP to advance a level after about 12-13 encounters as long as they are facing roughly the appropriate CR for their level. So, proportionately, a 1st level character earns the same amount of XP for a CR 1 encounter that a 10th level character earns for a CR 10 encounter.

The reason why I came up with this system is because I thought it was silly that an orge or something, would have to pay 10,000 exp to gain its first wizard level.

The fluffy reason the Ogre would pay so much to gain a level of wizard is because it is a stupid, uneducated, illiterate beast. First it would have to learn to read, then comprehend abstract concepts, spellcasting, etc. It would have about the same difficulty learning a level of Fighter because Ogres are bestial, instinctive fighters without formalized, disciplined training. They are the "Hulk smash!" of combat, where the Fighter is the skilled warrior--the Caramons and Aragorns of the world.

I just don't want something like a fighter/monk to be able to gain significantly more feats than a normal character of one of those two classes with the same amount of exp, unless having a lower bab seems to balance the cost enough.

Why? A Human Fighter 1/Monk 1 is going to have the same amount of feats (and pay the same XP) as your gestalt Fighter/Monk 1 Human, except your guy won't have the feats. Why not have all the feats they are due, especially if you are insisting they pay full price for them.

Edit: Alright, here we go, I think I've thought of a way that I could allow any class combination. I believe a good and simple rule of thumb would be that a multiclasser could not get more of something than a base class of his level (that's right, level, not exp). So, no (10 rogue)/(5 fighter/ 5 assassin)s. It would be very easy to change a fighter class to an assassin class by level 6 in pathfinder, that's why I'm making the distinction. Any abilities which exceed the limit simply cease to exist until the character hits a level where he's no longer breaking the rule.

Maybe its because its late at night, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Why couldn't a 10th level gestalt be Rogue 10/Fighter 5-Assassin 5? (I know I argued against this in my previous post, but I'm largely playing devil's advocate here). Once you get to Rogue 5/Fighter 5, the next level the Rogue class takes on Assassin and the Fighter multiclasses into Rogue. Advance 5 more levels and you have Rogue 10/Fighter 5-Assassin 5.

Do you think that works? This would also stop a level 1 fighter/monk from having twice the feats that a normal level 1 character would, and since the fighter class has the highest feat progression, he would have to eventually change that to another class in order to gain the tons of bonus combat feats that he was getting between the two classes.

Not sure how anything is stopped and 'tons' of feats is a bit of exaggeration. A gestalt Human Fighter/Monk 1 would have 4 feats (level, race, class and class), while a non-human would have 3--the same as a single class human, non-gestalt fighter at 1st level. That's hardly overpowering. And seeing as how the monk gains only 2 more bonus feats over the next 5 levels, I'm not seeing where this is too much, tons, or why a fighter would have to take other levels to get all his feats.

And you're right, if there is no real downside, why wouldn't all of the characters want to do this? Well, the truth is, a pure fighter or barbarian will always have higher HP and BAB (if you hold the multiclasser's level back, like you should). The most one of these multiclassers could have is bab 15 when a level 20 fighter has bab 20. Spellcasters will have lower level spells and spellcaster checks. If you combine together special ability classes like monk and rogue (or the Shadow Dancer/Assassin example you brought up, even if that is illigal in gestalt rules), you might have trouble hitting anything because you would have bab 11 when everyone hit level 20.

Those points are almost irrelevant. A 15 Fighter/Wizard gestalt is going to trounce a 20 Fighter or Wizard every time. Access to 9th level spells is nice, but the gestalt will have access to 8th, plus crazy fighting abilities whether he gets in close or remains at range--and vice versa; the 20 Fighter maybe able to outfight the gestalt when it comes to # of attacks, but the gestalt has the spellcasting of a 15th wizard (8th level spells), so that single class is in deep crap! And at those levels, the only thing of importance is the extra attack for a BAB of +16. AC at those levels is going to be pitifully easy to hit. And the loss of the extra attack is negated by a Fighter/Monk gestalt that gets an additional 2 attacks (with NO penalty) on a flurry.

