Gestalt CR?

[irdeggman]

What?

I love the Gestalt system, but come on... specifying that the PCs must be gestalt to fight against an enemy is ridiculous. PCs fight against demons, dragons, and beasties way beyond themselves... and they never seem to have an issue with that. A character who gains (in this case) monk's advancement, fighter's feats, a d10, saves, and no real 'oomph' (woohoo! I am considered an outsider and can jump high!) . . . well, it just doesn't seem to be so worldshattering.

And to accuse the poor guy of making a 'poorly planned' game because he wants to make the last villain in the game hard for the PCs... Ehh, I don't know what game we're even playing anymore.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

Well I'm no longer playing 2nd ed - where the rules were "different" for the monsters then they were for the PCs.

That is one of the things about 3.5 that has caused most of the "discussion" over the years, the fact that the "rules" are the same for everyone at the table.

I did not say they needed to be gestalt in order to equally fight the NPC (that is not what I intended). What I meant was that the same rules should apply to both sides - and if the NPC is gestalt then the PCs should have had the option to be too. And the information on using gestalts in a game pretty much relies on everyone being on the same playing field because they are more powerful than non-gestalts are. In fact from UA (pg 72):

This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer D&D players with an abundance of options.

And the very first sentence of the section states:

In this high-pwered campaign variant. . .

Note the use of the text "campaign variant" which strongly implies that this is an across the board thing and not a specific character variant.

And pg 75 :

With this variant, such "standard" D&D characters don't exist.

 

[irdeggman]

CR (iirc, I rarely use it as anything more than a crude measuring stick) is based on the notion that CR X is a suitable challenge for four level X PCs. There is no way a Monk | Fighter 21 can really expect to put up a challenge for four level 21 PCs (unless of course the M|F is totally powergamed and the PCs are subpar).

Right but the basis for a "suitable" or "even" challenge is that the group of 4 will expend roughly 25% of their assets in the encounter. So it is fairly likely that as a whole the group of 4 will end up expending those assets (where assets are hit points, spells, and magic items). Although the expenditure will not usually end up being spread evenly.

 

[Runestar]

Right but the basis for a "suitable" or "even" challenge is that the group of 4 will expend roughly 25% of their assets in the encounter. So it is fairly likely that as a whole the group of 4 will end up expending those assets (where assets are hit points, spells, and magic items). Although the expenditure will not usually end up being spread evenly.

You will be lucky to spend even 10%. I think the party will walk right over him...

Few gestalt combinations mesh well with each other. Factotum/warblade comes to mind (if only because extra standard actions synergize so well with maneuver-spam).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

CR (iirc, I rarely use it as anything more than a crude measuring stick) is based on the notion that CR X is a suitable challenge for four level X PCs. There is no way a Monk | Fighter 21 can really expect to put up a challenge for four level 21 PCs (unless of course the M|F is totally powergamed and the PCs are subpar).

But this is not to challenge four level 21 characters, and CR is at least a bit relative. The OP said the party would likely fight this person pre-epic, so they won't have the epic feat and beginnings of epic casting that a level 21 party will have. I am sure that this NPC won't be worth even CR 20, but I could see him hitting 17-18 easily if sufficiently power gamed.

You will be lucky to spend even 10%. I think the party will walk right over him...

He's meant to be a major villain. This means the party will likely be fighting "on his terms," and hopefully he has other minions/allies to send at them first to lessen their high level spell counts. He'll need magic items and possibly buff spells to deal with flight, invisibility, maybe even etherealness, etc... But in the context of a dungeon/adventure, he could still be a challenge.

Few gestalt combinations mesh well with each other. Factotum/warblade comes to mind (if only because extra standard actions synergize so well with maneuver-spam).

That's my current favorite gestalt I'd like to play. But Factotem + wizard or psion is still better, for extra actions to cast/manifest spells/powers and auto-bypassing SR/PR, IMO.

 

[Drowbane]

But this is not to challenge four level 21 characters, and CR is at least a bit relative. The OP said the party would likely fight this person pre-epic, so they won't have the epic feat and beginnings of epic casting that a level 21 party will have. I am sure that this NPC won't be worth even CR 20, but I could see him hitting 17-18 easily if sufficiently power gamed.

That was kind of my point (I think I lost in it somewhere in the writing and rewriting of that post... I blame fatigue). CR doesn't really mean squat at that level. But a level 21 PC is supposedly CR 21... it just doesn't work out that way though.

 

[milo]

Give him the right gear and feats and I don't think a lvl 15 wizard would ever even stand a chance. I don't think that the wizard would know where he was until he was already hit and with mage slayer I don't know if he would even get a spell off. With 24 ranks in hide and move silently and a dex mod of +6 or +7 and +10 from items he could have a base of 41 hide and move silently. I tip my hat off to the wizard who can spot him at level 15. Throw a stunning fist the first round at DC 25-27. Again, pretty tough for the 15th level wizard.
But a party of characters probably wouldn't have a problem with him even at level 17 or 18 I would say CR 20 at the highest.

