D&D 5E Gestalt multiclassing, how's the balance of this proposal

[Sword of Spirit]

(Duplicate)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In 3.5e gestalt CR was +1.

That is gestalt party counted as 1 level higher for monster encounter building, or CR +2 against mosters with specific hard save-or-die saving throws(medusa, gorgon, vampire, etc...)

handing out +1 LA might be unfair to "regular" classes, handing out +2 could be unfair to "gestalt" classes until very late in carrier.

Yeah, I tried to balance it by putting in the +1 at 2nd level (really, I'd likely give partial features until 3rd), and then the additional +1 at higher levels.

My suggestion is, realy go with all gestalt:

The thing is that I have absolutely zero interest in changing the default class structure of the game by making everyone a gestalt. My intention is to restore as a valid option the multiclassing style that was a standard part of the game for 20+ years.

Oh, and BAN any aditional multiclassing(or prestige classing , if they ever show up), just starting two classes.

Absolutely. A character can use this option when they are first created, or they have an option of using standard 5e multiclassing, but definitely not both.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think for concepts like gish-types, a fighter/wizard using these rules would be significantly more mechanically effective than an Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger, or even a wizard with a single, 1-or-2-level dip to start with in Fighter.

Is it designed with the expectation that characters will be played to level 20, rather than campaign/adventure paths finishing and the characters retiring around level 12?

There will be times when the gestalt character lags significantly behind a single-class character: at level 5 (and 10 if they get that high), when there are break-points in power due to extra attack/cantrips upgrading/proficiency bonuses increasing. The gestalt character will pick these up when the rest of the group hits level 6 however. Outside of those points, the combined capabilities of both classes will likely more than make up for being one level behind a character using a conventional class.

 

[Yunru]

So does Sneak Attack count as at will? It's once per turn after all.

A Paladin/Spellcaster will be better than a normie Paladin.

 

[Blue]

The thing is that I have absolutely zero interest in changing the default class structure of the game by making everyone a gestalt. My intention is to restore as a valid option the multiclassing style that was a standard part of the game for 20+ years.

If this was offered I couldn't see myself playing anything except a gestalt character. With many good at two things, I'd really be concerned about rarely having the spotlight. Especially in a lot of out-of-combat scenes where spells (which only lag slightly) or skills (rarely would the proficiency bonus be different) are what determine if you're "da man" for a particular scene.

I was about to suggest starting gestalt characters at +0 proficiency (in addition to the level drops), but then I realized there would be no difference between trained and untrained skills at the start. But if needs something to help non-gestalt characters to have times where they are "the best". Perhaps I'd go the other way around and start non-gestalt characters at +3 proficiency (up to +7). Suddenly skills are better, DCs are harder, they hit more often. Not a huge deal - you still need the level drops to stop having both same spells for out-of-combat uses, but just a little +1 edge. You'll probably already need to boost the foes because of HP inflation as well as reduction of weaknesses (oh look, the mage has heavy armor and doesn't mind melee) of gestalt characters, this will help the non-gestalt have a little something to help.

 

[Blue]

How the "extra damage" bonuses overlap vs. stack makes a big deal. For example, is sneak attack incompatable with all Extra Attack features? Does that include occasional boosters like War Cleric bonus action attack that works WIS/day? How about "paid for" features such as a bladelock's extra attack with their pact weapon invocation?

And what is considered big enough to count? Is the two weapon or duelist fighting styles incompatable with sneak attack?

Is a cleric's +WIS on cantrip damage compatable with a warlock's EB, since the warlock doesn't have a class feature that boosts cantrip damage?

I think I need to understand a bit more about how these stack in order to comment about in-combat effectiveness of gestalt vs. non-gestalt characters.

 

[Blue]

I touched on this in an earlier comment, but it's been gnawing at my hindbrain.

Gestalt characters will very likely have a big reduction in weakness. For example, wizards are great casters but they are squishy. Give one decent armor, good HPs, and make them not afraid of melee even if it's not their preferred place and you are talking away strategies to deal with them. While getting engaged in melee or a few ranged-attack mooks would scare single-classed wizard, they aren't as much a threat vs. fighter/wizard even a level down.

Your spots of vulnerability aren't hugely effected by a single level difference - the wizard/fighter a level down (or two at high levels) will still have more HPs and better general AC then a straight classed wizard, even before adding in second wind, more ASIs, and eventually indomitable which will make them even tougher.

What this means is that there are a lot less counter-strategies to gestalt characters then there are to non-gestalt. Each class has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, and this seems to do a fantastic job of eliminating weaknesses. That would concern me from a balance perspective with single-classed characters.

 

[mellored]

Overall, I agree that heavily multi-classed characters can use a boost. Though yours is still too powerful. You effectively have wizard 18/fighter 14 (18-4 ASI), with little less HP.
IMO, I think ending at wizard 14/fighter 14 would be about right. Perhaps skip all the basic ASI level (4, 8, 12).


Also, I feel MAD is one of the biggest issues, and you don't address that. I would let you choose your secondary stat. So a monk/paladin can use Wis for his aura's.

 

[hastur_nz]

I honestly think that if you are trying to replicate the "old school feel" of combo-type-classes, like Elf (Fighter / Mage) or Rogue / Fighter, etc... then the standard 5e rules (i.e. multiclassing) are more than sufficient, you don't need to try and create a Gestalt option to cover that. A Gestalt PC, with standard PC's, is just asking for problems at the table, which are not worth the trouble of trying to fix and balance.

For example, if you want to be a "fighting wizard", you can be an Eldritch Knight, or simply fit in a couple of levels of Fighter, or do both, and you're good to go. Sure, the first couple of levels might not quite fit the archetype you have in mind, but that's how the 5e rules are well balanced as-is; by the time you are say level 3+, you, like 'straight' classes, are all settling in to your chosen archetype. Same for "clerical rogue", etc etc.

If you want to be a "fighting rogue", just decide what you want more of (sneak attack, or fighter stuff), then take most levels in that class and just 2-3 levels of the other class.

Same if you want to cover divine and arcane magic; multiclassing works pretty well here (you have to choose 'one main path'; allowing one PC to have access to virtually all the spells makes the rest of the party pretty redundant).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I honestly think that if you are trying to replicate the "old school feel" of combo-type-classes, like Elf (Fighter / Mage) or Rogue / Fighter, etc... then the standard 5e rules (i.e. multiclassing) are more than sufficient, you don't need to try and create a Gestalt option to cover that. A Gestalt PC, with standard PC's, is just asking for problems at the table, which are not worth the trouble of trying to fix and balance.

Nothing personal toward you, but if I never hear another comment like that again (heard it before) it will be about a million years too soon.

Anyone who ever liked AD&D multiclassing knows you have never been able to replicate its feel properly with 3e and 5e style multiclassing. It just isn't the same thing.

...

I think I finally understand how warlord fans feel when told that they could just play a Battle Master or some other fighter with the Inspiring Leader feat.

(I'll get back to some more responses to the topic in a few days.)