And a BAB of 11 is irrelevant when the first attack is going to pretty much hit anyway, and will definitely hit if the target is flat footed.

I'm a little confused, first you say that I'm making the 2nd class cost too much, then you say the combinations are too powerful? I'm not trying to be mean by pointing this out, I'm just wondering which you think it is in this case. Do you think the normal characters would be better, or the multiclassers?

Devils advocate here, so I'm taking both sides. Personally, I think gestalt is best left alone. It dual and multiclass options are best left to 1e and 2e because 3e is so level/stat centric there is no way to allow for it fairly. And in earlier editions, there were NO special abilities at every level or even every few levels. That's a thing of 3e which turns gestalting on its ear. There is just no way to control it and if you allow one to do it, you have to allow others to do it too. And I mean everyone. That means that all level 1 Commoners are now Commoner/Expert 1 or Commoner/Adept or Commoner/Warrior and that throws the economy out of whack since more skills means more marketability as well as the ability to skillfully fight back against an oppressor or a lord that wants them 'in their place'.

And you haven't even addressed the possibility of what if a gestalt is done gestalting? What if he wants to go single class? What's to stop him? What if the Rogue/Fighter is tired of doing that and just stops all Rogue related activity? Or what if someone single class wants to start gestalting? What's to stop them, aside from DM say-so?

I'm aiming for a balance of sorts, and the balance here is that you're basically giving up bab and hit points to get more abilities. The fighter/rogue example had the same bab and hit points as a normal rogue, but had given abilities for a roughly equal number of feats. A player shouldn't be penalized for being either a pure class, or the fancy combination that he has drempt up.

BAB is irrelevant at higher levels for the most part, so no big sacrifice there. Hit points? Nearly the same. A gestalt that rolls good is going to have better HP than a single class that rolls poorly. And a poorly rolled gestalt is still going to be better off than a single class of his same non-gestalt level. Again, no real disadvantage, especially when they have the full abilities of a second class to fall back on.

Can you even think of a monster (not counting the Tarrasque) off the top of your head that could challenge a Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Monk 15 gestalt? Especially when that character has the complete Two Weapon Fighting line of feats at their disposal; 3 primary attacks, 3 off hand attacks, possible flurry for 2 more attacks, possible 8d6 sneak attack damage for EACH attack, along with a slew of feats and special abilities to work with. You could easily have a character doing over 200hp damage per round. And it could be even worse if the Fighter Rogue takes a level of Monk or Barbarian and 14 instead of 15 levels of Fighter.

Honestly though, the reason why I'm looking into these fancy gestalt rules is because one of my players wants to be bard/duelist. To me, leveling 10 levels as bard and then switching to duelist seems like it would gimp his character to me, so I've been trying to find a way to combine the two. Unfortionately, it seems like (in pathfinder at least, where there are no 'dead levels') that those two classes are just so ability dense that i'm not sure how to combine them without totally removing key abilities of the classes.

It would be much easier for you to work with your player's character build than to open the can of gestalting worms you are considering. Bard can qualify for Duellist after 8 levels, or 7 if they split between Bard/Fighter, or by 6th Fighter if they take a feat that gives lets them make a cross class skill into a class skill. Or you could just lower the BAB requirement for Duellists, maybe allow a feat to reduce the BAB requirement. Honestly, you're not going to be hurting the game any by allowing anyone to take Duellist at 5th or 6th level regardless of the requirements.

 

[Matrixryu]

Let's see, to quicken the argument I'm going to skip to the key parts I think. The orge thing doesn't really matter to me, that was just an example. I could just as easily replace that with a smarter creature like a dragon which should be easily able to take sorceror levels, but for some reason has a harder time learning it than a human with a drop of dragon blood. That doesn't matter so much as the rules themselves though.