 

[Thanee]

Give him the right gear and feats and I don't think a lvl 15 wizard would ever even stand a chance. I don't think that the wizard would know where he was until he was already hit...

This does assume, though, that the Monk knows the Wizard is there and not the other way around.

...and with mage slayer I don't know if he would even get a spell off.

All of them, actually. Mage Slayer doesn't prevent spellcasting at all. And there are plenty ways to even prevent the AoO other than casting defensively (which is the only thing Mage Slayer does prevent), beginning with a simple 5-ft. step, Tumble (if the Monk has reach somehow), or Quicken Spell.

Not to mention Contingency, Moment of Prescience, and other such high-level options. Hitting him could very well be difficult on that crucial first attack (an AC well beyond 40 is easily doable at that level with Moment of Prescience and various long-duration spells).

But a party of characters probably wouldn't have a problem with him even at level 17 or 18 I would say CR 20 at the highest.

Yeah, that's more to the point as well... the Wizard comment from me only meant to show that a single non-spellcasting opponent usually isn't such a problem to deal with... even with only one spellcaster at that level chances are good (unless that opponent is specifically tailored to deal with that character)... a whole party makes things a lot easier.


I definitely wouldn't use the Monk|Fighter alone. Together with some other threats, he will surely be able to become the recurring nuisance he is supposed to be.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Runestar]

Give him the right gear and feats and I don't think a lvl 15 wizard would ever even stand a chance.

Except that this isn't a 1v1 PvP match, but a 4-on-1 slobber-knocker. You can optimize the monk to counter the wizard, but you can't ignore the other PCs either.

Countering the monk isn't that hard. Abrupt jaunt lets you teleport 10ft as an immediate action (and you can take another 5-ft step during your turn), so unless the monk is able to boast a reach of 20+ft, the wizard should never find himself in danger.

You can play the monk smart, but I don't think the player controlling the wizard is necessarily a pushover either.

 

[Voadam]

Hello there, everyone! It's been some time since I last posted here, but I'm going to try and be more punctual in updating my posts!

Anyway, I need a few hints on setting CR for a Gestalt character (from Unearthed Arcana). More to the point, one of my new campaign's greatest villains will be a Level 21 Monk/Fighter Gestalt, whom my PC will possibly be facing before reaching Epic levels. In your opinion, what should be a good estimate for such a character's CR?

Thanks for any answer!

Since you go down 1 CR for being NPC class by the rules I would say going up 1 CR for gestalt would not be inappropriate.

If you accept that a level 21 monk is CR 21 (the baseline) then adding on 5 BAB, 1 iterative attack, +20 hp and 11 fighter bonus feats is probably worth a CR bump.

If you accept that a level 21 fighter is CR 21 then adding on good will and reflex saves, improved evasion, spell resistance 31, immunity to poison, DR 10/magic, dimension door, ethrealness, quivering palm, decent tumbling, and a few bonus feats is probably worth a CR bump.

 

[Voadam]

Well I'm no longer playing 2nd ed - where the rules were "different" for the monsters then they were for the PCs.

That is one of the things about 3.5 that has caused most of the "discussion" over the years, the fact that the "rules" are the same for everyone at the table.

In 3e monsters are still made differently than PCs, they use different default stat arrays, can use classes that are not available to PCs, have powers that are unavailable to PCs, have different wealth guidelines, etc.

Surprise!

I did not say they needed to be gestalt in order to equally fight the NPC (that is not what I intended). What I meant was that the same rules should apply to both sides - and if the NPC is gestalt then the PCs should have had the option to be too. And the information on using gestalts in a game pretty much relies on everyone being on the same playing field because they are more powerful than non-gestalts are. In fact from UA (pg 72):

"This variant works only if every PC in the campaign uses it, and it results in complicated characters who may overwhelm newer D&D players with an abundance of options."


And the very first sentence of the section states:

"In this high-pwered campaign variant. . ."

Note the use of the text "campaign variant" which strongly implies that this is an across the board thing and not a specific character variant.

And pg 75 :

Patently absurd argument

In 3e D&D PCs should be balanced against each other, not against their opposition. Opposition NPCs are not equal options to the PCs, they are made more or less powerful at the DMs discretion to provide different challenges for the PCs to face.

The gestalt section itself specifically says don't make all NPCs the same as the PCs even when you make important NPCs gestalt just like PCs.

"NPCs
An important aspect of most campaigns is verisimilitude—which is centered on the notion that everything in the campaign world is obeying the same set of rules. Accordingly, any important NPCs in your game should also be gestalt characters. It’s probably not necessary to have low-level noncombatant NPCs pick two classes, but any NPCs above 1st level should be constructed as gestalt characters. (NPCs with levels only in NPC classes-adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, and warrior-can remain standard characters.)"

The UA is talking about gestalt as a variant rule for PCs.

The OP is talking about using the rules from gestalt on a single NPC boss villain.