Thought Experiment: Gestalt characters in a non-gestalt party

[fireinakasha]

This is something I have been swatting around in my head for a while, and I wanted to see what you, the illustrious intelligent people of EN, thought of it.

I got this idea from the AD&D multi-classing system. Basically, when you make your character, you make a choice: you can play a character the normal way, one class at a time, multi-classing, taking prestige classes, etc. Or, you can make a gestalt character, but forgo ever multi-classing or taking a prestige class of any kind. Each player would decide individually, so gestalts would be in next to normals.

Obviously, the gestalt characters would be a little more powerful at the lower levels, so maybe there should be some system of XP penalties for the gestalts? Would it even out in the long run?

 

[paigeoliver]

The Gestalt characters would be fabulously more powerful at the HIGHER levels. A gestalt Fighter/Rogue is no match for even a straight druid, much less a druid who is also a (insert anything at all).

Only way I would let it fly is using the "Partial Gestalt" option from the "Tier System for Classes".

Tier System for Classes

This is something I have been swatting around in my head for a while, and I wanted to see what you, the illustrious intelligent people of EN, thought of it.

I got this idea from the AD&D multi-classing system. Basically, when you make your character, you make a choice: you can play a character the normal way, one class at a time, multi-classing, taking prestige classes, etc. Or, you can make a gestalt character, but forgo ever multi-classing or taking a prestige class of any kind. Each player would decide individually, so gestalts would be in next to normals.

Obviously, the gestalt characters would be a little more powerful at the lower levels, so maybe there should be some system of XP penalties for the gestalts? Would it even out in the long run?

 

[ValhallaGH]

As the other poster implies, your idea only works if all class / gestalt options are equal.

They aren't.

Why aren't they? Mostly because of the raw power of magic, especially non-damaging spells used creatively. Throw in a few ability synergies that are just too good (Druid shape-shifting + Natural Spell) and full casters are head-and-shoulders above everyone else. Which is why the Tier system is a useful reference.
I had forgotten about the partial gestalt option. That's a pretty good suggestion that brings everyone close(r) to the power level of Tiers 1 and 2.

Best of luck.

 

[fireinakasha]

Wow! Thanks for this partial Gestalt idea. I love it, and it's pretty much the exact concept I was looking for, only more polished.

Good looking out guys!

 

[Humanaut]

I have quite the houserule set, but for my "3.5" game I use PF Slow XP chart.

Multiclass PC's are treated like when we played 1e (unearthed arcana with errata). Only certain class combos allowed, and only certain races can be various combinations... just like 1e UA charts.

PC's who multiclass split their XP and level like the ol' days.

This eventually gives something to an LA of +2. At 1st level though, obviously you rawk over single classes.

We never game past 12th level before we retire and start at 1st level again. I also have a pretty steady, good group of players who don't mega-optimize.

We're trying this new this campaign, so we'll see how it goes.

 

[fireinakasha]

I would definitely be interested to know how this pans out, what sort of concerns come up and such. What you would do differently next time.

This is where my idea started, with old-school multiclass XP splitting. I wonder if it would work the same in 3.5, with every character needing the same XP to reach the same level.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

This is something I have been swatting around in my head for a while, and I wanted to see what you, the illustrious intelligent people of EN, thought of it.

I got this idea from the AD&D multi-classing system. Basically, when you make your character, you make a choice: you can play a character the normal way, one class at a time, multi-classing, taking prestige classes, etc. Or, you can make a gestalt character, but forgo ever multi-classing or taking a prestige class of any kind. Each player would decide individually, so gestalts would be in next to normals.

Obviously, the gestalt characters would be a little more powerful at the lower levels, so maybe there should be some system of XP penalties for the gestalts? Would it even out in the long run?

The only way I could see doing this would be to charge the Gestalt characters more XP to advance.

For instance, take a fighter(1)//cleric(1)... This character wouldn't advance until his/her total XP was enough to advance to 3rd level (using whatever XP chart you're using).

Using the 3.x XP chart, the character would need 3,000 to get second level in both sides of the gestalt level. Then, 10,000 XP to get to 3rd in both sides, etc...

That's how I'd do it, IF I did it this way.

--- --- ---

Question... AD&D had separate and different XP charts for each class. So, multiclassed characters would advance at different rates in each class. Any thoughts on how to mimic this in 3.X?

--- --- ---

My own houserule is that everyone that multiclasses advances as if they were semi-gestalt. Characters only advance in one class at a time, but when they multiclass, they only get the unique abilities that a level in the new class grants (kinda like Gestalt). For instance; BAB, Saves, skill points, do not stack... The character simply gets the best of what each class offers. However, I let hit points from all classes stack (as there's something special about multiclassed characters, in my view).

I didn't even used to let characters gain separate pools of spell slots from different classes. They simply get the best set available to them according to their classes and level in each class. However, I've removed that portion of the houserule to make multiclassed spellcasters more viable (and more powerful).

Off topic... I should mention that in my game, 6th level is considered unthinkably high level, but I don't cap progression there. XP awards simply slow down more drastically than standarad d20 or PF RPG. Each level requires about 7 more CR appropriate encounters than the previous level to award enough XP to advance to the next level. So, while 2nd to third requires 13.333 encounters, 3rd to 4th requires about 20. 4th to 5th... About 27... Etc... This is important in the issue of multiclassing, as a character that multiclasses will not keep up with single-classed characters if they all survive the same adventures together. This is because they won't have the same level of BAB, saves, etc... that a single-classed character would have. But, what they lack, hopefully they make up for with versatility. A single-classed character that makes it to unthinkably high level might wish they'd multiclassed earlier on as they see that they lack that versatility (albeit, too late).

 

[PolterGhost]

Ah yes, the 6th level slowdown, one of the best ways to play in my opinion. Things are much more exciting from 1-5 since every other NPC in the human/meta-human world is probably around your level, and where anything can become an epic struggle given the proper circumstances. My friends and I used slower progression because of it (one level every four 4-hour sessions generally being the minimum, with experience delegated according to just how difficult everything was in relation to how the characters handled it (A CR5 encounter that isn't fully equipped or isn't properly played or gets shanked by the almighty Wizard, Halter of All Enemy Actions and Master of Instantaneous Death By Clever or Lucky Spell Use, will be giving much less experience than expected.)

Of course, I should answer the actual question at hand.

I've thought about doing old-school multi-classing before. I figured that if the multi-classers have to earn 1.5 or 2x experience to level it'd balance out. I'd also be restricting classes to the only ones that could multi-class in 2e: Fighter, Rogue, Generalist Wizard, and Cleric (Also known as Fighter, Thief, Mage, and Priest.) Aside from that, just pick two or three classes and mix it up, with extra experience required to level depending on how many classes you picked.

Potentially, you could alter the leveling based upon the classes chosen. For instance, AD&D before 3e had separate experience charts for each class. Perhaps make it so that Rogue = 0, Fighter = .25, and Wizard and Cleric = .50, add those together, and then multiply by 2 or 3 (depending on how many classes were chosen) to determine how much extra experience is required to reach the next level as a multi-class like that. So, a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric would require 3750 experience to reach Level 2 unlike a normal character who only needs 1000 (Please don't criticize the numbers I chose, it's all hypothetical and probably severely in need of balance.)