Maybe its because its late at night, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Why couldn't a 10th level gestalt be Rogue 10/Fighter 5-Assassin 5? (I know I argued against this in my previous post, but I'm largely playing devil's advocate here). Once you get to Rogue 5/Fighter 5, the next level the Rogue class takes on Assassin and the Fighter multiclasses into Rogue. Advance 5 more levels and you have Rogue 10/Fighter 5-Assassin 5.

Not sure how anything is stopped and 'tons' of feats is a bit of exaggeration. A gestalt Human Fighter/Monk 1 would have 4 feats (level, race, class and class), while a non-human would have 3--the same as a single class human, non-gestalt fighter at 1st level. That's hardly overpowering. And seeing as how the monk gains only 2 more bonus feats over the next 5 levels, I'm not seeing where this is too much, tons, or why a fighter would have to take other levels to get all his feats.

Switching classes back and forth between a gesalts two progressions is a problem that exists in normal gesalt rules too. Many people, including me, believe that it is an abuse of the rules that wasn't intended by the creators of the rules.

The key to to add up the *total* abilities the character has. It doesn't matter what combination of levels the player tries to do with his character, if his level 10 fancy rogue/assassin has a sneak attack bonus that is higher than a pure leve 10 rogue, he loses the 'excess' sneak attack until he's no longer breaking the rule of thumb. I probably would count other special attacks like sudden strike and skirmish as a sneak attack for the sake of balance too, aka, no rogue/ninjas. The idea is to be able to create a character with a combination of two very different classes without having to use something like eldritch knight, not to be able to create an unbalanced engine of detruction that does twice the damage of a normal character if it hits.

As for the fighter monk thing, all that really matters is that the rule is preventing him from becoming more powerful than a normal character, even if it is be the slightest amount at a specific level. It isn't an exact science because it lets people combine together abilities as long as they are vastly different, but I think it works and is nessissary. You'll see why in my fighter/mage example later in this post.

At least, that's my opinion on how to balance things, even with normal gesalts which aren't interacting with normal characters. I believe it is a good rule of thumb.

Those points are almost irrelevant. A 15 Fighter/Wizard gestalt is going to trounce a 20 Fighter or Wizard every time. Access to 9th level spells is nice, but the gestalt will have access to 8th, plus crazy fighting abilities whether he gets in close or remains at range--and vice versa; the 20 Fighter maybe able to outfight the gestalt when it comes to # of attacks, but the gestalt has the spellcasting of a 15th wizard (8th level spells), so that single class is in deep crap! And at those levels, the only thing of importance is the extra attack for a BAB of +16. AC at those levels is going to be pitifully easy to hit. And the loss of the extra attack is negated by a Fighter/Monk gestalt that gets an additional 2 attacks (with NO penalty) on a flurry.

You're comparing the lvl 15 wizard/fighter to the wrong classes. How about this: would a 15 fighter/wizard be signifigantly better than a fighter 4/wizard 6/ eldritch knight 10? That's the kind of normal character he would be competing with. They would have the same caster level (in fact, the eldrich knight could use a feat or two to get his to lvl 20), same spells. The eldrich knight would have bab 17 instead of bab 15 for the fighter/wizard. The fighter/wizard would have more hit points

In the feats, I can see a problem in standard dnd unless you say the fighter and wizard feats don't stack. The fighter/wizard would have gotten 8 bonus combat feats, 3 bonus magic feats, and 6 leveling feats for a total of 17. The Eldritch knight would have 3 fighter bonus feats, 1 wizard bonus feat, 1 EK feat, and 7 leveling feats for a total of 12. There's the slight bonus for the eldritch knight of being about to get his first epic feat, but I won't argue that as making much of a difference. So, in standard dnd the fighter/wizard wins by a few feats, unless you count the bonus feats from the wizard class as not stacking with the fighter feats, thus bringing his total down to 14. Yes, I think I would do that for balance purposes, so the two would only have a feat difference of 2. That's not too bad considering the knight has slightly higher bab.

In pathfinder(what I'm playing), things would be a bit closer because level feat progression has been increased to 1 every 2 levels(making those lost levels cost more), and the eldrich knight class got 2 additonal bonus feats. That would put the feat totals at 18 for the fighter/wizard (or 15 if I counted the feats as stacking) and the eldrich knight at 17. In this case, I might let the fighter/wizard keep his bonus feats because EK gets a nasty level 10 ability. Or maybe I wouldn't, for consistancey. That probably doesn't matter to you though, lol.

Now you might ask 'why not just use eldritch knight'? Well, the multiclass has a smother power progression, but I probably would just tell a player to use eldritch knight for simplicity. The real reason why I am looking at the gesalts is for more complex class combinations than a simple fighter/wizard.

Edit: I said it once before, but I'm more sure of it now: I think I would ban the gestalts from using hybrid classes like eldritch knight. That's just getting too crazy...but I could be wrong. The fact that only one prestige class is allowed at a time might balance it.

And you haven't even addressed the possibility of what if a gestalt is done gestalting? What if he wants to go single class? What's to stop him? What if the Rogue/Fighter is tired of doing that and just stops all Rogue related activity? Or what if someone single class wants to start gestalting? What's to stop them, aside from DM say-so?

You're right, this is one thing I haven't been able to figure out yet. The problem is that someone who starts as a fighter/rogue, and then goes straight rogue from level 5 on, would end having 4 more feats at level 10 than a level 11 pure rogue. I'm not sure how to solve that problem.

Edit: Maybe the solution is to give a character who has both normal levels and gesalt levels the same exp penalty that a normal character with too many base classes would get?

Edit: Also, if a normal character tries to make some of his old levels into gestalt levels, the cost is increased until all of his levels become gestalt levels. Then he regains his lost exp.

And a BAB of 11 is irrelevant when the first attack is going to pretty much hit anyway, and will definitely hit if the target is flat footed.

(taken from elsewhere)
BAB is irrelevant at higher levels for the most part, so no big sacrifice there. Hit points? Nearly the same. A gestalt that rolls good is going to have better HP than a single class that rolls poorly. And a poorly rolled gestalt is still going to be better off than a single class of his same non-gestalt level. Again, no real disadvantage, especially when they have the full abilities of a second class to fall back on.

I must point out that the arcane trickster class seems to show me that the creators think that trading hp and bab for extra spells and special abilities is balanced. Otherwise a prestige class with full wizard spellcasting and full rogue sneak attack would be horribly unballanced. Also, HP can be a problem for non fighter gesalts simply from lost constitution bonuses because they have fewer levels. As for random hp dice rolls, that's not a gesalt problem, that's a rule problem. I give set hp to my players equal to their (hit die/2)+1, but that's just personal prefference since one player complained.

Can you even think of a monster (not counting the Tarrasque) off the top of your head that could challenge a Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Monk 15 gestalt? Especially when that character has the complete Two Weapon Fighting line of feats at their disposal; 3 primary attacks, 3 off hand attacks, possible flurry for 2 more attacks, possible 8d6 sneak attack damage for EACH attack, along with a slew of feats and special abilities to work with. You could easily have a character doing over 200hp damage per round. And it could be even worse if the Fighter Rogue takes a level of Monk or Barbarian and 14 instead of 15 levels of Fighter.
.

Well honestly, I haven't seen a class combination example yet which is signifigantly more powerful than a normal character, especially a normal character using one of the hybrid prestige classes. At least, most serious advantages that I've seen have been stopped by the limit I put on abilities and feats of the same type. I already proved that the fighter/rogue is balanced with a normal rogue, and that a Fighter/wizard is balanced with an eldritch knight if you don't let him get both fighter and wizard feats. A Fighter/Monk would get hit by my feat limit rule, and is unable to use flurry while using weapons just by the standard rules. You can't use twf with unarmed attacks either, if that's what you mean (if you disagree, let's just agree to disagree).

If you can think of a overpowered class combation using my "lvl 7 gesalt = lvl 10 normal, or level 15 gesalt = lvl 20 normal" rule of thumb, please write out the example and compare it to a normal class combintion (probably using one of the hybrid prestige classes, like eldrich knight, arcane trickster and so on) which is trying to achieve the same thing. If one does exist, I would then have to find a way to fix the rules, lol. I guess my idea is that if using gesalts with these rules is is roughly equivilent to using one of the current hybrid classes, then it would probably be balanced with most more complex class combinations too (like (rogue10)/(fighter5/shadowdancer5)s and the like).

It would be much easier for you to work with your player's character build than to open the can of gestalting worms you are considering. Bard can qualify for Duellist after 8 levels, or 7 if they split between Bard/Fighter, or by 6th Fighter if they take a feat that gives lets them make a cross class skill into a class skill. Or you could just lower the BAB requirement for Duellists, maybe allow a feat to reduce the BAB requirement. Honestly, you're not going to be hurting the game any by allowing anyone to take Duellist at 5th or 6th level regardless of the requirements.

Oh, I'm not talking about him taking duelist late, I just don't like that he would have to give up so many bard abilities to get a few duelist abilities that don't stack at all with what he has. To me, it seems almost as bad as trying to make a fighter/wizard without the eldritch knight or gestalt in 3.5.

 

[Humanaut]

My 2cp:

I will be doing something similar when my current game wraps up. Only one player has access to splatbooks. I want the other players to have multiclass PC's w/o needing PrC... which I will blanket ban. Only PH races, only PC classes (3.5 PH).

Multiclass options/ rules will be from 1e Unearthed Arcana with Humans getting to choose any options any race has... they do not get to Dual Class. No level limits, but we rarely play past 12th level... 15th is about the highest we've played in some 30 years.

I came late to 3.X and will be houseruling things back a bit to resemble earlier editions... we will not just jump back cuz the guys like Feats and Skill Points.

I will use Pathfinder "Slow" charts for XP. It looks like a multiclass PC will be about 1-2 levels behind, triple classes PCs will be 2-3 levels behind.

I'm excited to try it out, as are my players. If it works, kewl, if not... we'll figure something out. Would be interested in reading others actual play with similar rulings for sure.

Good luck!

 

[Matrixryu]

My 2cp:

I will be doing something similar when my current game wraps up. Only one player has access to splatbooks. I want the other players to have multiclass PC's w/o needing PrC... which I will blanket ban. Only PH races, only PC classes (3.5 PH).

Multiclass options/ rules will be from 1e Unearthed Arcana with Humans getting to choose any options any race has... they do not get to Dual Class. No level limits, but we rarely play past 12th level... 15th is about the highest we've played in some 30 years.

I came late to 3.X and will be houseruling things back a bit to resemble earlier editions... we will not just jump back cuz the guys like Feats and Skill Points.

I will use Pathfinder "Slow" charts for XP. It looks like a multiclass PC will be about 1-2 levels behind, triple classes PCs will be 2-3 levels behind.

I'm excited to try it out, as are my players. If it works, kewl, if not... we'll figure something out. Would be interested in reading others actual play with similar rulings for sure.

Good luck!

No prestige classes, and adding in full multiclassing? That sounds like a pretty big change, it would be interesting to see how it works out. The only thing I would suggest is that you might want to increase the distance between the single class and multiclass PC at higher levels (2-3 behind at a lvl 10 PC seems right from what I can tell), otherwise the multiclassers might be too powerful if you're doing things the same way that I am.

 

[Humanaut]

Oh yes, with the PF "slow" XP charts it should be no problem to keep higher level PC's spaced single vs multiclassed. Then again, as I mentioned, in my case we usually stop somewhere around 12th level to begin a new game.

My players are also cool enough that if it just goes all wrong on us, they'll not rebel against a course correction of some sort!

They are about to enter the later part of RttToEE, so if a TPK happens we'll be testing this out sooner than later! I at least, am ready to move on from that beast of an adventure. Har!

 

[wotmaniac]

TL,DR

Here's my take on gestalt (and can easily be used in the same party as non-gestalt)